Honestly if they're being sold, I'm having trouble seeing BO buying them. If anything, a sale is probably going to mean that BO have failed with the engines, and they're not going to be able to fulfill their contracts.

Raises an interesting question though....what do we do then? There are actual, and important, payloads that will not fit on falcon heavy as is. Does the US DoD step in and "suggest"(Italian mob style) the company that has been unwilling to develop/build the bigger fairing for FH get off its ass and cooperate? Do they throw money and political clout at starship with the understanding their goal is now to get those payloads up?

I think ULA gambled on BO, and lost...badly.

I really don't know. From the article:

Quote:

---

• One of the parent companies, either Lockheed or Boeing, could buy the other out. Lockheed being on the purchasing end seems more likely, given that it has recently made strategic acquisitions in the launch industry, including taking a stake in ABL Space Systems.
• Amazon is likely to be interested. The company owned by Jeff Bezos would have intimate knowledge of ULA's business after signing the Project Kuiper launch agreement and may decide it's better to purchase the company outright than buy services. This would give Amazon the priority access to Vulcan launches it needs to ensure the Kuiper constellation is launched in a timely manner. It would also strengthen Amazon's ties to the Department of Defense.
• Blue Origin may also be interested. This is another company owned by Jeff Bezos, but sources said there is a firewall between Blue Origin and Amazon. Blue Origin also won a share of Project Kuiper launches, 12, with its New Glenn rocket. However, there are some questions about how quickly New Glenn can be brought into commercial service, and in buying ULA, Blue Origin could consolidate its share of Kuiper missions and earn guaranteed funding from the Department of Defense. The company would also "save" money on Vulcan launches because it could provide BE-4 rocket engines at cost.
• Other potential bidders include Northrop Grumman, which has an interest in national security and provides solid rocket motors for Vulcan; L3Harris, which is already purchasing engine-maker Aerojet Rocketdyne; a private equity firm like the industry saw with AE Industrial Partners' investment in Firefly Aerospace; or even a technology company like Apple seeking to develop its own space constellation for communications purposes.

The potential sale of ULA comes with many questions for a buyer. Foremost among them is likely to be the long-term viability of the traditional space company at a time when SpaceX has taken the dominant position in the global launch industry. Additionally, there are other US competitors coming up as well, including Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, and Relativity Space. None of these are a near-term threat to ULA, but in five to 10 years, one or more of those companies could have a fully reusable rocket priced substantially below that of Vulcan.

Another important factor in ULA's viability is its need for investment. Over the last two decades, the parent companies have tended to pull profits out of ULA rather than investing in the development of new technology. Vulcan, for example, was developed largely with money from the US military. The Department of Defense supported the development of Vulcan's engines and solids and provided development grants worth $967 million directly to ULA. To become competitive in the new era of commercial launch, a new owner will likely need to free ULA to innovateand provide the funding to do so.

---

To me, that's still an incomplete list of possibilities, and frankly it is an appealing acquisition target to a lot more, for the right price. That is because they have such a great relationship/contract basis with NSA/DoD, solid IP portfolio in a growing (booming?) market for the next 20 years, and frankly I do think the engines will work for Vulcan Centaur (and they could build/contract for others if they have to).

What about, for instance, Sierra Space? Or a combination of Sierra-BO-Bezos since they are partnering already for Vulcan Centaur launches for much (including 'orbital reef'?). Something involving Bezos' ego would extend the billionaires space rivalry to a new chapter, and let BO walk away from the vapor ware new Glenn.

Or Relativity or Rocket Lab (touched on briefly) for obvious reasons if for no other reason than access to the launch contracts/facilities/infrastructure. L3 Harris is a solid guess too, if they can get the approvals, as it might again solve the engine problem for Vulcan in so doing but it's a less exciting avenue to me.

I dunno, it's like speculating about a coaching hire or VP selection months in advance; I never have gotten those right.

I don't understand why anyone wants to buy ULA.

It would be like buying Checker Motors in 1982. Sure their Checker Taxis were dominant for a time beginning in 1959 but they were no longer cost competitive with General Motors and they had no viable follow up model for the Checker Cab which had just ended production.

Anyone building expendable rockets today is a dinosaur. SpaceX had already shown the way and ULA pressed forward with spending billions developing an expendable Vulcan.

In ~2014 when ULA was kicking off their Vulcan design trade studies, SpaceX was already attempting to land their Falcon 9 and did so successfully for the first time in 2015. Then SpaceX reflew their first booster in 2017. The writing was on the wall for everyone to see.

ULA had numerous opportunities to change course and chose not to. Other than a lease on some useful launch pads, some integration and manufacturing facilities, an experienced but aging workforce, and an inventory of DoD launch contracts, what does ULA have of value to a customer desiring positive cash flow within the next decade?

