US Defense Department 'Concerned' About ULA's Slow Progress on Satellite Launches (stripes.com) 33
Earlier this week the Washington Post reported that America's Defense department "is growing concerned that the United Launch Alliance, one of its key partners in launching national security satellites to space, will not be able to meet its needs to counter China and build its arsenal in orbit with a new rocket that ULA has been developing for years."
In a letter sent Friday to the heads of Boeing's and Lockheed Martin's space divisions, Air Force Assistant Secretary Frank Calvelli used unusually blunt terms to say he was growing "concerned" with the development of the Vulcan rocket, which the Pentagon intends to use to launch critical national security payloads but which has been delayed for years. ULA, a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, was formed nearly 20 years ago to provide the Defense Department with "assured access" to space. "I am growing concerned with ULA's ability to scale manufacturing of its Vulcan rocket and scale its launch cadence to meet our needs," he wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. "Currently there is military satellite capability sitting on the ground due to Vulcan delays...."
ULA originally won 60 percent of the Pentagon's national security payloads under the current contract, known as Phase 2. SpaceX won an award for the remaining 40 percent, but it has been flying its reusable Falcon 9 rocket at a much higher rate. ULA launched only three rockets last year, as it transitions to Vulcan; SpaceX launched nearly 100, mostly to put up its Starlink internet satellite constellation. Both are now competing for the next round of Pentagon contracts, a highly competitive procurement worth billions of dollars over several years. ULA is reportedly up for sale; Blue Origin is said to be one of the suitors...
In a statement to The Post, ULA said that its "factory and launch site expansions have been completed or are on track to support our customers' needs with nearly 30 launch vehicles in flow at the rocket factory in Decatur, Alabama." Last year, ULA CEO Tory Bruno said in an interview that the deal with Amazon would allow the company to increase its flight rate to 20 to 25 a year and that to meet that cadence it was hiring "several hundred" more employees. The more often Vulcan flies, he said, the more efficient the company would become. "Vulcan is much less expensive" than the Atlas V rocket that the ULA currently flies, Bruno said, adding that ULA intends to eventually reuse the engines. "As the flight rate goes up, there's economies of scale, so it gets cheaper over time. And of course, you're introducing reusability, so it's cheaper. It's just getting more and more competitive."
The article also notes that years ago ULA "decided to eventually retire its workhorse Atlas V rocket after concerns within the Pentagon and Congress that it relied on a Russian-made engine, the RD-180. In 2014, the company entered into a partnership with Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin to provide its BE-4 engines for use on Vulcan. However, the delivery of those engines was delayed for years — one of the reasons Vulcan's first flight didn't take place until earlier this year."
The article says Cavelli's letter cited the Pentagon's need to move quickly as adversaries build capabilities in space, noting "counterspace threats" and adding that "our adversaries would seek to deny us the advantage we get from space during a potential conflict."
"The United States continues to face an unprecedented strategic competitor in China, and our space environment continues to become more contested, congested and competitive."
ULA originally won 60 percent of the Pentagon's national security payloads under the current contract, known as Phase 2. SpaceX won an award for the remaining 40 percent, but it has been flying its reusable Falcon 9 rocket at a much higher rate. ULA launched only three rockets last year, as it transitions to Vulcan; SpaceX launched nearly 100, mostly to put up its Starlink internet satellite constellation. Both are now competing for the next round of Pentagon contracts, a highly competitive procurement worth billions of dollars over several years. ULA is reportedly up for sale; Blue Origin is said to be one of the suitors...
In a statement to The Post, ULA said that its "factory and launch site expansions have been completed or are on track to support our customers' needs with nearly 30 launch vehicles in flow at the rocket factory in Decatur, Alabama." Last year, ULA CEO Tory Bruno said in an interview that the deal with Amazon would allow the company to increase its flight rate to 20 to 25 a year and that to meet that cadence it was hiring "several hundred" more employees. The more often Vulcan flies, he said, the more efficient the company would become. "Vulcan is much less expensive" than the Atlas V rocket that the ULA currently flies, Bruno said, adding that ULA intends to eventually reuse the engines. "As the flight rate goes up, there's economies of scale, so it gets cheaper over time. And of course, you're introducing reusability, so it's cheaper. It's just getting more and more competitive."
The article also notes that years ago ULA "decided to eventually retire its workhorse Atlas V rocket after concerns within the Pentagon and Congress that it relied on a Russian-made engine, the RD-180. In 2014, the company entered into a partnership with Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin to provide its BE-4 engines for use on Vulcan. However, the delivery of those engines was delayed for years — one of the reasons Vulcan's first flight didn't take place until earlier this year."
