Talk:United Launch Alliance

Notes

Bigtop 23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ula logo.gif

Image:Ula logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Section Suggested for deletion

"Boeing is seeking a contract to produce launch vehicles for NASA's Ares I program that will be built to replace the aging shuttle program. The launching systems would be based on the Delta IV Rocket's cryogenic launch system.[3]" It was true that Boeing was seeking this contract. However, The contracts to design and build the ARES I rocket have already been let. The upper stage will be designed and built by Lockheed martin and the lower stage will be built by ATK Thikol. The statement is outdated and no longer relavent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poorpoorbuddy (talk • contribs) 19:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yea, that should be removed. But your comment on the upper stage in not correct. NASA is designing the Ares I upper stage and Boeing won the contract to build it last fall. The use of the RS-68 was really supposed to be for the larger Ares IV anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Scheduled Launches

The scheduled launch dates are completely wrong. According to the Kennedy Space Center website, nothing is planned to be launched until October. I have updated the dates according to the KSC website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.159.202.121 (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Page is out of date

I tagged the page for update. Lots of the info looks like it was from press releases when the company was created 3-4 years ago with little/no update since.

A quick search turned up articles about ULA layoffs in 2008/2009 and a plan to potentially consolidate all 1700 of ULA's Denver-area employees into a single location (also, is a source for Denver being the largest concentration of ULA employees at any geographical locality). I'm sure there are many other general news articles that could update the facts in this article. N2e (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done — finally got back to this article and fixed this, using those two articles from 2008-2009, in 2014. Many other updates to the ULA article since 2009 have made the article much closer to a decent summary of the ULA company now. N2e (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

ULA Consent Decree?

ULA is now operating under a rather stringent consent decree to do with its merger, as it was found to be in violation of the Shaw Act. ULA Consent Decree can we get some work done including this and its implications on ULA and its competition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.151.21 (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article is mentioned that Lockheed had a lawsuit against Boeing for illegal industrial espionage wherein Boeing had placed bids for launch services knowing what Lockheed was bidding. Boeing would most surely have lost that suit and would have been ineligible to bid for government contracts for a number of years. (See http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2002146025_boeinglockheed09.html.) The merger allowed the gov. to use both Delta and Atlas designs, whereas without it they would only have the Atlas to launch. In other words, might as well allow the merger (really Lockheed controls it), they would end up with only one provider in either case. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, even now in 2020, that is a bit oddly under explicated. Given the large amount of controversy between Boeing and Lockheed Martin in the years leading up to the gvmt actions that ultimately precipitated the formation of ULA, it seems odd that this article on ULA would have only this little bit ("...turmoil culminated in civil and criminal fraud accusations brought against Boeing relating to the improper use of competitors information.") on the matter in the entire article. N2e (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Cost Controversy - Stray Sentence?

The relevance of the sentence "ULA is scheduled to complete 15 NROL launches in 2014" to the rest of the cost discussion isn't very clear. Chinggisk (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Need a page for the vulcan rocket

ULA is making a new rocket and has released basic details, someone make a page. --BerserkerBen (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC) http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/14/ula-chief-explains-reusability-and-innovation-of-new-rocket/

Industrial espionage

The section claims "To end litigation, both companies agreed to join forces". The only reference backing this claim is from SpaceX, a major competitor. This needs a more independent source. Oefe (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I read that it was to remain competitive in the changing market. I agree that "espionage" seems like a strong POV that needs better a reference. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, more sources are needed, but that industrial espionage, lawsuits, court cases, and US gvmt (courts and USAF) intervention to get the (so-called) "national security space launch" gvmt procurement process and launches going once again was a big event in circa 2000-2005 US space launch. I recall it at the time, and I've certainly read about it in sources that are suitable for Wikipedia. The history of what led to the formation of ULA seems worthy of being explicated in this article.

As is stands now, in 2020, just a single sentence hints at any of it: "turmoil culminated in civil and criminal fraud accusations brought against Boeing relating to the improper use of competitors information." There's definitely a bit more that could be profitably be included here to improve the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

As of July 2020, any mention of Boeing's well-documented industrial espionage has been memory-holed. Ironically, a Google search for "boeing eelv industrial espionage ula" lists this article as a result. Eggsaladsandwich (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Launch Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217191851/http://www.nro.gov/news/press/2007/2007-02.pdf to http://www.nro.gov/news/press/2007/2007-02.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page for Tory Bruno

I'm on ULA's PR team and will be working on a page for CEO Tory Bruno this week. If there's specific information you'd be looking for, please let me know...or I'll look for your edits after the page goes up.

I'm new to creating pages, so any pointers you have would be great.

ULA christa (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Before proceeding, please read this policy and this guideline; based on what you've said, they're highly relevant to your situation, and they're extremely important. General questions about editing can be asked at the help desk or the Teahouse. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Rivertorch.ULA christa (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@ULA christa:As I am sure you saw, your draft was rejected because there were no citations. If you need any help formatting citations or anything like that, let me know. Kees08 (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kees08: Thank you. Sorry it's taken a bit to respond. It would be great to have your help with the citations.ULA christa (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@ULA christa: Do you have any sources that you specifically used? If you give me a couple of links, I can add them to the draft and you can see generally how to do it. Depending on how much time I have available, I may be able to help more, but I can at least do that. Kees08(Talk) 04:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kees08: Thank you! I've been traveling and on vacation so it's taken me a while to get back with you. A few sources -- I know it's not idea to cite our press releases or docs on our website, but the ones I've noted are his official bio and the official release that Tory took over as CEO.

* http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-names-tory-bruno-president-and-chief.aspx

* http://www.adweek.com/digital/meet-most-interesting-space-ceo-youre-not-following-twitter-162453/

* https://engineering.calpoly.edu/static/media/uploads/newsletters/pdf/EA_4.0.pdf

* http://spacenews.com/41901ula-to-invest-in-blue-origin-engine-as-rd-180-replacement/

* http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/print-edition/2015/09/25/tory-bruno-s-first-year-at-ula-full-of-noteworthy.html

* http://www.ulalaunch.com/about_Bios_SBruno.aspx

Thank you again for any help you can provide. Between changing citation formatting and cutting down the article, I think we'll get there. ULA christa (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Pricing in Controversy Section - Update Request

The Ars Technica article reference in the pricing section portrays ULA's costs as far higher than they really are. The US Air Force budget figures should not be interpreted as ULA costs. Additionally, the article neglects to note that the same page of the budget document states that actual FY17 per-launch cost averages $148 million, far lower than the cost cited. (See page 109 of this - also linked in the article as the source).