I'm not gonna pretend to be a ULA fan by any stretch, but they do intend to get to engine/system re-use on the Vulcan Centaur I believe. The basic structure of the rocket booster is not the 'high cost' item, in the big scheme.

Again they've basically been a cash cow for Boeing/LM, and if they can vet Vulcan running ok that will remain the case for at least 10 years just off gov't launches, imho. Various legacy and 'new' industry bits could be combined, theoretically, including very good engineering/mfg/infrastructure to produce some interesting new/future capabilities.

I get/respect the checker cab analogy, but think it's a little misplaced in this instance. Aerospace (especially with the government) is a funny business; Boeing is making a bundle (as is Rolls) re-engining/upgrading 70 year old B-52's, for instance, and we still often fly weekly on 737's which were laid out by Joe Sutter back in the early 60's. Likewise, the SLS (by ULA) is functionally equipment repurposed from the early 70's space shuttle program.

lb3 said:

---

I don't understand why anyone wants to buy ULA.

It would be like buying Checker Motors in 1982. Sure their Checker Taxis were dominant for a time beginning in 1959 but they were no longer cost competitive with General Motors and they had no viable follow up replacement model for the Checker Cab which had just ended production.

Anyone building expendable rockets today is a dinosaur. SpaceX had already shown the way and ULA pressed forward with spending billions developing an expendable Vulcan.

In ~2014 when ULA was kicking of their Vulcan design trade studies, SpaceX was already attempting to land their Falcon 9 and did so successfully for the first time in 2015. Then SpaceX reflew their first booster in 2017.

ULA had numerous opportunities to change course and chose not to. Other than a lease on some useful launch pads, some integration and manufacturing facilities, an experienced but aging workforce, and an inventory of DoD launch contracts, what does ULA have of value to a customer desiring positive cash flow within the next decade?

---

Proven reliability. That's pretty important.

The only other proven vehicle is the Falcon9.

Not including rocket lab because of their limited payload capacity.

But developing a new launch vehicle is insanely expensive, hundreds of millions of dollars.

The space industry is also having a hard time finding qualified engineers.

Having an experienced workforce could potentially be an asset, but a bloated management structure might get in the way.

The competition for employees is fierce between all of these companies and employees hop from one to another before leaving the industry all together. SpaceX, Blue Origin, Relativity Space, Virgin Orbit, Rocket Lab, Fire Fly, ABL Space Systems, Ursa Major…

And how many other companies can put large payloads in space reliably? Only SpaceX.

Good NSF article summarizing various company's re-usability plans.

The US military is finally leaning heavily into the nation's commercial launch industry. It's a pretty big deal.https://t.co/nMHzuyrfE3

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) March 6, 2023

Patty Murray, a feckless Democrat hack if there is one in the Senate (who somehow almost had a competitive race with a GOP challenger in Washington), probably did play a role here but net it is good for Relativity etc. (not just Blue Origin) to have an opportunity to bid/compete for "Lane 2" $$$ moving forward.

Decent history/synopsis, for casual followers heading toward the starship orbital attempt, with ULA now for sale/pending sale.

Does anyone know what's left to do with Starship before launch? Or before FAA approval?

TexAgs91 said:

---

Does anyone know what's left to do with Starship before launch? Or before FAA approval?

---

Moving S24
Stacking S24
NOTAM/NOTMAR
Fuel/Prop Load
Yeet

FAA approval could happen at any point before NOTAM/NOTMAR

Will us commoners have ample notice of the launch so we can try and head down there?

bthotugigem05 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Does anyone know what's left to do with Starship before launch? Or before FAA approval?

---

Moving S24
Stacking S24
NOTAM/NOTMAR
Fuel/Prop Load
Yeet

FAA approval could happen at any point before NOTAM/NOTMAR

---

Seems like that would should take no more than a week. But it doesn't seem like there's going to be a launch next week. Anything else needed?

ETA: I just saw this alert

Sea Speed said:

---

Will us commoners have ample notice of the launch so we can try and head down there?

---

this.

Yes, folks will have at least 5 days notice of the first notam for launch attempt. The issue is it might be recycled several times, or even more before that ignition actually happens.

This is easily their most significant event since that first Falcon made it to orbit, in 2008. The pacing item is currently still the FAA license.

Word will begin leaking out too once the media are notified on the record.

They're going through their typical media accreditation process like they do for other launches.

pic.twitter.com/5SwsKswSKF

— Miranda (@samsung0804_2) March 8, 2023

Launch time updated to 1 pm CT.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Does anyone know what's left to do with Starship before launch? Or before FAA approval?

---

I think they just need to send someone out there to hold a lighter under it when they're ready.

Russia's next generation rocket program (Soyuz 5) is in a bit of disarray, to exactly no one's surprise.

https://tlpnetwork.com/news/2023/03/russian-assets-seized-at-the-baikonur-cosmodrome

I strongly doubt this thing ever lifts off/is completed. It represents a fallback on an ancient Soviet design, hoping to replace the Ukrainian contributions to Zenit etc...

