-
http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-06-19T214249Z_01_N19226497_RTRIDST_0_ARMS-BOEING-LOCKHEED.XML&rpc=66
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/airlines/article/0,2777,DRMN_23912_4786948,00.html
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&guid=%7B7739C751-C3D2-4BC9-A982-CE7F72ABE017%7D&keyword=
-
Does anyone know how the ULA will work? How will LM and Boeing share launches?
-
Another article
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0606200159jun20,1,7210958.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
-
Do you have the title of that article so I can google it rather than having to register, thanks.
-
"The companies are still arguing at the detail level that they shouldn't be overburdened with requirements that undercut the business case."
We'll see what the terms are, and if Boeing and Lockheed are going to renegotiate now. Also, this means the FTC has signed off on the partnership, but I'm not sure if that implies that the Pentagon has yet given its blessing. I believe the FTC was waiting on a Pentagon recommendation, so I guess it implies Pentagon approval.
-
nacnud - 20/6/2006 6:17 PM
Do you have the title of that article so I can google it rather than having to register, thanks.
The title is "Lockheed, Boeing weigh venture rules", as I found out using a dummy login from bugmenot.com (http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.chicagotribune.com)
-
I seem to remember talk about Atlas V production coming to Decatur AL
-
publiusr - 7/7/2006 2:33 PM
I seem to remember talk about Atlas V production coming to Decatur AL
it will once ULA goes forward
-
I've heard talk that ULA would mean the end of the Delta IV Medium versions, with all of those payloads transferred to Atlas and Delta IV retained only for the Heavy payloads. This is only a rumor. It may even fall into the wild rumor category. Has anyone else heard such talk?
- Ed Kyle
-
rumor
-
Very near sighted rumor.
1. Atlas V will use significantly less space in Decatur to get built than Delta IV. Reduce Delta IV launches and facility cost goes up as applies to per unit cost.
2. Delta IV has no commercial launches scheduled. Atlas V still most economical to the commercial market so not likely anything will come up to move later.
3. All Delta IV Medium & Intermediate launches (excluding GOES Sats for NASA) already awarded or soon to be awarded are USAF/NRO. Moving those to Atlas V kind of shoots the whole assured access mantra in the foot.
4. The only thing scheduled for NASA is the GOES Satellites which are built by Boeing Satellite Systems and their baby until on orbit; they in effect buy the launch. Boeing give launches to LM? I don't think so.
-
Saw that green light coming from a mile away. Of course, all I had to go on were what Jim calls "conspiracy theories" and rumors...
-
mlorrey - 16/7/2006 9:24 PM
Saw that green light coming from a mile away. Of course, all I had to go on were what Jim calls "conspiracy theories" and rumors...
That be a train comming the other way?
Maybe the folks in DC would have a better view..
-
Would this (Atlas production coming to Decatur) mean an enlargement of the plant? It's on a relatively empty streach of the river and I've heard a couple Boeing say it was built for expansion...
Simon ;)
-
simonbp - 17/7/2006 12:56 AM
Would this (Atlas production coming to Decatur) mean an enlargement of the plant? It's on a relatively empty streach of the river and I've heard a couple Boeing say it was built for expansion...
Simon ;)
The plant has excess capacity. That is the reason for the move. It was sized for 40 vehicle cores per year.
-
I was just in the plant on Friday. There were about 10 Delta IVs and 6 Delta IIs on the floor. While it certainly was spacious, I couldn't imagine having 40 Delta IV CBCs packed in there. I'm sure its doable, but watch out when backing up.
-
Bruhn - 17/7/2006 2:03 PM
I was just in the plant on Friday. There were about 10 Delta IVs and 6 Delta IIs on the floor. While it certainly was spacious, I couldn't imagine having 40 Delta IV CBCs packed in there. I'm sure its doable, but watch out when backing up.
I'm not sure how much time each CBC is supposed to be in the production cycle at Decatur, but I've read that it takes two years from an order until launch, minimum. I'm guessing that the engines (not built at Decatur) are the longest lead items, and that the completed vehicles are supposed to be shipped out about 6 months before launch, so each CBC might only be in production and test at the factory for 12 months or so. That means 40 at the factory at a time, but since the rate is only 3.333 per month, probably less than 20 or so at a time would need to be in or approaching the final assembly and test phase, actually taking up space. The rest could be little more than sheets or rolls of aluminum and wire and boxes of connectors and rivets, or whatever.
This kind of production has happened before, though with smaller launchers. During the height of the Atlas and Thor programs, the contractors were building more than 40 per year. Martin probably didn't have to build quite that many Titans per year (I seem to recall a 2 per month rate), but there were as many as 27 Titan launches one year (1963).
- Ed Kyle
-
The 40 is a throughput not storage.
-
ULA up north of me and--perhaps KC-30 production to the south of me--all in the same state.
-
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&symbol=&storyID=2006-09-18T214635Z_01_N18315144_RTRIDST_0_ARMS-BOEING-SPACE-UPDATE-1.XML&pageNumber=0&WTModLoc=InvArt-C1-ArticlePage2&sz=12
"The Air Force concluded a similar deal for launch support services with Lockheed Martin in March. But its contract with Boeing has taken much longer due to a Pentagon audit of the company's accounting for labor costs."
How long does it take to do an audit?
-
it depends on how detailed
-
Lockheed concluded in March, Boeing has yet to strike a deal an we are in October. Thats about seven months. How much detail do you need?
Sounds more like a show-stopper in the negotiations.
-
Length of negotiations is due to the hideous complexity of converting the EELV contracts from 1998/Federal Acq Regulations part 12 (Acquisition of Commercial items) to the currently back in-favor FAR part 15 (Contracting by Negotiation). Both contractors have made large capital investments in facilities, tooling, flight hardware (they bought lots of hardware in 98 when the commercial market looked robust), etc. And all of this was done without the requirement to provide all the detailed cost accounting data that the new AF contracts require. For example, if I bought a widget in 1998 and want to sell it to the AF as part of a Buy 3 launch award, how much is the widget worth? What I paid for it then or what it costs now? And what if I can't show you what all the small pieces that make up the widget cost. I liken it to the AF deciding that after flying Airmen on United Airlines for 8 years, they now decide that they need to know how much of the airplane they really are paying for with each ticket fare - and oh, by the way -- show the Government how much the engine turbine blade cost on that 777 that United bought in 1998!
The need to relook and apportion only the allowable contractor costs from the late 1990s would drive most people to go do something else. On top of that, Pete Teets made it clear that the AF would also not allow the contractors to 'get well'/recover past business decisions on the two dozen or so launches awarded in 1998. Imagine the difficulty in convincing auditors how much your company is going to lose on a rocket awarded in 1998 but not even launched yet!
These are just two of the hurdles the negotiations have to get through. When Boeing and Lockheed Martin corporately put in several billion dollars of shareholder/company money that they may never recover (given the launch market), you can bet the negotiations are going to be excruciating. I think that Lockheed Martin got through negotiations faster because they made corporate decisions on what is important and what is something they can compromise on. Boeing has its own decision process and requirements from their corporate structure, plus the Department of Justice and others have rolled back in this past summer with the buzz about the $650+ million dollar settlement. I think lots of people want to look at the Boeing negotiations to make sure the penalty is real, prolonging the negotiations.
Finally, hideous is a good descriptive word for what the AF/contractor team is going through. Most folks who get exposed to the details of the EELV contract restructure agree it is the most complex acquisition strategy change they have seen. And while the AF is trying to get national security satellites launched while preserving two EELV booster families, that is not the mission statement for DOD agencies like the cost audit folks or the defense contract management folks. Remember, it is always easier for a staff agency to ask for more data than make a decision that they could be held accountable for. The 17 month ULA approval cycle by DOD and FTC is a prime example.
-
Dexter - 4/10/2006 12:22 AM
Lockheed concluded in March, Boeing has yet to strike a deal an we are in October. Thats about seven months. How much detail do you need?
Sounds more like a show-stopper in the negotiations.
Boeing's agreement was in August
-
This Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301365.html
quotes both FTC and Pentagon officials saying that the purported ULA savings will be more than offset by higher prices resulting from lack of EELV competition.
The article also says that ULA is expected to "generate" up to $2 billion per year from of the U.S. government, which seems a bit pricey to me since current plans show only eight EELV launches per year at most.
I suppose it was this or one of the EELVs dropped altogether. In my opinion, one less EELV would have been a better result than the ULA compromise.
- Ed Kyle
-
edkyle99 - 5/10/2006 3:19 PM
This Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301365.html
quotes both FTC and Pentagon officials saying that the purported ULA savings will be more than offset by higher prices resulting from lack of EELV competition.
Sounds more like a miss-quote or officials who have no clue. Both companies now have the Launch Services contracts (Buy 3) which pays the overhead and a fixed price for each launch. Without ULA there's no competition and regardless of it the costs are basically fixed so how does it go up? Moving all Engineering to one site and all manufacturing to one site saves money.
The article also says that ULA is expected to "generate" up to $2 billion per year from of the U.S. government, which seems a bit pricey to me since current plans show only eight EELV launches per year at most.
Probably includes that fixed cost I spoke of above.
I suppose it was this or one of the EELVs dropped altogether. In my opinion, one less EELV would have been a better result than the ULA compromise.
Dropping one doesn't mean the cost is cut in half in fact it could be almost as much since they would still need more than half the people to engineer, build and launch the extra rockets of the same kind. The launch rate may be too much for one without at least some infrastructure upgrades. And heaven forbid there's a failure, now there's no other option.
If it were Boeing that left just imagine the cost to get the A5 Heavy online in time to support what's already scheduled for D4. One can only guess what it would have cost to get D4 people to stick around long enough to finish what's been started. What did it cost to get Titan folks to stick around as long as they did?
- Ed Kyle
-
R&R - 4/10/2006 4:56 PM
edkyle99 - 5/10/2006 3:19 PM
This Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301365.html
quotes both FTC and Pentagon officials saying that the purported ULA savings will be more than offset by higher prices resulting from lack of EELV competition.
Sounds more like a miss-quote or officials who have no clue. Both companies now have the Launch Services contracts (Buy 3) which pays the overhead and a fixed price for each launch. Without ULA there's no competition and regardless of it the costs are basically fixed so how does it go up? Moving all Engineering to one site and all manufacturing to one site saves money.
The competition argument sounds good in theory, but it is implausible without commercial payloads in the mix. Perhaps the officials expect that the commercial satellite launch market will improve in the future.
As for cost savings, even more money could be saved if an entire EELV production line and associated launch sites were shut down.
The article also says that ULA is expected to "generate" up to $2 billion per year from of the U.S. government, which seems a bit pricey to me since current plans show only eight EELV launches per year at most.
Probably includes that fixed cost I spoke of above.
Costs that should be included in the calculations. It isn't pretend money. ;)
I suppose it was this or one of the EELVs dropped altogether. In my opinion, one less EELV would have been a better result than the ULA compromise.
Dropping one doesn't mean the cost is cut in half in fact it could be almost as much since they would still need more than half the people to engineer, build and launch the extra rockets of the same kind. The launch rate may be too much for one without at least some infrastructure upgrades. And heaven forbid there's a failure, now there's no other option.
I believe that either launch system could support the full launch rate if needed. That would only be maybe 4-6 launches per year from each site.
If it were Boeing that left just imagine the cost to get the A5 Heavy online in time to support what's already scheduled for D4. One can only guess what it would have cost to get D4 people to stick around long enough to finish what's been started. What did it cost to get Titan folks to stick around as long as they did?
Atlas V Heavy would be a problem. It would need yet another west coast pad. But Delta IV might need some improvements too, I've read, to handle some heavy sun sync payloads.
- Ed Kyle
-
Also in the Washington Post article, the FTC acknowledged that creating the ULA monopoly "will probably lead to higher prices and lower quality". In the WSJ, FTC staff stated the joint venture (ULA) likely would "reduce the rate of innovation" while raising prices to launch U.S. government satellites in coming years.
So the DoD recommended the joint venture based principally on improved national security stating that: "the unique national security benefits from the joint venture would exceed any anticompetitive harm."
Now for the twisted logic:
National security through the formation of ULA will be impoved by (1) less quality (2) less innovation (3) higher prices for launch services in coming years.
Therefore, more risk of launch failure at a higher price equates to "unique national security benefits".
Huh!!!!
-
Bruhn - 17/7/2006 1:59 PM
I was just in the plant on Friday. There were about 10 Delta IVs and 6 Delta IIs on the floor. While it certainly was spacious, I couldn't imagine having 40 Delta IV CBCs packed in there. I'm sure its doable, but watch out when backing up.
Someone please say they have a picture of what that looks like. I can imagine it would be an awesome sight!
-
Jim - 4/10/2006 6:27 AM
Dexter - 4/10/2006 12:22 AM
Lockheed concluded in March, Boeing has yet to strike a deal an we are in October. Thats about seven months. How much detail do you need?
Sounds more like a show-stopper in the negotiations.
Boeing's agreement was in August
Boeing has not finalized their Buy 3 contract yet. They have a "handshake" agreement with the AF, but still not completed.
-
general - 4/10/2006 10:15 PM
Jim - 4/10/2006 6:27 AM
Dexter - 4/10/2006 12:22 AM
Lockheed concluded in March, Boeing has yet to strike a deal an we are in October. Thats about seven months. How much detail do you need?
Sounds more like a show-stopper in the negotiations.
Boeing's agreement was in August
Boeing has not finalized their Buy 3 contract yet. They have a "handshake" agreement with the AF, but still not completed.
I wouldn't even say there's a handshake agreement. Boeing is wanting to recover $2.5 Billion in EELV development/infrastructure costs at taxpayer expense. Hopefully, the gov't won't cave in.
-
bombay - 4/10/2006 9:53 PM
Also in the Washington Post article, the FTC acknowledged that creating the ULA monopoly "will probably lead to higher prices and lower quality". In the WSJ, FTC staff stated the joint venture (ULA) likely would "reduce the rate of innovation" while raising prices to launch U.S. government satellites in coming years.
So the DoD recommended the joint venture based principally on improved national security stating that: "the unique national security benefits from the joint venture would exceed any anticompetitive harm."
Now for the twisted logic:
National security through the formation of ULA will be impoved by (1) less quality (2) less innovation (3) higher prices for launch services in coming years.
Therefore, more risk of launch failure at a higher price equates to "unique national security benefits".
Huh!!!!
Read it straight from the source from the undersecretary Krieg at the Pentagon:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0510165/0510165dodletterkriegtomajoras.pdf
This is not journalistic speculation, this is the opinion of a top ranking official at the Pentagon.
He does not believe the savings will be realized, and the reliability will be reduced. How does this benefit national security when a rocket blows up taking out a critical national security asset.
Anyone remember the Titan IV failures in the 1990s?
-
Dexter - 5/10/2006 9:27 PM
bombay - 4/10/2006 9:53 PM
Also in the Washington Post article, the FTC acknowledged that creating the ULA monopoly "will probably lead to higher prices and lower quality". In the WSJ, FTC staff stated the joint venture (ULA) likely would "reduce the rate of innovation" while raising prices to launch U.S. government satellites in coming years.
So the DoD recommended the joint venture based principally on improved national security stating that: "the unique national security benefits from the joint venture would exceed any anticompetitive harm."
Now for the twisted logic:
National security through the formation of ULA will be impoved by (1) less quality (2) less innovation (3) higher prices for launch services in coming years.
Therefore, more risk of launch failure at a higher price equates to "unique national security benefits".
Huh!!!!
Read it straight from the source from the undersecretary Krieg at the Pentagon:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0510165/0510165dodletterkriegtomajoras.pdf
This is not journalistic speculation, this is the opinion of a top ranking official at the Pentagon.
He does not believe the savings will be realized, and the reliability will be reduced. How does this benefit national security when a rocket blows up taking out a critical national security asset.
Anyone remember the Titan IV failures in the 1990s?
In addition, does anyone remember the Delta III failure of the 90's when the failure was attributed to the RL10 engine, which subsequently shut down Atlas.
Doesn't both the Boeing and Atlas EELV upperstages use the same P&W engine whereby an alternate vehicle option would be rendered null and void if a problem existed with the common upperstage engine?
The justification for ULA is an absolute farse. The spin and contradicting statements regarding the joint venture that's available for all to read makes the regulatory process a joke.
-
ULA was the lesser of the evils.
Door number 1, DoD pays the complete cost of two independent providers each working at a fraction of capacity.
Door number 2, DoD forces a downselect (through competition or attrition), pays the exit costs of the loser and is left with a single source with no regulatory authority.
Door number 3, DoD approves ULA, gets to keep two independent systems, gets some cost savings through consolidation and has the regulatory authority provided by the consent decree.
On a separate note, why should Boeing or LM be precluded from recovering their investment in the EELV systems? Is it right that the government should entice contractors to invest with the promise of huge sales in a winner-take-all competition, then change the rules halfway through to a winner-take-half. Then renegotiate everything again to explicitly preclude any investment recovery? The whole premise of a business model is that up front investments in product development are recovered in product sales down stream.
It's like the USG going to Microsoft and insisting that it will buy Office but only pay the cost of burning the CD.
-
DOD paid for these two to get to where they are today in the LV business.. its also a matter of National security.. all other logic is out of the picture.. we don't have the full picture in respect to national security and will never have it.. the blessing has been given.. game over... wanna break this up or you dont like it. support SpaceX or one of the other new players.. the need stated is two vehicle families.. there is no law that prevents BA or LM from getting out of the LV buisness right now.. then the need would not be fulfilled.. and that cannot happen today... not in todays world..
-
bombay - 6/10/2006 12:11 AM
Doesn't both the Boeing and Atlas EELV upperstages use the same P&W engine whereby an alternate vehicle option would be rendered null and void if a problem existed with the common upperstage engine?
The justification for ULA is an absolute farse. The spin and contradicting statements regarding the joint venture that's available for all to read makes the regulatory process a joke.
Both companies are addressing the RL-10 issue, But they use different models. WRT the standdown,Atlas could have flown but chose not to.
Your opinion.
-
quark - 6/10/2006 12:05 AM
ULA was the lesser of the evils.
Door number 1, DoD pays the complete cost of two independent providers each working at a fraction of capacity.
Door number 2, DoD forces a downselect (through competition or attrition), pays the exit costs of the loser and is left with a single source with no regulatory authority.
Door number 3, DoD approves ULA, gets to keep two independent systems, gets some cost savings through consolidation and has the regulatory authority provided by the consent decree.
On a separate note, why should Boeing or LM be precluded from recovering their investment in the EELV systems? Is it right that the government should entice contractors to invest with the promise of huge sales in a winner-take-all competition, then change the rules halfway through to a winner-take-half. Then renegotiate everything again to explicitly preclude any investment recovery? The whole premise of a business model is that up front investments in product development are recovered in product sales down stream.
It's like the USG going to Microsoft and insisting that it will buy Office but only pay the cost of burning the CD.
All you EELV/ULA supporters continue to point out how EELV was different from Titan IV for the following reasons:
Commercial Program
Commercial Contracting
Contractors's own their respective designs
Etc......
Both companies went into the program with a bad market forecast in hindsight. Both companies chose to compete for this work. Both companies accepted DOD funds in addition to their own investsments.
Except for the DOD funds it sounds a lot like Ford deciding to build giant SUVs right before gas hits $3.00 / gallon. Both contractors made a bad business decision on a bad forecast and should be precluded from recovering their investment in a commercial program. That's the real world.
By the way, last time I checked, both companies reported profits.
What your options did not recognize is Mr. Krieg's assertions that there would be no cost savings realized and that reliability and quality would be reduced. Seems like status quo is better than the ULA option.
That would be Door number 1.
-
quark - 6/10/2006 12:05 AM
ULA was the lesser of the evils.
Door number 1, DoD pays the complete cost of two independent providers each working at a fraction of capacity.
Door number 2, DoD forces a downselect (through competition or attrition), pays the exit costs of the loser and is left with a single source with no regulatory authority.
Door number 3, DoD approves ULA, gets to keep two independent systems, gets some cost savings through consolidation and has the regulatory authority provided by the consent decree.
On a separate note, why should Boeing or LM be precluded from recovering their investment in the EELV systems? Is it right that the government should entice contractors to invest with the promise of huge sales in a winner-take-all competition, then change the rules halfway through to a winner-take-half. Then renegotiate everything again to explicitly preclude any investment recovery? The whole premise of a business model is that up front investments in product development are recovered in product sales down stream.
It's like the USG going to Microsoft and insisting that it will buy Office but only pay the cost of burning the CD.
Your door number 3 choice is backed up by nothing but canned statements that have no foundation. This is supported by the contents of the Krieg report that Dexter posted; I would suggest that you read it! In doing so, you could only draw one conclusion, the rhetoric of "more reliable launch services", "cost savings", "better quality", "improved nat'l security", is shot down by numerous contradicting statements that would indicate the opposite to hold true.
The consent decree is hog-wash. For example, the decree states: "the new joint venture must "promise" it will work with other companies without taking unfair advantage". I guess if ULA breaks their "promise" they'll be yelled at and will have to go stand in the corner. The consent decree has no teeth.
The Krieg report also addresses with great concern that "in order to ensure the Department achieves the national security benefits, the companies need to retain critical capabilities through the transition and relocation of "key employees". I contend that ULA hasn't a clue whether or not "key employees" will make the transition or relocate. Why would they if there's no incentive to do so! Talk about consolidation all you want, if the right people aren't part of the consolidation effort you'll have manufacturing/engineering costs going through the roof and rockets dropping out of the sky.
-
Jim - 6/10/2006 4:28 AM
bombay - 6/10/2006 12:11 AM
Doesn't both the Boeing and Atlas EELV upperstages use the same P&W engine whereby an alternate vehicle option would be rendered null and void if a problem existed with the common upperstage engine?
The justification for ULA is an absolute farse. The spin and contradicting statements regarding the joint venture that's available for all to read makes the regulatory process a joke.
Both companies are addressing the RL-10 issue, But they use different models. WRT the standdown,Atlas could have flown but chose not to.
Your opinion.
Wrong!
LM was "forced" to postpone the Atlas III launch after the Delta III failure pending the outcome of the RL10 engine failure investigation with the cost of delay in the 10's of millions.
The same scenario would hold true should a similiar situation occur relative to an upperstage engine snafu with either the Boeing or Lockheed versions. The fleets would be grounded pending investigation. What was that about two discreet launch options for nat'l security reasons?
Not my opinion - fact!
-
Both Dexter and Bombay obviously never have worked in the space launch business.
-
Dexter - 6/10/2006 9:19 AM
By the way, last time I checked, both companies reported profits.
Boeing wrote off $835 million on the Delta IV program in 2003. As near as I can tell, the company has hardly bothered to mention Delta IV in its annual reports since then.
- Ed Kyle
-
bombay - 6/10/2006 12:40 PM
Jim - 6/10/2006 4:28 AM
bombay - 6/10/2006 12:11 AM
Doesn't both the Boeing and Atlas EELV upperstages use the same P&W engine whereby an alternate vehicle option would be rendered null and void if a problem existed with the common upperstage engine?
The justification for ULA is an absolute farse. The spin and contradicting statements regarding the joint venture that's available for all to read makes the regulatory process a joke.
Both companies are addressing the RL-10 issue, But they use different models. WRT the standdown,Atlas could have flown but chose not to.
Your opinion.
Wrong!
LM was "forced" to postpone the Atlas III launch after the Delta III failure pending the outcome of the RL10 engine failure investigation with the cost of delay in the 10's of millions.
The same scenario would hold true should a similiar situation occur relative to an upperstage engine snafu with either the Boeing or Lockheed versions. The fleets would be grounded pending investigation. What was that about two discreet launch options for nat'l security reasons?
Not my opinion - fact!
Opinion again.
Wrong again. They were not "forced".
They could have launched if needed
-
edkyle99 - 6/10/2006 12:44 PM
Dexter - 6/10/2006 9:19 AM
By the way, last time I checked, both companies reported profits.
Boeing wrote off $835 million on the Delta IV program in 2003. As near as I can tell, the company has hardly bothered to mention Delta IV in its annual reports since then.
- Ed Kyle
It's in there
-
Dexter - 6/10/2006 10:19 AM
Except for the DOD funds it sounds a lot like Ford deciding to build giant SUVs right before gas hits $3.00 / gallon. Both contractors made a bad business decision on a bad forecast and should be precluded from recovering their investment in a commercial program. That's the real world.
this isn't the real world. There are national and national security implications.
Where were you guys when Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas and when Lockheed stopped building commercial aircraft. Now there is only one US producer of commercial aircraft.
The same thing applies to fighter. LM and Boeing produce the F-22
This is no different
-
Jim - 6/10/2006 11:45 AM
edkyle99 - 6/10/2006 12:44 PM
Dexter - 6/10/2006 9:19 AM
By the way, last time I checked, both companies reported profits.
Boeing wrote off $835 million on the Delta IV program in 2003. As near as I can tell, the company has hardly bothered to mention Delta IV in its annual reports since then.
- Ed Kyle
It's in there
Yes, it is. But it is not in the glossy Operational Highlights sections, only in the Financial Tables section.
Interestingly, the 2005 report has a bit that details how much sunk cost ($2 billion) Boeing would lose if it had to shut Delta IV down.
- Ed Kyle
-
Jim - 6/10/2006 11:45 AM
bombay - 6/10/2006 12:40 PM
Jim - 6/10/2006 4:28 AM
bombay - 6/10/2006 12:11 AM
Doesn't both the Boeing and Atlas EELV upperstages use the same P&W engine whereby an alternate vehicle option would be rendered null and void if a problem existed with the common upperstage engine?
The justification for ULA is an absolute farse. The spin and contradicting statements regarding the joint venture that's available for all to read makes the regulatory process a joke.
Both companies are addressing the RL-10 issue, But they use different models. WRT the standdown,Atlas could have flown but chose not to.
Your opinion.
Wrong!
LM was "forced" to postpone the Atlas III launch after the Delta III failure pending the outcome of the RL10 engine failure investigation with the cost of delay in the 10's of millions.
The same scenario would hold true should a similiar situation occur relative to an upperstage engine snafu with either the Boeing or Lockheed versions. The fleets would be grounded pending investigation. What was that about two discreet launch options for nat'l security reasons?
Not my opinion - fact!
Opinion again.
Wrong again. They were not "forced".
They could have launched if needed
Could have launched if needed? There is no logic to that statement. Why in the world would Atlas launch when there were no definitive answers to the engine investigation? The risk would outweigh the reward by an order of magnitude!
Think man!!!
-
Jim - 6/10/2006 11:43 AM
Both Dexter and Bombay obviously never have worked in the space launch business.
Your totally biased pumping and spinning of ULA even when presented with a refutting argument based on published documentation is beyond reproach.
As a NASA employee, if in fact that is what you are, I would expect you to weigh both sides of the argument (for or against ULA) a bit more evenly given that you're not a Boeing or LM employee.
What's in for you - a new car, trip to Hawaii, big fat bonus upon closure of ULA?
-
bombay - 6/10/2006 3:08 PM
Could have launched if needed? There is no logic to that statement. Why in the world would Atlas launch when there were no definitive answers to the engine investigation? The risk would outweigh the reward by an order of magnitude!
Think man!!!
If there was a national need for the onorbit assets, they would have launched. Also there was enough separation between the two engine types to clear it quickly if needed.
-
bombay - 6/10/2006 3:21 PM
Jim - 6/10/2006 11:43 AM
Both Dexter and Bombay obviously never have worked in the space launch business.
Your totally biased pumping and spinning of ULA even when presented with a refutting argument based on published documentation is beyond reproach.
As a NASA employee, if in fact that is what you are, I would expect you to weigh both sides of the argument (for or against ULA) a bit more evenly given that you're not a Boeing or LM employee.
What's in for you - a new car, trip to Hawaii, big fat bonus upon closure of ULA?
You believe everything you read?
The country would be worse off with only one LV family.
I have been on 2 LV procurements and know what the current situation can be improved by ULA
-
I find this thread very entertaining. Opinions galore across the spectrum.
Here is an Air Force opinion.
https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2000/acsc/00-047.pdf
The paper includes a discussion in recent launch failures and an assessment of why those failures occured.
Some of the main points include an overemphasis on cost cutting, loss of experienced personell, inadequate manufacturing process controls, and insufficient oversight on quality assusrance.
With ULA soon to be officially blessed, the need to understand where we have been before moving forward is paramount.
Enjoy.
-
10 years ago is not recent. The USAF management of space systems was totally inadequate in the 90's due to command changes
-
Jim - 6/10/2006 11:43 AM
Both Dexter and Bombay obviously never have worked in the space launch business.
Neither has Kenneth Krieg:
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/krieg_bio.html
Yet he is convinced that we will have higher prices and lower reliability.
As a NASA employee, I would think that you would be concerned by this development.
Leads me to believe that this is why NASA wants to spend $400M on Kistler and SpaceX to develop competition.
PS - I may not have an insider's view of this, but what is being presented plublicly smells!
-
Jim - 6/10/2006 2:43 PM
bombay - 6/10/2006 3:21 PM
Jim - 6/10/2006 11:43 AM
Both Dexter and Bombay obviously never have worked in the space launch business.
Your totally biased pumping and spinning of ULA even when presented with a refutting argument based on published documentation is beyond reproach.
As a NASA employee, if in fact that is what you are, I would expect you to weigh both sides of the argument (for or against ULA) a bit more evenly given that you're not a Boeing or LM employee.
What's in for you - a new car, trip to Hawaii, big fat bonus upon closure of ULA?
You believe everything you read?
The country would be worse off with only one LV family.
I have been on 2 LV procurements and know what the current situation can be improved by ULA
Based on your advise, I shouldn't believe you.
Please convince me with some evidence or some links. The only thing you have provided thus far is opinion.
-
can't, previleged information
-
Jim - 6/10/2006 2:39 PM
bombay - 6/10/2006 3:08 PM
Could have launched if needed? There is no logic to that statement. Why in the world would Atlas launch when there were no definitive answers to the engine investigation? The risk would outweigh the reward by an order of magnitude!
Think man!!!
If there was a national need for the onorbit assets, they would have launched. Also there was enough separation between the two engine types to clear it quickly if needed.
Read page 14 of the pdf file in the link Gus just posted.
https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2000/acsc/00-047.pdf
Lockheed lost the Telstar 7 launch because of RL10 problems costing them $85-90 Million.
-
Jim - 6/10/2006 5:28 AM
Both companies are addressing the RL-10 issue, But they use different models. WRT the standdown,Atlas could have flown but chose not to.
The Delta III RL10B-2 failure was due to crummy thrust chamber jacket braze and a misinterpreted inspection requirement, both of which could have just as easily happened on the Atlas (A-4) version. Lockheed's decision to stand down until the root cause was addressed was completely rational.
I would be a lot more supportive of ULA if they also initiated a program to bring an alternative to the RL10 on line. It'd make the assured-access argument a lot easier to swallow.
-
they have and also RL-10 reliability improvements are part of the agreement
-
How many of the current Boeing Delta employees would you guess that will volunteer to move to Denver as a result of this ULA consolidation? Many of you pay good money so your family can come to southern california for a vacation and these guys live here year round. How many of you pay good money to go vacationing in Denver?
How much of the Delta IV technical capability can be maintained when key technical guys won't go? Imagine if you're one of the Boeing Delta employee that decided to effectively move into Lockheed (their town, their building, and their people), guess who will survive when the management wants to consolidate personnel to realize these "cost savings"?
-
Dexter - 6/10/2006 5:28 PM
Neither has Kenneth Krieg:
And therefore, he has no authority in this matter.
Yes, Delta and Atlas both use the RL10 engine. But they are significantly different versions in many ways (thrust vectoring, nozzle construction, etc.), reducing the likelihood that failure of one variant will take the other out of service. In the case of Delta 269 it happened that one of the parts that failed on the RL10B-2 might have had an impact on Atlas flights.
See for yourself how many parts are common between the RL10 versions:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/delta3/d3_report.pdf
There is an illustration of the RL10B-2 on page 1-2, you will see that there is not a lot in common. This helps reliability.
Also Delta and Atlas, apart from their second stage engine, are completely different otherwise. They have different first stage fuels and engines, different guidance systems...everything is different. This helps to maintain a fail-safe system - because there are no common components, a failure in one will not preclude the other from "taking up the slack".
As someone already said, ULA is the best option available to the US government. If the EELV competitors were forced to downselect, we would get no to minimal savings and no back-up capability. Reliability of launching satellites would be decreased, as any failure would result in a lengthy halt to launches while the failure was investigated. With ULA, we get potential cost savings (which is like icing on the cake if you will - not essential but nice to have), and complete fail-safe capability. If one vehicle should be precluded from launching, the payloads charged to that vehicle can be transferred to the other - EELV was built with that in mind.
ULA may offer taxpayer benefits. I don't know, and honestly I don't care. The national security benefits of having two robust systems backing up one another and able to launch national security payloads reliably greatly outweigh a couple hundred dollars saved by the taxpayers here and there. What ULA offers is secure capability.
Sincerely,
Nick
P.S. I don't work for Boeing or LM.
-
Nick L. - 6/10/2006 11:01 PM
As someone already said, ULA is the best option available to the US government. If the EELV competitors were forced to downselect, we would get no to minimal savings and no back-up capability.
The way I see it, the logical extension of the ULA cost savings logic is to shut down one EELV altogether. Then, instead of saving millions, the country saves billions. Instead of consolidating a fraction of the total management and engineering jobs, one-half of the jobs and salaries are eliminated. The savings snowball, with the remaining launcher flying twice as often so that it becomes cheaper on a per-flight basis, allowing it to win additional commercial launch contracts, making it even more efficient, and so on. The higher flight rate results in improved reliability too, as the vehicle climbs its lessons-learned curve more rapidly.
And what of the back up capability? DoD didn't have such capability with the latter Titans, yet still weathered three consecutive Titan failures. The claimed back up capability isn't worth the billions, in my opinion.
- Ed Kyle
-
Nick L. - 6/10/2006 11:01 PM
Dexter - 6/10/2006 5:28 PM
Neither has Kenneth Krieg:
And therefore, he has no authority in this matter.
Yes, Delta and Atlas both use the RL10 engine. But they are significantly different versions in many ways (thrust vectoring, nozzle construction, etc.), reducing the likelihood that failure of one variant will take the other out of service. In the case of Delta 269 it happened that one of the parts that failed on the RL10B-2 might have had an impact on Atlas flights.
See for yourself how many parts are common between the RL10 versions:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/delta3/d3_report.pdf
There is an illustration of the RL10B-2 on page 1-2, you will see that there is not a lot in common. This helps reliability.
Also Delta and Atlas, apart from their second stage engine, are completely different otherwise. They have different first stage fuels and engines, different guidance systems...everything is different. This helps to maintain a fail-safe system - because there are no common components, a failure in one will not preclude the other from "taking up the slack".
As someone already said, ULA is the best option available to the US government. If the EELV competitors were forced to downselect, we would get no to minimal savings and no back-up capability. Reliability of launching satellites would be decreased, as any failure would result in a lengthy halt to launches while the failure was investigated. With ULA, we get potential cost savings (which is like icing on the cake if you will - not essential but nice to have), and complete fail-safe capability. If one vehicle should be precluded from launching, the payloads charged to that vehicle can be transferred to the other - EELV was built with that in mind.
ULA may offer taxpayer benefits. I don't know, and honestly I don't care. The national security benefits of having two robust systems backing up one another and able to launch national security payloads reliably greatly outweigh a couple hundred dollars saved by the taxpayers here and there. What ULA offers is secure capability.
Sincerely,
Nick
P.S. I don't work for Boeing or LM.
Your logic eludes me? If the the undersecretary of Defense for Acquisitions has no authority, then who does?
Read his Bio. I posted it for your education. I also posted his letter to the to the FTC. You might want to read this also. His opinion based on his access to alot more information than a bunch of internet posters is that there will not be any savings, and the quality and reliability will be reduced.
I hate to keep hammering this point , but the ULA supporters here keep avoiding it.
National Security Assets cost a lot more than the rockets that launch them. Reducing reliability on the rocket does't seem to be the way to ensure National Security.
What is wrong with status quo?
-
Propforce - 6/10/2006 10:30 PM
How many of the current Boeing Delta employees would you guess that will volunteer to move to Denver as a result of this ULA consolidation? Many of you pay good money so your family can come to southern california for a vacation and these guys live here year round. How many of you pay good money to go vacationing in Denver?
How much of the Delta IV technical capability can be maintained when key technical guys won't go? Imagine if you're one of the Boeing Delta employee that decided to effectively move into Lockheed (their town, their building, and their people), guess who will survive when the management wants to consolidate personnel to realize these "cost savings"?
Don't forget about the folks being asked to move from Denver and San Diego to Decatur. Same thing applies.
The Air Force Failure assessment for Titan IV failures included concerns about a loss of experienced personnel.
-
edkyle99 - 7/10/2006 12:47 AM
Nick L. - 6/10/2006 11:01 PM
As someone already said, ULA is the best option available to the US government. If the EELV competitors were forced to downselect, we would get no to minimal savings and no back-up capability.
The way I see it, the logical extension of the ULA cost savings logic is to shut down one EELV altogether. Then, instead of saving millions, the country saves billions. Instead of consolidating a fraction of the total management and engineering jobs, one-half of the jobs and salaries are eliminated. The savings snowball, with the remaining launcher flying twice as often so that it becomes cheaper on a per-flight basis, allowing it to win additional commercial launch contracts, making it even more efficient, and so on. The higher flight rate results in improved reliability too, as the vehicle climbs its lessons-learned curve more rapidly.
And what of the back up capability? DoD didn't have such capability with the latter Titans, yet still weathered three consecutive Titan failures. The claimed back up capability isn't worth the billions, in my opinion.
- Ed Kyle
There is a common misconception that it is an either/or on. This is a fallacy. The EELV families are not equilivent to each other.
1. The D-IV Med has less performance that the Atlas V 401
2. There is no A-V Heavy. It is at the CDR level but there is no West Coast pad for it.
3. There is a HUGE gap in performance between the D-IV Med + (5,4) and a D-IV Heavy. Atlas V 5XX offers many solutions for a large spacecraft that does need a Heavy. Any spacecraft that use an A-V 52x or greater would have to use a D-IV Heavy.
The families complement each other. If it was one or the other, there would be more costs.
D-IV only
1. Some medium missions (A-V 401) would need the extra solids of a Med+ (4,2)
2. There would be a large increase (3-6 times more) in the # of Heavies required.
3. less commercial opportunities (Heavy and M+ (5,X) too many $ for commercial)
A-V only
1. Need to finish A-V Heavy development
2. West Coast A-V heavy pad
3. Start domestic production of RD-180 engines.
-
Dexter - 6/10/2006 6:28 PM
Jim - 6/10/2006 11:43 AM
Both Dexter and Bombay obviously never have worked in the space launch business.
Neither has Kenneth Krieg:
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/krieg_bio.html
Yet he is convinced that we will have higher prices and lower reliability.
As a NASA employee, I would think that you would be concerned by this development.
Leads me to believe that this is why NASA wants to spend $400M on Kistler and SpaceX to develop competition.
PS - I may not have an insider's view of this, but what is being presented plublicly smells!
Kister and Spacex are not for unmanned spacecraft. Kistler doesn't even have the performance of a Delta II.
Spacex is unproven and has issues.
-
edkyle99 - 6/10/2006 9:47 PM
Nick L. - 6/10/2006 11:01 PM
As someone already said, ULA is the best option available to the US government. If the EELV competitors were forced to downselect, we would get no to minimal savings and no back-up capability.
The way I see it, the logical extension of the ULA cost savings logic is to shut down one EELV altogether. Then, instead of saving millions, the country saves billions. Instead of consolidating a fraction of the total management and engineering jobs, one-half of the jobs and salaries are eliminated. The savings snowball, with the remaining launcher flying twice as often so that it becomes cheaper on a per-flight basis, allowing it to win additional commercial launch contracts, making it even more efficient, and so on. The higher flight rate results in improved reliability too, as the vehicle climbs its lessons-learned curve more rapidly.
And what of the back up capability? DoD didn't have such capability with the latter Titans, yet still weathered three consecutive Titan failures. The claimed back up capability isn't worth the billions, in my opinion.
- Ed Kyle
I think you make better sense than most posters here realize. The DoD may have a more expensive, less assured access to space as a result, at least in the near term. This ULA that may just blow up on its face. Currently, the two teams have their own procedures, processes, and people in place and the launches are mostly successful. Now throw both teams into one pot and attempt to stir them to mix, surely confusion and chaos will follow. Follow that up by the loss of senior technical people from both companies who refuse to go to the ULA (for reasons of pension, medical, retirement or relocation, etc.), it certainly will not be a smooth transition.
This also hurts the innovations in the launch industry as both LM and Boeing will have a "non-competitive" clause with ULA, therefore will not attempt to develop new vehicles for commercial launches in the ULA payload class. Further more, both companies' manufacturing capabilities for launch vehicles will be owned by the ULA thus further losing its ability in this arena.
-
edkyle99 - 7/10/2006 12:47 AM
Instead of consolidating a fraction of the total management and engineering jobs, one-half of the jobs and salaries are eliminated.
- Ed Kyle
This is what ULA does
-
Dexter - 7/10/2006 2:38 AM
Read his Bio. I posted it for your education. I also posted his letter to the to the FTC. You might want to read this also. His opinion based on his access to alot more information than a bunch of internet posters is that there will not be any savings, and the quality and reliability will be reduced.
I hate to keep hammering this point , but the ULA supporters here keep avoiding it.
National Security Assets cost a lot more than the rockets that launch them. Reducing reliability on the rocket does't seem to be the way to ensure National Security.
What is wrong with status quo?
He just signed the letter. He did not write it, like most high ranking people, his staffers did.
-
Jim - 7/10/2006 9:24 AM
Dexter - 7/10/2006 2:38 AM
Read his Bio. I posted it for your education. I also posted his letter to the to the FTC. You might want to read this also. His opinion based on his access to alot more information than a bunch of internet posters is that there will not be any savings, and the quality and reliability will be reduced.
I hate to keep hammering this point , but the ULA supporters here keep avoiding it.
National Security Assets cost a lot more than the rockets that launch them. Reducing reliability on the rocket does't seem to be the way to ensure National Security.
What is wrong with status quo?
He just signed the letter. He did not write it, like most high ranking people, his staffers did.
Why would he sign a letter that did not reflect his thoughts and opinions?
Or is this MASH 4077 and Radar slipped this in a pile of papers that Col. Blake signed? :)
-
Jim - 7/10/2006 8:40 AM
Dexter - 6/10/2006 6:28 PM
Jim - 6/10/2006 11:43 AM
Both Dexter and Bombay obviously never have worked in the space launch business.
Neither has Kenneth Krieg:
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/krieg_bio.html
Yet he is convinced that we will have higher prices and lower reliability.
As a NASA employee, I would think that you would be concerned by this development.
Leads me to believe that this is why NASA wants to spend $400M on Kistler and SpaceX to develop competition.
PS - I may not have an insider's view of this, but what is being presented plublicly smells!
Kister and Spacex are not for unmanned spacecraft. Kistler doesn't even have the performance of a Delta II.
Spacex is unproven and has issues.
Delta IV heavy is unproven and has issues.
Delta 3 was never proven
Arianne 5 had issues
Proton had issues.
Titan IV had issues.
Seems like it is hard enough to be successful making rockets including the EELV contractors but everyone resolves their issues.
I believe ULA will induce more issues.
-
Dexter - 7/10/2006 1:57 AM
Propforce - 6/10/2006 10:30 PM
How many of the current Boeing Delta employees would you guess that will volunteer to move to Denver as a result of this ULA consolidation? Many of you pay good money so your family can come to southern california for a vacation and these guys live here year round. How many of you pay good money to go vacationing in Denver?
How much of the Delta IV technical capability can be maintained when key technical guys won't go? Imagine if you're one of the Boeing Delta employee that decided to effectively move into Lockheed (their town, their building, and their people), guess who will survive when the management wants to consolidate personnel to realize these "cost savings"?
Don't forget about the folks being asked to move from Denver and San Diego to Decatur. Same thing applies.
The Air Force Failure assessment for Titan IV failures included concerns about a loss of experienced personnel.
Forgot to mention Harlingen, Texas. Apparently, Lockheed has a facility in Texas as well according to the ILS Mission Planner's guide.
-
Harlingen is not shutting down. It will continue to supply Atlas components
PS. It is Lockheed Martin. The LVs come from the Martin side
-
Jim - 7/10/2006 10:12 AM
Harlingen is not shutting down. It will continue to supply Atlas components
PS. It is Lockheed Martin. The LVs come from the Martin side
That's nice to know.
Now, what of the people in Denver, Huntington Beach, and San Diego?
Denver - Atlas Booster production
Huntington Beach - Delta Core Engineering
San Diego - Centaur production
Don't tell me that you've seen the list! I'm telling you, there is no list! ULA doesn't know who's staying or who's going.
Without a collection of "key employees" signed up to relocate/transition all the talk of more reliability, cheaper product, whatever is nothing but talk - it's a crap shoot!
But then again, this concern was addressed in the paper that the Under Secretary of Defense authored and that Kenneth Krieg wet stamped and that everyone else should ignore.
-
Gus - 6/10/2006 5:06 PM
I find this thread very entertaining. Opinions galore across the spectrum.
Here is an Air Force opinion.
https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2000/acsc/00-047.pdf
The paper includes a discussion in recent launch failures and an assessment of why those failures occured.
Some of the main points include an overemphasis on cost cutting, loss of experienced personell, inadequate manufacturing process controls, and insufficient oversight on quality assusrance.
With ULA soon to be officially blessed, the need to understand where we have been before moving forward is paramount.
Enjoy.
I would suggest that all read this attachment that was authored by an Air Force officer back in 2000. It supports in many respects what the paper by the Under Secretary of Defense and wet stamped (according to Jim) by Kenneth Krieg asserts.
Overemphasis on cost cutting
Loss of experienced personnel
Less quality
Sound familiar - it should - it's ULA before ULA was invented!
-
Dexter - 7/10/2006 9:54 AM
Delta IV heavy is unproven and has issues.Delta 3 was never proven
Arianne 5 had issues
Proton had issues.
Titan IV had issues.
Seems like it is hard enough to be successful making rockets including the EELV contractors but everyone resolves their issues.
I believe ULA will induce more issues.
Yes, Delta IV Heavy had some problems, but they've been fixed - this is why we have TEST flights. Also, the rest of the Delta IV family, as well as the Atlas 5 family, are proven and reliable. Both are much further along than SpaceX, who have yet to figure out how to make their small liquid-fueled Roman candle fly without crashing into a reef. SpaceX talks the talk but can't walk the walk - they have big plans but nothing concrete yet. Delta IV and Atlas 5 are flying today and are proving to be quite reliable.
Delta III isn't offered anymore, so it is irrelevant. Ariane 5 is not involved in ULA (though it is a VERY good launcher), neither is Proton. Titan IV is dead.
Yes, of course developing rockets is difficult. But ULA doesn't involve development of vehicles - the vehicles have already been designed and flown. ULA is simply consolidating manufacturing and administration.
Nick
-
bombay - 7/10/2006 12:44 PM
Gus - 6/10/2006 5:06 PM
I find this thread very entertaining. Opinions galore across the spectrum.
Here is an Air Force opinion.
https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2000/acsc/00-047.pdf
The paper includes a discussion in recent launch failures and an assessment of why those failures occured.
Some of the main points include an overemphasis on cost cutting, loss of experienced personell, inadequate manufacturing process controls, and insufficient oversight on quality assusrance.
With ULA soon to be officially blessed, the need to understand where we have been before moving forward is paramount.
Enjoy.
I would suggest that all read this attachment that was authored by an Air Force officer back in 2000. It supports in many respects what the paper by the Under Secretary of Defense and wet stamped (according to Jim) by Kenneth Krieg asserts.
Overemphasis on cost cutting
Loss of experienced personnel
Less quality
Sound familiar - it should - it's ULA before ULA was invented!
that was the Titan program. A program that was phasing out
-
bombay - 7/10/2006 12:30 PM
Jim - 7/10/2006 10:12 AM
Harlingen is not shutting down. It will continue to supply Atlas components
PS. It is Lockheed Martin. The LVs come from the Martin side
That's nice to know.
Now, what of the people in Denver, Huntington Beach, and San Diego?
Denver - Atlas Booster production
Huntington Beach - Delta Core Engineering
San Diego - Centaur production
Don't tell me that you've seen the list! I'm telling you, there is no list! ULA doesn't know who's staying or who's going.
Without a collection of "key employees" signed up to relocate/transition all the talk of more reliability, cheaper product, whatever is nothing but talk - it's a crap shoot!
But then again, this concern was addressed in the paper that the Under Secretary of Defense authored and that Kenneth Krieg wet stamped and that everyone else should ignore.
There is an HB list and I can see it weekly. SD was going to move anyways.
The Atlas program moved from SD without problems. The Delta II program moved from Pueblo without problems.
The shuttle program moved to Houston from HB, which moved from Downey
-
All this talk doesn't matter anyways. ULA will happen
-
Jim - 7/10/2006 1:46 PM
bombay - 7/10/2006 12:30 PM
Jim - 7/10/2006 10:12 AM
Harlingen is not shutting down. It will continue to supply Atlas components
PS. It is Lockheed Martin. The LVs come from the Martin side
That's nice to know.
Now, what of the people in Denver, Huntington Beach, and San Diego?
Denver - Atlas Booster production
Huntington Beach - Delta Core Engineering
San Diego - Centaur production
Don't tell me that you've seen the list! I'm telling you, there is no list! ULA doesn't know who's staying or who's going.
Without a collection of "key employees" signed up to relocate/transition all the talk of more reliability, cheaper product, whatever is nothing but talk - it's a crap shoot!
But then again, this concern was addressed in the paper that the Under Secretary of Defense authored and that Kenneth Krieg wet stamped and that everyone else should ignore.
There is an HB list and I can see it weekly. SD was going to move anyways.
The Atlas program moved from SD without problems. The Delta II program moved from Pueblo without problems.
The shuttle program moved to Houston from HB, which moved from Downey
Big difference my friend!
In all of your examples the employees that made the move had the luxury of staying with Boeing or Lockheed - Maintaining seniority, years of service, pension accrual, benefits, etc..
Now the move will entail starting over with a new company; they will no longer be Boeing or Lockheed employees. They might as well stay put and find another job with a new company in HB, Denver, or SD, which the vast majority will no doubt do.
Nobody in their right mind would commit to a move prior to closure of ULA especially when no incentives were offered to stay on with a new company. You would have to be pretty naive to think otherwise. Your so called list isn't worth the paper that it's written on.
-
Wrong again. The GD employees had to move to denver or get layoff. Same for the Pueblo employees.
The ULA employees retain the pensions of the previous company and get a additional one. They keep their earned vacation and accural rate, seniority
-
Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent.
-
R&R - 7/10/2006 9:01 PM
Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent.
The ULA have a chance to go back to the parent companies. The people affected by the San Diego or Pueblo closings had no choice.
-
Jim - 8/10/2006 7:30 PM
R&R - 7/10/2006 9:01 PM
Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent.
The ULA have a chance to go back to the parent companies. The people affected by the San Diego or Pueblo closings had no choice.
Eventually yes. They had to sign letters of intent to remain when the venture was anounced. They were frozen at that time from transfer within the parent for two years from the close. The long approval means that freeze will be closer to three and half years. Those that said they will not move agreed to transition their jobs to the new sites after which they can go back. The ones that stay can go back after the freeze. Anyone who said flat no way had to quit.
-
Jim - 7/10/2006 10:12 AM
Harlingen is not shutting down. It will continue to supply Atlas components
PS. It is Lockheed Martin. The LVs come from the Martin side
The ULA party line is that all manufacturing will relocate to Decatur and this will result in the "promised" ;) savings.
Now you are saying not all will be consolidated. What gives?
-
Dexter - 8/10/2006 11:25 PM
Jim - 7/10/2006 10:12 AM
Harlingen is not shutting down. It will continue to supply Atlas components
PS. It is Lockheed Martin. The LVs come from the Martin side
The ULA party line is that all manufacturing will relocate to Decatur and this will result in the "promised" ;) savings.
Now you are saying not all will be consolidated. What gives?
Yes, final manufacturing will be consolidated. That means the bolting together of all the parts. Those parts aren't all built in Decatur - some of them will have to be sourced from outside places. Atlas parts that can't be built in Decatur will be sourced from other areas, including Harlingen, just like parts for Delta IV that can't be built in Decatur are sourced elsewhere.
Nick
-
Jim - 7/10/2006 8:30 PM
R&R - 7/10/2006 9:01 PM
Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent.
The ULA have a chance to go back to the parent companies. The people affected by the San Diego or Pueblo closings had no choice.
Employees always have choices. Kenneth Krieg in his letter to the FTC is concerned that people will make the choice not to relocate. Perhaps this is why he is concerned that reliability will go down.
This is an interesting article for your consideration
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2004/03/01/focus3.html
No doubt that in Los Angeles with a high cost of living, most, if not all employees' spouses also have a career.
As a NASA employee, you should be concerned about the potential issue this presents to your launch vehicle procurements. Kenneth Krieg is.
-
Dexter - 8/10/2006 11:36 PM
Jim - 7/10/2006 8:30 PM
R&R - 7/10/2006 9:01 PM
Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent.
The ULA have a chance to go back to the parent companies. The people affected by the San Diego or Pueblo closings had no choice.
Employees always have choices. Kenneth Krieg in his letter to the FTC is concerned that people will make the choice not to relocate. Perhaps this is why he is concerned that reliability will go down.
This is an interesting article for your consideration
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2004/03/01/focus3.html
No doubt that in Los Angeles with a high cost of living, most, if not all employees' spouses also have a career.
As a NASA employee, you should be concerned about the potential issue this presents to your launch vehicle procurements. Kenneth Krieg is.
I think you've misread. In the case of e.g. transition of manufacture from Pueblo to Decatur (which was within Boeing), the employees had no choice - it was either move to Decatur or get out. With ULA, the employees affected by the closings can (according to Jim) stay with their respective companies (Boeing or LM).
Nick
-
Nick L. - 8/10/2006 11:35 PM
Dexter - 8/10/2006 11:25 PM
Jim - 7/10/2006 10:12 AM
Harlingen is not shutting down. It will continue to supply Atlas components
PS. It is Lockheed Martin. The LVs come from the Martin side
The ULA party line is that all manufacturing will relocate to Decatur and this will result in the "promised" ;) savings.
Now you are saying not all will be consolidated. What gives?
Yes, final manufacturing will be consolidated. That means the bolting together of all the parts. Those parts aren't all built in Decatur - some of them will have to be sourced from outside places. Atlas parts that can't be built in Decatur will be sourced from other areas, including Harlingen, just like parts for Delta IV that can't be built in Decatur are sourced elsewhere.
Nick
The premise behind ULA is to consolidate all manufacturing under one roof to consolidate overhead costs as presented to the public. Now John Q. Public is being told that we might not have all the consolidation we spoke of earlier.
And the DOD doesn't believe the savings will be realized.
As stated previoulsy in this thread, I should not believe everything I read, especially a press release.
-
Nick L. - 8/10/2006 11:41 PM
Dexter - 8/10/2006 11:36 PM
Jim - 7/10/2006 8:30 PM
R&R - 7/10/2006 9:01 PM
Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent.
The ULA have a chance to go back to the parent companies. The people affected by the San Diego or Pueblo closings had no choice.
Employees always have choices. Kenneth Krieg in his letter to the FTC is concerned that people will make the choice not to relocate. Perhaps this is why he is concerned that reliability will go down.
This is an interesting article for your consideration
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2004/03/01/focus3.html
No doubt that in Los Angeles with a high cost of living, most, if not all employees' spouses also have a career.
As a NASA employee, you should be concerned about the potential issue this presents to your launch vehicle procurements. Kenneth Krieg is.
I think you've misread. In the case of e.g. transition of manufacture from Pueblo to Decatur (which was within Boeing), the employees had no choice - it was either move to Decatur or get out. With ULA, the employees affected by the closings can (according to Jim) stay with their respective companies (Boeing or LM).
Nick
Sounds like two options to me.
-
ULA never said that ALL manufacturing was going to be in one place - it just won't happen. Decatur doesn't have the space or the capability to build some of the parts that are needed. For example, Decatur obviously can't build RS-68s and RD-180s for the rockets, those need to be sourced from elsewhere.
ULA is hoping John Q. Public isn't so ignorant as to think that everything can be built under one roof. Judging by your responses, it seems, sadly, that that might not be the case.
-
Dexter - 8/10/2006 11:47 PM
Nick L. - 8/10/2006 11:41 PM
Dexter - 8/10/2006 11:36 PM
Jim - 7/10/2006 8:30 PM
R&R - 7/10/2006 9:01 PM
Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent.
The ULA have a chance to go back to the parent companies. The people affected by the San Diego or Pueblo closings had no choice.
Employees always have choices. Kenneth Krieg in his letter to the FTC is concerned that people will make the choice not to relocate. Perhaps this is why he is concerned that reliability will go down.
This is an interesting article for your consideration
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2004/03/01/focus3.html
No doubt that in Los Angeles with a high cost of living, most, if not all employees' spouses also have a career.
As a NASA employee, you should be concerned about the potential issue this presents to your launch vehicle procurements. Kenneth Krieg is.
I think you've misread. In the case of e.g. transition of manufacture from Pueblo to Decatur (which was within Boeing), the employees had no choice - it was either move to Decatur or get out. With ULA, the employees affected by the closings can (according to Jim) stay with their respective companies (Boeing or LM).
Nick
Sounds like two options to me.
Splitting hairs.
Well, I'm talking about number of options involving staying with the company. In Pueblo, you moved - that was your only choice to stay with Boeing. With ULA, you can move to wherever you need to go, or you can stay with LM or Boeing.
-
According to R&R:
"Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent."
The path back to the parent is not so easy and automatic as is being suggested here.
Who is right?
-
I won't profess to know the answer; as I have already stated, I don't work for LM or Boeing so I don't know the details on how it works. I'll leave it to someone with more knowledge of the matter to respond.
It seems though from what R&R said that the process is fairly straightforward. You transition your job to someone who is willing to move to the new site, and then you can go back to your home company.
That's just my interpretation of what he said, I'm not 100% sure.
Nick
-
Jim - 7/10/2006 8:30 PM
R&R - 7/10/2006 9:01 PM
Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent.
The ULA have a chance to go back to the parent companies. The people affected by the San Diego or Pueblo closings had no choice.
The ULA people will have the chance to go back to the parent companies after a two year freeze as "new" employees whereby there benefits (pensions, etc.) will no longer be under the current plans. There pension for example, will be based on a contribution plan versus a defined benefit plan, which it now is.
So lets assume you had 20 yrs with Lockheed upon day one of ULA and you went back to Lockheed after 2 yrs. You wouldn't get the huge accumulation effect of the pension plan that kicks in between 20-30 years with the company. It ended at 20 yrs under the old plan upon day 1 of ULA and will begin anew upon your first day back with Lockheed under the new plan.
GD people were not frozen for even one day after the sale. They were free to seek another job within GD at their choosing. They were not held hostage as is the case with ULA. The time to bail out of ULA and hook up with Boeing and Lockheed is now being that everything is still Boeing and Lockheed. This would enable people to continue there time of service uninterrupted with the parent companies under all existing plans, which would amount to alot upon retirement. Unfortunately, they're not allowed to do what many would like and should be free to do.
Everything about ULA stinks from the head on down.
-
bombay - 8/10/2006 10:20 PM
The ULA people will have the chance to go back to the parent companies after a two year freeze as "new" employees whereby there benefits (pensions, etc.) will no longer be under the current plans. There pension for example, will be based on a contribution plan versus a defined benefit plan, which it now is.
Let me be specific, the ULA people will have the chance to go back to the parent companies after finish a "transition period", in which that length of period is determined by your manager depending on your value on the program, after you teach someone in ULA how to do your job. After that, you will be "released" from the ULA and return back to your functional organization. After a reasonable period of time, say 60 days (the standard layoff notice grace period), you will be laid-off if you're not able to find a job within the parent company. However, keep in mind that starting day 1 of ULA, you will no longer be an employee of the parent company. You will not have the access to company internal e-mail, job postings, etc. You will wear a different badge and will have retrictive access to a certain buildings only. You will be effectively applying a job as an "outside person" and have as good chance of accessing company's job posting as someone who works at Walmart.
Everything about ULA stinks from the head on down.
The biggest loser of this ULA deal is the employee, not the management, of both Atlas and Delta. I think the employees at Boeing Delta got the short end of stick, because they are forced with the decision of leaving their homes, neighborhoods, friends, and sometime aging/ sick parents for others to take care of.
As a result, several key senior technical guys in Delta have already left the company. More will be leaving, and even more will choose to retire, or do the "tranisition" instead. Last time when Boeing moved the Space Shuttle program office to Houston, in order to get closer to the customer, only about 12% of key technical personnel chose to go. As a result, the new and inexperienced thermal and TPS analysis guys in Houston were partial to blame on the Columbia tragedy. Several senior engineers who used to support the shuttle program were so angry with the way company handle the Columbia issue, because if they were consulted perhaps the issue could have been elevated and no astronauts had to die from this, that they've spoken publically of willing to testify on this issue in front of Congress.
The young engineers who can not afford to buy a house in Southern California will go to the ULA. Those who are in management positions and/or support functions who can not find another job equal or better will go to the ULA. But the overwhelming majority of competent senior technical engineers (age 40+) who already have a home on so. cal. will NOT go to the ULA.
When both companies and the government, made it clear that the employee's welfare is the lowest of all priorities in the ULA joint venture. When this happens, the employees will voice their opinions by walking out the door with a "one-finger salute".
So when you read that this joint venture will produce "cost savings" "synergy" while maintaining "mission assurance", keep in mind who's talking. These people think workers are like light bulbs, when one burns out they simply replace it with another, and that anyone can do another person's job (except their own jobs, of course). These people's greatest contribution on a job is making powerpoint charts and have no clue how a real task is accomplished. These are the same people who'd like to capture engineers' experience on a computer, so they can just click on mouse instead of relying real individual's judgement and experience (other than their own) to make things happen.
-
Propforce - 9/10/2006 1:51 AM
When both companies and the government, made it clear that the employee's welfare is the lowest of all priorities in the ULA joint venture. When this happens, the employees will voice their opinions by walking out the door with a "one-finger salute".
As they should. This is the 21st Century. If you want loyalty, get a dog. No company exists for its employees, unless they happen to be shareholders.
- Ed Kyle
-
AMEN!
This is the kind of focus on shareholder value that results in people no longer wanting to pursue jobs with large corporations. Who wants to be an engineer when you can be a lawyer or own your own business.
For your consideration on the matter of brain drain.
http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_060717.html
When Kenneth Krieg is concerned about critical people not wanting to relocate and potential remedies and Propforce paints a very vivid picture that the (40+ age) engineers will not relocate inspite of said "HB list", you have to start wondering exactly how much risk will be placed on our ability to launch critical national assets.
Sounds like ULA will create exactly what it was advertised to avoid.
I think we should start looking at outsourcing this work too. It will be cheaper to do it in India. Shareholders will love it!
-
Why don't these "out/insourced" folks form their own companies or join the existing. It's as good as any a proposition. The best propulsion brain in the Delta leaving for Kistler? Well, I personally wouldn't see anything wrong with it.
[edit] brain drain be ... There is always an outlet in this country to apply ones talents.
-
lmike - 9/10/2006 11:38 PM
Why don't these "out/insourced" folks form their own companies or join the existing. It's as good as any a proposition. The best propulsion brain in the Delta leaving for Kistler? Well, I personally wouldn't see anything wrong with it.
[edit] brain drain be ... There is always an outlet in this country to apply ones talents.
Agreed. And that is exactly why this is a risk to National Security. The lightbulb metaphor Propforce uses where experienced engineers are seen as commodities is making them look at other outlets to apply their talents.
-
Dexter - 9/10/2006 9:55 PM
lmike - 9/10/2006 11:38 PM
Why don't these "out/insourced" folks form their own companies or join the existing. It's as good as any a proposition. The best propulsion brain in the Delta leaving for Kistler? Well, I personally wouldn't see anything wrong with it.
[edit] brain drain be ... There is always an outlet in this country to apply ones talents.
Agreed. And that is exactly why this is a risk to National Security. The lightbulb metaphor Propforce uses where experienced engineers are seen as commodities is making them look at other outlets to apply their talents.
I don't agree with the point of this (if I understand this correctly). scamlogy (software) engineers have been far and wide picked out of the "general pool". This actually has contributed to National Security. Experienced engineers are a valuable commodity. No question. Why is the affiliation such a big deal? They more often than not form their own companies or persue their own interests that further our nation's knowledge in new areas. And spawn off new technologies. Where's the problem? That they leave LM or Boeing specifically?
-
The problem, as I see it, is that ULA is packaged and sold as the only means necessary to preserve national security requirements by consolidating everything under one roof.
In laying out the plan and seeking approval, both companies forgot to ask their employees how they felt about the whole situation. You can relocate factories and offices but if the people are not willing to go what was the reason for doing ULA in the first place.
I have no problem with employees leaving to start their own companies, but in the launch industry, SpaceX as an example, will find it very difficult as a small start up to compete with the ULA monopoly because of the capital requirements involved. These experienced engineers will no doubt be able to find gainful employment elsewhere.
What concerns me is that 5-10 years from now in the midst of another failure investigation, the USAF will site the loss of experienced personell as a reason for launch failures just like they did in 2000 with the Titan IV failures.
-
Dexter - 9/10/2006 11:01 PM
The problem, as I see it, is that ULA is packaged and sold as the only means necessary to preserve national security requirements by consolidating everything under one roof.
....
Thanks. But it's not! There are other constituents in this economy that work. The ULA doesn't work? Who gives a F? Launch on a SpaceX/Kistler. (at least that's my somewhat wishful thinking attitude, and I hope Musk can launch something in November)
-
Just a point of reference. Boeing was going to move Delta Engineering/Management anyways, ULA or not. They were looking to move it to Decatur or the Cape. Denver actually is better than the other two.
-
Jim - 10/10/2006 5:03 AM
Just a point of reference. Boeing was going to move Delta Engineering/Management anyways, ULA or not. They were looking to move it to Decatur or the Cape. Denver actually is better than the other two.
Not true. Boeing did some move a few years ago, with manufacturing focused in Decatur and launch ops in CCAFS, etc., but the majority of engineering and program management remained in Huntington Beach. No other moves were planned since.
-
lmike - 9/10/2006 11:14 PM
Thanks. But it's not! There are other constituents in this economy that work. The ULA doesn't work? Who gives a F?
The Air Force, NRO, NRL, CIA, NSA, and every young men & wowen who's out there protecting our arses and our ways of life.
-
I personally would really prefer to not have the security of my country resting in the hands of a company who's only payload delivery was a hard smack down back to the machine shop floor.
I really don't understand what some people's beef is with the larger aerospace companies. They are made up of normal, average payed engineers(many of whom get payed less than managers at Taco Bell) who busted their humps in school and further bust their butts everyday for you, so you can watch your satellite TV, call on your cell phone, hike with your GPS, have a military that can communicate effectively and track the bad guys, etc ..., and maybe even someday take a joy ride yourself. Sorry to burst your bubble but the aerospace companies actually lose money on most of their space programs, nobody is getting rich here. The reason the LMs and Boeings of the world even keep in this business is because it looks good when they bid on other government contracts that actually make them money. The shareholders hate the space business, it is a liability. You should be thanking the companies for continuing their service instead of complaining that they are trying to screw the taxpayers. Yes, to get the performance reliability that we have enjoyed for so long is expensive but it is also essential for all of us. Can it be done cheaper, yes, but you will sacrifice reliability. Would you rather go on a roller coaster at Disneyland or at the supermarket parking lot where English is a second language? Do you want your military out in the field with vests bought at Walmart? Think about it , you get what you pay for. Now the next time you see an aerospace engineer from one of those evil big companies coming off a twenty hour shift trying to figure out how to get a good enough view of the next weather system that is going to destroy your home, thank him/her for the hours they spent studying while you were at frat parties chasing bimbos and the 80 hour work weeks they spend away from their families while they get in their minivan with their $50,000 annual paycheck while the guy in the McDonalds corporate office jumps in their Lexus on a friday afternoon to play golf.
Now having said all that, I am an advocate of private aerospace and I hope we do see some breakthroughs soon. I just think people need to have much more respect for the people who have worked so hard to get us where we are today and who did so with very little profit and a simple sense of pride. They will also most likely be the leaders in the private sector push. There is plenty of pork in the national budget if you really want to complain about something
-
Propforce - 10/10/2006 1:07 PM
Jim - 10/10/2006 5:03 AM
Just a point of reference. Boeing was going to move Delta Engineering/Management anyways, ULA or not. They were looking to move it to Decatur or the Cape. Denver actually is better than the other two.
Not true. Boeing did some move a few years ago, with manufacturing focused in Decatur and launch ops in CCAFS, etc., but the majority of engineering and program management remained in Huntington Beach. No other moves were planned since.
There were others looked at
-
Propforce - 10/10/2006 1:20 PM
lmike - 9/10/2006 11:14 PM
Thanks. But it's not! There are other constituents in this economy that work. The ULA doesn't work? Who gives a F?
The Air Force, NRO, NRL, CIA, NSA, and every young men & wowen who's out there protecting our arses and our ways of life.
NRL, NSA, and CIA go thru the NRO.
-
Jim - 10/10/2006 11:14 AM
Propforce - 10/10/2006 1:20 PM
lmike - 9/10/2006 11:14 PM
Thanks. But it's not! There are other constituents in this economy that work. The ULA doesn't work? Who gives a F?
The Air Force, NRO, NRL, CIA, NSA, and every young men & wowen who's out there protecting our arses and our ways of life.
NRL, NSA, and CIA go thru the NRO.
