Talk:United Launch Alliance#Facilities - Update Request

{{ping|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)

{{edit COI|A}}

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://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__spaceflightnow.com_2020_11_10_nasa-2Dformally-2Dcertifies-2Dspacexs-2Dcrew-2Ddragon-2Dfor-2Doperational-2Dastronaut-2Dflights_&d=DwMF-g&c=YYicwH7QH1ggJMLhBmAoNSGjxvHSXHT8BQZnDHlxMWM&r=V1mqFpAyFMKbiw53iq7Du5jCWlF5_ZhuqeAn825Rmzw&m=s5z9qI2vc0yc_aa3zidIBdSky2Q0vuMltA1fUJzzLxd-cxWN-6IGF4lU-Dmw399m&s=lFuvdJ1GheBMROR2A2LHHvujw4Xp4Z4fmOVvHrIFy30&e= 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://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nasa.gov_launch-2Dservices-2Dprogram-2Drockets_&d=DwMF-g&c=YYicwH7QH1ggJMLhBmAoNSGjxvHSXHT8BQZnDHlxMWM&r=V1mqFpAyFMKbiw53iq7Du5jCWlF5_ZhuqeAn825Rmzw&m=s5z9qI2vc0yc_aa3zidIBdSky2Q0vuMltA1fUJzzLxd-cxWN-6IGF4lU-Dmw399m&s=jkfMpH0F13vJL_0fwBhakPfYox9SujJwtxTHohQr0X8&e= 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://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__science.nasa.gov_learn_basics-2Dof-2Dspace-2Dflight_chapter14-2D1_&d=DwMF-g&c=YYicwH7QH1ggJMLhBmAoNSGjxvHSXHT8BQZnDHlxMWM&r=V1mqFpAyFMKbiw53iq7Du5jCWlF5_ZhuqeAn825Rmzw&m=s5z9qI2vc0yc_aa3zidIBdSky2Q0vuMltA1fUJzzLxd-cxWN-6IGF4lU-Dmw399m&s=robvLihmxJhDITDyHM4MtiyTOl_TY1s1JEVI47QJgFg&e= 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://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nasa.gov_history_10-2Dyears-2Dago-2Dsts-2D135-2Dthe-2Dspace-2Dshuttles-2Dgrand-2Dfinale_&d=DwMF-g&c=YYicwH7QH1ggJMLhBmAoNSGjxvHSXHT8BQZnDHlxMWM&r=V1mqFpAyFMKbiw53iq7Du5jCWlF5_ZhuqeAn825Rmzw&m=s5z9qI2vc0yc_aa3zidIBdSky2Q0vuMltA1fUJzzLxd-cxWN-6IGF4lU-Dmw399m&s=bqUBUs0msAFpn0_YqkV4OtIpjY2O_eU6uFgblNd-GOI&e= 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)

:{{re|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)

:: Closing this edit request as a duplicate of the one below. Rusalkii (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

{{edit COI|D}}

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://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__spaceflightnow.com_2020_11_10_nasa-2Dformally-2Dcertifies-2Dspacexs-2Dcrew-2Ddragon-2Dfor-2Doperational-2Dastronaut-2Dflights_&d=DwMF-g&c=YYicwH7QH1ggJMLhBmAoNSGjxvHSXHT8BQZnDHlxMWM&r=V1mqFpAyFMKbiw53iq7Du5jCWlF5_ZhuqeAn825Rmzw&m=s5z9qI2vc0yc_aa3zidIBdSky2Q0vuMltA1fUJzzLxd-cxWN-6IGF4lU-Dmw399m&s=lFuvdJ1GheBMROR2A2LHHvujw4Xp4Z4fmOVvHrIFy30&e= 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://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nasa.gov_launch-2Dservices-2Dprogram-2Drockets_&d=DwMF-g&c=YYicwH7QH1ggJMLhBmAoNSGjxvHSXHT8BQZnDHlxMWM&r=V1mqFpAyFMKbiw53iq7Du5jCWlF5_ZhuqeAn825Rmzw&m=s5z9qI2vc0yc_aa3zidIBdSky2Q0vuMltA1fUJzzLxd-cxWN-6IGF4lU-Dmw399m&s=jkfMpH0F13vJL_0fwBhakPfYox9SujJwtxTHohQr0X8&e= 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://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__science.nasa.gov_learn_basics-2Dof-2Dspace-2Dflight_chapter14-2D1_&d=DwMF-g&c=YYicwH7QH1ggJMLhBmAoNSGjxvHSXHT8BQZnDHlxMWM&r=V1mqFpAyFMKbiw53iq7Du5jCWlF5_ZhuqeAn825Rmzw&m=s5z9qI2vc0yc_aa3zidIBdSky2Q0vuMltA1fUJzzLxd-cxWN-6IGF4lU-Dmw399m&s=robvLihmxJhDITDyHM4MtiyTOl_TY1s1JEVI47QJgFg&e= 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://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nasa.gov_history_10-2Dyears-2Dago-2Dsts-2D135-2Dthe-2Dspace-2Dshuttles-2Dgrand-2Dfinale_&d=DwMF-g&c=YYicwH7QH1ggJMLhBmAoNSGjxvHSXHT8BQZnDHlxMWM&r=V1mqFpAyFMKbiw53iq7Du5jCWlF5_ZhuqeAn825Rmzw&m=s5z9qI2vc0yc_aa3zidIBdSky2Q0vuMltA1fUJzzLxd-cxWN-6IGF4lU-Dmw399m&s=bqUBUs0msAFpn0_YqkV4OtIpjY2O_eU6uFgblNd-GOI&e= 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)

::Thank you for your response and thoughtful feedback. I appreciate the time and care with which you’ve made edits to the page. However, I’d like to note existing Wiki content on this topic, including the “[https://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Comparison-5Fof-5Forbital-5Flaunch-5Fsystems&d=DwMF-g&c=YYicwH7QH1ggJMLhBmAoNSGjxvHSXHT8BQZnDHlxMWM&r=c11MNrFbkJYcl3mVc-pCweqOY-EOttWM5my_gqSttc8&m=f-c5rZnVpX5IMGfCnfBsFvzMPAJe3P2equQpPoDI4f3y14LPWNjOZudCbgU6EQ46&s=csHuNPV-IGUIcQqHnNe72QAnXk-Pe4yLiq0Qzk6fhII&e= Comparison of orbital launch systems [en.wikipedia.org]]” page, which categorizes launch systems as “operational,” “in development,” or “retired.” [https://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_SpaceX-5Flaunch-5Fvehicles&d=DwMF-g&c=YYicwH7QH1ggJMLhBmAoNSGjxvHSXHT8BQZnDHlxMWM&r=c11MNrFbkJYcl3mVc-pCweqOY-EOttWM5my_gqSttc8&m=f-c5rZnVpX5IMGfCnfBsFvzMPAJe3P2equQpPoDI4f3y14LPWNjOZudCbgU6EQ46&s=5RmdR9VRwrV-G1yjic2mC0-Q03_HReFBtgmSno7hHrM&e= Other major launch company pages [en.wikipedia.org]] also categorize launch vehicles as “current,” “in development,” or “retired.”

::Additionally, one of Wiki’s [https://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Wikipedia-3AFive-5Fpillars&d=DwMF-g&c=YYicwH7QH1ggJMLhBmAoNSGjxvHSXHT8BQZnDHlxMWM&r=c11MNrFbkJYcl3mVc-pCweqOY-EOttWM5my_gqSttc8&m=f-c5rZnVpX5IMGfCnfBsFvzMPAJe3P2equQpPoDI4f3y14LPWNjOZudCbgU6EQ46&s=hbuIUG0ZuqDFjUbIBOk7G8ncRM68En3NylVrMRKZEHE&e= Five Pillars [en.wikipedia.org]] is that content should be written from a neutral point of view. It states that “personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.”

::In accordance with Wiki content guidelines, it would be most accurate and verifiable to label rockets as I originally recommended, which is supported by the reliable sources that I cited and existing Wiki content on the subject matter. ULA Megan (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

::As someone with no dog in this fight, I have to agree with ULA Megan. I have seen no RS that refers to Atlas V status as "retiring", or indeed any source that uses that term for any launch vehicle's status. While it's true that no additional launches can be ordered, I don't think that impacts its flight status - it shows on the "Medium-lift launch vehicle" page as operational (the only options there are "Operational", "Under development" and "Retired") and it has quite a few additional launches booked, going on until (at least) 2030 (when the ISS retires). It can certainly be stated in the text that it is going to be retired after the currently booked flights are completed, but unless you have an RS that uses that term for its status, in my opinion, you basing using that term on "In my opinion the word "retiring" most accurately describes this situation" seems to be OR. Otl1973 (talk) Otl1973 (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

:::Although the final flights aren’t scheduled until 2030, the Atlas is no longer in production. We could say “no longer in production” but that’s wordy. The company CEO has said the Atlas “will retire.” So saying “retiring” seems like a brief and accurate way to describe the state of the program. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

:::I did not make up "retirement". Here is the announcement in an article based on a statement by Tory Bruno at the time:

:::*[https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/26/22641048/ula-boeing-lockheed-end-sales-atlas-v-rocket-russia-rd180 ULA stops selling its centerpiece Atlas V, setting path for the rocket’s retirement]

:::Tory said "will retire". In English, "will retire" means "retiring". You (with your declared COI) seem to think "retiring" has negative connotations. I do not see it that way, but this is a subjective interpretation, so reasonable folks may disagree here. Since this article is about ULA and its products, I feel that Atlas V's retirement status is perhaps its single most relevant attribute as a ULA product. Those other Wikipedia articles are mostly about technical comparisons, not about actual availability. I do not think the two of us will reach a consensus on this, so I will wait until we get additional input.

:::: I'm reviewing old edit requests. Just to confirm, the issue is over the word "retiring" in the infobox after Atlas V, and the description of Atlas V as "in the process of being retired" in the lead? And the request is to remove this language and ... replace it with "operational"? The edit request mentions a "retiring section" which doesn't appear to exist anymore, so I'm not sure if this can be closed as obsolete. Rusalkii (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

::::: Closing this. If the COI editor want anything further changed around the "retiring" language, please gain consensus of the other editors in this discussion/talk page before reopening the request. Rusalkii (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

My changes were reverted by @Arch dude. I propose cleaning up the infobox by:

• Adding a comma to the 2,500 in the number of employees
• Not listing prior numbers of employees in the infobox. This could be better displayed as a table, if proper references can be provided.
• Trim down the products list by grouping into Retiring: and Retired: lines
• Use Template:US$ for the financial figures.

Any objections? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

:No objections to this approach. The prior employee count table could go in a footnote. My objections was mostly because it looked like an attempt to sanitize the article. -Arch dude (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

::Any citations for the 2009 and 2014 employment figures? RickyCourtney (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Old Language:

The Delta family of rockets was retired in early 2024, having been replaced in the market by the SpaceX's Falcon Heavy, which was more powerful, less expensive, and faster to build, leading ULA to lose all commercial contracts.[3] ULA planned an orderly retirement and had procured and had in hand 100 of the engines to continue building Atlas V as it developed a replacement rocket. At the time of the announcement they could fly 29 more missions and all of them had been sold, so no new orders would be accepted.

ULA faces an uncertain future. In 2023, the company announced that it was for sale.[28] In December 2023, it was announced that Jeff Bezos was looking at purchasing the company to merge it with Blue Origin, which he also owns.

Proposed New Language:

The Delta family of rockets was retired in early 2024. Contrary to initial concerns, ULA not only retained its commercial contracts but also secured the largest commercial contract in history through a contract with Amazon for their Vulcan rocket^[i]. [ULA planned an orderly retirement and had procured and had in hand 100 of the engines to continue building Atlas V as it developed a replacement rocket. At the time of the announcement, they could fly 29 more missions and all of them had been sold, so no new orders would be accepted.]

In April 2025, the U.S. Space Force announced that ULA was awarded “a firm, fixed-price, indefinite-delivery requirements (IDR) contract to launch 40 percent of the missions to the country’s most challenging and exotic orbits^[ii][iii],” continuing its long tradition of supporting the country’s national security missions.

----[https://www.ulalaunch.com/about/news/2022/04/05/amazon-signs-contract-with-united-launch-alliance-for-38-project-kuiper-launches-on-vulcan-centaur ^[i] Amazon Signs Contract with United Launch Alliance for 38 Project Kuiper Launches on Vulcan Centaur]

[ii] [https://newsroom.ulalaunch.com/releases/united-launch-alliance-wins-competitive-space-force-contract-award-for-continued-critical-national-security-space-launches United Launch Alliance Wins Competitive Space Force Contract Award for Continued Critical National Security Space Launches]

[iii] [https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/spacex-ula-expected-clinch-multibillion-dollar-contract-key-pentagon-launch-2025-04-04/ Reuters: SpaceX, ULA, Blue Origin clinch $13.5 billion-dollar Pentagon launch contracts] Chandlerengel (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:To me, this proposed language contains excessive puffery, or terms used to promote the subject of an article, such as:

:*the largest commercial contract in history

:*most challenging and exotic orbits

:*long tradition of support

:Furthermore the proposed changes remove all language, supported by citations, that is either critical or puts ULA in a less than positive light. We strive for a neutral point of view, calling out both the positive things that happen to a company, and the negative.

:May I ask, are you an editor with a conflict of interest? Or put a different way, do you work for ULA? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes I do work for ULA, could you be of help to help with language that does not mislead readers in a negative way, without excessive puffery? Chandlerengel (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)