Merge OrbitalATK and ULA rocket launch buinesses?

[fredinno]

Recently, Orbital ATK released plans that they were building a solid-fueled EELV class rocket (which would also replace Antares). Along with the Blue Origin Orbital rocket, Falcon 9/9H, and Vulcan, which are all in development, it seems that the US market is going to end up very crowded.

HOWEVER, OrbitalATK and ULA could merge their rocket launch businesses. The OrbitalATK launcher segment is not a large (or very profitable) segment of the company, and ULA can offer a full range of rocket capabilities, from 1T to 20-25T to LEO if a merger becomes a reality (ignoring the Pegasus, which is doomed and will likely die soon due to a high cost per kg.) The solid rockets can use the existing Atlas or Delta pads (OrbitalATK's current pads at Wallops are too small) and use existing H2 Lox and solid infrastructure from the nearby SLS/Shuttle SRB stacking facilities at the Cape. Also, a solid rocket is very fast in terms of how long it takes to develop compared to liquids due to simplicity along with a 6x lower development cost(http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/en/organisation/departments/space-engineering/space-systems-engineering/expertise-areas/space-propulsion/system-design/generate-candidates/comparison-of-rockets/); a fact essential to developing a sans RD-180 ULA primary rocket ASAP. Lastly, the use of mostly SRBs would allow for vertical integration, reducing costs further.

A solid rocket would likely prevent reuse, though, ULA is already skeptical of reuse.

 

This is a concept on what the OrbitalATK solid rocket would look like. Keep in mind the ICPS would use BE-3s (which is what OrbitalATK plans to use for the upper stage) and the SRBs are 1 and 2 segment Shuttle-derived SRBs (same diameter, preferably same length)

 

So should a merger be a good idea?

[Spaceception]

Just now, fredinno said:

Recently, Orbital ATK released plans that they were building a solid-fueled EELV class rocket (which would also replace Antares). Along with the Blue Origin Orbital rocket, Falcon 9/9H, and Vulcan, which are all in development, it seems that the US market is going to end up very crowded.

HOWEVER, OrbitalATK and ULA could merge their rocket launch businesses. The OrbitalATK launcher segment is not a large (or very profitable) segment of the company, and ULA can offer a full range of rocket capabilities, from 1T to 20-25T to LEO if a merger becomes a reality (ignoring the Pegasus, which is doomed and will likely die soon due to a high cost per kg.) The solid rockets can use the existing Atlas or Delta pads (OrbitalATK's current pads at Wallops are too small) and use existing H2 Lox and solid infrastructure from the nearby SLS/Shuttle SRB stacking facilities at the Cape. Also, a solid rocket is very fast in terms of how long it takes to develop compared to liquids due to simplicity along with a 6x lower development cost(http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/en/organisation/departments/space-engineering/space-systems-engineering/expertise-areas/space-propulsion/system-design/generate-candidates/comparison-of-rockets/); a fact essential to developing a sans RD-180 ULA primary rocket ASAP. Lastly, the use of mostly SRBs would allow for vertical integration, reducing costs further.

A solid rocket would likely prevent reuse, though, ULA is already skeptical of reuse.

 

This is a concept on what the OrbitalATK solid rocket would look like. Keep in mind the ICPS would use BE-3s (which is what OrbitalATK plans to use for the upper stage) and the SRBs are 1 and 2 segment Shuttle-derived SRBs (same diameter, preferably same length)

 

So should a merger be a good idea?

Yes, It'd be interesting to see what they could do together.

[fredinno]

bump. nobody?

[Spaceception]

Just now, fredinno said:

bump. nobody?

You shouldn't bump posts, I got a warning because of it.

[Steel]

Considering Orbital and ATK only just merged, I'm not sure another merger is on the board's minds.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Steel

[Mazon Del]

Additionally ULA's existed is predicated upon the continuance of the Pentagon's support for a debatably legal partnership. In fact in the last several months there has been some quiet mumbling from the Pentagon that they may make a move to rescind their support for allowing that partnership to continue. Musk is showing how cheap rockets and rocket programs CAN be, and now that there IS competition going on the two prime justifications for allowing the ULA partnership to continue are pretty much gone. At this point they likely will be better served in the long run forcing ULA to break up into its two parent companies to enforce competition. Worst case if both just fold their space-launch businesses, they still have spaceX, Orbital-ATK, and technically Blue Origin. That's two and a half options where for decades they only had one. They would still be better off than they were and chances are high that if the two DID fold their operations, the other three would gobble up a fair share of the resources (intellectual and material), so it still isn't a terribly great loss.

[fredinno]

2 minutes ago, Mazon Del said:

Additionally ULA's existed is predicated upon the continuance of the Pentagon's support for a debatably legal partnership. In fact in the last several months there has been some quiet mumbling from the Pentagon that they may make a move to rescind their support for allowing that partnership to continue. Musk is showing how cheap rockets and rocket programs CAN be, and now that there IS competition going on the two prime justifications for allowing the ULA partnership to continue are pretty much gone. At this point they likely will be better served in the long run forcing ULA to break up into its two parent companies to enforce competition. Worst case if both just fold their space-launch businesses, they still have spaceX, Orbital-ATK, and technically Blue Origin. That's two and a half options where for decades they only had one. They would still be better off than they were and chances are high that if the two DID fold their operations, the other three would gobble up a fair share of the resources (intellectual and material), so it still isn't a terribly great loss.

Only problem is that Delta is basically insolvent, so Boeing will get a useless half. Keep it in ULA, makes things simpler. Also, splitting ULA would create even more competition and give Atlas/Delta a even worse disadvantage.

[Bill Phil]

ULA, afaik, isn't its own independent entity, only created to solve the corporate espionage between Lockheed and Boeing, which was getting extreme. Its actions are likely determined, or at least approved, by their founding companies.

Also, Orbital and ULA are competing for government contracts. But Orbital has only recently entered the large rocket market.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

ULA, afaik, isn't its own independent entity, only created to solve the corporate espionage between Lockheed and Boeing, which was getting extreme. Its actions are likely determined, or at least approved, by their founding companies.

Also, Orbital and ULA are competing for government contracts. But Orbital has only recently entered the large rocket market.

They are also competing against SpaceX. Orbital has proposed the solid rocket for ULA Vulcan before: