Author Topic: Interview with Danny Davis, CLV Upper Stage Project Manager  (Read 17616 times)

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4924
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Interview with Danny Davis, CLV Upper Stage Project Manager
« Reply #40 on: 09/15/2006 04:03 AM »
Quote
kraisee - 11/9/2006  12:23 PM
Watch the process of changes, and you'll get a feel for what I learned ;)

Ross.



OK Ross.. Need some pointers here as we see changes... something like a Marker on changes to watch, when they are posted..

just a reply to a post here and there to indicate more note should be taken..


  ;-)

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4924
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Interview with Danny Davis, CLV Upper Stage Project Manager
« Reply #41 on: 09/15/2006 04:03 AM »
Quote
kraisee - 11/9/2006  12:23 PM
Watch the process of changes, and you'll get a feel for what I learned ;)

Ross.



OK Ross.. Need some pointers here as we see changes... something like a Marker on changes to watch, when they are posted..

just a reply to a post here and there to indicate more note should be taken..


[more hints please]   ;-)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10481
  • Liked: 405
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Interview with Danny Davis, CLV Upper Stage Project Manager
« Reply #42 on: 09/15/2006 06:08 PM »
Quote
Avron - 14/9/2006  11:50 PM
OK Ross.. Need some pointers here as we see changes... something like a Marker on changes to watch, when they are posted..

just a reply to a post here and there to indicate more note should be taken..


[more hints please]   ;-)

He he he! :)

Well, I did do some major changes over on the Direct thread this week.

Without giving anything away, the new engines are much cheaper than before, and make the Direct noticably safer too.   You might not think that is a random decision on my part, but I couldn't possibly comment.

subble enuff 4 ya? ;)

R.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4924
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Interview with Danny Davis, CLV Upper Stage Project Manager
« Reply #43 on: 09/16/2006 04:49 AM »
Quote
kraisee - 15/9/2006  1:55 PM
subble enuff 4 ya? ;)

R.

enuff ..ta (ref the brits)  [ :) ]

Offline R&R

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Interview with Danny Davis, CLV Upper Stage Project Manager
« Reply #44 on: 09/16/2006 04:59 AM »
Quote
Jim - 12/9/2006  11:48 AM

Quote
R&R - 7/9/2006  9:32 PM
Seems to me that mandating the CLV US be built a Michoud means LM builds it since they build the Shuttle ET right?

No it doesn't.  LM is just a resident at MAF

Okay I shuld have been more specific.  I thought the whole point of mandating MAF is driven by the intent to basically build the CLV US Tanks and CaLV Core Tanks the same way as the Shuttle ET.  This leverages the tooling, engineering and technician expertise and testing facilities to keep the cost down.  If that's even partially correct then NASA won't be able to let another company go in and share the facility and tooling etc. since the US manufacturing will start while Shuttle is still flying.  The only way I see to do that is award the contract to LM as sole source.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10481
  • Liked: 405
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: Interview with Danny Davis, CLV Upper Stage Project Manager
« Reply #45 on: 09/16/2006 06:02 PM »
R&R,
It is possible that Boeing could win it too.   They could fairly easily pick up the current staff working there now and be up and running in no time.

I do feel that LM has a clear 'upper hand' though - because it is already onsite with a fully established team of administrators, managers, engineers and tchnicians.   But last time I thought it was pretty-much a lock-in...

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline SimonShuttle

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1774
  • Manchester, England
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Interview with Danny Davis, CLV Upper Stage Project Manager
« Reply #46 on: 09/16/2006 06:30 PM »
When's part 3 Ross? There's lots of quotes in part 2 especially, but we want more :)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32197
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10849
  • Likes Given: 321
RE: Interview with Danny Davis, CLV Upper Stage Project Manager
« Reply #47 on: 09/16/2006 09:26 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 16/9/2006  1:49 PM

I do feel that LM has a clear 'upper hand' though - because it is already onsite with a fully established team of administrators, managers, engineers and tchnicians.   But last time I thought it was pretty-much a lock-in...

that is not an "upper hand"  KSC base contractor has changed contractors.  Rockwell to LSOC was a change.  It is not a big deal

Only the upper mangement changes, all the rest of the people, which you have listed, would just change badges.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32197
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10849
  • Likes Given: 321
RE: Interview with Danny Davis, CLV Upper Stage Project Manager
« Reply #48 on: 09/16/2006 09:27 PM »
Quote
R&R - 16/9/2006  12:46 AM

Quote
Jim - 12/9/2006  11:48 AM

Quote
R&R - 7/9/2006  9:32 PM
Seems to me that mandating the CLV US be built a Michoud means LM builds it since they build the Shuttle ET right?