They still give a F*** if the launch fails.
-
Jim - 10/10/2006 1:13 PM
Propforce - 10/10/2006 1:07 PM
Jim - 10/10/2006 5:03 AM
Just a point of reference. Boeing was going to move Delta Engineering/Management anyways, ULA or not. They were looking to move it to Decatur or the Cape. Denver actually is better than the other two.
Not true. Boeing did some move a few years ago, with manufacturing focused in Decatur and launch ops in CCAFS, etc., but the majority of engineering and program management remained in Huntington Beach. No other moves were planned since.
There were others looked at
Yes. It seems inevitable that Boeing will dismantle the remnants of the Douglas side of the company - that old Southern California commercial airplane competitor has been methodically shrunk since the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger.
The McDonnell side (St. Louis mostly) has been less affected because it has more DoD work.
- Ed Kyle
-
HB is not going away. Just the Delta program
-
edkyle99 - 10/10/2006 1:18 PM
Jim - 10/10/2006 1:13 PM
Propforce - 10/10/2006 1:07 PM
Jim - 10/10/2006 5:03 AM
Just a point of reference. Boeing was going to move Delta Engineering/Management anyways, ULA or not. They were looking to move it to Decatur or the Cape. Denver actually is better than the other two.
Not true. Boeing did some move a few years ago, with manufacturing focused in Decatur and launch ops in CCAFS, etc., but the majority of engineering and program management remained in Huntington Beach. No other moves were planned since.
There were others looked at
Yes. It seems inevitable that Boeing will dismantle the remnants of the Douglas side of the company - that old Southern California commercial airplane competitor has been methodically shrunk since the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger.
The McDonnell side (St. Louis mostly) has been less affected because it has more DoD work.
- Ed Kyle
Conjectures, rumors, and hypotheticals... but nothing concrete. It does not suprise me that the management continually to study "various alternatives" of reducing cost. But they remained "studies" because the management did not find a viable solution to entice the technical engineers to relocate.
The ULA is ugly in its execution, not in its intention. Instead of annoucing it and allow the engineers the time to decide to stay with the program and move to Denver, they instantly "freez" the engineers and not allowing them to look for other jobs within the company, effectively telling them that they have no choice - join the ULA or face lay-off.
-
The DoD to the FTC stated: "In light of the nat'l security implications and the unique circumstances in this product market, we ask the FTC to allow the transaction (i.e. ULA) to proceed."
The FTC chairman Pamela Harbour stated that she: "lacked the technical expertise to second-guess the DoD's conclusion that the [monopoly] is the best way to preserve nat'l security and protect the public interest".
So the fundamental objective of ULA is to preserve nat'l security per DoD and FTC statements - no argument there.
The DoD report to the FTC also stated: "In order to ensure the Dept. achieves the nat'l security benefits, the companies need to retain their critical capabilities through the transition and relocation of "key emplyees".
"It is our understanding that the companies will provide retention incentives for "key and critical emplyees" to relocate."
With the Delta and Atlas product lines there is: (1) no recalls on a launch failure (2) no turning the rockets around to fix them if something goes wrong in flight (3) no 2nd chances (4) only one shot to be perfect (5) each rocket has had it's own unique problems that experienced personnel have addressed in a timely fashion thus not effecting launch availability
Based on the DoD's statements regarding their concern about retaining key and critical employees along with the unique nature of each launch and the obvious importance of having key and critical employees involved with each launch along with the fundamantal objective of preserving nat'l security which is directly related to a successful launch which is directly related to having key and critical employees involved with the programs, the question is:
What in the world is ULA doing to ensure a mass exodus of key and critical employees doesn't happen on both the engineering and manufacturing sides of the fence? This question is being avoided like the plague!!!
-
bombay - 10/10/2006 6:24 PM
What in the world is ULA doing to ensure a mass exodus of key and critical employees doesn't happen on both the engineering and manufacturing sides of the fence? This question is being avoided like the plague!!!
ULA doesn't exist yet. Boeing and LM are doing everything in their power to address the issue.
There is precidence for pulling this off. Martin Marietta moved the Atlas program from San Diego to Denver in 1995. All the same issues. During and after the transition, the record for mission success was 100%. Many of the same people will work the ULA transition.
-
Propforce - 10/10/2006 10:20 AM
lmike - 9/10/2006 11:14 PM
Thanks. But it's not! There are other constituents in this economy that work. The ULA doesn't work? Who gives a F?
The Air Force, NRO, NRL, CIA, NSA, and every young men & wowen who's out there protecting our arses and our ways of life.
and Spacedreams.
No need for the pathos, folks.
I *never* disputed that having at least one national operational launcher with major components manufactured within the US/allies is vital to our national security (although many components equally related to national security are sourced from Europe and Asia nowdays anyway, we gotta live with it... that's how we wanted it...)
I'm not "against" large corporations. Large revenues/investments often produce large corporations as they ought to, which employ many clever folks. Please do not project the feelings. What I meant was that the ULA may not work in terms of achieving its cost saving goals. Then "who gives a F?" is a valid question. It would work for national security (and the men and women, etc...) to have a competitive alternative. A multitude of taxpaying American companies employing other young men and women competing to launch a DOD recon sat. I have a dream, OK? An we shall... Man, I feel like kissing the flag at this point... I'm quite serious. And I think I even qualified my SpaceX comment with "wishful thinking"
I just disputed the constant lament that valuable engineers have no place to go if the ULA goes sour. And that the mere fact of transferring is a horrible blow to our security. I've always assumed either Atlas or Delta, or both will be available at a fixed price (a.k.a "$whatever") anyway to launch our space assets.
-
Imike,
No need to kiss the flag. I think we all understand you meant that more companies in the launch business the better for this industry and for the national security. I think others' point was that, as a result of key tech guys leaving, that may results in a lower launch reliability on the Delta (I don't think it's as much of an impact on Atlas). Folks like quark, who's been through the GD San Diego move to Denver, seem to feel this too shall pass and launch reliability will not be affected. We shall see.
The SpaceX of the world is still considered the "wannabes", or the "experimental" launch services, until they have a good enough track record to be considered seriously for national asset launches. Until then, both the Atlas and the Delta are the only options we have for big national security payloads.
The government would LOVE to develop alternative launch capabilities, that's why they support financially to smaller guys like SpaceX with "experimental" payload laucnh contracts. This ULA move may be a impetus to disperse the local talents to other firms, including SpaceX, SpaceDev, AirLaunch, and big guys like NG, which maybe a good thing for the space launch industry as a whole. Boeing benefited from a few key talents who refused to move to Denver and they helped developed the Delta IV cryogenic stages with their Centaur experience. Perhaps this will do the same for other local firms.
-
Why are all you anti-ULA guys whining over here. The FTC has not approved the merger. They are in a 30 day hold for public comments. Your wasting your time trying to convince people on an internet forum. Write the FTC with your opinions.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0510165/0510165analysis.pdf
at the following address [email protected] with your subject being "Reference "the Matter of The Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Boeing Company, and United Launch Alliance, LLC" file number 051 0165"
You know you are going up against the two stars of the military industrial complex.
If I were to write a letter I would point out that with ULA, blatant ethical violations like the Procurement Integrity Act could not be dealt with in the same manner as was recently done and things like that.
-
quark - 10/10/2006 7:40 PM
bombay - 10/10/2006 6:24 PM
What in the world is ULA doing to ensure a mass exodus of key and critical employees doesn't happen on both the engineering and manufacturing sides of the fence? This question is being avoided like the plague!!!
ULA doesn't exist yet. Boeing and LM are doing everything in their power to address the issue.
There is precidence for pulling this off. Martin Marietta moved the Atlas program from San Diego to Denver in 1995. All the same issues. During and after the transition, the record for mission success was 100%. Many of the same people will work the ULA transition.
Yes, should the same percentage of Delta engineers come to Denver as that in 95 during the Atlas move, then you could reasonably apply past precidence to future results.
The dynamic with Atlas is different. It does not deal with engineering perse - that should remain status quo. The x factor in the Atlas equation deals with production.
In 95, Atlas tank production did not move from San Diego for whatever reason. They've worked in their own little world down there for 40-50 yrs. So you have a small collection of engineers/mechanics/welders/inspectors etc. that forgot more about building a Centaur than what your average person will ever know about building one. Moreover, the upperstage has no commonality with Delta booster or upperstage or Atlas booster, so some type of common pool of talent to draw from doesn't exist.
Whether it moves or not under ULA remains to be seen. If it does and the critical people opt out, past precidence as far as Atlas is concerned does not apply.
-
quark - 10/10/2006 7:40 PM
bombay - 10/10/2006 6:24 PM
What in the world is ULA doing to ensure a mass exodus of key and critical employees doesn't happen on both the engineering and manufacturing sides of the fence? This question is being avoided like the plague!!!
ULA doesn't exist yet. Boeing and LM are doing everything in their power to address the issue.
There is precidence for pulling this off. Martin Marietta moved the Atlas program from San Diego to Denver in 1995. All the same issues. During and after the transition, the record for mission success was 100%. Many of the same people will work the ULA transition.
There is also precedence of not moving anything and having launch failures:
http://www.flybynews.com/archives/ref/another.htm#2
accounts for three Titan IV failures and a previous post indicated the loss of key technical people was attributable to those failures.
Does the Columbia scenario Propforce described not even phase you. We are not talking about expensive satellites but human lives.
-
bombay - 11/10/2006 9:29 PM
Yes, should the same percentage of Delta engineers come to Denver as that in 95 during the Atlas move, then you could reasonably apply past precidence to future results.
.
I believe jobs in aerospace are more readily available in 2006 in LA than in 1995 in SD.
-
Dexter - 12/10/2006 12:51 AM
bombay - 11/10/2006 9:29 PM
Yes, should the same percentage of Delta engineers come to Denver as that in 95 during the Atlas move, then you could reasonably apply past precidence to future results.
.
I believe jobs in aerospace are more readily available in 2006 in LA than in 1995 in SD.
Nope. There are no new programs.
-
Dexter - 12/10/2006 12:39 AM
quark - 10/10/2006 7:40 PM
bombay - 10/10/2006 6:24 PM
What in the world is ULA doing to ensure a mass exodus of key and critical employees doesn't happen on both the engineering and manufacturing sides of the fence? This question is being avoided like the plague!!!
ULA doesn't exist yet. Boeing and LM are doing everything in their power to address the issue.
There is precidence for pulling this off. Martin Marietta moved the Atlas program from San Diego to Denver in 1995. All the same issues. During and after the transition, the record for mission success was 100%. Many of the same people will work the ULA transition.
There is also precedence of not moving anything and having launch failures:
http://www.flybynews.com/archives/ref/another.htm#2
accounts for three Titan IV failures and a previous post indicated the loss of key technical people was attributable to those failures.
Does the Columbia scenario Propforce described not even phase you. We are not talking about expensive satellites but human lives.
Doesn't apply. Titan program was ending
-
bombay - 11/10/2006 10:29 PM
quark - 10/10/2006 7:40 PM
bombay - 10/10/2006 6:24 PM
What in the world is ULA doing to ensure a mass exodus of key and critical employees doesn't happen on both the engineering and manufacturing sides of the fence? This question is being avoided like the plague!!!
ULA doesn't exist yet. Boeing and LM are doing everything in their power to address the issue.
There is precidence for pulling this off. Martin Marietta moved the Atlas program from San Diego to Denver in 1995. All the same issues. During and after the transition, the record for mission success was 100%. Many of the same people will work the ULA transition.
Yes, should the same percentage of Delta engineers come to Denver as that in 95 during the Atlas move, then you could reasonably apply past precidence to future results.
The dynamic with Atlas is different. It does not deal with engineering perse - that should remain status quo. The x factor in the Atlas equation deals with production.
In 95, Atlas tank production did not move from San Diego for whatever reason. They've worked in their own little world down there for 40-50 yrs. So you have a small collection of engineers/mechanics/welders/inspectors etc. that forgot more about building a Centaur than what your average person will ever know about building one. Moreover, the upperstage has no commonality with Delta booster or upperstage or Atlas booster, so some type of common pool of talent to draw from doesn't exist.
Whether it moves or not under ULA remains to be seen. If it does and the critical people opt out, past precidence as far as Atlas is concerned does not apply.
Centaur tank production will remain in SD for quite sometime, as it will be a slow transition.
-
Jim - 12/10/2006 6:02 AM
Dexter - 12/10/2006 12:39 AM
quark - 10/10/2006 7:40 PM
bombay - 10/10/2006 6:24 PM
What in the world is ULA doing to ensure a mass exodus of key and critical employees doesn't happen on both the engineering and manufacturing sides of the fence? This question is being avoided like the plague!!!
ULA doesn't exist yet. Boeing and LM are doing everything in their power to address the issue.
There is precidence for pulling this off. Martin Marietta moved the Atlas program from San Diego to Denver in 1995. All the same issues. During and after the transition, the record for mission success was 100%. Many of the same people will work the ULA transition.
There is also precedence of not moving anything and having launch failures:
http://www.flybynews.com/archives/ref/another.htm#2
accounts for three Titan IV failures and a previous post indicated the loss of key technical people was attributable to those failures.
Does the Columbia scenario Propforce described not even phase you. We are not talking about expensive satellites but human lives.
Doesn't apply. Titan program was ending
First Titan IV flight - June 14, 1989 DSP14
Last Titan IV flight - October 19, 2005 Misty 3
Last Titan IV failure - April 30, 1999 Milstar-2
Number of flight between last failure and last flight - 12
Using facts to prove a point - Priceless
-
Jim - 12/10/2006 6:01 AM
Dexter - 12/10/2006 12:51 AM
bombay - 11/10/2006 9:29 PM
Yes, should the same percentage of Delta engineers come to Denver as that in 95 during the Atlas move, then you could reasonably apply past precidence to future results.
.
I believe jobs in aerospace are more readily available in 2006 in LA than in 1995 in SD.
Nope. There are no new programs.
I believe I said jobs, not programs.
http://jobsearch.monster.com/jobsearch.asp?re=5&pg=3&cy=us&JSNONREG=1&q=Aerospace%20Engineer&lid=882&lid=348&refine=1
Raytheon
Northrop Grumman
Boeing
Pratt & Whitney
plus a whole bunch of smaller companies.
That is just what is advertised. No telling how many other postings are out there.
-
Jim - 12/10/2006 6:04 AM
bombay - 11/10/2006 10:29 PM
quark - 10/10/2006 7:40 PM
bombay - 10/10/2006 6:24 PM
What in the world is ULA doing to ensure a mass exodus of key and critical employees doesn't happen on both the engineering and manufacturing sides of the fence? This question is being avoided like the plague!!!
ULA doesn't exist yet. Boeing and LM are doing everything in their power to address the issue.
There is precidence for pulling this off. Martin Marietta moved the Atlas program from San Diego to Denver in 1995. All the same issues. During and after the transition, the record for mission success was 100%. Many of the same people will work the ULA transition.
Yes, should the same percentage of Delta engineers come to Denver as that in 95 during the Atlas move, then you could reasonably apply past precidence to future results.
The dynamic with Atlas is different. It does not deal with engineering perse - that should remain status quo. The x factor in the Atlas equation deals with production.
In 95, Atlas tank production did not move from San Diego for whatever reason. They've worked in their own little world down there for 40-50 yrs. So you have a small collection of engineers/mechanics/welders/inspectors etc. that forgot more about building a Centaur than what your average person will ever know about building one. Moreover, the upperstage has no commonality with Delta booster or upperstage or Atlas booster, so some type of common pool of talent to draw from doesn't exist.
Whether it moves or not under ULA remains to be seen. If it does and the critical people opt out, past precidence as far as Atlas is concerned does not apply.
Centaur tank production will remain in SD for quite sometime, as it will be a slow transition.
First Harlingen is not moving and now San Diego is not moving. I thought the savings were in consolidating everything under one roof according to the ULA Kool Aid.
What's the point of doing ULA?
-
It was final assembly, it was never piece part production.
Just drink it and you find the need to post on threads will go away
-
Dexter - 12/10/2006 10:54 PM
Using the wrong facts to prove nothing - worthless
Wrong again
People were leaving the program because it was to end sooner. Payload issues caused the manifest to get drawn out.
-
Jim - 13/10/2006 6:20 AM
Dexter - 12/10/2006 10:54 PM
Using the wrong facts to prove nothing - worthless
Wrong again
People were leaving the program because it was to end sooner. Payload issues caused the manifest to get drawn out.
OK - Help me out here.
Why would key technical people be leaving the program?
Were thay elligible for retirement or did management come in and lay them off since them as disposable since the program was "ending"?
-
Jim - 13/10/2006 6:17 AM
It was final assembly, it was never piece part production.
Just drink it and you find the need to post on threads will go away
I think the flavor keeps changing.
Some folks say "All Manufacturing to Decatur - consolidation saves cost"
And now a Nasa employee says "Just Final Assembly"
Kenneth Krieg says that benefits from aluminum tank welding on Delta can be passed on to Atlas"
Tank welding is not Final Assembly.
Where is the truth?
-
Common knowledge in the aerospace business. Once you win a contract, you start working yourself out of business. You need to find another contract to "keep" in business. Besause of this, employees start looking for "other" employment as programs draw to a close. The issue with the Titan program was not just limited to the Lockheed Martin employees , it applies to the subscontractors, USAF program office, the Aerospace Corp support personnel and even the USAF QA workers. No one wants to work a dead end program. Of the 3 failures, one was a "payload" failure, the DSP mission. The IUS for the DSP mission is not part of the Titan program. The other two failures, especially the NRO mission were blatent QA escape. The NRO mission problems could have been found by non LM personnel
The shuttle will face this issue too.
-
Dexter - 13/10/2006 9:57 AM
Jim - 13/10/2006 6:17 AM
It was final assembly, it was never piece part production.
Just drink it and you find the need to post on threads will go away
I think the flavor keeps changing.
Some folks say "All Manufacturing to Decatur - consolidation saves cost"
And now a Nasa employee says "Just Final Assembly"
Kenneth Krieg says that benefits from aluminum tank welding on Delta can be passed on to Atlas"
Tank welding is not Final Assembly.
Where is the truth?
Engines, fairings, interstages, centerbodies and aft skirts were never made in Decatur or Denver and were never part of the consolidation.
Now days, making tanks is final assembly since the domes and sometimes the side panels are out sourced.
Kreig is hardly an expert spokesman. He was just in charge of the office that had to do the final approval. I don't listen to an assistant secretary of Commerce when it comes to National Weather Service doppler radar procurement.
You are looking for a conspiracy, where there is none.
The truth is: It is better to have two LV families than one and it doesn't matter whether there is one or two suppliers
-
Jim - 13/10/2006 9:15 AM
Common knowledge in the aerospace business. Once you win a contract, you start working yourself out of business. You need to find another contract to "keep" in business. Besause of this, employees start looking for "other" employment as programs draw to a close. The issue with the Titan program was not just limited to the Lockheed Martin employees , it applies to the subscontractors, USAF program office, the Aerospace Corp support personnel and even the USAF QA workers. No one wants to work a dead end program. Of the 3 failures, one was a "payload" failure, the DSP mission. The IUS for the DSP mission is not part of the Titan program. The other two failures, especially the NRO mission were blatent QA escape. The NRO mission problems could have been found by non LM personnel
The shuttle will face this issue too.
So how will the folks in Denver feel when they are stuck on a dead-end program while others are working Orion?
https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2000/acsc/00-047.pdf
"Loss of experienced personel" (page 12 of the pdf file) as quoted from AWS&T
Footnote 7 William B. Scott, "Panel Links Launch Failure to Systemic Ills", AWST, September 13, 1999, 41.
-
Jim - 13/10/2006 9:23 AM
You are looking for a conspiracy, where there is none.
Conspiracy would suggest some sort of malicious behavior with an effort to cover it up.
I see an ill-conceived plan that puts launch capability at risk, reduces reliability, will probably fail to deliver on the promised savings all because the key technical people will not go along with the flow (of Kool Aid).
Plus, the DOD gives up its ability to levee punitive actions because of the one supplier model like with the Procurement Integrity Act mentioned earlier.
Conspiracy, No. Ineptitude, Yes.
-
Dexter - 14/10/2006 12:36 AM
So how will the folks in Denver feel when they are stuck on a dead-end program while others are working Orion?
There is no dead end program in Denver. Atlas will still be managed there. Orion is run out of Houston. Anyways, Denver support for Orion is from the spacecraft side of the house not the Atlas.
-
Dexter - 14/10/2006 12:51 AM
Jim - 13/10/2006 9:23 AM
You are looking for a conspiracy, where there is none.
Conspiracy would suggest some sort of malicious behavior with an effort to cover it up.
I see an ill-conceived plan that puts launch capability at risk, reduces reliability, will probably fail to deliver on the promised savings all because the key technical people will not go along with the flow (of Kool Aid).
Plus, the DOD gives up its ability to levee punitive actions because of the one supplier model like with the Procurement Integrity Act mentioned earlier.
Conspiracy, No. Ineptitude, Yes.
All opinion from an outsider
-
Jim - 14/10/2006 7:32 AM
Dexter - 14/10/2006 12:36 AM
So how will the folks in Denver feel when they are stuck on a dead-end program while others are working Orion?
There is no dead end program in Denver. Atlas will still be managed there. Orion is run out of Houston. Anyways, Denver support for Orion is from the spacecraft side of the house not the Atlas.
So what you are saying is that the employees who have worked development of Atlas V will be happy to stay on Atlas (trapped by ULA) rather than be among the 600 new engineers required to help develop Orion (based on the press release).
Hypothetically, I would be excited about working on Orion and dissapointed that ULA prevented me from doing so.
Interesting how you chose not to comment on the rest of the post.
https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2000/acsc/00-047.pdf
"Loss of experienced personel" (page 12 of the pdf file) as quoted from AWS&T
Footnote 7 William B. Scott, "Panel Links Launch Failure to Systemic Ills", AWST, September 13, 1999, 41.
-
Jim - 14/10/2006 7:33 AM
Dexter - 14/10/2006 12:51 AM
Jim - 13/10/2006 9:23 AM
You are looking for a conspiracy, where there is none.
Conspiracy would suggest some sort of malicious behavior with an effort to cover it up.
I see an ill-conceived plan that puts launch capability at risk, reduces reliability, will probably fail to deliver on the promised savings all because the key technical people will not go along with the flow (of Kool Aid).
Plus, the DOD gives up its ability to levee punitive actions because of the one supplier model like with the Procurement Integrity Act mentioned earlier.
Conspiracy, No. Ineptitude, Yes.
All opinion from an outsider
An opinion none the less and reflected by obvious insiders like Propforce.
-
ULA is going to happen, but not until Boeing gets their Buy 3 done and that appears to have more delays.
Question; Since the Government has acknowledged that the "cost savings" will never be reailized (the Krieg letter) and the only purpose for ULA is National Security, then why risk reliability by attempting to move key people (that will NOT move, but simply get another job) from Denver to Decatur, HB to Denver, and SD to Decatur? If they maintain the existing sites and people, loss in reliability due to loss of key people will be considerably less.
-
I just thought of a great idea. Since the prponents of ULA think this is a great idea and since it is ackknowledged that the satellites actually cost a lot more than the rockets and have to last a lot longer, we should petition Congress, the DOD, FTC etc... all the key government agencies in order to combine all the satellite programs into one entity in the name of national security.
United Satellite Alliance would not work because the confusion with United Space Alliance.
I propose the formation of the Alliance of Satellite Suppliers. Imagine the possibilities for a corporate logo.
As well as the potential promised cost savings.
-
You must be the posterchild for the acronym
-
Smartest man on the forum has to resort to sophomoric insults.
So why don't we combine all the satellite programs into one of its such a good idea for rockets?
-
Dexter - 19/10/2006 9:47 AM
Smartest man on the forum has to resort to sophomoric insults.
So why don't we combine all the satellite programs into one of its such a good idea for rockets?
Just as sophomoric as your "proposal"
Because the satellites are dominated by the commerical market and not the gov't market. There are more than 4 major spacecraft manufacturers. They can launch from any LV.
Different market pressures
-
I don't see how combining the two programs into one site enhances security - that's only one building now that a terrorist has to hit late morning on a tuesday to seriously screw up the entire heavy US launch capability. Or an unfortunate tornado, earthquake or industrial accident could have the same effect.
For maximum security you'd want full duplication separated by considerable distances - not all the eggs in one basket.
-
josh_simonson - 19/10/2006 5:44 PM
I don't see how combining the two programs into one site enhances security - that's only one building now that a terrorist has to hit late morning on a tuesday to seriously screw up the entire heavy US launch capability. Or an unfortunate tornado, earthquake or industrial accident could have the same effect.
For maximum security you'd want full duplication separated by considerable distances - not all the eggs in one basket.
Security in this case means being able to launch satellites that help to prevent those attacks in the first place.
Nick
-
Jim - 19/10/2006 9:27 AM
Dexter - 19/10/2006 9:47 AM
Smartest man on the forum has to resort to sophomoric insults.
So why don't we combine all the satellite programs into one of its such a good idea for rockets?
Just as sophomoric as your "proposal"
Because the satellites are dominated by the commerical market and not the gov't market. There are more than 4 major spacecraft manufacturers. They can launch from any LV.
Different market pressures
So there is a commercial market, and I thought that Boeing and LM wanted help because the commercial market had dried up. Boeing wants a lot of money back from the government (basically to pay for the plant in Decatur, right?) and that is the sticking point with Boeing's Buy 3 right? They are asking for this because the commercial market never materialized, right? Yet combining satellite programs is not a good idea because they are controled by the commercial market, right? Am I getting this, is there something I am missing? There are more than 4, 2 of which are Boeing and LM, seems to me that combining satellite programs makes just as much sense as cominbing LV programs.
-
Nick L. - 19/10/2006 6:54 PM
josh_simonson - 19/10/2006 5:44 PM
I don't see how combining the two programs into one site enhances security - that's only one building now that a terrorist has to hit late morning on a tuesday to seriously screw up the entire heavy US launch capability. Or an unfortunate tornado, earthquake or industrial accident could have the same effect.
For maximum security you'd want full duplication separated by considerable distances - not all the eggs in one basket.
Security in this case means being able to launch satellites that help to prevent those attacks in the first place.
Nick
I think Josh is right and it makes my other point. Since cost savings is not the issue and national secruity is then why move anything anywhere once ULA is formed? Keeping things spread out will only add to the security, before the satellites are manufactured (which takes priority commercial or DoD, satellites are driven by the commercial market) and put into orbit. ULA should not move anything keep manufacturing spread out and maintain key people, thus maintaining reliability.
-
skywalker - 20/10/2006 11:07 AM
So there is a commercial market, and I thought that Boeing and LM wanted help because the commercial market had dried up. Boeing wants a lot of money back from the government (basically to pay for the plant in Decatur, right?) and that is the sticking point with Boeing's Buy 3 right? They are asking for this because the commercial market never materialized, right? Yet combining satellite programs is not a good idea because they are controled by the commercial market, right? Am I getting this, is there something I am missing? There are more than 4, 2 of which are Boeing and LM, seems to me that combining satellite programs makes just as much sense as cominbing LV programs.
Not the same thing. ULA is for launch of US National Security spacecraft. Commercial satellites have other options and can fly on Atlas, Ariane, Proton, Sealaunch, Soyuz, H-2, and others. The spacecraft contractors have enough business to sustain them, without DOD support
-
Jim - 20/10/2006 10:31 AM
skywalker - 20/10/2006 11:07 AM
So there is a commercial market, and I thought that Boeing and LM wanted help because the commercial market had dried up. Boeing wants a lot of money back from the government (basically to pay for the plant in Decatur, right?) and that is the sticking point with Boeing's Buy 3 right? They are asking for this because the commercial market never materialized, right? Yet combining satellite programs is not a good idea because they are controled by the commercial market, right? Am I getting this, is there something I am missing? There are more than 4, 2 of which are Boeing and LM, seems to me that combining satellite programs makes just as much sense as cominbing LV programs.
Not the same thing. ULA is for launch of US National Security spacecraft. Commercial satellites have other options and can fly on Atlas, Ariane, Proton, Sealaunch, Soyuz, H-2, and others. The spacecraft contractors have enough business to sustain them, without DOD support
What a bunch of double talk!! So the commercial market didn't dry up per the rationale for forming ULA.
This is the L-1011 situation revisted. Lockheed is totally incapable of competing in a commercial market because they don't know how. ULA is a welfare program to subsidize the inept managerial decisions that ran the Atlas and Delta programs into the ground.
-
Wrong again. The US commercial launch market dried up, not the US commercial spacecraft. The US commercial spacecraft can use international launch vehicles.
"inept managerial decisions that ran the Atlas and Delta programs into the ground" double Wrong again. They were not ran into the ground.
The US can and does survive without the L-1011. One LV family is not good
-
Jim - 20/10/2006 12:13 PM
Wrong again. The US commercial launch market dried up, not the US commercial spacecraft. The US commercial spacecraft can use international launch vehicles.
"inept managerial decisions that ran the Atlas and Delta programs into the ground" double Wrong again. They were not ran into the ground.
The US can and does survive without the L-1011. One LV family is not good
More double talk. The basis of a commercial launch market is to have a commercial spacecraft market. In your own words, the commercial spacecraft market is there. If the US launch market were the least bit competitive within the commercial market, the business is there for the taking.
Management ran the the Delta and Atlas programs within the commercial market as if it were a cost plus arena. This is precisely what the L-1011 management team did back in the late 60's - a total disregard for controlling costs, which put them out of business.
Look at the Atlas program now versus how it was in the mid-late 90's. It's now the remaking of the Titan program - big, fat, inefficient, incapable of competing commercially. Compared to what the Atlas program was and still could be, management ran it into the ground.
-
bombay - 20/10/2006 1:40 PM
1. More double talk. The basis of a commercial launch market is to have a commercial spacecraft market. In your own words, the commercial spacecraft market is there. If the US launch market were the least bit competitive within the commercial market, the business is there for the taking.
2. Management ran the the Delta and Atlas programs within the commercial market as if it were a cost plus arena. This is precisely what the L-1011 management team did back in the late 60's - a total disregard for controlling costs, which put them out of business.
3. Look at the Atlas program now versus how it was in the mid-late 90's. It's now the remaking of the Titan program - big, fat, inefficient, incapable of competing commercially. Compared to what the Atlas program was and still could be, management ran it into the ground.
1. No, it is not. LV market is not a level playing field due to low russian wages. It doesn't apply to spacecraft
2. Just the opposite
3. It is the same structure as the 90's. It is not like the titan
-
The EELV program is for launch of government satellites (i.e. AF, NRO, etc ...) These satellites for the most part are larger than most commercial sattelites. The resolution of a picture you get from a satellite is proportional to how big your mirror is, stuff like that, as opposed to commercial communications satellites which can be much smaller. So, launch vehicle selection in the US is limited to EELV class (big launchers) for government hardware while commercial satellites can use some of the smaller US and/or foreign lauchers. There are a lot more smaller launchers because there are a lot more satellites.
Then you also have the issue with US military/NRO type large satellites that for some reson they don't want to hand their hardware over to a foreign government subsidized launchers so the launcher field is limited but there aren't very many of this class satellite so it is difficult to keep the launchers in business.
-
Jim - 20/10/2006 12:56 PM
bombay - 20/10/2006 1:40 PM
1. More double talk. The basis of a commercial launch market is to have a commercial spacecraft market. In your own words, the commercial spacecraft market is there. If the US launch market were the least bit competitive within the commercial market, the business is there for the taking.
2. Management ran the the Delta and Atlas programs within the commercial market as if it were a cost plus arena. This is precisely what the L-1011 management team did back in the late 60's - a total disregard for controlling costs, which put them out of business.
3. Look at the Atlas program now versus how it was in the mid-late 90's. It's now the remaking of the Titan program - big, fat, inefficient, incapable of competing commercially. Compared to what the Atlas program was and still could be, management ran it into the ground.
1. No, it is not. LV market is not a level playing field due to low russian wages. It doesn't apply to spacecraft
2. Just the opposite
3. It is the same structure as the 90's. It is not like the titan
1. Yes, it is. What you're now implying is that the rhetoric about Lockheed (not ULA) marketing the Atlas commercially is lie because of low russian wages. (i.e double talk).
2. The Delta and Atlas programs were ran with cost savings in mind? That's a laugh. The Atlas V costs way more than the Atlas III ever did and the Atlas V pricetag won't stop until it hits Titan levels.
3. You're right. The same managerial structure that ruined thriving programs in the 90's, that by the way launched both commercial and gov't payloads, is in-place today to point to every reason other than their own poor decisions as to the reason why the Delta and Atlas programs are in the condition that they're in.
-
spacedreams - 20/10/2006 11:07 AM
The EELV program is for launch of government satellites (i.e. AF, NRO, etc ...)
Not completely true. The EELV program, per se, is for launching government satellites. The launchers, e.g., Delta & Atlas, are however; had commerical launches in mind when they sunk their own DDT&E money in developing these vehicles. Boeing, more so than LM, invested heavily in the Delta IV with over $2.5 billion of its own money (vs. $0.5 billion of government's contract funds in the EMD phase) mainly because of the outlook of the commercial satellite market place. You can not justify this kind of internal fund investment based on the EELV manifest alone.
The commercial satellite market was so dry that, at one point, Boeing announced its satellite division (ex-Hughes Space & Comm) will only pursue government business. That leaves pretty much Loral as the sole U.S. commercial satellite builder.
-
bombay - 20/10/2006 3:40 PM
Jim - 20/10/2006 12:56 PM
bombay - 20/10/2006 1:40 PM
1. More double talk. The basis of a commercial launch market is to have a commercial spacecraft market. In your own words, the commercial spacecraft market is there. If the US launch market were the least bit competitive within the commercial market, the business is there for the taking.
2. Management ran the the Delta and Atlas programs within the commercial market as if it were a cost plus arena. This is precisely what the L-1011 management team did back in the late 60's - a total disregard for controlling costs, which put them out of business.
3. Look at the Atlas program now versus how it was in the mid-late 90's. It's now the remaking of the Titan program - big, fat, inefficient, incapable of competing commercially. Compared to what the Atlas program was and still could be, management ran it into the ground.
1. No, it is not. LV market is not a level playing field due to low russian wages. It doesn't apply to spacecraft
2. Just the opposite
3. It is the same structure as the 90's. It is not like the titan
1. Yes, it is. What you're now implying is that the rhetoric about Lockheed (not ULA) marketing the Atlas commercially is lie because of low russian wages. (i.e double talk).
2. The Delta and Atlas programs were ran with cost savings in mind? That's a laugh. The Atlas V costs way more than the Atlas III ever did and the Atlas V pricetag won't stop until it hits Titan levels.
3. You're right. The same managerial structure that ruined thriving programs in the 90's, that by the way launched both commercial and gov't payloads, is in-place today to point to every reason other than their own poor decisions as to the reason why the Delta and Atlas programs are in the condition that they're in.
1. Wrong again. LM can market the Atlas but it faces stiff competetion from the Proton. Some users are willing to pay a little more for mission assurance and schedule
2. Wrong again. It does not. Atlas III was only a interim configuration leading to the Atlas V. It was never meant fly more than a few years.
3. Wrong again. Atlas and Titan were managed by different groups within LM.
-
Jim - 20/10/2006 5:10 PM
bombay - 20/10/2006 3:40 PM
Jim - 20/10/2006 12:56 PM
bombay - 20/10/2006 1:40 PM
1. More double talk. The basis of a commercial launch market is to have a commercial spacecraft market. In your own words, the commercial spacecraft market is there. If the US launch market were the least bit competitive within the commercial market, the business is there for the taking.
2. Management ran the the Delta and Atlas programs within the commercial market as if it were a cost plus arena. This is precisely what the L-1011 management team did back in the late 60's - a total disregard for controlling costs, which put them out of business.
3. Look at the Atlas program now versus how it was in the mid-late 90's. It's now the remaking of the Titan program - big, fat, inefficient, incapable of competing commercially. Compared to what the Atlas program was and still could be, management ran it into the ground.
1. No, it is not. LV market is not a level playing field due to low russian wages. It doesn't apply to spacecraft
2. Just the opposite
3. It is the same structure as the 90's. It is not like the titan
1. Yes, it is. What you're now implying is that the rhetoric about Lockheed (not ULA) marketing the Atlas commercially is lie because of low russian wages. (i.e double talk).
2. The Delta and Atlas programs were ran with cost savings in mind? That's a laugh. The Atlas V costs way more than the Atlas III ever did and the Atlas V pricetag won't stop until it hits Titan levels.
3. You're right. The same managerial structure that ruined thriving programs in the 90's, that by the way launched both commercial and gov't payloads, is in-place today to point to every reason other than their own poor decisions as to the reason why the Delta and Atlas programs are in the condition that they're in.
1. Wrong again. LM can market the Atlas but it faces stiff competetion from the Proton. Some users are willing to pay a little more for mission assurance and schedule
2. Wrong again. It does not. Atlas III was only a interim configuration leading to the Atlas V. It was never meant fly more than a few years.
3. Wrong again. Atlas and Titan were managed by different groups within LM.
1. So if Atlas can compete in the commercial market, why ULA? First you say the commercial space craft market is dead, then you say it isn't. Then you say Atlas can't compete because of an unfair playing field, now you're saying that they can. Why don't you make up your mind!
2. You're going to tell me that the Atlas V is cheaper to launch than the Atlas III. You better quit smoking that dog food.
3. No kidding! Unfortunately the Atlas management team is taking the Atlas program down the same path as Titan management took the Titan program. It's the path that presents itself as a case study on how to not manage a program.
-
bombay - 20/10/2006 7:46 PM
Jim - 20/10/2006 5:10 PM
bombay - 20/10/2006 3:40 PM
Jim - 20/10/2006 12:56 PM
bombay - 20/10/2006 1:40 PM
1. More double talk. The basis of a commercial launch market is to have a commercial spacecraft market. In your own words, the commercial spacecraft market is there. If the US launch market were the least bit competitive within the commercial market, the business is there for the taking.
2. Management ran the the Delta and Atlas programs within the commercial market as if it were a cost plus arena. This is precisely what the L-1011 management team did back in the late 60's - a total disregard for controlling costs, which put them out of business.
3. Look at the Atlas program now versus how it was in the mid-late 90's. It's now the remaking of the Titan program - big, fat, inefficient, incapable of competing commercially. Compared to what the Atlas program was and still could be, management ran it into the ground.
1. No, it is not. LV market is not a level playing field due to low russian wages. It doesn't apply to spacecraft
2. Just the opposite
3. It is the same structure as the 90's. It is not like the titan
1. Yes, it is. What you're now implying is that the rhetoric about Lockheed (not ULA) marketing the Atlas commercially is lie because of low russian wages. (i.e double talk).
2. The Delta and Atlas programs were ran with cost savings in mind? That's a laugh. The Atlas V costs way more than the Atlas III ever did and the Atlas V pricetag won't stop until it hits Titan levels.
3. You're right. The same managerial structure that ruined thriving programs in the 90's, that by the way launched both commercial and gov't payloads, is in-place today to point to every reason other than their own poor decisions as to the reason why the Delta and Atlas programs are in the condition that they're in.
1. Wrong again. LM can market the Atlas but it faces stiff competetion from the Proton. Some users are willing to pay a little more for mission assurance and schedule
2. Wrong again. It does not. Atlas III was only a interim configuration leading to the Atlas V. It was never meant fly more than a few years.
3. Wrong again. Atlas and Titan were managed by different groups within LM.
1. So if Atlas can compete in the commercial market, why ULA? First you say the commercial space craft market is dead, then you say it isn't. Then you say Atlas can't compete because of an unfair playing field, now you're saying that they can. Why don't you make up your mind!
2. You're going to tell me that the Atlas V is cheaper to launch than the Atlas III. You better quit smoking that dog food.
3. No kidding! Unfortunately the Atlas management team is taking the Atlas program down the same path as Titan management took the Titan program. It's the path that presents itself as a case study on how to not manage a program.
ULA is going to be the next "Fleecing of America" just like the Titan program was. Funny how the Atlas V looks like a Titan, program is being run like a Titan program, and now will only launch DoD Sat's like the Titan program. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and smells like a duck it must be a duck.
-
Jim - 19/10/2006 9:27 AM
Dexter - 19/10/2006 9:47 AM
Smartest man on the forum has to resort to sophomoric insults.
So why don't we combine all the satellite programs into one of its such a good idea for rockets?
Just as sophomoric as your "proposal"
Because the satellites are dominated by the commerical market and not the gov't market. There are more than 4 major spacecraft manufacturers. They can launch from any LV.
Different market pressures
Guess you have never heard of satire.
A few posters beat me to the punch on this comment regarding the vitality of the commercial market which in other threads you insist has collapsed. Now you say it is strong but the Russians are cheaper because of their wages. Then quark says that the cost is not in the tank it is in the engines and avionics and I believe the engine is manufactured with the cheap Russian wages.
I am dizzy from being spun around.
The ILS web site actually still has some Atlas archive data on past launches of Atlas
2006 | | |
| | |
| Atlas V, ASTRA 1KR | 20-Apr-06 | Commercial |
| Atlas V, New Horizons | 19-Jan-06 | USG |
| | |
| 2005 | | |
| | |
| Atlas V, MRO | 12-Aug-05 | USG |
| Atlas V, Inmarsat 4-F1 | 11-Mar-05 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIIB, NROL-23 | 3-Feb-05 | USG |
| | |
| 2004 | | |
| | |
| Atlas V, AMC-16 | 17-Dec-04 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIAS, NROL-1 | 31-Aug-04 | USG |
| Atlas IIAS, AMC-11 | 19-May-04 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIAS, Superbird-6 | 15-Apr-04 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIIA, MBSat | 13-Mar-04 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIAS, AMC-10 | 5-Feb-04 | Commercial |
| | |
| 2003 | | |
| | |
| Atlas IIIB, UFO F11 | 17-Dec-03 | USG |
| Atlas IIAS, MLV-14 | 2-Dec-03 | USG |
| Atlas V, Rainbow 1 | 17-Jul-03 | Commercial |
| Atlas V, Hellas-Sat | 13-May-03 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIIB, AsiaSat 4 | 11-Apr-03 | Commercial |
| | |
| 2002 | | |
| | |
| Atlas IIA, TDRS-J | 4-Dec-02 | NASA |
| Atlas IIAS, Hispasat 1D | 18-Sep-02 | Commercial |
| Atlas V, HOT BIRD 6 | 21-Aug-02 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIA, TDRS-I | 8-Mar-02 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIIB, EchoStar VII | 21-Feb-02 | Commercial |
| | |
| 2001 | | |
| | |
| Atlas IIAS, MLV-12 | 11-Oct-01 | USG |
| Atlas IIAS, MLV-10 | 8-Sep-01 | USG |
| Atlas IIA, GOES-M | 23-Jul-01 | USG |
| Atlas IIAS, ICO | 19-Jun-01 | Commercial |
| | |
| 2000 | | |
| | |
| Atlas IIAS, MLV-11 | 5-Dec-00 | USG |
| Atlas IIA, MLV-9 | 19-Oct-00 | USG |
| Atlas IIAS, EchoStar VI | 14-Jul-00 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIA, TDRS-H | 30-Jun-00 | USG |
| Atlas IIIA, Eutelsat W4 | 24-May-00 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIA, GOES-L | 3-May-00 | USG |
| Atlas IIAS, HISPASAT - 1C | 3-Feb-00 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIA, DSCS B8 | 20-Jan-00 | USG |
| | |
| 1999 | | |
| | |
| Atlas IIAS, EOS Terra | 18-Dec-99 | USG |
| Atlas IIA, UHF F/O | 22-Nov-99 | USG |
| Atlas IIAS, EchoStar V | 23-Sep-99 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIAS, Eutelsat W3 | 12-Apr-99 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIAS, JCSAT-6 | 15-Feb-99 | Commercial |
| | |
| 1998 | | |
| | |
| Atlas IIA, UHF F/O F9 | 20-Oct-98 | USG |
| Atlas IIA, HOT BIRD 5 | 9-Oct-98 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIAS, Intelsat 805 | 18-Jun-98 | Commercial |
| Atlas II, UHF F/O F8 | 16-Mar-98 | USG |
| Atlas IIAS, Intelsat 806 | 27-Feb-98 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIA, MLV 7 | 29-Jan-98 | USG |
| | |
| 1997 | | |
| | |
| Atlas IIAS, Galaxy VIIIi | 8-Dec-97 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIA, IABS/DSCS III | 24-Oct-97 | USG |
| Atlas IIAS, EchoStar III | 5-Oct-97 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIAS, GE-3 | 4-Sep-97 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIAS, Superbird C | 27-Jul-97 | Commercial |
| Atlas I, GOES-K | 25-Apr-97 | USG |
| Atlas IIA, Tempo F1 | 8-Mar-97 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIAS, JCSAT-4 | 16-Feb-97 | Commercial |
| | |
| 1996 | | |
| | |
| Atlas IIA, Inmarsat 3 F3 | 17-Dec-96 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIA, HOT BIRD 2 | 21-Nov-96 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIA, GE-1 | 8-Sep-96 | Commercial |
| Atlas II, UHF F/O F7 | 25-Jul-96 | USG |
| Atlas I, SAX | 30-Apr-96 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIA, Inmarsat 3 F1 | 3-Apr-96 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIAS, Palapa C1 | 31-Jan-96 | Commercial |
| | |
| 1995 | | |
| | |
| Atlas IIA, Galaxy 3R | 15-Dec-95 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIAS, SOHO | 2-Dec-95 | USG |
| Atlas II, UHF F/O F6 | 22-Oct-95 | USG |
| Atlas IIAS, JCSAT 3 | 28-Aug-95 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIA, DSCS IIIB | 31-Jul-95 | USG |
| Atlas II, UHF F/O F5 | 31-May-95 | USG |
| Atlas I, GOES-J | 23-May-95 | USG |
| Atlas IIA, AMSC-1 | 7-Apr-95 | Commercial |
| Atlas IIAS, Intelsat 705 | 22-Mar-95 | Commercial |
| Atlas II, UHF F/O F4 | 28-Jan-95 | USG |
| Atlas IIAS, Intelsat 704 | 10-Jan-95 | Commercial |
Looking at the data it appears that the program was doing really well at capturing both Government and Commercial launches. A definite drop off occurs with the introduction of Atlas V and the phasing out of Atlas 2 and 3.
Can you say Edsel?
PS - I could not find this information on the Lockheed Commercial Launch Services Web Site
-
Wrong again. Anyone can use bad data to show their point'
Commercial missions for all LVs started dropping in 2002 going from 23 missions to 13
-
Anyone can refute data with no data and also be wrong.
Look at 2004, well after the first flight of Atlas V. six launches. 1 government and 5 commercial. All after your 2002 suggestion. The next two years Atlas V can only muster 2 commercial sales.
Is it possible Boeing and Lockheed catered so much to USAF requirements that they ignored the commercial market needs inspite of the heavy investments they made?
Is it possible that Lockheed phased out a successful model(s) in order to not have internal competition against itself?
(Now that would be a conspiracy, or just a bad business decision)
In the absence of opposing data, I draw my own conclusions.
-
The 13 missions were for 2005
And your conclusions are wrong. The EELV's were originally designed to USAF requirements, which were greater than the commercial . When the commercial market requirements exceeded the USAF's, the EELV contractors added solids.
The Altas III was never intended to be a "standard" product line. It was a transitional vehicle that was used to reduce the risk of developing the Atlas V. It flew incremental improvements of the Altas V, such as the RD-180 and single engine Centaur. There never would have been an Atlas III if there wasn't a Atlas V. NASA was going to buy an Atlas III but got an Altas V for the same price.
-
Jim - 21/10/2006 10:46 AM
The Altas III was never intended to be a "standard" product line. It was a transitional vehicle that was used to reduce the risk of developing the Atlas V. It flew incremental improvements of the Altas V, such as the RD-180 and single engine Centaur. There never would have been an Atlas III if there wasn't a Atlas V. NASA was going to buy an Atlas III but got an Altas V for the same price.
Lockheed Martin began development of Atlas IIAR (later renamed Atlas III) in 1995, three-plus years before it won the EELV Buy 1 contract. Atlas IIAR was reported at the time to be a $300 million in-house effort to develop a more powerful launcher http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-6348909_ITM
Granted, the initial IIAR work overlapped with Lockheed Martin's initial EELV precursor contract, the $30 million Low Cost Concept Validation work that was also done by several other companies during 1995-96, but Atlas IIAR (III) was started by the company when it had no way of knowing if it would participate in the final EELV program - which at the time was supposed to be a "winner-take-all", single-manufacturer win.
- Ed Kyle
-
That doesn't change my point. So what that they started it before the EELV award, it was developed with EELV in mind (same goes for the Delta III). Each company knew that they couldn't go in the EELV competition "cold", they had to show some risk reduction
-
The IIAR program was initially an 18 vehicle program but was truncated several times to eventually only 6 vehicles. The test tank/thrust structure for IIAR was actually designed with the ability to fly two Castor solids same as a IIAS and the corresponding load cases were tested. Engineering development included wind tunnel testing with the two solid configuration. The solid configuration was to scarred on article 3 and on as the IIARS. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(MRO) was originally slated to fly on an Atlas III (IIAR) but was swapped to the Atlas V (401) when the program was truncated.
-
Gus - 21/10/2006 7:04 PM
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(MRO) was originally slated to fly on an Atlas III (IIAR) but was swapped to the Atlas V (401) when the program was truncated.
At no extra cost to the gov't
-
I don't know anything on the contracts side. That is probably true because the program wanted to truncate the III and enticed NASA with a no cost impact incentive with some additional performance margin on the V.
-
Jim - 21/10/2006 10:46 AM
The 13 missions were for 2005
And your conclusions are wrong. The EELV's were originally designed to USAF requirements, which were greater than the commercial . When the commercial market requirements exceeded the USAF's, the EELV contractors added solids.
The Altas III was never intended to be a "standard" product line. It was a transitional vehicle that was used to reduce the risk of developing the Atlas V. It flew incremental improvements of the Altas V, such as the RD-180 and single engine Centaur. There never would have been an Atlas III if there wasn't a Atlas V. NASA was going to buy an Atlas III but got an Altas V for the same price.
Greater requirements. Sounds more expensive.
-
Gus - 21/10/2006 6:04 PM
The IIAR program was initially an 18 vehicle program but was truncated several times to eventually only 6 vehicles. The test tank/thrust structure for IIAR was actually designed with the ability to fly two Castor solids same as a IIAS and the corresponding load cases were tested. Engineering development included wind tunnel testing with the two solid configuration. The solid configuration was to scarred on article 3 and on as the IIARS. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(MRO) was originally slated to fly on an Atlas III (IIAR) but was swapped to the Atlas V (401) when the program was truncated.
Why would Lockheed truncate a program unless of course it was to eliminate internal competition?
-
Jim - 21/10/2006 6:42 PM
Gus - 21/10/2006 7:04 PM
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(MRO) was originally slated to fly on an Atlas III (IIAR) but was swapped to the Atlas V (401) when the program was truncated.
At no extra cost to the gov't
Wait a minute here. I thought the Atlas V was cheaper than the 3. The whole basis of the EELV program was to reduce launch vehicle costs from the "legacy" systems. The government should have received a refund!!
-
"In the early 1990's General Dynamics (now a part of Lockheed Martin) made the decision to upgrade the Atlas first stage propulsion system."
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/atlas2_sum.shtml
Is it possible that the whole "Atlas III was the evolution to Atlas V" is just a neatly packaged marketing sound bite and the whole re-engining of the Atlas with the RD-180 was at its inception was never intended to be the evolutionary path to EELV?
-
Dexter - 21/10/2006 9:34 PM
Jim - 21/10/2006 6:42 PM
Gus - 21/10/2006 7:04 PM
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(MRO) was originally slated to fly on an Atlas III (IIAR) but was swapped to the Atlas V (401) when the program was truncated.
At no extra cost to the gov't
Wait a minute here. I thought the Atlas V was cheaper than the 3. The whole basis of the EELV program was to reduce launch vehicle costs from the "legacy" systems. The government should have received a refund!!
Yeah the other point of EELV and "assured access to space" was to have competing contractors providing the service. Now we are apparently going back to one contractor. I concur with the refund
-
Dexter - 21/10/2006 11:25 PM
Gus - 21/10/2006 6:04 PM
The IIAR program was initially an 18 vehicle program but was truncated several times to eventually only 6 vehicles. The test tank/thrust structure for IIAR was actually designed with the ability to fly two Castor solids same as a IIAS and the corresponding load cases were tested. Engineering development included wind tunnel testing with the two solid configuration. The solid configuration was to scarred on article 3 and on as the IIARS. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(MRO) was originally slated to fly on an Atlas III (IIAR) but was swapped to the Atlas V (401) when the program was truncated.
Why would Lockheed truncate a program unless of course it was to eliminate internal competition?
You begged it exactly. There was no logical reason to truncate the Atlas III other than to eliminate it as an option for the customer.
-
Dexter - 21/10/2006 11:34 PM
Jim - 21/10/2006 6:42 PM
Gus - 21/10/2006 7:04 PM
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(MRO) was originally slated to fly on an Atlas III (IIAR) but was swapped to the Atlas V (401) when the program was truncated.
At no extra cost to the gov't
Wait a minute here. I thought the Atlas V was cheaper than the 3. The whole basis of the EELV program was to reduce launch vehicle costs from the "legacy" systems. The government should have received a refund!!
The attempt to reduce costs by way of Atlas V failed miserably. What's a Atlas V 401 configured launch cost now versus the initial marketing cost? It's probably twice as much.
-
Jim - 21/10/2006 6:42 PM
Gus - 21/10/2006 7:04 PM
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(MRO) was originally slated to fly on an Atlas III (IIAR) but was swapped to the Atlas V (401) when the program was truncated.
At no extra cost to the gov't
Very nice to throw the gov't a bone. The "at no extra cost to the gov't" no longer applies. The cost of an Atlas V 401, 411, 421, 431, 501 - you name it has gone through the roof. Savings to the gov't never materialized nor were they ever meant to materialize.
-
bombay - 22/10/2006 2:37 PM
The attempt to reduce costs by way of Atlas V failed miserably. What's a Atlas V 401 configured launch cost now versus the initial marketing cost? It's probably twice as much.
Nope, it isn't. It still is competitive
-
Wouldn't Atlas III cost at least as much, since the cost issue is the same, low manufacturing rates because of low commercial markets? And how versatile could the AIII have been, what about solids and various upper stages and fairings?
-
A-III could only do 4m fairings. It was limited wrt solids.
6 of the 8 Atlas V's flown to date could NOT have flown on an Atlas III.
So much for "eliminating internal competition" BS theory
-
Jim - 22/10/2006 4:27 PM
A-III could only do 4m fairings. It was limited wrt solids.
6 of the 8 Atlas V's flown to date could NOT have flown on an Atlas III.
So much for "eliminating internal competition" BS theory
AIII with solids was stricken from the design/manufacturing phase to no doubt avoid direct competition with Atlas V. In a face-to-face competition, AIII would have won out in a rout.
AIII (401) could deliver 9900 lb payloads, about 10% less than Atlas V (401). What could AIII with solids have delivered?
Other than 5XX launches, AIII (with solids) would have delivered them all at a far-far cheaper cost. Lockheed could have launched the 5XX payloads on a Titan for what a 5XX launch now costs and saved the company $billion in Atlas V development costs.
-
Jim - 22/10/2006 2:39 PM
bombay - 22/10/2006 2:37 PM
The attempt to reduce costs by way of Atlas V failed miserably. What's a Atlas V 401 configured launch cost now versus the initial marketing cost? It's probably twice as much.
Nope, it isn't. It still is competitive
Yes, it is. It's about twice as much.
Competitive relative to what - a Delta IV who's in the same sinking ship as Atlas V?
-
Wrong again. Get some facts straight before posting.
For one, there is not AIII 401 configuration you must mean A-IIIB SEC
Yes there is a doubt. The A-IIIB SEC with solids would have used only 2 Castors 4's not 4 like the A-IIAS. This is nowhere near the larger Aerojet SRM's that A-V uses.
Even if the AIII would have used 4 Castors, it would have increase the capability by 600-700 kg to GTO
The difference between A-V 401 and 411 is more than 1000kg. That is ONE solid, much cheaper than buying and mounting 4.
The 5XX payloads could not have flown on titans for many reasons.
1. The production line was shutdown long ago.
2. The 5m fairing is actually 5.4 meters. Some spacecraft can't fit in the 5m
3. The titan cost more to launch and would have required dual manifesting
4, The 5xx is cheaper than you think. I have first hand knowledge
-
Jim - 22/10/2006 4:27 PM
A-III could only do 4m fairings. It was limited wrt solids.
6 of the 8 Atlas V's flown to date could NOT have flown on an Atlas III.
So much for "eliminating internal competition" BS theory
You posted the EELV manifest web link on another thread.
http://www.skyrocket.de/space/index_frame.htm?http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc/eelv.htm
There sure seem to be a lot of Delta 4M and Atlas V 401 on the manifest according to the data you provided. Looks like only two EELV missions have actually flown to this point and many of them need only 4 meter fairings and no solids.
I believe that the whole reason for the EELV program from the various sources provided here was for the Air Force to reduce the cost for their launches on a Titan IV (Fleecing of America type bad press). One number has this at $433M per launch.
The commercial Atlas program prior to EELV appears to have had success in the market even after the 2002 date when the "commercial market has collapsed" mantra was initiated by the contractors and the USAF. The FTC documents speak of medium to heavy launch capabilities and define Delta 2 for medium, Atlas 2/3 for intermediate, and Titan IV for heavy. In trying to correct the Titan IV problem, the mantra was to also modernize two other programs which has recently been modernized and in doing so designed vehicles not well suited to the commercial market.
Now we find out that the Atlas IIAR program was initiated by GD prior to EELV and not originally intended to be the evolutionary step to Atlas V as being presented now(spin). Then you tell us that MRO was swithched at no extra cost implying that the Atlas V 401 cost is more than the Atlas 3 cost even though the promise of EELV was to reduce launch cost.
The promise of ULA (bringining this back on topic) is to reduce launch cost.
You want to talk about BS theories, there are two for you.
When you truncate a program from 18 vehicles to 6, what else would you call it except an elimination of internal competition. Look at that EELV manifest again.
Doesn't sound like a BS theory to me.
Atlas V, brought to you by the same people who brought you Titan IV.
-
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlasv.htm
Launch Price $: 138.000 million. in: 2004 price dollars. The originally estimated launch price in 1998 for the Atlas V 401 model was $77 million, the 500 series $ 110 million, and the HLV model $ 170 million. Due to the collapse of the commercial launch market, this was revised by the USAF in November 2004 to $ 138, $192, and $ 254 million respectively.
USAF to subsidise EELV's Nation: USA. The US Air Force asked the Congress to provide $1 billion of subsidies in 2004-2009 for the Atlas V and Delta 4 EELV launch vehicles. The collapse of the commercial satellite market invalidated the cost model on which the manufacturers invested their own funds in development. Lack of adequate sales could have meant the closure of the production line of one or both of the launch vehicles on which the US government would rely for future space missions. The US Air Force asked for a $200-million first tranche n FY2004.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delheavy.htm
Launch Price $: 254.000 million. in: 2004 price dollars. Cost comments: The originally estimated launch price in 1999 was $170 million. Due to the collapse of the commercial launch market, this was revised by the USAF in November 2004 to $ 254 million.
WOW.
-
Yeah, 11 of the 14 Atlas V launches from buy 1 are 401:s, for those who don't want to scan the manifests...
-
meiza - 23/10/2006 5:18 AM
Yeah, 11 of the 14 Atlas V launches from buy 1 are 401:s, for those who don't want to scan the manifests...
Plus 7 Delta 4Ms for a total of 18.
18, where have I heard that number before? Hmmmmm.
-
pad rat - 23/10/2006 11:06 AM
Satellite customers do not particularly like dealing with the US launch ranges, either. They are pricey and difficult to work with. Russia and Arianespace were able to capitalize on that. In the end, Boeing decided pursuing commercial laucnhes was not worth the effort, and LM is still having difficulty finding customers.
Correct me if I am wrong here but aren't the ranges run by the USAF/DOD.
Perhaps a better strategy than ULA is to go figure out how to make the ranges less pricey and difficult to work with. If this prevents commercial customers from using US launchers, then the USAF is shooting themselves in the foot.
-
Dexter - 23/10/2006 12:16 AM
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlasv.htm
Launch Price $: 138.000 million. in: 2004 price dollars. The originally estimated launch price in 1998 for the Atlas V 401 model was $77 million, the 500 series $ 110 million, and the HLV model $ 170 million. Due to the collapse of the commercial launch market, this was revised by the USAF in November 2004 to $ 138, $192, and $ 254 million respectively.
USAF to subsidise EELV's Nation: USA. The US Air Force asked the Congress to provide $1 billion of subsidies in 2004-2009 for the Atlas V and Delta 4 EELV launch vehicles. The collapse of the commercial satellite market invalidated the cost model on which the manufacturers invested their own funds in development. Lack of adequate sales could have meant the closure of the production line of one or both of the launch vehicles on which the US government would rely for future space missions. The US Air Force asked for a $200-million first tranche n FY2004.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delheavy.htm
Launch Price $: 254.000 million. in: 2004 price dollars. Cost comments: The originally estimated launch price in 1999 was $170 million. Due to the collapse of the commercial launch market, this was revised by the USAF in November 2004 to $ 254 million.
WOW.
Wow, I agree. Your source is completely out of whack. (an example, it says that Atlas V is produced by Convair, which hasn't been the case for about 13 years.) Atlas prices are not available on the internet. Get over it.
A few clarifications. Atlas III was discontinued because no one wanted to buy it and it cost more to produce than the Atlas V 401 which has more performance. Why pay more for less? From LM's perspective it also increased fixed costs to maintain two production lines, sets of engineering etc.
The decision to switch MRO to Atlas V was a win-win for NASA and LM. NASA got a higher performing vehicle for the same price which allowed the launch window to be expanded to almost double its original size. The costs of switching were absorbed by LM because of the inherently lower cost of the LV. It's not free to switch. Lot's of analyses, planning, documents, interfaces, etc had to be changed.
I don't know what you mean by "subsidies". The AF needs the capability to launch national security satellites. There is a cost associated with providing that capability. Are you against the government paying private companies for the services it recieves?
-
Dexter - 23/10/2006 10:30 PM
pad rat - 23/10/2006 11:06 AM
Satellite customers do not particularly like dealing with the US launch ranges, either. They are pricey and difficult to work with. Russia and Arianespace were able to capitalize on that. In the end, Boeing decided pursuing commercial laucnhes was not worth the effort, and LM is still having difficulty finding customers.
Correct me if I am wrong here but aren't the ranges run by the USAF/DOD.
Perhaps a better strategy than ULA is to go figure out how to make the ranges less pricey and difficult to work with. If this prevents commercial customers from using US launchers, then the USAF is shooting themselves in the foot.
You are right. The ranges are owned and operated by the AF. But range costs are not a significant piece of a commercial launch. The issue is that the US launchers are competing against foreign systems that have far more government support than they do. For example, 100% of the development cost of the Ariane V was paid by ESA/CNES, where only 25% of the EELV development cost was paid by the AF. The remainder was paid by the companies (Boeing and LM) who hope to recover their investment some day.
-
quark - 23/10/2006 11:55 PM
Dexter - 23/10/2006 12:16 AM
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlasv.htm
Wow, I agree. Your source is completely out of whack. (an example, it says that Atlas V is produced by Convair, which hasn't been the case for about 13 years.) Atlas prices are not available on the internet. Get over it.
I don't think Convair ever produced an Atlas V so you are right there. I don't think Convair ever would have produced it according to this history:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdf
Everyone wanted to kill the original Atlas architecture and the Martin folks finally did.
Incidentally, there is a quote on page 257 of the pdf file from an Ed Bock,
"I think if we'd had a failure shortly after we moved here, we would have been Titanized at the drop of a hat".
What does that mean? It sounds derrogatory especially when you read the next paragraph. Did this Titanization occurr with Atlas V?
As far as prices go, unless you can provide refuting evidence, I will take them as ballpark numbers. The $77M seems to be reflected elsewhere. What atonishes me is the near doubling of the price. How much of the vehicle is a fixed cost?
[/QUOTE]
"A few clarifications. Atlas III was discontinued because no one wanted to buy it and it cost more to produce than the Atlas V 401 which has more performance. Why pay more for less? From LM's perspective it also increased fixed costs to maintain two production lines, sets of engineering etc."
[/QUOTE]
Is the cost of producing a 401, the promisary "get pregnant" price ($77M) or the real price based on work done($138M). If the Atlas V is so good, why are there only two commercial launches in 05-06. That's right, the market collapsed, but according to Jim, the sattellite suppliers are governed more by the commercial market, which is why it is not a good idea to create an Alliance of Satellite Suppliers. We can't compete against the Russians because of their low wages even though you said the cost of the rocket is not in the tank but in the engines and avionics, and of course the engine is made by Russians and their cheap wages and when you look at pictures of an Atlas 3 compared to a 401, the only striking difference is the booster tank and a fancy new pad whose cost to develop would need to be amortized against the unit cost of said vehicles.
So what's the point of ULA. Downselect now. One production line, one set of engineering, no relocations required. I'll take my EELV with American engines and Payload fairings, Thank You.
[/QUOTE]
"The decision to switch MRO to Atlas V was a win-win for NASA and LM. NASA got a higher performing vehicle for the same price which allowed the launch window to be expanded to almost double its original size. The costs of switching were absorbed by LM because of the inherently lower cost of the LV. It's not free to switch. Lot's of analyses, planning, documents, interfaces, etc had to be changed."
[/QUOTE]
So why was the switch done if it took all that extra work? Sounds like a bad business decision or a desire to eliminate capability in launching national security assets into space like 18 of the buy 1 EELV missions.
[/QUOTE]
"I don't know what you mean by "subsidies". The AF needs the capability to launch national security satellites. There is a cost associated with providing that capability. Are you against the government paying private companies for the services it recieves?"[/QUOTE]
The subsidy is quoted from the web site. Those Buy 3 contracts certainly could be perceived as subsidies
I am not against paying for services rendered but the infamous $600 hammer reported by the GAO has me thinking here.
-
"So what's the point of ULA. Downselect now. One production line, one set of engineering, no relocations required. I'll take my EELV with American engines and Payload fairings, Thank You."
Wrong assumption!!! Delta-IV uses Japanese tanks
"So why was the switch done if it took all that extra work? Sounds like a bad business decision or a desire to eliminate capability in launching national security assets into space like 18 of the buy 1 EELV missions."
Wrong again!!!! The swtich was done to save money and provide the MRO spacecraft more capability. The MRO Altas V was not one the USAF's
"Is the cost of producing a 401, the promisary "get pregnant" price ($77M) or the real price based on work done($138M)."
It is not 138.
"Did this Titanization occurr with Atlas V?
No. But one of the problems of the Altas ballon tank was it took extra manpower and special hardware to build, maintain and launch and now days the extra performance it provided wasn't worth the $.
-
Actually, the GX program performed several trade studies on the balloon tank was the low cost option. It was compared to a Titan 2, an Atlas V, and a Michoud supplied tank. The cost data of course is proprietary.
The advantage of Atlas V is in the multiple solids and larger fairings capability it brings to the table.
We would not have been able to launch New Horizons to Pluto without it.
-
Jim - 24/10/2006 6:36 AM
"So what's the point of ULA. Downselect now. One production line, one set of engineering, no relocations required. I'll take my EELV with American engines and Payload fairings, Thank You."
Wrong assumption!!! Delta-IV uses Japanese tanks
That's not quite correct. Part of tank subassembly was made by MHI, just as they use our part of tank subassembly for the H-IIA rocket, but the final tank assembly is done at Decatur.
Japan has been our best supplier among all the suppliers. Their commitment to schedule, cost and quality is second to none.
-
"Wrong assumption!!! Delta-IV uses Japanese tanks"
So whats your point, in a downselect process the gov't would weigh Japanese made fuel tanks equal to that of Russian made engines?
Wrong again!!!! The swtich was done to save money and provide the MRO spacecraft more capability. The MRO Altas V was not one the USAF's
So what's your point, the USAF is charged more for the same performing rocket?
"It is not 138."
O.K. then what is it - 50, 60, 70 percent more? It was marketed at $77million
"Did this Titanization occurr with Atlas V?
No. But one of the problems of the Altas ballon tank was it took extra manpower and special hardware to build, maintain and launch and now days the extra performance it provided wasn't worth the $."
The "Titanization" of Atlas has nothing to do with extra manpower and hardware to run the program - that amounts to chump change comparatively speaking.
It has everything to do with: (1) the total reliance on gov't contracts and funding to maintain the program (2) massive gov't oversight/beauracracy in running and maintaining the program (3) no knowledge on how to compete in the commercial market and (4) no control of the obscene GS&A costs that are wrapped up into the cost of a launch that has fueled the cost to $138million or there abouts from $77million.
That is the definition of "Titanization" and that accurately describes what the Atlas program has morphed into over the years.
-
"It has everything to do with: (1) the total reliance on gov't contracts and funding to maintain the program (2) massive gov't oversight/beauracracy in running and maintaining the program (3) no knowledge on how to compete in the commercial market and (4) no control of the obscene GS&A costs that are wrapped up into the cost of a launch that has fueled the cost to $138million or there abouts from $77million"
1. No, Atlas doesn't rely on gov't contracts, but Delta-IV does
2. No, there isn't the same oversight as Titan. There is less oversight.
3. They know how to compete, they still have commercial contracts.
4. Wrong, the costs added are buy down of the non recurring costs of development not GS&A
-
Dexter - 24/10/2006 1:04 AM
As far as prices go ... [t]he $77M seems to be reflected elsewhere. What astonishes me is the near doubling of the price. How much of the vehicle is a fixed cost?
