Boeing Sells Rocketdyne

Boeing Press Release:

"Boeing to Sell Rocketdyne Propulsion Unit to Pratt & Whitney

ST. LOUIS, Feb. 22, 2005 - The Boeing Company [NYSE:BA] announced
today that it has reached an agreement to sell its Rocketdyne
Propulsion & Power business to Pratt & Whitney, a United Technologies
company [NYSE:UTX], for approximately $700 million in cash.

The transaction is subject to regulatory approvals and other customary
closing conditions. Boeing expects to recognize a gain on the sale.

Rocketdyne is primarily a rocket engine developer and builder, and
provides booster engines for the Space Shuttle and the Delta family of
expendable launch vehicles, as well as propulsion systems for missile
defense systems. The divestiture includes sites and assets in
California, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. Approximately 3,000
people support the operations at those sites

"This transaction makes sense for Boeing, for Rocketdyne's employees
and customers, and for Pratt & Whitney," said Jim Albaugh, president
and chief executive officer of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems. "The
acquisition of Rocketdyne by Pratt & Whitney will benefit our
customers, as Pratt & Whitney is a company dedicated to the business of
propulsion and is in the best position to build upon Rocketdyne's proud
heritage. I have great confidence that the proud legacy of Rocketdyne
from Mercury to Saturn V to the Space Shuttle will be in good hands.
The sale also reinforces our strategic business aim to be horizontally
-- not vertically -- integrated."

Albaugh said that Boeing would continue to build launch systems and
that the divestiture would enable Boeing to serve its customers more
effectively, while preserving the company's ability to contract with
Rocketdyne for continued use of its capabilities and expertise.

"UTC companies are at the cutting edge of technology in all business
segments and we believe Rocketdyne's rich heritage of technology
excellence and innovation is a great addition to our portfolio," said
Louis R. Ch=EAnevert, president of Pratt & Whitney. "We look forward to
working with Boeing, NASA, the Department of Defense and other
customers to continue the high level of service that Rocketdyne has
always provided."

Rocketdyne Propulsion & Power was formerly owned by North American
Aviation and Rockwell International, and has been the premiere rocket
propulsion provider in the nation for more than a half-century. As part
of Boeing Integrated Defense System's Launch & Orbital Systems segment,
the business being divested generated nearly $700 million in revenue
during 2004. Sales to Boeing have typically represented about a third
of Rocketdyne's sales.

From its beginnings following World War II, Rocketdyne has been at the
forefront in rocket engine development, testing and performance. In the
1950s, Rocketdyne engines put the first U.S. satellites into orbit, and
the company continued as an integral part of the Mercury, Gemini and
Apollo programs that put humans on the moon. Rocketdyne supplied the
main engines for the Space Shuttle in the 1980s and has continued to
build booster engines for Atlas and Delta expendable launch vehicles.
And recently, Rocketdyne developed and has flown the RS-68, the first
large liquid-fueled American booster engine in a generation.

Credit Suisse First Boston acted as financial advisor to Boeing on this
transaction.

United Technologies, based in Hartford, Conn., is a diversified company
that provides high technology products and services to the commercial
building industry and the military and commercial aerospace industry.
In addition to Chubb, Otis, Carrier and UTC Power, United Technologies'
companies include Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Sundstrand and Sikorsky
Aircraft.

Pratt & Whitney is a world leader in the design, manufacture and
service of aircraft engines, space propulsion systems and industrial
gas turbines.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is one
of the world's largest space and defense businesses. Headquartered in
St. Louis, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is a $30.5 billion
business. It provides network-centric system solutions to its global
military, government, and commercial customers. It is a leading
provider of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems; the
world's largest military aircraft manufacturer; the world's largest
satellite manufacturer and a leading provider of space-based
communications; the primary systems integrator for U.S. missile defense
and Department of Homeland Security; NASA's largest contractor and a
global leader in launch services.

Safe Harbor Statement / Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements contained in this press release are considered
"forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and it is Boeing's intent
that such statements be protected by the safe harbor created thereby.
Words such as "expects," "believes" and similar expressions are used to
identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements
are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that
could cause actual results to differ materially from future results
expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Potential
risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: (a) the risk
that the transaction may close more slowly than expected or not at all;
(b) the risk that the cost savings arising out of the transaction may
be less than anticipated, and (c) other risks and uncertainties
detailed from time to time in Boeing's filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission."

Ed Kyle wrote:
Boeing Press Release:

"Boeing to Sell Rocketdyne Propulsion Unit to Pratt & Whitney

So much for the military having two engine sources for EELV. At the
pace mergers are going, I suspect in 20 years there will be *one*
single military contractor for aerospace in the USA. Perhaps they could
get to call it Vickers? For old time's sake.

quasarstrider wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:
Boeing Press Release:

"Boeing to Sell Rocketdyne Propulsion Unit to Pratt & Whitney

So much for the military having two engine sources for EELV.


They still have two for the boosters (Energomash
and United Technologies), but unless Mitsubishi
carries on alone with MB-60, they're only going
to have one for any upgraded second stage engines
that might be developed.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:
Boeing Press Release:

"Boeing to Sell Rocketdyne Propulsion Unit to Pratt & Whitney


Some more information on this.
According to

"http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/sv/article/0,1375,VCS_239_3572430,00.html"

Boeing did not sell Rocketdyne's Santa Susanna
Field Lab as part of the deal. The RS-27A
qualification testing that goes on there now
will transition to the Force Research Laboratory
at Edwards Air Force Base. Then Santa Susanna
will be shut down to become a big environmental
cleanup headache.

Pratt will get Rocketdyne's Canoga Park factory,
where 2,600 people work (now).

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:
quasarstrider wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:
Boeing Press Release:

"Boeing to Sell Rocketdyne Propulsion Unit to Pratt & Whitney

So much for the military having two engine sources for EELV.

They still have two for the boosters (Energomash
and United Technologies), but unless Mitsubishi

You mean this?
http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_space_rd180.asp

"The RD-180 booster engine is offered by RD AMROSS, a partnership
between the world's two premier propulsion companies - Pratt &
Whitney of the United States and NPO Energomash of Russia."

It it basically the same as a Boeing Sea Launch/Energia parallel stage
engine cut in half.

FYI, Pratt & Whitney is a United Technologies company. Several people
in the military were not particularly pleased about having a critical
component (RD-180) exclusively manufactured in a foreign country to
begin with. Now this...

There are two EELV rocket families: Delta IV and Atlas V. Delta uses a
Rocketdyne (used to belong to Boeing, now will belong to Pratt &
Whitney) first stage engine, Atlas V uses a RD AMROSS (partnership
between NPO Energomash Pratt & Whitney) RD-180 first stage engine.

So who is left? ATK, Aerojet and the chicks (SpaceDev, SpaceX, etc)?

carries on alone with MB-60, they're only going
to have one for any upgraded second stage engines
that might be developed.

I suspect the USAF will not like this one bit. They traditionally have
used two sources for aircraft engines (usually GE and Pratt & Whitney).

quasarstrider wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:
quasarstrider wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:
Boeing Press Release:

"Boeing to Sell Rocketdyne Propulsion Unit to Pratt & Whitney

So much for the military having two engine sources for EELV.

They still have two for the boosters (Energomash
and United Technologies), but unless Mitsubishi

You mean this?
http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_space_rd180.asp

"The RD-180 booster engine is offered by RD AMROSS, a partnership
between the world's two premier propulsion companies - Pratt &
Whitney of the United States and NPO Energomash of Russia."


Hardly a partnership. Pratt & Whitney doesn't
do much more than open the box. Energomash is
the real provider - and it hasn't proved eager
to license production in the U.S.. UTC will
provide RS-68 through its Rocketdyne division
while its Pratt & Whitney continues to open
RD-180 boxes.


So who is left? ATK, Aerojet and the chicks (SpaceDev, SpaceX, etc)?


After the fast-pace 90s, the world found itself
with a massive launch vehicle/provider surplus.
Something had to go. We're seeing the fallout.

I suspect the USAF will not like this one bit. They traditionally
have
used two sources for aircraft engines (usually GE and Pratt &
Whitney).

Sow = Reap.

NASA and the Air Force helped bring this on by
neglecting liquid propulsion technology for
30 years. It hasn't helped that the Pentagon
kept Boeing in the penalty box for so long.
Boeing's ethics failures are, of course, a big
part of the problem too.

And the U.S. government continues to foster
U.S. manufacturing decline through its bizarre
trade policies. Policies that left no truly
competitive U.S. bidders for the President's
helicopter, for example. Policies that will
allow EADS to work for more and more U.S. taxpayer
dollars, etc.. Both of the upper stage developments
(MB-60 and RL-60) were/are largely non-U.S. efforts.

If current trends continue, RS-68 may prove to be
the last big U.S. rocket engine.

- Ed Kyle

In article .com,
Ed Kyle wrote:
And the U.S. government continues to foster
U.S. manufacturing decline through its bizarre
trade policies...

Not to mention the four-letter word "ITAR". The front-page story of the
latest issue of Space News is a European multi-government initiative to
establish European sources for satellite components currently available
only from the US. They're already talking to Japan and Russia about
whether those countries want to participate.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Ed Kyle wrote:

And the U.S. government continues to foster
U.S. manufacturing decline through its bizarre
trade policies. Policies that left no truly
competitive U.S. bidders for the President's
helicopter, for example. Policies that will
allow EADS to work for more and more U.S. taxpayer
dollars, etc.. Both of the upper stage developments
(MB-60 and RL-60) were/are largely non-U.S. efforts.


But it gets better - EU will lift the arms embargo to China
and teh US Congress is certain to follow up on even more
onerous export terms and additional restrictions. So not just
will BAE and EADS and others have an increased market, they
will have an increased market and less competition and
everybody more inclined to not buy from tehir US competitors.

One really couldn't wish a worse thing to happen to their
high-tech competitors than US lobbyists and lawmakers.



- Ed Kyle


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article .com,
Ed Kyle wrote:
And the U.S. government continues to foster
U.S. manufacturing decline through its bizarre
trade policies...

Not to mention the four-letter word "ITAR". The front-page story of the
latest issue of Space News is a European multi-government initiative to
establish European sources for satellite components currently available
only from the US. They're already talking to Japan and Russia about
whether those countries want to participate.

It will be interesting to see how the present developments will affect
Canada - it might end up integrating even more with Europe.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article .com,
Ed Kyle wrote:
And the U.S. government continues to foster
U.S. manufacturing decline through its bizarre
trade policies...

Not to mention the four-letter word "ITAR".

No doubt about that. The U.S. govt. took the
gun, loaded it, aimed it at its own foot, and
pulled the trigger.

I keep voting against these guys (both parties
have 'em), but not enough of my fellow
citizens have caught on to the problem.

ITAR merely froze U.S. "high-tech" at 1997-ish
standards. The rest of the world is moving on,
threatening to leave the U.S. in the dust.

- Ed Kyle