Could United Launch Alliance's money problems finally force its owners to sell? - Ars Technica

Overview

Could United Launch Alliance’s money problems finally force its owners to sell?

ULA is preparing to resume launching the Vulcan rocket in the coming weeks.

Details

Pretty much every rocket company in the United States, save one, has embraced two fundamental tenets: reusability and diversification.

Most famously, Space X branched out from reusable rockets to pursue and dominate a growing spectrum of space services: cargo delivery, human spaceflight, satellite production, broadband, and, perhaps soon, orbital data centers and in-space manufacturing. Blue Origin is evolving from a pure rocket company into a satellite manufacturer, robotics developer, and, most recently, a potential competitor for Space X’s Starlink network.

Rocket Lab used a different approach to diversify after achieving success with its small Electron launch vehicle. The company relocated its headquarters from New Zealand to Southern California, started building spacecraft and payloads, and then went on a spree of corporate acquisitions to expand into satellite communications and take on a new role as a merchant supplier of satellite components and sensors. It’s now in a stage of advanced development of its partially reusable next-generation Neutron launch vehicle.

The list goes on. Firefly Aerospace started as a launch company and now builds Moon landers and space tugs. Relativity Space is already looking beyond rockets before ever putting anything into orbit.

They all realize an enduring truth in the space business. Launch is a low-margin business. Space X’s financial statements, now open to inspection after the company went public earlier this year, shine a light on this fact. Just 8 percent of the company’s $12.5 billion in revenue during the first half of this year came from launch services. Another 5 percent came from “launch and development” activities, which include Space X’s work on things like NASA’s lunar lander program.

Space X attributes the rest of its revenue to Starlink and AI. The potential of the latter is almost solely responsible for Space X’s post-IPO valuation of approximately $1.8 billion.

Rocket Lab’s financials paint a similar picture. It reported $434 million in revenue for the first half of 2026 and credited a quarter of it to launch services.

Given all this, what are we to make of the company that Space X supplanted as the country’s leading launch provider?

United Launch Alliance, founded in 2006, was born in an era when the US government was the dominant force in the domestic launch market. Commercial launch demand was on the wane, and what demand there was often went to launch providers in Europe or Russia. Executives at the two leading US launch companies—Boeing and Lockheed Martin—knew they were in trouble. Boeing’s Delta IV rocket program, in particular, was in danger of going out of business.

The situation jeopardized the US government’s policy of ensuring two separate rocket types are available to launch national security payloads into orbit. With the government’s blessing, Boeing and Lockheed entered into a 50-50 joint venture, merging their Delta and Atlas rocket programs under one roof. The merger all but erased competition from the US launch market. However, the sole-source paradigm proved lucrative for ULA’s corporate parents, which each reported hundreds of millions of dollars in earnings from ULA per year in the first decade of the company’s existence.

Space X sued the US Air Force in 2014 for the right to compete for military launch contracts, and the Pentagon relented the following year, making Space X eligible to bid against ULA. Space X won its first high-priority military launch contract in 2016, a few months after the company landed its reusable Falcon 9 booster for the first time.

This moment was a turning point for ULA and the start of a long slide from dominance for the Boeing-Lockheed venture. Around the same time, ULA kicked off development of a new rocket, the Vulcan, to replace the legacy Atlas V and Delta IV rockets. But officials did not prioritize reusability in Vulcan’s design, with no plans to reuse the rocket’s booster stage and only tentative plans to eventually recover and reuse Vulcan’s main engines. A decade later, ULA’s half-hearted stab at reusability hasn’t gone anywhere.

Two BE-4 engines, made by Blue Origin, power the first stage of United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan rocket. ULA says it eventually plans to recover and reuse the engines, but the company did not prioritize reusability during the development of the Vulcan rocket.

Aside from ULA’s initial design decisions, the company faltered in its execution of the Vulcan rocket’s development, which was co-funded by the Pentagon. Vulcan’s first launch was delayed more than four years from ULA’s original target of 2019. Boeing and Lockheed Martin at first provided only tentative funding for Vulcan’s development, then ULA waited until 2018 to select an engine for Vulcan, deciding on Blue Origin’s BE-4 over Aerojet Rocketdyne’s AR1. Until then, engineers pursued two different designs for the Vulcan rocket—one with a methane-fueled first stage and another narrower rocket for kerosene.

In the meantime, ULA shelved plans for an advanced, long-duration upper stage, a feature that, at least on paper, appeared to be one of the Vulcan rocket’s advantages over Space X’s Falcon rocket family. Delays in testing and qualifying Blue Origin’s BE-4 engine and an explosion of the rocket’s Centaur upper stage during a ground test in 2023 eventually pushed Vulcan’s first test flight into early 2024.

Still, ULA’s stellar track record for reliability proved a key selling point for the Pentagon, which awarded the company more than half of the military’s next batch of launch contracts in 2020, 27 missions worth some

A Vulcan rocket from United Launch Alliance lifts off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, on August 12, 2025.

ULA’s streak of reliability continued with a near-flawless debut launch of the Vulcan rocket. But ULA ran into trouble on the rocket’s second flight in October 2024 when the exhaust nozzle on one of its Northrop Grumman-built solid rocket boosters shattered moments after liftoff. The rocket kept flying after the anomaly and still reached orbit. An investigation concluded that the nozzle failed due to a “manufacturing defect” in an insulator, leading to the melting and burn-through of the booster nozzle.

But the nozzle problem wasn’t actually fixed. A similar failure on the fourth Vulcan launch last February has grounded the rocket for more than six months. ULA aims to return to flight with the Vulcan rocket soon, perhaps by the end of this month, on a commercial flight with a batch of Amazon Leo broadband satellites. The US Space Force has not cleared Vulcan to resume launches with military payloads, and the program’s cumulative delays have forced military officials to reassign several missions from ULA to Space X. Military officials aren’t happy, and they’ve let Boeing and Lockheed know.

Vulcan’s technical issues are cropping up as launch prices rise at United Launch Alliance. It’s not surprising that the Vulcan rocket, with a fully expendable design, is on average more expensive than Space X’s mostly reusable Falcon rocket. But ULA’s launch prices have increased significantly over the last few years—from

At the same time, the financial situation at ULA is not great. Lockheed Martin said its earnings “primarily” attributable to ULA dipped from

It isn’t as easy to parse ULA’s financial situation from Boeing’s financial statements, which lump ULA’s earnings with several other Boeing joint ventures. But the overall trajectory at Boeing has also trended down.

Boeing and Lockheed’s shareholder equity in United Launch Alliance in 2025 was half of what it was 10 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Shareholder equity, or book value, is a measure of a company’s assets minus liabilities. It’s the amount of money a company’s shareholders would receive after liquidation. The chart below shows the change in how Boeing and Lockheed have valued their equity stakes in ULA since 2016.

United Launch Alliance’s shareholder equity, or book value, adjusted for inflation, dropped from approximately

Book value isn’t the same as market value, an unknowable figure for an equity-based joint venture like ULA. Market value is typically higher than book value for profitable companies, but Boeing and Lockheed’s earnings suggest that ULA’s finances are, to put it delicately, fragile.

The concerns from ULA’s corporate owners became public in July, when Boeing and Lockheed Martin revealed they guaranteed a loan to sustain ULA through the grounding of the Vulcan rocket. In SEC filings, Boeing and Lockheed wrote that the suspension of Vulcan launches is “negatively affecting ULA’s financial condition and results of operations.”

Lockheed revised down this year’s profitability forecast for its space division by $45 million in July, citing “lower ULA equity earnings.” United Launch Alliance opened 2026 with a forecast of 18 to 22 launches this year. Eight months later, the company has launched five times, and just once with the Vulcan rocket. The lull in launches means fewer customer payments and lower revenue.

ULA’s owners “each agreed to guarantee $500 (million) of certain ULA credit facilities” in May, Boeing said. “We and Lockheed expect to provide additional financial support and could incur losses if ULA is unable to resume Vulcan launches consistent with ULA’s assumptions.” In a footnote, Boeing added that it “generally” issues such credit guarantees on behalf of “parties with less than investment-grade credit.”

Bloomberg reported last month that ULA was looking to raise $1.5 billion, three times the original amount. It’s a remarkable turnabout for Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which have long tapped ULA for a steady flow of revenue.

Boeing and Lockheed’s efforts to shore up ULA’s finances come after a multiyear sales pitch shopping ULA to potential buyers. None agreed to pay the sum of roughly

Blue Origin, Jeff Bezos’ space company and a key supplier for the Vulcan rocket, appeared for a time to be the leading contender for buying up United Launch Alliance. That was when ULA was riding high, soon after the successful first flight of Vulcan in 2024. Industry chatter about the potential sale quieted after Vulcan’s recent booster woes.

Other candidates for taking over ULA included Amazon, Vulcan’s biggest commercial customer. Amazon has already funded a significant expansion in ULA launch capability to support the Amazon Leo constellation. Two other ULA suppliers, Northrop Grumman and L3 Harris, could also be interested, as could a private equity firm or even a buyout by one of ULA’s current owners. The list of prospective buyers is largely conjecture. Company officials usually don’t speak publicly about mergers and acquisitions until they’re ready to announce them.

A Boeing spokesperson responded to questions from Ars, saying, “Consistent with our corporate practice, we don’t comment on potential market rumors or speculation about financial activities.” Lockheed Martin and ULA did not provide a statement by late Thursday.

It would also be foolish to rule out the US government taking a stake in ULA amid a rush of state-backed investments under the Trump administration.

Engine-builder Aerojet Rocketdyne, now split into separate companies, submitted an unsolicited offer to buy ULA for

Today, the sale price for any potential acquisition of ULA is almost certainly lower than it was a few years ago, but ULA still has a strong pedigree, with a rocket that is actually (kind of) flying, something many US launch companies can’t say. This could open the possibility of new dark-horse contenders for purchasing United Launch Alliance.