No it doesn't.  LM is just a resident at MAF

Okay I shuld have been more specific.  I thought the whole point of mandating MAF is driven by the intent to basically build the CLV US Tanks and CaLV Core Tanks the same way as the Shuttle ET.  This leverages the tooling, engineering and technician expertise and testing facilities to keep the cost down.  If that's even partially correct then NASA won't be able to let another company go in and share the facility and tooling etc. since the US manufacturing will start while Shuttle is still flying.  The only way I see to do that is award the contract to LM as sole source.

 Not a good enough justification.  Any compotent contractor can come in do the same job

Offline R&R

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Interview with Danny Davis, CLV Upper Stage Project Manager
« Reply #49 on: 09/17/2006 06:29 AM »
Quote
kraisee - 17/9/2006  11:49 AM

R&R,
It is possible that Boeing could win it too.   They could fairly easily pick up the current staff working there now and be up and running in no time.

I do feel that LM has a clear 'upper hand' though - because it is already onsite with a fully established team of administrators, managers, engineers and tchnicians.   But last time I thought it was pretty-much a lock-in...

Ross.

I agree Boeing or ULA depending on timing could win the contract but having to bid on the US and not be able to put forward a less expensive proposal because they have to cost for MAF instead of Decatur puts them at a disadvantage.  LM would have better insight of the MAF costs.

As others have pointed out and I knew this as well is any contractor cold come in and take over LM's operations and absorb the staff but if LM is not facing a contract extension review how does NASA take the ET work away so they can give that and the US to somebody else?

It sure seems like NASA mandating MAF will end up being just another poor costly decision.  Only time will tell how this plays out. :)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10481
  • Liked: 405
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: Interview with Danny Davis, CLV Upper Stage Project Manager
« Reply #50 on: 09/17/2006 07:57 AM »
Depending on schedule, there is a distinct chance that the Ares-I U/S production line may begin operating at the same time as ET production, as two separate teams.   MAF is certainly large enough to accomodate both production lines at the same time if it were to happen.   It's also likely that MAF will be mandated as the site for the Ares-V core too, and that team will also operate along-side the Ares-I U/S.

I think it's quite possible that any contractor could operate the new production line, while the ET line is still winding down.   And as the new line gets further and further advanced, it could be in a position to take some, if not all, of the ET staff on as that production line gradually closes.

The only advantage LM has is it already management and admin staff in place right now, ready to manage such a project.   But that's certainly not a capability some other contractor couldn't create there too.   It's a slight advantage, but an advantage none-the-less.

And MAF was specifically pushed by Congress.   They are trying to pump money into the area to rebuild the area.   To do that, they utilise any and every government agency they can, and instruct those agencies to direct cash, usually in the form of contracts, to certain zones.

In this case, NASA can make the new stage(s) in a number of different locations, all for about the same amount.   However, if they make it at MAF the governmanet agency does something which the government wishes, and that's a VERY good thing for NASA when it comes to appropriations time.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32197
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10849
  • Likes Given: 321
RE: Interview with Danny Davis, CLV Upper Stage Project Manager
« Reply #51 on: 09/17/2006 12:32 PM »
Quote
R&R - 17/9/2006  2:16 AM

I agree Boeing or ULA depending on timing could win the contract but having to bid on the US and not be able to put forward a less expensive proposal because they have to cost for MAF instead of Decatur puts them at a disadvantage.  LM would have better insight of the MAF costs.

As others have pointed out and I knew this as well is any contractor cold come in and take over LM's operations and absorb the staff but if LM is not facing a contract extension review how does NASA take the ET work away so they can give that and the US to somebody else?

It sure seems like NASA mandating MAF will end up being just another poor costly decision.  Only time will tell how this plays out. :)

ULA will not be a contractor on any other LV's.  It only exists for EELV's.

The upperstage will not be built at Decatur, MAF has been mandated.

Another contractors use of MAF does not preclude LM completing the remaining ET's.  There is plenty of room at MAF, just like AF plant 42 at Palmdale, where the B-2, Shuttle, X-33, SR-71, X-37, B-1 were built by different contractors over the years ( the 1st 3 at the same time)

Offline R&R

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Interview with Danny Davis, CLV Upper Stage Project Manager
« Reply #52 on: 09/18/2006 05:01 AM »
Quote
Jim - 18/9/2006  6:19 AM

Quote
R&R - 17/9/2006  2:16 AM

I agree Boeing or ULA depending on timing could win the contract but having to bid on the US and not be able to put forward a less expensive proposal because they have to cost for MAF instead of Decatur puts them at a disadvantage.  LM would have better insight of the MAF costs.

As others have pointed out and I knew this as well is any contractor cold come in and take over LM's operations and absorb the staff but if LM is not facing a contract extension review how does NASA take the ET work away so they can give that and the US to somebody else?

It sure seems like NASA mandating MAF will end up being just another poor costly decision.  Only time will tell how this plays out. :)

Quote
ULA will not be a contractor on any other LV's.  It only exists for EELV's.

Wrong!  ULA is a buisness like any other and some of the future ULA Managment mentioned in presentations to their employees building the CLV US at Decatur as the type of other work they could go after.  The only mandate ULA has for its existence is that LM & Boieng must sell the launches.  They are free to make money any other way they want.  Now I will concede that since MAF is mandatory they won't try for the US as a prime but they would be open to building piece parts for whoever is.

Quote
The upperstage will not be built at Decatur, MAF has been mandated.

I got that the last dozen times you've said it to anyone who suggests it.  My point is that by Decatur being shut out of the competition a great opportunity for lower cost is thrown out the window.  If NASA wants the most for it's dollar it should at least entertain other locations for building the US.

Quote
Another contractors use of MAF does not preclude LM completing the remaining ET's.  There is plenty of room at MAF, just like AF plant 42 at Palmdale, where the B-2, Shuttle, X-33, SR-71, X-37, B-1 were built by different contractors over the years ( the 1st 3 at the same time)

Quit with the whole "there's plenty of room for all" mantra.  I think we all got that part.  Again my point is that the tooling and much more for the ET is in a building(s) used by LM so someone else moving in to another place where there's room means you don't reuse that tooling. and so on.  I'll grant that you have more insight of MAF operations and to what NASA is planning so if I've got it wrong about reusing the ET stuff please let me know.  If I'm not tell me how it can work. :)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32197
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10849
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Interview with Danny Davis, CLV Upper Stage Project Manager
« Reply #53 on: 09/18/2006 11:55 AM »
ET does not equate to upperstage.  There will be two different contractors.

"I agree Boeing or ULA depending on timing could win the contract but having to bid on the US and not be able to put forward a less expensive proposal because they have to cost for MAF instead of Decatur puts them at a disadvantage. LM would have better insight of the MAF costs."                  There is nothing special about costing MAF that would give LM any advantage.    operating the facility vs operating it in are different.  The upperstage contractor is not the facility operator

Wrong, ULA will not do anything other than EELV's.  Period.  The engineering part of ULA will just be enough to operate the EELV's.  The parent companies will want to keep the additional work themselves

Decatur is tooled for 5m.  It would need to be retooled just like MAF for 5.5m.  No advantage.  MAF will be used for the CaLV core  and EDS so there are savings in fully utilitizing the facility.  It could be possible to have 3 different contractors in MAF: Upperstage, CaLV and EDS.

there is a production over capacity for the ET.  The tooling can be "shared'.  Most can be transferred to the "new' contractor since by the time the upper stage needs it, the ET won't.


Offline Ducati94

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 201
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Interview with Danny Davis, CLV Upper Stage Project Manager
« Reply #54 on: 09/18/2006 11:51 PM »
MAF will not be a factor in awarding the contract for CLV or CaLV. MAF is a Government Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO) facility. There is a sand alone facilities management contract which LM currently has. MAF presently has only one project using MAF when CLV and CaLV is both using MAF the cost of the facilities operation and maintenance will be paid for by NASA. NASA will re-compete the facilities contract before 2010.


Tags: