Yesterday Alliant Techsystems (ATK) released their fourth quarter and full-year financial results (the company operates on a fiscal year that ends on March 31; the company is right now in the first quarter of their 2011 fiscal year). The press release announcing the results made only a passing reference that “NASA programs present near-term challenges”, in the words of ATK president and CEO Mark DeYoung, but didn’t go into greater details. Company officials, though, did offer more details in a conference call with analysts yesterday morning.
A Wall Street Journal article about that call would leave one to indicate that Constellation will survive the budget battle in the coming months. “Its reassurances are the strongest and most public indication from inside a board room that President Barack Obama’s controversial proposal to partially replace the manned space program with commercial rockets and spacecraft is likely to flame out in Congress,” the article claims.
A closer examination of the call, though (a replay of which is available), suggests a more complex picture. Company CFO John Shroyer said they anticipated $500 million in revenue from NASA programs in their 2011 fiscal year: $100 million from shuttle and $400 million from Constellation. Half of that Constellation funding would come from NASA’s FY10 budget, and the rest from a continuing resolution (as it is highly unlikely the FY11 budget will be completed by the end of FY10) “or other solid propulsion work for NASA”. He added that about $1 billion of ATK’s $7 billion in contract backlog is associated with Constellation, but it was right now too soon for them to determine if they would have to “debook” some of that backlog.
DeYoung sees signs of change in Congress regarding the budget proposal, but didn’t necessarily indicate that meant a restoration of Ares 1. “There is growing support, I think, in Congress for support of a program which would sustain the US industrial base capability in solid propulsion and also sustain the heavy lift vehicle by accelerating the bridge on heavy lift that is in the president’s plan for 2017,” he said. (The president’s plan actually calls for a decision on heavy lift in 2015, not 2017.) He mentioned support for heavy-lift development in Congress, such an an effort last month by Sen. Bill Nelson to add a wedge in the Senate budget resolution for FY11 to cover continued heavy-lift development at NASA.
“It’s still in a state of flux. It’s still being worked,” he said, adding that the company has spoken with “the right kind of people” in DOD and NASA on solid rocket motor industrial base issues and that “I think we’re making good traction there, and we expect a bridge.” While such a “bridge” program might feature additional tests of Ares 1-like vehicles (as Nelson has stated in the past), DeYoung didn’t explicitly state that, nor mention Ares 1 much at all in the conference call.
Elsewhere in the conference call, DeYoung hinted that the company was getting ready to reposition itself to reflect a NASA plan a lot like the one that has been proposed. “We’re working tirelessly to secure a long-term role in the future of space exploration,” he said in his opening remarks. Part of that work is associated with solid rocket motor industrial base concerns, but “at the same time we’re taking steps to position ATK for a role in commercial space activities and emerging research and development programs,” both key elements of the FY11 NASA budget proposal.
The WSJ is correct. Constellation will survive because it has broad support in congress. Obamaspace does not, and will not. ATK has performed admirably on the Ares 1 project and deserves a prominent spot among American space contractors.
amightywind – name some members of Congress that are not in NASA districts that are actively supporting Constellation.
As for ATK – they have a prominent place, kinda like the TeaPot Dome Scandal has a prominent place
If Constellation survives as a result of congressional mandate many of the “Old School” will be very happy. As currently envisaged Constellation is an unmitigated disaster and should be consigned to the pages of history as rapidly as possible.
There are many points that can be made in favour of something else – in fact, almost anything else other than a Congressionally engineered space program. I was not aware that there were any engineers and scientists in the Congress. I guess they are all lawyers or something like that whose education has no basis in logic. Why else would they make so many dumb decisions?
Actually there is one that I know of, Roscoe Bartlett of MD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Bartlett
Tho he’s not on any of the committees overseeing NASA, I have talked to him about the VSE and Constellation and he seems very well informed and truly interested in Human space flight. As far as I know, his district in western Maryland gets no direct benefit from NASA or it’s contractors. I guess there are a few in congress who are interested in human space flight with out an ulterior motive.
Both of my state’s Senators (Leahy and Sanders) have responded to my emails. Both assured me that they support President Obama’s proposed FY2011 NASA budget, as is.
Bennett:
That’s a shame….
Elsewhere in the conference call, DeYoung hinted that the company was getting ready to reposition itself to reflect a NASA plan a lot like the one that has been proposed.
LOL
Constellation supporters are practicing the arts honed during the Bush the last administration …the self perpetuating lie.
It went something like this. Scooter Libby would leak things to one of his favorite reporters at the New York times on Friday, it would be in print on Sunday morning and on the Sunday shows all the mouthpieces from the Administration peddling the lie would say “well even the NY Times is reporting that Saddam is going to kill us all if we dont do something”.
ATK (and others) and its mouthpieces like Doc H are quite capable of working the current version of that lie.
In the end Obama will get his space policy.
Robert G. Oler
Good ole’ andy at the WSJ usually gets more things wrong than right in his “reports”. Some of his article’s grammer and spelling made me wonder if he writes his article up with crayons rather then a word processor. From the comments I have seen there I am not the only one with these thoughts.
“Alliant Techsystems Inc., potentially the biggest corporate loser in White House proposals to outsource large chunks of U.S. manned space exploration
Since when is moving from a government program to domestic suppliers “outsourcing”? So when the government buys cars from Ford Motors the U.S. is outsourcing?
