This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Is United Space Alliance Being Put Down?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
January 7, 2012
Filed under , , , ,

United Space Alliance Directed To Stop Pursuing New Business, Space News
“United Space Alliance (USA), the Boeing-Lockheed Martin joint venture created in 1995 to operate NASA’s now-retired space shuttle, has been barred by its corporate parents from pursuing any new business, according to industry sources. The move raises new questions about the future of the Houston-based company, a major NASA contractor that has struggled to carve out a prominent new role for itself in the post-shuttle era. USA’s current shuttle operations contract is set to expire in September.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

12 responses to “Is United Space Alliance Being Put Down?”

  1. Gonzo_Skeptic says:
    0
    0

    USA was created with rival entities in a shotgun wedding blessed by NASA for a single purpose, and now that purpose is gone.  The divorce will come none too soon for the executives of both parent companies.

    Any future work in this domain will very likely be bid separately.

  2. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    USA was created from rival companies and awarded its Shuttle work without competition, yet it did its job well, providing services so complex that competitive contracting would have been impossible, and it retains virtually all the experience that remains of how to maintain reusable orbital launch systems. Getting rid of it just because it isn’t convenient for Lockheed and Boeing to work together seems unwarranted, and likely to disperse what little expertise remains.

    • NewSpacePaleontologist says:
      0
      0

      The purpose is to disperse the expertise.
      It started with Boeing deciding it could not win a competition against USA in the on-going TOSC procurement and them directing USA not to compete (after the RFP was out taking the USA subs off the market). USA needed TOSC to stay viable now it is much less so. Now they take the human spaceflight expertise of USA totally off the market. USA was supporting several commercial cargo and commercial crew companies. Elimination of this strengthens the Boeing competitive position.
      A reason to eliminate the reusable systems expertise is to eliminate the systems. Boeing and Lockheed make much more profit (15-20%) from development and manufacture than they do from routine ops (7-9%).  Always suspect this type answer when a major developer speaks against reusability.
      There is probably some restraint of trade going on here – USA is supposedly an independent company, not a joint venture. By the time that could be resolved the deed will be done (or at least TOSC too far down the road). USA execs will not object (and will probably support) the dissolving because they are dependent upon Boeing and Lockheed for their future positions and bonuses.

      • npng says:
        0
        0

        Your analysis makes sense.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        If you look at the longer term, there is a cycle here whereby “expertise” is collected and concentrated in a smaller number of companies, mostly through acquisitions, but also through hiring after award of major contracts.

        And then, during the lean times, actions taken to try to maintain viable groups (teams, divisions, whole companies. etc.), cause the expertise to be redistributed, a tactic which has saved many groups, and therefore many jobs, over the years.

        The problem now, is that further acquisitions are no longer likely to happen.  US aerospace is down to a Big Three situation, much like happened in the auto industry, and further acquisitions are both too expensive to consider and would be nudging up against the monopoly laws and therefore not be allowed.  This is good because it keeps us out of the monopoly snafu, but it puts us in a situation for which there are no precedents to guide us or predict the future.

        I think that the space side of aerospace is going to be in an indeterminate state for a while more yet.  So be prepared; it’s always darkest just before everything teeters on the edge of completely falling apart.

        Although I’ve never much cared for the word, I think something very proactive is required to keep the space side of the aerospace industry from continuing to flounder during the coming decade (with my apologies to those who give their all, day after day).

        Steve

    • NewSpacePaleontologist says:
      0
      0

      The purpose is to disperse the expertise.
      It started with Boeing deciding it could not win a competition against USA in the on-going TOSC procurement and them directing USA not to compete (after the RFP was out taking the USA subs off the market). USA needed TOSC to stay viable now it is much less so. Now they take the human spaceflight expertise of USA totally off the market. USA was supporting several commercial cargo and commercial crew companies. Elimination of this strengthens the Boeing competitive position.
      A reason to eliminate the reusable systems expertise is to eliminate the systems. Boeing and Lockheed make much more profit (15-20%) from development and manufacture than they do from routine ops (7-9%).  Always suspect this type answer when a major developer speaks against reusability.
      There is probably some restraint of trade going on here – USA is supposedly an independent company, not a joint venture. By the time that could be resolved the deed will be done (or at least TOSC too far down the road). USA execs will not object (and will probably support) the dissolving because they are dependent upon Boeing and Lockheed for their future positions and bonuses.

    • NewSpacePaleontologist says:
      0
      0

      The purpose is to disperse the expertise.
      It started with Boeing deciding it could not win a competition against USA in the on-going TOSC procurement and them directing USA not to compete (after the RFP was out taking the USA subs off the market). USA needed TOSC to stay viable now it is much less so. Now they take the human spaceflight expertise of USA totally off the market. USA was supporting several commercial cargo and commercial crew companies. Elimination of this strengthens the Boeing competitive position.
      A reason to eliminate the reusable systems expertise is to eliminate the systems. Boeing and Lockheed make much more profit (15-20%) from development and manufacture than they do from routine ops (7-9%).  Always suspect this type answer when a major developer speaks against reusability.
      There is probably some restraint of trade going on here – USA is supposedly an independent company, not a joint venture. By the time that could be resolved the deed will be done (or at least TOSC too far down the road). USA execs will not object (and will probably support) the dissolving because they are dependent upon Boeing and Lockheed for their future positions and bonuses.

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

      The peculiar nature of launch services (and reusable systems) makes this a problematic move. While the specifics of the systems are clearly obsolete, the ability/experience to reliably provide them is being overlooked as being of immediate value.

      So what would happen if someone cracks the code on highly reusable systems for vending launch services? Who would you trust to provide them, with the proven experience to back them up?

      It would be ironic if a vendor, in rushing to up its profit margin on expendable, low frequency launch vehicle components … were to intentionally lose its reusable services … at the point of inflection where a switch to reusable systems changes the competitive landscape.

      Would that mean a rush to get back … what was just discarded?

      Could be ,,, ironic.

  3. DocM says:
    0
    0

    Question: what are the implications for their other joint venture – ULA? Does it become disposable if USAF contracts suddenly go competative?

  4. retired_geek says:
    0
    0

    @DocMordrid

    I think that you will find that USA had a lot more autonomy than ULA’s charter provides.  In theory USA could even bid against its parent companies.  ULA is kept on a much shorter leash.

    And despite being denigrated as one of the high cost “old space” institutions, USA was one of the greatest “can do” teams who have ever supported a NASA project. 

    During its tenure USA brought a new level of efficiency and competency to the program and if NASA had ever backed off their philosophy of micromanagement, it could have accomplished even more.

    It’s sad to see a team, no a family of talented people who lived and breathed space dissolved.  

  5. npng says:
    0
    0

    With the way the United States of America is going, it might have been more appropriate to title this “Is the USA Being Put Down?”

  6. Dan says:
    0
    0

    Umm looks like someone didnt like my comment they took it out