The near doubling of the price (it actually has more than doubled on a per-launch basis) was not Atlas-specific, it came from a GAO report released in June 2004 regarding the progress of the entire EELV program.
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d04778r.html
It said,
"Program costs have increased over the approved 2002 program baseline
estimate of $18.8 billion, resulting from the failure of the commercial
market to materialize, additional access to space and mission assurance
initiatives, and several other factors such as incorrect inflation
assumptions and satellite weight growth. Specifically, the EELV System
Program Office reported about $13.3 billion in program cost increases
over the life of the program, as reflected in previous DOD acquisition
reports."
Later in the report, it said,
"This group reported additional cost increases built into the revised
program cost baseline based on 137 operational missions instead of the
previous 181 manifested missions."
So, according to this report, the original EELV program plan had called for $18.8 billion for 181 missions, an average of $103.9 million per mission. The new plan calls for $32.1 billion for only 137 missions, an average of $234.3 million per mission. That is a 125% increase on a per-launch basis.
The cost went up largely because the government decided it need two, rather than only one, EELV. That meant that it had to fund two production lines, two sets of launch facilities on *both* coasts, etc. The "collapse" of the commercial launch market was part of it, but it only accounts for a bit more than half of the increase, according to the GAO report.
I could go on and on about the "collapse" of the presumed commercial launch market. In fact, the presumed commercial launch market was never really there, unless the fantastic plans for 800+ Teledesic satellites and the like were presumed to be real. Boeing said it had a 60-launch commercial backlog for Delta III and IV at one point. There were going to be two dozen Delta III flights at least! That turned out to be a fantasy, as we know now.
Now, ULA promises to trim away at the projected $32.1 billion total program cost, which would reduce the per-launch cost. Whether that will in fact happen remains to be seen. A more certain way to cut costs would be to abandon one of the largely-redundant EELV programs entirely.
- Ed Kyle
-
Jim - 24/10/2006 7:23 PM
"It has everything to do with: (1) the total reliance on gov't contracts and funding to maintain the program (2) massive gov't oversight/beauracracy in running and maintaining the program (3) no knowledge on how to compete in the commercial market and (4) no control of the obscene GS&A costs that are wrapped up into the cost of a launch that has fueled the cost to $138million or there abouts from $77million"
1. No, Atlas doesn't rely on gov't contracts, but Delta-IV does
2. No, there isn't the same oversight as Titan. There is less oversight.
3. They know how to compete, they still have commercial contracts.
4. Wrong, the costs added are buy down of the non recurring costs of development not GS&A
O.K. you convinced me. So Atlas doesn't rely on gov't contracts, there isn't alot of gov't oversight, Atlas can compete commercially, and GS&A is right in-line with any other normal operating business.
Definition of ULA: (1) total reliance on gov't contracts (2) massive gov't oversight/beauracracy embedded within the company (3) no commercial contracts or the need to compete commercially (4) subsidized by the gov't to fund the obscene GS&A costs with no concern for cost overruns.
So, it's easy to see that: The Atlas program has not been "Titanized" but ULA will be.
-
Jim
In case you missed it, Bombay is not really agreeing with you. This is known as sarcasm.
-
Gus - 24/10/2006 9:22 AM
Actually, the GX program performed several trade studies on the balloon tank was the low cost option. It was compared to a Titan 2, an Atlas V, and a Michoud supplied tank. The cost data of course is proprietary.
But Jim and Quark insist that the Atlas V is the lower cost launch vehicle!
This falls right in line with the savings promised by combining Atlas and Titan in 1995.
The promised savings of creating ULA which the DOD does not believe will be realized.
and here is another promise for you;
1997 -
"The common core boosters are powered by the Pratt & Whitney manufactured RD-180 engine for U.S. government missions"
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/1997/eelv_pr_l.htm
Lets see. I am not a rocket scientist but that is about 9 years give or take. How long does it take to make an American RD-180 or is this just another "promise"?
-
edkyle99 - 24/10/2006 8:01 PM
[So, according to this report, the original EELV program plan had called for $18.8 billion for 181 missions, an average of $103.9 million per mission. The new plan calls for $32.1 billion for only 137 missions, an average of $234.3 million per mission. That is a 125% increase on a per-launch basis.
- Ed Kyle
So Jim was right on this point, it is not $138 million.
In fact according to this, it is somewhat higher.
A 125 % increase on $77M is $173M.
Can anyone hum the theme music for the NBC Nightly News??
-
Perhaps the GX is more intended for smaller payloads (they have the H-2B after all) and thus doesn't need the more versatile rigid tanks where you can attach solids and various upper stages and fairings. Just my hunch.
-
meiza - 25/10/2006 7:04 AM
Perhaps the GX is more intended for smaller payloads (they have the H-2B after all) and thus doesn't need the more versatile rigid tanks where you can attach solids and various upper stages and fairings. Just my hunch.
I think the point here is that the Atlas V/EELV proponents have been claiming that the Atlas 3 was more expensive to manufacture, yet a lockheed guy says trade studies were performed which suggests otherwise.
As noted previously, the 3 could do 18 of the Buy1 missions.
And this is exactly the point the causes me much irritation. The inconsistency of logic in the offerred arguments diminishes the credibility of the people vehemently defending ULA, EELV, etc...
-
No, the EELV Medium requirement was 10K to GTO. A-III didn't meet this. Also the taking 18 away from Atlas V would drive up the costs of the remaining vehicles
-
Dexter - 25/10/2006 12:13 AM
edkyle99 - 24/10/2006 8:01 PM
[So, according to this report, the original EELV program plan had called for $18.8 billion for 181 missions, an average of $103.9 million per mission. The new plan calls for $32.1 billion for only 137 missions, an average of $234.3 million per mission. That is a 125% increase on a per-launch basis.
- Ed Kyle
So Jim was right on this point, it is not $138 million.
In fact according to this, it is somewhat higher.
A 125 % increase on $77M is $173M.
Can anyone hum the theme music for the NBC Nightly News??
The space news media, not just the nightly news, has been asleep at the switch on this story. This GAO report was released more than two years ago, but the cost facts were buried in the report body. To find the truth, one had to read past the opening paragraphs.
- Ed Kyle
-
"Actually, the GX program performed several trade studies on the balloon tank was the low cost option. It was compared to a Titan 2, an Atlas V, and a Michoud supplied tank. The cost data of course is proprietary".
The great philosopher Santayana said: "Advertisement is the modern substitue for argument, its function is to make the worse appear better".
-
edkyle99 - 26/10/2006 9:40 AM
Dexter - 25/10/2006 12:13 AM
edkyle99 - 24/10/2006 8:01 PM
[So, according to this report, the original EELV program plan had called for $18.8 billion for 181 missions, an average of $103.9 million per mission. The new plan calls for $32.1 billion for only 137 missions, an average of $234.3 million per mission. That is a 125% increase on a per-launch basis.
- Ed Kyle
So Jim was right on this point, it is not $138 million.
In fact according to this, it is somewhat higher.
A 125 % increase on $77M is $173M.
Can anyone hum the theme music for the NBC Nightly News??
The space news media, not just the nightly news, has been asleep at the switch on this story. This GAO report was released more than two years ago, but the cost facts were buried in the report body. To find the truth, one had to read past the opening paragraphs.
- Ed Kyle
The public was led down the primrose path on this one!!
What's the motivation behind concealing the truth? Why the deceit? Who's really benefitting from all of this? This is no different than what shady politicians do - feed the public short sound bites and play us as a bunch of fools.
-
bombay - 26/10/2006 7:44 PM
edkyle99 - 26/10/2006 9:40 AM
Dexter - 25/10/2006 12:13 AM
So Jim was right on this point, it is not $138 million.
In fact according to this, it is somewhat higher.
A 125 % increase on $77M is $173M.
Can anyone hum the theme music for the NBC Nightly News??
The public was led down the primrose path on this one!!
What's the motivation behind concealing the truth? Why the deceit? Who's really benefitting from all of this? This is no different than what shady politicians do - feed the public short sound bites and play us as a bunch of fools.
wrong again! It is less than 138 million. First hand knowledge
-
Jim - 26/10/2006 6:39 AM
No, the EELV Medium requirement was 10K to GTO. A-III didn't meet this. Also the taking 18 away from Atlas V would drive up the costs of the remaining vehicles
The 18 weren't meant for Atlas V, they were meant for Atlas IIAR per Gus's post. Therefore, the AtlasV pricing was not with the 18 in mind. The Atlas V pricing of $77million was, as we have uncovered by way of Ed's post, a dubious figure based on totally unrealistic, wishful forecasting.
-
bombay - 26/10/2006 7:59 PM
Jim - 26/10/2006 6:39 AM
No, the EELV Medium requirement was 10K to GTO. A-III didn't meet this. Also the taking 18 away from Atlas V would drive up the costs of the remaining vehicles
The 18 weren't meant for Atlas V, they were meant for Atlas IIAR per Gus's post. Therefore, the AtlasV pricing was not with the 18 in mind. The Atlas V pricing of $77million was, as we have uncovered by way of Ed's post, a dubious figure based on totally unrealistic, wishful forecasting.
No. Those 18 were never, never A-III's. They were part of the EELV's buys. A-III was not an EELV. The 18 Atlas IIAR were for commercial customers and had nothing to do with EELV's or the 18 EELV missions. Just like the 18 Atlas I's that were to be built and reduced to something like 11 because the market didn't want them.
And like I said before the EELV Medium requirement was 10K to GTO. A-III didn't meet this, so those missions couldn't use A-III
-
The increase in cost may not really be as bad as it looks. Delta IV was originally priced with the assumption that they would build 40 CBC's a year in Decatur and 17 launches a year from the two coasts (only 2 or 3/yr at VAFB I think) most of them being Heavies and some with dual payloads. So given they've dropped to 3 or 4 a year at this point a doubling of the price aint bad. 75% fewer launches for 100% more instead 400% more.
-
Jim - 26/10/2006 6:39 AM
No, the EELV Medium requirement was 10K to GTO. A-III didn't meet this. Also the taking 18 away from Atlas V would drive up the costs of the remaining vehicles
How many of the buy1 EELV's had payload weights more than 9.92K - what AtlasIII could deliver to GTO. I would venture to guess that AtlasIII could have boosted them all at a far, far cheaper price.
The Atlas V costs exploded regardless of not taking the 18 away once the AtlasIII was gone and it's easy to understand why being that a cheaper alternative was removed from service.
Gus's trade study, Ed's GAO report, Dexter's pricing search via the internet, the DoD report, the FTC report, all indicate that the AtlasV is and will be way more costly than what we're led to believe. And yet, the Gospel according to Jim says otherwise.
-
bombay - 26/10/2006 9:05 PM
Jim - 26/10/2006 6:39 AM
No, the EELV Medium requirement was 10K to GTO. A-III didn't meet this. Also the taking 18 away from Atlas V would drive up the costs of the remaining vehicles
How many of the buy1 EELV's had payload weights more than 9.92K - what AtlasIII could deliver to GTO. I would venture to guess that AtlasIII could have boosted them all at a far, far cheaper price.
The Atlas V costs exploded regardless of not taking the 18 away once the AtlasIII was gone and it's easy to understand why being that a cheaper alternative was removed from service.
Gus's trade study, Ed's GAO report, Dexter's pricing search via the internet, the DoD report, the FTC report, all indicate that the AtlasV is and will be way more costly than what we're led to believe. And yet, the Gospel according to Jim says otherwise.
Keep in mind that the GAO report only discussed the total EELV program, which includes both Atlas V and Delta IV. It is possible, and even likely, that one of the EELVs accounts for more of the cost increase than the other. The publically available evidence (the fact that Boeing cheated on its initial EELV bids and then dropped out of commercial payload competition altogether, etc.) hints that Delta IV is probably the costlier one. (Perhaps Delta IV tripled in cost while Altas V only went up a little - only the EELV players know for sure.) That would mean that the taxpayer might be subsidizing one EELV more than the other. ULA might help alleviate this problem.
- Ed Kyle
-
Between Dexter, Bombay and Ed, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you really trying to argue that Atlas III was less expensive than Atlas V? Are you trying to argue that Boeing and LM are getting rich on launch?
First of all, it only makes sense to compare an Atlas III with the Atlas V 401. That is the apples to apples comparison. The GAO report, the GX trade study and any data available on the web will give you essentially nothing with which to judge.
It is true that GX chose the Atlas III based first stage. That does not imply that an Atlas III as a system is less expensive than an Atlas V 401. The GX trade study was referenced to a GX system having a Japanese upper stage launched out of Tanegashima. The AIII vs AV comparison is at the system level with the same booster engine, same upper stage, but different tank construction and different launch pad. Also keep in mind that the 401 is about 15% more performance to GTO. The Atlas V tank was overkill for the GX vehicle, but even so the trade study was essentially a toss up. And the tank construction cost is a small piece of the total.
The business decision to terminate Atlas III was simple. The variable cost of AIII was higher for lower performance. The fixed cost associated with AIII could be eliminated: Manufacturing, engineering and an entire launch pad (LC-36). That's real money saved.
The GAO report quite fairly describes the reasons for the cost growth of the EELV program. All are factors outside the control of the contractors. Nowhere did they cite mismanagement or gouging the government as reasons. Yes the projected cost did increase. But left unsaid is the cost of using the heritage systems (Titan IV, Atlas II and Delta II) which are well over $60B. So even after the growth, EELV still saved the taxpayer 50%.
On the development side, the taxpayer made out like a bandit. They got $5B worth of development for a paltry $1B. They got two systems with substantially more capability than the heritage. They got systems with substantially more reliability than heritage. And they got assured access for the first time in history. Two systems with overlapping capability.
For the contractors, the opposite is true. EELV has been a bad business. Why do you think both Boeing and LM are so eager to spin it off? Launch is high risk, low margin. If anyone ever asks you to invest in a launch business, run the other way. Better to light your money on fire. Even SpaceX is getting the message. Ariane has lost mone for the last 5 years.
ULA is an attempt to stabalize the business so that the essential capability of launch for national security missions is maintained.
-
quark - 26/10/2006 10:49 PM
Between Dexter, Bombay and Ed, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you really trying to argue that Atlas III was less expensive than Atlas V? Are you trying to argue that Boeing and LM are getting rich on launch?
.
This thread is suppose to be about ULA.
Here is the point I am trying to make, but first let me recap.
1995 - Norm Augustine says combining Atlas and Titan will save money. Subsequently, Titan IV is featured in fleecing of America as a taxpayer rip-off.
1997 - Lockheed states that they will have Pratt & Whitney made RD-180 engines. The 2006 Rand report states that Lockheed does not have this capability yet and will still have to invest $500M to $800M to have American RD-180s
EELV program initiated in the early 1990s to replace legacy systems with new launch vehicle. Everyone takes the fake and goes for the pie in the sky commercial market forecast including the USAF who allow two contractors to build when one was the original intent.
ULA announced to "stabilize" the industry with advertised savings of $100m - $150M. FTC and DOD do not believe savings will be realized.
FTC approves ULA because of DOD plea of concern for national security.
ULA will put programs at risk because critical technical employees will not relocate (see Propforce's post). Similar occurrence on Titan failures in 1998-99 as reported by AW&ST (reference my earlier post) due to a loss of critical technical people.
Reason stated by you and Jim as to why MRO was switched to V from 3 is because the Atlas V is cheaper primarily because of more labor in the balloon tank. GX trade study mentioned by Gus says otherwise. (I am too tired to get your exact quote right now)
So now to my point. The proponents of ULA are supporting an ill-conceived plan that will deteriorate our ability to launch national security payloads. The downfall of the ULA plan will be in the loss of critical employess which has been summarily dismissed by the proponents here. The track record of forecasting risks is as follows:
Inability to properly assess the commercial market as in EELV.
Inability to show savings in 1995.
Prices creeping to Titan IV levels.
And then there is the credibility of the proponents.
ULA promises savings. FTC and DOD do not believe it.
3 is more expensive than 5 (401)
RD180 will be produced by Pratt and Whitney.
Commercial market collapsed yet it is still viable for sattelite manufacturers
Commercial market collapsed in 2002 yet Atlas had 5 commercial launches in 2004 but could only muster 2 in two years with Atlas V
3 could only launch 2 of 6 missions flown on Atlas V but sure seems capable of doing 18 of the buy 1 missions etc...
Delta 2 and Atlas 2/3 both recently mdernized and commercially viable are the victims of of the USAF and the contractors wanting their new toys.
Now we are stuck with two systems that can't compete commercially and the proposed solution to merge them which will create a lot of risk.
Just pick the better vehicle and move on. This is what should have happened initially and is what should happen now.
-
quark - 26/10/2006 10:49 PM
The business decision to terminate Atlas III was simple. The variable cost of AIII was higher for lower performance. The fixed cost associated with AIII could be eliminated: Manufacturing, engineering and an entire launch pad (LC-36). That's real money saved.
This argument is a contradiction to your support of ULA.
If you downselect to one supplier between Atlas V and Delta 4 you could save some real money.
I know, you want duplicate overlapping systems for assured access.
But the DOD in their letter to FTC stated that Access to Space for National Security is more important than cost.
So why eliminate launch capability by eliminating launch pads???????
-
quark - 26/10/2006 10:49 PM
On the development side, the taxpayer made out like a bandit. They got $5B worth of development for a paltry $1B. They got two systems with substantially more capability than the heritage. They got systems with substantially more reliability than heritage. And they got assured access for the first time in history. Two systems with overlapping capability.
Why don't you acknowledge that the companies did not have their arms twisted to invest their own money. Business is a risk. Good executives know how to manage risk and pursue good business. This is an example of defense contractors thinking they are good at business and failing in the commercial sector because they have no experience.
The whole assured access mantra would not even be spoken now if Titan IV wasn't such a tax payer rip-off and therefore no EELV program.
-
quark - 26/10/2006 10:49 PM
It is true that GX chose the Atlas III based first stage. That does not imply that an Atlas III as a system is less expensive than an Atlas V 401.
.
OK. I am looking at side by side pictures of a IIIB and a 401 on Gunter's Space Page.
http://www.skyrocket.de/space/
Going top to bottom
Same fairing
Same upperstage
different tank
I assume the same engine.
Quoting Jim-
"No. But one of the problems of the Altas ballon tank was it took extra manpower and special hardware to build, maintain and launch "
Quoting Gus-
"the GX program performed several trade studies on the balloon tank was the low cost option. It was compared to a Titan 2, an Atlas V, and a Michoud supplied tank."
Can you see where there is a loss of credibility that transfers to my skepticism about ULA?
-
I don't know much, but here are some arguments you seemed to miss.
If some of the payloads need smaller and some bigger launchers, it's possibly cheaper to keep one launcher that does them both, even if it's somewhat oversize for the light launches, than a separate light and heavy launcher. The previous separate heavy launcher sure was expensive. Keeping capability is expensive.
It is also good to keep two launchers that can both do light and heavy stuff since that gives competition and redundancy.
-
Here is an interesting rumor-
"LMT and BA called the gov's bluff when they announced ULA.
They called the bluff and approved it.
Now no news at all since the first week of the month. "Lots of documents to complete" seems to the the public line. (Which begets the question "What have they been doing for the last seventeen months?" But I digress.)
Rumor has it that there's still a zero-$um-game dogfight going on over what mom and dad are going to give to the baby for birthday presents. (You'd think they might have known that before they announced the deal in the first place. But I digress again.)
What are the chances that, after all that has happened, mom and dad's hankering to stiff each other--not to mention the baby--will end up killing this deal? And who, save Mr. Gass, will really be sad about it?
Inquiring minds want to know... Any other juicy tidbits?"
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Capital_Goods/Aerospace_and_Defense/threadview?m=tm&bn=10767&tid=178714&mid=178714&tof=42&frt=2
The light might be turning green but the greed will keep the car from moving. So much for the altruistic argument for national security.
-
A yahoo message board is the last place to get reliable info.
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 10:21 AM
A yahoo message board is the last place to get reliable info.
No more so than you get reliable info. from this board that logically supports ULA.
-
bombay - 28/10/2006 11:34 AM
Jim - 28/10/2006 10:21 AM
A yahoo message board is the last place to get reliable info.
No more so than you get reliable info. from this board that logically supports ULA.
Logically is the correct term.
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 10:21 AM
A yahoo message board is the last place to get reliable info.
Notice the mention of rumor in the first sentence. Notice the author (obviously a Dr. Strangelove fan) used rumor in his post.
I also noticed that it has been 17 months since the announcement (Fact)
Also, Boeing and DOD have not completed the Buy 3 (Fact).
What's that saying about smoke and fire?
-
Buy 3 is complete (Fact)
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 10:47 AM
bombay - 28/10/2006 11:34 AM
Jim - 28/10/2006 10:21 AM
A yahoo message board is the last place to get reliable info.
No more so than you get reliable info. from this board that logically supports ULA.
Logically is the correct term.
I believe Bombay is once again using that clever literary device known as sarcasm.
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 10:57 AM
Buy 3 is complete (Fact)
Not for Boeing (Fact)
-
On the subject of retaining key personnel. Given that pending ULA management would have difficulty in forecasting the winner of a one-horse race as represented by their grade-F attempt in forecasting out year launch markets, you could confidently conclude that their forecasted percentage of retaining key personnel will be some pie-in-the-sky number.
What back-up plan is in place should the percentage of key personnel be far lower than what is forecasted? I am 100% confident that pending ULA management is in total denial regarding this likely possibility and that there is not one back-up plan in place.
-
It was the FAA and their contractors and studies that have the grade-F attempt in forecasting out year launch markets. The DOD used this in deciding that they would keep two contractors.
http://ast.faa.gov/rep_study/forcasts_and_reports.htm
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 11:59 AM
It was the FAA and their contractors and studies that have the grade-F attempt in forecasting out year launch markets. The DOD used this in deciding that they would keep two contractors.
http://ast.faa.gov/rep_study/forcasts_and_reports.htm
This is what I don't get. According to this, the original intent of EELV was to downselect to 1 provider. ULA would not even be a consideration now because of one provider with no one else to unite with.The bad forecast led to a bad decision which should have been corrected "when the market collapsed".
Now inorder to keep two suppliers we use the "assured access to space" argument, not part of the original intent of EELV.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_hr/031203teets.html
"Since maintaining two launch providers is critical to assuring access to space for our national security programs, we will continue to grow our EELV capability for near term assured access."
Reference Section 4.
The person providing the testimony is Peter Teets.
If you don't know who he is, check out his biography.
http://www.aero.org/news/newsitems/teets6-9-05.html
Notice who he was an executive for and where he started his career.
Who wins with ULA? LM in Denver.
Who potentially loses w/o ULA? LM in Denver.
Now that's a conspiracy!
-
LM in Denver does not lose without ULA. Atlas V is the better system.
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 8:57 AM
Buy 3 is complete (Fact)
Not true (Fact)
-
The silent majority of employees at Boeing and Lockheed fully recognize, without any doubt, that the beneficiaries of ULA are not the gov't, not the taxpayers, not the Boeing/Lockheed engineers and factory workers, not nat'l security. Believe it or not, they don't fall for everthing that's preached to them in lock-step by those championing ULA.
Thus the reason by those that stand to benefit the most of their obvious denial and/or ignoring of the many warning signs in place (i.e. key personnel retention, quality concerns, cost control, reliability issues, etc.) that would refute every argument in favor of forming ULA.
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 2:37 PM
LM in Denver does not lose without ULA. Atlas V is the better system.
If this is the case, then why does Lockheed support ULA?
By the way, what happens to the price of the "better system" when you have to amortize the development cost of Americanized RD-180s and the heavy variant mentioned in the Rand Report?
At least Boeing has complied with the requirements of EELV.
-
no they haven't, they have Japanese components on the upperstage.
Still would be cheaper
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 2:16 PM
no they haven't, they have Japanese components on the upperstage.
Not the same. Bad analogy.
-
Propforce - 28/10/2006 5:49 PM
Jim - 28/10/2006 2:16 PM
no they haven't, they have Japanese components on the upperstage.
Not the same. Bad analogy.
Yes, it is the same. Reliance on foreign suppliers. DeltaIV could be shut down just as easy
LM has bought 101 RD-180's and has 20 or so on hand. The Russians are more capitalistic than anyone and cutting off the RD-180 would stop a cash flow.
-
Jim - 29/10/2006 1:37 PM
LM in Denver does not lose without ULA. Atlas V is the better system.
Better system? Not asking you only Jim but I'd like to hear some discussion of which really is better and why. Might be a good new thread maybe from the perspective of a down select to.
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 4:53 PM
Propforce - 28/10/2006 5:49 PM
Jim - 28/10/2006 2:16 PM
no they haven't, they have Japanese components on the upperstage.
Not the same. Bad analogy.
Yes, it is the same. Reliance on foreign suppliers. DeltaIV could be shut down just as easy
LM has bought 101 RD-180's and has 20 or so on hand. The Russians are more capitalistic than anyone and cutting off the RD-180 would stop a cash flow.
You have got to be kidding me. So now you're trying to convince us that the rock solid alliance that the U.S. has with the Japanese is on equal footing with the shaky relationship that the U.S. has with the Russians? Unbelievable!!!
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 4:53 PM
Propforce - 28/10/2006 5:49 PM
Jim - 28/10/2006 2:16 PM
no they haven't, they have Japanese components on the upperstage.
Not the same. Bad analogy.
Yes, it is the same. Reliance on foreign suppliers. DeltaIV could be shut down just as easy
LM has bought 101 RD-180's and has 20 or so on hand. The Russians are more capitalistic than anyone and cutting off the RD-180 would stop a cash flow.
Yet the Rand Report makes no mention or is concerned with the Japanese supplied tanks but is very explicit in its concern on Americanized RD-180 supply.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG503.pdf
I noticed that there is a 4m and a 5m version of the D4 upper stage. Who makes the Hydrogen tank for the 5m version?
-
Boeing does not get the entire Tank from the Japanese they only get the Tank Domes. The factory in Decatur should have the tooling to make the domes but they get them from Japan as part of some related project. I remember reading it was part of new engine development for the second stage. Unfortunately I can't find any more specifics googling right now. Anyone else know more?
-
Boeing doesn't make any domes. They buy all of them. Core and upperstage. The upperstage ones are made in Japan
-
R&R - 28/10/2006 7:44 PM
Jim - 29/10/2006 1:37 PM
LM in Denver does not lose without ULA. Atlas V is the better system.
Better system? Not asking you only Jim but I'd like to hear some discussion of which really is better and why. Might be a good new thread maybe from the perspective of a down select to.
In comparing boost capability to GTO, a strong argument in favor of Atlas V could be made:
Atlas V (401) = 10.9K lbs Delta (medium) = 9.3K lbs
Atlas V (521) = 13.2K Delta (5+2) = 10.2K
Atlas V (541) = 16.7K Delta (5+4) = 14.5K
That RD-180 engine is a beast, there's no denying that. But in a down select, it's been well documented in the RAND and elsewhere that reliance on Russian technology to support U.S. nat'l security would be the downfall of AtlasV even though the AtlasV is the better system.
-
bombay - 28/10/2006 6:50 PM
...
You have got to be kidding me. So now you're trying to convince us that the rock solid alliance that the U.S. has with the Japanese is on equal footing with the shaky relationship that the U.S. has with the Russians? Unbelievable!!!
Easy, now. Remember when the Japanese sold some CNC tooling to the Soviets in the 80s that was used in some nuclear sub's drive shaft manufacturing? They trade with everyone nowadays (China especially) And the US may be dumped as soon as they find a better "protector"
The bottom line is, the (perceived) closeness of relationship doesn't matter squat as far the National Security is concerned. Alliances shift and change... It's been true for hundreds of centuries, no reason to believe it wont' be true now... Either we (the US) control the full production of a launcher (and we don't for either), or we don't. (and the domes and engines are not the only things "foreign"...) Heck, we wanted the globalization in the first place didn't we...?
-
Probably the domes aren't that critical though, they'd be just more expensive to build in USA.
-
Neither are the RD-180s. The US has a license, the schematics and the hardware. A tank dome's manufacturing to the tolerances is not a trivial task... Agreed, it'd be equally more expensive.
[edit] I'm pretty sure we could hire over some Energomash engineers to kick start the domestic production...
-
bombay - 29/10/2006 12:36 PM
R&R - 28/10/2006 7:44 PM
Jim - 29/10/2006 1:37 PM
LM in Denver does not lose without ULA. Atlas V is the better system.
Better system? Not asking you only Jim but I'd like to hear some discussion of which really is better and why. Might be a good new thread maybe from the perspective of a down select to.
In comparing boost capability to GTO, a strong argument in favor of Atlas V could be made:
Atlas V (401) = 10.9K lbs Delta (medium) = 9.3K lbs
Atlas V (521) = 13.2K Delta (5+2) = 10.2K
Atlas V (541) = 16.7K Delta (5+4) = 14.5K
That RD-180 engine is a beast, there's no denying that. But in a down select, it's been well documented in the RAND and elsewhere that reliance on Russian technology to support U.S. nat'l security would be the downfall of AtlasV even though the AtlasV is the better system.
There are more Atlas V variants to fill the gap between Delta Med plus and Heavy. Dial a rocket, just add a solid. Any core can take 1-5 solids (4XX can only have 3 due to qual environments). D-IV cores are specialized with specific tanks and intertanks to be the designated LV type. A Med can only be a medium and Med plus (5,2) can't be a (5, 4)
-
lmike - 29/10/2006 12:46 PM
Neither are the RD-180s. The US has a license, the schematics and the hardware. A tank dome's manufacturing to the tolerances is not a trivial task... Agreed, it'd be equally more expensive.
[edit] I'm pretty sure we could hire over some Energomash engineers to kick start the domestic production...
Its not just RD-180s for Atlas V versus tank domes for Delta 4
Atlas 5 buys a payload fairing from Contraves(Switzerland), and interstage structure from CASA (Spain), and Payload Seperation system is Saab/Ericsson (Sweden).
Reference page 5
http://www.futron.com/pdf/US%20Commercial%20Launch%20Industry%20White%20Paper.pdf
Do you see a non-Japanese company for H2?
Do you see a non-European company for Arianne?
Do you see a non-Russian company for Proton?
So much for the assured access argument.
Lets save some real money and forget about ULA and go with Protons instead. They are cheaper and they even have a web site we can go to to buy them commercially.
-
Dexter - 29/10/2006 9:23 PM
lmike - 29/10/2006 12:46 PM
Neither are the RD-180s. The US has a license, the schematics and the hardware. A tank dome's manufacturing to the tolerances is not a trivial task... Agreed, it'd be equally more expensive.
[edit] I'm pretty sure we could hire over some Energomash engineers to kick start the domestic production...
Its not just RD-180s for Atlas V versus tank domes for Delta 4
Atlas 5 buys a payload fairing from Contraves(Switzerland), and interstage structure from CASA (Spain), and Payload Seperation system is Saab/Ericsson (Sweden).
Reference page 5
http://www.futron.com/pdf/US%20Commercial%20Launch%20Industry%20White%20Paper.pdf
Do you see a non-Japanese company for H2?
Do you see a non-European company for Arianne?
Do you see a non-Russian company for Proton?
So much for the assured access argument.
Lets save some real money and forget about ULA and go with Protons instead. They are cheaper and they even have a web site we can go to to buy them commercially.
Eliminating one or the other of Atlas or Delta will be extremely messy. Dexter and Bombay are worried about preserving the workforce. A downselect puts one or the other of America's heritage rocket systems out of business and eliminates a large percentage of our rocket expertise. So we lose some great technology and assured access. By the way, assured access (through two independent systems) is policy issued by the OSTP of the Wite House.
Beyond the workforce and assured access concerns, the USG will still be left with a monopoly.
The process for downselect is not at all thought out. Would it be a competition? What sort of competition? Would others be allowed to compete (like SpaceX)? Current policy required the DOD to revisit assured access by 2010.
One of the benefits of ULA is that it takes alot of pressure of the USG to deal with the downselect issue. They can just let ULA "handle it". But the point of ULA is to preserve both systems for as long as possible---hopefully forever.
-
"Payload Seperation system is Saab/Ericsson (Sweden)"
Both Delta and Atlas use it. But it not required. Most DOD spacecraft provide their own sep systems and there still are others available
'Atlas 5 buys a payload fairing from Contraves(Switzerland), and interstage structure from CASA (Spain)"
That is only the 5 meter version
"Do you see a non-Japanese company for H2? "
Yes,, Boeing provides some support
"Do you see a non-Russian company for Proton? "
Yes, ILS and SAAB
"Lets save some real money and forget about ULA and go with Protons instead. They are cheaper and they even have a web site we can go to to buy them commercially."
This is just plain stupidity at an attempt at humor
-
"Eliminating one or the other of Atlas or Delta will be extremely messy. Dexter and Bombay are worried about preserving the workforce. A downselect puts one or the other of America's heritage rocket systems out of business and eliminates a large percentage of our rocket expertise. So we lose some great technology and assured access. By the way, assured access (through two independent systems) is policy issued by the OSTP of the Wite House"
The initial intent of EELV was to remove one or the other via downselect. So the process to do so is likely still intact.
I'm not on some crusade to preserve jobs. It's the ULA proponents that keep singing the tune about assured access to space and preservation of nat'l security as if this will happen under ULA without securing key personnel. Without doing so, Delta core engineering and Atlas manufacturing and support engineering are reduced to a huge question mark. Therefore, ULA will weaken assured access and nat'l security concerns rather than strengthen them.
After 18 months following the announcement of ULA you would have thought that Boeing and Lockheed would have: identified key employees, approached key employees, offered incentives to key employees to stay on-board, secured key employees. They've done none of this nor do they have a contingency in place should these people choose to not make the move.
Given that nat'l security and assured access is the trump card used by the DoD and FTC in allowing ULA to proceed, you might think that Boeing/Lockheed would have a plan other than "lets just form the company and they will come".
-
"After 18 months following the announcement of ULA you would have thought that Boeing and Lockheed would have: identified key employees, approached key employees, offered incentives to key employees to stay on-board, secured key employees"
They can't by law. Not until the merger is oked, can the companies go ahead with the detailed planning.
-
Jim - 30/10/2006 6:02 AM
"Lets save some real money and forget about ULA and go with Protons instead. They are cheaper and they even have a web site we can go to to buy them commercially."
This is just plain stupidity at an attempt at humor
This is called hyperbole and is used as a means of exaggeration. You claim that the Atlas V is a better system for launching all the National security payloads in spite all the foreign content.
But using a totally foreign system like Proton is "just plain stupidity". So where do we draw the line on how much foreign content should be in a rocket for launching national security payloads.
Is there some defined threshold.
And what of the promise made in 1997 to Americanize RD-180s. The Rand report is very explicit in ther concern on this matter. How long does it take to build one of these engines in the US.
Perhaps Lockheed is just delaying the process to foot ULA with the $800M tab.
-
quark - 29/10/2006 11:26 PM
Eliminating one or the other of Atlas or Delta will be extremely messy. Dexter and Bombay are worried about preserving the workforce. A downselect puts one or the other of America's heritage rocket systems out of business and eliminates a large percentage of our rocket expertise. So we lose some great technology and assured access. By the way, assured access (through two independent systems) is policy issued by the OSTP of the Wite House.
.
Option 1 - Status quo. No risk of loosing workforce through relocations.
Option 2 - Downselect one supplier. The other supplier can excercise some entreprenurial spirit and try to capture business in the commercial market or fold up their tent.
Option 3 - ULA - Combine two programs into one which means:
Atlas V - risk loosing critcal manufacturing skills
Delta IV - risk loosing critical engineering skills
End result, risk loosing national security payloads.
DOD and FTC acknowledge no cost savings so why do ULA.
Option 2 is the original intent of EELV.
Option 1 meets the OSTP requirement (Teets).
Option 3 ??????????
-
lmike - 29/10/2006 11:54 AM
Easy, now. Remember when the Japanese sold some CNC tooling to the Soviets in the 80s that was used in some nuclear sub's drive shaft manufacturing? They trade with everyone nowadays (China especially) And the US may be dumped as soon as they find a better "protector"
Not to throw water on you, but who would the Japanese look to for a protector apart from America?
China: not going to happen, they are still is a bit sore over Japan invading and occupying them in WWII.
Russia: not going to happen, Japan fought a war with them and won.
Korea: see China.
EU: not going to happen, the EU can barely offer a credible military deterrent for their own borders, let alone protecting Japan if Kim lobs a nuke at Japan.
Japan isn't going to find another protector, ever. I'm perfectly fine with us having them manufacture fuel tanks. We sell them F-15s and PAC-3s. We licensed Aegis technology to them so why not let them make fuel tanks????
-
Here is something interesting form the White House Office of Management and Budget.
"1.4 Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?
Explanation: Currently the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) system and associated programs can meet user demands and launch to their manifests. However, there are continuing issues associated with both the launch industry and definition of underlying EELV requirements. The EELV program, when conceived, was to be leveraged on the commercial launch market projections for a large volume of launches. Since then the commercial market has collapsed resulting in a significantly lower launch rate than anticipated. This low launch rate has delayed the build-up in flight experience, reducing confidence in the system's reliability, and driving up the costs per launch. These cost pressures, low vehicle production rates, and low launch volumes are some of the factors influencing the industry consolidation: United Launch Alliance (ULA), a proposed joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
OMB is concerned that creation of ULA could, in the long term, be counter to many of the 'assured access' requirements postulated for 'assured access to space'. In addition, 'assured access' space launch requirements are not matched by an 'assured space capability' investment strategy, invalidating many 'assured access' benefits. This is a major shortfall in DoD and Air Force space strategy.
Evidence: National Security Space Acquisition Policy, Number 03-01, Dec 27, 2004 DoDI 5000.1, The Defense Acquisition System, May 12, 2003 (Recertified Nov 24, 2003 DoDI 5000.2, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, May 12, 2003 Operational Requirements Document: Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, Sep 98. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10003204.2005.html
-
I missed this quote in section 1.3
"The Air Force and DoD have interpreted the 'assured access to space' strategy as requiring two EELV launch vehicle contractors. It is not clear to OMB that this strategy is the best method to satisfy the 'assured access to space' requirements. "
Does anyone rememeber who was the Secretary of the Air Force when this strategy was adopted?
-
Dexter - 3/11/2006 12:59 AM
I missed this quote in section 1.3
"The Air Force and DoD have interpreted the 'assured access to space' strategy as requiring two EELV launch vehicle contractors. It is not clear to OMB that this strategy is the best method to satisfy the 'assured access to space' requirements. "
Does anyone rememeber who was the Secretary of the Air Force when this strategy was adopted?
Can the conspriacy BS.
As SECAF, he would have to divest himself of stocks and such from previous emplyment.
This is getting really tiring, all your inane comments
-
Jim - 3/11/2006 6:35 AM
Dexter - 3/11/2006 12:59 AM
I missed this quote in section 1.3
"The Air Force and DoD have interpreted the 'assured access to space' strategy as requiring two EELV launch vehicle contractors. It is not clear to OMB that this strategy is the best method to satisfy the 'assured access to space' requirements. "
Does anyone rememeber who was the Secretary of the Air Force when this strategy was adopted?
Can the conspriacy BS.
As SECAF, he would have to divest himself of stocks and such from previous emplyment.
This is getting really tiring, all your inane comments
Noticed you did not respond to the White House assessments that contradict the DOD /USAF interpretation. I did not make those up and they are not my opinions. I have provided you quotes and links.
As far as the conspiracy theory, every conspiracy is vehemently denied until it is uncovered.
Darleen Drunyun was a conspiracy until it uncovered.
Gulf of Tonkin Incident was an incident until Robert McFarland admitted it was a set-up.
Watergate was not a break-in until it was.
Iran-Contra, the Lewinsky scandal, Rep. Foley, Rep. Cunningham etc.....
Pardon me if I don't believe everything at face value.
Mr. Teets may not have gained monetarily but he sure had some strong links to Lockheed in Denver. The Classic "Old Boy" network.
-
"Mr. Teets may not have gained monetarily but he sure had some strong links to Lockheed in Denver. "
"Had" is the operative word.
OMB is only "concerned". Tough words. If they were against it, then that might be something
-
I thought the primary reason for this merger was that both companies were losing money off their EELV programs and there was a very real concern that at least one of them could realistically pull out of the market leaving the government with only one vehicle. The merger probably isn't the ideal situation but at least some of the employees from each company would be retained, the paperwork and facilities would be retained rather than mothballed, and allow for continuation of both vehicles. I'm not an expert on the unmanned vehicles but that is the impression I got and please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm only saying this because people here seem to be comparing having ULA vs strong seperate Boeing and Lockheed entities. But is the later really a choice? At the corporate level, these guys exist to maintain stock value and the EELV programs aren't helping them.
-
The original intent of the EELV program was to have only one vehicle with an MLV-A and HLV configurations. The FAA market forecasts for a strong commercial market which Jim provided earlier allowed the DOD to justify downselecting both finalists. When the "market collapsed" (although the satellite market is still strong), the DOD should have corrected their decision by downselecting to one. The Secretary of the Air Force at the time, Mr. Peter Teets, presented the argument of assured access and the need to keep both systems. The OMB questions this strategy.
The EELV proponents here also claim that the retirements of Atlas III and Delta 2 were done with cost savings in mind because of the cost of maintaining two sets of everything. But its OK to have two sets of everything when it comes to EELV/ULA. This is classic double standard logic.
Then the FTC questions the promised savings of $100-$150 million per year and the DOD responds that national security requirements are more important but the risk of relocating Atlas manufacturing and Delta engineering are completely ignored even though some posters here will tell you that this is a very real scenario which will impact national security.
What I find the most ironic is that the EELV proponents chastise the Ares I vehicle by characterizing it as the "Keeping ATK alive" program in the "Writing Congress" thread while supporting ULA which in essence is keeping Atlas or Delta alive. More double standard logic.
While trying to present my argument, I continue to post information from other web sites as supporting evidence while the EELV proponents counter with opinion and hide behind the cloak of priviledged information and then try to supress ideas not in line with their own by calling them inane etc...
I am convinced that "WRONG", "Wrong Conclusion", "Your Wrong" etc... are pre-programmed hot keys
-
Jim - 30/10/2006 7:52 PM
"After 18 months following the announcement of ULA you would have thought that Boeing and Lockheed would have: identified key employees, approached key employees, offered incentives to key employees to stay on-board, secured key employees"
They can't by law. Not until the merger is oked, can the companies go ahead with the detailed planning.
Would you consider a benefits package detailed planning?
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:pUHo4pPhCcMJ:www.goiam.org/uploadedFiles/ULA%2520Update%2520by%2520Mike%2520Gass%2520CEO%2520of%2520ULA%252026%2520Sept.%25202005.doc
From September 2005, I quote,
"You will be receiving group insurance annual enrollment information in October addressed to you as Lockheed Martin employees. This annual enrollment material is applicable for the next calendar year whether you are a Lockheed Martin employee or a ULA employee as of Jan. 1, 2006. All options reflected will be offered to both Lockheed Martin and ULA employees. There may be differences in the Long Term Disability, Special Accident, Group Universal Life or Dependent Optional Term Life contribution amounts if you are a ULA employee. If that is the case, the information will be provided to you after the joint venture closing date. However, the medical, dental and vision options offered and the cost of those plans that will be effective Jan. 1, 2006 will be the same whether you are a Lockheed Martin employee or a ULA employee. Please make your elections for 2006 coverage accordingly during the annual enrollment period."
-
"I'm only saying this because people here seem to be comparing having ULA vs strong seperate Boeing and Lockheed entities. But is the later really a choice? At the corporate level, these guys exist to maintain stock value and the EELV programs aren't helping them."
Throughout this thread, 18 pages and counting, every advertised reason for forming ULA (i.e. cost savings, assured access, more reliability, preserving nat'l security, improved quality, two independent launch systems) was shot full of holes. And I mean EVERY advertised reason was picked apart.
What you're saying is essentially what people would love to here and wouldn't argue. That is, the EELV programs for both companies are chronic money losers and Boeing and Lockheed wanted to dump them for share holder value reasons.
The truth however can't be told. If an attempt to form ULA was based primarily for the purpose of getting the programs off of the books, the DoD and FTC would have shot the deal down. The truth will never be known but the truth is not contained in what Boeing and Lockheed are saying.
-
bombay - 3/11/2006 5:22 PM
"I'm only saying this because people here seem to be comparing having ULA vs strong seperate Boeing and Lockheed entities. But is the later really a choice? At the corporate level, these guys exist to maintain stock value and the EELV programs aren't helping them."
Throughout this thread, 18 pages and counting, every advertised reason for forming ULA (i.e. cost savings, assured access, more reliability, preserving nat'l security, improved quality, two independent launch systems) was shot full of holes. And I mean EVERY advertised reason was picked apart.
What you're saying is essentially what people would love to here and wouldn't argue. That is, the EELV programs for both companies are chronic money losers and Boeing and Lockheed wanted to dump them for share holder value reasons.
The truth however can't be told. If an attempt to form ULA was based primarily for the purpose of getting the programs off of the books, the DoD and FTC would have shot the deal down. The truth will never be known but the truth is not contained in what Boeing and Lockheed are saying.
Do you want Boeing to walk away from ULA? Do you like Delta IV's chances in a downselect competition? How much do you think Boeing will have to pay to settle the PIA lawsuit? Boeing management is sick of sinking money into Delta IV. Be careful what you wish for; the alternative may be worse.
-
quark - 3/11/2006 9:42 PM
Do you want Boeing to walk away from ULA? Do you like Delta IV's chances in a downselect competition? How much do you think Boeing will have to pay to settle the PIA lawsuit? Boeing management is sick of sinking money into Delta IV. Be careful what you wish for; the alternative may be worse.
If the Air Force is "forced" to down-select an EELV contractor, it'll have no choice but to select Boeing.
The reason is simple, Boeing has the heavy and can meet ALL of the EELV missions. Lockheed chosed to NOT to build a heavy version, it's not Boeing's fault.
This PIA lawsuit is bogus. Assuming some employees in Boeing did have Lockheed's financial data, what part of Boeing's own $2.5B investment into both CCAFS and VAFB launch pads, a completely new factory in Decatur, a Delta-Mariner transport barge, it's novel horizontal integration approach, its investment for a completley new RS-68 engine, and its investment to a DIV-H version, that Boeing "stole" from Lockheed's "proprietary data"????? Lockheed could have done all those things. Lockheed chosed NOT to do all those things. Boeing did not force Lockheed NOT to build a Heavy version (of course, now LM say they can do it in 18 month... while getting paid on government's money of course...). When it comes to the initial Buy-1 proposal, Boeing was the clear winner. The PIA scandal has nothing to do with how Boeing won the Buy-1. Boeing put in its own money and energy to win this proposal. Lockheed did not.
What did Lockheed do? Buy the RD-180 engine from the Russians, lease an aircraft from the Russians for transporting Atlas V subassemblies. Russians, russians .... RUSSIANS !... is this any reliable basis for the U.S. national security and for the future of U.S. space programs?
So Boeing is guilty of spending its own money to bring a better launch system online in order to meet its customer's needs, and this is wrong why?
LM's lawyers simply smelled blood and went for it. Boeing's management squealed like little girls and gave-in.
If the NRO does not like the Delta-IV, then why is it footing the bills for an RS-68 upgrade? Why doesn't it foot the bill for a Atlas-V Heavy? A heavy launch pad in VAFB? How about the bill for a U.S made RD-180 engine production facility?
Both LM and Boeing are sick of sinking money into the EELV program. Both went to the Air Force and said if you don't fund us, we will cancel the program. Both kept buying the RL-10 engines even though nobody is flying because P&W made the same threat to the Air Force. How many RL-10 do you guys have in your inventory by now? 30 or 40 maybe? You paid that just to keep P&W RL-10 production line going, not that you'll ever get to use all the engines. Same story.
The alternate for Boeing Delta employees is not worse. The alternate maybe worse for LM employees, and for the NRO and the EELV program office.
-
Acutually Boeing produced a subpar vehicle. Medium version failed to meet the 10K to GTO requirement. The Heavy is the only thing keeping Delta-IV alive.
-
What are these RS-68 upgrades that are being talked about?
-
Jim - 4/11/2006 4:13 AM
Acutually Boeing produced a subpar vehicle. Medium version failed to meet the 10K to GTO requirement. The Heavy is the only thing keeping Delta-IV alive.
The EELV program office obviously disagree with you.
-
That was when it was a paper rocket before the actual integration of the missions started and vehicles were coming off the production line.
Proof:
The realignment of the missions wasn't just punishment.
Buy 2 and 2.5 were Atlas V
NASA hasn't bought a Delta IV (GOES doesn't count since the spacecraft bought the launch service)
Bulk of the NRO missions are on Atlas
-
Jim - 4/11/2006 8:55 AM
Buy 2 and 2.5 were Atlas V
NASA hasn't bought a Delta IV (GOES doesn't count since the spacecraft bought the launch service)
Bulk of the NRO missions are on Atlas
Buy 2 and 2.5 was during the PIA scandal.
NASA bought practically ALL of the Delta II launches instead.
How else would Atlas V survive if they don't get the medium payload launches?
Again, where's that NRO money for a Atlas V Heavy? You think the NRO wants to bank its future on a Russian production engine?
-
Propforce - 4/11/2006 12:42 PM
NASA bought practically ALL of the Delta II launches instead.
No. MRO, SDO, LRO, PNH and MSL. NASA can't sole source Delta II's anymore like it did for the 19 pack. Anyways, it would lose against the Atlas V 401
-
Propforce - 4/11/2006 1:40 AM
Boeing's own $2.5B investment into both CCAFS and VAFB launch pads, a completely new factory in Decatur, a Delta-Mariner transport barge, its investment for a completley new RS-68 engine, and its investment to a DIV-H version, Lockheed could have done all those things. Lockheed chosed NOT to do all those things.
Because of this, Boeing has priced itself out of the commercial and NASA market.
If legacy Boeing hadn't interfere with MC DAC development, it wouldn't have done all those things and would have followed more of a "evolved" approach
it's novel horizontal integration approach
Which has caused more problems than it was suppose to solve.
-
The PIA lawsuit was not, as you so eloquently state, Incorrect. Knowing that government procurement works on a "send in your proposal, we'll look at everyone's, and make a decision" basis, rather than a "hey, Lockheed, Boeing says they'll do the Medium flights for $70M each while you said $80M... care to come down on price a bit?" basis, knowing how much Lockheed was going to charge and how they thought the Atlas V would perform meant that Boeing could just claim that they were a little better than that in all respects and be guaranteed a big contract win. When the truth about costs and operational hiccups came out later, it'd be too late to do anything about it.
Which is what they did. Have you ever compared how long the Delta IV Payload Planners Guide says a rocket will sit on the pad, vs. how long it actually does?
-
Jim - 4/11/2006 11:58 AM
Propforce - 4/11/2006 1:40 AM
Boeing's own $2.5B investment into both CCAFS and VAFB launch pads, a completely new factory in Decatur, a Delta-Mariner transport barge, its investment for a completley new RS-68 engine, and its investment to a DIV-H version, Lockheed could have done all those things. Lockheed chosed NOT to do all those things.
Because of this, Boeing has priced itself out of the commercial and NASA market.
If legacy Boeing hadn't interfere with MC DAC development, it wouldn't have done all those things and would have followed more of a "evolved" approach
it's novel horizontal integration approach
Which has caused more problems than it was suppose to solve.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make before between Atlas V vs. Atlas 3. The US had a competitive commercial system and even the NRO flew on it one time but rather than maintain that capability to enhance assured access, Lockheed chose to truncate and retire it. Now you also have an Atlas V that does not compete commercially for the same reason you stated for Delta IV. Of course my argument is dismissed but your argument is rock solid. Double Standard again.
As far as developing launch pads, heavy variants, and American engines, I believe that was part of the original intent of the EELV program. Things that Lockheed chose not to do.
What was the timeframe that this ocurred?
-
Jim - 4/11/2006 11:50 AM
Propforce - 4/11/2006 12:42 PM
NASA bought practically ALL of the Delta II launches instead.
No. MRO, SDO, LRO, PNH and MSL. NASA can't sole source Delta II's anymore like it did for the 19 pack. Anyways, it would lose against the Atlas V 401
How do you figure?
-
"Do you want Boeing to walk away from ULA? Do you like Delta IV's chances in a downselect competition? How much do you think Boeing will have to pay to settle the PIA lawsuit? Boeing management is sick of sinking money into Delta IV. Be careful what you wish for; the alternative may be worse".
Delta IV's chances in a downselect independent of ULA are excellent for reasons already covered. As part of ULA however, where ULA rather than the gov't would ultimately decide which LV stays and goes, I don't think the Delta IV stands a snowballs chance in hell against Atlas V. The ULA will be based out of Denver where the Atlas V influence would run roughshod over Delta IV.
You can't help but believe that the Delta IV would suffer the same fate as the Atlas III post GD where it was shelved and the Titan influence molded the Atlas program into what it is today.
So yes, I do want Boeing to walk away from ULA and yes, I would then like Delta IV's chances in a downselect.
-
A couple of points and questions.
Atlas V got all of the Buy 2 & 2.5 Launches because Boeing was banned from competing.
NASA has not directly bought a Delta IV because Atlas V has been cheaper not necessarily because it is better. I will concede it has advantages with the flexibility and range of the intermediate versions. Excluding the Heavy Delta IV has been just as reliable as Atlas V.
Saying the NRO likes Atlas V better does not add up. The NRO is spending a lot of money to upgrade the Delta IV West Coast Pad. I'd like to see the list of launches moved to Atlas as part of the penalty for the procurement scandal. I wonder if the number of NRO missions proclaimed as proof the NRO likes Atals more came from that.
along this line cold the Titan IV Pad at Vandenberg have been an upgrade possibility for Atlas V Heavy? If not why?
It has been said that Atlas V has better flexibility and many of the payloads it's flown would not fit easily on Delta IV and would likely require a larger version (More Solids or Heavy) to accomplish what a smaller Atlas V (No or fewer Solids) could do. I'd like to see a list of the payload weights for what Atlas has flown compared to the Atlas and Delta capabilities.
-
"Now you also have an Atlas V that does not compete commercially for the same reason you stated for Delta IV. "
Never said that. Said it is harder, but it still competes. But it is more related to labor rates vs buydown of investment.
"You can't help but believe that the Delta IV would suffer the same fate as the Atlas III post GD where it was shelved and the Titan influence molded the Atlas program into what it is today."
This is plain BS. The Atlas III was a useless vehicle once Atlas V was online. A-III could not have flown any of the A-V missions to date. The GD influence is still there and still prevailant. Most of the practices used by LM are GD and LERC legacy
-
R&R - 5/11/2006 12:44 AM
1. Atlas V got all of the Buy 2 & 2.5 Launches because Boeing was banned from competing.
2. NASA has not directly bought a Delta IV because Atlas V has been cheaper not necessarily because it is better. I will concede it has advantages with the flexibility and range of the intermediate versions. Excluding the Heavy Delta IV has been just as reliable as Atlas V.
3. Saying the NRO likes Atlas V better does not add up. The NRO is spending a lot of money to upgrade the Delta IV West Coast Pad. I'd like to see the list of launches moved to Atlas as part of the penalty for the procurement scandal. I wonder if the number of NRO missions proclaimed as proof the NRO likes Atals more came from that.
4. along this line cold the Titan IV Pad at Vandenberg have been an upgrade possibility for Atlas V Heavy? If not why?
5. It has been said that Atlas V has better flexibility and many of the payloads it's flown would not fit easily on Delta IV and would likely require a larger version (More Solids or Heavy) to accomplish what a smaller Atlas V (No or fewer Solids) could do. I'd like to see a list of the payload weights for what Atlas has flown compared to the Atlas and Delta capabilities.
1. They didn't have to award those missions. They still wouldn't flown for a few years
2. I disagree and know
3. There are only a few D-IV Heavy mission "types". Very limited use. The rest, save one, are on Atlas V. My comments aren't based by looking at the manifest but from hearing the comments
4. Titan cores were 10' dia, Atlas V is 13' and something. Atlas V is too wide
5. Don't need to know the actual weights. Look at the capabilities here:
http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_lau/delta-4.htm
http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_lau/atlas-5.htm
Any Atlas V 4m with 1 solids or more or 5M with 3 solids or more has more performance than the comparable Delta V. This means 2 of the 8 A-V's to date would have needed a D-IV heave, 2 more were on the borderline and 1 other would have needed more expensive 5m Med +
-
The Atlas V *is* a "better rocket" The rest is neither here nor there. You can argue 'till you turn blue. If the dollar dispensing department likes it, don't blame it on anything else...
-
GraphGuy - 31/10/2006 1:28 PM
lmike - 29/10/2006 11:54 AM
Easy, now. Remember when the Japanese sold some CNC tooling to the Soviets in the 80s that was used in some nuclear sub's drive shaft manufacturing? They trade with everyone nowadays (China especially) And the US may be dumped as soon as they find a better "protector"
Not to throw water on you, but who would the Japanese look to for a protector apart from America?
China: not going to happen, they are still is a bit sore over Japan invading and occupying them in WWII.
Russia: not going to happen, Japan fought a war with them and won.
Korea: see China.
EU: not going to happen, the EU can barely offer a credible military deterrent for their own borders, let alone protecting Japan if Kim lobs a nuke at Japan.
Japan isn't going to find another protector, ever. I'm perfectly fine with us having them manufacture fuel tanks. We sell them F-15s and PAC-3s. We licensed Aegis technology to them so why not let them make fuel tanks????
I just hope your history books are better than your rocket orientation books. The last war Japan had with the USSR, it (Japan) lost completely and utterly (see Kurile islands... and the Manchjuria army)
And going by the same logic... Japan fought with and lost to the US, are we now at war with them...? (Heck, we nuked them twice) (this is solemn, I don't approve of punishing the people indescrimetnatly :( )
-
Jim - 5/11/2006 9:04 AM
"Now you also have an Atlas V that does not compete commercially for the same reason you stated for Delta IV. "
Never said that. Said it is harder, but it still competes. But it is more related to labor rates vs buydown of investment.
"You can't help but believe that the Delta IV would suffer the same fate as the Atlas III post GD where it was shelved and the Titan influence molded the Atlas program into what it is today."
This is plain BS. The Atlas III was a useless vehicle once Atlas V was online. A-III could not have flown any of the A-V missions to date. The GD influence is still there and still prevailant. Most of the practices used by LM are GD and LERC legacy
If anyone is spouting BS it's you. We already covered in detail on previous pages of this thread what the Atlas III was capable of delivering when the Atlas V came on line. Perhaps you should go back and read the posted information to jog your short memory.
We also covered the "Titanization" of the Atlas program, which defines ULA - so I won't bore people with that topic.
I stand by what I said. The Titan, or should I say - Atlas - influence will run amock over the Delta IV team upon the formation of ULA. Denver will promote Atlas to the nth degree and treat the Delta like a stepchild. In fact, Denver will act and sound no different than you do when talking this subject.
-
bombay - 6/11/2006 1:11 AM
1. If anyone is spouting BS it's you. We already covered in detail on previous pages of this thread what the Atlas III was capable of delivering when the Atlas V came on line. Perhaps you should go back and read the posted information to jog your short memory.
2. We also covered the "Titanization" of the Atlas program, which defines ULA - so I won't bore people with that topic.
3. I stand by what I said. The Titan, or should I say - Atlas - influence will run amock over the Delta IV team upon the formation of ULA. Denver will promote Atlas to the nth degree and treat the Delta like a stepchild. In fact, Denver will act and sound no different than you do when talking this subject.
1. Wrong again and again. A-III could not have done any of the missions that A-V flown.
2. Wrong again. GD legacy remains prevailent
3. We can only hope so. LM system engineering process is better and much more rigorous than Boeings.
-
lmike - 5/11/2006 10:02 PM
The Atlas V *is* a "better rocket" The rest is neither here nor there. You can argue 'till you turn blue. If the dollar dispensing department likes it, don't blame it on anything else...
Actually, the Proton is a "better rocket" and has proven itself in the commercial marketplace where the dollar dispensing department is king.
Of course, the Atlas V defenders will say it has to be American but don't address the lethargic rate that Lockheed has taken to Americanize the RD-180 which was promised in 1997.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Saturn V development took less time for clean sheet design than the excercise to copy someone else's technology.
When there is an American RD-180 powering an Atlas V and all the costs are based on actual expenditures I might be able to agree with this assertion.
-
Jim - 6/11/2006 6:29 AM
1. Wrong again and again. A-III could not have done any of the missions that A-V flown.
2. Wrong again. GD legacy remains prevailent
3. We can only hope so. LM system engineering process is better and much more rigorous than Boeings.
From Gunter's Space Page - http://www.skyrocket.de/space/
AV-001 Hot Bird 6 3905kg = 8591 lbs less that 9920 lbs for Atlas 3
AV-002 HellasSat 3250kg = 7150lbs. Less than 9920lbs. for Atlas 3
AV-003 Rainbow1 4328kg = 9522lbs Less than 9920lbs for Atlas 3
Note - Echostar 7 flew on Atlas 3 using A2100AX same as Rainbow1
AV-005 AMC16 4065 kg = 8943 lds Less than 9920lbs for Atlas 3
A2100AX again.
Do we need to mention MRO again?
etc....
Why do you make these false statements?
-
Dexter - 6/11/2006 7:07 PM
Actually, the Proton is a "better rocket" and has proven itself in the commercial marketplace where the dollar dispensing department is king.
Wrong again. The Atlas has a better success record.
The Proton is more subsidized. Russian conscript soldiers are part of the launch team and the rest of the team is paid lower wages than US workers.
-
They continue to sell commercial launches. That in essence is a vote by the launch industry.
Conscript soldiers? Why don't we do that?
Lower wages? Wonder what Proton executives make in relation to Lockheed executives? Not to mention the number of executives needed.
Didn't touch the RD-180 issue (again).
-
Dexter - 6/11/2006 7:28 PM
Jim - 6/11/2006 6:29 AM
1. Wrong again and again. A-III could not have done any of the missions that A-V flown.
2. Wrong again. GD legacy remains prevailent
3. We can only hope so. LM system engineering process is better and much more rigorous than Boeings.
From Gunter's Space Page - http://www.skyrocket.de/space/
AV-001 Hot Bird 6 3905kg = 8591 lbs less that 9920 lbs for Atlas 3
AV-002 HellasSat 3250kg = 7150lbs. Less than 9920lbs. for Atlas 3
AV-003 Rainbow1 4328kg = 9522lbs Less than 9920lbs for Atlas 3
Note - Echostar 7 flew on Atlas 3 using A2100AX same as Rainbow1
AV-005 AMC16 4065 kg = 8943 lds Less than 9920lbs for Atlas 3
A2100AX again.
Do we need to mention MRO again?
etc....
Why do you make these false statements?
Wrong again
1. I worked MRO integration and MRO could not have flown on an A-V. FACT. That was one of the reasons for the change was spacecraft weight growth.
2. Most of the missions weren't to GTO, they were to supersynchronous.
Look who's making these false statements
Know your facts before posting. Better yet don't bother.
-
Jim - 6/11/2006 6:36 PM
Dexter - 6/11/2006 7:07 PM
Actually, the Proton is a "better rocket" and has proven itself in the commercial marketplace where the dollar dispensing department is king.
Wrong again. The Atlas has a better success record.
The Proton is more subsidized. Russian conscript soldiers are part of the launch team and the rest of the team is paid lower wages than US workers.
Don't even go there with the Atlas success record. The true Atlas (stainless balloon) including I, II, IIAS, III flew 570 with a 97% success rate. The phony Atlas V (rigid aluminum) flew 8 times.
The Proton flew over 300 times with a 96% success rate.
The simple fact is the Proton was the preferred choice of ILS for commercial missions because of reliability and pricing. The Proton could compete commercially, Atlas V couldn't.
Of course Atlas III would have run neck and neck commercially with Proton in pricing and reliability, but I guess there was no real interest by Lockheed to compete commercially.
-
bombay - 6/11/2006 8:12 PM
Of course Atlas III would have run neck and neck commercially with Proton in pricing and reliability, but I guess there was no real interest by Lockheed to compete commercially.
Constantly wrong again
As posted before A-III is too small for current comsats
-
Jim - 6/11/2006 8:00 PM
Wrong again
1. I worked MRO integration and MRO could not have flown on an A-V. FACT. That was one of the reasons for the change was spacecraft weight growth.
2. Most of the missions weren't to GTO, they were to supersynchronous.
Look who's making these false statements
Know your facts before posting. Better yet don't bother.
Forgot to include two of the missions were 5m fairings also. These also had 2 solids when no solids could have got them to GTO. Bus size doesn't matter if the payload package is larger
-
Jim - 6/11/2006 7:00 PM
Dexter - 6/11/2006 7:28 PM
Jim - 6/11/2006 6:29 AM
1. Wrong again and again. A-III could not have done any of the missions that A-V flown.
2. Wrong again. GD legacy remains prevailent
3. We can only hope so. LM system engineering process is better and much more rigorous than Boeings.
From Gunter's Space Page - http://www.skyrocket.de/space/
AV-001 Hot Bird 6 3905kg = 8591 lbs less that 9920 lbs for Atlas 3
AV-002 HellasSat 3250kg = 7150lbs. Less than 9920lbs. for Atlas 3
AV-003 Rainbow1 4328kg = 9522lbs Less than 9920lbs for Atlas 3
Note - Echostar 7 flew on Atlas 3 using A2100AX same as Rainbow1
AV-005 AMC16 4065 kg = 8943 lds Less than 9920lbs for Atlas 3
A2100AX again.
Do we need to mention MRO again?
etc....
Why do you make these false statements?
Wrong again
1. I worked MRO integration and MRO could not have flown on an A-V. FACT. That was one of the reasons for the change was spacecraft weight growth.
2. Most of the missions weren't to GTO, they were to supersynchronous.
Look who's making these false statements
Know your facts before posting. Better yet don't bother.
I need some clarification here. To my understanding a supersynchronous orbit is achieved when the satellite becomes nonoperational. In other words, supersynchronous amounts to a junkyard for space debris that's out of the way of things to avoid collisions and such. The satellite isn't initially placed there, it manuevers itself there at the end of its useful life.
Maybe there's some logical reason behind placing $700 million satellites into the boneyard before serving their useful purpose in GTO, but I can't think of any.
-
Jim - 6/11/2006 7:00 PM
Dexter - 6/11/2006 7:28 PM
Jim - 6/11/2006 6:29 AM
1. Wrong again and again. A-III could not have done any of the missions that A-V flown.
2. Wrong again. GD legacy remains prevailent
3. We can only hope so. LM system engineering process is better and much more rigorous than Boeings.
From Gunter's Space Page - http://www.skyrocket.de/space/
AV-001 Hot Bird 6 3905kg = 8591 lbs less that 9920 lbs for Atlas 3
AV-002 HellasSat 3250kg = 7150lbs. Less than 9920lbs. for Atlas 3
AV-003 Rainbow1 4328kg = 9522lbs Less than 9920lbs for Atlas 3
Note - Echostar 7 flew on Atlas 3 using A2100AX same as Rainbow1
AV-005 AMC16 4065 kg = 8943 lds Less than 9920lbs for Atlas 3
A2100AX again.
Do we need to mention MRO again?
etc....
Why do you make these false statements?
Wrong again
1. I worked MRO integration and MRO could not have flown on an A-V. FACT. That was one of the reasons for the change was spacecraft weight growth.
2. Most of the missions weren't to GTO, they were to supersynchronous.
Look who's making these false statements
Know your facts before posting. Better yet don't bother.
Thats not what Gus said. It was because Lockheed wanted to truncate Atlas 3.
Which ones were GTO and which ones were supersynchonous?
Which Facts did I make that are false. I simply posted some spacecraft masses in relation to Atlas 3 advertised capability. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't give me an absolute statement that Atlas 3 could not have done any of the missions flown on V because all we have to do is go back to your EELV manifest post and look at all the NAVSTAR 2F sattelites that are 1545 kg.
Another attempt to supress ideas and opinions not in line with yours.
Do I need to practice the goosestep and my "Zieg Heils"????????
-
Jim - 6/11/2006 7:34 PM
Jim - 6/11/2006 8:00 PM
Wrong again
1. I worked MRO integration and MRO could not have flown on an A-V. FACT. That was one of the reasons for the change was spacecraft weight growth.
2. Most of the missions weren't to GTO, they were to supersynchronous.
Look who's making these false statements
Know your facts before posting. Better yet don't bother.
Forgot to include two of the missions were 5m fairings also. These also had 2 solids when no solids could have got them to GTO. Bus size doesn't matter if the payload package is larger
Both missions used A2100AX satellites. According to Gunter's space page:
"The company has standardized on this bus. Much of the R&D is directed toward increasing the power available on the satellite and the A2100 bus, which is capable of generating 15 kW in its standard configuration. This involves work on the integration of new, higher efficiency solar cells, onto the innovative solar "pleated shades," the use of high efficiency, radiation cooled TWTAs, the design of more efficient heat pipes and fold out radiators and improved design for thermal dissipation. Company engineers make extensive use of CAD tools and claim that they can deliver a satellite that uses the A2100 bus in 18 months after receipt of the order.
The A2100 series is modular and can be configured in three different sizes:
A2100A = 1 to 4 kW
A2100AX =4 to x kW
A2100AXX =x to y kW "
Look at all the A2100AX missions again according to Gunter's Space page.
A2100AX
AMC 14 2007 Proton-M Briz-M
AMC 15 14.10.2004 Proton-M Briz-M 4021
AMC 16 17.12.2004 Atlas-5(521) 4065
Astra 1KR 20.04.2006 Atlas-5(411) 4332
Astra 1L 2007 Ariane-5ECA 4300
Echostar 3 06.10.1997 Atlas-2AS 3674
Echostar 4 07.05.1998 Proton-K Blok-DM3 3478
Echostar 7 21.02.2002 Atlas-3B-DEC 4026
Echostar 10 15.02.2006 Zenit-3SL 4333
GE 1A -> AAP 1 -> Worldsat 1 01.10.2000 Proton-K Blok-DM3 3593
GE 4 -> AMC 4 13.11.1999 Ariane-44LP H10-3 3895
GE 6 -> AMC 6 (Rainbow 2) 21.10.2000 Proton-K Blok-DM3 3909
JCSat 9 12.04.2006 Zenit-3SL 4401
JCSat 10 11.08.2006 Ariane-5 4048
JCSat 11 2007 Proton-M Briz-M 4500
LMI 1 -> ABS 1 26.09.1999 Proton-K Blok-DM3 3740 1730
Nimiq 1 (Telesat-DTH 1) 20.05.1999 Proton-K Blok-DM3 3600
Nimiq 2 (Telesat-DTH 2) 30.12.2002 Proton-M Briz-M 3600
N-Sat 110 (JCSat 110, Superbird 5, Superbird D) 06.10.2000 Ariane-42L H10-3 3531
NSS 6 17.12.2002 Ariane-44L H10-3 4700
NSS 7 16.04.2002 Ariane-44L H10-3 4692
Rainbow 1 -> Echostar 12 17.07.2003 Atlas-5(521) 4328
Why would Lockhed build a standardized satellite and then have it not fit into a 4 meter fairing when a lot of the other ones appear to fit 4m fairings including Echostar 7????
-
bombay - 6/11/2006 9:35 PM
I need some clarification here. To my understanding a supersynchronous orbit is achieved when the satellite becomes nonoperational. In other words, supersynchronous amounts to a junkyard for space debris that's out of the way of things to avoid collisions and such. The satellite isn't initially placed there, it manuevers itself there at the end of its useful life.
Maybe there's some logical reason behind placing $700 million satellites into the boneyard before serving their useful purpose in GTO, but I can't think of any.
For all of Jim's curtness, at least he doesn't pull the "I don't understand the field, but I'll claim that the people doing it are stupid anyway" move, as you are doing here.
You can actually "I'm Feeling Lucky" "supersynchronous transfer orbit" on Google and get something that explains what Jim is talking about. Or, you can think about how you might get more out of a launch vehicle when you are trying to get your satellite into geostationary orbit, and you don't want to have to restart the launch vehicle upper stage after a 7-hour coast.
Or, you could say "supersynchronous orbit? what's that?" without the hostility, in which case someone would say "ah, well, if you want to get more performance out of your LV without making your satellite bigger, you can have the LV put you into a transfer orbit with a higher apogee, which reduces the delta-V from the transfer orbit to GTO and saves satellite propellant, so you can either carry more payload or use your propellant for station-keeping rather than gross orbital maneuvering."
Also, since it's possible that some might not be convinced that Jim is right, let's look at the previously mentioned Atlas V missions. Initial transfer orbit data is available from Jonathan's Space Report here, and I have a copy of the old Atlas Mission Planner's Guide. We can't find the exact orbits, but once you get into serious inclination reductions the payload-vs-inclination curve straightens out, so it's easy to approximate.
AV-001: 3905 kg to 304km x 45349km x 17.5 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
AV-002: 3250 kg to 403km x 84651km x 17.0 deg - Atlas IIIB can probably do 3167 kg to 166km x 85000km x 17.0 deg
AV-003: 4328 kg to 3815km x 35761km x 17.5 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
AV-005: 4065 kg to 4820km x 35717km x 18.0 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
So, indeed, none of the first five Atlas missions could have flown on an Atlas III.
-
Dexter - 7/11/2006 12:46 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't give me an absolute statement that Atlas 3 could not have done any of the missions flown on V because all we have to do is go back to your EELV manifest post and look at all the NAVSTAR 2F sattelites that are 1545 kg.
You are wrong
I said FLOWN. NAVSTAR 2F has yet to fly. NAVSTAR 2F is part of the EELV buy. It was never considered for A-III. The manifesting of it on EELV is an USAF decision. For that matter, they could still fly on Delta II's. And if you don't understand why it is not flying on Delta II, don't bother posting.
-
Dexter and Bombay
obviously, you both aren't in the industry or you wouldn't be having such a hard time understanding rocket science. Know something about a subject before posting again.
"Why would Lockhed build a standardized satellite and then have it not fit into a 4 meter fairing when a lot of the other ones appear to fit 4m fairings including Echostar 7"
The bus is not the only thing flying, there is a payload section (the part the customer really wants in space). The payload section is sometimes larger than the bus. There was a reason for the use of the 5m fairing, otherwise it could have flown on a 421 or 411. Either way, they still couldn't have flown on a A-III
-
yinzer - 7/11/2006 1:13 AM
Also, since it's possible that some might not be convinced that Jim is right, let's look at the previously mentioned Atlas V missions. Initial transfer orbit data is available from Jonathan's Space Report here, and I have a copy of the old Atlas Mission Planner's Guide. We can't find the exact orbits, but once you get into serious inclination reductions the payload-vs-inclination curve straightens out, so it's easy to approximate.
AV-001: 3905 kg to 304km x 45349km x 17.5 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
AV-002: 3250 kg to 403km x 84651km x 17.0 deg - Atlas IIIB can probably do 3167 kg to 166km x 85000km x 17.0 deg
AV-003: 4328 kg to 3815km x 35761km x 17.5 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
AV-005: 4065 kg to 4820km x 35717km x 18.0 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
So, indeed, none of the first five Atlas missions could have flown on an Atlas III.
Another way to compare Atlas III and Atlas V is to look at their capabilities to standardized orbits. A common standardized theoretical orbit from Cape Canaveral is a geosynchronous transfer orbit with a 27 degree-ish inclination (something like 185 x 35786 km x 27 deg), which leaves the payload 1,800 meters per second short of its operational geostationary orbit. To this transfer orbit, the two Atlas models could/can do the following. I've left out the 500-series Atlas V models because Atlas III did not have a 5-meter fairing.
Model Payload to GTO (GEO-1,800 m/s)
Atlas IIIA 4,110 kg
Atlas IIIB SEC 4,190 kg
Atlas IIIB DEC 4,610 kg
Atlas V-401 4,950 kg
Atlas V-411 6,075 kg
Atlas V-421 7,000 kg
Atlas V-431 7,800 kg
- Ed Kyle
-
I don't think anyone doubts that the Atlas V 401 can lift more to pretty much any orbit than any Atlas III. But some people seemed to think that some Atlas V missions could have been flown on an Atlas III based on standardized GTO payload figures. To determine the truth of that statement, you need to know the actual delivery orbit of the Atlas V mission and then look up the payload capacity to that orbit.
Admittedly, with a moderate knowledge of how space launch works, one would see that the propellant-limited lifetimes of geostationary communications satellites means that excess launch vehicle performance can almost always be put to good use, so no one would fly the same GTO mission on an Atlas V 401 that they'd fly on an Atlas III. The US government is an exception here, as the DSCS III satellites were designed to fly straight to GTO with an IUS, and then had a separate apogee kick stage added on so they could fly on the Atlas II.
-
Put it this way: If someone wanted to launch a satellite on an Atlas family vehicle, he or she would certainly choose the Atlas V. Even if Atlas III could lift the satellite into the same orbit, Atlas V could use its excess performance to raise the perigee of the transfer orbit, thus reducing the amount of propellant that must be expended to raise the orbit to the proper geosynchronous orbit.
This is the same logic Boeing is using with the GOES-N/O/P satellites. They were originally sized and built to fit on a Delta III. When Delta III died, Boeing could have just put the GOES sats on a plain-Jane Delta IV Medium (which has roughly similar capacity) and shot them off to the same orbit. Instead they decided to put it on a M+(4,2), which could push the satellites into a GTO with a higher perigee. By doing this, certainly you are increasing the cost compared to launching on a Medium. But these costs are outweighed by the increased propellant reserves, and by association the longer life of the satellite.
It works the same way with Atlas. Sure, the Atlas V costs more. But putting your satellite on A-V increases the life and return on investment versus launching on A-III, and that compensates for the higher launch costs. And of course, there are issues where satellites launched on 500-series A-Vs couldn't have fit into the A-III payload fairing.
In all, Atlas V is the better vehicle. Sure, people cried over the demise of the balloon-tank Atlas. But such is progress.
Oh and regarding "elimination of internal competition": Should we accuse Boeing of trying to do the same thing LM did by killing Delta III, with its 33% success rate, and supplanting it with Delta IV, which is much better, more capable and more reliable, even if it is a bit more expensive? Of course not, it's just progress. Same thing with Atlas. Atlas V is more capable all around than Atlas III. Why spend the money to keep a less capable vehicle around?
I know you're going to pull out the Delta II as an example, but two things work against this. First, Delta II is in an entirely different payload class, and second, Delta II will be no more soon.
Nick
-
yinzer - 7/11/2006 1:13 AM
bombay - 6/11/2006 9:35 PM
I need some clarification here. To my understanding a supersynchronous orbit is achieved when the satellite becomes nonoperational. In other words, supersynchronous amounts to a junkyard for space debris that's out of the way of things to avoid collisions and such. The satellite isn't initially placed there, it manuevers itself there at the end of its useful life.
Maybe there's some logical reason behind placing $700 million satellites into the boneyard before serving their useful purpose in GTO, but I can't think of any.
For all of Jim's curtness, at least he doesn't pull the "I don't understand the field, but I'll claim that the people doing it are stupid anyway" move, as you are doing here.
You can actually "I'm Feeling Lucky" "supersynchronous transfer orbit" on Google and get something that explains what Jim is talking about. Or, you can think about how you might get more out of a launch vehicle when you are trying to get your satellite into geostationary orbit, and you don't want to have to restart the launch vehicle upper stage after a 7-hour coast.
Or, you could say "supersynchronous orbit? what's that?" without the hostility, in which case someone would say "ah, well, if you want to get more performance out of your LV without making your satellite bigger, you can have the LV put you into a transfer orbit with a higher apogee, which reduces the delta-V from the transfer orbit to GTO and saves satellite propellant, so you can either carry more payload or use your propellant for station-keeping rather than gross orbital maneuvering."
Also, since it's possible that some might not be convinced that Jim is right, let's look at the previously mentioned Atlas V missions. Initial transfer orbit data is available from Jonathan's Space Report here, and I have a copy of the old Atlas Mission Planner's Guide. We can't find the exact orbits, but once you get into serious inclination reductions the payload-vs-inclination curve straightens out, so it's easy to approximate.
AV-001: 3905 kg to 304km x 45349km x 17.5 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
AV-002: 3250 kg to 403km x 84651km x 17.0 deg - Atlas IIIB can probably do 3167 kg to 166km x 85000km x 17.0 deg
AV-003: 4328 kg to 3815km x 35761km x 17.5 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
AV-005: 4065 kg to 4820km x 35717km x 18.0 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
So, indeed, none of the first five Atlas missions could have flown on an Atlas III.
Well, I guess I had that coming! My apologies to all!
Admittedly, I'm weak in the Keplerian elements, but here goes for argument sake using the AV-001 launch listed above in the discussion.
The SV was 3905 kg and was placed in the transfer orbit mentioned on Atlas V. You claim that The Atlas III would not be able to place the 3905 kg SV in the same orbit. Here's my spin on things:
Lets assume the booster could only travel at max speed of 5300 mph as maximum dynamic pressure on the SV is achieved. After about T+4.5 minutes into flight, booster separation occurs and the Centaur then takes over for the duration of the T+30-35 minute flight.
Now, given that the Atlas III could handle a SV mass of 3905 kg and can travel at 5300 mph at Max-Q, upon separation at T+4.5, the Centaur and payload would be in the same relative location in space as with the Atlas V.
So the Centaur, not the Atlas, is the x-factor in achieving the perigee, apogee, and inclination that you listed.
-
The booster on an A-V burns longer than a A-III providing more energy to the Centaur
-
bombay - 7/11/2006 5:16 PM
Well, I guess I had that coming! My apologies to all!
Admittedly, I'm weak in the Keplerian elements, but here goes for argument sake using the AV-001 launch listed above in the discussion.
The SV was 3905 kg and was placed in the transfer orbit mentioned on Atlas V. You claim that The Atlas III would not be able to place the 3905 kg SV in the same orbit. Here's my spin on things:
Lets assume the booster could only travel at max speed of 5300 mph as maximum dynamic pressure on the SV is achieved. After about T+4.5 minutes into flight, booster separation occurs and the Centaur then takes over for the duration of the T+30-35 minute flight.
Now, given that the Atlas III could handle a SV mass of 3905 kg and can travel at 5300 mph at Max-Q, upon separation at T+4.5, the Centaur and payload would be in the same relative location in space as with the Atlas V.
So the Centaur, not the Atlas, is the x-factor in achieving the perigee, apogee, and inclination that you listed.
You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I mean this not as an insult, just as a statement of fact. The Centaur on the Atlas V is the same as the Centaur on the Atlas IIIB. Even the most basic internet searching and reading about the evolution of the Atlas will tell you this. I can't tell if you have no desire to learn, or have just very effectively internalized the advice that the best way to get information on the internet is not to ask questions but to make incorrect assertions.
Regardless, this is losing its entertainment value.
-
bombay - 7/11/2006 7:16 PM
yinzer - 7/11/2006 1:13 AM
bombay - 6/11/2006 9:35 PM
I need some clarification here. To my understanding a supersynchronous orbit is achieved when the satellite becomes nonoperational. In other words, supersynchronous amounts to a junkyard for space debris that's out of the way of things to avoid collisions and such. The satellite isn't initially placed there, it manuevers itself there at the end of its useful life.
Maybe there's some logical reason behind placing $700 million satellites into the boneyard before serving their useful purpose in GTO, but I can't think of any.
For all of Jim's curtness, at least he doesn't pull the "I don't understand the field, but I'll claim that the people doing it are stupid anyway" move, as you are doing here.
You can actually "I'm Feeling Lucky" "supersynchronous transfer orbit" on Google and get something that explains what Jim is talking about. Or, you can think about how you might get more out of a launch vehicle when you are trying to get your satellite into geostationary orbit, and you don't want to have to restart the launch vehicle upper stage after a 7-hour coast.
Or, you could say "supersynchronous orbit? what's that?" without the hostility, in which case someone would say "ah, well, if you want to get more performance out of your LV without making your satellite bigger, you can have the LV put you into a transfer orbit with a higher apogee, which reduces the delta-V from the transfer orbit to GTO and saves satellite propellant, so you can either carry more payload or use your propellant for station-keeping rather than gross orbital maneuvering."
Also, since it's possible that some might not be convinced that Jim is right, let's look at the previously mentioned Atlas V missions. Initial transfer orbit data is available from Jonathan's Space Report here, and I have a copy of the old Atlas Mission Planner's Guide. We can't find the exact orbits, but once you get into serious inclination reductions the payload-vs-inclination curve straightens out, so it's easy to approximate.
AV-001: 3905 kg to 304km x 45349km x 17.5 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
AV-002: 3250 kg to 403km x 84651km x 17.0 deg - Atlas IIIB can probably do 3167 kg to 166km x 85000km x 17.0 deg
AV-003: 4328 kg to 3815km x 35761km x 17.5 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
AV-005: 4065 kg to 4820km x 35717km x 18.0 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
So, indeed, none of the first five Atlas missions could have flown on an Atlas III.
Well, I guess I had that coming! My apologies to all!
Admittedly, I'm weak in the Keplerian elements, but here goes for argument sake using the AV-001 launch listed above in the discussion.
The SV was 3905 kg and was placed in the transfer orbit mentioned on Atlas V. You claim that The Atlas III would not be able to place the 3905 kg SV in the same orbit. Here's my spin on things:
Lets assume the booster could only travel at max speed of 5300 mph as maximum dynamic pressure on the SV is achieved. After about T+4.5 minutes into flight, booster separation occurs and the Centaur then takes over for the duration of the T+30-35 minute flight.
Now, given that the Atlas III could handle a SV mass of 3905 kg and can travel at 5300 mph at Max-Q, upon separation at T+4.5, the Centaur and payload would be in the same relative location in space as with the Atlas V.
So the Centaur, not the Atlas, is the x-factor in achieving the perigee, apogee, and inclination that you listed.
No, as Jim said it's the Atlas doing the work. You can see here:
http://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av001/status.html
the Atlas V MECO (BECO, whatever floats your boat ;) ) occurs at T+4:10.
Now compare to here:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/ac206/status.html
Atlas III's MECO occurs at T+3:09.
One minute makes a big difference to the energy being inputted into the Centaur, and therefore the payload capacity. This is where most of the payload gain of Atlas V vs. Atlas III comes from.
Remember only 17 seconds stood between the Delta IV Heavy and a fully successful mission.
Nick
-
yinzer - 7/11/2006 8:14 PM
bombay - 7/11/2006 5:16 PM
Well, I guess I had that coming! My apologies to all!
Admittedly, I'm weak in the Keplerian elements, but here goes for argument sake using the AV-001 launch listed above in the discussion.
The SV was 3905 kg and was placed in the transfer orbit mentioned on Atlas V. You claim that The Atlas III would not be able to place the 3905 kg SV in the same orbit. Here's my spin on things:
Lets assume the booster could only travel at max speed of 5300 mph as maximum dynamic pressure on the SV is achieved. After about T+4.5 minutes into flight, booster separation occurs and the Centaur then takes over for the duration of the T+30-35 minute flight.
Now, given that the Atlas III could handle a SV mass of 3905 kg and can travel at 5300 mph at Max-Q, upon separation at T+4.5, the Centaur and payload would be in the same relative location in space as with the Atlas V.
So the Centaur, not the Atlas, is the x-factor in achieving the perigee, apogee, and inclination that you listed.
You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I mean this not as an insult, just as a statement of fact. The Centaur on the Atlas V is the same as the Centaur on the Atlas IIIB. Even the most basic internet searching and reading about the evolution of the Atlas will tell you this. I can't tell if you have no desire to learn, or have just very effectively internalized the advice that the best way to get information on the internet is not to ask questions but to make incorrect assertions.
Regardless, this is losing its entertainment value.
As I stated, the scenario was for argument sake, not as a statement of fact. If you read the post, you would see that I said, "here's my spin on things". This should have been a clue that I wasn't stating fact. Both Jim and Nick L. recognized this and responded with some facts that told me my scenario held no water.
You might have also concluded that I am trying to learn something by creating a scenario based on intuition that I would expect others in the know to pick apart, which they did.
The scenario had nothing to do with a different Centaur, I don't know where you came up with that.
Your personal attacks on me are out of line. I may have a different point of view on things and will volley back and forth, but I don't blatantly attack anyones intelligence in a condescending manner. Consider following your own advise by not acting so hostile! I'm out.
-
yinzer - 7/11/2006 1:13 AM
For all of Jim's curtness, at least he doesn't pull the "I don't understand the field, but I'll claim that the people doing it are stupid anyway" move, as you are doing here.
You can actually "I'm Feeling Lucky" "supersynchronous transfer orbit" on Google and get something that explains what Jim is talking about. Or, you can think about how you might get more out of a launch vehicle when you are trying to get your satellite into geostationary orbit, and you don't want to have to restart the launch vehicle upper stage after a 7-hour coast.
Or, you could say "supersynchronous orbit? what's that?" without the hostility, in which case someone would say "ah, well, if you want to get more performance out of your LV without making your satellite bigger, you can have the LV put you into a transfer orbit with a higher apogee, which reduces the delta-V from the transfer orbit to GTO and saves satellite propellant, so you can either carry more payload or use your propellant for station-keeping rather than gross orbital maneuvering."
Also, since it's possible that some might not be convinced that Jim is right, let's look at the previously mentioned Atlas V missions. Initial transfer orbit data is available from Jonathan's Space Report here, and I have a copy of the old Atlas Mission Planner's Guide. We can't find the exact orbits, but once you get into serious inclination reductions the payload-vs-inclination curve straightens out, so it's easy to approximate.
AV-001: 3905 kg to 304km x 45349km x 17.5 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
AV-002: 3250 kg to 403km x 84651km x 17.0 deg - Atlas IIIB can probably do 3167 kg to 166km x 85000km x 17.0 deg
AV-003: 4328 kg to 3815km x 35761km x 17.5 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
AV-005: 4065 kg to 4820km x 35717km x 18.0 deg - Atlas IIIB can do 3730 kg to 166km x 35786km x 18.0 deg
So, indeed, none of the first five Atlas missions could have flown on an Atlas III.
Yinzer
Thanks for taking the time to offer a decent explanation. I sincerly appreciate it.
What you are telling me is that the advertised GTO mission and its capability as advertised in the Mission Planner's Guides is for a basic orbit with a high apogee and low perigee and that the excess performance in the rocket can be used to reduce the amount of energy required for the apogee burn. So this then becomes a trade similar to the discussion on GTO vs. GSO.
What I take exception to is the statement Jim made and I quote,
"A-III could not have done any of the missions that A-V flown."
It seems to me that any satellite weighing lesss than 9920 lbs can reach a GTO orbit on an Atlas 3 but will require more propellant on the apogee burn. So in my mind, the statement is incorrect.
-
Dexter - 7/11/2006 8:29 PM
Yinzer
Thanks for taking the time to offer a decent explanation. I sincerly appreciate it.
What you are telling me is that the advertised GTO mission and its capability as advertised in the Mission Planner's Guides is for a basic orbit with a high apogee and low perigee and that the excess performance in the rocket can be used to reduce the amount of energy required for the apogee burn. So this then becomes a trade similar to the discussion on GTO vs. GSO.
Exactly - "GTO" is an imprecisely defined term. And I am glad that I can help.
What I take exception to is the statement Jim made and I quote,
"A-III could not have done any of the missions that A-V flown."
It seems to me that any satellite weighing lesss than 9920 lbs can reach a GTO orbit on an Atlas 3 but will require more propellant on the apogee burn. So in my mind, the statement is incorrect.
Well... I think Jim is right. The initial Delta IV Heavy mission put its payload into a noticeably lower orbit than the customer wanted, and while an actual satellite might have been able to maneuver into the final orbit at the cost of a large reduction in on-orbit lifetime, the flight should still be considered a failure. Similarly, if Echostar wants their satellite put into a supersynchronous transfer orbit at 18 degrees inclination, and the Atlas III can only put it into a standard GTO at 27 degrees, Echostar will consider it a failure.
-
Jim - 7/11/2006 6:36 AM
Dexter and Bombay
obviously, you both aren't in the industry or you wouldn't be having such a hard time understanding rocket science. Know something about a subject before posting again.
"Why would Lockhed build a standardized satellite and then have it not fit into a 4 meter fairing when a lot of the other ones appear to fit 4m fairings including Echostar 7"
The bus is not the only thing flying, there is a payload section (the part the customer really wants in space). The payload section is sometimes larger than the bus. There was a reason for the use of the 5m fairing, otherwise it could have flown on a 421 or 411. Either way, they still couldn't have flown on a A-III
Who made you king???
All the A2100AX satellites have flown on Proton, Atlas, Zenit, or Arianne (44L-H10-3)
The outside diameter of the Proton fairing is a little over 4m per
www.ilslaunch.com
The fairinings offered by Arianne on the 44L-H10-3 supplied by either Contraves or Long Spelda are 4meter fairings per Gunter's space page. The Zenit used by Sea Launch uses a 4 meter fairing
http://www.boeing.com/special/sea-launch/sllaunch_vehicle.htm#2
Proton, Zenit(Sea Launch) and Arianne all launched A2100AX satellites with higher mass than Rainbow 1.
Astra 1kr was launched on an Atlas V 411 which was a heavier spacecraft mass than Rainbow 1 (Atlas V 521).
So I can draw several conclusion (they will probably be wrong of course ;) )
1) Rainbow 1 did not need the 5 meter fairing but Atlas chose to fly it to demonstrate capability.
2) Lockheed decided to build one satellite out of class from the rest of A2100AX family that was more volumous in spite not being the heaviest in the family (See Gunter's Space Page - http://www.skyrocket.de/space/ )
-
How did we get way off topic?
30 days have passed since FTC decided to intervene and hold for public comment.
Nothing new on the FTC web site.
Maybe that Yahoo message board wasn't that far off the mark.
-
yinzer - 7/11/2006 10:46 PM
.... Similarly, if Echostar wants their satellite put into a supersynchronous transfer orbit at 18 degrees inclination, and the Atlas III can only put it into a standard GTO at 27 degrees, Echostar will consider it a failure.
I understand and agree with that. This is where the trade comes in on the cost of that performance versus on orbit life. Please note that the missions I cited were in fact lower in spacecraft mass than the advertised max for a 3B.
It would be intersting to know how much additional fuel is required for the apogee burn(s) and how much degradation would occur to on-orbit life as a result.
-
Dexter /11/2006 9:14 PM
I understand and agree with that. This is where the trade comes in on the cost of that performance versus on orbit life. Please note that the missions I cited were in fact lower in spacecraft mass than the advertised max for a 3B.
But it's the customer who makes that call. Or rather, if the customer wants 1000 kg of payload bolted to the bus and 15 years of on-orbit lifetime, the launch provider can go back and forth with the customer on how much of that should come from the launch vehicle and how much should come from the satellite. But with the Atlas IIIB, the LV provider would be saying "Well, we can give you 1000 kg of payload and 10 years of on-orbit lifetime, but it'll be cheaper. Maybe." It's different.
As for the additional fuel, the Atlas Mission Planners Guide has charts of payload vs. delta-V to GTO, and if you assume the specific impulse of the apogee boost motor is 320 seconds, you'll come close. DeltaV = ln(wet mass / dry mass) * specific impulse * 9.8 m/s^2.
Americanized RD-180, no one cares enough about it to pay for the work. The USAF and NRO claim to care, but by their failure to get Lockheed to take concrete action, I suspect that they are pretending to care to keep Congress of their back. I also suspect that NASA only claimed to care as a way to justify the Stick.
As for Rainbow 1, according to ILS, "The larger fairing was chosen to accommodate the satellite's sophisticated antenna array," just like Jim said.
-
Yinzer,
Once again, good post and thanks for the info.
-
Dexter - 8/11/2006 12:14 AM
yinzer - 7/11/2006 10:46 PM
.... Similarly, if Echostar wants their satellite put into a supersynchronous transfer orbit at 18 degrees inclination, and the Atlas III can only put it into a standard GTO at 27 degrees, Echostar will consider it a failure.
I understand and agree with that. This is where the trade comes in on the cost of that performance versus on orbit life. Please note that the missions I cited were in fact lower in spacecraft mass than the advertised max for a 3B.
It would be intersting to know how much additional fuel is required for the apogee burn(s) and how much degradation would occur to on-orbit life as a result.
The mass AND orbit are what determine the LV capability. The end state of the LV mission varies. GTO and GSO are not the only ones. Some spacecraft ask for subsynchronous transfer orbits also. Or even 3 burn missions, like GOES-N, where the Delta -IV use excess performance for the 2nd stage to perform a 3rd burn at GEO altitude to remove inclination and raise perigee.
This is an extreme example, stating those missions could be flown by A-III is like saying Delta II could carry MRO because it can lift 5k lb to LEO
-
Now after all that. A-III wasn't discontinued to eliminated "internal" competition. Customers were outgrowing (weight and size) it. And also even if there is no satellite weight growth, longer onorbit life wins trades with increased launch costs (i.e X more months onorbit is worth Y more in launch costs)
-
Wow a guy goes away for a couple of weeks and this forum goes ballistic, pun intended!
The Atlas V is really a Titan V, the Atlas program has been Martinized!
ULA is being formed because Lockheed and Boeing want out of the rocket business, the Air Force does not want to down select to either company - one with an under performing Delta IV or the other with a Russian engine & balloon upper stage Titan V, ULA is one company and thus the Air Force has down selected to one company.
ULA delays
Boeing Buy 3 still not resolved - Boeing still wants the government to pay a gazillion dollars for there mistakes
Boeing and Lockheed can not agree on what is 50-50, who brings what to the table.
Government knows
ULA will not save a dime and will be less reliable. National Security, well they are willing to accept that risk because the other option is no ULA and only one LV possibly none, at least one company will no longer put money into their program and possibly both will end it so what is the government to do, use Space X?
The reliability factor will be due to, Consolidation, the fact that key Boeing People will not move to Denver and key Lockheed people will not move to Decatur, so why consolidate? Well simple companies go into business to make money and ULA is no different. Quality of product and reliability do not really matter only profit once the contracts are set so is ULA. Upper management does not really care about anything except getting ULA started because of the MICP (Management Incentive Compensation Plan). They are actually hoping very few transfer to keep the payroll down (I know this is a small portion of the total cost) but less people improve share holder value.
-
This has been quite an entertaining thread.
Keep in mind that IIAR was supposed to be scarred for solids as a IIARS for article three and on prior to redesignating it as the Atlas III. The edict to delete solids was shall we say not done in the typical manner that most engineering changes are done. Lots of analysis work went down the toilet. With Titan IV phasing out, there was a need to keep those folks busy. All of this, however, is water under the bridge.
-
Now that is interesting.
-
Getting this thread back on topic:
2 companies protest ULA; FTC decision expected soon on satellite rocket venture
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/061103/rocket.shtml
Down at the bottom there is this little gem,
"Lockheed has said the merger would add hundreds of workers here, although a recent article in the Denver Post quoted a Lockheed official as saying "only a couple of dozen" Lockheed workers would move to Decatur."
Couple of dozen would be 12 x 2 = 24. That doesn't seem like a lot of people needed to build one of these things.
Why do they cost so much?
-
skywalker - 8/11/2006 8:34 PM
Wow a guy goes away for a couple of weeks and this forum goes ballistic, pun intended!
The Atlas V is really a Titan V, the Atlas program has been Martinized!
ULA is being formed because Lockheed and Boeing want out of the rocket business, the Air Force does not want to down select to either company - one with an under performing Delta IV or the other with a Russian engine & balloon upper stage Titan V, ULA is one company and thus the Air Force has down selected to one company.
ULA delays
Boeing Buy 3 still not resolved - Boeing still wants the government to pay a gazillion dollars for there mistakes
Boeing and Lockheed can not agree on what is 50-50, who brings what to the table.
Government knows
ULA will not save a dime and will be less reliable. National Security, well they are willing to accept that risk because the other option is no ULA and only one LV possibly none, at least one company will no longer put money into their program and possibly both will end it so what is the government to do, use Space X?
The reliability factor will be due to, Consolidation, the fact that key Boeing People will not move to Denver and key Lockheed people will not move to Decatur, so why consolidate? Well simple companies go into business to make money and ULA is no different. Quality of product and reliability do not really matter only profit once the contracts are set so is ULA. Upper management does not really care about anything except getting ULA started because of the MICP (Management Incentive Compensation Plan). They are actually hoping very few transfer to keep the payroll down (I know this is a small portion of the total cost) but less people improve share holder value.
Finally, a straight shooter around here and not a mouth piece for the customer.
-
Dexter - 9/11/2006 11:26 PM
Getting this thread back on topic:
2 companies protest ULA; FTC decision expected soon on satellite rocket venture
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/061103/rocket.shtml
Down at the bottom there is this little gem,
"Lockheed has said the merger would add hundreds of workers here, although a recent article in the Denver Post quoted a Lockheed official as saying "only a couple of dozen" Lockheed workers would move to Decatur."
Couple of dozen would be 12 x 2 = 24. That doesn't seem like a lot of people needed to build one of these things.
Why do they cost so much?
They are making more of the Lokheed statement than what it really is. Maybe only a couple dozen people will move to Decatur, can you blame the rest? But the number of people does not mean the number of Jobs. I don't know how many they have in Denver now but I'd guess 200 or more jobs will go to Decatur. Less the couple dozen that means a lot of jobs to fill. Unfortunately those that fill them probably won't have a tenth of the experience base.
-
Speaking of the Decatur Daily article...
SpaceX is complaining because they want to play ball but don't have a bat so like all their other attempts to stop ULA it won't go anywhere.
NG I don't understand. They are worried about ULA/Boeing/LM stealing Satelite data but that didn't seem to be a concern with Boeing and LM all by themselves? I think the requirements by the FTC will put this one to bed also.
-
R&R - 9/11/2006 6:23 PM
NG I don't understand. They are worried about ULA/Boeing/LM stealing Satelite data but that didn't seem to be a concern with Boeing and LM all by themselves? I think the requirements by the FTC will put this one to bed also.
I don't understand NG's complaint neither. Essentially NG (TRW) satellites are being launched by either LM or Boeing now, so how would the formation of ULA be any different. It would actually be safer as ULA is a separate company from LM or Boeing (Bo-Mart?).
In addition, existing fire-wall is already in place now between the launch side and the satellite mfg side at Boeing. I am sure it's that way also with LM.
As far as adding workers in Decatur, I don't see existing workers that busy. I can see "cross-training" so they can assemble the Atlas V vehicles as well.
-
Here is the Denver Post Article-
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4569544
And the pertinent quote - "Maguire said the company will be pleased if two-thirds of about 800 Boeing employees accept the offer. Lockheed's rocket assembly will move from Jefferson County to Decatur, Ala., but only a couple dozen of those jobs will transfer, she said."
Propforce, what do you think the odds are on two thirds?
-
R&R - 9/11/2006 8:16 PM
Dexter - 9/11/2006 11:26 PM
Getting this thread back on topic:
2 companies protest ULA; FTC decision expected soon on satellite rocket venture
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/061103/rocket.shtml
Down at the bottom there is this little gem,
"Lockheed has said the merger would add hundreds of workers here, although a recent article in the Denver Post quoted a Lockheed official as saying "only a couple of dozen" Lockheed workers would move to Decatur."
Couple of dozen would be 12 x 2 = 24. That doesn't seem like a lot of people needed to build one of these things.
Why do they cost so much?
They are making more of the Lokheed statement than what it really is. Maybe only a couple dozen people will move to Decatur, can you blame the rest? But the number of people does not mean the number of Jobs. I don't know how many they have in Denver now but I'd guess 200 or more jobs will go to Decatur. Less the couple dozen that means a lot of jobs to fill. Unfortunately those that fill them probably won't have a tenth of the experience base.
I agree.
The issue which has been repeatedly brought up in this thread is the risk to National Security based on the loss of critical skills. This article is confirming the suspicion that ULA will be detrimental to National Security as was stated by the Office of Management and Budget at the White House.
-
Propforce - 9/11/2006 9:32 PM
I don't understand NG's complaint neither. Essentially NG (TRW) satellites are being launched by either LM or Boeing now, so how would the formation of ULA be any different. It would actually be safer as ULA is a separate company from LM or Boeing (Bo-Mart?).
How about BLO(w)- MART?
-
Gus - 9/11/2006 10:56 PM
Here is the Denver Post Article-
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4569544
And the pertinent quote - "Maguire said the company will be pleased if two-thirds of about 800 Boeing employees accept the offer. Lockheed's rocket assembly will move from Jefferson County to Decatur, Ala., but only a couple dozen of those jobs will transfer, she said."
Propforce, what do you think the odds are on two thirds?
I'll bet less than a third.
-
Propforce - 9/11/2006 12:29 AM
skywalker - 8/11/2006 8:34 PM
Upper management does not really care about anything except getting ULA started because of the MICP (Management Incentive Compensation Plan).
Finally, a straight shooter around here and not a mouth piece for the customer.
MICP sounds like a fancy way to say Bonus program. Why would you give Bonuses on a money loosing program?
What would happen to the cost of a rocket if you eliminated these bonuses?
If national security is so important, why don't these executives/managers give up these bonuses instead of coming up with the ULA scheme?
-
Gus - 9/11/2006 8:56 PM
Here is the Denver Post Article-
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4569544
And the pertinent quote - "Maguire said the company will be pleased if two-thirds of about 800 Boeing employees accept the offer. Lockheed's rocket assembly will move from Jefferson County to Decatur, Ala., but only a couple dozen of those jobs will transfer, she said."
Propforce, what do you think the odds are on two thirds?
I'll have a better odd in wining that $100 million lottery than the ULA getting that 2/3 of Delta employees.
-
$100 Million. There is that number again.
-
yinzer - 8/11/2006 12:44 AM
Americanized RD-180, no one cares enough about it to pay for the work. The USAF and NRO claim to care, but by their failure to get Lockheed to take concrete action, I suspect that they are pretending to care to keep Congress of their back. I also suspect that NASA only claimed to care as a way to justify the Stick.
For your consideration on the argument on Americanized RD-180 production:
http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=461
"During the Vietnam War, Sony withheld TV cameras used to guide tactical missiles. In 1983, the Socialists in the Japanese Diet blocked the sale of ceramic packaging used in U.S. cruise missiles to protest Reagan administration policies. Last year, the Bush administration approached Holland and Germany about selling submarines to Taiwan; both countries refused, citing policy differences. And the gap between the United States and Europe on a host of foreign policy matters continue to widen. 1917 was a long time ago; and so was 1945; and even 1989"
What happens to our assured accesss to space when the Russians decide to protest administration policies?
-
Not quite the same. LM has a stock pile of engines
-
So what happens when the stockpile runs out?
What happens when there is a warranty issue or a need for technical support while the Russians are protesting administration policies?
-
Dexter - 11/11/2006 7:00 PM
So what happens when the stockpile runs out?
What happens when there is a warranty issue or a need for technical support while the Russians are protesting administration policies?
Efforts to produce the RD-180 in the U.S. have been accelerated a little over the past couple of years. Whether the Russians behave or not, we still can't get technical support, because of ITAR. They can sell the engines to Lockheed, but they can't tell PWR how to build them, if that makes any sense. Likewise, ITAR prevents PWR from completely reverse-engineering the engines. If it wasn't for ITAR, I'd say let's reverse engineer the damn thing and tell the Russians it's payback for the B-29.
I predict about one in five Boeing employees will move from Huntington Beach to Denver.
-
How does ITAR prevent a US company from reverse engineering the engines, or the Russians from telling them how to build them ? I could understand ITAR preventing PW from re-exporting the RD-180 (including re-exporting it back to Russia!), or disclosing anything they learned about it, but I don't see why it would stop them from learning about it.
It has been publicly reported that PW received and translated technical documentation for the RD-180. If this is true, surely it would have suffered the same problem ?
I thought ITAR was to prevent sensitive technology going to other countries. I know the implementation of this has been very stupid at times, but I wasn't aware that it restricted importing foreign know how into the US.
-
hop - 11/11/2006 8:24 PM
How does ITAR prevent a US company from reverse engineering the engines, or the Russians from telling them how to build them ? I could understand ITAR preventing PW from re-exporting the RD-180 (including re-exporting it back to Russia!), or disclosing anything they learned about it, but I don't see why it would stop them from learning about it.
It has been publicly reported that PW received and translated technical documentation for the RD-180. If this is true, surely it would have suffered the same problem ?
I thought ITAR was to prevent sensitive technology going to other countries. I know the implementation of this has been very stupid at times, but I wasn't aware that it restricted importing foreign know how into the US.
I'm in agreement with you. I never understood ITAR to be a two-way street in terms of sharing military/sensitive technology. If the U.S. were to obtain it either overtly or covertly to gain an advantage, why wouldn't they?
Word through the grapevine is that PW has had the RD-180 drawings for quite some time and has built and tested various components but are still lots of years and several hundred million dollars of funding away from from anything resembling an Americanized version.
-
bombay - 11/11/2006 10:00 PM
Word through the grapevine is that PW has had the RD-180 drawings for quite some time and has built and tested various components but are still lots of years and several hundred million dollars of funding away from from anything resembling an Americanized version.
That's roughly correct, as far as I understand it. The restrictions come more in the form of things you can't ask the Russians during technical meetings. It's pretty hard to build a rocket engine if all you have to go on are the drawings.
ITAR is a two-way street - it controls imports as well as exports. For example, a few years back, the government prevented the import of certain Russian firearms and ammunition (by a private business) on the grounds that it was detrimental to public safety. I think the reasoning in the case of big-ticket military technologies is, more or less, that the gov't doesn't want foreign companies getting fat off the American market and then going off and building missiles for North Korea. Why can they sell us the engines but not the production technology? I do not know.
Even if you interpret ITAR as only being an export restriction, this also creates difficulties in a technical discussion. Hypothetical: Suppose your company buys pintle housing liners (or whatever) made of steel, but the Russians say that for their engine, the pintle housing liners must be made from unobtainium, which costs 100 times as much and can only be purchased from a single mine in the People's Republic of Whackistan, which you will never, ever get an ITAR license to do business with. You would like to jointly investigate with the Russians whether steel is good enough for their engine, but if you persuade them that it is, you have just exported a missile technology under ITAR and you now have a couple of years in federal prison to decide on another career. Your alternative is to go with steel, not talk about it to the Russians, and hope the engine still works. Put enough of these scenarios together and pretty soon you might as well just go design your own engine.
-
The RD-180 technology* does seem to fall under the export laws. Perhaps it's considered a US tech*, so a license to manufacture it abroad is needed? See here: https://www.pmdtc.org/_docs/congnotices/108/CN086-04.pdf , this letter explicitly grants (my reading) the license to manufacture the RD-180 in both Russia *and* the US for the USAF EELV program. This is from https://www.pmdtc.org/congnotify_108.htm , which interestingly also contains the US gov sensitive exports grants for such things as *export* of Proton/Zenit SLV launches to Russia, Norway, Ukraine and Kazahstan (due to the commercial US payloads presumably). The legaleese is a fascinating language, innit? Anyway, the US government seems to be perfectly fine with the arrangement, so unless someone changes their mind LM will keep on cutting costs (understandably) by keeping the engine production abroad. *[note] actually, technically speaking, it was developed on LM's penny at Energomash, and under LM's supervision, except that it's a derivative of an existing flown 4 chamber engine and so saved a lot on development.
-
Gov't Seagull - 11/11/2006 7:24 PM
Efforts to produce the RD-180 in the U.S. have been accelerated a little over the past couple of years. Whether the Russians behave or not, we still can't get technical support, because of ITAR. They can sell the engines to Lockheed, but they can't tell PWR how to build them, if that makes any sense. Likewise, ITAR prevents PWR from completely reverse-engineering the engines. If it wasn't for ITAR, I'd say let's reverse engineer the damn thing and tell the Russians it's payback for the B-29.
I predict about one in five Boeing employees will move from Huntington Beach to Denver.
What does not make sense to me is that the Russians granted approval to export the technology in Sept. 1997.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5556764_ITM
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG503.pdf
Page 63 of the pdf file.
"Current and past space policy have prohibited dependence of a foreign made major crticial component".
This would seem like plenty of time to get the co-production going.
If Boeing has to amortize development costs of the RS-68 plus the cost of higher American wages to build each one and Lockheed gets cheaper Russian made engines with no development cost for the US co-production, on paper the Atlas V should be cheaper.
Perhaps, this is what is holding up the ULA approval as it has been rumored that the companies need to understand the 50-50 contribution to ULA.
Rand says the co-production cost is between $500-800M. I would guess RS-68 development is at least 50% more. Does anyone have a better number?
-
I think it's fair to say the ability to manufacture the RDs in the US exists and has existed for some time, but the *will* driven down by the customer -- the government, and the USAF is not there though. Or there far enough. The RD-180 *is* an LM sponsored newly developed engine specifically for the Atlas V. (Energomash didn't have it in their stock but actually developed it as a new engine for LM as a sub-contractor) If the US had said "build the engines in Texas, or else... we can the Atlas, and launch everything on (also partly) all American Deltas", you can bet the folks would scramble and do the right thing.
-
I think its fair to say that before any national security payload is launched on an Americanized RD-180, there would have to be a lot of effort to prove and validate that capability. Saying you have something and doing it are two extremely different things.
Throughout this thread, we have heard that the Atlas V is a better system, that it is less expensive (in part because of the less expensive Russian made engines) so why does Lockheed want to join in ULA. They suspended a lawsuit that was pending against Boeing for the industrial espionage.
Maybe they are not so confident that the downselect would be Atlas. Maybe the Russian engine, along with the Swiss fairing among other things is in violation of .... "Current and past space policy have prohibited dependence of a foreign made major crticial component".
If I had the better product I would not be afraid of the competition.
-
That's where the $800M comes into play. The RD-180 is unique in many respects upto and including what materials were used to build the RD-180. It's a known fact that the Russian metallurgical system is completely different than what the Americans and Europeans follow. Understanding a blue print as far as how something is put together is one thing, but translating a foreign and basically stand alone metallurgical system to determine a comparable metal to use to build the hardware presents a whole new challenge. This would I think require virtually every component of the new system to be thoroughly tested at a very high cost versus just a relatively small collection of critical components.
So who will fund this? Is or will the U.S. gov't fund it under the guise of ULA? It sure wouldn't seem fair to Boeing who fully funded the RS-68. Why should Lockheed get off the hook for engine development costs? If this is in the plan, then Boeing should be reimbursed through the Buy 3 award for their development costs. If this were to happen, then what does come of the 50-50 joint venture if the payback by the gov't to Boeing is amortized into Buy 3 Delta IV launches?
It should relatively obvious to all that this whole ULA proposal is a complete mess and may get even messier moving forward.
-
bombay - 12/11/2006 5:04 PM
So who will fund this? Is or will the U.S. gov't fund it under the guise of ULA? It sure wouldn't seem fair to Boeing who fully funded the RS-68. Why should Lockheed get off the hook for engine development costs? If this is in the plan, then Boeing should be reimbursed through the Buy 3 award for their development costs. If this were to happen, then what does come of the 50-50 joint venture if the payback by the gov't to Boeing is amortized into Buy 3 Delta IV launches?
Well, Lockheed was pursuing a claim against Boeing for Boeing's industrial espionage, which they were clearly going to win, and win big. This claim is being dropped with the formation of the ULA, and it could be that getting more money to Americanize the RD-180 is what they want in return. Sucks for the taxpayer, but Boeing doesn't really have any grounds for complaint.
-
Gov't Seagull - 11/11/2006 7:59 PM
ITAR is a two-way street - it controls imports as well as exports. For example, a few years back, the government prevented the import of certain Russian firearms and ammunition (by a private business) on the grounds that it was detrimental to public safety. I think the reasoning in the case of big-ticket military technologies is, more or less, that the gov't doesn't want foreign companies getting fat off the American market and then going off and building missiles for North Korea. Why can they sell us the engines but not the production technology? I do not know.
ITAR *is* a two-way street, however; I don't think "re-engineering" Russian rockets is limited by the U.S. ITAR. Afterall, various intelligence agencies often "re-engineer" foreign military technologies for various reasons and they often asked for us, the industry's, assistances. I think it's more probable that Glushko, the Russian manufacturer, does NOT want to disclose the design and manufacturing information in order to protect its self interest. As such, it also maybe limited under the Russian equivalent version of ITAR for not releasing the information.
On the contrary, Aerojet seems to have a much cordial working relationship with the Russians, and they are (were) working in Russia learning the details of NK engines, although they don't seem to be selling any.
Even if you interpret ITAR as only being an export restriction, this also creates difficulties in a technical discussion.
Keep in mind there's more than just ITAR at play here. ITAR is adminstered under the Department of State. "...Propulsion Systems, Space Vehicles, and Related Equipment..." is also restricted under EXPORT CONTROLLED, adminstered under the Department of Commerce. They are two DIFFERENT regulations and licenses. One can not just satisfy ITAR and ignore the EXPORT CONTROLLED issues.
-
Propforce - 13/11/2006 2:19 PM
On the contrary, Aerojet seems to have a much cordial working relationship with the Russians, and they are (were) working in Russia learning the details of NK engines, although they don't seem to be selling any.
Not the same. Aerojet bought an existing stock of engines and all the drawings. The Russian company that built the engines is no longer in the rocket engine business and is not maintaining the sustaining engineering
Also RPK bought some engines
-
bombay - 12/11/2006 5:04 PM
It's a known fact that the Russian metallurgical system is completely different than what the Americans and Europeans follow. Understanding a blue print as far as how something is put together is one thing, but translating a foreign and basically stand alone metallurgical system to determine a comparable metal to use to build the hardware presents a whole new challenge. This would I think require virtually every component of the new system to be thoroughly tested at a very high cost versus just a relatively small collection of critical components.
You've just pointed out something that a very few people is aware of, especially those who are not working with hardware. For example, it took the U.S. approx. 10 years before we fully understand the Russian's "oxidizer-rich" combustion technology for rocket engines. Russians design their hardware based on their strength as well as weakinesses, the U.S. does likewise. So we both have different approaches and the word "steel" means different metals in each country.
Does anyone know if the Atlas V uses the *American* RP-1 or do they import its own *Russian* kerosene fuel? If it is the *American RP-1* then they've replaced the seals from the original RD-170 engine to accommodate the RP-1 characteristics.
-
Jim - 13/11/2006 11:49 AM
Propforce - 13/11/2006 2:19 PM
On the contrary, Aerojet seems to have a much cordial working relationship with the Russians, and they are (were) working in Russia learning the details of NK engines, although they don't seem to be selling any.
Not the same. Aerojet bought an existing stock of engines and all the drawings. The Russian company that built the engines is no longer in the rocket engine business and is not maintaining the sustaining engineering
Also RPK bought some engines
You missed my point, Jim.
What I am saying is that "re-engineering" russian engines is not limited by the U.S. ITAR, as evidenced by the Aerojet example. In Aerojet's case, CADB was more than happy to help Aerojet because they would have NO customers otherwise.
-
yinzer - 13/11/2006 11:09 AM
bombay - 12/11/2006 5:04 PM
So who will fund this? Is or will the U.S. gov't fund it under the guise of ULA? It sure wouldn't seem fair to Boeing who fully funded the RS-68. Why should Lockheed get off the hook for engine development costs? If this is in the plan, then Boeing should be reimbursed through the Buy 3 award for their development costs. If this were to happen, then what does come of the 50-50 joint venture if the payback by the gov't to Boeing is amortized into Buy 3 Delta IV launches?
Well, Lockheed was pursuing a claim against Boeing for Boeing's industrial espionage, which they were clearly going to win, and win big. This claim is being dropped with the formation of the ULA, and it could be that getting more money to Americanize the RD-180 is what they want in return. Sucks for the taxpayer, but Boeing doesn't really have any grounds for complaint.
I agree that the industrial espionage has provided an opportunity for Lockheed but has also served as a distraction. Lets look at this form a historical/timeline perspective.
1995 - "Key to the Lockheed Martin system is a liquid oxygen/kerosene (LO 2 -RP-1) common core booster that yields significant cost savings. The common core boosters are powered by the Pratt & Whitney manufactured RD-180 engine for U.S. government missions."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/eelv_l.htm
1997 - "Yeltsin approves U.S. production of RD-180 engine foe EELV."
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5556764_ITM
1997 - "On November 6, 1997 the Air Force modified its procurement plans for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. The original concept -- a single winner-take-all award -- was amended, splitting the work between a pair of finalists for the multi-billion launch contracts, McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) and Lockheed Martin. One of the major reasons given for the redirection was to enhance U.S. space launch competitiveness by keeping two rocket builders in business." (Notice no mention of assured access to space)
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/business/delta_eelv-991124.html
2003 - On July 24, 2003, the Air Force concluded that Boeing was in possession of proprietary Lockheed documents during the 1998 Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) source selection.
www.mcaleese.com/10282004Presentation.ppt
Lockheed has been advertising co-production since 1995. They were awarded a contract in 1997. The official announcement came out about the espionage in 2003.
What was Lockheed doing for the 5+ years in between?
What was going to be the source of financing for the 1997-2003 time period?
What was going to be the source of financing if Boeing never got caught or never spied in the first place?
I think they rolled the dice and dragged their feet on co-production hoping that Boeing would fail on Delta 4.
This empty promise of co-production is like the promised savings on ULA at $100-150 Million per year.
There is no credibility!
-
Update: Boeing singed the Buy-3 proposal today.
So it looks like December 1st will be the official ULA day.
-
Alas, the last bastion of hope against the formation of ULA has been extinguished.
I think I'll go out back and kick my dog.
-
Sorry, I'm a young Shuttle fan and only started to get interested in Delta and Atlas after finding this site. Stupid question, but why is ULA a bad thing?
-
Propforce - 15/11/2006 2:58 PM Update: Boeing singed the Buy-3 proposal today. So it looks like December 1st will be the official ULA day.
Where did you hear this? Are you one of the "inside guys"
-
Will it now be proper to refer to the launchers as "ULA Atlas V" or "ULA Delta IV" rather than "Lockheed Martin Atlas V" or "Boeing Delta IV"?
- Ed Kyle
-
edkyle99 - 15/11/2006 11:26 PM
Will it now be proper to refer to the launchers as "ULA Atlas V" or "ULA Delta IV" rather than "Lockheed Martin Atlas V" or "Boeing Delta IV"?
- Ed Kyle
Rolls right off the tongue.
What is the proper pronunciation, YOOLA or U.L.A.
-
Orbiter Obvious - 15/11/2006 6:58 PM
Sorry, I'm a young Shuttle fan and only started to get interested in Delta and Atlas after finding this site. Stupid question, but why is ULA a bad thing?
I think you should go over all 24 pages of this thread. The negatives have been discussed at length.
Edit - See Space X's comments below for a quicker read.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/lockheed-boeing-ula/061031setccomment.pdf
-
bombay - 15/11/2006 6:26 PM
Alas, the last bastion of hope against the formation of ULA has been extinguished.
I think I'll go out back and kick my dog.
Remember that the FTC has not given its final approval it has been more than 30 days since they intervened pending public comment.
Here are Space X's comments.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/lockheed-boeing-ula/061031setccomment.pdf
-
spacedreams - 15/11/2006 5:41 PM
Propforce - 15/11/2006 2:58 PM Update: Boeing singed the Buy-3 proposal today. So it looks like December 1st will be the official ULA day.
Where did you hear this? Are you one of the "inside guys"
Why? Because I know this before you did? LOL... :)
-
No, just an honest question. You scooped everyone and just wondered how you found out so quick. I'm sure it will be everywhere tomorrow morning. I was also wondering if it is solid enough so I can "spread the word" or if it is just another rumor.
-
spacedreams - 15/11/2006 11:01 PM
No, just an honest question. You scooped everyone and just wondered how you found out so quick. I'm sure it will be everywhere tomorrow morning. I was also wondering if it is solid enough so I can "spread the word" or if it is just another rumor.
Oh I see... yes I am one of the "inside guys"
-
Very cool, thanks for the info. I have friends that will be excited to hear about that.
-
Dexter - 15/11/2006 11:43 PM
edkyle99 - 15/11/2006 11:26 PM
Will it now be proper to refer to the launchers as "ULA Atlas V" or "ULA Delta IV" rather than "Lockheed Martin Atlas V" or "Boeing Delta IV"?
- Ed Kyle
Rolls right off the tongue.
What is the proper pronunciation, YOOLA or U.L.A.
How about "EEEEEEW-LA"?
- Ed Kyle
-
"Remember that the FTC has not given its final approval it has been more than 30 days since they intervened pending public comment."
"Here are Space X's comments."
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/lockheed-boeing-ula/061031setccomment.pdf
[/QUOTE]Reading this makes my blood boil!!!
This letter written to the FTC in response to their approval of ULA highlights everything wrong with the ULA and the gov't regulatory process. It clearly and accurately cites (through documented references) the rebuttal to the false claims that the that the pro-ULA-back-room wheelers and dealers (i.e. LM, Boeing, USAF, DoD, and FTC) are making.
This is not just a bunch of Space X sour grapes; their complaints and concerns are legitimate. Read it for yourselves and draw your own conclusions.
-
I have read it more than once and it is sour grapes.
Many of the things SpaceX says (as well as the FTC) regarding competition are crap because without ULA one of the companies WILL get out of the buisness and then the government is worse off than they will be with ULA because the one left over doesn't have a Heavy and that will cost big bucks to get capability on both coasts.
They say how it's not fair that ULA should be able to offer better prices commercially due to government subsidies. Problem is the Air Force is paying for launch capability no matter what so the tax payer really doesn't lose. They don't lose because if the Air Force only has a few launches then the launch teams get stagnant and skills diminish thus reliability goes down. More launches even if "subsidized" by the governement is a return on investment.
Throughout this rant (SpaceX's not mine) there are subtle and not so subtle references to SpaceX geting pushed out of EELV competition. That's the biggest load of crap of all. Maybe when they get a working rocket and then if they ever get one in the same class as Atlas and Delta and it proves to be as reliable then he can start to complain. For now he should shut up and concentrate on doing what he says he will because if he does succeed in that ULA won't matter and the Air Force will give him all the buisness he can handle.
-
bombay - 16/11/2006 8:04 PM
"Remember that the FTC has not given its final approval it has been more than 30 days since they intervened pending public comment."
"Here are Space X's comments."
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/lockheed-boeing-ula/061031setccomment.pdf
Reading this makes my blood boil!!!
This letter written to the FTC in response to their approval of ULA highlights everything wrong with the ULA and the gov't regulatory process. It clearly and accurately cites (through documented references) the rebuttal to the false claims that the that the pro-ULA-back-room wheelers and dealers (i.e. LM, Boeing, USAF, DoD, and FTC) are making.
This is not just a bunch of Space X sour grapes; their complaints and concerns are legitimate. Read it for yourselves and draw your own conclusions.
[/QUOTE]
ULA has rockets that work and meet requirements. Spacex has neither. End of story.
Too bad that he didn't want to start building rockets in 1995 and get in the ground floor of the EELV.
-
The theme of the comments was not what rockets Space X has or doesn't have. The theme of the letter centered on the fact that LM and Boeing are bound by the same antitrust laws as everyone else and national security does not provide an effective defense against an illegal merger, in this case a monopoly, as stated in the FTC's Horizontal Merger Guidelines.
In short, the FTC is the model of hypocricy. They're supposed to protect the public by ensuring laws of fair competition are followed, they admitted that nat'l defense is not a trump card to be used to permit an illegal merger, and they admitted that all of the reasoning behind forming ULA, that is taxpayer savings, improved reliability, and so forth will not be realized - and yet - they sign off on the deal.
The final vote has not been tallied, so story may not be over yet.
-
bombay - 16/11/2006 10:35 PM
The theme of the comments was not what rockets Space X has or doesn't have. The theme of the letter centered on the fact that LM and Boeing are bound by the same antitrust laws as everyone else and national security does not provide an effective defense against an illegal merger, in this case a monopoly, as stated in the FTC's Horizontal Merger Guidelines.
In short, the FTC is the model of hypocricy. They're supposed to protect the public by ensuring laws of fair competition are followed, they admitted that nat'l defense is not a trump card to be used to permit an illegal merger, and they admitted that all of the reasoning behind forming ULA, that is taxpayer savings, improved reliability, and so forth will not be realized - and yet - they sign off on the deal.
The final vote has not been tallied, so story may not be over yet.
There is no issue here . It happens all the time. We have only one commercial aircraft supplier, one AP supplier and one hydrazine supplier. There are many more. How many shipyards build nuke subs now? or Aircraft carriers? When the market doesn't support multiple suppliers, contraction/mergers happen and are allowed.
So what is the difference between ULA or LM or Boeing. Either way, there is only going to be one supplier. The DOD sees ULA as the same as Electric Boat. The DOD just rather have more options to fly.
-
Jim - 17/11/2006 6:10 AM
bombay - 16/11/2006 10:35 PM
The theme of the comments was not what rockets Space X has or doesn't have. The theme of the letter centered on the fact that LM and Boeing are bound by the same antitrust laws as everyone else and national security does not provide an effective defense against an illegal merger, in this case a monopoly, as stated in the FTC's Horizontal Merger Guidelines.
In short, the FTC is the model of hypocricy. They're supposed to protect the public by ensuring laws of fair competition are followed, they admitted that nat'l defense is not a trump card to be used to permit an illegal merger, and they admitted that all of the reasoning behind forming ULA, that is taxpayer savings, improved reliability, and so forth will not be realized - and yet - they sign off on the deal.
The final vote has not been tallied, so story may not be over yet.
There is no issue here . It happens all the time. We have only one commercial aircraft supplier, one AP supplier and one hydrazine supplier. There are many more. How many shipyards build nuke subs now? or Aircraft carriers? When the market doesn't support multiple suppliers, contraction/mergers happen and are allowed.
So what is the difference between ULA or LM or Boeing. Either way, there is only going to be one supplier. The DOD sees ULA as the same as Electric Boat. The DOD just rather have more options to fly.
I ask you the reasoning behind the DoD rejecting the GD acquisition of Newport News Shipbuilding back in 2001. The answer is it would have created a nuclear shipbuilding monopoly.
So what's the difference with ULA? One monoploy is more of a monopoly than the other? There's no sense to this.
-
Doesn't Space-X actually have more to gain than lose from the ULA deal? From what everybody has been saying around here, a majority of Delta guys are staying in Southern California. Isn't Space-X in El Segundo? How many other rocket programs are in the area? Pretty soon there will be a pretty good stock of rocket scientists with some good successful experience looking for work in the area. If I was a new start-up I think I would try to work with them instead of possibly turning them against me.
Plus I never have understood how a competitor could argue against a monopoly. If there is competition how can it be a monopoly? There isn't anything preventing companies other than ULA from getting an AF launch contract similar to ULA is there? It seems simple but I'm not a business guy just a lowly engineer. I'm sure someone with a finance background can correct me.
-
bombay - 17/11/2006 11:46 AM
I ask you the reasoning behind the DoD rejecting the GD acquisition of Newport News Shipbuilding back in 2001. The answer is it would have created a nuclear shipbuilding monopoly.
So what's the difference with ULA? One monoploy is more of a monopoly than the other? There's no sense to this.
They didn't want subs and aircraft carriers under one roof. That would be the same as ICBM's and LV's under on company
-
Jim - 17/11/2006 10:57 AM
bombay - 17/11/2006 11:46 AM
I ask you the reasoning behind the DoD rejecting the GD acquisition of Newport News Shipbuilding back in 2001. The answer is it would have created a nuclear shipbuilding monopoly.
So what's the difference with ULA? One monoploy is more of a monopoly than the other? There's no sense to this.
They didn't want subs and aircraft carriers under one roof. That would be the same as ICBM's and LV's under on company
The difference in the view of the DoD was that the shipbuilding monopoly would not have increased reliability of the product. It had nothing to do with subs and carriers being under one roof.
The DoD's take on ULA is that launch tempo will be increased thus improving reliability, which is paramount to nat'l defense-that's the difference. This rationale however was refutted by the FTC, the RAND report, ExpectMore.gov: Space Launch, and more.
The FTC admitted that they didn't possess the technical expertise to refute what the DoD was claiming although it's obvious that they're suspicious. The FTC needs to do what they're there for and reject the ULA proposal.
-
just sour grapes
-
Oh I almost forgot, the DoD itself despite claiming that the ULA monopoly is o.k. with them because of increased launch tempo, which would improve reliability, also acknowledged that: "the most negative view of the creation of ULA is that it will almost certainly have an adverse effect on competition, including higher prices over the long term, as well as a diminution in innovation and responsiveness." Increased launch tempo and reliability with diminished innovation and responsiveness???
Sour grapes - I think not. Collusion between the two most powerful defense contractors and various parties of the U.S. Gov't - I think so.
-
R&R - 16/11/2006 7:19 PM
I have read it more than once and it is sour grapes.
Many of the things SpaceX says (as well as the FTC) regarding competition are crap because without ULA one of the companies WILL get out of the buisness and then the government is worse off than they will be with ULA because the one left over doesn't have a Heavy and that will cost big bucks to get capability on both coasts.
They say how it's not fair that ULA should be able to offer better prices commercially due to government subsidies. Problem is the Air Force is paying for launch capability no matter what so the tax payer really doesn't lose. They don't lose because if the Air Force only has a few launches then the launch teams get stagnant and skills diminish thus reliability goes down. More launches even if "subsidized" by the governement is a return on investment.
Throughout this rant (SpaceX's not mine) there are subtle and not so subtle references to SpaceX geting pushed out of EELV competition. That's the biggest load of crap of all. Maybe when they get a working rocket and then if they ever get one in the same class as Atlas and Delta and it proves to be as reliable then he can start to complain. For now he should shut up and concentrate on doing what he says he will because if he does succeed in that ULA won't matter and the Air Force will give him all the buisness he can handle.
This I find very interesting. You are implying that Boeing has threatened to pull the chord on Delta 4.
The irony here is that the previous defense consolidations approved by the FTC have led to present environment where the tail is wagging the dog.
Perhaps the DOD should call them on this and then by tankers and cargo planes from EADS/Airbus.
Its obviously OK to buy Russian rocket engines.
This whole thing STINKS!
-
R&R is right. If SpaceX can deliver, NOBODY ... and I mean... NOBODY ! can compete with their quoted launch price of $6M per launch.
I would like to see Elon Musk deliver at that price... AND... stay in business.
He would still have a long long way to go anywhere near Delta IV or Atlas V launch payload capacity....
-
Jim - 17/11/2006 11:36 AM
just sour grapes
It's obvious that Space X's future business case is helped out by stopping the ULA scheme.
Their response does site that even the FTC recognizes the violations against Sherman Anti-Trust and the Clayton Act.
National Security is not at risk without ULA.
Status Quo has been successful.
If the importance is to increase launch tempo then downselect one program and make sure it has a heavy lift, west coast pads, and American made engines without wasting more taxpayer dollars.
-
Dexter - 17/11/2006 4:05 PM
This I find very interesting. You are implying that Boeing has threatened to pull the chord on Delta 4.
.......................
Its obviously OK to buy Russian rocket engines.
This whole thing STINKS!
As I've said before, if the Air Force was "forced" to down-select during the initial (Buy-1) EELV program, they would have NO CHOICE but to select Boeing.
As I've also said before, this Lockheed's sueing of Boeing is BOGUS. Boeing did not win the Buy-1 proposal by "slightly under-cutting" LM's prices. Boeing won BIG by making it's own infrastructure investment, including a Heavy, that met & far exceeded EELV launch requriements. LM FAILED to make such investment. Rather, LM blatantly violate the initial procurement rule by going with a Russian-supplied engine, making its launch vehicle dependent on a non-allied nation, and doing some "hand-waving" of a U.S. engine production capability in 10 years or so which has came and gone.
Since Lockheed is widely known as "2nd career home" for many of the Air Force brasses, one couldn't help but wonder if it was another way to keep Lockheed in the game?
One has to ask, if the Air Force's initial reason for changing the EELV procurement rule, and instead keeping BOTH companies, was because the "rosey outlook of commercial launch market" was able to sustain both launch companies thus provide the competitive pricing benefit to the Air Force. Then why could it uses the reverse logic to down-select to one EELV contractor, instead of incurring the cost of maintaining both launch teams and vehicles?
Could it be that Lockheed has always been trailing behind on its EELV capability, e.g., no Heavy version, no west-coast launch capability, etc.? A "down-select" would mean that Boeing wins and Lockheed lost?
-
Dexter - 18/11/2006 5:05 PM
This I find very interesting. You are implying that Boeing has threatened to pull the chord on Delta 4.
It's based on an interview the VP of their Defense division gave about 6 months before ULA was announced in which he stated and I'm paraphrasing here Boeing could no longer sustain the losses of Delta IV and if the Ait Force did not agree to fund more of their costs they would shut down Delta IV.
It may have been a shot across the bow to get a better deal in Buy 3 but it may also have been aimed at ULA which must have been in the works.
-
Oddly, the USAF regards both the Atlas V and Delta IV programs as "not mature", thus their desire to keep the two programs in business, at least for the time being. An evaluation of both programs was to occur during the Buy 4 award in 2010, at which point a possible downselect would have occured.
Both companies have issues. The Delta IV certainly doesn't equal the history that the Atlas V and what preceded it has (the Centaur in particular was developed in 1958). The Atlas V on the other hand has no heavy lift and never developed the U.S. RD-180.
What better way to avoid the downselect ax than to chuck the two products under one roof and claim that the gov't is funding only the company instead of the two, even though the aggregate amount of funding will likely be unchanged.
So instead of having fair competition where both companies would have to work to develop a superior product that would meet all EELV requirements or face being the loser in a downselect, we'll be left with ULA that's comprised of (2) products with their own shortcomings with no urgent need to address them.
-
Propforce - 17/11/2006 7:38 PM
Boeing won BIG by making it's own infrastructure investment, including a Heavy, that met & far exceeded EELV launch requriements.
Actually the D-IV medium fails to meet the payload to orbit requirements.
-
R&R - 17/11/2006 7:25 PM
Dexter - 18/11/2006 5:05 PM
This I find very interesting. You are implying that Boeing has threatened to pull the chord on Delta 4.
It's based on an interview the VP of their Defense division gave about 6 months before ULA was announced in which he stated and I'm paraphrasing here Boeing could no longer sustain the losses of Delta IV and if the Ait Force did not agree to fund more of their costs they would shut down Delta IV.
It may have been a shot across the bow to get a better deal in Buy 3 but it may also have been aimed at ULA which must have been in the works.
I don't think Boeing or LM are in any position to strongarm the gov't into buying into the ULA by threatening to the plug on Atlas or Delta.
Boeing had $30B and LM $37B in defense related gross revenue last year. The $1B or so that LV's contributed to Boeing and Lockheeds gross sales is nothing. There's no denying that space launches are critical towards nat'l security and I don't think the gov't would look too kindly on either company pulling out of the business without facing the gov't wrath. The risk of losing out on $billions of future gov't contracts would far outweigh the gain of bailing out on what amounts to insignificant losses and gains in the LV sector.
-
Jim - 17/11/2006 6:05 PM
Propforce - 17/11/2006 7:38 PM
Boeing won BIG by making it's own infrastructure investment, including a Heavy, that met & far exceeded EELV launch requriements.
Actually the D-IV medium fails to meet the payload to orbit requirements.
D-IV Medium plus meet those requirements.
-
Propforce - 17/11/2006 9:27 PM
Jim - 17/11/2006 6:05 PM
Propforce - 17/11/2006 7:38 PM
Boeing won BIG by making it's own infrastructure investment, including a Heavy, that met & far exceeded EELV launch requriements.