Creating domestic suppliers is what the government has did for two centuries.
Some of you yahoos use the pejorative ‘old school’ when you refer to Constellation. Seems to me NASA achievements of 40 years ago have sadly become stretch goals for this lesser, weaker generation to strive for.
Bennett wrote @ May 7th, 2010 at 10:53 am
“Both of my state’s Senators (Leahy and Sanders)…”
This explains much.
> Both of my state’s Senators (Leahy and Sanders) have responded to my emails. Both assured me that they support President Obama’s proposed FY2011 NASA budget, as is.
Good on them!
Benett – it certainly does demonstrate that progressive space policy is about enabling the future, and actually settling space, rather than chest-thumping that does nothing.
Ferris Valyn wrote:
“rather than chest-thumping that does nothing.”
If one policy can be called ‘chest-thumping’ another may be called ‘limp-wristed’. You have a preview of ‘progressive policy’ in the fall of Greece’s kleptocracy.
Most of the senators and congressmen in non-space states are simply ignorant of the facts surrounding Obama’s space policy. When they become aware of how effective Obama is at creating artificial goals with untested commercial vehicles, costing taxpayers much more than proven Ares technology, they will most likely switch sides. This is already happening. Currently, support for keeping Constellation is one of the few issues that has a bi-partisan backing! I, for one, would like to see ATK build the boosters and Launch Abort hardware for Constellation.
“untested commercial vehicles”
Atlas V and Delta IV are untested?
borecrawler – the fact that you seem to think that ATK is building the Launch Abort System (they weren’t) is indicative of the various other mistakes in your post.
How is a 2020 deadline for lunar return not artificial?
Atlas V is untested? Delta IV is untested? And lets be fair, Falcon 9 is on the pad right now, while Ares I is years away from being on the pad
Um, exactly what examples of proof do you have of Ares I tech working? Ares I-X was not Ares I
Finally, opposition to Constellation is also bipartisan. And the support for Obama’s proposal is growing
borecrawler wrote:
When they become aware of how effective Obama is at creating artificial goals with untested commercial vehicles, costing taxpayers much more than proven Ares technology, they will most likely switch sides.
“Untested”? The Atlas V has flown actual flights 21 times, the Delta IV 12 times, and the Falcon 1 five times. The Ares family of rockets? Zero.
“Costing taxpayers much more than…Ares”? According to Steve Cook, the former NASA program manager for Ares, the Ares I will cost taxpayers $35 billion — that’s “billion”, with a “b” — to develop, and Ares V will cost taxpayers an additional $40 billion — that’s also “billion”, with a “b” — on top of Ares I’s cost to develop.
Ares I would carry 55,000 lbs to LEO. The Delta IV Heavy can also carry 55,000 lbs to LEO and already exists, so its development cost to NASA is zero. How much did it cost the Air Force to develop? $500 million — that’s “million”, with an “m”.
How do existing vehicles with no development cost end up “costing taxpayers much more” than the $35 billion necessary to develop Ares I?
It’s not flight costs. According to the Augustine committee, the per-flight cost of the Ares I would be over $1 billion. The per-flight cost of the Delta IV Heavy is about $250 million.
Given these well-publicized numbers, how can you even remotely justify your claims?
Mike
Mike, I’m no fan of “the Ares family” but claiming Falcon 9 has flight history thanks to Falcon I is just as dishonest as claiming that Ares I has flight history thanks to the shuttle program.
Constellation supporters should be scared. Even ATK is trying to reposition itself.
No longer is ATK fighting to protect Ares 1. Instead, it is focused on “protecting the (ATK-part of the) industrial base”.
This is basically an acknowledgment of reality — that the Ares 1 is probably going to die.
They are also focused on trying to capture some of that gamechanging technology money. They must have figured out that they need to stop attacking NASA if they have ANY chance of capturing the new money.
Cost-plus contractors are not stupid. It is against their nature to get into fights with their customer.
Boeing was the first to come over when Brewster Shaw stood up to get his “CCDV” money.
Orbital came over by repeatedly publishing releases (and are helping bring the Virginia delegation) as well as Mikulski.
Lockheed cut a deal for a CRV, and is coming over. The Colorado delegation is coming with them.
ATK can see where the herd is going, and is now changing its position.
This shifting in position will continue through Summer.
FWIW,
– Al
The thing that worries me is that the good Senator Shelby, by putting that clause into the resoltion protecting Constellation has made it illegal for NASA to actually start spending any money on the new plan, including Commercial Crew until the new NASA budget bill is passed. All the money has to go (and keep going) to Constellation.
If, as seems likely, the new budget is not passed this year and a continuing resolution is put in place, doesn’t it mean that we won’t actually get any spending on Commercial Crew for another 12 months.
Won’t that extend the HSF gap by another 12 months?
Trent Waddington wrote:
Mike, I’m no fan of “the Ares family†but claiming Falcon 9 has flight history thanks to Falcon I is just as dishonest as claiming that Ares I has flight history thanks to the shuttle program.
I made no such claim, or any claim, about the Falcon 9 in this thread. My only claim on the Falcon anything was that the Falcon 1 has flown five times, which it has.
Mike
Mike, uh huh. So you weren’t making a dishonest claim you were just making an irrelevant one?