SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - Inmarsat 5 F4 - LC-39A

[Brovane]

Its both what you claim and a subsidy. If they don't launch they still get US$ 1 billion / yr money. Perfect solution for ULA to avoid becoming commercially competitive.
Bottom line its a subsidy.

Don't take Senator McCain's comments about ELC at face value. ELC isn't just about launch services and the bottom line it isn't a subsidy.

For example, ELC pays for a full system rehearsal of the launch 1-year in advance. Something commercial operators don't care about but the USAF does. ELC also pays for if satellites arrive out of order. For example, the USAF might tell ULA we intend to fly 8 times this year and here is our best guess as to when the satellites will be ready. However, if this is wrong you handle it and make it happen at no additional cost. So this accommodates the shuffling around of satellites based on National Security needs and when the build is finished. ULA has two contracts, one builds the rockets and one flys the rockets and ELC flies the rocket. Without ELC the rockets would never get transported from Decatur to the launch facility.

The reason the production and launch costs are separated out like this is because this is what the USAF choose to do. By doing this the costs of space launch are best managed.

ULA has been required to keep in production two separate production lines of LV's to maintain assured access to space. They are also required to maintain a total of four separate launch facilities for these separate LV's. Something in a purely competitive rational market wouldn't happen.

The market is changing and now becoming competitive with a second launch provider. However previous contract decisions made before the market became competitive have to be viewed based on what the market was structured when the decision was made. Yes, ULA wants to become commercially competitive and is making the adjustments to become commercially competitive.

 

[macpacheco]

Don't take Senator McCain's comments about ELC at face value. ELC isn't just about launch services and the bottom line it isn't a subsidy.

This ignores the fact that Boeing and LockMart advertised ULA as a way to reduce costs, but costs just went up and up and up, cause they never quite managed to be successful commercially.
The number of logical arguments of ULA choosing to do things the expensive way for this or that reason piles up, but doesn't change the fact that its rockets are so darn expensive.
A lot of ULA's arguments only made sense cause the USG had no other alternative.
Plus we cannot ignore the hard fact that ULA has an army of lobbyists which make its relationship with USAF and US Congress quite questionable. I apologize for being blunt, but you cannot convince me otherwise.
I insist on my view that we can both be correct at the same time. It is a subsidy and also something else.