Actually the D-IV medium fails to meet the payload to orbit requirements.
D-IV Medium plus meet those requirements.
The requirements were for no solids
-
Jim - 17/11/2006 6:31 PM
Propforce - 17/11/2006 9:27 PM
Jim - 17/11/2006 6:05 PM
Propforce - 17/11/2006 7:38 PM
Boeing won BIG by making it's own infrastructure investment, including a Heavy, that met & far exceeded EELV launch requriements.
Actually the D-IV medium fails to meet the payload to orbit requirements.
D-IV Medium plus meet those requirements.
The requirements were for no solids
Oh get a life, Jim. Why are you still hung-up on solids? They made the EELV missions, didn't they?
-
It's not that. Just pointing out that D-IV fails to meet the requirements too. Forgot to add that the Heavy also doesn't meet the payload to orbit
-
Jim - 17/11/2006 8:31 PM
Propforce - 17/11/2006 9:27 PM
Jim - 17/11/2006 6:05 PM
Propforce - 17/11/2006 7:38 PM
Boeing won BIG by making it's own infrastructure investment, including a Heavy, that met & far exceeded EELV launch requriements.
Actually the D-IV medium fails to meet the payload to orbit requirements.
D-IV Medium plus meet those requirements.
The requirements were for no solids
A few pages back you were talking about how great Atlas V was because you could add solids. The expression was "dial a rocket" if I recall correctly. You also pointed out that solids were added for commercial customers. But obviously DOD would take advantage of the D4M+ with the solids added.
So what's your point.
How about this one. Current and previous space transportation policies prohibit the dependence of foreign made critical components. Contraves, CASA, and RD-180 don't meet the requirements either.
-
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-11-18T000342Z_01_N17180075_RTRIDST_0_ARMS-BOEING-UPDATE-1.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna
Boeing gets $674M for Buy 3 just as propforce stated.
What was the amount of the fine Boeing paid?
-
Dexter - 17/11/2006 10:19 PM
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-11-18T000342Z_01_N17180075_RTRIDST_0_ARMS-BOEING-UPDATE-1.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna
Boeing gets $674M for Buy 3 just as propforce stated.
What was the amount of the fine Boeing paid?
That was the last substantive barrier for ULA formation. Expect a closing date to be announced soon, maybe as early as dec 1 as was metioned above. The FTC is done. The comments by SpaceX and NG do not have to be addressed.
-
Dexter - 18/11/2006 12:14 AM
Jim - 17/11/2006 8:31 PM
Propforce - 17/11/2006 9:27 PM
Jim - 17/11/2006 6:05 PM
Propforce - 17/11/2006 7:38 PM
Boeing won BIG by making it's own infrastructure investment, including a Heavy, that met & far exceeded EELV launch requriements.
Actually the D-IV medium fails to meet the payload to orbit requirements.
D-IV Medium plus meet those requirements.
The requirements were for no solids
A few pages back you were talking about how great Atlas V was because you could add solids. The expression was "dial a rocket" if I recall correctly. You also pointed out that solids were added for commercial customers. But obviously DOD would take advantage of the D4M+ with the solids added.
So what's your point.
How about this one. Current and previous space transportation policies prohibit the dependence of foreign made critical components. Contraves, CASA, and RD-180 don't meet the requirements either.
The solids for Atlas were not for meeting the EELV requirements.
But since we are talking foreign suppliers,the D-IV use Japanese domes on the second stages.
-
Jim - 18/11/2006 5:44 AM
But since we are talking foreign suppliers,the D-IV use Japanese domes on the second stages.
Let's dissect this Japanese dome issue.
1) Is there any evidence that Boeing promised to co-produce domes in the United States?
2) Did the Rand Report mention Japanese domes as a risk item with a $500M to $800M development cost?
3) Could these domes be manufactured in the US by the same providers of domes for Atlas V?
4) Does the US see Japan as more of an ally with co-operation on programs like FX/F2?
Bringing up the Japanese domes is apples and oranges and a feeble attempt to associate a major lapse in program requirements on Lockheed's part with a non-critical component that could easily be duplicated in the US for Boeing's program.
-
Jim - 18/11/2006 3:44 AM
But since we are talking foreign suppliers,the D-IV use Japanese domes on the second stages.
Boeing is fully capable to produce the 2nd stage dome here in the U.S.
Can Lockheed do so with the RD-180?
-
What's really strange is that the Russians have shared technology, production information and permitted coproduction of the RD-180.
The Air Force contract calls for Lockheed to pay for development costs but acknowledges that they (the USAF) will ultimately absorb these costs given that they will be the primary consumer of the capability.
Why would Lockheed drag their feet on RD-180 development if the costs would ultimately be on the Air Force's nickle? Why would Lockheed turn their backs on a no-lose situation?
-
Dexter - 17/11/2006 11:19 PM
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-11-18T000342Z_01_N17180075_RTRIDST_0_ARMS-BOEING-UPDATE-1.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna
Boeing gets $674M for Buy 3 just as propforce stated.
According to the spaceflightnow.com launch schedule, this $674 million will be used to perform only two Delta 4 Heavy launches during the timeframe of the contract. That's $337 million per launch.
- Ed Kyle
-
edkyle99 - 18/11/2006 7:26 PM
Dexter - 17/11/2006 11:19 PM
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-11-18T000342Z_01_N17180075_RTRIDST_0_ARMS-BOEING-UPDATE-1.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna
Boeing gets $674M for Buy 3 just as propforce stated.
According to the spaceflightnow.com launch schedule, this $674 million will be used to perform only two Delta 4 Heavy launches during the timeframe of the contract. That's $337 million per launch.
- Ed Kyle
DSP 23 and NROL-26 (the ones listed at spaceflightnow.com) are part of Buy 1. See here:
http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc/eelv.htm
From what the article says it looks like the actual launches for Buy 3 haven't been hammered out yet and will be on a mission-by-mission basis. The only launch under the Buy 3 contract so far is an AEHF flight.
Nick
-
Which is obviously not correct.
USAF release:
The U.S. Air Force announces the award of an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Launch Capability (ELC) contract to The Boeing Company (Integrated Defense Systems, Huntington Beach, CA). This Boeing ELC contract is for a 16-month period and provides the infrastructure required for launch capability to support four launches per year, with one of those from the west coast. Launch capability includes prime and supplier critical skills retention; engineering; program management; launch and range site activities; and mission integration. Since previously awarded mission prices included this same scope of work, those contracts will be adjusted to remove any duplication in scope.
This contract is part of the EELV Buy 3 strategy to enable a flexible contract structure in which the Government aims to share an appropriate level of risk with the launch service providers, preserve the space launch industrial base, and stabilize the launch operations tempo. The revised EELV acquisition strategy focusing on the U.S. Government and National Security Space as the primary user of EELV and absolute Mission Success as the primary goal.
According to the Launch and Range Systems Wing chief engineer, Col. Joseph F Boyle, "We now have the basic contract structure in place to provide the government’s required level of mission assurance with both Boeing and Lockheed Martin and we will have the assured access to space needed for national security."
The new acquisition strategy incorporates two separate contracts for each launch provider: ELC, and a Launch Service contract (ELS). ELC contracts are a standard government negotiated procurement and thus fundamentally different from the previous commercial type contracts. The new contracts require traditional cost reporting from the contractors, and will comply with Cost Accounting Standards and the DoD Earned Value Management Systems policy.
The Boeing ELC contract was awarded today. A pre-contract cost letter was signed that recognizes costs as of June 1, 2006, upon the successful resolution of the DCAA audit of Boeing’s proposal. Thus the period of performance on the Boeing ELC contract is June 1, 2006 through Sept. 30, 2007. The Boeing ELC contract value is $674 million for the 16-month period of performance.
The Lockheed Martin ELC contract was awarded on Feb. 28, 2006 for $815 million and covers a 24-month period of performance from Oct. 1, 2005 through Sept. 30, 2007.
The Launch Services portion of Buy 3 contract strategy or ELS, covers the specific launches. The Government will award ELS contracts on a per mission basis, awarded at least two years in advance of the anticipated launch. We are currently in negotiations for award of the first ELS contract.
The EELV program is a world-class space launch system that has enjoyed unprecedented success, 15 successes for 15 missions, supporting military, intelligence, and civil mission requirements previously serviced by Titan II, Delta II, Atlas II, and Titan IV. With the Nation’s critical dependence on space launch, EELV meets National Security Space needs, National Space Transportation Policy requirements for assured access, and Congressional mandates.
-
James Lowe1 - 18/11/2006 9:24 PM
Which is obviously not correct.
Okay, I can admit it when I'm wrong... :(
Correct me if I'm wrong again, but the release states that costs are for a "16 month period of performance" starting June 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007. Does that mean the $674 million includes NROL-22 and DMSP F17 (which launched within the "period of performance") as well as the two Heavies?
I hope I understand all of this properly now.
Nick
-
James Lowe1 - 18/11/2006 9:24 PM
USAF release:
The U.S. Air Force announces the award of an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Launch Capability (ELC) contract to The Boeing Company (Integrated Defense Systems, Huntington Beach, CA). This Boeing ELC contract is for a 16-month period and provides the infrastructure required for launch capability to support four launches per year, with one of those from the west coast. Launch capability includes prime and supplier critical skills retention; engineering; program management; launch and range site activities; and mission integration. Since previously awarded mission prices included this same scope of work, those contracts will be adjusted to remove any duplication in scope.
This contract is part of the EELV Buy 3 strategy to enable a flexible contract structure in which the Government aims to share an appropriate level of risk with the launch service providers, preserve the space launch industrial base, and stabilize the launch operations tempo. The revised EELV acquisition strategy focusing on the U.S. Government and National Security Space as the primary user of EELV and absolute Mission Success as the primary goal. ...
The new acquisition strategy incorporates two separate contracts for each launch provider: ELC, and a Launch Service contract (ELS). ELC contracts are a standard government negotiated procurement and thus fundamentally different from the previous commercial type contracts. The new contracts require traditional cost reporting from the contractors, and will comply with Cost Accounting Standards and the DoD Earned Value Management Systems policy.
The Boeing ELC contract was awarded today. A pre-contract cost letter was signed that recognizes costs as of June 1, 2006, upon the successful resolution of the DCAA audit of Boeing’s proposal. Thus the period of performance on the Boeing ELC contract is June 1, 2006 through Sept. 30, 2007. The Boeing ELC contract value is $674 million for the 16-month period of performance. ...
The Launch Services portion of Buy 3 contract strategy or ELS, covers the specific launches. The Government will award ELS contracts on a per mission basis, awarded at least two years in advance of the anticipated launch. We are currently in negotiations for award of the first ELS contract.
OK. So this $674 million is the amount it costs to be ready to launch whether any Delta 4 launchers fly or not. If the projected four launches occur during the contract period, then it will have cost an average of $168.5 million per launch, not including the price of the launch! The launch price is extra!
If I'm understanding this right, then the $674 million must essentially be what it costs extra to have two, rather than one, EELV program running during a 16 month period.
- Ed Kyle
-
edkyle99 - 18/11/2006 9:20 PM
OK. So this $674 million is the amount it costs to be ready to launch whether any Delta 4 launchers fly or not.
- Ed Kyle
Yeah... try to figure this out is like trying to figure out the TRUE COST of the Space Shuttle launches :)
-
Dod is seperating fixed costs from marginal costs. The contract names imply it:
The Launch Capability Contract (ECL) provides the infrastructure required for launch. These are the fixed costs, weather you fly or not. 674m$ for 16 months for Boeing and 815m$ for 24 months for LM translates into 505.5m$ for Boeings Delta IV per year and 407.5m$ for LMs Atlas V per year. Just to have the capability to launch. The difference can easily be explained by Boeing having the Heavy infrastructure in place, LM not. You can say it costs 505.5m$ each year to have two full EELV programs running, compared to just one (If LM would offer a Heavy launcher, their fixed costs would probably rise.).
They talk about the capability to launch four missions per years (three ETR, one WTR), but I guess these fixed costs would not be substantially higher for say six or eight missions per year. They still have to maintain the same pads, the workforce, the production capability etc.
Now you have to add the marginal costs for a launch, covered in Launch Service Contracts (ELS). These cover the costs you have when conducting a launch, but you don’t have without flying. These costs will depend upon the launch configuration, less for a Medium, more for a Medium Plus, even more for a Heavy. We don’t have numbers for these because until now fixed and marginal costs were mixed in one contract: “Since previously awarded mission prices included this same scope of work, those contracts will be adjusted to remove any duplication in scope.”
The more missions, the more you spread the fixed costs, the lower the total costs per launch. I wonder if NASA or any commercial customer will have to pay only the marginal costs, since Dod covers the fixed costs, or if there is a mechanism to spread the fixed cost over all customers.
Analyst
PS: I know the difference between costs and prices, and I assume the numbers here include some kind of profit and are therefore no costs in a strict sense from Boeings or LMs point of view. But they are from a Dod point of view. Anyway, the argument is the same, only the numbers change.
-
I look forward to seeing the launch services (marginal launch cost) information.
These numbers are scary-big for the low launch rates being supported. Both EELV programs together are costing $913 million per year for fixed costs alone, to support a presumed eight launches per year ($114 million per launch in fixed costs plus unknown marginal costs).
But there haven't been eight launches per year (both EELVs combined). There were only five this year. Next year might see a half dozen or more, but only two Delta 4 launches are expected (gives $252.75 million in fixed costs, not including marginal costs for those two Delta 4 launches, on average). NO Delta 4 launches are planned from Vandenberg next year.
$913 million is real money. It amounts to about $7 per U.S. individual tax return per year. Add the marginal launch cost surely drives this to more than a ten-spot per taxpayer. It might double it to $14. Where, I have to wonder, is the proported EELV savings to the taxpayer?
- Ed Kyle
-
To get some idea of launch costs - per the RAND report, reasonable estimates for payloads costing $1B, launch costs will range between 10% and 20% of the LV total cost and payload total cost. For typical commercial payloads, launch costs are approximately 35% to 40% of the total costs, while smaller payloads, such as GPS, launch costs are about 50% of the total costs.
So if I understand this rule of thumb correctly, if an LV costs $100M and a payload costs $1B, the launch costs would range from $110M - $220M depending on configuration.
Assuming 8 launches per year (best case scenario) at $114M fixed, you have a total in the range of $224M-$334M per launch. The way it's beginning to look, $14/taxpayer might be a screaming deal.
-
And what, if launches get cheaper, the payloads could get cheaper too?
-
So what happens if a comercial EELV does fly? Do they now reimburse the goverment for part of the fixed costs or is it a free ride?
Eyebrows raised...
-
meiza - 19/11/2006 4:24 PM
And what, if launches get cheaper, the payloads could get cheaper too?
nope
-
meiza - 19/11/2006 1:24 PM
And what, if launches get cheaper, the payloads could get cheaper too?
Payloads get bigger ... more complex... and heavier...
-
The EELVs were designed to support 10 launches per year, each, on a commercial basis. This was at the urging of the DoD, which thought it could save a lot of money by doing this. Of course, the commercial launch market imploded, Arianespace got their act together with the Ariane V, and Sea Launch and ILS started a vicious price war for what was left. The DoD's options are limited. They can pay reasonable rates for launches, which will result in Boeing or LM exiting the business (unclear which, the Atlas is better, Lockheed has a huge legal claim against Boeing, but also has the RD-180), and lots of people being laid off. They can pay someone to develop a new launch vehicle expected to fly 4 times a year, with correspondingly cheaper infrastructure, and deal with needing more lift capacity if the time comes. Or they can do what they're doing now, and pay whatever Boeing and Lockheed want.
All I'll say is that an extra 5-6 flights a year to the ISS would do wonders for the economics of the EELV. Too bad we have the Stick and COTS - I hope Doc Horowitz is proud of himself.
-
Sorry - by "on a commercial basis" I meant the customer delivers the satellite, and gets some assurances that the rocket will work (processes followed etc), and then gets a bill. Now they're going to the more typical cost-plus full-government-insight way of doing things, which naturally costs more.
However, this (the EELV debacle) is what the US Government always does with space launch; the Titan IV infrastructure could probably have handled ten flights a year without breaking a sweat, except there were only payloads for four flights a year, and even those were frequently hideously delayed, especially those coming from the NRO. How much of the currently 1.5-year slip of the first west coast Atlas V launch do you think is due to the vehicle? How many of the flights listed here have happened, and how many have had payload delays slipping them two or more years? This kind of nonsense directly increases costs.
-
kevin-rf - 19/11/2006 7:55 PM
So what happens if a comercial EELV does fly? Do they now reimburse the goverment for part of the fixed costs or is it a free ride?
Eyebrows raised...
Nope. Didn't happen on Delta II. NASA will get a "free ride " also wrt to fixed costs
-
And even with this subsidy the EELV:s are not commercially viable...
I wonder what subsidies Arianespace gets.
-
The Arianespace subsidies date back to 1987 when $9B was initially invested for development followed by $3B to fix technical problems followed by $1.5B in 2004 from European investors. That said, with high infrastucture costs, lower than expexted global demand, only one launch site, and other gov't subsidized competitors fighting for market share, if Ariane dosen't receive even more subsidies, they won't be able to continue to compete globally.
-
So the burning $77 million dolar question is what will the incremental cost be charged for each launch... Will it be less than $100 million per flight now that the fixed costs have been removed from the equation?
With the launch subsidies how about we rename EELV as Ariane... I am on the fence. It gives you more realistic launch costs, but for commercial customers we the tax payer are subsidizing the EELV launch. Or Ariane launch, How much are the Proton subsidies?
-
Jim - 20/11/2006 5:25 AM
kevin-rf - 19/11/2006 7:55 PM
So what happens if a comercial EELV does fly? Do they now reimburse the goverment for part of the fixed costs or is it a free ride?
Eyebrows raised...
Nope. Didn't happen on Delta II. NASA will get a "free ride " also wrt to fixed costs
There is a credit back (to the AF) for every EELV sold to non-AF customers. That is part of the ELC contract. It was included in the price NASA paid for MSL and LRO for example. So not quite a free ride.
-
yinzer - 20/11/2006 1:04 AM
...All I'll say is that an extra 5-6 flights a year to the ISS would do wonders for the economics of the EELV. ...
A very astute comment. It appears that thought (and a distinct 'promise' with the OSP developments back then) was a part of the equation in the 2 conglomerates' decision to (partially) foot the bill for the development.
-
James Lowe1 - 18/11/2006 9:24 PM
Which is obviously not correct.
USAF release:
.....
The new acquisition strategy incorporates two separate contracts for each launch provider: ELC, and a Launch Service contract (ELS). ELC contracts are a standard government negotiated procurement and thus fundamentally different from the previous commercial type contracts. The new contracts require traditional cost reporting from the contractors, and will comply with Cost Accounting Standards and the DoD Earned Value Management Systems policy.
.......
Isn't this similar to the contract structure that Titan IV operated on? The type that got them bad press on NBC Nightly News?
http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1996-2/1996-02-21-NBC-15.html
So Recapping,
USAF wants EELV inorder to reduce costs of launch associated with Titan IV.
Sees how Atlas operates in a commercial environment with competition on a global stage.
USAF downselects two suppliers and as stated at the time for purposes of competiton, not assured access with commercial procurement strategies.
Commercial market collapses (except for satellites).
Assured access mantra begins in 2003.
Atlas still selling legacy vehicles well in commercial market which are subsequently truncated and phased out.
Boeing VP threatens to pull plug on Delta 4 program.
ULA scheme is announced.
Back to non-commercial contracts (latest development).
No incentive for either provider to compete commercially.
Seems like a waste of a lot of taxpayer dollars.
-
Dexter - 21/11/2006 10:54 PM
Seems like a waste of a lot of taxpayer dollars.
Not if you require "Assured access".. what is the total EELV cost?
What is the cost without assured access?
-
What is assured access?
The Secretary of the Air force in 2003 defined it as having two systems but he used to be a Lockheed Martin exec.
The White House Office of Management and Budget does not necessarily agree with ULA or the Air Force defintion of assured access.
Pre-EELV, we had assured access to space with the Titan program and Atlas was also available commercially as my previous post points out. Now, instead of having 1 program on the "Maytag repairman" mode, we have two.
I guess in some distorted way someone could claim this as progress.
Also, if I was living in Toronto, I would not be concerned about wasted US tax dollars either.
-
Assured access: "being able to provide an operationally suitable launch vehicle when the satellite is ready".
Reviewing the past 20 yrs shows only (1) in (14) failures that resulted in LV grounding that exceeded (1) yr, which was subsequently delayed further due to a delay in satellite availability.
There's no heavy-lift assured access option.
The cost of dual payload integration for various designs may be significant such that only design compatibility will be offered rather than completed detailed engineering integration on the alternate vehicle. So simply swapping to the alternate vehicle if a problem arose won't be an option.
Similar RL-10 upperstage engines are used on both Atlas and Delta such that a problem with one would likely ground the other.
The assured access reasoning by the gov't came about in 2003 - long after program initiation back in 1995 when the intent was to downselect to (1) launch provider - winner take all.
Some of us did the math on previous posts of an EELV cost based on Buy 3 figures along with other launch related costs. The bill of goods doesn't jive with what we're being told.
-
"Commercial market collapses (except for satellites)."
Incorrect. The "commercial market" was 100's of LEO spacecraft (Teledisc (sp), ICO, etc). This whole comm scheme (Big LEO, Little LEO) went away. This is what the DOD was banking on
"Assured access mantra begins in 2003."
Incorrect. This existed since Challenger
"Atlas still selling legacy vehicles well in commercial market which are subsequently truncated and phased out."
Incorrect, Atlas III is too small for current spacecraft
"Back to non-commercial contracts (latest development)."
Incorrect, Atlas is still available commerically.
-
"The cost of dual payload integration for various designs may be significant such that only design compatibility will be offered rather than completed detailed engineering integration on the alternate vehicle. So simply swapping to the alternate vehicle if a problem arose won't be an option."
Not true. The interfaces and environments for both vehicles are the same. The "newer" crop of spacecraft were designed to the EELV SIS.
-
bombay - 22/11/2006 12:16 AM
There's no heavy-lift assured access option.
This is an important point, because it is more than just heavy-lift that is not assured. As Jim has astutely pointed out a number of times, the two EELVs have somewhat complementary capabilities. If an RS-68 blows up, the U.S. will lose that heavy lift option (10.75 tonnes to GTO (1,500 m/s short of geostationary), 24 tonnes to LEO). But if an RD-180 shreds, the U.S. will lose GTO capabilities between 5.35 tonnes and 6.7 tonnes and LEO capabilities between 13.5 tonnes and 20.5 tonnes.
- Ed Kyle
-
edkyle99 - 22/11/2006 7:06 AM
bombay - 22/11/2006 12:16 AM
There's no heavy-lift assured access option.
This is an important point, because it is more than just heavy-lift that is not assured. - Ed Kyle
There is NO assured access option on ALL vehicles if the RL-10 blows up.
-
With assured access to space not being so assured based on the issues discussed, what would make one believe that the assured access flaws would be resolved under ULA? If anything, you would tend to believe that the issues will go unaddressed given the monopoly status of ULA.
The two launch system was not meant to be perpetual based on the EELV language as I interpret it. It was to come under review prior to Buy 4 and every two years or so to determine if two systems were still needed. If nothing is done to correct the current flaws associated with the assured access to space concept, which likely won't happen under ULA because there's no incentive to do so, the two launch system need will be perpetual under the ULA welfare program.
-
Jim - 22/11/2006 6:24 AM
"Assured access mantra begins in 2003."
Incorrect. This existed since Challenger
Let me repost this quote from page 24.
1997 - "On November 6, 1997 the Air Force modified its procurement plans for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. The original concept -- a single winner-take-all award -- was amended, splitting the work between a pair of finalists for the multi-billion launch contracts, McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) and Lockheed Martin. One of the major reasons given for the redirection was to enhance U.S. space launch competitiveness by keeping two rocket builders in business."
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/business/delta_eelv-991124....
Can you tell me where the DOD used 'assured access to space" as a reason for the downselect to two programs in 1997?
This is the classic "bait and switch" tactic.
-
Jim - 22/11/2006 6:24 AM
"Back to non-commercial contracts (latest development)."
Incorrect, Atlas is still available commerically.
The point I am making here is that the USAF initially wanted commercial contracts for EELV. The Boeing settlement specificlly states that the contracts were converted from commercial contracts to more complicated government contracts.
In the Atlas 4???? thread you stated that the contracting philosophy of Atlas is one of the reasons for carrying the Atlas name. Yet know it appears that we are right back to the complicated government contracts.
So when people here state that the Atlas program is being Titanized along with the Delta program, the only conclusion is that they are correct.
EELV started with good intentions but placing faith in the most optimistic of forecasts resulting in two downselects is forcing the ULA scheme as the only considerd solution. Mistake after mistake.
When the critical employees don't relocate which will result in mission failures, the American taxpayer better not be asked to foot additional money to restore this capability.
-
edkyle99 - 22/11/2006 9:06 AM
bombay - 22/11/2006 12:16 AM
There's no heavy-lift assured access option.
This is an important point, because it is more than just heavy-lift that is not assured. As Jim has astutely pointed out a number of times, the two EELVs have somewhat complementary capabilities. If an RS-68 blows up, the U.S. will lose that heavy lift option (10.75 tonnes to GTO (1,500 m/s short of geostationary), 24 tonnes to LEO). But if an RD-180 shreds, the U.S. will lose GTO capabilities between 5.35 tonnes and 6.7 tonnes and LEO capabilities between 13.5 tonnes and 20.5 tonnes.
- Ed Kyle
Jim also pointed out that the overperforming vehicle is better as you can give additional energy to the spacecraft for its GSO insertion where the apogee motor uses less fuel for the apogee burns.
So how many sattellites fall into this performance gap between 5.3 and 6.7 tons now and how does this compare to the cost of maintaining two suppliers or creating ULA with all its transition costs?
-
The EELV program would be much healthier now if it'd not been for NASA's decision to create its own launchers for the VSE. The ULA might have not even begun to come into focus. [edit] it's as if either Boeing or LockheedM are some charity organizations. Don't bank on it (or it'll break your heart), they are concerned about the bottom line like any for-profit organization. (and they are right in that)
-
Dexter - 22/11/2006 10:50 PM
Jim - 22/11/2006 6:24 AM
"Back to non-commercial contracts (latest development)."
Incorrect, Atlas is still available commerically.
The point I am making here is that the USAF initially wanted commercial contracts for EELV. The Boeing settlement specificlly states that the contracts were converted from commercial contracts to more complicated government contracts.
In the Atlas 4???? thread you stated that the contracting philosophy of Atlas is one of the reasons for carrying the Atlas name. Yet know it appears that we are right back to the complicated government contracts.
So when people here state that the Atlas program is being Titanized along with the Delta program, the only conclusion is that they are correct.
EELV started with good intentions but placing faith in the most optimistic of forecasts resulting in two downselects is forcing the ULA scheme as the only considerd solution. Mistake after mistake.
When the critical employees don't relocate which will result in mission failures, the American taxpayer better not be asked to foot additional money to restore this capability.
Just get off this "Titanized " line of thinking. The USAF contract mechanism has nothing to do with the vehicle. The USAF contracted for "pure" commercial launch services with no insight (less than NASA). They realized they made a mistake and needed to change the contracting mechanism (but not to the extreme that it is now, that was a different change)
The way the USAF buys its LV's, has nothing to do with the way NASA and comsat companies do it.
The Titan program problems were caused more by the USAF than LM.
-
lmike - 25/11/2006 2:38 AM
The EELV program would be much healthier now if it'd not been for NASA's decision to create its own launchers for the VSE. The ULA might have not even begun to come into focus. [edit] it's as if either Boeing or LockheedM are some charity organizations. Don't bank on it (or it'll break your heart), they are concerned about the bottom line like any for-profit organization. (and they are right in that)
You bring up an interesting point. Was the underlying purpose behind NASA'a decision to create it's own launcher built mainly on siphoning more money into the NASA coffers.
Why not concentrate on man-rating the AtlasV and DeltaIV for VSE, which are under utilized to begin with? It would better justify ULA in my opinion.
-
Furthermore, the man-rated factor of safety is 1.4 versus 1.25 for non-rated. I would bet that for the most part both Atlas V and Delta IV are built with margins that match or exceed the 1.4 f.s.
-
Jim - 25/11/2006 10:07 AM
The USAF contracted for "pure" commercial launch services with no insight (less than NASA). They realized they made a mistake and needed to change the contracting mechanism (but not to the extreme that it is now, that was a different change)
The original EELV contracts explicitly provided for government insight. What they lacked is government oversight. Even then, the Assured Access to Space funding provided something like oversight for selected issues.
Regarding whether EELV is being "Titanized", that is exactly the language the USAF uses when they talk about Buy 3 informally. To paraphrase what I have heard from blue suiters up and down the line, "EELV is returning to heritage program contracting mechanisms." I suspect the AF would have just pulled the old Titan contract out of the filing cabinet and changed "Titan" to "EELV" if it were politically possible. As it is, they settled for a half measure so that it wouldn't be so obvious that they had totally bungled the initial EELV contracts.
-
bombay - 25/11/2006 3:34 PM
Furthermore, the man-rated factor of safety is 1.4 versus 1.25 for non-rated. I would bet that for the most part both Atlas V and Delta IV are built with margins that match or exceed the 1.4 f.s.
How much are you willing to bet? ;)
-
Gov't Seagull - 28/11/2006 5:00 PM
bombay - 25/11/2006 3:34 PM
Furthermore, the man-rated factor of safety is 1.4 versus 1.25 for non-rated. I would bet that for the most part both Atlas V and Delta IV are built with margins that match or exceed the 1.4 f.s.
How much are you willing to bet? ;)
I'd bet a lot. Atlas V 401 launching a passenger capsule absolutely meets 1.4 Look at figure 4,5 & 6 in this paper:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13344.pdf
-
Gov't Seagull - 28/11/2006 6:58 PM
Jim - 25/11/2006 10:07 AM
The USAF contracted for "pure" commercial launch services with no insight (less than NASA). They realized they made a mistake and needed to change the contracting mechanism (but not to the extreme that it is now, that was a different change)
The original EELV contracts explicitly provided for government insight. What they lacked is government oversight. Even then, the Assured Access to Space funding provided something like oversight for selected issues.
Regarding whether EELV is being "Titanized", that is exactly the language the USAF uses when they talk about Buy 3 informally. To paraphrase what I have heard from blue suiters up and down the line, "EELV is returning to heritage program contracting mechanisms." I suspect the AF would have just pulled the old Titan contract out of the filing cabinet and changed "Titan" to "EELV" if it were politically possible. As it is, they settled for a half measure so that it wouldn't be so obvious that they had totally bungled the initial EELV contracts.
"The original EELV contracts explicitly provided for government insight'"
Without documentation? The original contracts didn't even provide documentation, which makes insight a little hard
Titan IV had 3 contracts. Unified Payload Integration, vehicle production and O&M. Once all the vehicles were produced and most of analytical integration was complete, it went down to one.
Titanized in this forum was referring to the vehicle itself, not was the USAF was doing.
-
Jim - 28/11/2006 10:02 PM
Without documentation? The original contracts didn't even provide documentation, which makes insight a little hard
Look at slide 12 of http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/1997/nov_ovrw.pdf
The contractors are required to make their corporate documentation available (drawings, test data, meeting minutes, etc.). The change from Titan is that they do not have to generate documentation solely to satisfy a particular requirement. But anything they generate internally as part of EELV can be requested by the gov't.
-
quark - 28/11/2006 8:19 PM
I'd bet a lot. Atlas V 401 launching a passenger capsule absolutely meets 1.4 Look at figure 4,5 & 6 in this paper:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13344.pdf
What I see in that paper is positive margin against FS=1.4 for a notional passenger mission that is a lot less severe than any of the unmanned missions. They do not have positive margins against FS=1.4 for the missions they actually fly. Maybe the passenger mission they analyzed is typical, maybe it was cooked up so they could say they are already man-rated, I don't know.
-
Gov't Seagull - 29/11/2006 2:23 PM
quark - 28/11/2006 8:19 PM
I'd bet a lot. Atlas V 401 launching a passenger capsule absolutely meets 1.4 Look at figure 4,5 & 6 in this paper:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13344.pdf
What I see in that paper is positive margin against FS=1.4 for a notional passenger mission that is a lot less severe than any of the unmanned missions. They do not have positive margins against FS=1.4 for the missions they actually fly. Maybe the passenger mission they analyzed is typical, maybe it was cooked up so they could say they are already man-rated, I don't know.
The mission was cooked up to demonstrate what they could do while meeting the FS=1.4 standards that MSFC threw up. This was presumably in response to the assertion that the Atlas couldn't fly manned missions due to the structural factors of safety being too low based on the Atlas 552.
FS=1.2 is fine for unmanned missions.
-
Day 1 is monday
-
Gov't Seagull - 29/11/2006 4:23 PM
quark - 28/11/2006 8:19 PM
I'd bet a lot. Atlas V 401 launching a passenger capsule absolutely meets 1.4 Look at figure 4,5 & 6 in this paper:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13344.pdf
What I see in that paper is positive margin against FS=1.4 for a notional passenger mission that is a lot less severe than any of the unmanned missions. They do not have positive margins against FS=1.4 for the missions they actually fly. Maybe the passenger mission they analyzed is typical, maybe it was cooked up so they could say they are already man-rated, I don't know.
You can't conclude that the missions they actually fly don't meet the 1.4 f.s.
The common core booster is analyzed to a worst case loading condition, presumably the 552 configuration. Assuming every part analyzed had a margin of safety of +0.00 using a 1.25 f.s., the less severe loading percentage relative to the 401 configured flights would potentially make up for the difference in m.s. when using the 1.40 f.s. versus the 1.25 f.s. In other words, the +0.00 m.s. would be maintained.
As far as manned flights to LEO are concerned, the loads would be less than typical flights to GTO, so by ratioing the loading conditions between worst case loaded 552 configured flights and relatively lightly loaded 401 manned flights, the 1.40 f.s. is likely met with room to spare.
-
Jim - 29/11/2006 7:06 PM
Day 1 is monday
Based on what source?
-
bombay - 29/11/2006 9:30 PM
Jim - 29/11/2006 7:06 PM
Day 1 is monday
Based on what source?
That's the same rumor we're hearing here too. Apparently ULA wants to start the begining of pay period on a Monday instead of a Friday!
We'll find out how many will move to Denver shortly.....
-
Jim - 25/11/2006 9:07 AM
Just get off this "Titanized " line of thinking. The USAF contract mechanism has nothing to do with the vehicle. The USAF contracted for "pure" commercial launch services with no insight (less than NASA). They realized they made a mistake and needed to change the contracting mechanism (but not to the extreme that it is now, that was a different change)
The way the USAF buys its LV's, has nothing to do with the way NASA and comsat companies do it.
The Titan program problems were caused more by the USAF than LM.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdf
Quote on page 267 of the pdf file from Ed Bock,
"I think if we'd had a failure shortly after we moved here, we would have been Titanized at the drop of a hat".
The supporting reading talks about a different culture with different processes and procedures.
Then you have the Buy 3 contract conversion which the article say is a conversion form commercial contracts to more complicated government contracts.
Here is another interesting comparison on page 258 of the same article.
Eutelsat commercial contract - 92 pages
NASA Goes contract - 4250 pages
It would be interesting to compare the number of business / program management people required to maintain an administer a 92 page contract versus a 4250 page contract versus a more complicated government contract.
-
Gov't Seagull - 29/11/2006 4:19 PM
Jim - 28/11/2006 10:02 PM
Without documentation? The original contracts didn't even provide documentation, which makes insight a little hard
Look at slide 12 of http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/1997/nov_ovrw.pdf
The contractors are required to make their corporate documentation available (drawings, test data, meeting minutes, etc.). The change from Titan is that they do not have to generate documentation solely to satisfy a particular requirement. But anything they generate internally as part of EELV can be requested by the gov't.
Interesting historical perspective in that presentation on the reasons for downselecting two programs.
I didn't see "Assured Access to Space" as an argument. It did talk about competing one program against the other.
I also like the objectives stated on slide 3.
-
Propforce - 29/11/2006 11:47 PM
bombay - 29/11/2006 9:30 PM
Jim - 29/11/2006 7:06 PM
Day 1 is monday
Based on what source?
That's the same rumor we're hearing here too. Apparently ULA wants to start the begining of pay period on a Monday instead of a Friday!
We'll find out how many will move to Denver shortly.....
"Remaining steps required for the deal's finalization include completion of the Federal Trade Commission's preliminary approval and Boeing and Lockheed's execution of numerous contracts governing the deal."
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/061121/contract.shtml
It's been more than 30 days for the FTC review. Wonder what the hold-up is?
-
Dexter - 30/11/2006 1:21 AM
1. The supporting reading talks about a different culture with different processes and procedures.
2. Eutelsat commercial contract - 92 pages
NASA Goes contract - 4250 pages
It would be interesting to compare the number of business / program management people required to maintain an administer a 92 page contract versus a 4250 page contract versus a more complicated government contract.
1. The GD (and LERC) one still prevails
2. Eutelsat buys the rocket and insurance that cost 20-30% of the spacecraft and LV. NASA buys a launch service (new smaller contract but still a magitude larger than Eutelsat) and insight and gets almost a 10% higher success rate on launching one of a kind spacecraft (excluding GOES)
-
Dexter - 30/11/2006 1:30 AM
It's been more than 30 days for the FTC review. Wonder what the hold-up is?
getting all the ducks in a row.
-
Propforce - 30/11/2006 5:47 AM
We'll find out how many will move to Denver shortly.....
I once had a fling with a very nice woman from Denver, so if LockULAing want some more PAO's, put my name down ;)
On the relocations, I'm assuming they will be very attractive packages for those who have to move?
-
bombay - 30/11/2006 5:30 AM
Jim - 29/11/2006 7:06 PM
Day 1 is monday
Based on what source?
I can at least confirm there's a presser at 8:30am Eastern on Friday.
-
Chris Bergin - 30/11/2006 6:27 PM
bombay - 30/11/2006 5:30 AM
Jim - 29/11/2006 7:06 PM
Day 1 is monday
Based on what source?
I can at least confirm there's a presser at 8:30am Eastern on Friday.
It's a presser on ULA?
If so, it's a done deal. That would put the release out 1 hour before markets opens, which is standard for any type of major announcement.
I guess come Monday all of the top executives will get their $million bonuses and everyone else will get their coffee and donuts.
-
bombay - 29/11/2006 10:28 PM
Gov't Seagull - 29/11/2006 4:23 PM
quark - 28/11/2006 8:19 PM
I'd bet a lot. Atlas V 401 launching a passenger capsule absolutely meets 1.4 Look at figure 4,5 & 6 in this paper:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13344.pdf
What I see in that paper is positive margin against FS=1.4 for a notional passenger mission that is a lot less severe than any of the unmanned missions. They do not have positive margins against FS=1.4 for the missions they actually fly. Maybe the passenger mission they analyzed is typical, maybe it was cooked up so they could say they are already man-rated, I don't know.
You can't conclude that the missions they actually fly don't meet the 1.4 f.s.
The common core booster is analyzed to a worst case loading condition, presumably the 552 configuration. Assuming every part analyzed had a margin of safety of +0.00 using a 1.25 f.s., the less severe loading percentage relative to the 401 configured flights would potentially make up for the difference in m.s. when using the 1.40 f.s. versus the 1.25 f.s. In other words, the +0.00 m.s. would be maintained.
As far as manned flights to LEO are concerned, the loads would be less than typical flights to GTO, so by ratioing the loading conditions between worst case loaded 552 configured flights and relatively lightly loaded 401 manned flights, the 1.40 f.s. is likely met with room to spare.
Correct. ANY 401 flight would show similar margins. In fact the margins are slightly lower on the human trajectory because the trajectory was depressed to shape out black zones. The more typical 401 profile would be more lifted with even lower loads.
-
bombay - 1/12/2006 12:35 AM
Chris Bergin - 30/11/2006 6:27 PM
bombay - 30/11/2006 5:30 AM
Jim - 29/11/2006 7:06 PM
Day 1 is monday
Based on what source?
I can at least confirm there's a presser at 8:30am Eastern on Friday.
It's a presser on ULA?
If so, it's a done deal. That would put the release out 1 hour before markets opens, which is standard for any type of major announcement.
I guess come Monday all of the top executives will get their $million bonuses and everyone else will get their coffee and donuts.
Yes sir.
Joint press conference. Done deal.
-
Will it be webcast at all?
-
Seattle Dave - 1/12/2006 4:21 AM
Will it be webcast at all?
Nope :(
-
It's official
Boeing announcement
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061201/cgf017.html?.v=71
Lockheed Martin
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061201/dcf011.html?.v=77
-
Great. Bang on time too!
Looks like they sent the PR out to the business wires under an embargo to run at the specific time.
Let's hope this gets the media going, as there's nadda coverage:
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=United+Launch+Alliance&btnG=Search+News
-
New website live in one hour :)
http://www.ulalaunch.com/
-
T minus 9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1...0
0? Hello? No ignition, no liftoff? ULA does not launch?
-
Sysadmin must have been on coffee break; it's up and running now.
-
Based on the website, it looks like ULA has the engineers in H.B. as well as the manufacturing, assembly and integration personnel in Denver and San Diego packed and on the bus with ticket in-hand to their new locations.
The San Diego situation presents a very unique dilemma - unique rocket design, unique methods of manufacturing and assembly, unique manufacturing processes, unique problems associated with thin gauge stainless steel fabrication. How many of them do you suppose will accept the one-way ticket to Decatur, Alabama?
-
Hey, we finally have an apples to apples comparison of the Delta IV vs. Atlas V
http://www.ulalaunch.com/images/product_sheet/Atlas_Product_Sheet_FINAL.pdf
http://www.ulalaunch.com/images/product_sheet/Delta_Product_Sheet_FINAL.pdf
Both sheets list the vehicle throw weights to the SAME orbits.
Atlas V 401 LEO 9750kg GTO 4950kg
Atlas V 431 LEO 13620kg GTO 7800kg
Atlas V 551 LEO 18500kg GTO 8700kg
Atlas V HV LEO 29420kg GTO 13000kg
Delta II LEO 2700kg - 6100kg GTO 900kg-2170kg
Delta IV LEO 9440kg - 22950kg GTO 4300kg-12980kg
Odd they don't break it out by vehicle for the Delta IV family.
Interestng that Atlas Phase1/2 and Delta IV Heavy+ are mentioned.
-
Didn't read the fine print close enough, the GTO's are the same. The LEO orbits are different.
185km 28.5 degrees for Atlas V
407km at 28.7 degrees for Delta IV
I wonder what the mass penalty is for that...
-
Chris Bergin - 1/12/2006 10:07 AM
New website live in one hour :)
http://www.ulalaunch.com/
I found the home page launcher slide show a bit interesting. Images of just about every Atlas V version appeared, followed by a Delta II photo, and finally by photos of Delta IV Heavy. Then it was back to Atlas V.
No Delta IV Mediums.
Interesting.
- Ed Kyle
-
It was interesting to read that: "Lockheed's Atlas and Boeing's Delta can't compete against ULA for gov't launch contracts for the first five years".
So after five years Lockheed and Boeing can compete against each other as well as ULA for gov't contracts even though "Lockheeds's Atlas" and "Boeing's Delta" are actually ULA's Atlas and Delta? How weird is this?
-
Where did you read that? It's not accurate.
They are only ULA's Atlas and Delta now.
ULA must use the parents LM and Boeing to market and sell launches for the first years (I think it was less than five) but after that they are free to do the marketing and sales directly. If they choose to do that LM & Boeing will stop and just sit back to collect their share of profits.
-
R&R - 1/12/2006 10:37 PM
Where did you read that? It's not accurate.
They are only ULA's Atlas and Delta now.
ULA must use the parents LM and Boeing to market and sell launches for the first years (I think it was less than five) but after that they are free to do the marketing and sales directly. If they choose to do that LM & Boeing will stop and just sit back to collect their share of profits.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061201/lockheed_boeing_rockets_merger.html?.v=6
You'll find the quote near the bottom of the article.
-
ULA only holds the government EELV contracts. Boeing and Lockheed Martin will still be able to market their launch vehicles for commercial payloads outside of ULA.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-01-2006/0004483584&EDATE=
- Ed Kyle
-
According to the story at:
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/061202/merger.shtml
"The Lockheed Martin operations that are being moved to Decatur employ about 100."
Versus 637 Boeing jobs at Decatur for Delta IV now.
"Michael Gass, formerly of Lockheed and now chief executive officer of ULA, said that number is lower than Delta's because Lockheed outsources many steps in its rocket production that Decatur performs in-house. Gass said ULA would evaluate the outsourcing, but that he did not know whether that evaluation would increase Decatur employment."
Are there really only 100 Lockheed Martin production people working on Atlas today? Who are the primary "outsource" contractors (besides Energomash)?
- Ed Kyle
-
bombay - 2/12/2006 10:12 PM
R&R - 1/12/2006 10:37 PM
Where did you read that? It's not accurate.
They are only ULA's Atlas and Delta now.
ULA must use the parents LM and Boeing to market and sell launches for the first years (I think it was less than five) but after that they are free to do the marketing and sales directly. If they choose to do that LM & Boeing will stop and just sit back to collect their share of profits.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061201/lockheed_boeing_rockets_merger.html?.v=6
You'll find the quote near the bottom of the article.
Thanks for the link. I see where you were getting your take.
My take is that ULA has exclusivity to the Air Force/DOD/NRO launches and that ULA will not compete with LM/Boeing because Buy 3 basically guarantees a set number of launches to each Family. So basically with regard to the military launches Atlas and Delta rockets will not compete with each other. They will get the number promised by Buy 3 based more on what capacity is needed and schedule not what the cost is.
Since ULA is not allowed to do the commercial marketing Atlas and Delta do compete by way of the individual parent sales divisions. But Delta IV is not marketed commercially now and I can't see how that is likely to change since Boeing has Sea Launch going so well.
I still think that down the line when ULA can do the marketing commercially that LM and Boeing would still stop because it makes no sense to keep those people on the payroll to sell the same thing as ULA. Boeing would still keep people to sell Sea Launch.
-
edkyle99 - 2/12/2006 9:52 AM
According to the story at:
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/061202/merger.shtml
"The Lockheed Martin operations that are being moved to Decatur employ about 100."
Versus 637 Boeing jobs at Decatur for Delta IV now.
"Michael Gass, formerly of Lockheed and now chief executive officer of ULA, said that number is lower than Delta's because Lockheed outsources many steps in its rocket production that Decatur performs in-house. Gass said ULA would evaluate the outsourcing, but that he did not know whether that evaluation would increase Decatur employment."
Are there really only 100 Lockheed Martin production people working on Atlas today? Who are the primary "outsource" contractors (besides Energomash)?
- Ed Kyle
The CBC domes and skin panels are outsourced
Denver only does final assembly which includes major welds.
Harlingen work is 4m fairings and thrust structure. I think this will move too
Edit:
Look at page A-22 and on in the PPG
-
Jim - 2/12/2006 9:28 AM
edkyle99 - 2/12/2006 9:52 AM
According to the story at:
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/061202/merger.shtml
"The Lockheed Martin operations that are being moved to Decatur employ about 100."
Versus 637 Boeing jobs at Decatur for Delta IV now.
"Michael Gass, formerly of Lockheed and now chief executive officer of ULA, said that number is lower than Delta's because Lockheed outsources many steps in its rocket production that Decatur performs in-house. Gass said ULA would evaluate the outsourcing, but that he did not know whether that evaluation would increase Decatur employment."
Are there really only 100 Lockheed Martin production people working on Atlas today? Who are the primary "outsource" contractors (besides Energomash)?
- Ed Kyle
The CBC domes and skin panels are outsourced
Denver only does final assembly which includes major welds.
Harlingen work is 4m fairings and thrust structure. I think this will move too
Edit:
Look at page A-22 and on in the PPG
Atlas is a two part equation, Atlas booster and Centaur upperstage.
The Centaur is built completely in-house. The domes and skins are not outsourced.
San Diego does all detail assembly and final assembly of the primary structure in addition to the propellant ducting. I would suspect there's a couple hundred in San Diego building and supporting Centaur.
If the plan is to move San Diego to Decatur along with Denver, the number of employees in Decatur would have to increase. (That is of course if they get anybody from San Diego to go).
-
Jim - 2/12/2006 9:28 AM
edkyle99 - 2/12/2006 9:52 AM
According to the story at:
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/061202/merger.shtml
"The Lockheed Martin operations that are being moved to Decatur employ about 100."
Versus 637 Boeing jobs at Decatur for Delta IV now.
"Michael Gass, formerly of Lockheed and now chief executive officer of ULA, said that number is lower than Delta's because Lockheed outsources many steps in its rocket production that Decatur performs in-house. Gass said ULA would evaluate the outsourcing, but that he did not know whether that evaluation would increase Decatur employment."
Are there really only 100 Lockheed Martin production people working on Atlas today? Who are the primary "outsource" contractors (besides Energomash)?
- Ed Kyle
The CBC domes and skin panels are outsourced
Denver only does final assembly which includes major welds.
Harlingen work is 4m fairings and thrust structure. I think this will move too
Edit:
Look at page A-22 and on in the PPG
Will San Diego Centaur tank work move too? I would be surprised if Denver + Harlingen + San Diego only totaled 100 workers.
- Ed Kyle
-
637 + 100 is well short of 3,000. I am sure the Governor of Alabama will be disappointed.
http://www.siteselection.com/sshighlites/0498/9804p190.htm
"Boeing: Decatur, Ala., $450 million, 3,000 jobs
Boeing’s $400 million, 3,000-employee, 2-million-sq.-ft. (180,000-sq.-m.) rocket plant is big in ways transcending the obvious. Alabama’s largest project ever, the deal is also big in incentives and very big in risk.
Despite the industry’s rapid growth, new aerospace facility launches remain precarious ventures. Start-up costs are sky-high, with a minuscule customer base and cut-throat competition.
More risk was added with the Decatur plant, which appeared to hinge on Boeing’s landing a coveted $1.6 billion contract for the next-generation U.S. space launch vehicle.
Alabama offered Boeing $80 million in incentives for a project that may create 3,000 more jobs. Alabama development officials drew critical fire a few years earlier for the $253 million Mercedes-Benz incentive package. Neal Wade, Alabama Economic Development Partnership director insisted, "we won’t extend anything we can’t get back if it’s not built."
In April 1998, the Air Force split the $1.6 billion contract between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. But Boeing’s Decatur plant is proceeding due to skyrocketing commercial launch demand, including projects for Motorola, Hughes and Loral, says spokesman Walt Rice. Now, though, the Decatur facility is being built to be flexible enough to grow or contract as decisions are made."
I wonder how the $80 million in incentives gets reduced by falling short of the 3,000 employment mark?
-
No Harlingen move.
Per ULA website:
"ULA is headquartered in Denver, Colo., with most engineering and administrative activities consolidated at existing Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company facilities. Major assembly and integration operations will be located at the former Boeing manufacturing and assembly facility in Decatur, Ala. Atlas V mechanical structures, payload fairing and adapter fabrication and assembly are performed in Harlingen, Tex."
"ULA program management, engineering, test and mission support functions are headquartered in Denver, Colo. Manufacturing, assembly and integration operations are located at Decatur, Ala. and Harlingen, Tex. Launch operations are located at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., and at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif."
-
Partial quote from today's Aerospace Daily (http://www.aviationnow.com/publication/aerospacedaily/loggedin/AvnowStoryDisplay.do?fromChannel=home&pubKey=aerospacedaily&issueDate=2006-12-04&story=xml/aerospacedaily_xml/2006/12/04/09.xml&headline=New+A350+May+Please+Airlines%2c+But+Could+Also+Heat+Subsidy+Row)
News
ULA begins operations, embarks on consolidation plan
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
12/04/2006, page 09
Jefferson Morris
United Launch Alliance (ULA) formally opened for business Dec. 1, embarking on a two-year plan to consolidate Atlas and Delta rocket operations primarily in Denver, Colo., and Decatur, Ala.
ULA is a 50-50 joint venture between Atlas builder Lockheed Martin and Delta manufacturer Boeing that will have just under $2 billion in annual sales at startup. The company begins life with 3,800 employees total - 1,500 from the Atlas program and 2,300 from Delta.
Layoffs, attrition and reassignments will reduce that number as the consolidation continues, but company officials are hesitant to peg specific work force targets. The company projects annual savings to the government of $100 million to $150 million from the consolidation.
Roughly 1,000 Atlas employees are currently in Denver, where ULA will be headquartered. There are roughly 800 employees in Huntington Beach, Calif., 600 at Boeing's Delta rocket plant in Decatur, and 800 at Cape Canaveral, Fla. The balance of the work force is at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., San Diego, Calif., and Harlingen, Texas.
ULA will consolidate its technical and program management operations in Denver and its rocket production operations in Decatur. The 800 Boeing Delta personnel in Huntington Beach will be reduced to an estimated 400-700, then moved to Denver. Approximately 1,000 personnel will work at ULA headquarters, with 500 or so at other sites that have yet to open
:
:
:
Their estimate of "400-700" out of 800 Delta engineering will move to Denver is grossly optimistic, IMO.
-
In today's "Welcome to ULA" All Hands meeting here in Denver, Dan Collins stated that he would be very pleased if one-third of the Huntington Beach engineers accepted relocation.
-
Propforce - 4/12/2006 6:01 PM
Partial quote from today's Aerospace Daily (http://www.aviationnow.com/publication/aerospacedaily/loggedin/AvnowStoryDisplay.do?fromChannel=home&pubKey=aerospacedaily&issueDate=2006-12-04&story=xml/aerospacedaily_xml/2006/12/04/09.xml&headline=New+A350+May+Please+Airlines%2c+But+Could+Also+Heat+Subsidy+Row)
News
ULA begins operations, embarks on consolidation plan
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
12/04/2006, page 09
Jefferson Morris
United Launch Alliance (ULA) formally opened for business Dec. 1, embarking on a two-year plan to consolidate Atlas and Delta rocket operations primarily in Denver, Colo., and Decatur, Ala.
ULA is a 50-50 joint venture between Atlas builder Lockheed Martin and Delta manufacturer Boeing that will have just under $2 billion in annual sales at startup. The company begins life with 3,800 employees total - 1,500 from the Atlas program and 2,300 from Delta.
Layoffs, attrition and reassignments will reduce that number as the consolidation continues, but company officials are hesitant to peg specific work force targets. The company projects annual savings to the government of $100 million to $150 million from the consolidation.
Roughly 1,000 Atlas employees are currently in Denver, where ULA will be headquartered. There are roughly 800 employees in Huntington Beach, Calif., 600 at Boeing's Delta rocket plant in Decatur, and 800 at Cape Canaveral, Fla. The balance of the work force is at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., San Diego, Calif., and Harlingen, Texas.
ULA will consolidate its technical and program management operations in Denver and its rocket production operations in Decatur. The 800 Boeing Delta personnel in Huntington Beach will be reduced to an estimated 400-700, then moved to Denver. Approximately 1,000 personnel will work at ULA headquarters, with 500 or so at other sites that have yet to open
:
:
:
Their estimate of "400-700" out of 800 Delta engineering will move to Denver is grossly optimistic, IMO.
Sites that have yet to open implies something new.
Perhaps the building in Huntsville being built by Lockheed has something to do with this that was mentioned in the Bud Cramer thread.
-
Gus - 4/12/2006 11:21 PM
In today's "Welcome to ULA" All Hands meeting here in Denver, Dan Collins stated that he would be very pleased if one-third of the Huntington Beach engineers accepted relocation.
One-third of engineers?
Sounds like a risk of loosing critical skills just like what happened with the Titan IV failures in the late 90s.
-
Dexter - 5/12/2006 1:11 AM
Gus - 4/12/2006 11:21 PM
In today's "Welcome to ULA" All Hands meeting here in Denver, Dan Collins stated that he would be very pleased if one-third of the Huntington Beach engineers accepted relocation.
One-third of engineers?
Sounds like a risk of loosing critical skills just like what happened with the Titan IV failures in the late 90s.
Those were production skills. One was software entry error and the other bad wiring. The third was not LM hardware. EELV is an ongoing program, T-IV was phasing out
-
Gus - 4/12/2006 9:21 PM
In today's "Welcome to ULA" All Hands meeting here in Denver, Dan Collins stated that he would be very pleased if one-third of the Huntington Beach engineers accepted relocation.
The keyword is "... very pleased..." if 1/3 of HB engineers will accept relocation. :)
I just checked the cost-of-living calculator between Littleton, CO and HB, CA. Littleton (Lockheed's campus) is about 64% of HB, CA. The GOOD NEWS is that, if you've already owe a house in CA you can probably get one bigger or fully paid-for. The BAD NEWS is that you'll probably NOT going to get a decent salary raise for a long time, when you compare a CA salary to a CO salary.
-
Jim - 5/12/2006 6:02 AM
Dexter - 5/12/2006 1:11 AM
Gus - 4/12/2006 11:21 PM
In today's "Welcome to ULA" All Hands meeting here in Denver, Dan Collins stated that he would be very pleased if one-third of the Huntington Beach engineers accepted relocation.
One-third of engineers?
Sounds like a risk of loosing critical skills just like what happened with the Titan IV failures in the late 90s.
Those were production skills. One was software entry error and the other bad wiring. The third was not LM hardware. EELV is an ongoing program, T-IV was phasing out
You're competely missing the point!
In addition to the 3 Titan launch failures in the same 98-99 time frame, there were two Delta III failures and an Athena II failure.
The gov't & commercial internal reviews noted the following consistent shortfalls:
1) emphasis on cost cutting
2) loss of experienced personnel
3) inadequate manufacturing process controls
4) insufficient oversight on quality assurance
I would say that the cost cutting rhetoric that we've all been fed and losing 2/3 (at a minimum) of experieneced Delta engineers along with a yet to be determined loss of experienced Atlas manufacturing personnel clearly represents the high interest concerns addressed in 98-99 relative to the string of launch failures.
-
Delta III had nothing to do with it and it was a totally commercial endevour. Not related to Gov't issues. Boeing tried to do something on the cheap.
The IUS failure was not a Titan failure. It was a Boeing IUS ( seattle based)
1. Yes, it is cost reduction measure but not across the board, only labor. The previous cost cutting measures included reduced testing and analysis.
2. a given. But Atlas survived the move to Denver and shuttle survived the move to houston (STS-107 was not due to the move)
3. Where is this? This not applicable to ULA
4. Where is this? This not applicable to ULA
Anyways, a loss of a vehicle in the next few years is not going to prove anything. Statistically, we due for one.
-
Atlas survived the move to Denver. And both engineering and production were moved. Delta is moving only engineering to Denver. Production is staying put in Decatur.
Delta II survived production move to Decatur.
That is not to minimize the task, just to say it's been done successfully in the past by the same people.
Wasn't there a ULA kick off meeting in Huntington Beach today? What was the mood? And violent demonstrations or effigy burning?
-
Jim - 5/12/2006 6:02 AM
Dexter - 5/12/2006 1:11 AM
Gus - 4/12/2006 11:21 PM
In today's "Welcome to ULA" All Hands meeting here in Denver, Dan Collins stated that he would be very pleased if one-third of the Huntington Beach engineers accepted relocation.
One-third of engineers?
Sounds like a risk of loosing critical skills just like what happened with the Titan IV failures in the late 90s.
Those were production skills. One was software entry error and the other bad wiring. The third was not LM hardware. EELV is an ongoing program, T-IV was phasing out
Here we go again.
https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2000/acsc/00-047.pdf
"Loss of experienced personel" (page 12 of the pdf file) as quoted from AWS&T
Footnote 7 William B. Scott, "Panel Links Launch Failure to Systemic Ills", AWST, September 13, 1999, 41.
When a new ULA executive says the optimistic forecast is a 2/3 reduction in the established engineering talent on Delta, that seems like a significant loss of experienced personel.
-
Jim - 5/12/2006 7:08 PM
Delta III had nothing to do with it and it was a totally commercial endevour. Not related to Gov't issues. Boeing tried to do something on the cheap.
The IUS failure was not a Titan failure. It was a Boeing IUS ( seattle based)
1. Yes, it is cost reduction measure but not across the board, only labor. The previous cost cutting measures included reduced testing and analysis.
2. a given. But Atlas survived the move to Denver and shuttle survived the move to houston (STS-107 was not due to the move)
3. Where is this? This not applicable to ULA
4. Where is this? This not applicable to ULA
Anyways, a loss of a vehicle in the next few years is not going to prove anything. Statistically, we due for one.
I am sure when the failure investigation team meets, they will consider the streak of success, see that we were statistically due, and not delve into the matter any further because it would not prove anything further. (Sarcasm Off)
This will be kind of like Russian Roulette with payloads. You best hope and pray it is not one of your NASA missions that finds the loaded chamber.
-
quark - 5/12/2006 7:36 PM
Atlas survived the move to Denver. And both engineering and production were moved. Delta is moving only engineering to Denver. Production is staying put in Decatur.
Delta II survived production move to Decatur.
That is not to minimize the task, just to say it's been done successfully in the past by the same people.
Wasn't there a ULA kick off meeting in Huntington Beach today? What was the mood? And violent demonstrations or effigy burning?[/QUOTE]
I am sure there will be demonstrations in Denver when they announce the ULA engineering is moving to the new building in Huntsville to more closely support Decatur.
-
Jim - 5/12/2006 5:08 PM
1. Yes, it is cost reduction measure but not across the board, only labor. The previous cost cutting measures included reduced testing and analysis.
Jim,
What do you think LABOR means? Do you think you're not in the LABOR category as well? What do you think the most expensive part of testing and analysis involve?
2. a given. But Atlas survived the move to Denver and shuttle survived the move to houston (STS-107 was not due to the move)
Hmmm.. okay, so most of you who are not directly impacted just shrug off the lost of "critical skill" personnel thinking it will be business as usual with or without these "LABOR".
I got news for you. The Shuttle Columbia was partially contributed due to the Boeing's move to Houston and the "experienced personnel" opted not to move. As a result, "inexperienced" analysts were not able to make the right calls. I believe I've covered this issue previously already.
Anyways, a loss of a vehicle in the next few years is not going to prove anything. Statistically, we due for one.
As long as the NASA Mission Integration Office is not to blame, you'll have no worries about your job security ;)
-
quark - 5/12/2006 5:36 PM
Wasn't there a ULA kick off meeting in Huntington Beach today? What was the mood? And violent demonstrations or effigy burning?
There's no need. Everyone is getting their ducks in order.
-
quark - 5/12/2006 7:36 PM
Atlas survived the move to Denver. And both engineering and production were moved. Delta is moving only engineering to Denver. Production is staying put in Decatur.
Delta II survived production move to Decatur.
That is not to minimize the task, just to say it's been done successfully in the past by the same people.
Production of the core structure of the Atlas II, IIAS, III booster, Centaur upperstage, and associated propellant ducting didn't move to Denver.
Both Denver Atlas V booster production and San Diego production are slated to move to Decatur. You could make a case for comparison in regards to the Delta with moving booster production, but not Centaur.
The GD engineers did move to Denver. I wonder though if the percentage that moved was as low as what the Delta percentage is panning out to be.
-
Jim - 5/12/2006 7:08 PM
3. Where is this? This not applicable to ULA
4. Where is this? This not applicable to ULA
Anyways, a loss of a vehicle in the next few years is not going to prove anything. Statistically, we due for one.
3. ULA's manufacturing rockets, aren't they?
4. The rockets will be built and inspected to specific quality requirements, won't they?
Your ending statement is totally rediculous!
-
There is no connection between
3) inadequate manufacturing process controls
4) insufficient oversight on quality assurance
and ULA.
No, it is true. It has been X years since the last one
-
Jim - 6/12/2006 6:46 PM
There is no connection between
3) inadequate manufacturing process controls
4) insufficient oversight on quality assurance
and ULA.
No, it is true. It has been X years since the last one
I agree, as of right now there's no connection between 3 and 4 and ULA. That's because the Atlas/Centaur manufacturing facilities haven't been moved yet.
I know there hasn't been a failure. But if a failure does occur, which is bound to happen, it may very well be attributed to inexperienced personnel decisions should the key experienced people not move. That's what investigations are all about.
-
bombay - 6/12/2006 7:27 PM
Jim - 6/12/2006 6:46 PM
There is no connection between
3) inadequate manufacturing process controls
4) insufficient oversight on quality assurance
and ULA.
No, it is true. It has been X years since the last one
I agree, as of right now there's no connection between 3 and 4 and ULA. That's because the Atlas/Centaur manufacturing facilities haven't been moved yet.
I know there hasn't been a failure. But if a failure does occur, which is bound to happen, it may very well be attributed to inexperienced personnel decisions should the key experienced people not move. That's what investigations are all about.
I look at it his way. The EELVs are not that much different from any other of the world's existing two dozen or so space launch vehicles. They benefit from being new designs created with an eye toward meeting set reliability goals, etc., but they are still unforgiving machines with little margin for error or malfunction.
The very best space launch vehicles have failure rates (predicted rates) in the 2-3% range. Together, both EELVs have flown 15 times to date, with one failure - a result that puts them in the same reliability range as other "biggies" like Proton M and Zenit 3SL (although they are expected to do better than this over the long term).
It doesn't matter if you build them in Denver or San Diego or Pueblo or Decatur or Moscow or Dnepropetrovsk. The failures will come no matter where the things are built. In the bigger scheme of things, it isn't the place or the people that determine the overall failure rate. It is the technology.
- Ed Kyle
-
Propforce - 5/12/2006 11:29 PM
quark - 5/12/2006 5:36 PM
Wasn't there a ULA kick off meeting in Huntington Beach today? What was the mood? And violent demonstrations or effigy burning?
There's no need. Everyone is getting their ducks in order.
Good! Time to move on, make it work.
-
bombay - 6/12/2006 4:55 PM
The GD engineers did move to Denver. I wonder though if the percentage that moved was as low as what the Delta percentage is panning out to be.
I heard offers will go out next week.
Hey, skiing's really good right now, lots of powder. :)
-
GX production is moving to ULA
-
quark - 6/12/2006 9:54 PM
Hey, skiing's really good right now, lots of powder. :)
Yeah... on the interstate no less ! :)
-
Jim - 7/12/2006 6:32 AM
GX production is moving to ULA
Centaur tank production too?
It is a shame that JAXA turned the GX second stage into another costly high-tech national space research project, rather than just applying common sense to develop something that could have been far more cost-effective and flying already.
- Ed Kyle
-
Flying what, though? Delta II and Soyuz already provide probably five times as much capacity as this part of the market requires. Adding yet another launch vehicle, no matter how "cost effective", is almost certainly not the answer.
-
edkyle99 - 6/12/2006 10:21 PM
I look at it his way. The EELVs are not that much different from any other of the world's existing two dozen or so space launch vehicles. They benefit from being new designs created with an eye toward meeting set reliability goals, etc., but they are still unforgiving machines with little margin for error or malfunction.
The very best space launch vehicles have failure rates (predicted rates) in the 2-3% range. Together, both EELVs have flown 15 times to date, with one failure - a result that puts them in the same reliability range as other "biggies" like Proton M and Zenit 3SL (although they are expected to do better than this over the long term).
It doesn't matter if you build them in Denver or San Diego or Pueblo or Decatur or Moscow or Dnepropetrovsk. The failures will come no matter where the things are built. In the bigger scheme of things, it isn't the place or the people that determine the overall failure rate. It is the technology.
- Ed Kyle
I agree that the structurally stable rocket body design is generally uniform throughout the world. The methods of manufacturing the domes and skins and assembling them into rockets would therefore be comparable, I would think.
The Centaur however, is completely different in design, manufacturing, and assembly. When it was initially designed 40-50 yeras ago, the basic structure was designed to zero margins; the initial skin thickness was something like .012".
Any flaw in the manufacturing process would potentially result in a negative margin condition. I believe that the same holds true today in that there's virtually no margin to play with in the basic structure.
The complexity and uniqueness of the Centaur build coupled with having to build it near perfect isn't going to be easily duplicated in Decatur unless a vast portion of those that know all of the tricks in working with flimsy stainless steel go there.
And yes, random failure is part of the business and I don't know of any failure that was structurally related. Perhaps that's a testimonial of the work of excellent design engineers, structural analysts, and factory workers.
-
the first flight of a Mercury spacecraft on an Atlas had a structural failure at the interface
-
yinzer - 7/12/2006 7:13 PM
Flying what, though? Delta II and Soyuz already provide probably five times as much capacity as this part of the market requires. Adding yet another launch vehicle, no matter how "cost effective", is almost certainly not the answer.
National prestige and "assured launch" considerations account for much of the world's excess launch capacity. The "world" may have plenty of medium launch vehicles, but Japan does not. Currently, Japan only has H-2A, which is too big and costly for smaller payloads. GX was initially meant to replace the failed J-1, which itself was meant to replace part of Japan's lost N-1/N2 capacity. Japan also recently flew its final M-V rocket, shrinking its launch options further.
GX was expected to perform 3-4 commercial and/or government launches per year. Payloads could include mobile communications, geodetic survey, navigation, weather, information gathering, land survey, space science, and science satellites.
Meanwhile, with the demise of Delta II on the horizon, and with new polonium discoveries in London seemingly every day, we are reminded that the "world's" medium lift options are by no means assured forever into the future.
- Ed Kyle
-
Jim - 7/12/2006 9:03 PM
the first flight of a Mercury spacecraft on an Atlas had a structural failure at the interface
And the first Centaur suffered a structural failure, but only after one of its insulation panels ripped away, causing the propellant tank to overheat.
Centaur, like Atlas, is a rugged machine when loaded and pressurized, but it is a bit more delicate on the ground. At least one Centaur tank was destroyed on the pad at Cape Canaveral during the 1980s or early 1990s when a work platform or tool struck an empty stage and ruptured the tank skin.
But I suspect that a structurally stable upper stage wouldn't fare much better under similar circumstances. Titan stages used to spring leaks, for example, and I believe that at least one was ripped open by a dropped tool in a silo.
- Ed Kyle
-
the destroyed Centaur was in 87. But there were other instantances. It was a work platform. The Titan was punctured by a 18 lb socket that was dropped scores of feet.
-
How does a work platform punch a hole in a tank?
Sounds like people not following procedures.
Dropped tools, incorrect software entry, and work platforms punching holes in tanks are symptoms of inexperience.
This is how the risk of losing people because they will not relocate under the ULA scheme will manifest itself.
-
Dexter - 10/12/2006 10:52 PM
How does a work platform punch a hole in a tank?
Sounds like people not following procedures.
Dropped tools, incorrect software entry, and work platforms punching holes in tanks are symptoms of inexperience.
This is how the risk of losing people because they will not relocate under the ULA scheme will manifest itself.
Or it could just be humans being humans. We all make mistakes all the time. No amount of expertise/training/procedures/whatever will change that.
Nick
-
Dexter - 10/12/2006 11:52 PM
How does a work platform punch a hole in a tank?
Sounds like people not following procedures.
Dropped tools, incorrect software entry, and work platforms punching holes in tanks are symptoms of inexperience.
This is how the risk of losing people because they will not relocate under the ULA scheme will manifest itself.
Dropped tool was a USAF sergeant and no contractors were around for miles
work platform was due to a very experience crew not checking that a extension cord was tangled in a platform.
incorrect software entry wasn't an inexperience person
Nick is correct.
your logic doesn't hold water.
-
So, What you are saying is that even experienced crews make human errors.
What is the logical conclusion for comparing the amount of errors of an experienced crew versus in an inexperienced crew???
-
Dexter - 11/12/2006 9:49 AM
So, What you are saying is that even experienced crews make human errors.
That is basic human nature
And, we don't know if ULA will have "inexperienced" crews. That has yet to be seen
-
Jim - 11/12/2006 9:05 AM
Dexter - 11/12/2006 9:49 AM
So, What you are saying is that even experienced crews make human errors.
That is basic human nature
I once watched the most experienced, trusted electrical technician at a well-known military contractor - a guy who had umpteen years experience, who was initially and rigorously trained in the U.S. Navy, and who every engineer in the company knew was the "guy who could get the job done" - hook up a brand new microprocessor "green" board that he had just spent one week wiring - up to the power supply backward - instantly blowing every one of the dozens of chips on the board.
He knew what he had done as soon as he flipped the power supply switch. In fact, he turned the switch off all most as soon as he turned it on, but it was too late. Then, he took a big breath, unhooked the power supply leads, and turned on his soldering iron to start over.
- Ed Kyle
-
Jim - 11/12/2006 9:05 AM
Dexter - 11/12/2006 9:49 AM
So, What you are saying is that even experienced crews make human errors.
That is basic human nature
And, we don't know if ULA will have "inexperienced" crews. That has yet to be seen
True.
However, based on the ULA executive, Dan Collins saying he would be happy with 1/3 of the HB engineers relocating, I can see the ULA management using Atlas people to plug the holes in Denver to support Delta, which would then dilute the talent pool.
Couple that with more defects on the Atlas side because the factories moved and the remaining Atlas engineers have there hands full dealing with those problems.
Even the remaining experienced folks will become overwhelmed and can easily cross the leads as Ed Kyle describes above.
It just takes one component to fail.
-
Dexter - 12/12/2006 1:36 AM
Jim - 11/12/2006 9:05 AM
Dexter - 11/12/2006 9:49 AM
So, What you are saying is that even experienced crews make human errors.
That is basic human nature
And, we don't know if ULA will have "inexperienced" crews. That has yet to be seen
True.
However, based on the ULA executive, Dan Collins saying he would be happy with 1/3 of the HB engineers relocating, I can see the ULA management using Atlas people to plug the holes in Denver to support Delta, which would then dilute the talent pool.
Couple that with more defects on the Atlas side because the factories moved and the remaining Atlas engineers have there hands full dealing with those problems.
Even the remaining experienced folks will become overwhelmed and can easily cross the leads as Ed Kyle describes above.
It just takes one component to fail.
And the same thing could happen without the effects of the merger. So what is the point? Either way, deligence is required.
-
The trigger or catalyst in my scenario is ULA itself and all the associated consolidations (read relocations).
Please identify how in a non-ULA environment, you would get a 2/3 reduction in engineering staff from the Delta program let alone the impact on Atlas manufacturing.
-
Dexter - 12/12/2006 9:16 AM
The trigger or catalyst in my scenario is ULA itself and all the associated consolidations (read relocations).
Please identify how in a non-ULA environment, you would get a 2/3 reduction in engineering staff from the Delta program let alone the impact on Atlas manufacturing.
In a non-ULA environment, you would get a 100% reduction in Delta employment, engineering and production, because the program would be non-viable.
Look at next year, for example. Two or three Delta 4 launches planned. Half a dozen or more Atlas 5 launches planned. Twice as many Atlas 5 mission in 2008 too. Etc...
- Ed Kyle
-
edkyle99 - 12/12/2006 9:22 AM
In a non-ULA environment, you would get a 100% reduction in Delta employment, engineering and production, because the program would be non-viable.
Look at next year, for example. Two or three Delta 4 launches planned. Half a dozen or more Atlas 5 launches planned. Twice as many Atlas 5 mission in 2008 too. Etc...
- Ed Kyle
It makes you wonder, why even fly Delta IV mediums at all? Are the Delta IV medium, 4+2, 5+2, etc. destined to be mothballed in favor of Atlas V only to be resurrected if absolutely necessary?
With 2/3 or more of the Delta talent potentially bailing ship, I could see ULA keeping a small skeleton crew around just to maintain the program for political reasons.
-
Any Atlas with more than two solids has more performance than the D-IV M+(5,2). the heavy is still needed. Anyways, the 2/3 or more is engineering, not production or launch ops. Most "users" prefer LM legacy processes vs Boeing's. Boeing never worked with USAF, NRO or NASA Lewis, only Goddard, which ran the program rather loosely
-
Why build if your not going to launch? If the plan is to treat Delta IV as a spare, production and launch ops personnel will get terminated. They'll keep enough to maintain the heavy. I'm beginning to think ULA wants no more than 1/3 of the Delta engineers to make the move; it fits into this plan perfectly.
-
Have the offers gone out to the HB Engineers? Have any accepted or rejected their offer? I beleive it will be 20% max and not the right 20%.
ULA management has not even visted San Diego yet, been every where else. Apparently they will be there tomorrow wonder if they say anything about the move to Alabama. I can not see much more than 10% total moving from SD to Alabama.
I believe there are jobs in SD area and the LA area people tend to resist change or minimize it. ULA has happened so that change has occurred nothing can be done. Next is moving to new place or changing jobs - easier to change jobs than move, therefore not many will move. I would love to know the final count.
-
bombay - 12/12/2006 8:48 PM
Why build if your not going to launch? If the plan is to treat Delta IV as a spare, production and launch ops personnel will get terminated. They'll keep enough to maintain the heavy. I'm beginning to think ULA wants no more than 1/3 of the Delta engineers to make the move; it fits into this plan perfectly.
Still need the heavy. Also the bulk of the Decatur plant is for Delta. It would have be cheaper to keep the Atlas Denver production.
-
skywalker - 12/12/2006 8:16 PM
ULA management has not even visted San Diego yet, been every where else. Apparently they will be there tomorrow wonder if they say anything about the move to Alabama. I can not see much more than 10% total moving from SD to Alabama.
For some reason Centaur production didn't move to Denver following the GD acquisition. I have no idea what changed and what they hope to gain by attempting to move San Diego to Alabama.
-
edkyle99 - 12/12/2006 9:22 AM
Dexter - 12/12/2006 9:16 AM
The trigger or catalyst in my scenario is ULA itself and all the associated consolidations (read relocations).
Please identify how in a non-ULA environment, you would get a 2/3 reduction in engineering staff from the Delta program let alone the impact on Atlas manufacturing.
In a non-ULA environment, you would get a 100% reduction in Delta employment, engineering and production, because the program would be non-viable.
Look at next year, for example. Two or three Delta 4 launches planned. Half a dozen or more Atlas 5 launches planned. Twice as many Atlas 5 mission in 2008 too. Etc...
- Ed Kyle
If assured access to space required 2 programs, the USAF could justify making both programs viable (which is what I thought Buy3 contracts were all about). Downselecting Atlas with a 100% reduction in Delta engineers is the wrong choice from a National security standpoint.
Perhaps we will have to start screening Russian suplied RD-180s for traces of polonium-210.
-
edkyle99 - 13/12/2006 8:22 AM
Look at next year, for example. Two or three Delta 4 launches planned. Half a dozen or more Atlas 5 launches planned. Twice as many Atlas 5 mission in 2008 too. Etc...
- Ed Kyle
Where did you get the Atlas numbers from? I can see the half dozen next year but the dozen in 08 sounds high.
-
R&R - 13/12/2006 5:53 PM
edkyle99 - 13/12/2006 8:22 AM
Look at next year, for example. Two or three Delta 4 launches planned. Half a dozen or more Atlas 5 launches planned. Twice as many Atlas 5 mission in 2008 too. Etc...
- Ed Kyle
Where did you get the Atlas numbers from? I can see the half dozen next year but the dozen in 08 sounds high.
My mistake. I meant to write "twice as many Atlas 5 missions as Delta 4 missions in 2008 too."
Sorry about that!
- Ed Kyle
-
skywalker - 12/12/2006 6:16 PM
I believe there are jobs in SD area and the LA area people tend to resist change or minimize it. ULA has happened so that change has occurred nothing can be done. Next is moving to new place or changing jobs - easier to change jobs than move, therefore not many will move. I would love to know the final count.
This is a very good point. When we moved to Denver in 94-95 timeframe the initial reaction of most of my peers including myself was to look for another job in SD. It was not a good time then to do so and relocation was the best option. Today the situation is different from what I understand, with Nortrop Grumman running the Globalhawk program from San Diego along with General Atomics designing and building Predators in San Diego. The UAV industry will quickly snap up these folks of they are not willing to relocate, in my humble opinion.
The internal ULA website has a roster of the 4,016 employees who are now part of ULA and there are 109 located in San Diego.
-
Gus - 15/12/2006 2:55 PM
The internal ULA website has a roster of the 4,016 employees who are now part of ULA and there are 109 located in San Diego.
Under normal circumstances, from a shear business perspective, it's hard to justify keeping a production facility open when only 109 are employed in it.
San Diego is probably still a self sustaining place that never relied much on outside resources, meaning that the 109 staffs all funtional organizations that make a facility operate. Of the 109, less than half are likely to have the technical skills to build the rocket and deal with the engineering issues.
Given that there's no place else to draw from to figure out how to build a stainless steel rocket and deal with the problems that go along with it, I would say that the 30-40 shop people and 5-10 engineers in San Diego (the critical ones at least) are in a pretty good position to squeeze the ULA if they choose to do so.
-
bombay - 15/12/2006 5:34 PM
Gus - 15/12/2006 2:55 PM
The internal ULA website has a roster of the 4,016 employees who are now part of ULA and there are 109 located in San Diego.
Under normal circumstances, from a shear business perspective, it's hard to justify keeping a production facility open when only 109 are employed in it.
San Diego is probably still a self sustaining place that never relied much on outside resources, meaning that the 109 staffs all funtional organizations that make a facility operate. Of the 109, less than half are likely to have the technical skills to build the rocket and deal with the engineering issues.
Given that there's no place else to draw from to figure out how to build a stainless steel rocket and deal with the problems that go along with it, I would say that the 30-40 shop people and 5-10 engineers in San Diego (the critical ones at least) are in a pretty good position to squeeze the ULA if they choose to do so.
ULA has a choice to make about SD move it or keep it. They will not ask the employees ahead of time "Are you going to move?", therefore they will make the decision then ask. If ULA chooses to move and the employees in SD (critical ones) decide NOT to go, ULA will be in a world of trouble. The Centaur is not an easy product to make and without the correct critical skills, well your guess is as good as mine. ULA would then need to offer knowledge transfer contracts (this is where the squeeze play could happen), but that would need to be figured into the move cost, how do you predict that? This will not be a simple decsision, unless ULA chooses to stay in SD and bring other work there such as Centaur final assembly, Delta duct fabrication, etc and increas the work force. My money right this second is on SD staying put. Remember it is a different type of welding than what is done in Alabama.
-
Of course, as suggested earlier, the decision will be made by Powerpoint experts who see these people as interchangable like light bulbs and the lessons from the Titan IV failures will be summarily dismissed as they have been done in this thread.
Here are a couple of interesting links for job opportunities with Nortrop Grumman and General Atomics:
http://careers.northropgrumman.com/ExternalHorizonsWeb/quickQuery.do?state=CA%3A%3AUSA&jobCategory=Engineering%2FProduct+Development
http://search9.smartsearchonline.com/generalatomics/jobs_asi/process_jobsearch.asp
There are 83 postings for engineering positions at General Atomics.
5-10 engineers could easily land a job at either company and they should be attractive candidates because they would not require relocation packages.
The same argument extends to the Huntington Beach folks as the Northrop Grumman web site has many space related opportunities in the LA area.
-
There is a big difference in launch vehicle engineering vs spacecraft. Not many of the Boeing people could do some of the NG jobs. Plus many of the analysts (thermal, EMI, stress, etc) are to stay with Boeing.
ULA is here. You can stop your doom and gloom predictions. they have 2 years for the transitions.
BTW ULA is 1 for 1
-
If I was in charge of hiring people, I would think that someone with launch vehicle experience would be of great value for spacecraft design even if they are not the same, as opposed to someone with no experience at all.
Congratulations to the Delta team. This is the same pre-ULA Delta team.
The gloom and doom will take about two years. Good Luck with that Decatur built Centaur flying your NASA mission.
-
Congratulations to the ULA team and their first launch under the ULA banner.
In 2009 or so the Delta II will be phased out and turned over to Atlas V and Delta IV, with Atlas V being the odds on favorite to carry the bulk of the load where the Centaur build will accelerate beyond what it is now.
The doom and gloom relative to Centaur becomes a reality with respects to a move to Decatur. I challenge anybody to tell me where else in the world other than San Diego are there people with any knowledge at all on how to build a Centaur and fix many of the problems before and after they happen.
I've had some experience in the past in dealing with the manufacturing side of fence with various products (some easy, some hard) and there is one common denominator in every circumstance: "There's the blue print or modeled way to build it and then there's the way to build it".
The transition period might as well be 10 years if the power point fools think that any collection of new employees can do what the San Diego people have done for 40 yrs because that's about how long it way take to put a Centaur out the door.
-
This issue just strikes at the core of the flawed logic used to justify ULA in the first place of maintaining assured access to space.
Now that ULA is here, the clock is ticking and we as American taxpayers better hope that the government has some control over what ULA does as consolidations commence in order to improve the bottom line.
Let's hope that people with an understanding of manufacturing are involved in decision making and not just the typical bean-counting, power-point makers.
-
Jim - 16/12/2006 8:14 AM
There is a big difference in launch vehicle engineering vs spacecraft. Not many of the Boeing people could do some of the NG jobs.
Obviously many of the Boeing people know how to do them as Boeing is the BIGGEST satellite manufacturer in the U.S. Many of the Delta IV engineers moved on to design the Orbital Express and X-37B, etc. Boeing HB is the ONLY site that has the personnel who actually has the MANNED SPACECRAFT design experience, e.g., the Space Shuttle.
Perhasp Jim thinks there's a big difference because on the power point chart the satellite looks short & stubby whereas a launch vehicle looks long & skinny :)
Plus many of the analysts (thermal, EMI, stress, etc) are to stay with Boeing.
Yeah.. but not with the ULA. Those guys can find jobs most easily around the LA area, even within Boeing. Many of these senior guys have already quit. One key manager gave up his manager job so he can "transition" easily.
BTW ULA is 1 for 1
You should have said that the Delta II continue to hold its DEMONSTRATED RELIABILITY RECORD for launch vehicles that is unprecedented even for Atlas, and we should keep these talented people in CALIFORNIA to continue the MISSION ASSURANCE SUCCESS with the Delta II. Don't try to move them and F^&*-UP the sucess !! :) :) :)
-
Propforce - 16/12/2006 6:24 PM
Obviously many of the Boeing people know how to do them as Boeing is the BIGGEST satellite manufacturer in the U.S. Many of the Delta IV engineers moved on to design the Orbital Express and X-37B, etc. Boeing HB is the ONLY site that has the personnel who actually has the MANNED SPACECRAFT design experience, e.g., the Space Shuttle.
I was referring to the Boeing HB Delta people that would refuse to go to Denver. They aren't the satellite types. Actually, no, that was Downey. they moved them to HB and then the work went to Houston. I doubt few of them are left in HB
-
Propforce - 16/12/2006 6:24 PM
You should have said that the Delta II continue to hold its DEMONSTRATED RELIABILITY RECORD for launch vehicles that is unprecedented even for Atlas, and we should keep these talented people in CALIFORNIA to continue the MISSION ASSURANCE SUCCESS with the Delta II. Don't try to move them and F^&*-UP the sucess !! :) :) :)
Altas has the longest success streak now. Atlas II, III and V have a 100% success rate.
-
Jim - 16/12/2006 10:14 AM
There is a big difference in launch vehicle engineering vs spacecraft. Not many of the Boeing people could do some of the NG jobs. Plus many of the analysts (thermal, EMI, stress, etc) are to stay with Boeing.
Since these analysts are staying with Boeing, what will ULA do to replace them? Sounds like the talent exodus is already begining according to your post.
-
Jim - 16/12/2006 5:48 PM
Propforce - 16/12/2006 6:24 PM
You should have said that the Delta II continue to hold its DEMONSTRATED RELIABILITY RECORD for launch vehicles that is unprecedented even for Atlas, and we should keep these talented people in CALIFORNIA to continue the MISSION ASSURANCE SUCCESS with the Delta II. Don't try to move them and F^&*-UP the sucess !! :) :) :)
Altas has the longest success streak now. Atlas II, III and V have a 100% success rate.
You are comparing Apples to Oranges, Pears, and Tomatoes. Atlas 2, 3, and 5 are three different launch vehicles no matter their names.
If you want to compare vehicles this way, then you must acknowledge that Centaur only has a minor streak going - at 30-some since the last Centaur failure occurred during a Titan 4 mission.
Delta 2, by comparison, is at 71 consecutive successes now.
The only existing "Atlas" booster stage (the Atlas 5 core) has only flown eight times. RD-180 only has 14 missions under its belt. RD-180's RD-170/171 predecessor was part of two Zenit booster failures in its 67 uses to date (including Energia).
- Ed Kyle
-
Dexter - 16/12/2006 9:43 PM
Jim - 16/12/2006 10:14 AM
There is a big difference in launch vehicle engineering vs spacecraft. Not many of the Boeing people could do some of the NG jobs. Plus many of the analysts (thermal, EMI, stress, etc) are to stay with Boeing.
Since these analysts are staying with Boeing, what will ULA do to replace them? Sounds like the talent exodus is already begining according to your post.
LM will be providing enough in Denver
-
Can't include the Delta II heavies then either
Cant compare RD-180 to RD171. If you were to then any MA-5 failures count towards RS-27's
and Delta 6925 can't count towards Delta II successes neither.
-
Jim - 16/12/2006 10:34 PM
Dexter - 16/12/2006 9:43 PM
Jim - 16/12/2006 10:14 AM
There is a big difference in launch vehicle engineering vs spacecraft. Not many of the Boeing people could do some of the NG jobs. Plus many of the analysts (thermal, EMI, stress, etc) are to stay with Boeing.
Since these analysts are staying with Boeing, what will ULA do to replace them? Sounds like the talent exodus is already begining according to your post.
LM will be providing enough in Denver
I see two possibilities for this:
1) LM had way too many analysts in Denver and the excess capacity should have been laid-off prior to ULA which is why Atlas was not viable.
2) ULA will have to hire new analysts with no experience while competing against LM and Orion. Anyone not caught out in the ULA barrier will prefer working Orion so LM will get the "cream of the crop" of existing experienced analysts.
-
Atlas in name has 79 (I believe) consecutive successful launches. Up through IIAS, what you might consider the traditional Atlas, it's 65.
-
Jim - 16/12/2006 10:34 PM
Dexter - 16/12/2006 9:43 PM
Jim - 16/12/2006 10:14 AM
There is a big difference in launch vehicle engineering vs spacecraft. Not many of the Boeing people could do some of the NG jobs. Plus many of the analysts (thermal, EMI, stress, etc) are to stay with Boeing.
Since these analysts are staying with Boeing, what will ULA do to replace them? Sounds like the talent exodus is already begining according to your post.
LM will be providing enough in Denver
This is just speculation on your part. The fact is LM has no idea whether or not they can provide enough engineering support for the Delta program-no idea at all!! That's because they expected more Delta engineers to make the move.
The closely monitored "list" of engineers that was supposedly making the transition was a farse, which every Boeing and Lockheed employee knew all along never existed.
-
Gus - 15/12/2006 12:55 PM
When we moved to Denver in 94-95 timeframe the initial reaction of most of my peers including myself was to look for another job in SD. It was not a good time then to do so and relocation was the best option.
Gus,
When you guys moved to Denver back in '94~'95, did you find your California salary substantially higher than the Titan folks in Denver? If so, how did your managers, institutionally speaking not your specific manager-then, reconcile this salary discrepency between the then-Titan folks and ya'll high-paying California folks? Were many of you California-type got their subsequent merit-raises held back as a result?
We (the Delta IV program) benefited from many of ex-GDers who chosed not to moved to Denver, especially in the area of cryogenic propulsion, an admittedly weak area then on the Delta team. They in fact helped Boeing in designing and building the Delta IV. One key person served in a chief engineer capacity back in GD. Maybe this ULA will also disperse some of these talents to other firms in the area and help build a next launch vehicle.
-
Jim - 16/12/2006 3:45 PM
Propforce - 16/12/2006 6:24 PM
Obviously many of the Boeing people know how to do them as Boeing is the BIGGEST satellite manufacturer in the U.S. Many of the Delta IV engineers moved on to design the Orbital Express and X-37B, etc. Boeing HB is the ONLY site that has the personnel who actually has the MANNED SPACECRAFT design experience, e.g., the Space Shuttle.
I was referring to the Boeing HB Delta people that would refuse to go to Denver. They aren't the satellite types.
I just finish telling you how ex-Delta people who, according to you, are "... not the satellite types..." went on and designed and built spacecrafts & satellites. So why would you think the current Delta people could not do the same?
Do you understand the difference between spacecrafts and launch vehicles, other than that one is short & stubby and the other is long & skinny? Tell me then why couldn't a launch vehicle engineer successfully transition to design and build spacecrafts?
Actually, no, that was Downey. they moved them to HB and then the work went to Houston. I doubt few of them are left in HB
LOL... you obviously don't know much about the shuttle or what's going on in that program. You "doubt" wrong.
-
Propforce - 17/12/2006 3:36 AM
1. I just finish telling you how ex-Delta people who, according to you, are "... not the satellite types..." went on and designed and built spacecrafts & satellites. So why would you think the current Delta people could not do the same?
2. Do you understand the difference between spacecrafts and launch vehicles, other than that one is short & stubby and the other is long & skinny? Tell me then why couldn't a launch vehicle engineer successfully transition to design and build spacecrafts?
3. LOL... you obviously don't know much about the shuttle or what's going on in that program. You "doubt" wrong.
1. Boeing is the biggest manufacturer of satellites because it bought the biggest manufacturer of satellites: Hughes. and it also bought another one, Rockwell. McDonnell Douglas (Huntington Beach) had/has very little spacecraft experience (its only program finished in the early 90's). And it was evident in the X-37 program
2. Wrong, there is a hugh difference. Different environments, different mission durations, different structures. More electronics, different power system, different propulsions
3. The Boeing Shuttle work moving to Houston has been pointed out as one of the problems that led to the Columbia accident.
know more
-
Propforce - 17/12/2006 12:20 AM
Gus - 15/12/2006 12:55 PM
When we moved to Denver in 94-95 timeframe the initial reaction of most of my peers including myself was to look for another job in SD. It was not a good time then to do so and relocation was the best option.
Gus,
When you guys moved to Denver back in '94~'95, did you find your California salary substantially higher than the Titan folks in Denver? If so, how did your managers, institutionally speaking not your specific manager-then, reconcile this salary discrepency between the then-Titan folks and ya'll high-paying California folks? Were many of you California-type got their subsequent merit-raises held back as a result?
The story is a little bit complicated. GD prepared to sell us by freezing all salaries in 1993. The CEO at the time was Bill Anders of Apollo 8 fame and he liquidated a lot of GD including Fort Worth, Convair, Air Defense systems, and finally Space Systems after identifying it as a core business. With salaries frozen for about two years, we lost on cost of living issues. GD also did not regionally adjust like LM did for cost of living issues. We were simply told that were paying the "sun tax" for living in Southern California. I never really had an opportunity to find out what Titan folks were making but they did get a Mission Success bonus for finishing out the program. The rumor is that the Air Force paid this directly and it was pretty good as a few folks went back to Titan to get this bonus. One thing I never cared for was the "we bought you" attitude that was prevalent in the early years. Hopefully that will not repeat itself.
LM had a regional adjustment for folks at Sunnyvale and SD that was more than the salaries for Denver based on cost of living factors. I should also point out that last Monday, we all found out by going into "LM people", our HR system, that all our salary ranges were reduced by 9 to 10 percent. The official answer is that this was a glitch in the system and that it will be corrected. It is difficult for me to understand how a salary range can be affected in a straight over conversion. The immediate impact is nil, future raises will be affected by penetration into your salary range.
-
I have worked in aerospace (as an engineer) in a couple different locations and I have done a great deal of comparisons with friends in several locations. What I have found is actually a bit couter-intuitive. For the most part there really isn't a great differential in engineer salaries. However, in some cases the higher salaries are found in areas with lower prices of living. The locations with the lower cost of living are often in less desireable places to live. In order to get engineers in the area they have to pay them more to attract them. You would think that an average engineer in California would make at least six figures but the truth is it is about 3/4 of that. On the other hand, I have heard from guys in the Denver area that are doing just as well if not better. Of course, that's not a full on market research, just a limited sampling .
-
Jim - 17/12/2006 6:05 AM
1. Boeing is the biggest manufacturer of satellites because it bought the biggest manufacturer of satellites: Hughes. and it also bought another one, Rockwell. McDonnell Douglas (Huntington Beach) had/has very little spacecraft experience (its only program finished in the early 90's). And it was evident in the X-37 program
2. Wrong, there is a hugh difference. Different environments, different mission durations, different structures. More electronics, different power system, different propulsions
3. The Boeing Shuttle work moving to Houston has been pointed out as one of the problems that led to the Columbia accident.
know more
1. Your info is outdated. The merger happened ~10 yrs ago. Since then there has been a great deal of movement in engineering staff with various programs and sites (HB/ SB/ El Segundo/ Anaheim/ West Hills, etc.). Your analysis doesn't hold water.
The X-37 program was an evident of how NASA MSFC was incapable of managing a spacecraft program (or a launch vehicle program for that matter). Look at how things are different with the X-37B, or the previous X-40 program. Enough said.
2. Wrong again. There are more similarities than differences. Certainly the specific environments & functional requirements maybe different, but the approach is the same. Just as an aircraft structural engineer is capable of transitioning between a Beoing 777 and a C-17 design & analysis (with all the differences as you stated above), a LV engineer is capable transitioning to spacecraft design and vice versa. In fact, we're getting more & more Boeing 787 and 747 work here in HB. Now argue why a LV engineer can NOT transition to work on aircraft, I dare you :)
I will simply reply to you that we've done it with our people & programs, despite your speculation. Enough said.
3. Boeing HB still has 300+ people dedicated to the Shuttle work. Our guys have trained their 3rd or 4th "replacement" in Houston, but these "replacements" could not possibly learn all the accumulated knowledge over the past 100 flights and they were not interested in staying in a "sunset" program, so the attrition rate is high. Boeing Houston has no choice but to continue to rely on Boeing HB to support the Shuttle program, particularly with the senior people with all the experience.
-
Gus - 17/12/2006 4:57 PM
One thing I never cared for was the "we bought you" attitude that was prevalent in the early years. Hopefully that will not repeat itself.
Well.... I am afraid that human nature as it is, this "attitude" is bound to repeat itself once the Delta people start to show up in Denver. Afterall, we will be in a Lockheed owned facility surrounded by Lockheed people & forced to learn Lockheed's procedures.
I feel bad for your techs who need to move to Alabama. Catfish can never be a legitimate form of sushi as far as I am concern.
..... I should also point out that last Monday, we all found out by going into "LM people", our HR system, that all our salary ranges were reduced by 9 to 10 percent. The official answer is that this was a glitch in the system and that it will be corrected. It is difficult for me to understand how a salary range can be affected in a straight over conversion. The immediate impact is nil, future raises will be affected by penetration into your salary range.
I see the first step toward *cost saving* has begin with the ULA already. ;)
Job offer letters has gone out to Delta employees. They want to hear from the managers first as it will make a difference to the troops to know who they'll be working for in making their job decision. We will be required to work for a minimum period of 2 years before we're eligible to seek employment back in Boeing. But we will be paid a 6 month bonus if we do.
-
" There are more similarities than differences. Certainly the specific environments & functional requirements maybe different, but the approach is the same. Just as an aircraft structural engineer is capable of transitioning between a Beoing 777 and a C-17 design & analysis (with all the differences as you stated above), a LV engineer is capable transitioning to spacecraft design and vice versa. In fact, we're getting more & more Boeing 787 and 747 work here in HB. Now argue why a LV engineer can NOT transition to work on aircraft, I dare you "
Yes, you are only right in that LV and aircraft engineering are similar but not LV and spacecraft. I am talking design and system engineering. Structures is a small part.
-
Propforce - 18/12/2006 3:24 AM
Well.... I am afraid that human nature as it is, this "attitude" is bound to repeat itself once the Delta people start to show up in Denver. Afterall, we will be in a Lockheed owned facility surrounded by Lockheed people & forced to learn Lockheed's procedures.
many of your customers hope this is so. This is one of the reasons that the USAF (NRO) wasn't against ULA. They had found Boeing lacking in processes and system engineering and are hoping some LM influences will come into the Delta program
-
Jim - 18/12/2006 4:27 AM
Yes, you are only right in that LV and aircraft engineering are similar but not LV and spacecraft. I am talking design and system engineering. Structures is a small part.
*Sigh* I think you really need to ask those who does this type of work for a living on this subject. LV and spacecraft has MORE similarities than LV and aircraft.
-
Jim - 18/12/2006 4:36 AM
many of your customers hope this is so. This is one of the reasons that the USAF (NRO) wasn't against ULA. They had found Boeing lacking in processes and system engineering and are hoping some LM influences will come into the Delta program
Many of my customers are very happy with us, perhaps with the exception of a single NASA mission integrator who's clearly bias :)
But then again, he's not our customer anyway :)
-
Propforce - 18/12/2006 9:02 AM
Jim - 18/12/2006 4:36 AM
many of your customers hope this is so. This is one of the reasons that the USAF (NRO) wasn't against ULA. They had found Boeing lacking in processes and system engineering and are hoping some LM influences will come into the Delta program
Many of my customers are very happy with us, perhaps with the exception of a single NASA mission integrator who's clearly bias :)
But then again, he's not our customer anyway :)
You don't work mission integration so you wouldn't know your customers. Did you attend the AIAA mission integration conference?
It isn't a bias if it is the truth. I have worked 4 Delta missions and 2 Atlas
-
Propforce - 18/12/2006 8:58 AM
Jim - 18/12/2006 4:27 AM
Yes, you are only right in that LV and aircraft engineering are similar but not LV and spacecraft. I am talking design and system engineering. Structures is a small part.
*Sigh* I think you really need to ask those who does this type of work for a living on this subject. LV and spacecraft has MORE similarities than LV and aircraft.
An LV flight is too short to experience all the environments a spacecraft sees. The amount of time an upperstage is in space is insignicant wrt to a spacecraft life. If the upperstage never did a 2nd burn, wouldn't have anything in common with a spacecraft. The time the LV spends in the atmosphere has a larger affect on the environments.
-
How many of the Delta 4 designers came from the Space Station design group? It seems like every time there is a question about any of the Huntington Beach ISS components we have to hunt down a designer who has moved on to Delta. Are there any other big programs that people moved to at that plant?
-
There were lots of engineers, including designers, that came from the ISS during the initial Delta IV phase and during the EMD phase. The ISS was ramping down at the time.
There are many programs here in HB, including spacecraft programs. Also, Boeing Anaheim plans to move its 3,000+ staff to HB in the next several years, so this place will continue to thrive.
-
Jim - 18/12/2006 6:15 AM
You don't work mission integration so you wouldn't know your customers. Did you attend the AIAA mission integration conference? It isn't a bias if it is the truth. I have worked 4 Delta missions and 2 Atlas
Yes, I have intelligently navigated my career so I don't end up as a pencil pusher. I design and build things, so I consider it a blessing. :)
-
Propforce - 18/12/2006 12:24 AM
..... We will be required to work for a minimum period of 2 years before we're eligible to seek employment back in Boeing. But we will be paid a 6 month bonus if we do.
Damn, just found out the executives will be getting a one-year bonus if they stay for 2 years. ^&*(%^ class system !!
-
Propforce - 18/12/2006 8:51 PM
Jim - 18/12/2006 6:15 AM
You don't work mission integration so you wouldn't know your customers. Did you attend the AIAA mission integration conference? It isn't a bias if it is the truth. I have worked 4 Delta missions and 2 Atlas
Yes, I have intelligently navigated my career so I don't end up as a pencil pusher. I design and build things, so I consider it a blessing. :)
that is a matter of debate I have intelligently navigated my career so I get to see the big picture and don't worry about minor details as design and pushing a mouse in a CAD program. I guess you have avoided any real responsibility and limited yourself to lower tier jobs and you won't be making any money then neither.
you post above, just dispproved, "intelligently' navigated
-
Jim - 18/12/2006 6:36 PM
Propforce - 18/12/2006 8:51 PM
Jim - 18/12/2006 6:15 AM
You don't work mission integration so you wouldn't know your customers. Did you attend the AIAA mission integration conference? It isn't a bias if it is the truth. I have worked 4 Delta missions and 2 Atlas
Yes, I have intelligently navigated my career so I don't end up as a pencil pusher. I design and build things, so I consider it a blessing. :)
that is a matter of debate I have intelligently navigated my career so I get to see the big picture and don't worry about minor details as design and pushing a mouse in a CAD program. I guess you have avoided any real responsibility and limited yourself to lower tier jobs and you won't be making any money then neither.
you post above, just dispproved, "intelligently' navigated
That is quite an arrogant statement. The devil is always in the details and I have been around way too many people who can recite the system that they are responsible for but can't release a drawing because they don't know how to model it in Pro-E, SDRC IDEAS, CATIA etc.. I would say we have too many "big picture" people looking for a meeting to attend. Whenever we have a SRR, PDR, CDR etc... the NASA folks just come right out of the woodwork. Getting drawings released, procedures implemented, and product built is where the rubber hits the road and where the real responsibility lies. Not worrying about minor details is what causes failures. You are perfectly suited to work at NASA.
Your post above dishonors the fine folks who work in the trenches and make our space programs what they are.
-
Jim - 18/12/2006 6:26 AM
Propforce - 18/12/2006 8:58 AM
Jim - 18/12/2006 4:27 AM
Yes, you are only right in that LV and aircraft engineering are similar but not LV and spacecraft. I am talking design and system engineering. Structures is a small part.
*Sigh* I think you really need to ask those who does this type of work for a living on this subject. LV and spacecraft has MORE similarities than LV and aircraft.
An LV flight is too short to experience all the environments a spacecraft sees. The amount of time an upperstage is in space is insignicant wrt to a spacecraft life. If the upperstage never did a 2nd burn, wouldn't have anything in common with a spacecraft. The time the LV spends in the atmosphere has a larger affect on the environments.
If you had to envelope the environments that a spacecraft sees, the major concerns are during ascent on the booster stage. RD-180 throttles down to hold 5.5gs because that is what spacecraft in this class are designed to. MA-5 Booster jettison occurred at 5.5gs for the same reasons. Add transient loads and vibe levels during ascent and you start realizing that a spacecraft in orbit is in a relatively benign environment save for thermal issues. Reliabilty factors governing duration are a matter of qual levels. Give an engineer a problem and define the constraints and the methodology will be the same. Make sure that the work is reviewed by the proper gray-beards and you can transition folks to different types of products and be successful. If not, how would we ever get college hires to work and replace retirees?
-
Jim - 18/12/2006 8:36 PM
Propforce - 18/12/2006 8:51 PM
Jim - 18/12/2006 6:15 AM
You don't work mission integration so you wouldn't know your customers. Did you attend the AIAA mission integration conference? It isn't a bias if it is the truth. I have worked 4 Delta missions and 2 Atlas
Yes, I have intelligently navigated my career so I don't end up as a pencil pusher. I design and build things, so I consider it a blessing. :)
that is a matter of debate I have intelligently navigated my career so I get to see the big picture and don't worry about minor details as design and pushing a mouse in a CAD program. I guess you have avoided any real responsibility and limited yourself to lower tier jobs and you won't be making any money then neither.
you post above, just dispproved, "intelligently' navigated
So what you are saying is that people who actually do work don't make money and the people who see the big picture and don't concern themselves with minor details make the big bucks.
No wonder space programs are not viable. Too many chiefs and not enough indians.
You just validated the perceived problem with NASA.
PS - Isn't pencil pushing old speak for Powerpoint chart maker?
-
Gus - 19/12/2006 12:01 AM
Jim - 18/12/2006 6:26 AM
Propforce - 18/12/2006 8:58 AM
Jim - 18/12/2006 4:27 AM
Yes, you are only right in that LV and aircraft engineering are similar but not LV and spacecraft. I am talking design and system engineering. Structures is a small part.
*Sigh* I think you really need to ask those who does this type of work for a living on this subject. LV and spacecraft has MORE similarities than LV and aircraft.
An LV flight is too short to experience all the environments a spacecraft sees. The amount of time an upperstage is in space is insignicant wrt to a spacecraft life. If the upperstage never did a 2nd burn, wouldn't have anything in common with a spacecraft. The time the LV spends in the atmosphere has a larger affect on the environments.
If you had to envelope the environments that a spacecraft sees, the major concerns are during ascent on the booster stage. RD-180 throttles down to hold 5.5gs because that is what spacecraft in this class are designed to. MA-5 Booster jettison occurred at 5.5gs for the same reasons. Add transient loads and vibe levels during ascent and you start realizing that a spacecraft in orbit is in a relatively benign environment save for thermal issues. Reliabilty factors governing duration are a matter of qual levels. Give an engineer a problem and define the constraints and the methodology will be the same. Make sure that the work is reviewed by the proper gray-beards and you can transition folks to different types of products and be successful. If not, how would we ever get college hires to work and replace retirees?
This sounds like HB engineers could go and work for Northrop Grumman in LA instead of moving to Denver.
-
Gus - 19/12/2006 12:39 AM
Jim - 18/12/2006 6:36 PM
Propforce - 18/12/2006 8:51 PM
Jim - 18/12/2006 6:15 AM
You don't work mission integration so you wouldn't know your customers. Did you attend the AIAA mission integration conference? It isn't a bias if it is the truth. I have worked 4 Delta missions and 2 Atlas
Yes, I have intelligently navigated my career so I don't end up as a pencil pusher. I design and build things, so I consider it a blessing. :)
that is a matter of debate I have intelligently navigated my career so I get to see the big picture and don't worry about minor details as design and pushing a mouse in a CAD program. I guess you have avoided any real responsibility and limited yourself to lower tier jobs and you won't be making any money then neither.
you post above, just dispproved, "intelligently' navigated
That is quite an arrogant statement. The devil is always in the details and I have been around way too many people who can recite the system that they are responsible for but can't release a drawing because they don't know how to model it in Pro-E, SDRC IDEAS, CATIA etc.. I would say we have too many "big picture" people looking for a meeting to attend. Whenever we have a SRR, PDR, CDR etc... the NASA folks just come right out of the woodwork. Getting drawings released, procedures implemented, and product built is where the rubber hits the road and where the real responsibility lies. Not worrying about minor details is what causes failures. You are perfectly suited to work at NASA.
Your post above dishonors the fine folks who work in the trenches and make our space programs what they are.
You are right. I apologize.
But someone has to be the pencil pusher and what is wrong with defending that. One of the things I do is write statements of work, which without, there would be no work for the designers
-
Okay, tis Christmas and I am on my last day at work this year. Ironically I have a Lockheed Atlas V calendar (beautiful pictures BTW) and it shows those poor folks at Lockheed have to work tomorrow (... wiping tears now...).
I won't have many chances to post and poke fun at Jim over the holidays, so I will wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Best of luck with the folks in Denver as I see on TV that you folks are "snowed in" again. We are having a "winter" here in HB as well, a chilly 60 degree but sunny weather.
Be safe and spend the quality time with the love ones.
Prop-
-
Propforce - 21/12/2006 2:52 PM
Okay, tis Christmas and I am on my last day at work this year. Ironically I have a Lockheed Atlas V calendar (beautiful pictures BTW) and it shows those poor folks at Lockheed have to work tomorrow (... wiping tears now...).
I won't have many chances to post and poke fun at Jim over the holidays, so I will wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Best of luck with the folks in Denver as I see on TV that you folks are "snowed in" again. We are having a "winter" here in HB as well, a chilly 60 degree but sunny weather.
Be safe and spend the quality time with the love ones.
Prop-
Snow is beautiful, especially at holliday time.
-
quark - 27/12/2006 8:12 PM
Propforce - 21/12/2006 2:52 PM
Okay, tis Christmas and I am on my last day at work this year. Ironically I have a Lockheed Atlas V calendar (beautiful pictures BTW) and it shows those poor folks at Lockheed have to work tomorrow (... wiping tears now...).
I won't have many chances to post and poke fun at Jim over the holidays, so I will wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Best of luck with the folks in Denver as I see on TV that you folks are "snowed in" again. We are having a "winter" here in HB as well, a chilly 60 degree but sunny weather.
Be safe and spend the quality time with the love ones.
Prop-
Snow is beautiful, especially at holliday time.
Nothing like a white Christmas. But Christmas is over and another major snowstorm is forecasted to pound Denver.
Stay safe and warm to those in the Denver area; and to all - have a Happy New Year!
-
Each area has its plus and minus. The LA area have earthquakes, which have no warning.
-
Propforce - 18/12/2006 8:33 PM
Propforce - 18/12/2006 12:24 AM
..... We will be required to work for a minimum period of 2 years before we're eligible to seek employment back in Boeing. But we will be paid a 6 month bonus if we do.
Damn, just found out the executives will be getting a one-year bonus if they stay for 2 years. ^&*(%^ class system !!
One of the NASA people on here said you don't get paid a ton of money working for NASA. What's it like working for Boeing, LM etc? Do those companies attract people out of NASA, or is there more prestige going to NASA?
Hope that question doesn't p*** anyone off ;) Just interested from an outside perspective where I didn't even know about Atlas' and Deltas till I came to this site because the Shuttle owns the overseas interest.
-
People move between the organizations both ways. It depends on what you are looking for
-
Jim - 28/12/2006 7:56 PM
Each area has its plus and minus. The LA area have earthquakes, which have no warning.
That's right. That's why S.Calif. is one of the cheaper areas in the country to live in and people are moving out in droves.
-
Captain Scarlet - 29/12/2006 6:24 AM
One of the NASA people on here said you don't get paid a ton of money working for NASA. What's it like working for Boeing, LM etc? Do those companies attract people out of NASA, or is there more prestige going to NASA?
Hope that question doesn't p*** anyone off ;) Just interested from an outside perspective where I didn't even know about Atlas' and Deltas till I came to this site because the Shuttle owns the overseas interest.
NASA survives on a gov't allocated budget, so salaries would fall in line with what gov't employees make, which will be less than Boeing's or LM's. However, the benefit package for NASA employees is probably second to none.
Personally, I know of some that crossed from BA/LM to NASA but not the other way around. The one's that crossed to NASA are actually contracted by NASA through an outside agency and serve on teams that essentially audit the work of the BA/LM engineering groups to ensure that all of the I's are dotted and T's are crossed.
NASA may come up with a statemant of work of what they want to accomplish. But Boeing and Lockheed figure out how to do it. To me, the latter is more prestigous.
-
bombay - 29/12/2006 12:21 PM
1. However, the benefit package for NASA employees is probably second to none.
2. NASA may come up with a statemant of work of what they want to accomplish. But Boeing and Lockheed figure out how to do it. To me, the latter is more prestigous.
1. Not true since Reagan
2. NASA still does inhouse work
-
bombay - 29/12/2006 12:21 PM
But Boeing and Lockheed figure out how to do it. To me, the latter is more prestigous.
Only your opinion.
I prefer jobs that see the big picture.
-
Jim - 29/12/2006 2:14 PM
bombay - 29/12/2006 12:21 PM
But Boeing and Lockheed figure out how to do it. To me, the latter is more prestigous.
Only your opinion.
I prefer jobs that see the big picture.
And I prefer jobs that take that big picture that's broadly displayed in a statement of work and actually makes it real.
-
quark - 27/12/2006 8:12 PM
Snow is beautiful, especially at holliday time.
Tell that to the people that were stranded at Denver's airport.
Tell that to the people who had to rearrange travel plans, especially at holiday time.
If you were a religious person and you thought of these blizzards as acts of God, you conclude that God is against ULA with job offers going out to HB folks right when they have to might a relocation decision and have time off to ponder the consequences of living in Denver.
-
bombay - 29/12/2006 2:21 PM
Jim - 29/12/2006 2:14 PM
bombay - 29/12/2006 12:21 PM
But Boeing and Lockheed figure out how to do it. To me, the latter is more prestigous.
Only your opinion.
I prefer jobs that see the big picture.
And I prefer jobs that take that big picture that's broadly displayed in a statement of work and actually makes it real.
Ironically, the people who turn statements of work into reality are the highest risk of not moving if you pay attention to Propforce and Gus with regard to the ULA scheme.
The people who write and negotiate statements of work which are more of a contractual broad based document are the ones being offered the double bonuses because of the need to elevate their self-importance.
When all the dust settels on cosolidations, I am sure the company will be expertly capable of writing and negotiating statements of work but will not be able to design anything because they drove away all the CAD mouse pushers.
-
bombay - 29/12/2006 9:21 AM Captain Scarlet - 29/12/2006 6:24 AM One of the NASA people on here said you don't get paid a ton of money working for NASA. What's it like working for Boeing, LM etc? Do those companies attract people out of NASA, or is there more prestige going to NASA? Hope that question doesn't p*** anyone off ;) Just interested from an outside perspective where I didn't even know about Atlas' and Deltas till I came to this site because the Shuttle owns the overseas interest.
NASA survives on a gov't allocated budget, so salaries would fall in line with what gov't employees make, which will be less than Boeing's or LM's. However, the benefit package for NASA employees is probably second to none. Personally, I know of some that crossed from BA/LM to NASA but not the other way around. The one's that crossed to NASA are actually contracted by NASA through an outside agency and serve on teams that essentially audit the work of the BA/LM engineering groups to ensure that all of the I's are dotted and T's are crossed. NASA may come up with a statemant of work of what they want to accomplish. But Boeing and Lockheed figure out how to do it. To me, the latter is more prestigous.
I don't think there is a general answer for this one. It can change depending on location and/or company. I can tell you that at JSC we have NASA people performing the exact same function and literally in the same funtional group as United Space Alliance and Barrios employees as flight controllers. The NASA badged people make significantly more $$$ than the USA and Barrios employees, even in situation where the contractor is senior or lead relative to the NASA person. In many cases the NASA person is mentored/trained by a lower paid contractor. It is a source of many conflicts. On the other hand, USA has exceptional benefits.
Then there are Boeing and LM people who work in the MER roles that provide technical support for the flight controllers (i.e. if the flight controller needs an analysis done they ask for MER help). The Boeing people make significantly more $$ than the USA/Barrios folks but the LM guys are about even with USA. Boeing has better benefits and LM is horrible in that area.
I am not really familiar with KSC but I do know out there that there is a definite division between contractor and NASA. At JSC the various funtional groups will have employees from a variety of contractors and NASA that work side by side together, badgeless as we say.
-
bombay - 29/12/2006 3:21 PM
Jim - 29/12/2006 2:14 PM
bombay - 29/12/2006 12:21 PM
But Boeing and Lockheed figure out how to do it. To me, the latter is more prestigous.
Only your opinion.
I prefer jobs that see the big picture.
And I prefer jobs that take that big picture that's broadly displayed in a statement of work and actually makes it real.
I am talking bigger picture than just designing a widget. Multiple missions, different launch systems, National space launch manifest. Items that are on the national level and not at the piece parts
-
Dexter - 29/12/2006 9:16 PM
quark - 27/12/2006 8:12 PM
Snow is beautiful, especially at holliday time.
Tell that to the people that were stranded at Denver's airport.
Tell that to the people who had to rearrange travel plans, especially at holiday time.
If you were a religious person and you thought of these blizzards as acts of God, you conclude that God is against ULA with job offers going out to HB folks right when they have to might a relocation decision and have time off to ponder the consequences of living in Denver.
Horsehockey and bull.
Wah wah wah. Shit happens
SoCal has its earthquakes , wildfires, storms etc too
-
Dexter - 29/12/2006 9:27 PM
bombay - 29/12/2006 2:21 PM
Jim - 29/12/2006 2:14 PM
bombay - 29/12/2006 12:21 PM
But Boeing and Lockheed figure out how to do it. To me, the latter is more prestigous.
Only your opinion.
I prefer jobs that see the big picture.
And I prefer jobs that take that big picture that's broadly displayed in a statement of work and actually makes it real.
Ironically, the people who turn statements of work into reality are the highest risk of not moving if you pay attention to Propforce and Gus with regard to the ULA scheme.
The people who write and negotiate statements of work which are more of a contractual broad based document are the ones being offered the double bonuses because of the need to elevate their self-importance.
When all the dust settels on cosolidations, I am sure the company will be expertly capable of writing and negotiating statements of work but will not be able to design anything because they drove away all the CAD mouse pushers.
Gloom and Doom, gloom and doom.
When all the dust settels on cosolidations, I am sure the company will be launching rockets successfully just like the previous 5 years
-
Dexter - 29/12/2006 9:16 PM
quark - 27/12/2006 8:12 PM
Snow is beautiful, especially at holliday time.
Tell that to the people that were stranded at Denver's airport.
Tell that to the people who had to rearrange travel plans, especially at holiday time.
If you were a religious person and you thought of these blizzards as acts of God, you conclude that God is against ULA with job offers going out to HB folks right when they have to might a relocation decision and have time off to ponder the consequences of living in Denver.
Horsehockey and bull.
Wah wah wah. Shit happens
SoCal has its earthquakes , wildfires, storms etc too
-
Jim - 30/12/2006 9:11 AM
bombay - 29/12/2006 3:21 PM
Jim - 29/12/2006 2:14 PM
bombay - 29/12/2006 12:21 PM
But Boeing and Lockheed figure out how to do it. To me, the latter is more prestigous.
Only your opinion.
I prefer jobs that see the big picture.
And I prefer jobs that take that big picture that's broadly displayed in a statement of work and actually makes it real.
I am talking bigger picture than just designing a widget. Multiple missions, different launch systems, National space launch manifest. Items that are on the national level and not at the piece parts
All of which is broadly incorporated in a SOW and all of which requires the culmination of bringing together all of the individually designed widgets and piece parts into a working system.
So at the end of the day, after watching and waiting for the Boeing and LM engineers to prove the NASA idea valid as proposed in the SOW, you can slap yourself on the back for a job well-done.
-
bombay - 30/12/2006 5:53 PM
Jim - 30/12/2006 9:11 AM
bombay - 29/12/2006 3:21 PM
Jim - 29/12/2006 2:14 PM
bombay - 29/12/2006 12:21 PM
But Boeing and Lockheed figure out how to do it. To me, the latter is more prestigous.
Only your opinion.
I prefer jobs that see the big picture.
And I prefer jobs that take that big picture that's broadly displayed in a statement of work and actually makes it real.
I am talking bigger picture than just designing a widget. Multiple missions, different launch systems, National space launch manifest. Items that are on the national level and not at the piece parts
All of which is broadly incorporated in a SOW and all of which requires the culmination of bringing together all of the individually designed widgets and piece parts into a working system.
So at the end of the day, after watching and waiting for the Boeing and LM engineers to prove the NASA idea valid as proposed in the SOW, you can slap yourself on the back for a job well-done.
Not true, at the end of the day, I might decide that OSC or someone else can do the job better and give them the work.
I use to work for Boeing, been there, done that and, now I have moved on to bigger and better things
Also, the "system" is more than just LM or Boeing doing their work, they can't do the whole job. It called system engineering and integration. And actually Boeing Delta is asking NASA for more help in this area
-
Jim - 30/12/2006 9:24 AM
Dexter - 29/12/2006 9:16 PM
quark - 27/12/2006 8:12 PM
Snow is beautiful, especially at holliday time.
Tell that to the people that were stranded at Denver's airport.
Tell that to the people who had to rearrange travel plans, especially at holiday time.
If you were a religious person and you thought of these blizzards as acts of God, you conclude that God is against ULA with job offers going out to HB folks right when they have to might a relocation decision and have time off to ponder the consequences of living in Denver.
Horsehockey and bull.
Wah wah wah. Shit happens
SoCal has its earthquakes , wildfires, storms etc too
I would like to wish everyone a Happy New Year.
Alabama has tornadoes and hurricanes.
Notice the "If" qualifier. Every region has its natural maladies to contend with but as in comedy, timing is everything. When is the last time Denver experienced two storms in quick succession?
You just have to wonder how these events covered on all the national news outlets will affect the thinking of the HB folks who must decide on whether they should relocate or not.
Anyone watch the Rose Bowl today and notice the weather?
-
Jim - 31/12/2006 9:35 AM
Not true, at the end of the day, I might decide that OSC or someone else can do the job better and give them the work.
I use to work for Boeing, been there, done that and, now I have moved on to bigger and better things
Also, the "system" is more than just LM or Boeing doing their work, they can't do the whole job. It called system engineering and integration. And actually Boeing Delta is asking NASA for more help in this area
"I might decide..." ??? Don't tell us you have authority to single-handedly make decisions. That is unheard of in a government agency.
Last time I checked, Lockheed was launching satellites for commercial customers without NASA's help. Boeing also did the same on a few missions.
As far as NASA's expertise, wasn't there a Mars mission that crashed because of a english vs. metric system issue? That sounds like a big picture problem to me.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb277/is_199909/ai_n15300293
http://www.space.com/news/mco_report-b_991110.html
-
Dexter - 2/1/2007 12:51 AM
1. Last time I checked, Lockheed was launching satellites for commercial customers without NASA's help. Boeing also did the same on a few missions.
2. As far as NASA's expertise, wasn't there a Mars mission that crashed because of a english vs. metric system issue? That sounds like a big picture problem to me.
1. I can decide if some does something better
2. NASA procured launches have almost 10% better success rate than commercial missions since 1988
3. The thread is about ULA and not spacecraft contractors, so we are talking about space launch not mission ops
-
Captain Scarlet - 29/12/2006 4:24 AM
Propforce - 18/12/2006 8:33 PM
Propforce - 18/12/2006 12:24 AM
..... We will be required to work for a minimum period of 2 years before we're eligible to seek employment back in Boeing. But we will be paid a 6 month bonus if we do.
Damn, just found out the executives will be getting a one-year bonus if they stay for 2 years. ^&*(%^ class system !!
One of the NASA people on here said you don't get paid a ton of money working for NASA. What's it like working for Boeing, LM etc? Do those companies attract people out of NASA, or is there more prestige going to NASA?
Hope that question doesn't p*** anyone off ;) Just interested from an outside perspective where I didn't even know about Atlas' and Deltas till I came to this site because the Shuttle owns the overseas interest.
Hello Captain Scarlet,
First Happy New Year to you and all here at NSF.com
Second, I want to say that if you're interested in making lots of money, not just a living, do NOT work in aerospace, not NASA, not Boeing, nor LM. Aerospace is no longer the high pay & respected profession like it once was during the 50's and 60's. Today, you could be a business major and rise faster and make more money than a technical engineer in aerospace companies such as Boeing, LM, NGC, etc. The aerospace industry pays a DECENT but NOT-GREAT salary. Most of us chose this profession because there're something we love, either because it's space-related or because we get to participate in the cutting-edge of physics. I got into this industry and decided to stay because I enjoy making things work. I get to play with some pretty cool toys, developed some pretty cutting-edge technologies, and I work with groups of super-smart but very nice human beings.
As far as the salary differences between NASA, Boeing or LM, I would think it depends more on WHERE you live rather than your title or companies. For example, NASA employees gets a cost-of-living differential if they work in a high cost-of-living area such as Moffett Field, CA or the HQ in Washington, D.C. Likewise, Boeing employees in southern california tend to get pay higher than say, those in Huntsville, AL or Seattle, WA. I don't know what LM's salary structure is like, but I assume it is same as Boeing. For example, I know LM in Sunnyvale pays really well as opose to say Denver.
I was offerred a job at NASA some years ago. These were my customers on a previous project. They had an in-house "special project" and wanted me to be a lead-person therefore I had to wear a NASA badge (as oppose to work for them as "contractor"), but they can only offer a salary that's approx 25% LESS than what I was making at the time. I politely turned down the opportunity.
Also keep in mind that while we may all seem like working in the aerospace industry, we serve different roles in a project's life cycle, that's why we have different perspectives. For example, most of us in HB were in the early development cycle of Delta IV, where we not only do design of rocket subsystems, we also write specifications and instructions for the operations of these subsystems. Those who are in the field (launch site) take our specifications and instructions as a starting point for operations. We also manage our suppliers throughout this cycle from writing SOW, product specs, participate in development and finaly qualification testing, conduct analysis in parallel, and finally review/ approve each product's acceptance test data and accept the hardware delivery.
Likewise, there are various NASA centers where some do research & development (ARC, LaRC, MSFC, GRC, etc.), some do mission planning & analysis (JSC) and others just act like "pencil pusher". Having spent some time at KSC, I can tell you that there are some pretty smart NASA engineers who pay attention to details and get their hands dirty from time to time to ensure the Shuttle safety and launches.
Speaking of hiring lower-pay engineers, did you know that the U.S. aerospace engineers were very upset because the companies were hiring these "foreigners" from England at ~50% of pay because they were willing to take a lower salary than the U.S. aerospace engineers? I understand that was quite an "anti-immingrant" sentiment back in the 50's and 60's ! :)
-
Jim - 2/1/2007 12:05 AM
Dexter - 2/1/2007 12:51 AM
1. Last time I checked, Lockheed was launching satellites for commercial customers without NASA's help. Boeing also did the same on a few missions.
2. As far as NASA's expertise, wasn't there a Mars mission that crashed because of a english vs. metric system issue? That sounds like a big picture problem to me.
1. I can decide if some does something better
2. NASA procured launches have almost 10% better success rate than commercial missions since 1988
3. The thread is about ULA and not spacecraft contractors, so we are talking about space launch not mission ops
You claim NASA's expertise in systems integration and yet Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander are both abmysmal failures of the big picture folks.But you are right as far as this thread being about ULA so lets look at the cause of the failure of the the Mars Climate Orbiter as reported on Space.com;
http://www.space.com/news/mco_report-b_991110.html
"The Mars Climate Orbiter was lost at the Red Planet nearly seven weeks ago because the mission's navigation team was unfamiliar with the spacecraft. It lacked training, and failed to detect a mistake by outside engineers who delivered navigation information in English rather than metric units, according to a mission failure investigation report released Wednesday."
"One of the most glaring criticisms to come out of the day's announcements was made by Arthur Stephenson, Chairman of the Mission Failure Investigation Board and Director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, who blamed many of the problems on the navigation team's unfamiliarity with the spacecraft"
So in the ULA environment, many of the key enginerring positions on Delta will be performed by Atlas folks, unfamiliar with the Delta system.
Many of the Atlas manufacturing jobs will be performed by Delta folks in Decatur unfamiliar with the Atlas system.
Between the loss of experienced folks blamed for Titan failures, the Columbia tragedy directly related to loss of key people who did not move to Houston, and the quotes above regarding Mars Climate Orbiter, I think I have made a pretty good argument on the risk of ULA and the consolidation plan.
Call my position Doom and Gloom.
I think your position is utter denial.
-
Different time. MCO and MPL were doomed by FBC. Totally different environment. FBC didn't allow for system engineering.
-
Dexter - 2/1/2007 9:17 PM
1. So in the ULA environment, many of the key enginerring positions on Delta will be performed by Atlas folks, unfamiliar with the Delta system.
2. Many of the Atlas manufacturing jobs will be performed by Delta folks in Decatur unfamiliar with the Atlas system.
1. No, they will be done by Delta people in Denver.
2. No, they will be done by Atlas people in Decatur. Also Atlas made the move from San Diego with no issue.
-
Propforce - 2/1/2007 3:23 AM
Captain Scarlet - 29/12/2006 4:24 AM
Propforce - 18/12/2006 8:33 PM
Propforce - 18/12/2006 12:24 AM
..... We will be required to work for a minimum period of 2 years before we're eligible to seek employment back in Boeing. But we will be paid a 6 month bonus if we do.
Damn, just found out the executives will be getting a one-year bonus if they stay for 2 years. ^&*(%^ class system !!
One of the NASA people on here said you don't get paid a ton of money working for NASA. What's it like working for Boeing, LM etc? Do those companies attract people out of NASA, or is there more prestige going to NASA?
Hope that question doesn't p*** anyone off ;) Just interested from an outside perspective where I didn't even know about Atlas' and Deltas till I came to this site because the Shuttle owns the overseas interest.
Hello Captain Scarlet,
First Happy New Year to you and all here at NSF.com
Second, I want to say that if you're interested in making lots of money, not just a living, do NOT work in aerospace, not NASA, not Boeing, nor LM. Aerospace is no longer the high pay & respected profession like it once was during the 50's and 60's. Today, you could be a business major and rise faster and make more money than a technical engineer in aerospace companies such as Boeing, LM, NGC, etc. The aerospace industry pays a DECENT but NOT-GREAT salary. Most of us chose this profession because there're something we love, either because it's space-related or because we get to participate in the cutting-edge of physics. I got into this industry and decided to stay because I enjoy making things work. I get to play with some pretty cool toys, developed some pretty cutting-edge technologies, and I work with groups of super-smart but very nice human beings.
As far as the salary differences between NASA, Boeing or LM, I would think it depends more on WHERE you live rather than your title or companies. For example, NASA employees gets a cost-of-living differential if they work in a high cost-of-living area such as Moffett Field, CA or the HQ in Washington, D.C. Likewise, Boeing employees in southern california tend to get pay higher than say, those in Huntsville, AL or Seattle, WA. I don't know what LM's salary structure is like, but I assume it is same as Boeing. For example, I know LM in Sunnyvale pays really well as opose to say Denver.
I was offerred a job at NASA some years ago. These were my customers on a previous project. They had an in-house "special project" and wanted me to be a lead-person therefore I had to wear a NASA badge (as oppose to work for them as "contractor"), but they can only offer a salary that's approx 25% LESS than what I was making at the time. I politely turned down the opportunity.
Also keep in mind that while we may all seem like working in the aerospace industry, we serve different roles in a project's life cycle, that's why we have different perspectives. For example, most of us in HB were in the early development cycle of Delta IV, where we not only do design of rocket subsystems, we also write specifications and instructions for the operations of these subsystems. Those who are in the field (launch site) take our specifications and instructions as a starting point for operations. We also manage our suppliers throughout this cycle from writing SOW, product specs, participate in development and finaly qualification testing, conduct analysis in parallel, and finally review/ approve each product's acceptance test data and accept the hardware delivery.
Likewise, there are various NASA centers where some do research & development (ARC, LaRC, MSFC, GRC, etc.), some do mission planning & analysis (JSC) and others just act like "pencil pusher". Having spent some time at KSC, I can tell you that there are some pretty smart NASA engineers who pay attention to details and get their hands dirty from time to time to ensure the Shuttle safety and launches.
Speaking of hiring lower-pay engineers, did you know that the U.S. aerospace engineers were very upset because the companies were hiring these "foreigners" from England at ~50% of pay because they were willing to take a lower salary than the U.S. aerospace engineers? I understand that was quite an "anti-immingrant" sentiment back in the 50's and 60's ! :)
Awesome post Propforce!
I was chatting with some US Marines last month and they were shocked at me telling them what stuff costs back home, such as $10 a gallon on the petrol/gas. Going to the US for less than the current salary expected is certainly backed up by the hugely lower cost of living in the US. Also, given the lack of an aerospace industry here.......and no one wants to work for the French at ESA etc ;)
-
Jim - 2/1/2007 8:27 PM
Dexter - 2/1/2007 9:17 PM
1. So in the ULA environment, many of the key enginerring positions on Delta will be performed by Atlas folks, unfamiliar with the Delta system.
2. Many of the Atlas manufacturing jobs will be performed by Delta folks in Decatur unfamiliar with the Atlas system.
1. No, they will be done by Delta people in Denver.
2. No, they will be done by Atlas people in Decatur. Also Atlas made the move from San Diego with no issue.
So you are saying that there will be 100% relocation after previously saying that the thermal analysis people would be staying in HB earlier in this thread.
I am not familiar with this logic. Please explain.
Dan Collins would be "very pleased" with 33% according to Gus suggesting many unfamiliar people working on Delta.
-
Dexter - 3/1/2007 1:30 AM
So you are saying that there will be 100% relocation after previously saying that the thermal analysis people would be staying in HB earlier in this thread.
I am not familiar with this logic. Please explain.
Dan Collins would be "very pleased" with 33% according to Gus suggesting many unfamiliar people working on Delta.
100% relocation is not required. There is a 2 year transition, which is more time than a new hire gets to learn his job.
the difference is experienced personnel just have to learn a new system, not how do to their jobs
-
Jim - 3/1/2007 5:13 AM
Dexter - 3/1/2007 1:30 AM
So you are saying that there will be 100% relocation after previously saying that the thermal analysis people would be staying in HB earlier in this thread.
I am not familiar with this logic. Please explain.
Dan Collins would be "very pleased" with 33% according to Gus suggesting many unfamiliar people working on Delta.
100% relocation is not required. There is a 2 year transition, which is more time than a new hire gets to learn his job.
the difference is experienced personnel just have to learn a new system, not how do to their jobs
That sounds a lot like the Mars Climate Orbiter scenario.
Experienced people have 10+ years of experience with not only the knowledge of how to do it right, but what to do when things go wrong. With the current launch rate for Delta as you have provided that doesn't seem like enough exposure to the new Delta crew to be properly transitioned.
-
Looks like another option for the Delta and Atlas guys.
From http://public.blueorigin.com that was posted on another thread:
"As I said above, Blue Origin is actively hiring. We are particularly looking for experienced propulsion engineers and experienced turbomachinery engineers, as well as a senior leader to head our turbopump group. Folks with turbopump or propulsion experience on large, modern, cryogenic engines such as the RS-68 are of particular interest."
"Another high priority for us is an experienced leader for our structures team. Structures experience on large, modern vehicles such as Delta IV or Atlas V is of particular interest."
"We are searching to fill other positions as well. Please check out our careers page on this website. Feel free to send a note and resume to our head of recruiting, Walt McCleery at [email protected]."
-
Jim - 2/1/2007 8:27 PM
Dexter - 2/1/2007 9:17 PM
1. So in the ULA environment, many of the key enginerring positions on Delta will be performed by Atlas folks, unfamiliar with the Delta system.
2. Many of the Atlas manufacturing jobs will be performed by Delta folks in Decatur unfamiliar with the Atlas system.
1. No, they will be done by Delta people in Denver.
2. No, they will be done by Atlas people in Decatur. Also Atlas made the move from San Diego with no issue.
1. Wrong. If only 30% of the engineers are moving that filled 100% of the jobs and only a fraction of that percentage is likely to be key personnel, Atlas folks will be doing the bulk of the tasks.
2. Wrong again. Atlas manufacturing didn't move, only final assembly did. Atlas V booster was never built in San Diego, and Centaur was never built in Denver.
Know more.
-
bombay - 3/1/2007 6:24 PM
Looks like another option for the Delta and Atlas guys.
From http://public.blueorigin.com that was posted on another thread:
"As I said above, Blue Origin is actively hiring. We are particularly looking for experienced propulsion engineers and experienced turbomachinery engineers, as well as a senior leader to head our turbopump group. Folks with turbopump or propulsion experience on large, modern, cryogenic engines such as the RS-68 are of particular interest."
"Another high priority for us is an experienced leader for our structures team. Structures experience on large, modern vehicles such as Delta IV or Atlas V is of particular interest."
"We are searching to fill other positions as well. Please check out our careers page on this website. Feel free to send a note and resume to our head of recruiting, Walt McCleery at [email protected]."
Beat me to it. Link does not work so try this one;
http://public.blueorigin.com/index.html
also
http://public.blueorigin.com/jobs.htm
Jobs available.
We have immediate openings for:
Ground Support Systems Engineer
Systems Engineer
Mechanical Systems Engineer
Propulsion Development Engineer
Propulsion Design Engineer
Turbomachinery Engineer
Propulsion Component Engineer
Engineering Analysis Software Developer
Senior Safety Engineer
Flight Mechanics Engineer
Structural Engineer
Guidance and Navigation Engineer
Crew Systems Engineer
Embedded Software Engineer
NC Machinist
Looks like a nice place to work and they are definitely interested in RS-68, D4 and A5 people. If I had to relocate, this would be worth a look. Cool to see the owner sharing in the experience.
Should have got that engineering degree in college.
-
Like that is a better option. Seattle, the city with the highest suicide rate
-
Jim - 4/1/2007 12:10 AM
Like that is a better option. Seattle, the city with the highest suicide rate
Not sure where you get your facts from.
Try this one:
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&page_id=05114FBE-E445-7831-F0C1494E2FADB8EA
Notice where Washington is relative to Florida.
Edit: Bringing up suicide; Now there is some real doom and gloom. :(
-
city, not state
-
Jim - 4/1/2007 7:45 AM
city, not state
Do you have something to back up your opinion?
-
Regardless of actual statistics, I think Jim is referring to the fact that most people think of Seattle as a cold and often cloudy/rainy geographic location. Which gives many people the impression that it may be a rather depressing and undesirable place to live as opposed to Cali or FL.
-
Jim - 30/12/2006 7:15 AM
SoCal has its earthquakes , wildfires, storms etc too
Jim,
Earthquake is no big deal here in so. cal.
Just imagine your wife actually shake in the bed ;) ::: drum roll please::: ;)
-
MySDCUserID - 4/1/2007 3:30 PM
Regardless of actual statistics, I think Jim is referring to the fact that most people think of Seattle as a cold and often cloudy/rainy geographic location. Which gives many people the impression that it may be a rather depressing and undesirable place to live as opposed to Cali or FL.
... and the key word is "impression". Actually the pacific northwest is a wonderful place to live. I've visited there several times on both business and pleasure, and have friends & relatives in the area.
Now I can't say the same about Florida, it's hot & humid 6 months out of a year. The mosquitos are HUGE and they bite every skin exposed. Sink holes appears out of nowhere and houses been known to get "sucked in". Just about the only saving graces there is no state income tax & the strippers are better than the ones in California.
-
Propforce - 4/1/2007 8:24 PM
Now I can't say the same about Florida, it's hot & humid 6 months out of a year. The mosquitos are HUGE and they bite every skin exposed. Sink holes appears out of nowhere and houses been known to get "sucked in". Just about the only saving graces there is no state income tax & the strippers are better than the ones in California.
Thus the reason why everything is screened in Florida. They even have screen door garage doors to keep the bugs out. Pretty good idea I must admit.
Not only that, I think the highest elevation of Florida is about 6 feet.
-
Propforce - 4/1/2007 9:16 PM
Jim - 30/12/2006 7:15 AM
SoCal has its earthquakes , wildfires, storms etc too
Jim,
Earthquake is no big deal here in so. cal.
Just imagine your wife actually shake in the bed ;) ::: drum roll please::: ;)
Use to live there.
-
MySDCUserID - 4/1/2007 5:30 PM
Regardless of actual statistics, I think Jim is referring to the fact that most people think of Seattle as a cold and often cloudy/rainy geographic location. Which gives many people the impression that it may be a rather depressing and undesirable place to live as opposed to Cali or FL.
Actually, Jim did not give an opinion that Seatlle or the Pacific Northwest is undersirable, he stated it as fact that it is a suicide capital and when confronted he could have modified his position or offered proof. He did neither.
When I and other posters talk about weather in Denver, we are immediately dismissed by the earthquakes and wildfires.
Now we are led to believe that Seattle is undesirable because of a little rain and cloudiness?
Then Alabama is undesirable for big bugs, humidity, church burnings, etc... and Denver for all the snow.
You do make a good point about the desirability to live in California as reflected by the real estate market. This has been my point all along that the ULA scheme will jeopardize assured access to space for national security because people will not relocate as the pro-ULA advocates suggest.
The folks that suggest that Atlas moved from SD to Denver have not addresed the timing of the move during a recession versus today's climate with Blue Origin, SpaceX and others seeking those key technical folks.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/01/10/life.stress.reut/
I was off by 30 miles
-
Seattle and Tacoma are no more the same than Philadelphia and Camden.
-
Jim - 4/1/2007 7:24 PM
Propforce - 4/1/2007 9:16 PM
Jim - 30/12/2006 7:15 AM
SoCal has its earthquakes , wildfires, storms etc too
Jim,
Earthquake is no big deal here in so. cal.
Just imagine your wife actually shake in the bed ;) ::: drum roll please::: ;)
Use to live there.
I see.....
So McDonnell Douglas sent you to Florida... and you've bitter about it since ? ;)
-
Speaking as a resident of the Seattle area since 1993, I can say that it doesn't rain nearly as much as people think, and that for six months of the year, the sun hardly shines through the clouds. Summer and early fall are great. The traffic's terrible, but so is everywhere else. The earthquakes are too small to notice and thunderstorms are downright polite, if not wimpy. The view of Mt. Rainier is inspiring year-round, but especially so in winter. Starbuck's and espresso stands are on every corner; I don't drink coffee. I still prefer the Pacific Northwet to living near Atlanta.
Meanwhile, we've got a new Delta IV Heavy on the launch pad.
-
Propforce - 5/1/2007 2:16 AM
Jim - 4/1/2007 7:24 PM
Propforce - 4/1/2007 9:16 PM
Jim - 30/12/2006 7:15 AM
SoCal has its earthquakes , wildfires, storms etc too
Jim,
Earthquake is no big deal here in so. cal.
Just imagine your wife actually shake in the bed ;) ::: drum roll please::: ;)
Use to live there.
I see.....
So McDonnell Douglas sent you to Florida... and you've bitter about it since ? ;)
No. I was in the Air Force and chose to go. I when I left the Air Force, I was hired by McDac.
-
Jim - 4/1/2007 11:26 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/01/10/life.stress.reut/
I was off by 30 miles
So was Mars Climate Orbiter.
-
Believe it or not I am an ex-Atlas / Centaur software engineer living in California. I am wanting to be hired by ULA in Littleton, and I am hoping to replace one of those ULA Boeing engineers who is afraid of the cold.
Has anybody read any juicy rumors on how many Boeing engineers are going to take the Littleton move package? I am hoping all the bad weather and such in Colorado is going to scare these folks away from the idea of freezing in Denver.
Anybody know what the deadline is for the Boeing engineers whom received a move package to respond by?
Anybody know what the ULA move package is that is offered to these folks? Sell California house? Move how many pounds for a family move?
-
Hello ULAwantabe,
You'll have no worries. You can expect less than 30% of "... afraid of cold..." Boeing engineers that will choose to go to Colorado, especially the software engineers. So you should "network" with you ex-colleagues, ex-bosses, etc. about applying for a job with the ULA.
But the question is why were you left behind? We have an ex-Atlas/ Centaur engineer who now works in Delta and would LOVE to go to Denver, but he was not offerred to go with the original Atlas team. Reportedly he was so upset that he sued the company. I don't think he will exactly be in the company's high priority "invite" list this time neither.
We should find out within the next month or so on who in management will choose to go, starting with the directors, then senior managers, then the first line managers, then the worker-bees get to decide. It makes a big difference to the workerbees knowing who will be your manager before making this important career decision.
Personally, if I was you, I'd apply directly to Lockheed for the CEV job rather than a ULA job. A development program is a lot more interesting than a "sustaining" program. JMO.
-
One thing that worries me about the Decatur plant. We have an small Tornado alley in North Alabama.
Back in 1989, Huntsville was devastated by an F-4.
In 1974 we had the Super-Outbreak, which included the 102-mile Guin, Alabama F-5. It passed over Redstone as a funnel cloud before breaking up completely.
One bad strike and we lose both EELVs.
-
publiusr - 12/1/2007 1:39 PM
One thing that worries me about the Decatur plant. We have an small Tornado alley in North Alabama.
Back in 1989, Huntsville was devastated by an F-4.
In 1974 we had the Super-Outbreak, which included the 102-mile Guin, Alabama F-5. It passed over Redstone as a funnel cloud before breaking up completely.
One bad strike and we lose both EELVs.
Another Katrina and MAF is gone. So what is the point?
-
Jim - 12/1/2007 1:01 PM
publiusr - 12/1/2007 1:39 PM
One thing that worries me about the Decatur plant. We have an small Tornado alley in North Alabama.
Back in 1989, Huntsville was devastated by an F-4.
In 1974 we had the Super-Outbreak, which included the 102-mile Guin, Alabama F-5. It passed over Redstone as a funnel cloud before breaking up completely.
One bad strike and we lose both EELVs.
Another Katrina and MAF is gone. So what is the point?
The point that he's obviously making is that if national security is the primary reason for the formation of ULA, then why risk having both Delta and Atlas manufacturing under one roof whereby both programs would be shut down in the event of a natural disaster. That flys in the face of the national security rhetoric that we've all been fed.
-
No, he is just plain anti EELV. But anyways, MAF is just as important
-
And one has to ask what the odds are of various failures, when trying to protect against them. Problems with newish large rocket engines? Common. Problems with launch vehicle component interactions? Common. Problems with the RL10? Less common. Tornados big enough to destroy the Decatur manufacturing plant? Uncommon.
Although given that MAF survived this Katrina, I'm curious as to why it wouldn't survive another one.
-
ULAwantabe - 9/1/2007 6:53 PM
Believe it or not I am an ex-Atlas / Centaur software engineer living in California. I am wanting to be hired by ULA in Littleton, and I am hoping to replace one of those ULA Boeing engineers who is afraid of the cold.
Has anybody read any juicy rumors on how many Boeing engineers are going to take the Littleton move package? I am hoping all the bad weather and such in Colorado is going to scare these folks away from the idea of freezing in Denver.
Anybody know what the deadline is for the Boeing engineers whom received a move package to respond by?
Anybody know what the ULA move package is that is offered to these folks? Sell California house? Move how many pounds for a family move?
Why don't you go to www.ulalaunch .com
There seem to be many jobs already available especially technical jobs in Huntington Beach. You will notice that they all state the jobs are moving to Denver.
https://recruiter.kenexa.com/ula/cc/CCJobSearchAction.ss?command=CCSearchNow
Lots of technical positions already.
-
To Propforce and Dexter,
I choose not to go to Denver in 1994 because I was to much a wimp and "afraid of the cold". My father having just died also played into the decision.
I still hate the cold but I think I would miss exercising my love of rocketry for staying behind if given a second chance. I have not worked in as fascinating of a position since leaving Atlas. But the biggest draw of my interest is the opportunity to cash out on my home mortgage and stack up to 1/2 a million in the bank with that federal one time equity cash out option. I have already been to Denver with my lovely wife who would not be my lovely wife if I choose to go in 1994. And we both liked Littleton and Highlands Ranch to the maximum. Nice inexpensive houses, high quality of life compared to California, good schools too! But unfortunately no Fry’s!
Because I just am somewhat bothered by the cold winters and I check the http://littletongov.org/cupolacam/default.asp
CAM of Littleton twice a day. Right now it is 15.9 degrees. Boo! I hope that scares all you Delta people away. since you need to stay behind or else you will loose your endless warm California sunshine! SO ALLOW ME ALL YOUR OPPORTUNITIES. Actually if I do get an offer I expect it would be to work Delta and I would greatly love to work side by side with your very qualified Delta engineers. You are the best. So I hope all the smart one take the ULA opportunity.
I checked out the ULA careers page twice a day. I log all the new jobs into my book, and have not yet seen any positions that actually satisfy my goals, other then one in Florida. I feel that it will take a few months for ULA management to digest all your Delta HB engineering positions and then to decide on the new required staffing levels. But just as soon as I view the proper job requisitions I will make contact with all my energies and gusto.
As for stability, my feeling is that ULA employees will essentially have long term stability provided ULA does not initially over hire to make up for lost work load from the chaos of the past two years. As for me, I should not tell you where I live in southern California so as to give away my amenity, however I will state that the option of first moving to HB would be lower on my list then Alabama. But if that is the only way to get a move package out of the deal I would consider it. And therefore I am directing most of my energies to apply directly to Littleton based positions.
I have reviewed and applied to many of the Orion (not called CEV anymore) positions at Lockheed and I would like to state that the competition is fierce to get on that program. I also worry that the stability of employment may not be as long term as on a ULA position. Though I would tend to agree that Orion offers very fascinating work prospects. I hear that the second big wave of hiring will be in the summer of 07 for Orion. Nice time to move to Denver. Nice time to plant the annuals in the garden! But I guess I will have to forget about the perennials coming up the next year in Colorado.
-
ULAW.
Thanks for supporting my argument that folks who are contemplating relocation will be affected by weather and climate much as you did in 1994. You also brought up the passing of your father (belated condolences) and this is another issue affecting people taking care of elderly parents whose decision will be affected by such a situation.
I do find it interesting that, based on your comments, Orion positions are subject to fierce competition even in a cold environment, while ULA position in HB are readily available as if the road to attrition has already begun with people bailing. This is the only conclusion I can draw, otherwise ULA could wait to fill those positions when they move to Denver.
I wish you luck in your quest to land a job with ULA because our National security requirement to launch sattelites will depend on folks like you who are willing to make the move.
Be advised, however, that it was mentioned in another thread that Lockheed started building a facility in Huntsville prior to winning Orion and it is speculated that ULA engineering will eventually end up in North Alabama close to Decatur.
-
Dexter,
>Be advised, however, that it was mentioned in another thread that Lockheed started building a facility in Huntsville prior to winning Orion and it is speculated that ULA engineering will eventually end up in North Alabama close to Decatur.
You just dropped a big bomb shell on my foot! I am wanting to send some emails to my primary contacts on ULA to double check this. Alabama will NOT work for me. (Although I hear you can buy 2 acre lots for $150K and oh yes.... that comes with a new house)... and mosquitoes too!
Are you sure you do not mean to say that Orion engineering will eventually end up in Alabama or Texas? I ask this because I heard once second hand from an Orion manager that the Lockheed space system positions on Orion may eventually move out of Denver. Please highlight if you mean ULA, or rather Orion LM positions.... Thanks!
Also, you say that HB can not find willing and able engineers. I am a s/w engineer with strong experience in cryogenic fluid simulations of rocket systems. I thought that the only ULA hiring (both Littleton and HB) is via the https://recruiter.kenexa.com/ula/cc/Home.ss page? Is there another pathway that I could fire my resume directly to someone in HB? Any way to get a contact link off line? It would definitely be a wise method for me to pursue the correct position directly through HB if that is another active method. I have already been on my fair share of plant tours in 1994. Perhaps an interview directly in HB would save me a lot of the hassle of a winter flight to Denver. Also, I am into bypassing the formality and such and trying to speak directly to an hiring manager in my experience area. You can fire me off a confidential email and I will reply from my personal e-mail. I am very much into entering from the back door if it is open.
Thank you!
-
ULAwantabe - 16/1/2007 9:03 AM
Also, you say that HB can not find willing and able engineers. I am a s/w engineer with strong experience in cryogenic fluid simulations of rocket systems. I thought that the only ULA hiring (both Littleton and HB) is via the https://recruiter.kenexa.com/ula/cc/Home.ss page? Is there another pathway that I could fire my resume directly to someone in HB? Any way to get a contact link off line? It would definitely be a wise method for me to pursue the correct position directly through HB if that is another active method. I have already been on my fair share of plant tours in 1994. Perhaps an interview directly in HB would save me a lot of the hassle of a winter flight to Denver. Also, I am into bypassing the formality and such and trying to speak directly to an hiring manager in my experience area. You can fire me off a confidential email and I will reply from my personal e-mail. I am very much into entering from the back door if it is open.
Thank you!
You can explore HB (as well as any locations) jobs via Boeing's external link
https://jobs.boeing.com/index.jsp
Just click on "Job Search" function on the upper left-hand-corner. There are 21 S/W engineering jobs currently in So. Cal.
Unless you're dead-set to work for ULA, there're lots of other programs that need S/W engineers at Boeing Southern California. Big programs such as GPS III, IIF, FCS, GMD, JTRS, etc. Boeing's 2 big business unit in So. Cal. are Space & Intelligence Sys. and C3 networks. You can just imagine lots of S/W engineering jobs in these area.
However; be warned that a decent house in HB starts around $800K. The good news is it will appreciate faster than Littleton and you will have a fatter nest egg around your time to retire.
-
Well my goal is to move to Littleton and let the cash out of home equity appreciate in the investment world of secure bonds and stuff. I am OK right now working at my aerospace employer in San Diego so I have no interest to move to Boeing positions that will remain in California. I just wish to work again on rocket programs, and I would like to release my family of a lot of this insane housing debt.
You know, Southern California means the home is paid off in 27 more years and never any money saved for the kid’s college fund. Littleton means the home is paid off in 15 years, and just in time for the kid’s college costs. Plus, I might venture to add that as a San Diegan I 8 L A and that whole area. It is to congested for my taste. But I would be interested in HB during a limited and pre-defined transition period.
As for my commitment to pursue ULA ... I do not think any Boeing positions on their web site have Delta programs postings. Those Delta / ULA jobs are now all located on the ULA careers page. I am just inquiring if there is a back door listing of possible entry via California. My guess is that all the postings for Delta software will be decided by ULA management after the transition of all Delta engineers that take the move package. ...And that I can only enter ULA via Littleton postings. But who knows. Networking to me means trying all possible avenues.
-
Chris,
You deleted your post!
Well... HB may not have the rich heritage as York, England and the thousand-year old mansions.
But we do have this...in the WINTER TIME !! :) :)
-
They must be freezing ...
-
Propforce,
I asked Chris to delete it since I did not want to make the thread too off subject. Thanks Chris! It really means a lot to me that you honored my request. I suppose now you can go ahead and put it back.... But anyway with the latest photo I just do not know what to say.
Propforce, thanks, hopefully the photo you posted will keep the ULA HB S/W Engineers from saying yes to the offers since I guess Denver is really only warm enough to ware a bathing suit to swim during July and August. I guess in HB it is warm enough to ware the bathing suite almost all year round? Funny that in my San Diego community it is also only warm enough to ware bathing suits July and August and maybe a little in June and September. Hummm, must be that Huntington Beach MAGIC that hopefully the ULA engineers will never choose to leave! Yes, it is not a good idea for HB engineers to move to Denver so that ULAwantabe has more opportunities!!!! Please stay put! :-)
Anyway, I think I exhausted my efforts now to network via this idea on the Forum. I will keep trying via other more conventional methods.
Thank you,
- ULA_VeryMuchWantabe
-
ULAwantabe - 16/1/2007 11:20 AM
Dexter,
>Be advised, however, that it was mentioned in another thread that Lockheed started building a facility in Huntsville prior to winning Orion and it is speculated that ULA engineering will eventually end up in North Alabama close to Decatur.
You just dropped a big bomb shell on my foot! I am wanting to send some emails to my primary contacts on ULA to double check this. Alabama will NOT work for me. (Although I hear you can buy 2 acre lots for $150K and oh yes.... that comes with a new house)... and mosquitoes too!
Are you sure you do not mean to say that Orion engineering will eventually end up in Alabama or Texas? I ask this because I heard once second hand from an Orion manager that the Lockheed space system positions on Orion may eventually move out of Denver. Please highlight if you mean ULA, or rather Orion LM positions.... Thanks!
Thank you!
Orion design is supposed to be in Denver with management located in Houston where the prgram will be headquartered.
As far as ULA engineering moving to Decatur/Huntsville, please refer to the following references:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=4979&start=16&posts=32
This thread tlaks about the building that was started by Lockheed prior to winning the Orion which was not expected. Everyone thought NG/BA was going to win, so why start building for Orion?
The answer lies in this link:
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/061207/ula.shtml
and I quote:
"For the formation of the ULA," Collins said, "this plant was one of the major assets Boeing contributed."
One of Lockheed's contributions to the venture was its agreement to drop a lawsuit it filed against Boeing for the alleged theft of proprietary information about Atlas V production techniques. Gass said Lockheed dismissed the lawsuit Friday. Gass said friction between the companies related to that lawsuit and their at-times-bitter rivalry for government launch contracts are past.
Boeing contributes a brand new factory, Lockheed contributes a dropped law suit. There does not seem to be much equity there unless is something else Lockheed is contributing that is not yet advertised.
Which leads me to a post a previously made on page 32 of this thread:
http://www.siteselection.com/sshighlites/0498/9804p190.htm
"Boeing: Decatur, Ala., $450 million, 3,000 jobs
Boeing’s $400 million, 3,000-employee, 2-million-sq.-ft. (180,000-sq.-m.) rocket plant is big in ways transcending the obvious. Alabama’s largest project ever, the deal is also big in incentives and very big in risk.
Despite the industry’s rapid growth, new aerospace facility launches remain precarious ventures. Start-up costs are sky-high, with a minuscule customer base and cut-throat competition.
More risk was added with the Decatur plant, which appeared to hinge on Boeing’s landing a coveted $1.6 billion contract for the next-generation U.S. space launch vehicle.
Alabama offered Boeing $80 million in incentives for a project that may create 3,000 more jobs. Alabama development officials drew critical fire a few years earlier for the $253 million Mercedes-Benz incentive package. Neal Wade, Alabama Economic Development Partnership director insisted, "we won’t extend anything we can’t get back if it’s not built."
In April 1998, the Air Force split the $1.6 billion contract between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. But Boeing’s Decatur plant is proceeding due to skyrocketing commercial launch demand, including projects for Motorola, Hughes and Loral, says spokesman Walt Rice. Now, though, the Decatur facility is being built to be flexible enough to grow or contract as decisions are made."
If the state of Alabama provided $80M in incentives for 3,000 jobs and ULA has about 750 jobs projected in Alabama, you have to wonder what penalty clauses Alabama negotiated with Boeing after the criticism of the Mercedes deal.
So let's recap:
Lockheed's only advertised contribition is a dropped lawsuit.
Alabama is expecting more than 750 jobs for their incentive package.
Lockheed started building an office building in Huntsville prior to Orion.
Add to that that according to Boeing employees, there was an attempt to move to Decatur and the HB folks refused to go reflecting your sentiments for not wanting to go to Alabama.
I speculate that the HB move to Denver is only an interim step to break away the program from Southern California and then announce a move to Alabama.
Talk about losing critical technical people.
-
Dexter - 20/1/2007 11:39 PM
Everyone thought NG/BA was going to win, so why start building for Orion?
only outsiders did. There was no real reason for thinking this.
As for the building, think a little before spreading BS. There is more money in Huntsville dealing with NMD than launch vehicles. LM wants a bigger presence to deal with the Army
Anyways, the building can't be used for ULA. ULA is not part of LM.
And most of all:
"
Lockheed started building an office building in Huntsville prior to Orion" and it was prior to ULA
-
Additional Info:
Partial quote from today's Aerospace Daily
http://www.aviationnow.com/avweek1/avnow_login.jsp?&INTERCEPT_MESSAGES=F_IP_CRD&PRIOR_REQUEST_URL=%2Fpublication%2Faerospacedaily%2Floggedin%2FAvnowStoryDisplay.do%3FfromChannel%3Dhome%26pubKey%3Daerospacedaily%26issueDate%3D2006-12-04%26story%3Dxml%2Faerospacedaily_xml%2F2006%2F12%2F04%2F09.xml%26headline%3DNew%2BA350%2BMay%2BPlease%2BAirlines%252c%2BBut%2BCould%2BAlso%2BHeat%2BSubsidy%2BRow
(Copying and pasting content from other sites is a breach of copyright - EDIT/JamesLowe)
What are the sites that have yet to open that will employee 500 people?????
-
Stop making something out of nothing.
500 people would not be all of engineering so that doesn't fit into your "Everyone to Decatur conspiracy"
Most of ULA will not be at the LM Waterton plant but "offsite" in Denver
-
Jim - 20/1/2007 10:54 PM
Dexter - 20/1/2007 11:39 PM
Everyone thought NG/BA was going to win, so why start building for Orion?
only outsiders did. There was no real reason for thinking this.
As for the building, think a little before spreading BS. There is more money in Huntsville dealing with NMD than launch vehicles. LM wants a bigger presence to deal with the Army
Anyways, the building can't be used for ULA. ULA is not part of LM.
And most of all:
"
Lockheed started building an office building in Huntsville prior to Orion" and it was prior to ULA
So Lockheed can't build a building and turn it over to ULA in the same manner as Boeing building the Decatur factory??
What is Lockheed's contribution to ULA then that matches the Decatur facility?
-
Jim - 20/1/2007 11:02 PM
Stop making something out of nothing.
500 people would not be all of engineering so that doesn't fit into your "Everyone to Decatur conspiracy"
Most of ULA will not be at the LM Waterton plant but "offsite" in Denver
So what does Alabama do about ther $80M incentive package??? Especially after the Mercedes criticism. Does ULA risk loosing the $80M??
-
Dexter - 20/1/2007 12:10 AM
Jim - 20/1/2007 10:54 PM
Dexter - 20/1/2007 11:39 PM
Everyone thought NG/BA was going to win, so why start building for Orion?
only outsiders did. There was no real reason for thinking this.
As for the building, think a little before spreading BS. There is more money in Huntsville dealing with NMD than launch vehicles. LM wants a bigger presence to deal with the Army
Anyways, the building can't be used for ULA. ULA is not part of LM.
And most of all:
"
Lockheed started building an office building in Huntsville prior to Orion" and it was prior to ULA
So Lockheed can't build a building and turn it over to ULA in the same manner as Boeing building the Decatur factory??
What is Lockheed's contribution to ULA then that matches the Decatur facility?
Not now, since ULA is separate. ULA must contract for any services by LM and Boeing, no freebies
LM contribution is a LV system and part of the Waterton complex
-
You just contradicted yourself about Waterton campus.
-
Now some word through the rumor mill:
1) ULA was in the works long before it was announced in May 2005 and the building was erected prior to the ULA announcement with the understanding that ULA engineering will "eventually move" to Alabama.
2) Rumor is spreading in Denver that ULA engineering will transition to Alabama within the next five years.
Beware to all those considering a move to Denver; the bait and switch is on!!! A move from SoCal to Denver is one thing, but a move from SoCal to Decatur via Denver is a whole different story.
The underlying theme of this message is: Alabama granted Boeing (and now ULA) all kinds of concessions and now they will be holding ULA up to their end of the bargain, which is, jobs-jobs-and more jobs.
-
ULAwantabe - 19/1/2007 4:35 PM
Propforce,
I asked Chris to delete it since I did not want to make the thread too off subject. Thanks Chris! It really means a lot to me that you honored my request. I suppose now you can go ahead and put it back.... But anyway with the latest photo I just do not know what to say.
ULAW,
OIC. I tried to delete the pic but the computer won't let me. Chris if you happen to see the post, please delete the beach volleyball picture so that we don't get off-topic on this thread. Thank you.
Apparently you don't go to the beach often enough. SD has warm beach weather year round. But HB is more of a "hard core" surfing and beach volleyball capital. In fact, if you drive along the PCH at 6~7 am you'd find many surfers catching the morning waves before they go to work. But if you're like most S/W engineers, then chances are you're a late-night person and not much of an outdoor guy.
Good luck in your job search in ULA and an opportunity to cash in the recent California real estate price boom. Everyone has their own unique circumstances that drive them to make different decisions. I wish you the best.
Anyway, I think I exhausted my efforts now to network via this idea on the Forum. I will keep trying via other more conventional methods.
- ULA_VeryMuchWantabe
5 posts in a forum is hardly what I'd call "networking", more like "fishing". But I wish you the best nonetheless.
-
bombay - 21/1/2007 3:30 PM
Now some word through the rumor mill:
1) ULA was in the works long before it was announced in May 2005 and the building was erected prior to the ULA announcement with the understanding that ULA engineering will "eventually move" to Alabama.
2) Rumor is spreading in Denver that ULA engineering will transition to Alabama within the next five years.
Beware to all those considering a move to Denver; the bait and switch is on!!! A move from SoCal to Denver is one thing, but a move from SoCal to Decatur via Denver is a whole different story.
The underlying theme of this message is: Alabama granted Boeing (and now ULA) all kinds of concessions and now they will be holding ULA up to their end of the bargain, which is, jobs-jobs-and more jobs.
I am hearing the same rumors. This makes sense with the Alabama incentive package.
-
Gus - 22/1/2007 9:41 PM
I am hearing the same rumors. This makes sense with the Alabama incentive package.
It would make even more sense IF the ULA is eyeing as the Ares 1 US Prime Contractor. What better warm & fuzzy message to send to NASA MSFC, who's only 20 minutes away, than that the ULA engineering is effectively a part of MSFC contractor work force?
-
Propforce - 23/1/2007 1:52 AM
Gus - 22/1/2007 9:41 PM
I am hearing the same rumors. This makes sense with the Alabama incentive package.
It would make even more sense IF the ULA is eyeing as the Ares 1 US Prime Contractor. What better warm & fuzzy message to send to NASA MSFC, who's only 20 minutes away, than that the ULA engineering is effectively a part of MSFC contractor work force?
ULA can't be the the Ares 1 US Prime Contractor. Not allowed, just as ULA can't sell ELV's commercially. ULA can only be a sub to another contractor.
-
Jim - 22/1/2007 11:53 PM
ULA can't be the the Ares 1 US Prime Contractor. Not allowed, just as ULA can't sell ELV's commercially. ULA can only be a sub to another contractor.
Oh that's right... so the ULA will be "sub" to LM or Boeing, but we ALL know where the work will be carried out.
NASA MSFC would like the idea that T & E at Decatur is close to their backyard and their engineers can get involved.
-
But also the US will be built at MAF, so no real advantage for Decatur, since production is still not co-located with enginneering
-
Jim - 23/1/2007 9:52 AM
But also the US will be built at MAF, so no real advantage for Decatur, since production is still not co-located with enginneering
The US will be assembled at MAF, but the subsystems can be built anywhere.
In a new launch vehicle development such as the Ares 1, it is during the EMD (engineering & manufcaturing development) phase that is the most important where many of the design & manufacturing approaches are tried, validated or changed. It is when your engineers are most intimately involved in the initial manufacturing, assembly, test & verification of their subsystems.
Since MSFC is "responsible" for the design & development phase of Ares 1, upto the 3rd flight. Their engineers would want to work closely with the T&E site to develop work flow processes, procedures, design the parts so can be handled by the T&E equpment, and jointly develop the V&V plan. They also will need to work closely with the engineers of the US production contractor during a period of transition to hand-off the drawings, work packages, and may even need to modify design so it can be produced. If the ULA engineering is located at Decatur, 20 minutes away from Huntsville, then it facilitates greatly the transition from "development" to "production".
This would be a "common sense" approach as anyone who's been through an EMD phase on either Atlas or Delta can testify. Engineers want to be near where their flight hardware so they can ensure the integrity of "as built" per their design and correct any changes as necessary.
Also, from the politics side, seeing how MSFC likes to be "in charge" these days and use mostly the "local" contractors to do the work. It is to anyone's advantage, including the ULA, to be "one of the boys" and become a "local contractor" rather than at thousand mile away.
-
OK, So it seems logical that ULA may end up in Alabama dispite my good contacts in ULA in Denver saying zero chance. This is an interesting contridiction of ideas. It does seem logical that ULA + Alabama = Nasa is happy, however my buddy says all manufacturing goes to Decater but ALL ENGINEERING STAYS IN DENVER. Who do I believe?
-
Engineering in Denver. The LM building in HSV is for NMD. Somebody is just stirring the pot.
he US will be assembled at MAF, just like the ET. Decatur doesn't make subsystems either, they assemble EELV's. Except for the tanks and thrust section, all other systems are supplied
MSFC managed the ET at MAF, SRM in Utah and SSME in CA. They didn't move them to HSV
-
ULAwantabe - 23/1/2007 4:38 PM
OK, So it seems logical that ULA may end up in Alabama dispite my good contacts in ULA in Denver saying zero chance. This is an interesting contridiction of ideas. It does seem logical that ULA + Alabama = Nasa is happy, however my buddy says all manufacturing goes to Decater but ALL ENGINEERING STAYS IN DENVER. Who do I believe?
Sounds like a choice between logic and wishful thinking.
-
Jim - 23/1/2007 1:53 AM
ULA can't be the the Ares 1 US Prime Contractor. Not allowed, just as ULA can't sell ELV's commercially. ULA can only be a sub to another contractor.
Selling ELV's commercially and contracting to build the Ares 1 US for NASA are two different animals. The sole purpose of ULA is to provide services for the gov't, which includes NASA, NRO, etc.
There's no longer a more qualified outfit out there to build such a thing.
-
bombay - 23/1/2007 7:24 PM
Jim - 23/1/2007 1:53 AM
ULA can't be the the Ares 1 US Prime Contractor. Not allowed, just as ULA can't sell ELV's commercially. ULA can only be a sub to another contractor.
Selling ELV's commercially and contracting to build the Ares 1 US for NASA are two different animals. The sole purpose of ULA is to provide services for the gov't, which includes NASA, NRO, etc.
There's no longer a more qualified outfit out there to build such a thing.
Sole purpose is to build EELV's. Any other work is excluded, not allowed. This is per meetings with ULA. Gov't won't allow it.
-
Typical U.S. Gov't logic. Decide on using the common bulkhead concept for the Ares I US and disallow the company with the most knowledge in common bulkhead tank design from bidding the work.
-
bombay - 23/1/2007 8:56 PM
Typical U.S. Gov't logic. Decide on using the common bulkhead concept for the Ares I US and disallow the company with the most knowledge in common bulkhead tank design from bidding the work.
Wrong. Both Douglas and Rockwell (Boeing hertiage companied) built common bulkhead stages for the Saturn I, IB and V. and where did they get the experience? Nowhere, it was first time for each.
Also, the US contractor is not designing the US, MSFC is
edit:
Additionally, Delta II second stage is common bulkhead.
common bulkhead is not that novel.
Agena had it too
Edit: not all designers went to ULA from Boeing and LM
-
you guys just want to complain about everything.
-
Jim - 23/1/2007 8:05 PM
bombay - 23/1/2007 8:56 PM
Typical U.S. Gov't logic. Decide on using the common bulkhead concept for the Ares I US and disallow the company with the most knowledge in common bulkhead tank design from bidding the work.
Wrong. Both Douglas and Rockwell (Boeing hertiage companied) built common bulkhead stages for the Saturn I, IB and V. and where did they get the experience? Nowhere, it was first time for each.
Also, the US contractor is not designing the US, MSFC is
edit:
Additionally, Delta II second stage is common bulkhead.
common bulkhead is not that novel.
Agena had it too
Edit: not all designers went to ULA from Boeing and LM
The novelty comes when dealing with LOX and LH2 and insulating against the thermal gradient between the oxidizer and fuel- something Centaur and only Centaur does. Delta II 2nd stage doesn't burn LOX/LH2.
NASA awarded the Saturn V work to Douglas to avoid a monopoly on common bulkhead design that Convair mastered in the development of Centaur. Was there a sharing of technology back in the 60's to support the manned moon missions? - Who knows.
So now you're implying that it's perfectly fine to ignor known expertise in LOX/LH2 common bulkhead design so MSFC can try to reinvent the wheel. I guess they have to find some excuse to blow $5 billion when the whole project can be done for a fraction of the cost with known and proven technologies.
I wonder what rock the designers from Boeing and Lockheed that didn't go to ULA are hiding under, because they sure aren't working for Boeing or Lockheed.
-
Hey now; the common bulkhead bait-and-switch on Ares I was a well-executed plan by MSFC with an assist from the Astronaut Office to ensure that the EELV didn't accidentally get selected as the CLV. It's got jack-all to do with ULA.
Edited to add - but if NASA had chosen EELV for the CLV, we might not have seen the ULA, as there could be enough business to keep both Boeing and Lockheed in business.
Interestingly enough, this press release (http://www.geoeye.com/newsroom/releases/2007_GeoEye1_Milestone.htm) seems to indicate that the ULA is selling Delta IIs to Boeing Launch Services for commercial flights.
-
Jim - 23/1/2007 6:05 PM
bombay - 23/1/2007 8:56 PM
Typical U.S. Gov't logic. Decide on using the common bulkhead concept for the Ares I US and disallow the company with the most knowledge in common bulkhead tank design from bidding the work.
Wrong. Both Douglas and Rockwell (Boeing hertiage companied) built common bulkhead stages for the Saturn I, IB and V. and where did they get the experience? Nowhere, it was first time for each.
Also, the US contractor is not designing the US, MSFC is
This is the first time I read Jim expressesing his confidence in MSFC's design ability... particularly on the common bulkhead tank :)
Here's somehting you may not be aware of, Jim. Drawing cartoons on powerpoint charts is one thing, having the ability to build a common bulkhead tank is a whole different story.
-
Structually stable common bulkheads are no big deal. Cryogenics and structually stable common bulkhead are no big deal, just add bond on insulation (See Saturn stages S-IV, S-IVB, and S-II). These were not Centaurs, there is a world of difference. The Centaur is a ballon tank, with a double common bulkhead which have a vacuum between them. That is what no one else can do.
Actually I don't have confidence in MSFC, but the US contractor will be holding MSFC's hand though the whole process. It won't be pretty.
-
Jim - 24/1/2007 6:13 AM
Structually stable common bulkheads are no big deal. Cryogenics and structually stable common bulkhead are no big deal, just add bond on insulation (See Saturn stages S-IV, S-IVB, and S-II). These were not Centaurs, there is a world of difference. The Centaur is a ballon tank, with a double common bulkhead which have a vacuum between them. That is what no one else can do.
Actually I don't have confidence in MSFC, but the US contractor will be holding MSFC's hand though the whole process. It won't be pretty.
In your own words, you state what I have been saying all along.
Bringing this thread back on topic, ULA will put at great risk, this unique capability because all the experienced technical people will be gone.
-
Dexter - 20/1/2007 10:55 PM
Additional Info:
Partial quote from today's Aerospace Daily
http://www.aviationnow.com/avweek1/avnow_login.jsp?&INTERCEPT_MESSAGES=F_IP_CRD&PRIOR_REQUEST_URL=%2Fpublication%2Faerospacedaily%2Floggedin%2FAvnowStoryDisplay.do%3FfromChannel%3Dhome%26pubKey%3Daerospacedaily%26issueDate%3D2006-12-04%26story%3Dxml%2Faerospacedaily_xml%2F2006%2F12%2F04%2F09.xml%26headline%3DNew%2BA350%2BMay%2BPlease%2BAirlines%252c%2BBut%2BCould%2BAlso%2BHeat%2BSubsidy%2BRow
(Copying and pasting content from other sites is a breach of copyright - EDIT/JamesLowe)
What are the sites that have yet to open that will employee 500 people?????
Just to paraphrase what was in this article, it mentioned that 1000 people in ULA were to be headquartered in Denver with 500 at a site yet to be opened.
Why would someone differentiate between Denver and a site yet to be opened if that site was not in Denver?
Would not the logical strategy for moving ULA engineering closer to Decatur be kept hidden until after the HB transfers are completed? (Much in the same way as ULA was announced and all the affected employees were kept from transferring out)
And how much of the $80M Alabama incentive package is at risk by not meeting the desired employment targets?
My experience tells me that folks at the top are bottom line thinkers and $80M is not to be sneezed at.
-
Here is your site yet to be opened.
"Facilities Update: Last Friday the ULA Board of Directors gave the go-ahead for lease of the building at 9100 East Mineral Circle in southeast Denver (which is not Denver but Centennial). The 160,000-square-foot building has room for about 680 people. Detailed occupancy planning is under way for the building, which will begin as early as the second quarter."
Like I said, the LM building in huntsville can't be for ULA
1. It is in Huntsville, which is too far away from being "colocated" with the plant in Decaut
2. it is still LM's. and therefore not ULA, which is separate. ULA now has to buy services from LM and Boeing. No more freebies
3. The building is for NMD. That is where the big money in in Huntsville
-
Dexter - 24/1/2007 9:49 AM
Jim - 24/1/2007 6:13 AM
Structually stable common bulkheads are no big deal. Cryogenics and structually stable common bulkhead are no big deal, just add bond on insulation (See Saturn stages S-IV, S-IVB, and S-II). These were not Centaurs, there is a world of difference. The Centaur is a ballon tank, with a double common bulkhead which have a vacuum between them. That is what no one else can do.
Actually I don't have confidence in MSFC, but the US contractor will be holding MSFC's hand though the whole process. It won't be pretty.
In your own words, you state what I have been saying all along.
Bringing this thread back on topic, ULA will put at great risk, this unique capability because all the experienced technical people will be gone.
No, I didn't say that. I was talking about a new design.
The Centaur design was completed over 40 years ago, tank builders have come and gone, the ins and outs are known by many people.... And not all the people are going to leave.
No one else except ULA
-
Jim - 23/1/2007 6:05 PM
Edit: not all designers went to ULA from Boeing and LM
That's true, especially the experienced ones and the "grey beards".
-
bombay,
So now you're implying that it's perfectly fine to ignor known expertise in LOX/LH2 common bulkhead design so MSFC can try to reinvent the wheel. I guess they have to find some excuse to blow $5 billion when the whole project can be done for a fraction of the cost with known and proven technologies.
This is assuming something rather big--that MSFC actually wants expertise from the LM Centaur guys. AIUI, during ESAS, when they saw the Atlas V WBC mass numbers they didn't believe them, so they doubled them (along with also completely changing the cost numbers as well). It's amazing how quickly you can prove that your facility needs to be given billions of dollars to build a new launch vehicle when you intentionally screw with the design data and cost data of your competitors. No conflict of interest here folks. Nothing to see. Move along. These aren't the droids you're looking for....
Seriously, using a Centaur/WBC derived upper stage in lieu of the Shaft US or the EDS would be a very good idea....but so would ditching the Shaft altogether and going with commercial launch instead of keeping NASA mostly in the shipping stuff to LEO game.
~Jon
-
Propforce - 24/1/2007 11:31 AM
Jim - 23/1/2007 6:05 PM
Edit: not all designers went to ULA from Boeing and LM
That's true, especially the experienced ones and the "grey beards".
And it is because the design phase is done and designers move on to the next development project.
-
Jim - 24/1/2007 10:33 AM
Propforce - 24/1/2007 11:31 AM
Jim - 23/1/2007 6:05 PM
Edit: not all designers went to ULA from Boeing and LM
That's true, especially the experienced ones and the "grey beards".
And it is because the design phase is done and designers move on to the next development project.
No it's not true. Rocket tank designers and stress analysts don't simply pack up there pencil and paper and move on to another program to design something else upon completion of the initial design phase. Upgrades and revisions to a design, in addition to hardware non-conformances, fit-up issues, and more is in many respects where the designers and analysts make their money.
The designers and analysts that are more likely to leave the program are the inexperienced ones through lay-off, while the more experienced ones remain.
-
Jim - 24/1/2007 9:36 AM
The Centaur design was completed over 40 years ago, tank builders have come and gone, the ins and outs are known by many people.... And not all the people are going to leave.
No one else except ULA
And who are those many people outside of San Diego that know the ins-and-outs of building a Centaur tank? I'm curious to know!
-
Jim - 24/1/2007 6:13 AM
Structually stable common bulkheads are no big deal. Cryogenics and structually stable common bulkhead are no big deal, just add bond on insulation (See Saturn stages S-IV, S-IVB, and S-II). These were not Centaurs, there is a world of difference. The Centaur is a ballon tank, with a double common bulkhead which have a vacuum between them. That is what no one else can do.
Actually I don't have confidence in MSFC, but the US contractor will be holding MSFC's hand though the whole process. It won't be pretty.
Yeap, it's no big deal to bond on the insulating material to the bulkhead on the inside of the tank just like it was no big deal to bond on the fixed foam to the outside of the Shuttle external tank. What's a few lives lost here and there.
-
Dexter - 24/1/2007 7:59 AM
Just to paraphrase what was in this article, it mentioned that 1000 people in ULA were to be headquartered in Denver with 500 at a site yet to be opened.
Why would someone differentiate between Denver and a site yet to be opened if that site was not in Denver?
Would not the logical strategy for moving ULA engineering closer to Decatur be kept hidden until after the HB transfers are completed? (Much in the same way as ULA was announced and all the affected employees were kept from transferring out)
And how much of the $80M Alabama incentive package is at risk by not meeting the desired employment targets?
My experience tells me that folks at the top are bottom line thinkers and $80M is not to be sneezed at.
The additional site is also in Denver, a leased facility because all 1500 people won't fit on the current LM site. Nothing to do with Alabama.
-
Jim - 24/1/2007 9:15 AM
Here is your site yet to be opened.
"Facilities Update: Last Friday the ULA Board of Directors gave the go-ahead for lease of the building at 9100 East Mineral Circle in southeast Denver (which is not Denver but Centennial). The 160,000-square-foot building has room for about 680 people. Detailed occupancy planning is under way for the building, which will begin as early as the second quarter."
Like I said, the LM building in huntsville can't be for ULA
1. It is in Huntsville, which is too far away from being "colocated" with the plant in Decaut
2. it is still LM's. and therefore not ULA, which is separate. ULA now has to buy services from LM and Boeing. No more freebies
3. The building is for NMD. That is where the big money in in Huntsville
Looking at Google Earth, Centennial appears to be much closer to Denver than Waterton. So is Waterton part of Denver now?
I find it interesting that Tacoma can be the same as Seattle but Centennial is diffrent than Denver.
Reviewing this thread, I recall that one of the items that held back the formation of ULA was the 50-50 contribution between Lockheed and Boeing.
Boeing contibutes 5 launch pads, two product lines, and a state of the art factory in Decatur.
Lockheed contributes one product line (with Russian engines), two launch pads, and a leased facility that apperently is now not in Denver in addition to the dropped law suit.
In all the responses to my "BS" theory, there is a failure to address the $80M incentive package from Alabama that was expecting a workforce of 3,000. The state definitely learned a lesson from the Mercedes deal and was quoted as saying that they would not negotiate for anything that they could not get back. That sounds like penalty clauses to me.
Why would ULA risk losing $80M if they could show in good faith that they relocated jobs to Alabama. And what jobs would be left to relocate with all the manufacturing already there at 750?
So when you reply to this post in an attempt to refute it, please address the following:
50-50 contribution
$80M incentive package
3,000 versus 750.
-
Jim - 24/1/2007 9:36 AM
Dexter - 24/1/2007 9:49 AM
Jim - 24/1/2007 6:13 AM
Structually stable common bulkheads are no big deal. Cryogenics and structually stable common bulkhead are no big deal, just add bond on insulation (See Saturn stages S-IV, S-IVB, and S-II). These were not Centaurs, there is a world of difference. The Centaur is a ballon tank, with a double common bulkhead which have a vacuum between them. That is what no one else can do.
Actually I don't have confidence in MSFC, but the US contractor will be holding MSFC's hand though the whole process. It won't be pretty.
In your own words, you state what I have been saying all along.
Bringing this thread back on topic, ULA will put at great risk, this unique capability because all the experienced technical people will be gone.
No, I didn't say that. I was talking about a new design.
The Centaur design was completed over 40 years ago, tank builders have come and gone, the ins and outs are known by many people.... And not all the people are going to leave.
No one else except ULA
What you said is "That is what no one else can do." This is present tense and implies something that is being done today.
I don't understand what you mean by "No one else except ULA"
Don't worry about MSFC, they are the big picture people who don't have to stare a computer screens all day. That's what contractors are for.
-
bombay - 24/1/2007 8:58 PM
Yeap, it's no big deal to bond on the insulating material to the bulkhead on the inside of the tank just like it was no big deal to bond on the fixed foam to the outside of the Shuttle external tank.
11 Saturn V's, 6 Saturn I's and 9 Saturn IB's using 60's materials technology proves it is no big deal. Bonding fixed foam on the outside on ELV's is no big deal either.
There is nothing wrong with the foam on the ET, it is the tiles that are the problem.
-
Dexter - 24/1/2007 11:46 PM
50-50 contribution
$80M incentive package
3,000 versus 750.
One Atlas EELV program and One Delta EELV program. Looks 50-50 to me. Boeing threw in Delta II. Boeing and LM agreed to the formation of the company. It seems they are ok with it. I just you have to take that up with them. LM is not providing a leased facility, ULA is getting it. there are 2 Delta IV pads. NASA owns the west coast one and USAF owns the east coast ones.
I am sure that there are escape clauses for ULA
-
No it's not true. Rocket tank designers and stress analysts don't simply pack up there pencil and paper and move on to another program to design something else upon completion of the initial design phase.
Actually, that is exactly what does happen. There are two distinct phases to a "design" prject. The first stage starts with the blank sheet and goes through somewhere around CDR and first machining. The second phase is more production oriented (manufacturing, functional modifications, upgrades, etc ...) and actually making things work and that goes on until the last vehicle is launched. Most of the designers (not all) usually tend to settle into either one phase or the other and are employed accordingly.
The way it works is that the program will staff up at the beginning of the program with a combination of experienced guys coming over from other "winding down" programs, contractors ("job shoppers") and new hires. Toward the end of the first stage the company will start laying off the shoppers and a few of the experienced guys will start sniffing around for newer programs. Eventually somebody will get taken on to one of these new programs and then as the old program initial phase winds down they will pull all their buddies over to the brandnew program where they also meet up with their shopper buddies from the old job and the cycle continues. In the meantime, the old program will start pulling in other guys that have more production type experience from programs who are really becoming extinct. It doesn't all happen at once, more of a slow transition cycle but you end up working with many of the same people on several different projects.
The guys that are more likely to see a program through both stages are either new hires, upward mobile types, or older guys just looking to settle down. The new guys don't really know what they like yet so they tend to want to see at least one project through just to figure that out. They usually don't have as strong of connections to get on with the new projects right away unless their really good either. Then the upward mobile types usually find that there is more opportunity to climb the ladder as the phases transitions so they take advantage and stay. Then you have the older guys, "grey beards", who are looking at their retirement benefits, don't want to start over again with a new company, don't want to change their commute, can't take advantage of a salary increase because they are alreacy at the upper range, and just want to be an expert on something. They will stay on a project until there is no more work to do. And when that time comes, there is usually somebody who just finished their CDR who is looking for people to take it into production.
-
Spacedreams makes a good point, but the reality comes down to the chart below. :)
-
Jim - 25/1/2007 6:13 AM
bombay - 24/1/2007 8:58 PM
Yeap, it's no big deal to bond on the insulating material to the bulkhead on the inside of the tank just like it was no big deal to bond on the fixed foam to the outside of the Shuttle external tank.
11 Saturn V's, 6 Saturn I's and 9 Saturn IB's using 60's materials technology proves it is no big deal. Bonding fixed foam on the outside on ELV's is no big deal either.
There is nothing wrong with the foam on the ET, it is the tiles that are the problem.
Why are you trying to mislead?
The Columbia disaster was caused by a chunk of sprayed-on foam insulation on the external tank detaching and striking the edge of the wing. The impact then destroyed several thermal tiles, which then allowed heated gas to enter and destroy the wing structure. The root cause was the bonded on foam detaching, not the tiles.
26 Saturn flights doesn't prove that it's no big deal. It took over 100 shuttle flights to determine that there was a big deal with the sprayed-on foam. And after 2.5 yrs of trying to fix the problem, foam fell off on the Discovery return to flight in 2005. As I recollect, 270 successes will result in success with 90% confidence.
So as the MSFC engineers look for that fail safe mechanism to ensure FOD doesn't enter into the Ares I upperstage propellant system, the answer is right across the street with the Centaur methodolgy and it's 300 or 400 successes.
-
bombay - 25/1/2007 7:18 PM
Why are you trying to mislead?
.
The Columbia accident was cause by a inherent design flaw. Using a fragile TPS and placing it next to a known debris shedding structure was the flaw. And it is not just bonded on foam. All launch vehicles shed debris, especially ones using SOFI. The shuttle problem was known after the first few flights and was ignored. Because the foam is the issue and it can't be fixed, the shuttle program is crutching the system by performing inflight inspections and terminating the program in 15 flights.
There was never an issue with the insulation on interior of the Saturns. It is not even related to SOFI or BOFI
Only 150 or so Centaurs.
not across the street. It is in Denver
-
Jim - 25/1/2007 6:36 PM
There was never an issue with the insulation on interior of the Saturns. It is not even related to SOFI or BOFI
Only 150 or so Centaurs.
not across the street. It is in Denver
Having no issue on only 26 flights does not mean that there was no detachment of insulation from the bulkhead into the tank. All FOD will not shutdown an engine, but it potentially could. To think that a bonded, nonhomogeneous condition between insulation mat'l and aluminum while subjected to membrane and mechanical loading at -423 degrees poses no risk of detachment, is an illusion.
The Centaur could fly 1000 times and FOD contamination from the common bulkhead will NEVER be an issue because of the unique design.
-
bombay - 25/1/2007 8:04 PM
The Centaur could fly 1000 times and FOD contamination from the common bulkhead will NEVER be an issue because of the unique design.
But depressurization and ice ingestion happened multiple times. So you trade one risk for another
-
Jim - 24/1/2007 7:15 AM
Here is your site yet to be opened.
"Facilities Update: Last Friday the ULA Board of Directors gave the go-ahead for lease of the building at 9100 East Mineral Circle in southeast Denver (which is not Denver but Centennial). The 160,000-square-foot building has room for about 680 people. Detailed occupancy planning is under way for the building, which will begin as early as the second quarter."
I have seen this quote but not in the public domain. This is from an internal ULA status report to all ULA employees from Michael Gass and Dan Collins. I did not know NASA was on distribution.
-
Propforce - 25/1/2007 1:23 PM
Spacedreams makes a good point, but the reality comes down to the chart below. :)
Nice Chart Propforce. The only thing I disagree with is the good buddies staying through the end of the program. That is usually the professionals who do that as the good buddies have moved on to the next project. The good buddies usually are associated with suspect academic credentials and are not capable of seeing a project through to the end except on the coat-tails of the more capable professionals.
-
Jim - 25/1/2007 5:10 PM
bombay - 25/1/2007 8:04 PM
The Centaur could fly 1000 times and FOD contamination from the common bulkhead will NEVER be an issue because of the unique design.
But depressurization and ice ingestion happened multiple times. So you trade one risk for another
The last time ice ingestion ocurred was 1993 on AC101. The cause was a tygon tube that slipped off the sense port. The design is much more robust now.
Depressurization is something even the structurally stable designs have to contend with. They are not structurally stable under flight loads and thus have to carry a pressurization system just like a balloon design. The risk is the same for both.
-
Jim - 25/1/2007 4:36 PM
bombay - 25/1/2007 7:18 PM
Why are you trying to mislead?
.
The Columbia accident was cause by a inherent design flaw.
Wrong. The Columbia TRAGEDY was due to a seris of HUMAN ERRORS including NASA mismanagement.
One of the causes was due to the inexperienced thermal analysts Boeing has at Houston and, because Boeing had cut the fundings of its Shuttle support budget in HB (where the experienced guys are at who did not move to Houston), their inability to assess the severity of damage caused their failure to warn their appropriate NASA counter-part in a timely fashion. Afterward, Boeing quickly reinstated its funding to the HB shuttle guys in order to avoid any further embarrassment to the company. This was known to the NASA inner circle.
Shortly afterward, then-shuttle program manager Ron Dittmore became the president of ATK and ex-ATK guy Scott Horowitz became the Deputy Adminstrator under Griffin for Space Exploration, and the next centerpiece of NASA space access (ESAS) builds around the ATK SRB. But that's another story altogether.
-
Gus - 25/1/2007 10:23 PM
Jim - 25/1/2007 5:10 PM
bombay - 25/1/2007 8:04 PM
The Centaur could fly 1000 times and FOD contamination from the common bulkhead will NEVER be an issue because of the unique design.
But depressurization and ice ingestion happened multiple times. So you trade one risk for another
The last time ice ingestion ocurred was 1993 on AC101. The cause was a tygon tube that slipped off the sense port. The design is much more robust now.
Depressurization is something even the structurally stable designs have to contend with. They are not structurally stable under flight loads and thus have to carry a pressurization system just like a balloon design. The risk is the same for both.
FOD contamination is something that ALL launch vehicles have to watchout for, not just unique to the common bulkhead tank design. It starts with design but key prevention is during manufacturing and assembly of EACH individual flight hardware. For Delta, there are processes in place at Decatur to check & re-check cleanliness & contaminations. At launch site, the ground system is designed in place to prevent FOD during propellant loadings.
During boost phase, the Delta US tank pressures are "locked" so I guess you can call it "pressure-stabilized" as the ambient pressure drops rapidly. In the last few minutes of CBC boost phase, the tanks are vented and re-pressurized as the RL-10 undergoes the chilldown during flight and the upper stage prepares for separation.
-
Gus - 25/1/2007 9:48 PM
Propforce - 25/1/2007 1:23 PM
Spacedreams makes a good point, but the reality comes down to the chart below. :)
Nice Chart Propforce. The only thing I disagree with is the good buddies staying through the end of the program. That is usually the professionals who do that as the good buddies have moved on to the next project. The good buddies usually are associated with suspect academic credentials and are not capable of seeing a project through to the end except on the coat-tails of the more capable professionals.
You make a good point as good buddies usually scatter looking for the next project to latch onto and leave the professional to clean up the mess they caused.
-
> Wrong. The Columbia TRAGEDY was due to a seris of HUMAN ERRORS including NASA mismanagement.
NASA knew that foam is shedding but did nothing. This is exactly what Feynman was talking about in his famous Appendix F to Roger's Commission report - if something doesn't work to design specs - find out why, and fix it. Nature cannot be fooled. But managers again forgot about it. Too many manages which do not listen to techies. When techies say you "this goddamn thing can fail! We need to fix it!" you'd better listen to that, _especially_ if you are a manager and do not know anything about the matter.
NASA got it wrong _twice_ and I do not beieve things have improved enough. For example, SRB people again are high in the chain of command, as you correctly noticed.
-
Gus - 25/1/2007 11:04 PM
Jim - 24/1/2007 7:15 AM
Here is your site yet to be opened.
"Facilities Update: Last Friday the ULA Board of Directors gave the go-ahead for lease of the building at 9100 East Mineral Circle in southeast Denver (which is not Denver but Centennial). The 160,000-square-foot building has room for about 680 people. Detailed occupancy planning is under way for the building, which will begin as early as the second quarter."
I have seen this quote but not in the public domain. This is from an internal ULA status report to all ULA employees from Michael Gass and Dan Collins. I did not know NASA was on distribution.
Could it be there's a mole in our presence?
-
vda - 26/1/2007 5:11 AM
When techies say you "this goddamn thing can fail! We need to fix it!" you'd better listen to that, _especially_ if you are a manager and do not know anything about the matter.
I think you could apply this quote to just about every decision management has made or is thinking about making in regards to ULA consolidation.
-
Gus - 26/1/2007 12:23 AM
Jim - 25/1/2007 5:10 PM
bombay - 25/1/2007 8:04 PM
The Centaur could fly 1000 times and FOD contamination from the common bulkhead will NEVER be an issue because of the unique design.
But depressurization and ice ingestion happened multiple times. So you trade one risk for another
The last time ice ingestion ocurred was 1993 on AC101. The cause was a tygon tube that slipped off the sense port. The design is much more robust now.
Depressurization is something even the structurally stable designs have to contend with. They are not structurally stable under flight loads and thus have to carry a pressurization system just like a balloon design. The risk is the same for both.
Thinking back on this, there were two failures in rapid succession, one in 1992 and the other in 1993. As I recall, the 1992 failure was initially attributed to FOD contamination during the manufacturing of the rocket. After implementing all kinds of FOD prevention programs as corrective action, the 1993 failure occured shortly thereafter.
It turned out to be a that a "simple adjustment" to the RL-10-3 engines was miscalculated such that they were operating on the ragid edge for quite some time. I'm guessing that the simple adjusment had to do -in part- with keeping the tygon tube in place as you pointed out.
-
Maybe I will kick in here. I worked on Centaur through many derivations including the "Shuttle/Centaur" G-Prime version which ultimately was used on the Titan vehicles for many years. (Shuttle/Centaur was going to boost Galileo to Jupiter in half the time that the Boeing IUS took, but unfortunately it never got to fly on Challenger’s next flight). So enough for today’s history lesson…
So the Centaur G-Prime had an integration support structure called the CISS for the Shuttle with 2 failure tolerant avionics throughout. It was fun work because one of my jobs was to verify that the common bulkhead stayed robust and the delta pressure was maintained between the LOX and LHX tanks so that the common bulkhead was never reversed. Of course all this was controlled by flight software on a 10 millisecond RT clock. Considering that the Centaur is a big metal balloon filled with pressurized LOX, and the LOX tank is always supporting another balloon on top with lighter Liquid Hydrogen, with only Helium gas purging the common bulkhead, many of the sustaining pressurization parameters are critical. For example, both tanks are pressurized at twice normal pressure during launch and having the flight software verified to evenly ramp down the pressures is a critical safety concern. You know that five string independent avionics, with two fault tolerant electronics is required for human space flight.
Yet, another example of the robust design of both Atlas and Centaur is a number of years ago during an A/C II launch, at approximately T-15 minutes (if I remember clearly) from launch the Florida Power and Light Company somehow managed to black out the Cape. And all backup systems failed too! So all ground computer and all interfacing communications between the block house and the Atlas and Centaur vehicles went black, both Atlas and Centaur were full of fuel, and the tower was rolled fully back. I tell you this because I want to point out that the robust design of both the Atlas and Centaur mechanical systems both safed, and saved, the vehicle during the 1 hour blackout. The alternative would have been the loss of the pad! When power was restored the vehicle just needed topping off of the cryogenic fuels and the TLS initiated. However cautious minds prevailed for holding off on the launch to another day.
Now try to create a brand new system with that capability and proven reliability, and fly people on it, and I bet you that only "maybe" it will begin flying by Bushes deadline to go to the moon in 2020. BUT NO SOONER. So go Atlas, and go Centaur, and I believe that NASA should stick to existing proven technology.
(And ULA should hire on people that have a lot of existing experience like ULAwantabe)
Lastly I wish to add, I think all that talk about ULA Engineering moving to Alabama is misleading a lot of HB engineers. You are getting people to head down the wrong set of train tracks in their thinking. If that information causes fear in the minds of the HB engineers, and they justify this as the reason to choose to stay in California, then I believe that they are making a critical mis-judgement. But if they just do not want to own a winter coat, well then that is a good excuse for staying behind.
-
> It turned out to be a that a "simple adjustment" to the RL-10-3 engines was miscalculated such that they were operating on the ragid edge for quite some time. I'm guessing that the simple adjusment had to do -in part- with keeping the tygon tube in place as you pointed out.
A simple set screw was not secured in place allowing the fuel mixture to be off. I believe it was a failure in the Centaur.
-
ULAwantabe - 26/1/2007 12:15 PM
Lastly I wish to add, I think all that talk about ULA Engineering moving to Alabama is misleading a lot of HB engineers. You are getting people to head down the wrong set of train tracks in their thinking. If that information causes fear in the minds of the HB engineers, and they justify this as the reason to choose to stay in California, then I believe that they are making a critical mis-judgement. But if they just do not want to own a winter coat, well then that is a good excuse for staying behind.
You're point is well taken and certainly the last thing people need while contemplating a major move decision is a bunch of false facts and inuendo to complicate matters.
However, if you were to thumb through the pages of this thread, you will likely conclude that the entire formation of ULA was based on a collection of false facts and inuendo along with the circumvention of numerous anti-trust laws. So is it wise to believe all that is being preached by ULA? That's for each individual to decide.
So before those contemplating a move render a decision, it's only fair to them that all possible scenarios, based on either fact or rumor, be presented before them. Unfortunately, they will have to rely on their own due diligence in considering the source and the liklihood of the scenario coming to light.
-
bombay - 26/1/2007 3:32 PM
However, if you were to thumb through the pages of this thread, you will likely conclude that the entire formation of ULA was based on a collection of false facts and inuendo along with the circumvention of numerous anti-trust laws. So is it wise to believe all that is being preached by ULA? That's for each individual to decide.
Speak of inuendo, there was no antitrust laws broken.
-
Jim - 26/1/2007 2:46 PM
bombay - 26/1/2007 3:32 PM
However, if you were to thumb through the pages of this thread, you will likely conclude that the entire formation of ULA was based on a collection of false facts and inuendo along with the circumvention of numerous anti-trust laws. So is it wise to believe all that is being preached by ULA? That's for each individual to decide.
Speak of inuendo, there was no antitrust laws broken.
Oh really? How about the Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act not to mention the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
-
bombay - 26/1/2007 3:57 PM
Jim - 26/1/2007 2:46 PM
bombay - 26/1/2007 3:32 PM
However, if you were to thumb through the pages of this thread, you will likely conclude that the entire formation of ULA was based on a collection of false facts and inuendo along with the circumvention of numerous anti-trust laws. So is it wise to believe all that is being preached by ULA? That's for each individual to decide.
Speak of inuendo, there was no antitrust laws broken.
Oh really? How about the Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act not to mention the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
I didn't see any charges? So, no charges, no laws broken
-
Jim - 26/1/2007 3:04 PM
bombay - 26/1/2007 3:57 PM
Jim - 26/1/2007 2:46 PM
bombay - 26/1/2007 3:32 PM
However, if you were to thumb through the pages of this thread, you will likely conclude that the entire formation of ULA was based on a collection of false facts and inuendo along with the circumvention of numerous anti-trust laws. So is it wise to believe all that is being preached by ULA? That's for each individual to decide.
Speak of inuendo, there was no antitrust laws broken.
Oh really? How about the Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act not to mention the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
I didn't see any charges? So, no charges, no laws broken
C'mon now, we've been down this road before.
Don't you remember, even though it was universally accepted that the anti-trust laws were broken, in addition to the fact there would be no cost savings to taxpayers, less innovation, lower quality, and inferior service:
"The national security benefits flowing from ULA would exceed any anticompetitive harm caused by the proposed transaction".
I guess if I robbed a bank and got away with it, I could claim that I didn't break the law because I wasn't charged with the crime.
-
I verified my information with some very very close friends that work at ULA. I told them that if there is risk that ULA will move to Ala-mosquito-bama that I do not need another move in my life soon after a potential CA --> CO move. My buddies who really care for me say "ZERO CHANCE". Now in my software programs I treat zero with caution. I really try to make sure I capture that lower limit to prevent a divide by zero. I have not so far run into problems with zero. To me zero is zero is equal to live in Denver FOREVER. So this is my plan. Hopefully the monopoly ULA will have on the US government launch market will equal secure lifetime employment. I wish to for all people fortunate to be working for ULA. I also wish that for all ULAwantabe's like me.
-
bombay - 26/1/2007 12:32 PM
However, if you were to thumb through the pages of this thread, you will likely conclude that the entire formation of ULA was based on a collection of false facts and inuendo along with the circumvention of numerous anti-trust laws. So is it wise to believe all that is being preached by ULA? That's for each individual to decide.
"The ULA was created based on a bunch of lies, so I will have no compunction about making shit up regarding it."
Cute.
-
yinzer - 26/1/2007 5:55 PM
bombay - 26/1/2007 12:32 PM
However, if you were to thumb through the pages of this thread, you will likely conclude that the entire formation of ULA was based on a collection of false facts and inuendo along with the circumvention of numerous anti-trust laws. So is it wise to believe all that is being preached by ULA? That's for each individual to decide.
"The ULA was created based on a bunch of lies, so I will have no compunction about making shit up regarding it."
Cute.
So now you no where people's guilt lies. Interpret how like, but speak for yourself, don't speak for me!!!
-
ULAwantabe - 26/1/2007 3:39 PM
I verified my information with some very very close friends that work at ULA. I told them that if there is risk that ULA will move to Ala-mosquito-bama that I do not need another move in my life soon after a potential CA --> CO move. My buddies who really care for me say "ZERO CHANCE". Now in my software programs I treat zero with caution. I really try to make sure I capture that lower limit to prevent a divide by zero. I have not so far run into problems with zero. To me zero is zero is equal to live in Denver FOREVER. So this is my plan. Hopefully the monopoly ULA will have on the US government launch market will equal secure lifetime employment. I wish to for all people fortunate to be working for ULA. I also wish that for all ULAwantabe's like me.
I would recommend that you validate what your buddies know by asking them exactly what they knew about ULA before it was formed. I seems to me that the people working on either program where left in the dark so that they would not flee and then were prevented from feeing by creating a wall.
Also, reference post 80001 in the "ULA monopoly concerns misplaced..." thread from Propforce;
"A couple of years ago Boeing attempted to move engineering to Decatur until they heard the uproar from the workers and some even transferred out of the program (they did not "freez" us then), then they dropped the idea. But one manager had warned us "wait for the other shoe to drop".
Sure enough, this time the management has found a way via the ULA and they kept it very secret, not even the "insiders" knew about this, and BAM !!! Everyone who's on the program got "frozen", i.e.,, not allowed to transfer to other Boeing programs and, if you quit, you're not allowed back into Boeing for a minimum of 2 years. The same manager who has warned us has since left the company and went to work for another "prime contractor" in the area.
Once the ULA has consolidated its engineering & program management in Denver, what will stop them from moving the entire operation to Decatur? Afterall, it sure would make sense to have engineering to be near-by the manufacturing so one is able to talk to another, and engineers are more readily to be able to trouble-shoot any production problems that may arise.
Also, will the facilities in Denver be "owned" by the ULA, or "leased" from LM? The ULA owns the Decatur facility with plenty of land to expand (the cows will get used to the buildings), and which state's senators/ congressman have more power in fund appropriations? "The desire to move engineering to Alabama has been there and is no doubt related to the $80M incentive package.
When you eventually negotiate your employment with ULA, ask them to garrantee employment in Denver (or close to Denver) until you can retire. See what they say.
-
bombay - 26/1/2007 11:48 AM
Gus - 25/1/2007 11:04 PM
Jim - 24/1/2007 7:15 AM
Here is your site yet to be opened.
"Facilities Update: Last Friday the ULA Board of Directors gave the go-ahead for lease of the building at 9100 East Mineral Circle in southeast Denver (which is not Denver but Centennial). The 160,000-square-foot building has room for about 680 people. Detailed occupancy planning is under way for the building, which will begin as early as the second quarter."
