Comments on: Nelson: we have “major decisions” to make soon on launch issues

By: amightywind

amightywind — Tue, 20 May 2014 13:57:52 +0000

The 2020 ‘threat’ is the most welcome space news I’ve heard in a while. Can we escalate sanctions and get 2016?

By: Michael Kent

Michael Kent — Mon, 19 May 2014 23:54:11 +0000

As I predicted, ULA can perform the launches in the block buy with the engines they have.

By: amightywind

amightywind — Mon, 19 May 2014 20:15:50 +0000

I totally agree. Should be obvious. Isn’t to the bed wetters who run the government.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Sun, 18 May 2014 20:40:33 +0000

Michael Kent said:

“In a better world ULA would be set free of its parents and be allowed to raise capital and invest profits to extend its own business.”

It couldn’t live by itself since it’s missing critical business functions like sales and marketing.

I don’t think ULA has done anything wrong or illegal per se, but ULA’s parents did not create ULA with pure intentions. Sure they were trying to cut costs because the EELV market was making it hard for two competitors to thrive, but that should have been the perfect opportunity for them to go after the commercial market. They didn’t, and instead chose to maximize their profits by becoming a monopoly provider of launch services to the U.S. Government.

I don’t know what the future holds for ULA, but it will take major investment from it’s parents in order for them to turn it into a separate and independent company, and I’m not sure they want that to happen.

By: Dick Eagleson

Dick Eagleson — Sun, 18 May 2014 00:25:33 +0000

Assume all this to be true. What ULA’s case boils down to, then, is, “We can execute the contract – just barely – and keep our dreaded would-be competitor off of any more sacred military launch pads for up to five more years. After that, we got bupkus except for D4.” If DoD/USAF/NRO break this “peacetime”-business-as-usual bit of corruption open, they both save money and get an alternative supplier, who has no Russian supply chain vulnerabilities, some near-term practice launching mil-birds. That allows SpaceX to be fully relied upon when ULA comes up suddenly short on its Russky choke-chain. Gov’t. contracts are not holy writ. A lot of procurement contracts written during WW2 were cancelled or shortened as war requirements shifted. Hell, the lead vessels in entire classes of battleships and aircraft carriers were broken up on the ways. I’d be amazed if modern contracts don’t also contain legal boilerplate allowing summary termination if the government concludes that going forward would not be “in the best interests of the United States” or some wording to that effect. ULA doesn’t have to be found in default or even found to be unable to provide what the current contract asks for.

By: Michael Kent

Michael Kent — Sat, 17 May 2014 23:34:32 +0000

I’m not happy with the ELC contract either. It unnecessarily complicates launch service pricing and makes it harder to judge the merits of new entrants in the competition.
But it doesn’t require ULA to fund an RD-180 replacement.

By: Michael Kent

Michael Kent — Sat, 17 May 2014 23:29:13 +0000

Coastal Ron,
I take no issue with those who say ULA should pay for developing their own rocket engines. In fact, I am in their camp.
I only take issue with those who say ULA is criminal in not using ELC funds to fund a domestic RD-180 (as the poster to whom I was replying did elsewhere on this thread) when there is no evidence that developing that engine is a requirement of the ELC contract.
In a better world ULA would be set free of its parents and be allowed to raise capital and invest profits to extend its own business.

By: josh

josh — Sat, 17 May 2014 22:51:48 +0000

the delta costs what it costs. no amount of bullshitting from you is making that fact go away. ula can’t execute the block buy at the price agreed upon in the contract. end of story.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Sat, 17 May 2014 20:20:45 +0000

Michael Kent said:

“Do you really think itâ€™s not improper, wrong, and illegal to take funds from a government contract and use them for things not in the contract?”

ULA could have used internal funds – from their profits – to fund a second engine. Of course that would have needed approval from ULA’s parents (i.e. Boeing and Lockheed Martin), but that is not anything unusual in the business world.

The Boeing and Lockheed Martin would rather run ULA as a monopoly that maximized short & medium-term profits is their decision, but we shouldn’t be on the hook for bailing them out when their bad business decisions come back to haunt them.

The Air Force has options in case Atlas V is no longer available after the 36 core Block Buy, so why should U.S. Taxpayer money be spent to bail out ULA?

By: Robert Clark

Robert Clark — Sat, 17 May 2014 20:03:14 +0000

And of course the Falcon 9 is cheaper than the Atlas V.

Bob Clark