Also - note that the Air Force recently awarded ULA a contract for the STP-3 mission -- for $191 million

Would another editor consider updating that section to reflect the above new information? As a paid contributor, I understand why my editing that section would seem controversial. However, it also includes incomplete information. ULA christa (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for bringing it up this way. I completely agree, that is an incredibly misleading section of the article, and heavily biased. I am going to remove it from the controversy section. I understand that the launch vehicle price is heavily dependent on many factors, and it can be easy to misinterpret or misrepresent. Let me know if you had something else in mind, but I would think the cost per vehicle would go into the vehicles page, or something similar. Thanks again for bringing this up through the proper channels. If this deletion creates controversy, I will handle it, although I doubt it will. Kees08 (Talk) 03:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!ULA christa (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I've undone what I thought was apparent vandalism of this article regarding this. The information is well cited, but may be somewhat biased and needs rewording. The information should be kept and re-worded. Additionally taking removal suggestions from company employees is Conflict of interest. WP:CONFLICT Ergzay (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest would be if the employee removed it themselves, or if they paid me to remove it. One citation also does not make it well cited, it just makes it cited. It is from a misleading analysis that one technology website published. It was also clearly not vandalism, the edit summary said to check the talk page for the discussion. If we are keeping in this analysis from a single tech website, I will work on adding the information that shows it is misleading. Kees08 (Talk) 19:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Timescales to retire Atlas and Delta, and migrate to Vulcan

Now the Delta launch list gives final retirement dates for the various configurations could we summarise under Launch vehicles and also say when first commercial flights of Vulcan expected ? eg "Delta II - final flight due Sept 2018, Delta IV (medium) - final flights 2019, Delta IV Heavy - due to retire 2023" - Rod57 (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Rod57, in general, anything we have a reliable source for can be added, if cited. We just have to be careful to not claim more than the source says. So, possibly, "As of May 2018, the final flight of the Delta II is anticipated in September 2018..." just to qualify what we know for sure, and what we don't. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Article Improvements

Hello! I've dropped into the talk here and there with some questions and suggested edits. I've been taking a look at the page and would like to help the community plug in some holes with this article. I'm still a member of ULA's communications team and have a WP:Conflict of Interest, so I won't be editing the article directly. I'll post suggested changes and sources for the community to consider. If you have questions, please let me know, and I'll do the same. I'll be back to suggest some article improvements soon, and look forward to working with Wikipedia editors again. Thank you. ULA christa (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Launch Vehicles Section - Update Request

Currently, the article's Launch vehicles section has a bulleted list followed by a subsection with some unsourced content and a generally poor quality overview of the ULA's vehicles. I'm requesting replacement of the section's content with the following, which converts the bullets into prose and actually gives historical context around the company's launch vehicles, such as development history and years of operation:

ULA operates the Atlas V, Delta IV, and Delta IV Heavy launch vehicles. Since ULA has been operating these three vehicles, all three have launched with a 100 percent success rate. The company has been launching the Atlas V and Delta IV rockets since 2006. The Atlas V and Delta IV were developed by Lockheed Martin and Boeing, respectively, as part of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program and first launched in 2002, while the Delta II was previously built and launched by Boeing. The Delta II rocket launched its final mission in 2018, and ULA plans to phase out the single-stick variant of the Delta IV rocket during the late 2010s. Delta IV Heavy rockets will continue to be utilized to meet customer heavy launch demand.

In 2014, ULA began development of the Vulcan Centaur launch vehicle, which is designed to meet medium and heavy lift requirements and will replace the Atlas V and Delta IV rockets. Development of Vulcan began in an effort to lower costs and end reliance on Russian-made RD-180s. The Vulcan's inaugural flight is scheduled for mid 2020. ULA will utilize the RL10 to power the upper stage and a pair of BE-4 engines for its main stage.

Would an editor be able to review the proposed changes and update the article? I believe the content is accurate and neutral, and offers readers a better summary of ULA's vehicles than the current version. I also believe the sources are appropriate for Wikipedia. As a paid contributor (I'm a ULA employee), I'll remain hands off and welcome any questions or pointers on how to improve this request. Thank you. ULA christa (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@ULA christa: Definitely agree the Launch vehicles section needs additional content. Overall this version seems like a significant improvement. I'm a bit hesitant on the 100 percent success rate claim; the Atlas V anomaly in 2007 is considered a partial failure on Wikipedia (even though customer declared success), so I'm curious about other thoughts there. Otherwise, it looks neutral and well-sourced. Thanks, Appable (talk | contribs) 21:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Appable: Thank you for the review and feedback. Would the editors be more comfortable phrasing that as "Since ULA has been operating these three vehicles, customers have declared every mission a success."? ULA christa (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Appable: No other editors have responded here, but since you called the suggested wording a "significant improvement", are you willing to update the article? I will post a note at WikiProject Spaceflight, too, in case other enthusiasts want to participate in these update requests. ULA christa (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@ULA christa: First of all, I want to say a sincere thank you for properly addressing you COI. It's so rare and so wonderful to see. I have substituted your rewritten section, leaving in the bit on ACES from the old section. I removed the line about 100% success rate, as it seems promotional and I am hesitant to add it unilaterally, especially given its source. I do agree that the success rate should be somewhere in the article, perhaps in that section, I just want to discuss it further and get more input first. This is territory you have to tread carefully in. Thanks again. A2soup (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@ULA christa: Sorry to ping you again. I have an idea for the 100% success statistic. How about leading off the Launches section with: "Since its formation, ULA has conducted X successful launches with 1 partial failure (see below), which the customer categorized as a success." Does that sound good? A2soup (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@A2soup: (and ULA christa): Sorry for being away. I think A2soup's wording is fairly neutral. I wonder about something like "ULA has conducted X successful launches with one partial �success (see below)." I'm typically hesitant to use "partial success", but it prevents the slightly awkward qualifier "which the customer categorized as a success" and clarifies that the mission was anomalous but didn't lose any customer payloads. Appable (talk | contribs) 02:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@A2soup and Appable: Thank you both for replying. My goal here is not to say that every single ULA mission has been flawless from start to finish, but from a customer perspective, we have a 100% success rate. I'd like to note User:Rowan Forest's comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight#Update_Request_for_United_Launch_Alliance_article, where they seem to agree with this claim and provided sources for further review. I should also note, I'm not attempting to remove details about specific launch problems. This information is found in the current "Launches" section, I'm just trying to add a more general statement about the operational success of the mentioned vehicles. Given Rowan's comment (I've invited them to contribute here) and the secondary coverage provided, does the claim "Since ULA has been operating these three vehicles, all three have launched with a 100 percent success rate" seem ok to add? ULA christa (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the disclosure, ULA christa; you will find that you'll have support with this approach. The updates look good. Now, regarding the 100% reliance, it is true (and remarkable when compared with every other rocket company) and I think it should be stated in the article. Since it is remarkable, I think you should be able to find another reliable reference, other than Defense News -that only quotes an ULA statement. A quick Google search shows: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that there should be a "100%" figure included anywhere, and certainly not unless it directly follows the something like what me and Appable suggested above. As I see it, we should evaluate how we describe the launch history with two questions: What are we describing the history of? and How clear is our description to the reader? The answer to the first question is that we are describing launch vehicle performance. The section is called "Launches" or "Launch vehicles" (depending on where you want to put the statement), not "Customer satisfaction". In terms of launch vehicle performance, one of the launches was off-nominal while still orbiting the payload. Across Wikipedia (following the industry I think), this is described as a "partial failure" and differentiated from a clear success. This brings us to our second question. In my opinion, due to how launches are tallied on all pages across Wikipedia (including at Atlas V), readers here expect "success rate" to account for partial failures, so to report it exactly as ULA christa suggests ("100 percent success rate") would be misleading to them. A2soup (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Facilities - Update Request

Thanks to editors who helped with updating the section about launch vehicles. I'd like to propose a better and more up to date "Facilities" section, and I've suggested specific text below for editors to review. The text includes additional detail about the launch complexes (including which vehicles have been used at different sites and when), and has some updates such as the opening of the test center in Pueblo, Colorado. Currently, the article has a single "Facilities" section, but I suggest splitting this up into 2 subsections for "Headquarters and manufacturing" and "Launch facilities". I've also included an image.

Headquarters and manufacturing

For the "Headquarters and manufacturing" subsection, I suggest the following text:

ULA is headquartered in Centennial, Colorado, with program management, rocket design and engineering centers, test and mission support functions. ULA's largest factory is 1.6 million square feet and located in in Decatur, Alabama. Decatur is very close to Huntsville, which is known as "Rocket City" because of its proximity to Redstone Arsenal, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and many aerospace companies. A factory in Harlingen, Texas, fabricates and assembles components for the Atlas V rocket. In 2015, the company announced the opening of an engineering and propulsion test center in Pueblo, Colorado.

References

Launch facilities

For the "Launch facilities" subsection, I suggest the following text:

CEO Tory Bruno (left), Robert M. Lightfoot Jr., Acting Administrator of NASA (middle), and Mike Pence, Vice President of the United States (right), touring ULA's Horizontal Integration Facility at Florida's Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in February 2018

The company operates orbital launch sites at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Cape Canaveral, Florida, and Vandenberg Air Force Base near Lompoc, California. In Florida, ULA has used Launch Complex 41 for Atlas V launches since its maiden flight in August 2002, and Launch Complex 37 for Delta IV launches since the rocket's maiden flight in November 2002. The company has three launch pads at Vandenberg, as of April 2017. These include Launch Complex 2 for Delta II launches, Launch Complex 3 for Atlas launches, and Launch Complex 6 for Delta IV and Delta IV Heavy launches.

Launches from Cape Canaveral typically head east so satellites can get extra momentum from the rotation of the Earth as they head to other planets or an orbit over the equator. Vandenberg Air Force Base is the primary U.S. launch site to send satellites into polar orbits. Commercial and military spacecraft like imaging and weather satellites need to launch southward on a path to reach such an orbit to cover the entire globe from pole-to-pole. However, ULA's Atlas V rocket launched NASA's InSight mission to Mars from the West Coast in 2018, the first interplanetary mission ever to do so.

ULA has announced plans to reduce the number of launch pads in use from five in 2015 to only two by the early 2020s, as part of the company's transition from the Atlas V and Delta IV launch vehicles to the Vulcan Centaur.

References

Discussion

Can an editor please review the proposed changes and update the article? This content is accurate and neutral, and offers readers a better summary of ULA's facilities than the current version. I believe the sources are appropriate for Wikipedia. Thank you. ULA christa (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@A2soup: Since you updated the article last time, I was wondering, do you have any thoughts on the above updates? ULA christa (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest trimming some of the text. Things like why Vandenberg is used for polar launches are generic and I'd rather have articles focus on what is specific to the subject (ULA). But I'm also curious about Launch Complex 2 at Vandenberg. Your text says it's used for the Delta II, but the Delta II was retired last September. Should that be reworded, or something about future plans added? Fcrary (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the article. I hope to return with some suggestions for the "History" section soon. ULA christa (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

History - Update Request

Hello, I'm back to propose changes to the History section for editors to consider. The current version has some content with no sources, several facts more suitable for (or already covered in) other sections, and some text out of chronological order. I've reviewed the current sourcing and text, and re-written an overview of the company's history. I've tried to cover many of the same topics, even those critical of ULA, and added a few updates. I also removed the two subsection titles because most of the text is not about the company's formation or restructure.

On the topic of critical content, I've proposed moving content in the Controversy section into the History, eliminating the separate section. I take issue with some of the content in the Controversy section, and may submit requests to change select text at a later date, but for now I'm only trying to remove the separate section per Wikipedia:Criticism#"Controversy"_section. Those four paragraphs are colored red below for easy identification. I've not proposed any changes to this text at this time.

Additionally, I see many corporate articles have an overview or 'Corporate affairs' section briefly describing the company's services, headquarters location, number of employees, and executive leadership. The ULA article does not have one, so I've suggested one below for review as well.

I'm still a member of ULA's communications team and have a WP:Conflict of Interest, so I won't be editing the article directly. But I hope editors will see the suggestions below as improvements.

Corporate affairs

ULA is a private aerospace engineering company and launch service provider, established as a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin in 2006. The company is based in Centennial, Colorado. ULA had nearly 2,500 employees overall, as of mid 2018. Tory Bruno serves as president and chief executive officer. John Elbon has held the chief operating officer role since April 2018.

History

Following clearance from the Federal Trade Commission in October 2006, ULA began operating on December 1, 2006, as a 50/50 joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The company consolidated engineering and production facilities to locations in Decatur, Alabama, Harlingen, Texas, and Littleton, Colorado. ULA successfully completed its first launch on December 14, 2006.

ULA held a monopoly on military rocket launches in the United States until the company faced competition from SpaceX. With the introduction of competition from lower-cost launch providers and the increasing costs of ULA launches year-over-year, increased attention has been paid to the amounts ULA has received for US government launch contracts, and for its annual government funding of $1 billion for launch capability and readiness. In particular, an uncontested US Air Force block-buy of 36 rocket cores for up to 28 launches, valued at $11 billion, awarded in Dec 2013, drew protest from competitor SpaceX. SpaceX has claimed the cost of ULA's launches are approximately $460 million each, and has proposed a price of $90 million to provide similar launches. In response, former ULA CEO Michael Gass claimed an average launch price of $225 million, with future launches as low as $100 million.

Tory Bruno became president and CEO in August 2014, replacing Gass, who had served in the same role since the company's inception. ULA's corporate restructure in 2014 has been attributed to competition with SpaceX. In 2015, ULA partnered with Blue Origin to develop an American-produced engine to replace the Atlas V's RD-180 engine, designed and manufactured in Russia. Congress passed legislation phasing out the ability to contract for use of the engine for national security purposes, effective December 31, 2022. Aerojet Rocketdyne made a $2 billion bid to acquire ULA in 2015.

ULA released contract values to the public and CEO Tory Bruno testified before Congress in March 2015 that whilst ULA receives government subsidies "to conduct national security launches" the same is true of SpaceX who receive funding "to develop new capabilities and the use of low- or no-cost leases of previously developed launch infrastructure".

A political controversy arose in March 2016 following public remarks by ULA VP of Engineering, Brett Tobey, that included comments that were "resentful of SpaceX" and dismissive of one of the two competitors (Aerojet Rocketdyne) for the new engine that will power the Vulcan launch vehicle currently under development. Tobey resigned on March 16, while ULA CEO Tory Bruno disavowed the remarks. Senator John McCain asked the Defense Department to investigate the comments that implied the DoD may have shown "favoritism to a major defense contractor or that efforts have been made to silence members of Congress" and the Secretary of Defense has requested the Inspector General to open an investigation of the controversy.

The company launched a website for constructing custom rockets in late 2016, called RocketBuilder. In April 2017, Bruno confirmed plans to layoff 875 employees by the end of 2017, and to eliminate the Delta IV line of rockets, which were deemed unnecessary for meeting the United States Air Force's mandate for two separate spaceflight systems following certification of SpaceX's Falcon program.

In June 2017 Ars Technica analyzed a US Air Force budget and concluded that if ULA would be selected for all the Air Force launches in year 2020 and 2021, the cost per launch would be on the order of $420 million. ULA's CEO Tory Bruno described the analysis as "misleading"; in July the company was awarded $191 million single-launch contract to launch the STP-3 mission aboard the heavy-lift Atlas V 551.

On May 6, 2018, approximately 600 employees affiliated with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union went on strike after rejecting ULA's proposed three-year contract. Picket lines were formed in Alabama, California, and Florida, but all facilities and missions remained operational. ULA and union members reached an agreement on May 19, and employees returned to work on May 21.

In May 2018, ULA and Aerojet Rocketdyne announced an agreement to co-develop a cryogenic rocket engine, called RL10C-X, to replace the latter company's RL10 for the Vulcan Centaur upper stage. Deals of the ten-year agreement were not disclosed, but 3D printing will be used to reduce manufacturing costs. ULA had worked with XCOR Aerospace on an engine for Vulcan's upper stage, until the latter company went bankrupt in November 2017. Aerojet Rocketdyne's AR1 and Blue Origin's BE-4 competed to power the Vulcan's first stage. In September 2018, ULA announced its selection of BE-4 engines to power the rocket's first stage.

In October 2018, the U.S. Air Force announced ULA as a winner of the Launch Service Agreement (LSA) contract for $976 million to build the Vulcan-Centaur launch system, following Congress' mandate to eliminate Atlas V's reliance on RD-180 engines and the retirement of Delta IV.

References

Discussion

Can editors please review the proposed changes and update the article? This content gives readers a better summary of ULA's history than the current version. I believe the sources are appropriate for Wikipedia. @Rowan Forest: In February, you updated the article based on a previous request so I'm hoping you might be able to take a look at this request too. @N2e, Appable, A2soup, Cincotta1, and Fcrary: I am putting this request on your radar as well since you've made recent edits to the article. Thank you again. ULA christa (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

History - Request

Hello again. I see this article underwent some major changes recently, which may make most of my last request moot at this point. It appears much of the content has been moved to different or new section headings. Currently, the "History" section has a subsection called "US government launch controversy". I have two concerns about this section: 1) the title is misleading and not neutral because the content is not about a controversy, and 2) the content is not in chronological order relative to the rest of the "History" section. Also, aren't these claims being given too much weight relative to the company's overall history by having their own header? Will editors consider removing this section title and moving the text into existing "History" sections? Thank you. ULA christa (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making these changes to the article. ULA christa (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Launches

Hello, Christa here again on behalf of ULA. I'm not exactly sure how or why only 6 specific launches are mentioned in the "Launches" section, but ULA has completed more than 130 launches. I noticed there are links to Atlas_V#Atlas_V_launches, Delta_IV#Delta_IV_launches, and Delta_II#Delta_II_launches, but there's not a list of launches specific to ULA. I've created a table of launches here, and I wonder if editors would be willing to add this to the page. The table has a list of launch dates and names, with official confirmations by ULA. I realize the ULA website may not be an ideal source, and invite editors to replace with secondary coverage as needed or make the table more Wikipedia-compliant, but I hope this is a good start.

Will editors take a look at the table and consider adding? I'm hoping for feedback from those who have weighed in above as well as User:5Ept5xW, who I've noticed has made updates this article and many others recently. Thank you! ULA christa (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. Only having six launches in the ULA article is a wording thing. In other articles, it would probably be titled "Notable Launches" or something similar. Changing the section title is (I think) so uncontroversial I'll just do it now. Then we can talk about which additional launches were "notable".

But it looks like we've already got redundant lists of launches (e.g. for Atlas, for Atlas V, etc.) I'm not enthusiastic about adding another list. What about adding a column (launch service provider) to the existing tables? Fcrary (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Fcrary in that duplication is not useful. Adding a column for the launch provider might do. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with Fcrary. Also in general we don't list by launch provider, we list by rocket. For example, SpaceX's Falcon 9 missions are listed under List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, likewise for Rocket Lab the Electron's launches are listed under List of Electron rocket launches. Also we at times when the number of missions are smaller, we may just list the launches on the rocket's Wikipedia page. The only place where I can find rocket launches listed only by the launch provider is Blue Origin. For the examples mentioned, its pretty obvious that all Falcon 9s are launched by SpaceX. However, we have a special situation with ULA in that as you know early launches of the Atlas/Delta were by the [Air Force Space Command? or at least not ULA], but then since 2006ish the launch provider of the Atlas/Delta changed to ULA. Therefore I agree that we might want to make it more obvious that the launch provider changed, possibly by Fcrary's method. I also want to mention there is a "similar" situation with Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, but I feel its different in by the name/launch provider changes were simply because of the buying and really were just renaming of the company, they really were not radically different launch providers. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 21:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fcrary, Rowan Forest, and OkayKenji: Thanks for your feedback here and over at WikiProject Spaceflight. I think adding a column for launch providers to existing tables is a great idea, and I'd appreciate if editors would make these updates on my behalf since I cannot. I'll give some thought to how the "Notable Launches" section can be updated because right now the section is severely underdeveloped and does not fully represent ULA's notable launch activities. I'll be back with some proposed updates soon. Thanks! ULA christa (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Request to add mention of Spaceflight Processing Operations Center (SPOC)

Hello! I'm Megan, a member of ULA's communications team. I'm taking over responsibilities as the company's Wikipedia representative, following User:ULA christa. I look forward to working with editors to suggest updates to Wikipedia articles related to ULA.

Over at Talk:Vulcan_(rocket)#Update_Request_-_Ceremony,_SMARF_to_SPOC, I submitted a request to update wording based on ULA's renaming of the Solid Motor Assembly and Readiness Facility (SMARF), which harkens back to the Titan IV days, to SPOC – Spaceflight Processing Operations Center. The edit request has been answered, but I'm also wondering if this article's Activities section (where other facilities are mentioned) should be updated as well.

I provided this source for the Vulcan request, but I understand editors may prefer to use a non-ULA source. Will editors consider updating this page to add mention of the Spaceflight Processing Operations Center (SPOC)? Thanks in advance. ULA Megan (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@A2soup and Fcrary: I'm hoping to get some feedback on this request. Since you weighed in on the Facilities discussion above, would you be willing to share your thoughts or update the article on my behalf? Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@ULA Megan: Hi Megan, I hadn't seen this request but I will take a look at it after work today. I really do appreciate that you are following Christa's lead of being a model COI editor. Thank you for your patience :) A2soup (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@A2soup: Thanks for offering to review. I'm also hoping you or other editors are willing to move the template I've proposed below into the main space, which OkayKenji seems to have endorsed. ULA Megan (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Weak Oppose I personally don't think its notable enough to be included here. Its to "construct the Vulcan MLP and also serve as a storage location for either the Atlas V or Vulcan platform" (ULA) So its no quite a launch facility or manufacturing center. Maybe perhaps it could go under manufacturing. But if another editor has a good reason to support, I could change my opinion. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 22:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Done --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 04:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Soumya-8974: Thanks for your help. I've verified the accuracy of your update. The only thing I'd possibly suggest adding is, "Rail tracks connect SPOC to the Vertical Integration Facility and SLC-41 pad for Vulcan ops." This is not essential, but might help readers understand how everything's connected. Here's a ULA source confirming the rail tracks, but I understand you may prefer to use non-ULA sourcing. ULA Megan (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Navigation template

Hi again! Right now this article has templates for Boeing and Lockheed Martin at the bottom of the page, but not one for ULA. I've collected articles in Category:United Launch Alliance and saved a template here for editors to review: User:ULA Megan/Navigation template.

Will editors take a look at the template and consider moving to Template:United Launch Alliance? Furthermore, would editors please help by adding this template to the various pages within the template? My goal is to facilitate easier navigation between related pages, but I hesitate making these changes myself because of my conflict of interest. I'd appreciate any assistance and/or feedback. Thank you! ULA Megan (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@ULA Megan:, looks good. Maybe we can add "In development" section too. (I already did) OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 22:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Done with some modifications. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Soumya-8974: Thanks for your help! The request above has gone unreviewed, if you're interested. ULA Megan (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

First National Security Space mission for the U.S. Space Force

Hello again! I'd like to propose the following addition to the article's "Notable launches" section:

• On March 26, 2020, ULA's Atlas V rocket launched the first National Security Space mission for the U.S. Space Force, Advanced Extremely High Frequency-6 (AEHF-6).

