ULA Could Win Big from Obama’s NASA Policy, Others to Lose

At a recent Congressional hearing, United Launch Alliance offered its full support for President Obama’s plan to cancel the Constellation program and shift human spaceflight to commercially-available expendable boosters. ULA, which is a partnership of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, builds and launches the Atlas V and Delta IV rockets, both of which are candidates to launch human crews and cargo into orbit.

“The administration’s plan makes long-overdue investments in research, technology and upgrades to our launch ranges that are essential to ensuring the United States remains the world’s leader in space,” ULA CEO Michael Gass told Congress.

The endorsement highlights some of the major shifts that would take place under the President’s plan. ULA’s rockets are seen by supporters as flight proven boosters that are capable of handling the load and which could be modified to carry crews. By selecting either of these options, NASA would be capitalizing on billions of dollars spent by the Pentagon in uprating and operating these rockets for the launch of military satellites.

So far, ULA has been marketing Atlas Vs and Delta IVs to U.S. government customers. However, there is growing interest in these boosters outside of the military, not only from NASA but from private sector companies.

Bigelow Aerospace is keen on using the Atlas V to service its planned commercial space station, which the company plans to begin launching in 2014. Company officials say they believe the rocket can be easily “human rated” for crew missions. They say the main element they need to make their private station feasible is a crew vehicle, which they believe is a logical element for the government to fund.

In addition, Sierra Nevada Corporation wants to use the Atlas V to carry its Dream Chaser crew vehicle into orbit.This mini-space shuttle would carry six to eight astronauts on orbital flights.

NASA has set aside $6 billion over the next five years to fund commercial rocket development. It seems likely that NASA will award ULA part of the funding to human rate one of its boosters. The space agency would also likely to continue to provide funds for SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and/or Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Taurus II, which are currently being built to haul cargo to the International Space Station.

So, it’s easy to understand what NASA sees in this approach. The agency would be:

• eliminating a problem plagued, extremely expensive Ares program that it judges to be not executable;
• freeing itself from an equally unrealistic goal of retuning to the moon in ten years;
• making use of the enormous investment made by the U.S. military in expendable boosters;
• redefining the heavy-lift program outside of the complicated and expensive shuttle-derived Ares architecture;
• supporting the creation of a viable domestic commercial launch industry;
• creating redundant access to orbit by funding new rockets that it already plans to use for ISS cargo resupply;
• providing support to commercial companies like Bigelow, whose private space stations could revolutionize human utilization of space and spur on the creation of entirely new industries.

Beyond the perceived benefits lies a much starker reality: if you conclude that Constellation can’t be executed given the current budget realities, as the Obama Administration has done, then this is the ONLY path forward. There’s not enough money to start over again with a new rocket.

Not everyone agrees, of course.  For NASA employees and contractors working on Constellation in Alabama, Utah, Florida and other locales, all this is sheer madness that throws away years of efforts on a viable program for a pocket full of promises. There are no guarantees that they will find employment working on whatever NASA chooses as replacements for the Constellation elements. They are left with fear, anger, uncertainty and a deep sense of betrayal.

This is perfectly understandable. Anyone who has ever committed years of their professional lives to a big project that higher ups eventually decide is not viable has been through the same roller coaster of emotions. It an ugly experience – one that I know personally. I spent nearly five years working on an initiative that my employer spent billions on. In the end, the company just couldn’t compete with a rival that built a better mousetrap.

This happens every day in the private sector. In most cases, elected officials are not fighting to save the jobs. Astronauts don’t step forward to lend their support. Workers can’t organize rallies against their employers. Instead, decisions are made, jobs are cut, and desks emptied out. Just like that.

Here, the process is different but the results will be similarly painful if the policy is implemented. The question is whether, when the smoke clears, the U.S. will end up with a healthier and most profitable space program overall.  I believe it is likely.  Of course, that’s easy for me to say; in this case, I’m spared any direct consequences. But, it doesn’t mean I don’t understand what people are experiencing here.