Boeing-Lockheed Unholy Alliance in Trouble

[yurkin]

I’m not sure if this is good news or bad. But I do know that Lockheed’s rocket is the Atlas V not the Saturn V. Who do they have write this stuff.<br /><br />Boeing-Lockheed deal in trouble<br />Project combining space rocket businesses loses steam over waning government support, cost disputes.<br />September 13, 2005: 7:34 AM EDT <br />NEW YORK (Reuters) - A plan to combine the space rocket businesses of Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. has run into unexpected financial and political hurdles, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday. <br /><br />While both military suppliers say they remain committed to the proposed joint venture and continue to seek government approvals and push ahead with transition plans, new developments appear to have sapped momentum for the concept, the newspaper said, citing Pentagon and industry officials. <br /><br />Among the developments are wavering support from the Air Force and increasingly sharp disagreements about recouping certain development costs, the report said. <br /><br />"This is far from a done deal," the Journal quoted one person involved in the details as saying. The source predicted weeks of intense negotiations amid continuing uncertain support from high-ranking Pentagon officials. <br /><br />A Boeing (Research) spokesman told the newspaper "the process is progressing as we expected." A Lockheed (Research) spokesman said the government is conducting a thorough review by "asking good questions, and we are providing data to respond." <br /><br />The proposed venture is intended to help money-losing government-rocket operations by merging manufacturing and creating a joint team to blast future U.S. military, spy and civilian-research and exploration satellites into orbit. <br /><br />For government customers, the long-term goal is to reduce launch costs, though commercial launches aren't supposed to be affected. But even some a

 

[tomnackid]

You would think Reuters would have better fact checkers. Saturn V??? Maybe the writer was having a flashback to the 60s.<br /><br />I think the current "troubles" in the shuttle program and the controversy around the CEV, SDLVs, EELVs etc. has less to do with safety and more to do with power struggles within the "military industrial complex".

 

[crix]

I'll say! The trouble is that they've never been faced with competition like SpaceX plans to slap them with and their business model (business hardware, more importantly) is no where near competitive. They can't turn a profit if they cut their EELV costs by 5/6ths! They're screwed! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> This is so exciting!

 

[mikejz]

Well it depends on how Boeing and Lockmarts EELVs are costed out. They might be able to press their suppliers to cut costs a great deal, or they could remove the requirement that the their EELVs payback on their R&D. In addition, they could package the booster and payload.

 

[CalliArcale]

The Saturn V reference is hilarious. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> How more clueless can a reporter seem?<br /><br />The actual reference is, of course, not to a merger as it is to a planned consortium. Already, Lockheed is a member of International Launch Services, an international consortium which sells Atlas, Soyuz, and Proton launches. The corporations involved have never merged, but they do work together for mutual benefit.<br /><br />It could be argued that the Delta/Atlas consortium would produce a monopoly on the heavy-lift rockets in America, which would be against fair trade practises. However, occasionally monopolies such as this are permitted to form when it really is the best thing for the industry. After the telecommunications bubble burst, it may be that only one company can be supported, and two companies can only survive if they work together to consciously share the market. That's why they had to apply for permission to do this; it's not normally permissable.<br /><br />You are correct that this has little to do with safety; it's all about economics, and it's the same economics that apply in other markets. <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>

 

[j05h]

I think the Air Force is sick of dealing with Lockheed and Boeing on rocket launches. They are quietly funding (AFRL and DARPA) new rockets and companies. They need BoLoMart for now, but are creating a whole spectrum of newer, more agile space services.<br /><br />The current attempted consolidation is partly a function of the price of these vehicles - they are much more expensive than many communications companies are willing to spend. They say in article that consolidation won't affect commercial launch - it will stay expensive and they will continue to lose market share. <br /><br />When an American company can fly for $1500/lb (range, insurance included), they are going to put Boeing/Lockheed out of the spacelaunch biz. *COUGH* SpaceX *COUGH*<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[propforce]

I don't think the Air Force has any choice, if they want <i>any</i> assurred access to space at all. This is going to happen, amid a few bumps along the way.<br /><br />Both companies are pretty clear that, by forming a joint venture, saying to the Air Force "this is your baby now". Whether you want to feed this baby or kill it will be now up to you. Both have their 'commercial launch ventures' to rely on. If not, both are making plenty of money in other area that they frankly could care less about shutting down the production line. <br /><br />Note that neither mother Lockheed nor father Boeing started with the launch vehicle business, they inherited them as a part of acquisition. Both are airplane makers and that's what they know best. Space only makes sense if it's profitable. Launch vehicle is not profitable and will not for the forseeable future, actually a cash-drain by keeping this business. The bean-counters at the top did not come from there, don't understand it, and could care less if they shut them down.<br /><br />Compare SpaceX with Atlas and/or Delta is a joke. While I understand the community has a high hope that SpaceX will shatter the stereotypical launch industry's practice and pricing structure, you are comparing someone who's building a yugo with someone who builds formula-one race cars. Just look at the payload SpaceX gets from the Air Force, TacSat1 stands for "we couldn't care if it blow-up" payload, whereas both Lockheed and Boeing handles the high price NRO assets. SpaceX has a long way to go before they become a serious player. I place a more serious contender with Orbital Sciences and/or Northrop Grumman (eventhough they are not yet in the launch vechicle business). <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ldyaidan]

I wonder if this might have some bearing in SpaceX and their new heavy launch vehicle. Seems like they are in a good position to step in. Hope it works well for them<br /><br />Rae