AST Space Mobile has launched 13 Blue Bird satellites for its direct-to-device satellite broadband constellation. The company aims to have 45 satellites in orbit next year.

One company to watch is AST Space Mobile, a Texas-based firm in the early stages of deploying a network of broadband satellites to beam signals directly to smartphones from low-Earth orbit. Space X’s Starlink network already does this, and Amazon is pursuing the direct-to-device connectivity market with its Amazon Leo constellation.

AST officials hinted last month that they are interested in getting into the launch business. The company raised more than $1 billion in a convertible bond sale in July, and AST executives wrote in their most recent quarterly earnings report that they are looking for ways to spend it. The company said it is pursuing an “expanding universe of growth initiatives” to “further vertically integrate our business and mitigate risks associated with third-party launch providers.”

AST’s primary launch providers are Space X and Blue Origin. Both are potential competitors in the satellite broadband business. The growth initiatives AST said it was interested in would allow it to “secure additional access to orbit” for its own constellation. AST listed “partnerships and/or acquisitions” as possibilities. A company spokesperson did not respond to questions on the matter.

The balance sheet in AST’s latest quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission showed the company had approximately

There are reasons to question AST’s long-term business outlook, especially as it goes head-to-head against Space X and Amazon, two of the most well-capitalized US tech firms. However, vertical integration has served most space companies well, and the same may be true with AST. But there’s a catch. ULA itself is not vertically integrated, with suppliers providing key parts like engines, payload fairings, and avionics.

AST would surely improve its position with more control of its own access to space. AST already builds its own satellites—each with enormous 2,400-square-foot phased array antennas—and manages much of its frontend connectivity service, working alongside mobile phone telcos like AT&T and Verizon. T-Mobile is Space X’s largest domestic partner on Starlink direct-to-cell.

A buyer for ULA outside of the launch business would also maintain competition in the US launch market. Any sale would have to be approved by the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice to ensure it does not substantially reduce competition. Some companies in other sectors are aiming to complete mergers and acquisitions under the Trump administration, which they see as providing a favorable regulatory environment for such transactions.

The launch market would lose a competitor if a company like Blue Origin, with its own heavy-lift rocket, acquired ULA. This would be unwelcome news for the US military as Space X prepares for the retirement of its workhorse Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets in favor of the newer, more powerful Starship rocket. Starship is unlikely to be certified any time soon for the US government’s most critical national security missions.

The core stage for United Launch Alliance’s fifth Vulcan rocket was raised on its launch platform in May inside a new Amazon-funded integration building at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida. The mission could launch before the end of the month.

United Launch Alliance boasts a substantial order book, a backlog of approximately 80 missions with its Vulcan rocket and the soon-to-retire Atlas V, a number only rivaled by Space X.

The upcoming launch will be ULA’s first under the direction of its new CEO, Mark Peller, who was named to the position last month. Peller replaces Tory Bruno, who retired from ULA last December to take a job overseeing national security business at Blue Origin. Peller is a 36-year veteran of the launch industry, including 20 years at United Launch Alliance, where he led development of the Vulcan rocket from its inception through its certification for US government missions in 2025.

“ULA has a tremendous history of launching some of the nation’s most important national security and exploration missions, and the future is limitless with the new capabilities and performance of our Vulcan rocket,” Peller said in a statement announcing his new role as CEO.

In the near term, this “limitless future” is in the hands of the engineers preparing to return the Vulcan rocket to flight. The next launch of Vulcan will require the thrust from six solid rocket boosters, the most ever on a Vulcan flight to date. That means six data points to show ULA and Northrop have a path to overcoming the booster nozzle problem.

Upon clearing that hurdle, ULA needs a buyer willing to invest in innovation. It would help if the presumed new owner had some skin in the game as an anchor customer for the Vulcan launch vehicle, and more importantly, for what should undoubtedly come next—a reusable rocket.

1.          Physicist does the math on Star Trek’s “Picard maneuver”
   

2.          Man told Chat GPT he was feeling delusional. Chat GPT insisted he was Jesus.
   

3.          Boy developed "toasted skin" condition from using a laptop every day
   

4.          Europe will go it alone on Venus mission after NASA yanks radar instrument
   

5.          Apple's long-rumored foldable becomes reality with the $2,000 i Phone Duo
   

Ars Technica has been separating the signal from the noise for over 25 years. With our unique combination of technical savvy and wide-ranging interest in the technological arts and sciences, Ars is the trusted source in a sea of information. After all, you don’t need to know everything, only what’s important.

Key Takeaways

• Could United Launch Alliance’s money problems finally force its owners to sell

• ULA is preparing to resume launching the Vulcan rocket in the coming weeks

• Pretty much every rocket company in the United States, save one, has embraced two fundamental tenets: reusability and diversification

• Most famously, Space X branched out from reusable rockets to pursue and dominate a growing spectrum of space services: cargo delivery, human spaceflight, satellite production, broadband, and, perhaps soon, orbital data centers and in-space manufacturing

• Rocket Lab used a different approach to diversify after achieving success with its small Electron launch vehicle