References

There are other sources as well, but I assumed these would work for editors. Thanks in advance! ULA Megan (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Congrats on mission success!  Done OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 18:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@OkayKenji: Thank you for updating the page! Do you have any thoughts on the SPOC request above? ULA Megan (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Controversy heading

Hello again. Last summer, ULA asked the Wikipedia community to remove the "Controversy" heading by removing some unfair text and moving other text into the "History" section. Unfortunately, some of these changes seem to have been undone over the past few days.

I will be submitting requests to address some specific concerns, but for now I am hoping editors will consider removing the "Controversy" section heading again per Wikipedia:Criticism ("Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies"), which says, "Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged." I propose merging this text into the "History" section appropriately, then the focus can be on discussing some specific concerns in content.

I hope editors will review other recent changes to the page as well. In the meantime, I am going to continue working with Wikipedia editors to address their suggestions on other requests aimed at filling content gaps and improving the page overall. Expect a launches-related request soon!

Thanks again. ULA Megan (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest, N2e, Appable, A2soup, and Fcrary: The editor who removed the "Controversy" header and unfair text last year (User:5Ept5xW) has not contributed to Wikipedia since August 2019, so I cannot ask them for feedback. You've all assisted with reviewing requests and participating in discussions on this talk page before. Might you be willing to review the recent changes to the page and this request? Thank you. ULA Megan (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Inviting Seddon to the conversation, as it appears Seddon made some of the edits that explicate the various bits that are, now, in the "Controversy" section.

I've taken a look at the article, and while controversy sections are not unheard of—even if the Essai sur la critique suggests they may not always be the best option—I don't immediately find most of the content out of line; and it is all reasonably well sourced. One reaction I had was that the Controversy section is too prominent among the section headings, and if it is retained in the end, should probably move down below the sections on the activities of ULA. I will support whichever way the consensus falls on whether or not to leave the controversy section heading; but I do think that the bulk of the content there is worthwhile explication on important matters related to ULA, so most of it should not be removed from the article in any case. But, yeah, let's other editors with opinions discuss. N2e (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@N2e: I'm not wedded to any particular format as to how the content of that section is presented but the wielding of WP:CRITICISM by ULA simply doesn't hold water here. The page expressly notes that "Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism."

The reason I recreated the controversy section was that to me it felt like the article had been sanitized and reconstructing the content in this way was the easiest approach. I did expand the history at the same time to try to counter the change in weight. For a great company like ULA I feel like there must be a huge potential for expansion of the history section that would profoundly change the dynamics of the article as it currently stands. If ULA has an in-house historian or a press archive (digital or otherwise) that they would be willing to share with us then I think that's the best way forward to change the dynamics of the article. Seddon ^talk 14:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@N2e and Seddon: Thank you both for weighing in here. To clarify, I am only hoping to remove the "Controversy" heading and merge the contents into the "History" section at this time. I am not attempting to remove the controversy content altogether.

Seddon, I appreciate your kind words about ULA. As you can see on this discussion page, ULA has been working with Wikipedia editors to make improvements to the article. I agree, there are many ways the page could be improved further (for example, I've proposed specific launches text below, in order to fill a major activities content gap). I'm not a historian or archivist specifically, but I'd be happy to share resources if there's something you think would be particularly helpful? Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

2000s launches

Hello again! I'd like to propose an improvement to the "Notable launches" section, which seems to arbitrarily mention a handful of ULA's 100+ launches to date.

Right now there are only 2 launches mentioned for the 2000s: "The first launch conducted by ULA was a Delta II from Vandenberg Air Force Base on December 14, 2006. The rocket carried the USA-193 satellite for the National Reconnaissance Office.

On June 15, 2007, the engine in the Centaur upper stage of a ULA-launched Atlas V shut down early, leaving its payload – a pair of NRO L-30 ocean surveillance satellites – in a lower than intended orbit. The NRO declared the launch a success."

I've drafted some text to give a more comprehensive overview of ULA's launches during the 2000s:

The first launch conducted by ULA was a Delta II from Vandenberg Air Force Base reaching orbit with an NROL-21 satellite on December 14, 2006. ULA's first Atlas V launch was in March 2007, an Atlas V variant 401 launching six military research satellites for Space Test Program (STP) 1. This mission also performed three burns of the Centaur upperstage, and the first three burn mission for Atlas V and its first commercial mission, COSMO-SkyMed was completed on behalf of Italy's Ministry of Defence three months later using a Delta II rocket. 2007 also saw ULA's first two interplanetary spacecraft launches using the Delta II (the Phoenix probe to Mars in August and the Dawn satellite to Vesta and Ceres in September), the WorldView-1 satellite, also launched using a Delta II into low Earth orbit on behalf of DigitalGlobe, and the company's first launch to geostationary transfer orbit using an Atlas V 421 variant carrying the USA-195 (or WGS-1) communications satellite. ULA's next mission, and tenth overall, was launching GPS IIR-17 into medium Earth orbit on a Delta II. The company completed its first Delta IV launch using the Delta IV Heavy rocket to place a payload into geosynchronous orbit in November, followed by three more launches in December.

2008 saw seven launches, including Atlas V's first from Vandenberg (from Space Launch Complex 3E) and five others by Delta II. The Atlas launch carried NROL-28 in March, and the GeoEye-1 satellite was orbited by a Delta II rocket in September. ULA completed eight Delta II, five Atlas V, and three Delta IV launches in 2009. The Delta II launches carried three Space Tracking and Surveillance System satellites over two launches, two Global Positioning System satellites, and the NOAA-19 and WorldView-2 satellites, as well as two space telescopes (Kepler and the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer). The Atlas launches carried the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LCROSS) mission as part of the Lunar Precursor Robotic Program, which later intentionally crashed into the moon for science and found the existence of water; more Atlas V launches in 2009 included Intelsat 14, WGS-2, PAN, and a weather satellite as part of the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP). The Delta IV rockets carried the NROL-26, GOES 14, and WGS-3 satellites.

References

I'd like to think this is a much more complete overview of the company's activities during the 2000s, and I believe editors will find the text accurate and appropriately-sourced. I've included links to specific Wikipedia articles throughout so readers can easily learn more about specific missions. Can editors review this text and update the current first two "paragraphs" of the launches section with the two paragraphs I've provided on my behalf?

@Soumya-8974: I'm hoping you may be willing to review this request as well, given your assistance above. I'm happy to answer questions.

Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@ULA Megan: I've incorporated your text with some minor changes. When making proposed changes please make sure you aren't unnecessarily changing existing text. For example, you changed USA-193, (the official name) to NROL-21 (it's cover name). Changes like that can lead to negative views of ULA's activity here by less diplomatic contributors than myself. Seddon ^talk 23:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Seddon: Thanks for fleshing out the launches section with 2006-2007 details. Do you mind reviewing and incorporating the above 2008-2009 launches information as well? I'm happy to share draft 2010-2015 launches information soon. Thanks again. ULA Megan (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Seddon: Thanks for including the 2008-2009 launches information. As mentioned above, I'll also be sharing details for 2010-2015 launches too, more on that soon. Thanks again. ULA Megan (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Citation scratch pad

List of sources that need integration into article

SpaceNews - Company history

• https://spacenews.com/boeing-executive-to-become-ula-chief-operating-officer/  Done
• https://spacenews.com/ula-gives-short-term-boost-to-lockheed-martin-space-earnings/
• https://spacenews.com/lockheed-martin-projects-decline-in-space-profits-in-2019-due-to-ula/
• https://spacenews.com/ula-debuts-online-pricing-tool-for-atlas-launches/
• https://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-plans-to-buy-2-delta-4-heavy-rockets-for-nro-missions/

SpaceNews - Contracts

• https://spacenews.com/air-force-awards-98-5-million-completion-contract-to-ula-for-launch-services-for-three-atlas-5-missions/
• https://spacenews.com/air-force-awards-ula-1-18-billion-contract-to-complete-five-delta-4-heavy-nro-missions/

SpaceNews - Jobs

• https://spacenews.com/ula-plans-second-bigger-round-of-job-cuts-in-2017/
• https://spacenews.com/union-recommends-members-reject-ula-contract-proposal/
• https://spacenews.com/ula-machinists-go-on-strike/
• https://spacenews.com/union-votes-to-end-ula-strike/

SpaceNews - BE-4/RD-180 Stuff

• https://spacenews.com/military-launch-poised-for-new-era-as-air-force-prepares-to-move-beyond-eelv/
• https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-retains-engine-lead-as-house-considers-limitations-on-launch-system-funding/
• https://spacenews.com/amendment-to-senate-bill-allows-continued-imports-of-russian-rocket-engines/
• https://spacenews.com/rd-180-provider-seeks-additional-ula-engine-order/
• https://spacenews.com/nelson-shepherds-senate-compromise-on-rd-180-issue/  Done
• https://spacenews.com/highlights-from-the-senates-floor-debate-on-the-rd-180/
• https://spacenews.com/ula-pushing-forward-with-vulcan-amid-concerns-about-engine-delays/

NASASpaceFlight

• https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/07/ula-delays-protecting-100-percent-success/
• https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/04/curious-move-nasa-blame-ula-latest-starliner-delay/
• https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/oa-6-atlas-v-booster-mrcv-anomoly/
• https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/ruag-composites-production-capability-ula/
• https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/03/spacex-and-ula-eelv-contracts/

2010-2015 launches

Hello again! User:Seddon recently added 2000s launch details to the "Launch History" section, based on a request above. I've drafted some text to update the article with an overview of ULA's launches from 2010 to 2015, which is currently missing:

Atlas V launches in 2010 deployed the Solar Dynamics Observatory, the first Boeing X-37B, the first Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellite, and the NROL-41. The Delta II system placed the last COSMO-SkyMed, and Delta IV launches deployed the GOES 15, GPS Block IIF, and USA-223 satellites. ULA completed eleven launches in 2011, including five by Atlas, three by Delta II, and three by Delta IV. The Atlas system orbited another Boeing X-37, two (NROL-34) signals intelligence satellites, a Space-Based Infrared System (SBIS) satellite, and the Juno spacecraft and Curiosity rover. The Delta II launches placed the SAC-D and Suomi NPP satellites, as well as two spacecraft associated with NASA's GRAIL lunar mission. Delta IV launches carried the NROL-49, NROL-27, and another GPS satellite.

ULA's 2012 launches included six Atlas Vs and four Delta IVs. The Atlas system carried Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) and AEHF satellites, another Boeing X-37, the Intruder and Quasar satellites, and the Van Allen Probes. Delta IVs deployed GPS and WGS satellites (USA-233), as well as NROL-25 and NROL-15 on behalf of the National Reconnaissance Office. In 2013, the Atlas flew eight times. The system launched the TDRS-11, Landsat 8, AEHF-3, and NROL-39 satellites, as well as SBIS, GPS, and MUOS satellites, and MAVEN, NASA's space probe to Mars. Delta IV launches orbited the fifth and sixth Wideband Global SATCOM satellites (WGS-5 and WGS-6), as well as NROL-65.

In 2014, ULA's Atlas V orbited the TDRS-12 communications satellite in January, the WorldView-3 commercial satellite in August, and the CLIO communications satellite during September–October. Atlas rockets also carried the satellites DMSP-5D-3/F19, NROL-67, NROL-33, and NROL-35. Delta IV rockets orbited GPS satellites and two Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program satellites, and in July, NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 was carried by a Delta II. Orion's first test flight was launched by a Delta IV Heavy rocket in December 2014, as part of Exploration Flight Test 1. A Delta II rocket orbited a Soil Moisture Active Passive satellite in January 2015. In March, an Atlas V rocket carried NASA's Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission spacecraft, and a Delta IV rocket orbited the GPS IIF-9 satellite on behalf of the U.S. Air Force. The U.S. Air Force's X-37B spaceplane was carried by an Atlas V rocket in May, and a Delta IV orbited the WGS-7 satellite in July. The fourth MUOS satellite was orbited by an Atlas V in September. ULA's 100th consecutive successful liftoff was completed on October 2, 2015, when an Atlas V rocket orbited a Mexican Satellite System communications satellite on behalf of the Secretariat of Communications and Transportation. The classified NROL-55 satellite was launched by an Atlas V rocket several days later. Atlas V rockets launched GPS Block IIF satellites and the Cygnus cargo spacecraft in November and December, respectively.

References

Again, I believe editors will find these claims to be accurate and documented by reliable sources, and I've included links to Wikipedia articles about specific missions throughout. Can editors review this text and update the launches section on my behalf? Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974: I've asked for help here over at WikiProject Spaceflight, but I also wanted to ask if you'd be willing to review and update the article per your previous assistance with the SPOC and navigation template requests. User:Seddon added the 2000s launches info but has not yet weighed in here. Thanks for any help in advance. ULA Megan (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this fully redundant with the launch lists for the individual rockets? The article here could highlight a few key missions. --mfb (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mfb: Thanks for your reply. I wanted to supply text in a format that was previously accepted. Without this text, there is a large gap in the launch history section. I understand editors will have different thoughts on how launch information should be displayed, but personally, I think continuing the launch history overview in prose form in one place is more helpful to readers than separate pages with separate tables to review. ULA Megan (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that there is a gap in the timeline, I would not object to adding this. (however we might need to split the launch history section by decade to improve read-ability, see preview. Adding this would make the section long and maybe hard to read, spliting by decade may help - we could remove some flights from 2010-2015) OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 19:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

2016-2020 launches

Hello again! User:Seddon recently added 2000s launch details to the "Launch History" section, based on a request above. I've drafted some text to update the article with an overview of ULA's launches from 2016 to 2020, which is currently missing:

In 2016, Delta IV rockets carried the NROL-45 satellite and Air Force Space Command 6 mission in February and August, respectively. Atlas V rockets carried MUOS-5 in June, NROL-61 satellites in July, and the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft in September. ULA launched multiple satellites in late 2016. The weather satellite Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R was carried in November, as was the WorldView-4 imaging satellite. In December, the Wideband Global SATCOM's eighth satellite (WGS-8) was launched on a Delta IV Medium rocket, and an Atlas V carried the EchoStar XIX communications satellite on behalf of Hughes Communications. In March 2017, WGS-9 was orbited by a Delta IV. Atlas V rockets carried NRO satellites, TDRS-M, and a Cygnus cargo capsule in 2017. The weather satellite NOAA-20 (JPSS-1) was launched by a Delta II rocket in November.

An Atlas V carried the SBIRS-GEO 4 military satellite in January 2018. On March 5, 2018, the company launched NASA's InSight lander to Mars on an Atlas V rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base, marking the fist interplanetary mission launched from California. A Delta IV Heavy launched Parker Solar Probe, NASA's robotic spacecraft to visit and study the sun's outer corona, in August 2018. In 2019, Atlas V carried Advanced Extremely High Frequency 5 (AEHF-5) for the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center. Also in that year, a Delta IV launched GPS III Magellan, the 29th and final flight of the Delta IV Medium rocket. An Atlas V carried Boeing's Starliner Orbital Flight Test (OFT) mission for NASA in December 2019.

In 2020, an Atlas V carried Solar Orbiter spacecraft, an international collaboration mission between the European Space Agency and NASA to provide a never-before-seen global view of the sun. In March, an Atlas V also launched Advanced Extremely High Frequency 6 (AEHF-6), the first U.S. Space Force National Security Mission.

References

I was sitting on this because I didn't want to put forth too much to review at once but maybe editors would prefer to tackle all at the same time? Again, I believe editors will find these claims to be accurate and documented by reliable sources, and I've included links to Wikipedia articles about specific missions throughout. Can editors review this text and update the launches section on my behalf? Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey all. This was a WP:BOLD edit. But these are the reasons I added it:

• 1. ULA's unique situation in where not all of the flights flown by Delta II, Delta IV/Heavy, and Atlas V were under ULA (flights before circa 2007). As such we can't just point to the list articles of those launches and say they are flown by ULA. (for example, for SpaceX or Rocket Lab, we can link to their rocket's list articles, and say all flights listed there are by them). So having a section talking a about what payloads ULA flew is reasonable.
• 2. That being said we can't really have a Wikipedia articles called List of ULA launches as it would whole redundant article.
• 3. The article as it was before did have a gap in the "timeline".

I've tried to remove a few launches from the section. And other editors are invited to remove a few more. But I think we don't just have to note notable missions (going back to reason 1), maybe the "least notable" launches could be removed.

A thank you to User:ULA Megan (and formally User:ULA christa) for following WP:PAID policies. And using non-ULA references.

One thing of concern that I did notice is that the section is it may be MOS:OVERLINKed and hence hard to read. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 07:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@OkayKenji: Thank you for updating the article's launch history section. I am glad to see the overview finally expanded. I've drafted a quick blurb about ULA's recent USSF-7 launch, which is also confirmed on our website: https://www.ulalaunch.com/missions/atlas-v-ussf-7:

• In May 2020, ULA launched an Atlas V rocket carrying the USSF-7 mission with the X-37B spaceplane for the U.S Space Force. The launch was dedicated to victims of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as first responders, health professionals, military personnel, and other essential workers.

References

I'm open to your preferred source and text changes, and hope you can update the article on my behalf? As a reminder, we're slated to launch Mars 2020 next month, so I'll be back then to request an update to this section. Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done as requested. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@OkayKenji: Thanks for updating the article. However, I think there's a missing word and the sentence should read "In May 2020, ULA launched an Atlas V rocket carrying the USSF-7 mission with the X-37B spaceplane for the U.S Space Force and the mission honors victims of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as first responders, health professionals, military personnel, and other essential workers." Do you mind fixing on my behalf? ULA Megan (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, fixed. Sorry about that! OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

EELV

I am preserving this text here. It doesn't belong in this article but it is clearly valuable. Perhaps we can do an EELV article. Classafelonymonkey (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Prior to the creation of the United Launch Alliance, national defense launches were developed by Lockheed Martin and McDonnell Douglas through the EELV program. After being rejected from the bidding process, Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas in 1997 and its contract. Contrary to expectations of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, a strong, competitive commercial rocket launch market did not materialize. Estimated prices for future contracts and program costs increased. The US Department of Defense (DoD) unit costs estimates for launch services grew by 77% from 2002 to 2003, triggering a Nunn-McCurdy cost breach. New estimates to Congress saw a further 29% unit cost increase, mainly due to a reduction in launch cadence.

In the early 2000s, there was considerable turmoil within the United States Air Force (USAF) space community and between the two EELV launch service providers due to competition in the shrinking space launch market, cost increases, and the growing need for reliable access to space. This turmoil culminated in civil and criminal fraud accusations being brought against Boeing relating to the improper use of competitors' information and racketeering. The DoD changed its acquisition strategy to one that would maintain reliable access to space. Under the "Buy III" program, all fixed costs were covered by the US government, which brought about a deal between the two major EELV contractors to combine their efforts into a single company.

References

I've readded the text. It is clearly a key part of the origins of ULA and scrubbing it is a little disingenuous. Seddon ^talk 18:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Mars 2020

@ULA Megan: I already added the Mars 2020 launch. Congrats on a successful mission! (response to this) OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! and thank you for adding that launch to the page! ULA Megan (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Contract

Hello again! User:OkayKenji, thanks again for the congrats above. I'd like to submit a new request to add the following: On August 7, 2020, the U.S. Space Force awarded ULA a firm, fixed-price indefinite-delivery contract to launch 60% of National Security Space Launch (NSSL) Phase 2 missions over a 5-year procurement with the next-generation Vulcan Centaur rocket", per this source. Can editors please review the proposed text and update the page appropriately? I'll let editors decide if the introduction of the Launch vehicles and engines section, or the Vulcan subsection (or even the introduction?) is more appropriate. Thanks for your consideration. ULA Megan (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The Vulcan section seems like the right place to mention it. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done, under the Vulcan section, I did reword it though. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

BE-4s, Vulcan, and SMART

Hi again! User:OkayKenji, thanks again for your help above.

I wanted to share this Aviation Week & Space Technology article, which confirms ULA's purchase of BE-4s for Vulcan's first stage and describes the Sensible Modular Autonomous Return Technology. The magazine's website requires registration to read the entire article, but here's an excerpt:

But the first BE-4s to power a rocket to orbit may not be aboard the New Glenn. United Launch Alliance (ULA) is buying the engines to power the first stage of its Vulcan rocket, an expendable booster—at least for now—which, like the New Glenn, is slated to debut next year... At some point, ULA may decide to recover and reuse just the BE-4 engines, a pair of which will fly on each Vulcan. The idea is for the engine compartment to disengage after launch and fall back through the atmosphere protected by an inflatable hypersonic shield. A helicopter would be positioned to snag the engine section midair as it makes a parachute descent. ULA calls the approach its Sensible Modular Autonomous Return Technology, or SMART.

I propose adding the following text to the article: ULA will debut use of BE-4 engines for rocketry to power Vulcan's first stage; the company's Sensible Modular Autonomous Return Technology (SMART) seeks to capture and re-use engines for subsequent Vulcan flights.

References

I see Blue Origin and BE-4 links currently appear in the "See also" section, which may no longer be needed if these appear in the article body? I'm hoping someone will update the article on my behalf, and I should note, this source might be helpful for the Vulcan (rocket) and BE-4 articles as well.

Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@OkayKenji: Thanks again for your help above. Might you be willing to review this request as well? ULA Megan (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done, I suggest requesting a formal move requests or asking editors at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight as I probably will not be editing much on Wikipedia for the next few months. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@OkayKenji: Thanks for updating the article. I will remember to return to WikiProject Spaceflight for future update requests. ULA Megan (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Tory, not Tony

Hello again! I'm back with a request for editors to please change "Tony Bruno" to "Tory Bruno" in the photo caption here. @Classafelonymonkey: I believe you added the image recently, so I am making you aware of this request. Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Request to add rocket type to photo caption

Hello again! I'd like to propose an addition to the Parker Solar Probe photo caption here to say "Delta IV Heavy launches Parker Solar Probe" Can editors please review the proposed text and update the caption appropriately. Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to follow back up on this request for changing the caption of Parker Solar Probe photo caption from "Parker Solar Probe Launch" to "Delta IV Heavy launches Parker Solar Probe." @Classafelonymonkey: I believe you added a few images to the page, including this one, so I am making you aware of this request. Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@ULA Megan: Hello. I have updated some of the thumbnails to include what launch vehicle they launched on. OkayKenji ^(talk) 03:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

EELV context and integration of Cislunar 1000 Vision

I've re-added in the context of ULA's creation the EELV price explosion. There have been a number of queries on this page regarding it's omission and it would be remiss to gloss over it. I have though now refactored it. Apologies for some of my messed up earlier edits, it's what I get for working with old revisions.