Quote:

---

The namesake of the new rocket, which is supposed to be ready by 2021, is a bit misleading. The Soyuz name implies continuity, but Soyuz-5 has little to do with the current family of Soyuz launch vehicles which are derived from the Soviet Union's very first R-7 rockets. Rather, Soyuz-5 derives from the Zenit booster first developed for Energia and used on Sea Launch.

Although manufactured by Ukraine's Yuzhmash rocket company, Zenit is constructed largely from Russian-made parts supplied by Energia. About 70 to 80 percent of the rocket is reportedly Russian. The anticipated speed of development of the Soyuz-5 can be attributed to the fact that it is basically a program to clone and upgrade Zenit by replacing Ukrainian components.

"80 percent of the Soyuz-5 will be the Zenit-3 launch vehicle, with the only new components basically being engines used in the Soyuz-2 built into the new rocket's second stage," says Pavel Luzin, a Russian space industry analyst. "So, this Soyuz-5 will actually be a well known launch vehicle, and Baikonur already has all the necessary infrastructure launching it."

---

Just got pushed back to 2 PM Eastern.

A Soyuz that isn't R-7 is heresy!!

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

Just got pushed back to 2 PM Eastern.

---

It will be interesting to see how this company does. I know many companies highlight specific types of employees, but I find it interesting how many young women they have in very specialized, high-level positions shown in this video. I know many great, experienced female engineers, but the pool to select from is limited based on who enters STEM classes and how many female engineers are out there.

I saw the same thing when I completed a site tour of ispace here in Denver during the recruiting process. There were a lot of young female engineers working there (maybe more than males), and they made it a point to emphasize diversity and "being yourself in the workplace" when I toured. This was a huge turnoff, as I want a company that hires the best people for the job and role, not diversity for the sake of diversity. That and the CEO of ispace is heavily involved with the WEF.

Not trying to make this political, but it will be interesting to compare these companies to others with a more traditional aerospace workplace demographic.

On another note, I did take an offer from Intuitive Machines for a remote position working structure, integration and assembly. Spent last week there onboarding and reuniting with some old coworkers, and getting a tour of the NOVA-C build facility and hot fire engine test facility. They have an impressive collection of talent and I've stayed in touch with the CTO and others in the company, so I'm excited to be part of their push for lunar logistics.

Launch on hold for propellant conditioning and estimated launch time has been pushed back to 1:40pm CT.

I dunno, they get decent reviews on Glassdoor, but that would turn me off big time as well. I think all these startups compete to hire young engineers who are good, and young people are attracted to phrases like 'diversity' especially if they are new eng. graduates who have been immersed in school for 4 to 8 years.

The burnout/churn rate has to be pretty high, if not as high as SpaceX or some others. It will be interesting to see if this launches today.

Automatic launch abort. They still have time within the launch window so they are troubleshooting to see if they can still launch today.

2:55 CST now.

will25u said:

---

2:55 CST now.

---

Is there a built in hold time somewhere or are my clocks wrong?

Its 2:00pm and we have T-44 minutes... They did repeat 15:55 eastern several times though but I wasn't paying attention earlier in the countdowns to see any holds.

will25u said:

---

2:55 CST now.

---

For some reason, when I see CST I think, "College Station Time."

Scrubbed

nortex97 said:

---

I dunno, they get decent reviews on Glassdoor, but that would turn me off big time as well. I think all these startups compete to hire young engineers who are good, and young people are attracted to phrases like 'diversity' especially if they are new eng. graduates who have been immersed in school for 4 to 8 years.

The burnout/churn rate has to be pretty high, if not as high as SpaceX or some others. It will be interesting to see if this launches today.

---

Despite their glowing glass door reviews, I heard they have some elements of a toxic workplace. You can find a lot of unnatural hair colors in photos of employees.

I also heard they pay really well. They've also raised an absolutely insane amount of money. They've done a ton of testing, about as much as they can. So they have that going for them.

They have plenty of qualified engineers, and I'm sure some less so. They do promote equity and DEI heavily.

From the outside it looks like they couldn't condition the propellants to the needed temperatures… or maybe weather risks, it was a bit windy and cloudy there from the video.

Unnatural hair colors aren't a sign of toxic workplaces.


Have yall seen rocketlab saying they're likely going to drop air capture and move to water recoveries? Traditionally, companies have thrown recoveries from saltwater out, but that seems to be changing, even NASA is allowing the dragon reuse. Is it a materials change, or are we just getting better/faster at the recovery efforts?

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Unnatural hair colors aren't a sign of toxic workplaces.

---

Pushing DEI is though

Not what I commented on though. Probably not the right thread for this convo anyway