The article says Cavelli's letter cited the Pentagon's need to move quickly as adversaries build capabilities in space, noting "counterspace threats" and adding that "our adversaries would seek to deny us the advantage we get from space during a potential conflict."
"The United States continues to face an unprecedented strategic competitor in China, and our space environment continues to become more contested, congested and competitive."
MIC getting fat and bloated (Score:4)
Giving almost a trillion dollars to the MIC a year, what could go wrong?
well, of course (Score:2)
ha ha ha Boeing on time delivery .
SpaceX has already done classified launches. The TLAs must want more of those really huge telescope-type satellites up there.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the the military is rightfully concerned about have a "single-source" supplier. Unfortunately, only one company is really interested in launches.
Re: (Score:2)
I see at least three, maybe four companies that would be interested, if they'd open it up to a defined cost no-bid contract and let multiple companies handle the launches.
Re: well, of course (Score:3)
Boeing just wants more money. SpaceX always delivers as promised and on-time without ever asking for more money. Boeing burns through the entire budget before it's even halfway finished and way overdue, and then tells the government to either pay up or they just walk away without having to pay anything back. And that's exactly what they're going to do here.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some NRO contract that SpaceX cannot fulfill now. Those required larger faring and vertical integration of the package to the 2nd stage. Larger faring are being build and SpaceX launch facilities in Vandenberg is being upgraded to do vertical integration (think KH-11 derived vehicle).
Missed opportunity (Score:5, Informative)
Instead of retiring the Atlas V, Boeing top brass could have pushed for replacing the Russian engines with some American ones. And if they couldn't fit and they'd have to shove them somehow causing flight instability, they could just add a software correction system to control the fins automatically for adjustment. /s
Last year, ULA CEO Tory Bruno said in an interview that the deal with Amazon would allow the company to increase its flight rate to 20 to 25 a year
That's quite an "impressive" statement given the fact that at the time they did not have a single Vulcan launch - and they have had just one certification flight so far this hear. So they are saying that even in their dream world (expected theoretical future flight rate for an unproven rocket), with Amazon's help they will manage to reach a quarter of the launch rate SpaceX had last year....
I know Elon gets all that flak for being a wacko, but SpaceX is currently so far ahead of the competition, it's not funny.
Re:Missed opportunity (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately I doubt reverse engineering the RD180 would be economically feasible as just designing a new rocket, rockets are built around their engines, especially launch stages.
Even if they built a facility capable of manufacturing a perfect RD180 clone all you have is an expendable 20+ year old platform for a bit longer.
That said companies like ULA were never under any real competitive pressures before and they are clearly struggling adapting to that, Vulcan risks becoming irrelevant very fast if Starship actually makes that turn into viability.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the /s.
It was a reference to the 737 MAX.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah but that was in fact was a valid question at the time, like it's a 20 year old engine that is an offshoot of an engine platform that was designed in the 70's, there was a question of "how hard could it be to recreate?" when the answer was "quite hard actually".
If anything it's more a tragedy that the Russian government has seemingly squandered so much of their once very vibrant aerospace industry for craven political goals. There is a different world where relations are better and we actually sou
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Russia has ever had that great of an aerospace industry. The Soviet Union did, and Russia had a lot of experience and equipment when the USSR dissolved, but a lot of the tech and knowledge the Soviets had was coming form Ukraine.
Khrushchev's specialisation plan (Score:2)
That's largely because of Khrushchev's specialisation policies. To improve efficiency, Khrushchev pushed for concentrating industries in individual SSRs. Ukraine was assigned helicopters, transport aircraft, rocket motors, etc. In the end, the result was that when the Soviet Union dissolved, Russia was highly dependent on the other former SSRs. It's a lot of effort to rebuild an industry you've completely exited.
Also fixed bid (Score:1)
That said companies like ULA were never under any real competitive pressures before and they are clearly struggling adapting to that,
I read a long article on this issue (maybe one linked to in the summary) and they mentioned a pretty huge issue was this is a fixed bid contract, which Boeing had not done before for space stuff... them having to eat cost overruns and fighting with contractors has taken a lot of willpower away from getting it finished. Every cent more they spend is a cent lost.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes I think I read the same article which was pretty spot on. I think in a lot of ways the government is starting to lean away from such contracts having been burned too often recently, the new B-21 Raider used lessons from the F35 in how the contractor terms were built, with more focus on oversight and managing reachable goals to where the program is actually having it's budget reduced from expectations which is pretty new situation to have:
Pentagon Acquisition Boss: B-21 Was Designed for Budget Survivabi [airandspaceforces.com]
Fixed bid can work - see SpaceX (Score:2)
I think in a lot of ways the government is starting to lean away from such contracts having been burned too often recently,
Maybe, but SpaceX won the other portion of that fixed bid (ironically a smaller portion than Boeing) and they delivered on time and made money...
I think you just can't expect a company structured to work via "infinite bid" to ever switch to a fixed bid format.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you just can't expect a company structured to work via "infinite bid" to ever switch to a fixed bid format.
I mean if that is in fact the case then it makes a case to me that we should just stop treating some contractors like Boeing as if they are competitive private companies and just fold them into the government directly. If they serve necessary functions but can't compete on the private market just don't let them be private anymore. In fact especially with Boeing it's clear they are a "too big/important to fail" so stop treating them like any other private economic actor.
SpaceX is a similar situation if th
Re: (Score:1)
The idea behind giving ULA this contract was to keep viable competitor in the launch market
I think this is still a major concern and a reason why they will probably not drop that contract no matter how behind they get, possibly even bail out Boeing a bit simply for national strategic reasons.
Re:Also fixed b (Score:2)
The F35 long term cost adjustment is one of the things that converted me from an F22 fan and F35 hater into an F35 fan. It had a rocky start but turned into a really good program.
Hopefully they continue to apply those lessons to future systems. The B21 has seemingly turned out well so far and NGAD ahead of schedule is a fucking act of god. This is not the military from my youth where a hammer cost $500.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah I am 100% onboard with the F35, it's actually a fantastic product now in 2024 but the procurement process and getting there was something of a boondoggle. I think also it's hard for many people to understand that the huge multi-hundred-billion price tag was for the entire lifetime of the fleet.
The changes to how they procured the B21 and got it out under budget is pretty interesting and hopefully will be a model for the future, seems like a lot of it was just "reasonable expectations and clearly d
Re: (Score:2)
Ya know... you'd think this sort of thing should have been figured out generations ago.
Why did it take until the late 2010s to figure out how to get military hardware at a reasonable price and on time?
It's mind blowing that it took this long when everyone had known all along how utterly fucked it was.
Re: Also fixed b (Score:1)
The price tag was to build a few hundred planes, currently a few dozen were built and the budget has been expanded several times and will be expanded again several times by the time they retire the system, which may actually be sooner rather than later. So it is a very, very expensive item cost, much more expensive than it should be by orders of magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably thinking of the F22, the US has over 600 F35 with hundreds more on the way and hundreds more in exports.
Also the unit cost for the current block is under budget. Was the whole program too expensive? Probably. Does the USA currently command the largest fleet of 5th Gen fighters and maintain air superiority? Also yes.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a large part of Space X's success derives from the impetus to launch its massive Starlink constellation, i.e. a requirement to achieve an economy of scale that's currently absent pretty much from everywhere else that enabled them to leapfrog the competition. If their current cadence is not sustainable, it remains to be seen what effect a lower flight rate will have on the company's net worth.
Re: (Score:2)
AeroJet does have license to build RD-180. It's just that ULA decided to go for a clean sheet replacement of both Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy with one rocket. Each Delta IV Heavy cost $300 million to launch and a plain Atlas V with American RD-180 cannot handle that mission.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to reverse engineer RD-180. AeroJet knows exactly how to build them. They have license and all of the technical specification to build them. Getting machine and tooling to build them is a different issue. When decision to sunset Atlas V was made in 2014, ULA had basically 2 choice, Blue Origin's BE-4 and AeroJet's RP-1 fueled engine AR-1. As behind as BE-4 had been, AR-1 is even further behind in development cycle.
So, a contract is holding them up? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. Such devices are, in part, designed around the launch vehicle - not just size and weight, but CoG and even the acceleration profile.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that SpaceX already has a ready-to-go contingency that only needs the DOD to pull the trigger.
Boeing huh? (Score:1)
https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like to propagate conspiracy theories. However, these deaths seem very coincidentally conveient for Boeing. It's like critic
Re: (Score:2)
If one of the whistleblowers was murdered, it's very unlikely that Boeing did it. More likely is that someone inside Boeing -- like a foreman or manager who has falsified certifications -- realized that the whistleblower was going to result in their going to jail.
rocket science (Score:2)
When Boeing told us that getting all those pronouns right was not rocket science, they were right. Unfortunately.