I've also removed the Cislunar 1000 vision. It's not deserving of it's own section and much of the content was either out of date or belonged in other areas of the article. It was mainly just marketing speak. Seddon ^talk 02:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Delta II Ribbon Cutting

Hello! I'm back with a request to update this page. For the end of the Delta II section (after " These parts will be assembled to create a nearly-complete Delta II, for exhibition in its 7420-10 configuration"), I propose adding mention of the Delta II opening and adjusting text to state it has happened.

• On March 23, 2021, United Launch Alliance’s Delta II rocket joined the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex (KSCVC) Rocket Garden to preserve the legacy of the rocket that launched 155 times over nearly 30 years for NASA, the Department of Defense and commercial customers.

I've used a Florida Today source here, but here are ULA links as well, if helpful.

• https://blog.ulalaunch.com/blog/delta-ii-public-exhibit-honors-legendary-rocket
• https://www.ulalaunch.com/about/news/2021/03/23/united-launch-alliance-delta-ii-rocket-honored-at-grand-opening-ceremony

References

I've taken a first stab at proposing specific text for consideration, but I'm open to editors' preferred wording and sourcing. Help updating the page on my behalf is appreciated. Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry @ULA Megan:, what you've proposed simply isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. The tone was already questionable and this compounds it. Please keep the tone of your proposals encyclopedic and remember that this isn't ULA's corporate website. Seddon ^talk 22:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the sentence to reflect the rockets installation as KSC. Seddon ^talk 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Cautionary and only warning to United Launch Alliance

@ULA Megan: Recently a change to the article was made an IP recently located from near Greenwood Village, Colorado - home to ULA. Could you please ensure that no employees edit the Wikipedia article and that changes continue to be proposed through this page. Undeclared conflict of interest editing is a source of major concern for the Wikipedia communities and we have a zero tolerance policy. Preventative action will be require to be undertaken should this occur again. Seddon ^talk 02:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Classify products as “operational” or “retired”

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

• For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}.
• If you are partially-blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
• If the page is protected, use one of the following:
  • {{SPER}} for semi-protected pages
  • {{EPER}} for extended-confirmed protected pages
  • {{TPER}} for template-protected pages
  • {{FPER}} for fully-protected pages
  • {{IAER}} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}.

Hello! I’d like to request an edit that reverts the addition of the “retiring” section and changes the “retiring” language to “operational.” As shown on multiple NASA resources, rockets are categorized as “operational” if they have an active manifest, not “retiring.” See where Kathy Lueders, associate administrator of NASA’s human spaceflight directorate, referenced the Dragon spacecraft’s “operational phase”: https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/11/10/nasa-formally-certifies-spacexs-crew-dragon-for-operational-astronaut-flights/ [spaceflightnow.com]

This is relevant as Atlas V has 17 flights remaining and ICPS has two missions remaining, as noted in their respective sections. We recommend that the “retiring” section be changed to “operational,” and include Vulcan Centaur following its successful first launch, or the “retiring” designation be removed entirely.

See language on NASA’s Launch Services Program Rockets webpage that refers to the Falcon Heavy as an “operational rocket”: https://www.nasa.gov/launch-services-program-rockets/ [nasa.gov]

NASA’s “Basics of Spaceflight” guide only uses “retired,” not “retiring,” and “in operational service” to describe launch vehicles in Chapter 14: https://science.nasa.gov/learn/basics-of-space-flight/chapter14-1/ [science.nasa.gov]

Lastly, NASA’s Space Shuttle was not considered “retired” until its final mission was complete: “In January 2004, President George W. Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration. Among other goals, the Vision called for the retirement of the space shuttle after completion of the assembly of the International Space Station. In July 2011, the STS-135 mission with NASA astronauts Christopher J. Ferguson, Douglas G. Hurley, Sandra H. Magnus, and Rex J. Walheim aboard, completed that objective. During this final space shuttle mission, the last flight of the orbiter Atlantis, they delivered payloads and supplies to support the International Space Station for more than one year. The successful completion of the 12-day mission to the station brought an end to the 30-year space shuttle program.” (https://www.nasa.gov/history/10-years-ago-sts-135-the-space-shuttles-grand-finale/ [nasa.gov]) ULA Megan (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We are not required to use the same language that ULA uses or that NASA uses. We are supposed to use our editorial judgement, based on what secondary sources say to describe the situation. Customers can no longer book new Atlas flights and ULA has announced EOL. In my opinion the word "retiring" most accurately describes this situation. "Retiring" does not preclude "operational", just as a "retiring" employee is still employed. -Arch dude (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@ULA Megan: Separately, thank you for the care you are taking as a paid editor. Not all paid editors are as scrupulous as you are. -Arch dude (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Subject: Classify products as “operational” or “retired”

Hello! I’d like to request an edit that reverts the addition of the “retiring” section and changes the “retiring” language to “operational.” As shown on multiple NASA resources, rockets are categorized as “operational” if they have an active manifest, not “retiring.” See where Kathy Lueders, associate administrator of NASA’s human spaceflight directorate, referenced the Dragon spacecraft’s “operational phase”: https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/11/10/nasa-formally-certifies-spacexs-crew-dragon-for-operational-astronaut-flights/ [spaceflightnow.com]

This is relevant as Atlas V has 17 flights remaining and ICPS has two missions remaining, as noted in their respective sections. We recommend that the “retiring” section be changed to “operational,” and include Vulcan Centaur following its successful first launch, or the “retiring” designation be removed entirely.

See language on NASA’s Launch Services Program Rockets webpage that refers to the Falcon Heavy as an “operational rocket”: https://www.nasa.gov/launch-services-program-rockets/ [nasa.gov]

NASA’s “Basics of Spaceflight” guide only uses “retired,” not “retiring,” and “in operational service” to describe launch vehicles in Chapter 14: https://science.nasa.gov/learn/basics-of-space-flight/chapter14-1/ [science.nasa.gov]

Lastly, NASA’s Space Shuttle was not considered “retired” until its final mission was complete: “In January 2004, President George W. Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration. Among other goals, the Vision called for the retirement of the space shuttle after completion of the assembly of the International Space Station. In July 2011, the STS-135 mission with NASA astronauts Christopher J. Ferguson, Douglas G. Hurley, Sandra H. Magnus, and Rex J. Walheim aboard, completed that objective. During this final space shuttle mission, the last flight of the orbiter Atlantis, they delivered payloads and supplies to support the International Space Station for more than one year. The successful completion of the 12-day mission to the station brought an end to the 30-year space shuttle program.” (https://www.nasa.gov/history/10-years-ago-sts-135-the-space-shuttles-grand-finale/ [nasa.gov]) ULA Megan (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We are not required to use the same language that ULA uses or that NASA uses. We are supposed to use our editorial judgement, based on what secondary sources say to describe the situation. Customers can no longer book new Atlas flights and ULA has announced EOL. In my opinion the word "retiring" most accurately describes this situation. "Retiring" does not preclude "operational", just as a "retiring" employee is still employed. -Arch dude (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)