Oh great, first he is a rocket scientist and now he’s a mind reader…

“Guesswho is right on all of his points on ULA”

You’re going to have to do better than that. What and why?

I don’t mind being wrong, but I like to know WHY I’m wrong. And who knows, maybe I’m not – maybe this is one of those “splitting hairs” type issues (i.e. corporate agreements vs federal law). You have the floor…

That speaks to method, not content… But in reality, there’s little there.

So, are you channeling Newt here on Space Politics?

I thought the problem with CRS would have been that ULA isn’t allowed to provide spacecraft. NASA is a US federal agency after all, not a commercial entity. And that problem could be circumvented by having someone else provide the spacecraft and subcontracting the launch services from ULA.

This is being corrected by CCDev. ULA got money to (partially) manrate the Atlas V and Delta V. To go on these launch vehicles Boeing was given money to help develop the CST-100 capsule and Sierra Nevada Corporation got money for the Dream Chaser. CCDev2 is likely to continue this.

Nonsense. He knows how to sound like he’s delivering authorative comments by speaking in confident tones. That speaks to method, not content. He can state catagorically and with firm passion that 1+1=11 and 3+3=33 and a number of blinded followers across the land will applaud and cheer because he sounds correct. Then the tape is aired on Fox. But in reality, there’s little there.

I thought the problem with CRS would have been that ULA isn’t allowed to provide spacecraft. NASA is a US federal agency after all, not a commercial entity. And that problem could be circumvented by having someone else provide the spacecraft and subcontracting the launch services from ULA.

I see conspiracy too, or rather shenanigans. EELVs were too much of a threat to Ares.

“The subsequent CRS contracts were heavily biased to the COTS winners as a way of justifying the COTS investment by NASA.”

I don’t think you understand what the point of the COTS contract is. It is the lead-in for CRS, not something different. NASA was not going to let just anyone do the CRS contract without oversight and validation, and that is what the COTS program does – validates that the companies are ready to start the CRS program.

“Note also that ULA could not bid by law as these were for “commercial” launch services.”

What law? Can you cite it, or provide a link? Because United Launch Alliance just picked up a contract for Atlas V to launch a commercial payload (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1103/15worldview3/). Are they breaking the law?

I think what you’re confused about is how Boeing and Lockheed Martin structured their joint venture (i.e. United Launch Alliance LLC, or ULA). They wanted ULA to strictly be a launch provider, and not offer payload services, which is left up to it’s corporate parents (Boeing Launch Services and Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services).

“Boeing and LM were excluded from that competition by NASA as were foreign launch providers.”

You see conspiracy, and I see competition. They weren’t excluded, they just weren’t chosen as first-round semi-finalists. They were pretty much just taking existing supply vehicles (ATV and HTV) and proposing to fly them on ULA launchers – not too innovative, and likely not much of an overall cost reduction to NASA.

Now I don’t know if all the rationale was ever made public, but what I do like is that in the end NASA decided to go with two new companies to the medium launcher field, which means that ULA has more competition.

And while I like the products ULA has, being a virtual monopoly for U.S. government launch orders is not good for innovation and keeping costs as low as possible. So far Orbital and SpaceX are making good progress, and I hope they both meet their internal goals for the CRS contract, whether that’s profitability or market expansion (or both).