Boeing and Lockheed Unite

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

crix

Guest
<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Oh man, Musk must be doing backflips into a bathtub full of champagne as we speak! GO Falcon! <br /><br />(edit: that image just popped into my head, couldn't resist, hehe)
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Actually wvbraun, where compitition is redundant, compitiion itself can itself be bad. In particular when it drives both companies out of business. The overall launch market will not support both companies at this time. It may support Spacex in the smaller launch market, but I really doubt if there is going to be enough market to support Falcon V for some time. If the Airforce can have enough launches the EELV rockets will bring the cost of a pound to LEO down to less than $2,000 per lb to LEO. Or on a 10,000 lb satellite down to some $20 million per launch. To begin with the Airforce cost will be higher to amortize the development costs, but as more and more launches are made the overall cost will come down. This was after all, a DOD project to do exactly that in the first place. <br /><br />The only problem was that when the Airforce started the program they anticipated far more commercial launches than have occured. <br /><br />The cost reductions for EELV were brought about by incremental changes in the direction of rocket development. Before EELV, performance was the guiding factor, regardless of cost. The EELV contracts were to put cost itself as the guiding factor. Even if weight and performance were to suffer somewhat (the EELV rockets still perform more than adequately for the jobs the Airforce wishes them to do) the main objective was to bring the cost of a pound to LEO down from the $10,000 per pound to LEO to the $2,000 to $3,000 dollar range.<br /><br />I know much of this as I was working in Quality Assurance at Rocketdyne at the time. While maintaining the excellent quality of other Rocketdyne engines the RS68 which was designed to power the Delta IV was designed to be less than 30% of the cost of an SSME (which was very performance oriented). The Common Booster Core idea came about as most of the other rockets such as the Delta II and the earlier Atlas rockets were almost one-of-a-kind productions. The plant making the CBC's for the Delta IV
 
R

radarredux

Guest
The SpaceX's contract is an IDIQ -- generally a nice vehicle for adding additional funds without having to go through a bunch of additional red tape.<br /><br />That $100 million is about 16 Falcon 1 launches or 6 Falcon V launches!
 
S

steve82

Guest
"A Boeing spokesman said the two companies can put their past disputes behind them."<br /><br /><br />HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA<br />HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA<br />HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA<br />HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA<br />HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA<br />HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa<br />.....<br /><br /><br />And if you believe that, I've got a ranchette lot in southern New Mexico I can get you a great deal on!<br />
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
Wow, I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the boardrooms of the respective companies to see how the motivating process worked. As I said over on the VentureStar thread, it's hard to escape the 'big picture' feeling that decisions taken over the next few years are going to have profound ramifications for the next fifty.<br /><br />Depending on the way the CEV process works out, there was the probability of one of the two companies picking up some enormously rich and lengthy contracts. What's that expression ... 'keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.' By going into partnership you guarantee yourself 50% of the pie, rather than chancing it that your ideas will be picked up by the government instead of your major competitors.<br /><br />There's all this 'second tier' work going on among the aerospace minors, and then there's the international challengers on top of that. It's not impossible to imagine that Boeing and LockMart haven't decided to 'circle the wagons' against all-comers to ensure they have a prominant role in things moving forward. (of course it's hard not to see such established companies continuing to exist but, then again, stranger things have happened at sea Farouk.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
T

trailrider

Guest
I'm not sure whether to applaud...or cry! So far as the regulatory agencies disapproving this, I can just see the Air Force "capsule drivers" at Malmstrom or Warren being directed to retarget one or more birds at the agency's headquarters, if they turned it down! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Seriously, maybe this will eliminate this business of hire, hire, hire to gin up for the proposal in answer to the RFP, followed by "doorknobing" the engineering staff, about one-fourth of which will find employment...generally with the winning outfit!<br /><br />It depends on how closely the two companies can work with each other. Even with all the time that has ellapsed since Boeing bought Mac-Dac, St. Louis and Spokane were/are often at loggerheads! Same with Convair, Lockheed and Martin-Marietta. <br /><br />We can hope for the best. The biggest problem will be integrating the management effort. Most engineers can work together just fine. It's the empire builders who get into turf wars. If they rule with an iron fist and don't listen to the engineers when it comes to addressing problems, Challenger and Columbia will look like typographical errors. <br /><br />Keep yours finger, toes and eyes crossed!<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Aries! Ad Astra!<br /><br />Trailrider
 
D

danwoodard

Guest
Sorry, I was grossly in error. Delta doesn't appear to have any non-government launches, but Atlas has quite a few. Maybe this is why the CEO of the combined effort is from Lockheed.<br /><br />Still, I'll be suprised if either can compete indefinitely in the commercial market. Best hope for Delta might be the CEV.
 
P

padrat

Guest
>>DOD financed two different EELV designs because it was incorrectly assumed they would be supported by commercial business. But neither EELV has won any commercial launches, being unable to compete in cost with <br />Sea Launch (Boeing-Energia-Kvaerner-Yuzhnoye/Yuzhmash) <br />and <br />ILS (Lockheed-Khrunichev-Energia) <br />and other largely non-US partnerships.<<<br /><br />Ummm, you might want to look at just what Atlas V has been launching to date. ALL of them have carried commercial satellites for ILS.<br /><br />-Pad Rat-
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Blonrop <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />*LOL* Now THAT is funny!<br /><br />Actually, it's eerily reminiscent of a fake ad I made a few years back to help my brother put together a "newspaper from the future". (It was an insanely stupid assignment, all part of the abominable Profile of Learning that a business major turned educational commissioner foisted on the state of Minnesota's public school system.) It was entertaining, BSing about future developments. For the "ad", I took a stock picture of an SR-71 Blackbird, put in front of a CGI cloudscape, and then faded the SR-71 so you could see through it. We called it the CSR-71 -- implying that the "C" stood for "cloaking". (My whole family likes Star Trek, what can I say?) Anyway, the part that got my mom chuckling (but which sadly went over the teacher's head) was the logo at the bottom. I used a font similar to the one used in the Lockheed logo and credited the whole thing to Boeing-Lockheed. (Or maybe it was Lockheed-Boeing. I can't remember now. I'll have to see if I still have a copy of that file floating around anywhere.)<br /><br />At the time, I was joking about how the aerospace industry seemed to be globbing together into one big conglomerate, without seriously expecting that to happen....<br /><br />That said, I still don't expect it to happen immediately. This isn't a merger, by any stretch of the imagination, and will not affect the competition between the two (and other aerospace companies) in other fields. This is more like International Launch Services, the joint venture between Lockheed and RSC Khrunichev to sell Atlases and Protons on the international market. They're not giving up their own pieces of the pie, nor are they merging. They're banding together to make sure there's a future for the industry. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
J

jurgens

Guest
heh, I think northrop is a bit too big and important to the us military to be bought up by boeing or lockheed =)
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
For those like steve82 who seem to think that this is not going to work I have a couple of reminders:<br /><br />one: Lm and Boeing are already cooperating on the contract to service the space shuttle. Their joint venture is called United Space Alliance, and from what I here is working quite well for both companies and NASA. Perhaps some infromation from shuttle_guy could help out here.<br /><br />two: While Boeing lost the compitition to build the Airforce Fighter, the F22, Boeing builds a very large part of the F22. I don't know the exact percentages, but I do know it is substantial (perhaps someone does know the exact percentages, if so please come forward).<br /><br />So it is indeed to both the advantage of LM and Boeing to join together in strength rather than go down to financial ruin seperetly!!
 
S

steve82

Guest
"For those like steve82 who seem to think that this is not going to work "<br /><br />I didn't say it wasn't going to work, I was taking issue with the assertion that this will put their past disputes behind them.
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
Well, as is oft said, 'needs must when the devil drives.' <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>Their joint venture is called United Space Alliance, and from what I here is working quite well for both companies and NASA. Perhaps some infromation from shuttle_guy could help out here.</i><p>As shuttle_guy is always pointing out, it would work a <b>lot</b> better if they could just get NASA out of the way! Under the Space Flight Operations Contract (SFOC), USA is responsible for just about every aspect of the day-to-day running of the Shuttle program. They provide most of the crew training, flight controllers and engineering/techincal staff.<p>In most of those matters, NASA plays only an safety and mission assurance role which, as S_G has pointed out, in many cases only slows things down and adds another layer of paperwork, without significantly increasing safety or mission assuredness!</p></p>
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
I guess there is no way around that as long as the game is owned by NASA. And, some might suggest that USA could always have built its own 'private-enterprise' STS and demonstrated their streamlined operational solution to the world. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
N

najab

Guest
There was some talk of 'expanding' the SFOC to give primary control of the Shuttle to USA and make NASA their (only!) customer, but apparently nothing came of it.
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
Yes, I have no doubt that USA could do a much more efficient job if NASA wasn't looking over their shoulder 24/7, but there is probably something illogically 'reassuring' to many in knowing that Uncle Sam is ultimately in charge. Space is possibly still perceived by many as being something too dangerous to be farmed out to the private sector. In the same general category (for now) as the idea of contracting out the military. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
B

Blur

Guest
At about $1B per launch, the shuttle work certainly is working out well for Blo-mart.<br /><br />This is bad for the taxpayer. They just made a monopoly. Very underhanded.<br /><br />I think they're underestimating SpaceX though. This company has BIG plans, and will be a competitor to EELV before Blo-mart knows it. This is good, because they'll demonstrate these launches can be done for far cheaper. However, the standing army of workers Blo-mart keeps around is almost a strength politically, because congressmen like to keep the jobs around in their districts. I guess we'll see how it works out.
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>At about $1B per launch, the shuttle work certainly is working out well for Blo-mart. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Just to correct a few misconceptions:<br /><br />* The Lockheed-Boeing alliance has nothing to do with Shuttle. It exists purely to sell Deltas and Atlases on the global market, so it won't profit at all from Shuttle.<br /><br />* The Shuttle is not operated by Boeing. The total price tag (which is highly debatable; $1 billion is probably an inflated estimate) is not a fee earned by Boeing per launch. Boeing provides technical support and equipment, both of which are paid entirely separately. The money spent on a launch is distributed among all of the suppliers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
N

nacnud

Guest
Summed over the lifetime of the program a shuttle launch costs about $1.3B<br /><br />Note this is not the cost of an additional launch added to the program.<br />
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>Summed over the lifetime of the program a shuttle launch costs about $1.3B</i><p>That's <b>way</b> higher than any figure I've seen. Most run about $600-800M per launch. A quick-n-dirty estimate. I've seen the development cost quoted as about $15B, and each additional orbiter cost about $6B (OV-102 cost about $9B, OV-105 cost about $4B). So the development and construction costs averaged out over flights-to-date comes up to about $300M/flight.<p>Shuttle ops gets about $3B/year, the program has been active for 24 years so that's about $72B, divided into 112 flights gives us $640M/flight, add that to the figure above - that comes out to about $950M/flight <b>all</b> development and operation costs taken into account.</p></p>
 
N

nacnud

Guest
I think the figure includes the development costs and the costs involved to fix problems after Challenger and Columbia. It’s from a SDC article.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts