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

Boeing Has Killed ULA Sale Prospects

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 17, 2015
Filed under , , ,
Boeing Has Killed ULA Sale Prospects

Boeing Defense Head: ULA Not Being Sold, Defense News
“Boeing’s top defense official said the company has no interest in selling off the United Launch Alliance (ULA), despite a bid by Aerojet Rocketdyne to buy the company. Chris Chadwick, president and chief executive officer of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, said ULA will be “a huge part of our portfolio going forward” and that there was “no serious consideration” given to the bid offer, reportedly for $2 billion. “This bid, we’ve really not spent much time on it at all, because we’re focusing in a totally different direction,” he said. A Lockheed spokesman declined to respond to Chadwick’s comments, and an Aerojet representative did not respond by deadline.”
Has SpaceX Shocked The Launch Industry To Transform?, Earlier post
ULA, The Four Amigos, and The Future of Competition in Space Commerce, Earlier post

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

10 responses to “Boeing Has Killed ULA Sale Prospects”

  1. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    AR must not have offered enough money yet

  2. ProfSWhiplash says:
    0
    0

    Rather curious why AR would even try, with what looks to be a low bid. $2B is really not that huge, when dealing with a large corporations. ULA may be having some trying times, but this’s almost insulting.

    Boeing may be trying to protect the investments and progress it’s made with the Starliner, among other things tied to ULA. You don’t go through years and giga-bucks in designing a manned system that’s to be carried aloft by a supremely successful launch vehicle, that you know very, very, very well; and then have some engine company drop in, buy out your launch system and swap out the engines with its own brand (granted it wouldn’t be Russian anymore) or even redesign the entire rocket. To me, that alone is not worth anywhere near $2B.

    • Patrick Bane says:
      0
      0

      The offer was 4X ULA yearly revenue, with a potential revenue decline in years to come. The offer price was probably in the ballpark of appropriate, but without discrete details of what the buyout offer constitutes it’s tough to say.

      Also, AR has provided most of the engines for ULA over the years, and continues to do so for Delta (RS-68 & RL-10), Atlas (RL-10 & Castor solids), amongst a slew of other ancillary small propulsion systems for guidance and navigation; so a sell to AR isn’t throwing the vehicle engine reliabilty into an unknown bucket. It would actually offload what may be a liability for Boeing & LM.

      What’s surprising is the about face Boeing execs have taken in regard to running ULA; as they & LM have only been funding Vulcan dev on a quarter by quarter basis, which means they are concerned with the the economic viability of ULA going forward. Their announcement of required government funding for Vulcan is not only telling, but stereotypical given the history.

      • RocketScientist327 says:
        0
        0

        Not saying that you are wrong Patrick but you are not getting the complete picture. ULA can compete against SLS. ULA is not allowed to compete against SLS because of Mommy and Daddy or otherwise known as “the parents”.

        Essentially, Boeing and Lockmart are blocking competition by hanging on to a losing venture as it is constructed at present. It makes sense. Look at the silliness of people trying to justify costs with new missions to ISS for Orion.

        Give me a break. If the House Republicans had a shred of integrity they would file anti-trust charges against Boeing and Lockmart.

        You want competition for SpaceX? Free ULA and watch them wipe the floor.

        Meanwhile, I will sit back and get my popcorn.

        • Patrick Bane says:
          0
          0

          Not sure I follow… ULA isn’t trying to compete against SLS. In fact, their owners are the ones that are the main contractors for the NASA SLS program, so that would simply be a competition against itself.

          Can you clarify what you mean?

          • Zed_WEASEL says:
            0
            0

            The single stick Vulcan can evolved into a tri-core Vulcan Heavy configuration with about 30 metric tons in direct injection to GSO or similar payloads to the Moon.

            If ULA is un-shackled from Boeing & Lockheed Martin then ULA can offer the Vulcan Heavy to completed with SLS at a much cheaper price with higher launch tempo..

            Tory Bruno was asked about the Vulcan Heavy configuration and he says it is possible,

          • Patrick Bane says:
            0
            0

            SLS block 1 is slated 70mTon & block 2 130mTon, so there is no direct comparison here for Vulcan ever competing with SLS for heavy lift capability. Again, I don’t see where these comments are coming from regarding ULA competing for SLS, it’s not in their strategy to do so.

            In addition, I don’t think I would trust much of what Tory Bruno has to say.

          • Zed_WEASEL says:
            0
            0

            SLS block 1 will be able to send roughly what the Vulcan Heavy can beyond LEO for about triple the cost. If you presume the Vulcan Heavy will cost the same as a Delta IV Heavy.

            SLS block 2 will only happen with new RS-25 engines, new up-rated strapped-on boosters and the unfunded EUS upper stage.

            For missions beyond LEO quoting LEO lift capacity is meaningless. The Delta-V for a direct inject flight to GSO is about what you need to go to the Moon.

            Put out some payload numbers for flights to the Moon, Mars & the Gas Giants for the SLS block 1.

          • RocketScientist327 says:
            0
            0

            Yes, 2005 there was, and still is, Atlas V Phase 2 with enormous lift capability. I am providing a link:

            http://www.ulalaunch.com/up

            Now we would have had 70mT capability right now with Atlas V Phase 2 but it was killed because it competed with Constellation at the time. Now it still does compete with Constellation, only we call it Space Launch System.

            We could have had Atlas V Phase 2 for about $5 billion with tax, tags, title, license, and insurance… and complete ground support. It was a no brainer – except it didn’t cost $100 billion over the life of the project – something Boeing (and LockMart) are so keenly aware of.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            And for a bit more, we could have orbital depots based on ULA’s cryogenic propellant handing and storage technologies. ULA’s planned ACES upper stage for Vulcan will be very close to a fuel depot that could be used in LEO and other locations.

            Add Falcon (and perhaps Falcon Heavy) into the mix to deliver fuel to the depot and you’ve got the beginnings of a space transportation architecture that can be reusable in many places.