Another look at why ULA’s CEO stepped down
Why did ULA’s CEO step down, and did SpaceX or the Atlas 5’s dependence on Russian engines play a part?
Very worthwhile reading, as it suggests that not only is the competition from SpaceX a major factor, so was ULA’s effort to monopolize the military launch industry as well as monopolize its access to the Russian engines, denying their use by Orbital Sciences.
And to this I say, thank god for competition. It always shakes things up in a good way.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Why did ULA’s CEO step down, and did SpaceX or the Atlas 5’s dependence on Russian engines play a part?
Very worthwhile reading, as it suggests that not only is the competition from SpaceX a major factor, so was ULA’s effort to monopolize the military launch industry as well as monopolize its access to the Russian engines, denying their use by Orbital Sciences.
And to this I say, thank god for competition. It always shakes things up in a good way.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
>…ULA has been something of a cash cow for parent companies Boeing and Lockheed Martin, contributing heartily to the bottom line on the strength of its lucrative, but shamelessly monopolistic control of U.S. military space launches….[ as to the Atlas-V relying on the Russian built RD-180 engines rather then a US built version, or developing a competing engine]
>….ULA has effectively supported the Russian aerospace industry while damaging the very U.S. industry it claimed the subsidies were necessary to protect……..the reaction to Russian threats over limiting access to the RD-180 have underscored in very bold colors just how badly the United States has sold itself short in failing to insist, as first Lockheed Martin and then ULA assured us they could, that domestic production of the engine be initiated. ……Will the company, eternally at the mercy of parent companies Boeing and Lockheed Martin, begin to undertake take the dramatic changes necessary to compete with SpaceX on what is slowly becoming, against its best efforts, a more level playing field?…… Or will the company double down on political maneuvering as substitute for innovation …..Lockheed Martin has been in the driver’s seat [of ULA] from the outset, and remains firmly planted in
> that role. …an unchained Boeing would have …
Boeings basically divesting itself of the old McDonnell Douglas space industrial capacity, since theirs no damn money in it. Pretty much all the customer base gave a resounding no to CATS designs, and just running off old Delta’s and Atlas’ for trivial amounts of money, and no real growth prospects just didn’t interest Boeing execs. Hell Boeing tried with 787 to develop the craft without a serious in house engineering staff (that blew up in their face) since its damn hard to interest engineers to hang around for so few projects or investors in paying to keep them on staff. Effectively Boeing looks like they were trying to just contract out all their engineering to other firms. Like with the RD-180s, were deciding not to be builders, but just buyers.
If the bottom line of all this is that today’s Boeing ain’t exactly your father’s Boeing, then we agree. In that case maybe you’d like to reconsider your support for SLS. It’s today’s Boeing that’s building it.
Actually two botomlines.
#1 – Space is seen by investors as having no real market growth potential. So Boeing can’t see it really worth bothering with. Given their yearly ULA profits likely less then that for a single 7?7 sale.
#2 – they rae not our daddy’s Boeing/McDac/Rockwell/etc-all-the-other-space-companies-they ate. But they are about all that’s left in the industry. Cancel SLS and they, and pretty much all the rest of the industrial base to build and operate such things, gets layoff notices. Just like we’ve lost the vast bulk of our aircraft industrial capacity – we could well lose even more of our spacecraft capability.
Space is seen by investors as having no real market growth potential.
No it isn’t. SpaceX, of course, famously has a lot of VC money and Vinod Khosla has been doing a lot of space-related deals lately including at least one launcher startup, Rocket Lab. Investors have no confidence that the old-guard dinosaur aerospace contractors can do anything useful of affordable in space anymore, but that’s a different matter altogether.
Given their yearly ULA profits likely less then that for a single 7?7 sale.
On another thread I responded to another of your comments poor-mouthing ULA’s profit contributions to its parent companies by posting a link to a Motley Fool piece that said ULA contributes about $300 million a year straight to Boeing’s bottom line. I think they’d have sell 20 or 30 747’s or 777’s to clear that much profit.
they rae not our daddy’s Boeing/McDac/Rockwell/etc-all-the-other-space-companies-they ate. But they are about all that’s left in the industry.
No they’re not. There are dozens of NewSpace companies ready to take over from the superannuated dinosaurs of aerospace. The three remaining majors, Boeing, LockMart and Northrop-Grumman, will probably last quite awhile just on their defense and commercial airplane businesses. But space is going commercial and they seen ill-equipped to follow. If this “industrial base” can’t do anything in space that is both new and usably inexpensive, then it needs to go as it’s no damned use to us anyway.
>>Space is seen by investors as having no real market growth potential.
> No it isn’t. SpaceX, of course, famously has a lot of VC money…
Musk boasts about that, but the financial records disagree. He admits without the COS win about …7 years ago? SpaceX would have gone under, and NASA and DOD contract funds pretty much paid his bills.
Actually reports are now that a fail to win CCDev could force him under to. Hence the sudden and abrupt 10% layoffs recently.
>..Vinod Khosla has been doing a lot of space-related deals lately including at least one launcher startup, ..
Who? What.
Anyway, I was refuring to the industry investors – like the stockholders owning the big firms. They basicly offered to hand the CEOs their head on a plater if they spent the money to develop something even a fraction as expensive as a airliner without solid anchor tennet orders in hand. Something no ones been able to get.
> a Motley Fool piece that said ULA contributes about $300 million a year straight to Boeing’s bottom line. ..
Boeings bottom line was $50B a year last time I heard. The retail cost of one of their airliners is over $300M. Its hard to justify the effort for a ULA for just that. Though it does seem to still kida want to keep their hand in.
Given ULS flights are something like $200M-$400M each, and they only fly a couple times a year – $300M is higher then I’ld expect?
> I think they’d have sell 20 or 30 747′s or 777′s to clear that much profit.
No they retain for close to $400M a peace (give or take bulk order disconuts) and I really dout their profit margin pure in in the single digit %.
>> they rae not our daddy’s Boeing/McDac/Rockwell/etc-all-the-other-space-companies-they ate. But they are
>> about all that’s left in the industry.
> No they’re not. There are dozens of NewSpace companies ready to take over from the superannuated
> dinosaurs of aerospace. ..
LOL!! Yeah that’s like saying Dans custom cars can fill in for losing GM and Ford. Even the bulk of the NewSpace firms know they can’t play at that level of capability for a long time.
>… space is going commercial..
Really? How is NASA a commercial market? And how is wining contracts the big guys were ordered not to bid for – being competitive with them?