I have seen this quote but not in the public domain. This is from an internal ULA status report to all ULA employees from Michael Gass and Dan Collins. I did not know NASA was on distribution.
Could it be there's a mole in our presence?
Anti-Ares
Pro-EELV More Pro Atlas 5
Anti-MSFC
Pro-ULA
And now this. HMMMMMMM....
-
I am not a contractor
-
Dexter, OK, I will digest these comments more carefully.
As I only guess and nobody told me this, is that LM and ULA basically own engineering and want to keep it in Denver. And that is due to penalties against Boeing for the past wrongs by Boeing against LM. So what I am saying is that it seems that as a penalty LM forced Boeing to move all their engineering to ULA which essentially gives LM local influence over ULA engineering. I tell you that ULA and LM engineering are a close family and I know many of the LM employees too. My senses say that engineering will stay put in Denver. Just my gut feeling!
Now there are concerns about the next 2 years something happening that may force a rethinking on ULA's part but give me a break. I would think ULA engineers would jump ship to stay in the west and not move to Alabama. A move from CA --> CO is still “the west” with its endless sunny dry mountainous outdoorsy climate. CO --> HB is a total different story.
So I do not know what to say about this possible situation. I will through you in my idea… It is entirely pliable to think that both LM Space Systems and ULA will merge again in the future after the Boeing commercial launch commission agreements are exhausted. I can see Boeing having a declining interest in the ULA ownership over time. I even can see that over time Delta will be phased out. Like over a long period of 10 plus years. So the future is a crap shoot.
What is a plus in my little old mind is that I want out of California and I am thinking that the ULA move package will grease the wheels to make it happen without me having to pay for a huge commission to California realtors. I want the best for my kids and I do not see it happening with the extreme high cost of California or the real-estate here. I want great schools and I see that Denver offers this in their southern residential areas of Littleton and Highlands Ranch. I sense a fantastic job down the road for me which will totally reinvigorate my enthusiasm towards science and the space program.
I know everybody has their own situation. For me my current job is routine to say the least, my requirement to ware a tie is crap, and my company conservative and is run by management with old world ideas. My senses say that ULA is a great place to work with great people to work aside. I know many of these people. I am almost middle age now with a ton of experience in Atlas/Centaur and I think ULA "may" offer to pay me what I am worth. Yah, I do not earn the big buck of you HB people :-) so my transition to Denver might not be as big of a long time financial shock to my transfer process.
And in reality at the end of it all, if ULA does eventually move to Alabama then as long as the job stays interesting, and the people I work with stay nice, and the schools in Alabama teach English as a first language, and the housing market is not too overpriced, and then it may just be worth consideration.
Not to get too theosophical with you folks but gosh who knows what our future will bring. But you got to be happy and I believe that part of the big formula in life is that you got to be flexible and you got to like your work. Fortunately for me my kids are young enough that we can just pack up and move without too much of a social interruption. Down the road a ways that aspect of my life may become more complicated. But right now I am tired of being a slave to my mortgage and living pay check to paycheck and I don't like the direction that California is moving (getting too overcrowded and other reasons). I invite the idea 24 hours a day to release myself of all the housing debt I own, and possibly buy a house in Denver with little to no mortgage, and work in a fascinating job. If ULA lasts in Denver for even just a few years then those will be a few years of a better life style then what I have now.
Not much more to say. Some folks like the beach as their lifestyle. I want a life with less debt and therefore a better standard of living. We will see. No solution to the puzzle is perfect.
-
ULAwantabe - 27/1/2007 6:57 AM
... But right now I am tired of being a slave to my mortgage and living pay check to paycheck and I don't like the direction that California is moving (getting too overcrowded and other reasons). I invite the idea 24 hours a day to release myself of all the housing debt I own, ......
ULAW,
We can only make decisions on those actions that we have control over. Your immediate motivation is obvious. You can only pick which employer to work for. Unless you're the CEO, you can not decide what the company will do a few years down the road. Just do what you think is best for you & your family and worry about what will happen down the road later.
Good luck to you.
-
bombay - 26/1/2007 5:48 PM
Could it be there's a mole in our presence?
This isn't Big Brother ;)
Everyone please keep it calm on here. I know the space industry isn't all group hugs and holding hands, but I want to keep the forum for the site at least civil.
Thanks.
-
Jim - 27/1/2007 5:00 AM
I am not a contractor
It's OK, Jim. Next time just ask a contractor how things are REALLY done :)
Jim - 21/11/2006 5:27 AM (from the USA thread)
Basically, NASA is management with the contractors doing hands on work
-
Am I sensing that Chirs is also a "ULAwantabe" in disguise as a popular forum modulator?
-
ULAwantabe - 27/1/2007 7:42 PM
Am I sensing that Chirs is also a "ULAwantabe" in disguise as a popular forum modulator?
Modulator :)
Chris is the main journalist/editor for this site ( www.nasaspaceflight.com ) that happens to have this forum included, there some other guys who moderate the forum, but he can obviously moderate too, seen as it's his site. If you go on the news pages you'll see he writes most of the articles.
-
Chris owns the site too I was surprised to hear. Doing a great job. I think we've all been holding out for a site like this for a long time.
-
Well I am very grateful to Chris for providing this opportunity to communicate. I am amazed that he operates out of London. We live in such a small world these days.
-
Thanks...although I'm no where near London :)
Anyway, back to your regular programming...
-
Propforce - 27/1/2007 7:36 PM
Jim - 27/1/2007 5:00 AM
I am not a contractor
It's OK, Jim. Next time just ask a contractor how things are REALLY done :)
Jim - 21/11/2006 5:27 AM (from the USA thread)
Basically, NASA is management with the contractors doing hands on work
The problem is they don't know. Actually, they keep asking how to do their work. Boeing even wants us to do more of the work we are paying them for.
I guess that's why NASA managed ELV missions have almost a 10% better success rate than commercial missions and 7% better than DOD.
-
Jim - 28/1/2007 11:19 AM
The problem is they don't know. Actually, they keep asking how to do their work. Boeing even wants us to do more of the work we are paying them for.
I doubt that very much. I bet if you leave them alone, things will get done much faster and more reliable, without having you constantly tapping their shoulder every 5 minutes and asking stupid questions. If they don't know what they're doing, chances are you guys are giving them conflicting instructions.
I guess that's why NASA managed ELV missions have almost a 10% better success rate than commercial missions and 7% better than DOD.
That's because NASA's missions use primarily the D-II, the most reliable launch vehicle that still flies today. The reason that it is very reliable is because it is a very simple system. Simplicity = Reliability.
You're giving the NASA managed ELV missions too much credits. Oh patting yourself on the back, eh?
-
Interesting thread. I was born and raised in Decatur, Alabama and after living in many other parts of the country, I found that North Alabama and Decatur was a great place to live. I came back and have never been sorry. Sure, our accents are southern, but the cost of living is reasonable (about $95 to $100 a square foot for houses) and it is a great place to raise kids. I am hoping to get a job here with ULA, but am more on the administrative and not engineering or manufacturing end of the process. Any leads would be great. I am an attorney with contract management training and certification.
-
AlabamaHome - 28/1/2007 8:57 PM
Interesting thread. I was born and raised in Decatur, Alabama and after living in many other parts of the country, I found that North Alabama and Decatur was a great place to live. I came back and have never been sorry.
As the old saying goes: "There's no place like home".
I'm sure that those born and raised in SoCal echo your feelings about living in SoCal - even though it costs an arm and a leg to live there.
-
Bombay, I am sure your are right.
-
Propforce - 28/1/2007 6:15 PM
I guess that's why NASA managed ELV missions have almost a 10% better success rate than commercial missions and 7% better than DOD.
That's because NASA's missions use primarily the D-II, the most reliable launch vehicle that still flies today. The reason that it is very reliable is because it is a very simple system. Simplicity = Reliability.
Or, alternatively, the Delta II (which is somewhat less reliable than the various Atlas-Centaurs of the last twenty years, and about the same as the Soyuz) has been flying in more or less its current state for a very long time, which means that design flaws have been uncovered and fixed. There's something to be said for sticking to what works.
-
Alabamahome,
Nice to hear those words of advice about Alabama. I assume you are checking https://recruiter.kenexa.com/ula/cc/CCJobSearchAction.ss?command=CCSearchPage&action=new for possible positions? I would check the site daily if I were you. You can select a search parameter of Alabama to quickly weed out the chatter.
So, does it snow in Alabama? Is is that a dumb question?
-
So now we get to see the fallout from Lockheed's decision to go on the cheap and not go full throttle with the necessary funding to co-produce the RD-180.
Lockheed (now ULA) may find out that it would have been much more economical to fund P&W to Americanize the RD-180 than it is to try to Americanize the Russians in terms of what's expected in terms of providing root cause and implementing proper corrective action.
How brilliant to rely purely on Russian technology for the national security of the U.S. Just Brilliant!!
-
If Boeing had spent the time and effort they put toward stealing Lockheed's documents and engaging in procurement fraud toward designing cost-effective and operationally-responsive launch vehicles, we could rely on them instead. Or had they admitted that they couldn't produce a competitive launch vehicle, we could have just gone with the Atlas V and put the money that went to the Decatur plant toward RD-180 coproduction.
Or, who knows, maybe the Russians will provide quick and effective root cause determination and corrective action.
-
bombay - 1/2/2007 7:19 PM
So now we get to see the fallout from Lockheed's decision to go on the cheap and not go full throttle with the necessary funding to co-produce the RD-180.
Lockheed (now ULA) may find out that it would have been much more economical to fund P&W to Americanize the RD-180 than it is to try to Americanize the Russians in terms of what's expected in terms of providing root cause and implementing proper corrective action.
How brilliant to rely purely on Russian technology for the national security of the U.S. Just Brilliant!!
Phooey.
It will be no different than any other stand down caused by different LV's employing related systems (i.e. RL-10)
-
Jim - 1/2/2007 8:03 PM
bombay - 1/2/2007 7:19 PM
So now we get to see the fallout from Lockheed's decision to go on the cheap and not go full throttle with the necessary funding to co-produce the RD-180.
Lockheed (now ULA) may find out that it would have been much more economical to fund P&W to Americanize the RD-180 than it is to try to Americanize the Russians in terms of what's expected in terms of providing root cause and implementing proper corrective action.
How brilliant to rely purely on Russian technology for the national security of the U.S. Just Brilliant!!
Phooey.
It will be no different than any other stand down caused by different LV's employing related systems (i.e. RL-10)
Now how in the world can you draw that conclusion? Assuming the Sea Launch failure is attributed to the RD-171, what experience does Lockheed (i.e. ULA) have working with the Russians in providing root cause and corrective action? What if the Russians balk at what ULA expects from them?
The Atlas stand down could last for the rest of the year for all you know!
-
yinzer - 1/2/2007 5:53 PM
If Boeing had spent the time and effort they put toward stealing Lockheed's documents and engaging in procurement fraud toward designing cost-effective and operationally-responsive launch vehicles, we could rely on them instead.
Name ONE part of Delta IV that is stolen from the Atlas V design.
-
bombay - 1/2/2007 9:17 PM
Jim - 1/2/2007 8:03 PM
bombay - 1/2/2007 7:19 PM
So now we get to see the fallout from Lockheed's decision to go on the cheap and not go full throttle with the necessary funding to co-produce the RD-180.
Lockheed (now ULA) may find out that it would have been much more economical to fund P&W to Americanize the RD-180 than it is to try to Americanize the Russians in terms of what's expected in terms of providing root cause and implementing proper corrective action.
How brilliant to rely purely on Russian technology for the national security of the U.S. Just Brilliant!!
Phooey.
It will be no different than any other stand down caused by different LV's employing related systems (i.e. RL-10)
Now how in the world can you draw that conclusion? Assuming the Sea Launch failure is attributed to the RD-171, what experience does Lockheed (i.e. ULA) have working with the Russians in providing root cause and corrective action? What if the Russians balk at what ULA expects from them?
The Atlas stand down could last for the rest of the year for all you know!
Atlas has experience with C/CA from the Russians. Do you think they buy the engines sight unseen?
-
Propforce - 2/2/2007 1:02 AM
yinzer - 1/2/2007 5:53 PM
If Boeing had spent the time and effort they put toward stealing Lockheed's documents and engaging in procurement fraud toward designing cost-effective and operationally-responsive launch vehicles, we could rely on them instead.
Name ONE part of Delta IV that is stolen from the Atlas V design.
They didn't steal the parts (or if they did, they didn't use them). They stole the pricing.
-
Antares - 1/2/2007 10:20 PM
Propforce - 2/2/2007 1:02 AM
yinzer - 1/2/2007 5:53 PM
If Boeing had spent the time and effort they put toward stealing Lockheed's documents and engaging in procurement fraud toward designing cost-effective and operationally-responsive launch vehicles, we could rely on them instead.
Name ONE part of Delta IV that is stolen from the Atlas V design.
They didn't steal the parts (or if they did, they didn't use them). They stole the pricing.
How could they have stole the pricing from LM when Boeing OUTSPENT LM in just about every respect of the launch infrastructure? They built a Heavy version, an extra launch pad on the west coast, a brand new factory that's capable of producing 50 rockets a year, and a marine shipping vessel. They spent over $2B of their own money to provide the capability while LM milks government's every penny instead?
One unscrupulous ex-Boeing employee stole his ex-employer LM data, and a couple of Boeing managers handled it badly. But that does not diminish what Boeing has brought to the table in launch capabilities. They provides more launch flexibility for the Air Force and their pricing certainly did not undercut LM.
-
Propforce - 2/2/2007 10:58 AM
They provides more launch flexibility for the Air Force and their pricing certainly did not undercut LM.
Atlas is more flexible. Delt -IV has a huge gap between the M+ (5,4) and Heavy.
-
Propforce - 2/2/2007 10:58 AM
Antares - 1/2/2007 10:20 PM
Propforce - 2/2/2007 1:02 AM
yinzer - 1/2/2007 5:53 PM
If Boeing had spent the time and effort they put toward stealing Lockheed's documents and engaging in procurement fraud toward designing cost-effective and operationally-responsive launch vehicles, we could rely on them instead.
Name ONE part of Delta IV that is stolen from the Atlas V design.
They didn't steal the parts (or if they did, they didn't use them). They stole the pricing.
How could they have stole the pricing from LM when Boeing OUTSPENT LM in just about every respect of the launch infrastructure? They built a Heavy version, an extra launch pad on the west coast, a brand new factory that's capable of producing 50 rockets a year, and a marine shipping vessel. They spent over $2B of their own money to provide the capability while LM milks government's every penny instead?
One unscrupulous ex-Boeing employee stole his ex-employer LM data, and a couple of Boeing managers handled it badly. But that does not diminish what Boeing has brought to the table in launch capabilities. They provides more launch flexibility for the Air Force and their pricing certainly did not undercut LM.
What that unscrupulous employee stole was what was charged for each launch. That's why the initial award (and Atlas's initial VAFB abandonment decision) was 19 Deltas and 7 Atlases. When Boeing had to be honest about their prices, they increased dramatically - to the point they abandoned commercial marketing. I wasn't saying anything about what they spent. LM made very good development decisions from a business case so they didn't have to spend multi-$B (though they obviously have the Russian risk). I don't think they should be penalized for that. Looking at the lobbying behavior of Atlas and Delta execs, I disagree that one milks the government more than the other.
And I agree with Jim: Atlas V is more flexible - if by flexible you mean can accommodate more gradations in payload size, not to mention being able to accommodate those gradations late in the flow.
-
Propforce - 2/2/2007 7:58 AM
Antares - 1/2/2007 10:20 PM
Propforce - 2/2/2007 1:02 AM
yinzer - 1/2/2007 5:53 PM
If Boeing had spent the time and effort they put toward stealing Lockheed's documents and engaging in procurement fraud toward designing cost-effective and operationally-responsive launch vehicles, we could rely on them instead.
Name ONE part of Delta IV that is stolen from the Atlas V design.
They didn't steal the parts (or if they did, they didn't use them). They stole the pricing.
How could they have stole the pricing from LM when Boeing OUTSPENT LM in just about every respect of the launch infrastructure? They built a Heavy version, an extra launch pad on the west coast, a brand new factory that's capable of producing 50 rockets a year, and a marine shipping vessel. They spent over $2B of their own money to provide the capability while LM milks government's every penny instead?
One unscrupulous ex-Boeing employee stole his ex-employer LM data, and a couple of Boeing managers handled it badly. But that does not diminish what Boeing has brought to the table in launch capabilities. They provides more launch flexibility for the Air Force and their pricing certainly did not undercut LM.
All of the contemporaneous news reports state that the Air Force went with the Delta IV over the Atlas V largely because the Delta IV was cheaper. Lockheed didn't build a pad on the west coast because the vast majority of the Vandenberg missions went to Boeing, and it wasn't worth it to build a pad that would get used once every other year. Lockheed didn't finish their Heavy configuration because the contracts for the Heavy launches went to Boeing. Lockheed didn't build a shipping vessel because their rockets fit on airplanes.
All of this was happening at roughly the same time Boeing also had confidential Raytheon data that it was using to try to win a missile defense contract, and at the same time that they were putting together their disastarous FIA bid.
-
Propforce - 2/2/2007 9:58 AM
One unscrupulous ex-Boeing employee stole his ex-employer LM data, and a couple of Boeing managers handled it badly. But that does not diminish what Boeing has brought to the table in launch capabilities. They provides more launch flexibility for the Air Force and their pricing certainly did not undercut LM.
Was that Sachel or Alexio? I thought I had the website with a link to the perps before it was dismissed...
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0332/news-boeing.php
http://www.aurorawdc.com/ci/000002.html
-
Antares - 2/2/2007 9:02 AM
What that unscrupulous employee stole was what was charged for each launch. That's why the initial award (and Atlas's initial VAFB abandonment decision) was 19 Deltas and 7 Atlases. When Boeing had to be honest about their prices, they increased dramatically - to the point they abandoned commercial marketing.
Hello Antares, I don't know if you were involved with the initial buy in 1999, but IIRC, a significant # out of that 19 launches that Boeing got was for the Heavy, then plus some west coast launches. None of which LM has capability when they submitted the initial buy proposals.
So what I am saying is that, the Air Force made an honest & fair decision during the initial buy. Boeing was awarded for its strength, e.g., Heavy missions & west coast launches, and Lockheed was awarded the majority of Medium & east coast launches. Since by that time the Air Force has already intended to support BOTH launches, thereby splitting the mission roughly equally, I do not believe pricing was a major factor driving its decision.
As for the price increases, I think that came later -- of which BOTH companies increased their prices due to the anticipated commercial launch market collapsed. I don't think you can comingle the two.
And I agree with Jim: Atlas V is more flexible - if by flexible you mean can accommodate more gradations in payload size, not to mention being able to accommodate those gradations late in the flow.
I do not dispute that Delta has a payload gap between its M(5,4) and the Heavy. That was recognized early on. In fact, the Arianne dominates the market for that payload range. Boeing had planned on an in-house upgrade of its cryo 2nd stage with an MB-XX engine back in 2000 ~ 2001. But that capital expenditure plan too got canceled when the commercial launch market went out of window.
-
yinzer - 2/2/2007 9:18 AM
All of the contemporaneous news reports state that the Air Force went with the Delta IV over the Atlas V largely because the Delta IV was cheaper.
Don't think so. See my argument on the post above.
Lockheed didn't build a pad on the west coast because the vast majority of the Vandenberg missions went to Boeing, and it wasn't worth it to build a pad that would get used once every other year. Lockheed didn't finish their Heavy configuration because the contracts for the Heavy launches went to Boeing.
I think you put the cart before the horse :) Lockheed did not get the Heavy launches in the initial buy because they did NOT have the heavy under development at all. For one reason or the other, they concluded that they are NOT going to spend their OWN money to build a heavy --- unless the government is going to pay them to do so. Likewise, they chosed not to build a west coast pad.
So how can you fault the government awarding ALL of the heavy missions to Boeing and ALL of west coast launches to Boeing? Firgure out that logic first :)
All of this was happening at roughly the same time Boeing also had confidential Raytheon data that it was using to try to win a missile defense contract, and at the same time that they were putting together their disastarous FIA bid.
Again you have your timeline mixed up. The missile defense thing happened to then-Rockwell several years before this thng with EELV, who was then-McDonnell Douglas. In the missile defense case, Rockwell voluntarily withdrew itself from the kill vehicle bid, thereby the contract was awarded to Raytheon by default.
The FIA was disastrous but not as bad as SBIR-High :)
-
publiusr - 2/2/2007 2:19 PM
Was that Sachel or Alexio? I thought I had the website with a link to the perps before it was dismissed...
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0332/news-boeing.php
http://www.aurorawdc.com/ci/000002.html
You're going to do your own research on that one publiusr. I am not giving out names :)
-
I think you're misremembering things, Propforce. The initial award in 1998 was 19 Boeing and 9 Lockheed, with both having two west coast launches, and Boeing having two Heavy flights. Both providers were going to build pads at VAFB. In 2000, Lockheed decided that they didn't want to build a west coast launch pad to fly two vehicles out of, especially when it looked like future launches would go to Boeing, so they gave those launches (the DMSP flights) to Boeing, and the Air Force decided to buy a Heavy demo flight. Boeing only got all the VAFB flights after they'd already cheated their way into getting 2/3rds of the initial EELV contracts. In 2003, Boeing's misdeeds came to light, and 7 launches were shifted back over, including two from VAFB (one of the DMSP flights and an NRO flight), and 3 more VAFB flights were awarded to LM.
-
publiusr - 2/2/2007 4:19 PM
Propforce - 2/2/2007 9:58 AM
One unscrupulous ex-Boeing employee stole his ex-employer LM data, and a couple of Boeing managers handled it badly. But that does not diminish what Boeing has brought to the table in launch capabilities. They provides more launch flexibility for the Air Force and their pricing certainly did not undercut LM.
Was that Sachel or Alexio? I thought I had the website with a link to the perps before it was dismissed...
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0332/news-boeing.php
http://www.aurorawdc.com/ci/000002.html
Of course alot of the decision on indicting the whole company can rest in the hands of the person making the decision and who his buddies were that he used to work with and possibly still playing golf with.
http://www.aero.org/news/newsitems/teets6-9-05.html
-
AlabamaHome - 28/1/2007 8:57 PM
Interesting thread. I was born and raised in Decatur, Alabama and after living in many other parts of the country, I found that North Alabama and Decatur was a great place to live. I came back and have never been sorry. Sure, our accents are southern, but the cost of living is reasonable (about $95 to $100 a square foot for houses) and it is a great place to raise kids. I am hoping to get a job here with ULA, but am more on the administrative and not engineering or manufacturing end of the process. Any leads would be great. I am an attorney with contract management training and certification.
Sounds like a nice place. I wouldn't know. But the fact that homes cost more in Southern California than Alabama is an economic form of voting.
www.zillow.com
-
Jim - 28/1/2007 1:19 PM
Propforce - 27/1/2007 7:36 PM
Jim - 27/1/2007 5:00 AM
I am not a contractor
It's OK, Jim. Next time just ask a contractor how things are REALLY done :)
Jim - 21/11/2006 5:27 AM (from the USA thread)
Basically, NASA is management with the contractors doing hands on work
The problem is they don't know. Actually, they keep asking how to do their work. Boeing even wants us to do more of the work we are paying them for.
I guess that's why NASA managed ELV missions have almost a 10% better success rate than commercial missions and 7% better than DOD.
1. Can you provide some back up data to this 10% claim?
2. What is it that NASA does that makes teh same vehicle 10% better?
3. How much extra does it cost?
-
Dexter - 4/2/2007 1:37 AM
Jim - 28/1/2007 1:19 PM
The problem is they don't know. Actually, they keep asking how to do their work. Boeing even wants us to do more of the work we are paying them for.
I guess that's why NASA managed ELV missions have almost a 10% better success rate than commercial missions and 7% better than DOD.
1. Can you provide some back up data to this 10% claim?
2. What is it that NASA does that makes teh same vehicle 10% better?
3. How much extra does it cost?
NASA hasn't lost a Delta mission since GOES-G soon after Challenger. Since then, there was GPS 2R1 for the DoD and 3 commercial Delta failures.
There were 3 Atlas I failures after the "commercial Atlas" program started in the early 90's. 2 were commercial, 1 was a Navy comsat (which I think was a commercially licensed launch). Prior to Atlas I, the launches were run by the government (NASA, I think). Graybeards, please verify that as it was before my time.
There were 4 DoD Titan 4 failures, 3 DoD Titan 34 failures and 1 commercial Titan 34 failure. I believe all Titan launches were run by the USAF.
There were 3 DoD and 1 NASA Pegasus failures. I don't count the X-43 failure since it was not managed by NASA's ELV group. QuikTOMS on Taurus 6 was a secondary, so NASA did not have launcher insight there either.
I think any comparisons older than ~20 years are invalid. We're technically smarter than we were before, though 51L and 107 show we're not politically smarter. Programmatic structures are far different now than they used to be too.
NASA does it with a combination of targeted insight (which increased after CAIB); a smart, small, agile organization; good contractor relations; good contractors; and probably a little luck.
The NASA ELV organization is about 400 people (compare THAT to Shuttle). You can use your favorite multiplier for personnel costs. Launch costs are higher than commercial because of mission mods, additional instrumentation and production and design reviews required by contracts.
-
And the US Gov't self insures launches and spacecraft (i.e. no commercial insurance policy). Current insurance rates are between 10-20% of launch costs and covers the cost of other launch and/or another spacecraft
-
Well I went to my accountant yesterday and he sent me this link:
http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofliving/costofliving.html?step=form&x=32&y=8
Just put in your salary and Bingo! For example, say you (for the purposes of round numbers) are earning $90,000 in Huntington Beach ----> That translates to the following equivalent saleries in these locations:
Salary in Los Angeles-Long Beach CA: $90,000 --> Comparable salary in Denver CO: $60,896.37...
If you move from Los Angeles-Long Beach CA to Denver CO...
Groceries will cost: 10.216% less
Housing will cost: 55.427% less
Utilities will cost: 24.593% less
Transportation will cost: 16.426% less
Healthcare will cost: 7.124% less
Salary in Los Angeles-Long Beach CA: $90,000 ---> Comparable salary in Decatur-Hartselle AL: $52,093.49
If you move from Los Angeles-Long Beach CA to Decatur-Hartselle AL...
Groceries will cost: 21.38% less
Housing will cost: 69.756% less
Utilities will cost: 24.626% less
Transportation will cost: 14.594% less
Healthcare will cost: 21.39% less
Not to sound sarcastic but all costs are marked "LESS". Just imagine to have $30K extra spending money by simply moving to these locations! So for me that is the driving force for my desire to leave California. ... Not to mention the idea of working for an absolutely fantastic job on a remarkable product line.
-
ULAW.
I don't dispute the fact that te cost of living is less in Alabama or even Denver relative to Southern California.
My point is that the price of real estate which is the major component in your savings and probably the most heavily weighted in your numbers above is not driving too many people away from So Cal. $30K extra would be desirable but the questions I have are:
Why haven't people jumped at the chance already?
Why has the ULA management quoted in another thread stated that they would not move engineering to Decatur because of the bugs (you mentioned this yourself)?
Why does So Cal real estate remain expensive?
How do you quantify desirability to live somewhere?
Why does ULA feel it necessary to bar there employees from moving back to the parent companies?
-
Antares - 4/2/2007 6:59 PM
Dexter - 4/2/2007 1:37 AM
Jim - 28/1/2007 1:19 PM
The problem is they don't know. Actually, they keep asking how to do their work. Boeing even wants us to do more of the work we are paying them for.
I guess that's why NASA managed ELV missions have almost a 10% better success rate than commercial missions and 7% better than DOD.
1. Can you provide some back up data to this 10% claim?
2. What is it that NASA does that makes teh same vehicle 10% better?
3. How much extra does it cost?
NASA hasn't lost a Delta mission since GOES-G soon after Challenger. Since then, there was GPS 2R1 for the DoD and 3 commercial Delta failures.
There were 3 Atlas I failures after the "commercial Atlas" program started in the early 90's. 2 were commercial, 1 was a Navy comsat (which I think was a commercially licensed launch). Prior to Atlas I, the launches were run by the government (NASA, I think). Graybeards, please verify that as it was before my time.
There were 4 DoD Titan 4 failures, 3 DoD Titan 34 failures and 1 commercial Titan 34 failure. I believe all Titan launches were run by the USAF.
There were 3 DoD and 1 NASA Pegasus failures. I don't count the X-43 failure since it was not managed by NASA's ELV group. QuikTOMS on Taurus 6 was a secondary, so NASA did not have launcher insight there either.
I think any comparisons older than ~20 years are invalid. We're technically smarter than we were before, though 51L and 107 show we're not politically smarter. Programmatic structures are far different now than they used to be too.
NASA does it with a combination of targeted insight (which increased after CAIB); a smart, small, agile organization; good contractor relations; good contractors; and probably a little luck.
The NASA ELV organization is about 400 people (compare THAT to Shuttle). You can use your favorite multiplier for personnel costs. Launch costs are higher than commercial because of mission mods, additional instrumentation and production and design reviews required by contracts.
Looking at the launch history for Atlas on astronautix.com, I see three failures of Atlas I vehicles in the early 1990s which was an existing Atlas version from prior to Atlas going commenrcial when it was essesntially a NASA LV.
The record for Atlas II, III, and V shows no failures with NASA missions included.
So, did NASA make the commercial Atlas 2, 3, & 5's 10% better??
I think this 10% claim is more a matter of luck in not flying on doomed vehicles like a game of Russian Roulette.
Hypothetically speaking, if the Sea Launch/Zenit is found to be attributable to the pumps common with RD-180, then what would this NASA oversight have done to prevent a failure on the MRO or Pluto missions?
-
Atlas I was not the same as an Atlas G
10% across all LV fleets
10% is statistically too big to be attributed to "randomness"
So Dexter, what is your issue? ULA is bad, Atlas is bad, Delta is bad, Boeing is bad, LM is bad, NASA procured launches are bad,
Is there anything out there you agree with?
Or should we just not launch anything?
-
1982-2006 (don't know when exactly in 2006)
DOD 164 out of 176 = 93.2%
Commercial 105 out of 116 = 88.2%
NASA 110 of 113 = 97.3%
-
Jim - 5/2/2007 6:07 AM
Atlas I was not the same as an Atlas G
10% across all LV fleets
10% is statistically too big to be attributed to "randomness"
So Dexter, what is your issue? ULA is bad, Atlas is bad, Delta is bad, Boeing is bad, LM is bad, NASA procured launches are bad,
Is there anything out there you agree with?
Or should we just not launch anything?
Let me tell you what I am against.
Corporate welfare.
Corporate claims of savings that never materialize
Corporations playing the assured access card because of their failure to manage.
People not learning from the past.
Government bureaucracies.
I watch Apollo 13 and think that was a great NASA with Gene Krantz and all the engineers who did great things with the limited computing power of the time.
I don't see the great innovations today. I see a lot of stagnation and corporate excess and ULA represents everything I am against.
-
Jim - 5/2/2007 8:00 AM
1982-2006 (don't know when exactly in 2006)
DOD 164 out of 176 = 93.2%
Commercial 105 out of 116 = 88.2%
NASA 110 of 113 = 97.3%
Now, when I quote a statistic or some fact that is more than 10 years old you are quick to point out that it is old data.
So what would the data look like for the last 10 years(1997-2007)?
And of course, we are assuming expendable vehicles.
-
Dexter - 5/2/2007 10:45 AM
Let me tell you what I am against.
Corporate welfare.
Corporate claims of savings that never materialize
Corporations playing the assured access card because of their failure to manage.
People not learning from the past.
Government bureaucracies.
I watch Apollo 13 and think that was a great NASA with Gene Krantz and all the engineers who did great things with the limited computing power of the time.
I don't see the great innovations today. I see a lot of stagnation and corporate excess and ULA represents everything I am against.
Get use to it. Corporate welfare equates to defense and NASA contractors
This isn't new, it's been happen forever. The money involved in spacelaunch is peanuts compared to other contracts
And you have no problem with the ARES vehicles? They are the definition of Government bureaucracies and Corporate welfare.
Great innovations? stagnation? There are a bunch in the EELV program but you will listen to none of it.
-
Dexter - 5/2/2007 10:48 AM
Jim - 5/2/2007 8:00 AM
1982-2006 (don't know when exactly in 2006)
DOD 164 out of 176 = 93.2%
Commercial 105 out of 116 = 88.2%
NASA 110 of 113 = 97.3%
Now, when I quote a statistic or some fact that is more than 10 years old you are quick to point out that it is old data.
So what would the data look like for the last 10 years(1997-2007)?
And of course, we are assuming expendable vehicles.
NASA gets better with no failures
-
Dexter,
If you are an HB engineer planning not to move to Denver then I wish you much good fortune in the job market where hopefully you can find some rewarding work where you think company ethic and product decisions are good. Since leaving the "rocket shop" with Atlas I have yet to find work that I truly LOVE. I loved every bit of my employment on Atlas. I went to one company that had a habit of laying everyone off each year after each job ended, and fortunately my skill set was strong enough to find another project to work on each year without a career interruption. Then I went on to a company that was highly rated on the Forbes top 100 list. But at the end their management choose to cut jobs not by skills or employee performance ranking, but by what project you happened to be working on at the time management choose to offshore work to India. Now I work for a fantastic aerospace company that has a very interesting product, yet I still miss the rockets! What I have now is quite OK, but then I have to deal with the high real-estate costs of San Diego. So what I am saying is that you got to consider the whole package. If you like rockets, but do not like corporate policy then turn your head away from the politics and think about the good aspects of the company and your work. Man, if I only get another chance to return to the "rocket shop" all my wishes will be fulfilled. Cheaper housing, love of the job, etc. etc.... So please, give me some positives you see in the rocket programs. I would like to hear about the positives a little bit more! Thank you.
-
ULAwantabe - 5/2/2007 9:23 AM
... Now I work for a fantastic aerospace company that has a very interesting product, yet I still miss the rockets!
There are only 3 aerospace companies in SD and 2 of them builds UAVs. The 3rd one was your ex-employer.
... Man, if I only get another chance to return to the "rocket shop" all my wishes will be fulfilled. Cheaper housing, love of the job, etc. etc.... So please, give me some positives you see in the rocket programs. I would like to hear about the positives a little bit more! Thank you.
This beginning to sound like the "dot-com" days message boards with "... what will I do with my millions of $ when my penny stocks hit the big time !!..."
-
Jim - 5/2/2007 6:07 AM
Atlas I was not the same as an Atlas G
10% across all LV fleets
10% is statistically too big to be attributed to "randomness"
So Dexter, what is your issue? ULA is bad, Atlas is bad, Delta is bad, Boeing is bad, LM is bad, NASA procured launches are bad,
Is there anything out there you agree with?
Or should we just not launch anything?
Jim,
Hate to burst your bubble, but NASA was the prime systems integrator when they designed in the "failure modes" which resulted in the first two commercial Atlas failures. If you recall, the failure mode was caused by the deep prelaunch chilldown for the RL10 engines that NASA implimented to gain a few pounds of performance. Bad systems engineering resulted in not analyzing the potential failure modes this would produce. General Dynamics, P&W and Rocketdyne were all associate contractors. No change in this system from Atlas G to Atlas I. The fact that the failures occured on commercial missions vs NASA missions was pure random luck (and that more commercial mission were being flown). Nothing NASA did would have prevented this failure from ocurring on their missions. Shame on both GD and NASA for not figuring this out in the first failure investigation.
Likewise the 3rd commercial Atlas failure, set screw comming loose on the sustainer regulator, also could have happened on any NASA mission.
Don't get me wrong, I believe NASA provides a very valuable service of IV&V for the each LV program which improves the overall system reliability. You need to ask youself whether NASA's IV&V would have prevented these failures from ocurring on a NASA mission. The obvious answer is NO.
We are all very happy about the success rate on NASA missions. Just don't get a false sense of security that this is only becuase of NASA involment. As shown here, it was random luck as to when they ocurred. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.
-
NASA's last mission where they were "prime systems integrator" was AC-67, the last Atlas-Centaur G. All subsequent missions AC-68 and on (Atlas I's) were handled by GD alone.
Even if so as you claim, the second failure can't be attributed to NASA. GD didn't do their fault analysis properly and NASA wasn't involved.
-
I'm glad you agree that NASA was the "prime systems integrator" when the failure mode was introduced. Yes, GD enherited the system and responsibility to fix any flaws.
NASA was involved in the AC-70 failure investigation. NASA was planning on using "Atlas I" for the GOES series of spacecraft, so naturally they were involved in the failure investigation as part of their IV&V efforts. I wasn't claiming it was NASA's responsibility on not getting the failure investigation correct, only that even with their envolvement the next failure could have randomly waited until the next NASA mission to occur.
You can't have it both ways. Either NASA is "involved" and shares in the success and failures through it's IV&V or is Atlas "handeled" now by "LM/ULA alone" and per your comments NASA should not get any credit for the success.
Atlas and NASA make a great team working together and the grey beards understand the success this has brought. NASA has plenty of reasons to be proud of their effots without using misleading statistics to justfy their value to the program.
-
Mc Dew
Very well stated. AC-70 was orginally attributed to foreign object contamination in the LH2 duct resulting in one RL-10 failing to start. AC-71 failure pointed out that we jumped to conclusions on the AC-70 failure even with the data staring us in the face and participation from NASA. Hindsight was certainly 20/20 in this case.
-
Jim - 4/2/2007 7:13 PM
And the US Gov't self insures launches and spacecraft (i.e. no commercial insurance policy). Current insurance rates are between 10-20% of launch costs and covers the cost of other launch and/or another spacecraft
Your insurance rate is a few years out of date. Current rates prior to the Sea launch explosion was 6-10%. Some USG missions are insured under commercial policies. The current GOES series (N,O&P) are delivery in orbit missions on Delta by Boeing Satellite Systems. These missions were originally contracted to launch on Delta III's. Too bad NASA HQ looked the other way when they agreed to this fiasco. NOAA had to pay a mint to buy their way off of that problem.
I have to give credit to the KSC ELV folks for taking the heat and refusing to certify Delta III.
-
McDew - 6/2/2007 8:06 PM
Jim - 4/2/2007 7:13 PM
And the US Gov't self insures launches and spacecraft (i.e. no commercial insurance policy). Current insurance rates are between 10-20% of launch costs and covers the cost of other launch and/or another spacecraft
Your insurance rate is a few years out of date. Current rates prior to the Sea launch explosion was 6-10%. Some USG missions are insured under commercial policies. The current GOES series (N,O&P) are delivery in orbit missions on Delta by Boeing Satellite Systems. These missions were originally contracted to launch on Delta III's. Too bad NASA HQ looked the other way when they agreed to this fiasco. NOAA had to pay a mint to buy their way off of that problem.
I have to give credit to the KSC ELV folks for taking the heat and refusing to certify Delta III.
Had nothing to do with certification. It was BSS and BLS decision to move to D-IV, not NASA. And it was at no expense to the gov't.
NASA/NOAA are paying through the nose because they aren't treating like delivery on orbit. They keep giving the contractors direction and the contractors are charging them for it
The Delta-IV is not yet certified, and won't be until a "real" NASA payload is manifested to fly on it.
-
Jim - 6/2/2007 7:17 PM
McDew - 6/2/2007 8:06 PM
Jim - 4/2/2007 7:13 PM
And the US Gov't self insures launches and spacecraft (i.e. no commercial insurance policy). Current insurance rates are between 10-20% of launch costs and covers the cost of other launch and/or another spacecraft
Your insurance rate is a few years out of date. Current rates prior to the Sea launch explosion was 6-10%. Some USG missions are insured under commercial policies. The current GOES series (N,O&P) are delivery in orbit missions on Delta by Boeing Satellite Systems. These missions were originally contracted to launch on Delta III's. Too bad NASA HQ looked the other way when they agreed to this fiasco. NOAA had to pay a mint to buy their way off of that problem.
I have to give credit to the KSC ELV folks for taking the heat and refusing to certify Delta III.
Had nothing to do with certification. It was BSS and BLS decision to move to D-IV, not NASA. And it was at no expense to the gov't.
NASA/NOAA are paying through the nose because they aren't treating like delivery on orbit. They keep giving the contractors direction and the contractors are charging them for it
The Delta-IV is not yet certified, and won't be until a "real" NASA payload is manifested to fly on it.
OK, if that's how you want to play it.
NASA/NOAA provided direction to the contractor to increase the lifetime of the spacecraft and provide on-orbit storage. The way the contractor proposed to meet this requirement was to switch to a Delta IV (4,2). So NASA/NOAA paid through the nose for this "change" but got the Delta IV at no expense.
Don't you just love goverment contracting logic!
-
McDew - 6/2/2007 8:56 PM
NASA/NOAA provided direction to the contractor to increase the lifetime of the spacecraft and provide on-orbit storage.
Actually BSS offered the change. NASA didn't request it.
The "direction" I was referring to was the launch no-go.
-
Jim - 6/2/2007 8:23 PM
McDew - 6/2/2007 8:56 PM
NASA/NOAA provided direction to the contractor to increase the lifetime of the spacecraft and provide on-orbit storage.
Actually BSS offered the change. NASA didn't request it.
The "direction" I was referring to was the launch no-go.
I agree, the contractor offered this after NASA/NOAA repeatedly asked them to switch at no cost. To get around this silly thing called the FAR, they had to change the requirements.
I am familiar with the "direction" you are referring to.
Keep up the good work!
-
.... What I have now is quite OK, but then I have to deal with the high real-estate costs of San Diego. ...>
ULAW You say you have too deal with the high cost of real estate in San Diego but you also state that you have been there since at least 1994.
I hope you didn't wait to buy a home until after the market went through the roof.
I hope you did not refinance your home and pull all the equity out.
In theory, you should be 13 years into a 30 year mortgage on a home that cost far less in 1994 than it does today.
The high cost of real estate will work to your advantage when you move to Denver or Decatur.
Assuming the HB engineers bought their homes before the boom, the cost of housing would not be as quoted in the CNN statistics you provided but something less than that.
-
Jim - 5/2/2007 10:23 AM
Dexter - 5/2/2007 10:45 AM
Let me tell you what I am against.
Corporate welfare.
Corporate claims of savings that never materialize
Corporations playing the assured access card because of their failure to manage.
People not learning from the past.
Government bureaucracies.
I watch Apollo 13 and think that was a great NASA with Gene Krantz and all the engineers who did great things with the limited computing power of the time.
I don't see the great innovations today. I see a lot of stagnation and corporate excess and ULA represents everything I am against.
Get use to it. Corporate welfare equates to defense and NASA contractors
This isn't new, it's been happen forever. The money involved in spacelaunch is peanuts compared to other contracts
And you have no problem with the ARES vehicles? They are the definition of Government bureaucracies and Corporate welfare.
Great innovations? stagnation? There are a bunch in the EELV program but you will listen to none of it.
I am game. Please provide the innovations on the EELV program. In order to prevent me from sounding like I will listen to none fo it, make sure that these innovations were not tried on some other vehicle because then that would not be innovations but simply copying.
-
In reading the SeaLaunch failure thread, I could not help but detect that the Atlas V was in question until the failure investigation was concluded. It seems apparent now that the engine was not at fault but one can't help but wonder what the USAF, the DOD, etc.. were thinking about when they could not be active in the failure investigation with the Russians.
This is exactly the concern of the Rand report. Assured access does not seem so assured when you can't be part of a failure investigation team.
As covered previously in this thread, this is why DOD wants major components to be domestically produced.
-
FSW, Moving production line, fault tolerate avionics, CCB, reduction of SPF's,
-
Dexter - 10/2/2007 9:41 PM
In reading the SeaLaunch failure thread, I could not help but detect that the Atlas V was in question until the failure investigation was concluded. It seems apparent now that the engine was not at fault but one can't help but wonder what the USAF, the DOD, etc.. were thinking about when they could not be active in the failure investigation with the Russians.
This is exactly the concern of the Rand report. Assured access does not seem so assured when you can't be part of a failure investigation team.
As covered previously in this thread, this is why DOD wants major components to be domestically produced.
Being part of a failure investigation is not precluded but requires a special TAA (technical assistence agreement) from the state department.
-
Dexter,
Wish I could say more but my anonymity would be compromised.... Even more then I have sort of done already. If you knew me in the past then you know who I am. There must not be more then a couple of us old Atlas folks seeking this path forward.
…. But you got to admit that if one wishes less debt that a move from southern CA to Denver, Alabama, Arizona, Portland, or a number of other desirable locations would simply reduce that debt, and in my mind reduced debt equal a better life style! Yah, maybe my California house could have been smaller in size, and thus less of a mortgage, and so on, but it makes total dollars and sense to me to remove most of that debt by cashing out the California equity and moving elsewhere. And putting some of the money into a college fund for the kids or even a larger emergency spending account. What ever my future holds, I would like to say to my family that I am presenting a more beneficial standard of living for us in the new location.
I am amazed by some Californian folks that are really bad off on balancing their budgets, and that compromise on their standard of living to have an existence in California in the name of good winter weather. Can you imagine yourself getting a mortgage for the first time in Huntington Beach? Good luck! Your home would look more like the hut that Gilligan lived in, and those same mortgage payments would buy you a really nice equivalent home in Denver. And that is why in part, I believe the wise managers of ULA wish to pull out of California and keep operations in less costly areas. Lucky you for being well situated in your mortgage debt to income ratio. But your situation is not the typical for most Californians I am sorry to suggest.
But as I have stated before, I also have an intense love of rocket science. I have missed this type of work I did for Atlas. And I am currently, and intensely, exploring ULA as one of several options. Maybe I do not see my efforts come to fruition. Maybe I do not get an opportunity to really have this sort of intense love for my future work. But for those ULA folks who will choose not to move to Denver I have this to say…. I have previously lived through the huge compromise they are making. Hopefully thier love for warm California winters, and the desire to maintain their current living style, will also be reflected in the love they will find in their future years at their new job. I wish them all good fortune. But for all these folks I must say, hindsight is worthless, and there will be no ability to say “if I”, or “should of”, or “could of”, or even “would of”…. Decisions will soon need to be made that will indeed be locked in stone. I wish these people much good fortune in their future.
As for my experience in making decisions, I am quite good I must admit. I have no regrets for my past. No “dot com” frenzies was ever a decision in my past as someone suggested, and will not be in my future. Nor do I doubt the extreme rational judgments I am making now. And just a little time will disclose my path forward. I wish you all well in your futures. I would like to sign off now, but may reply to future comments.
-
ULAwantabe - 11/2/2007 8:21 AM
I am amazed by some Californian folks that are really bad off on balancing their budgets, and that compromise on their standard of living to have an existence in California in the name of good winter weather. Can you imagine yourself getting a mortgage for the first time in Huntington Beach? Good luck! Your home would look more like the hut that Gilligan lived in, and those same mortgage payments would buy you a really nice equivalent home in Denver. And that is why in part, I believe the wise managers of ULA wish to pull out of California and keep operations in less costly areas. Lucky you for being well situated in your mortgage debt to income ratio. But your situation is not the typical for most Californians I am sorry to suggest.
No need to bad-mouth those who decide to stay in California to justify your desire to join ULA. Most who stay are not because of the nice weather, but like everyone at everywhere else facing a relocation dilema, it comes down to the family, root, culture and a connection with their friends & support system.
California real estate has always been *unaffordable* by the national standard, even back 20 years ago when I purchased my first house. Older engineers talked about how *expensive* their homes were back in 1960s ($15~$20K) and complained back then at $1,000 per acre of land not even next to a major access road!! Everyone made sacrifices in order to pay their mortgages, raise their families, and still be some of the best aerospace engineers that this country has ever produced and witnessed.
A career decision & location is a highly personalized one. No one can say your decision is right or wrong for you. There are many excellent engineers at LM who struggles with everyday issues just like those of us at HB, with mortgages, raising kids, etc. Likewise for every working men & women across this country.
Good luck to your job compaign.
-
Propforce,
>No need to bad-mouth those who decide to stay in California to justify your desire to join ULA.
My sincere apologies if I sounded like I am bad mouthing others. I did not think I did this. And I certainly did not intend to upset you. I am only stating that for me it is my desire to leave California. For those whom have deep local family connections, the decision is very difficult. For me 12 years ago I could not leave California either.
My purpose of joining into this thread was simply to present another perspective for all to consider. I sympathize with all on this hard decision. I just wish to mention one thing is that finding enjoyment of work is for some people easy to find in whatever they go. I am not that way. I found that in my other work ventures since leaving Atlas the work to be at times routine, and repetitive.
But it is sort of wrong for me to continue at this time on this topic since it is upsetting others. You are correct that these are very personal decisions that affect everyone differently. I wish you all the best. So at this point my intervention into this thread is ending.
-
Jim - 11/2/2007 2:12 AM
FSW, Moving production line, fault tolerate avionics, CCB, reduction of SPF's,
Friction Stir Wedlinfg (I assume) - Innovated on Space Shuttle External Tank, not EELV, copied by Delta and not Atlas.
Moving Production Line - Innovated by Henry Ford (Model T)
Falut Tolerant avionics - TCP/IP and html
CCB - not quite so common on Delta IV as posts on another thread suggest. You could say Delta 2 has a common core.
Reduction of SPFs (Not sure what SPFs are) - does not sound like innovation, sounds like standardization which is usually good business practice.
-
quark - 11/2/2007 9:50 AM
Dexter - 10/2/2007 9:41 PM
In reading the SeaLaunch failure thread, I could not help but detect that the Atlas V was in question until the failure investigation was concluded. It seems apparent now that the engine was not at fault but one can't help but wonder what the USAF, the DOD, etc.. were thinking about when they could not be active in the failure investigation with the Russians.
This is exactly the concern of the Rand report. Assured access does not seem so assured when you can't be part of a failure investigation team.
As covered previously in this thread, this is why DOD wants major components to be domestically produced.
Being part of a failure investigation is not precluded but requires a special TAA (technical assistence agreement) from the state department.
How quickly could one of these TAA be done?
If the next Atlas was going to launch on Feb. 21 for a critical national security payload and the Sea Lauch failure was due to engine failure. How quickly could the State Department respond?
Don't the Russians have similar export restrictions on technical data?
Assured Access?
-
Dexter - 12/2/2007 12:53 AM
Jim - 11/2/2007 2:12 AM
FSW, Moving production line, fault tolerate avionics, CCB, reduction of SPF's,
Friction Stir Wedlinfg (I assume) - Innovated on Space Shuttle External Tank, not EELV, copied by Delta and not Atlas.
Moving Production Line - Innovated by Henry Ford (Model T)
Falut Tolerant avionics - TCP/IP and html
CCB - not quite so common on Delta IV as posts on another thread suggest. You could say Delta 2 has a common core.
Reduction of SPFs (Not sure what SPFs are) - does not sound like innovation, sounds like standardization which is usually good business practice.
These are innovations for LV's, not other systems
TCP/IP and html has nothing to do with fault tolerance.
-
Dexter, just let it go and live with it. You will sleep better. You could find worse issues with our manned space progam
-
Its been a while since the HB offers went out.
Jim, how is the HB list looking?
-
Jim - 5/2/2007 8:00 AM
1982-2006 (don't know when exactly in 2006)
DOD 164 out of 176 = 93.2%
Commercial 105 out of 116 = 88.2%
NASA 110 of 113 = 97.3%
I was wondering about this, so I did a little bit of digging. I found the following document, which lists NASA-managed ELV launches during the CY1987-2005 period.
http://corport.hq.nasa.gov/launch_services/Launch_History.ppt
It shows 74 NASA-managed launches during that time-span, with 73 successes. That's 98.6%, which on the face of it is better than pretty good and is clearly better than the average for U.S. ELVs during that span.
But then I noticed that four launch vehicles (Scout, Pegasus, Delta, and Atlas 2A(S)) accounted for 65 of the launches. That's a pretty reliable bunch with or without NASA. During the years that NASA used these four launch vehicles, they performed a grand total of 219 launches for all users with 216 successes (98.86% success). Statistically, NASA should have suffered about one failure in 65 uses of these launchers, which is exactly what happened when one of NASA's 12 Pegasus launches failed.
Where NASA seems to have either squeezed more reliability out of its launch vehicles or to have simply gotten lucky was with its four Atlas I launches and its five single launches on five different launch vehicles during the period (Atlas Centaur, Titan 3 Commercial, Titan 401B, and Titan 23G). All nine of these flights were successful, when statistics suggest that NASA should have expected to lose at least one, and possibly two.
Where NASA seemed the most lucky, or smart, was with Atlas I. NASA used the first Atlas I to launch CRRES in 1990. NASA didn't use Atlas I again until 1994. During the intervening period, three of five Atlas I launches for commercial and DoD customers failed. Was this luck, or did NASA deftly hold back until commercial and DoD launches had worked out the launch vehicle's problems?
NASA may have used this "wait until proven" approach with Pegasus too. It didn't start "managing" (providing technical oversight for) Pegasus launches until 1996. Pegasus had suffered four failures from its inception through 1995. Since 1996, inclusive, Pegasus has only failed once.
Lucky, or smart? Perhaps a bit of both, but I think that NASA should not fool itself into believing that launch vehicles work better simply because NASA managers sit in on the launch review meetings. It is prudent to let launch vehicles prove themselves before putting civil space payloads on them, but that means that the failures go on someone else's record.
- Ed Kyle
-
edkyle99 - 12/2/2007 12:18 PM
but I think that NASA should not fool itself into believing that launch vehicles work better simply because NASA managers sit in on the launch review meetings.
NASA does a lot more than that. Launch review meetings are a very small part of the work. But just like the astronauts, it gets the visibility.
NASA monitors each LV fleet and participants in the contractors engineering review process. One thing NASA is able to do is look for things that go across all the fleets.
-
ULAW,
No need to stop posting. I understand where you're coming from. Your perspective is perfectly valid in this forum, especially for others who don't live in California to gain an understanding of your (& many young families) situations.
Last Friday (Feb 9th) was the deadline for the Delta folks to submit their papers. I don't know if the managment will publish the result or when.
Question for the Atlas folks. Do you guys have a choice between ULA or other part of LM?
-
Jim - 12/2/2007 9:36 AM
NASA monitors each LV fleet and participants in the contractors engineering review process. One thing NASA is able to do is look for things that go across all the fleets.
What does "monitor" means? Do you look thru a TV screen?
-
Propforce - 12/2/2007 11:24 PM
Jim - 12/2/2007 9:36 AM
NASA monitors each LV fleet and participants in the contractors engineering review process. One thing NASA is able to do is look for things that go across all the fleets.
What does "monitor" means? Do you look thru a TV screen?
There are NASA resident offices at HB, Denver, Decatur, Dulles, etc. Along with KSC and they participate in ERB's, HAR's, VSTR's, IPT meetings, anomaly resolutions, etc Also they perform IV&V of selected analyses, review test data
The Atlas people know what NASA does on the Atlas fleet and asks them to participate in their processes.
-
Dexter - 12/2/2007 9:26 AM
Its been a while since the HB offers went out.
Jim, how is the HB list looking?
41% and climbing
-
Is that 41% acceptance or rejection?
-
acceptance
-
Is that for all disciplines combined? Do you know what the numbers are for just software?
Do you know what their hopeful targets for acceptance were? Were they exceeded?
Thanks
-
all people. I have no breakdowns
-
Thank you
-
Jim - 13/2/2007 6:45 AM
Dexter - 12/2/2007 9:26 AM
Its been a while since the HB offers went out.
Jim, how is the HB list looking?
41% and climbing
The 41% is a nebulous figure.
As I recall, 900 people or so were given relocation offers; about 2/3 or so are in the various engineering departments and a fraction of that would be considered key.
If a good chunk of the 41% acceptees are non-technical and/or non-critical, the 41% might sound good, but it would be very deceiving.
-
According to spaceflightnow, the Atlas launch was pushed out until March 8th pending the Sea Launch failure investigation. There seems to be an alot of finger pointing in terms of what caused the failure (i.e. the engine, the LOX line, the basic tank, etc.). In my view, they're a long - long ways away from determining root cause and corrective action and clearing the Atlas to Launch.
As picky as Aerospace representatives are, they're going to have a field day with this one as their stonewalled in their attempts to gather information. This launch might not happen for six months.
-
bombay - 13/2/2007 8:00 PM
As picky as Aerospace representatives are, they're going to have a field day with this one as their stonewalled in their attempts to gather information. This launch might not happen for six months.
It has nothing to do with the engine
-
bombay - 13/2/2007 7:42 PM
If a good chunk of the 41% acceptees are non-technical and/or non-critical, the 41% might sound good, but it would be very deceiving.
non-critical/non technical were not offered moves
-
So as you say there are 900 critical people, and if 41% are moving, then that totals 369 moving.
The current ULA careers page has 270 new jobs posted.
So the math yeilds = 900 - 270 - 369 = 261 critical jobs reduction between current HB staffing and new anticipated staffing in Denver.
Therefore, either ULA is saving by reducing 261 jobs, or they still need to post many new jobs on thier Careers web site.
Does this rational pan out?
-
Of course many of those jobs on the careers page are not in Denver, but the 261 job difference number for the whole company still holds water.
-
Jim - 13/2/2007 8:18 PM
bombay - 13/2/2007 8:00 PM
As picky as Aerospace representatives are, they're going to have a field day with this one as their stonewalled in their attempts to gather information. This launch might not happen for six months.
Get real. bah bah bah. It has nothing to do with the engine
I guess the only thing that ULA has to tell the Air Force and Aerospace to gain flight clearance is: "Jim says that it's not the engine so all systems go".
Nothing conclusive has been determined and until it is, Atlas is grounded.
-
Jim - 13/2/2007 4:45 AM
Dexter - 12/2/2007 9:26 AM
Its been a while since the HB offers went out.
Jim, how is the HB list looking?
41% and climbing
How did you arrive at this %?
-
bombay - 13/2/2007 9:22 PM
Jim - 13/2/2007 8:18 PM
bombay - 13/2/2007 8:00 PM
As picky as Aerospace representatives are, they're going to have a field day with this one as their stonewalled in their attempts to gather information. This launch might not happen for six months.
Get real. bah bah bah. It has nothing to do with the engine
I guess the only thing that ULA has to tell the Air Force and Aerospace to gain flight clearance is: "Jim says that it's not the engine so all systems go".
Nothing conclusive has been determined and until it is, Atlas is grounded.
There were hints in the Russian news today that the result of the Zenit investigation should be known in March. I doubt we'll see Atlas grounded for six months, and maybe not even for six weeks.
- Ed Kyle
-
Propforce - 13/2/2007 11:26 PM
Jim - 13/2/2007 4:45 AM
Dexter - 12/2/2007 9:26 AM
Its been a while since the HB offers went out.
Jim, how is the HB list looking?
41% and climbing
How did you arrive at this %?
Let me give this a shot.
Dan Collins was hoping for around a third.
31% is around a third. Jim as part of NASA had access to the HB list which is essentially NASA oversight or "monitoring" so they made it 10% better, therfore 41%. Continued NASA oversight will make this number climb. ;)
-
Jim - 13/2/2007 8:18 PM
bombay - 13/2/2007 8:00 PM
As picky as Aerospace representatives are, they're going to have a field day with this one as their stonewalled in their attempts to gather information. This launch might not happen for six months.
Get real. bah bah bah. It has nothing to do with the engine
So why the delay in launch of the Atlas v from Feb 23 to March 9?
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html
ULA was justified for requiring two vehicles to assure access to space instead of downselecting one. Now we have a national asset sitting on the pad and no desire to launch because America cannot access the Russian failure data.
If the engine has nothing to do with the SeaLaunch failure, go ahead and launch Atlas V on the 23rd.
-
America cannot access the Russian failure data
This is utterly false.
-
Jim - 13/2/2007 8:19 PM
bombay - 13/2/2007 7:42 PM
If a good chunk of the 41% acceptees are non-technical and/or non-critical, the 41% might sound good, but it would be very deceiving.
non-critical/non technical were not offered moves
I work on Delta IV in HB and that is incorrect. All Delta employees, from OAs to Dan Collins, were offered relocation packages. What differed between non-technical and technical folks were the level of extra incentives offered.
The 41% number really needs an asterisk also. Management here is not counting those folks who decided to leave the company in the time between when the ULA announcement was made back at the beginning of 2005 and the closing date in December 2006. The vast majority of those losses were due entirely to the impending move to Denver.
-
Is the moral high among the ULA employees that choose to move? I would think this is a very exciting time for those who took the packages. But also some heart ach too in all the hassle of leaving friends, departing employees, and family behind.
-
Dexter - 13/2/2007 10:22 PM
Propforce - 13/2/2007 11:26 PM
Jim - 13/2/2007 4:45 AM
Dexter - 12/2/2007 9:26 AM
Its been a while since the HB offers went out.
Jim, how is the HB list looking?
41% and climbing
How did you arrive at this %?
Let me give this a shot.
Dan Collins was hoping for around a third.
31% is around a third. Jim as part of NASA had access to the HB list which is essentially NASA oversight or "monitoring" so they made it 10% better, therfore 41%. Continued NASA oversight will make this number climb. ;)
Oh yes, I forgot about the NASA oversight factor.
Actually NASA oversight increases program cost expenditures by 300%, so Dan Collins' hoping for a 33% multiply by a 300% "NASA oversight factor" would means that 99% of Delta employees will move to Denver.
There goes the ULA hope for eliminating cost....
-
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/070215/delay.shtml
The Decatur daily thinks that the reason for the Atlas V delay is engine related.
Chris Bergin published an article that cites the concerns for the Atlas V delay are engine related:
http://nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5022
How is this assured access?
What if the problem was truly engine related?
How quickly could this sattelite be transferred to a Delta IV?
-
Dexter - 15/2/2007 4:43 PM
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/070215/delay.shtml
The Decatur daily thinks that the reason for the Atlas V delay is engine related.
Chris Bergin published an article that cites the concerns for the Atlas V delay are engine related:
http://nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5022
How is this assured access?
What if the problem was truly engine related?
How quickly could this sattelite be transferred to a Delta IV?
The launched was delayed to give the Atlas and AF folks time to carefully consider and review the rationale to clear the engine. There is every expectation that the launch will go on the 8th as scheduled. Being careful is one reason Atlas has been failure free for the last 13 years.
-
Dexter - 15/2/2007 6:43 PM
How quickly could this sattelite be transferred to a Delta IV?
Not needed. It is a test spacecraft
-
It's more of a hypothetical question that's being asked.
That question being, if a swap to Delta IV were necessary, about how long would it take integrate/interface the satellite from Atlas to Delta?
-
bombay - 15/2/2007 7:34 PM
It's more of a hypothetical question that's being asked.
That question being, if a swap to Delta IV were necessary, about how long would it take integrate/interface the satellite from Atlas to Delta?
It depends.
This particular mission would be difficult because it's a "one off" with a large number of unique requirements. Because of that, and because it's a bunch of experimental payloads, it was not dual integrated. Time would be at least a year if not more.
Other missions where there are a number of satellites (like GPS) it would be very easy to swap, because both systems have integrated the payload. In those cases, the constraint would be HW availability and launch slot availability. Time of months unless a LV happened to be sitting around at the launch site.
If you wanted the time to be smaller, you'd have to pre stage HW and take the integration analysis for both down to the end. Not a problem with enough $$.
-
quark - 15/2/2007 6:43 PM
The launched was delayed to give the Atlas and AF folks time to carefully consider and review the rationale to clear the engine. There is every expectation that the launch will go on the 8th as scheduled. Being careful is one reason Atlas has been failure free for the last 13 years.
The AF & Aerospace previously had all proprietary information at their disposal. Data transfer was seamless and transparent allowing them to be extremely thorough and careful in their review, such is not the case now. You can't treat this review like all others because it's not like all others; the players are totally different. How thorough the AF & Aerospace can conduct their review and come away happy remains to be seen.
-
bombay - 15/2/2007 8:16 PM
The AF & Aerospace previously had all proprietary information at their disposal. Data transfer was seamless and transparent allowing them to be extremely thorough and careful in their review, such is not the case now. You can't treat this review like all others because it's not like all others; the players are totally different. How thorough the AF & Aerospace can conduct their review and come away happy remains to be seen.
Agreed. This is a unique situation. Though it appears (without benefit of any inside information) there is a pretty clear cut case the failure was in the propulsion system upstream of the engine. Proof of that is really all that's required to clear Atlas.
-
Regardless of whether or not the RD-180 is of any concern to the upcoming Atlas launch, the current situation should serve as a wake-up call to ULA. How can anyone expect to believe that the usage/reliance of Russian built engines (with no viable U.S. alternative) on Atlas V (EELV) is not a big national security risk!
There hasn't been any major U.S. investment in LOX-kerosene pump-fed engines in 30 years.
-
bombay - 15/2/2007 8:34 PM
Regardless of whether or not the RD-180 is of any concern to the upcoming Atlas launch, the current situation should serve as a wake-up call to ULA. How can anyone expect to believe that the usage/reliance of Russian built engines (with no viable U.S. alternative) on Atlas V (EELV) is not a big national security risk!
There hasn't been any major U.S. investment in LOX-kerosene pump-fed engines in 30 years.
The current situation has nothing to do with Russia per se. It is caused by HW that is common or related between different launch systems. Any time there is a failure in the industry, all potential intersections should be addressed by other affected parties.
There was a very similar case when the Delta III upper stage failed which grounded both Delta III and Atlas due to the RL-10 intersection. Because Atlas and Delta were in competition it was actually far harder for Atlas to get info then than is the case here.
-
quark - 16/2/2007 3:03 PM
There was a very similar case when the Delta III upper stage failed which grounded both Delta III and Atlas due to the RL-10 intersection. Because Atlas and Delta were in competition it was actually far harder for Atlas to get info then than is the case here.
Delta IV and Atlas V were also in competition with one another a few years ago when Lockheed allowed Boeing to use their battery design, albeit at a cost, so Delta could launch. Lockheed could have easily just sat back and watched Boeing suffer, but such wasn't the case. The competition was fierce between the two companies, but not to the point where failure investigation data wasn't openly shared in hopes that the other would fail.
ULA is supposed to minimize risk of launch delay, not maintain the status quo or for that matter, increase the risk of launch delay. ULA apparently dodged a bullet in that the RD-171 was not the Zenit cause of failure. If however co-production remains stalled as it is, and the RD-180 fails, Atlas would be real lucky to launch within two years.
-
It was not a Lockheed design they were built by a private manufacturer. Boeing payed for the qualification data so they would not have to do the work. Also ULA had been announced for some time at that point so Lockheed knew they were helping themselves.
-
bigdog - 16/2/2007 6:33 PM
It was not a Lockheed design they were built by a private manufacturer. Boeing payed for the qualification data so they would not have to do the work. Also ULA had been announced for some time at that point so Lockheed knew they were helping themselves.
The manufacturer of the batteries is irrelevant. Boeing had to contract with Lockheed to gain whatever was necessary to use the Lockheed designed batteries.
The battery issue occured about a month after the ULA announcement, long before it was gov't approved. Lockheed benefitted not one iota from helping Boeing. If anything, the rationale behind the formation of ULA would have been further supported by not helping Boeing through the argument that two separate/competing companies can't help one another.
-
The theme of my recent posts suggests that full-scale funding and co-production of the RD-180 is vital.
I don't understand why there is more emphasis on funding various "illogical" transition moves versus pouring the money into RD-180 development.
As an example, prior posts on this thread mentioned that Harlingen isn't on the move list to Decatur but San Diego is. Here you have an "aluminum" manufacturing/welding center of excellence in Decatur, and yet Harlingen, which deals predominantly with "aluminum" manufacturing is not on the table to move to Decatur.
San Diego, the "stainless steel" manufacturing/welding center of excellence, which has nothing in common with Decatur, is on the move list. It wasn't it cost affective to move San Diego to Denver 10-12 years ago, so what changed?
This has politics written all over it!! The place that's a natural fit for Decatur, which would present limited risk, and would cost little to move is totally ignored - not even considered, but the place that presents enormous risk, has no commonality with Decatur, and costs a fortune to move is being moved.
The hundreds of millions of dollars being spent to realize savings that will not materialize according to the FTC and DoD should be rolled into RD-180 development.
-
bombay - 17/2/2007 4:38 PM
The battery issue occured about a month after the ULA announcement, long before it was gov't approved. Lockheed benefitted not one iota from helping Boeing.
At the time the announcement was made they thought ULA would only take a couple of months not a year and a half. If they had chosen to be protectionist the Range would have benn forced to let Delta fly wit the batteries they had which were not all disqaulified.
-
Bombay, it's all about labor rates. San Diego >> Decatur. Harlingen ~= Decatur, probably Harlingen < Decatur.
-
Perhaps it is labor rates but I believe the $80 million that the state of Alabama offered is more inplay here.
-
San Diego is located on an Air Force base, so any lease payment that they make would go to the gov't. Moving San Diego would potentially take money away from the gov't when the objective is to save the gov't money.
Is the suspect percentage savings in labor attached to a move really worth the substantial increase in risk attached to a move? What's it worth to ULA to eliminate risk? The $6 or $7 dollars an hour more that they pay the people in San Diego with the knowledge to build the rocket right is a bargain.
-
bombay - 20/2/2007 10:56 PM
San Diego is located on an Air Force base, so any lease payment that they make would go to the gov't. Moving San Diego would potentially take money away from the gov't when the objective is to save the gov't money.
Is the suspect percentage savings in labor attached to a move really worth the substantial increase in risk attached to a move? What's it worth to ULA to eliminate risk? The $6 or $7 dollars an hour more that they pay the people in San Diego with the knowledge to build the rocket right is a bargain.
Labor Rates in Decatur:
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/051029/boeing.shtml
average wage for union workers $19.29
Union Labor rates in San Diego according to the IAM web site:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:s_FzdsqR85UJ:home.att.net/~iamawdl725a1/Update.htm
Lots of different scales with highs in electrical and computer analyst positions. The wage scales on average appear to be equitable, not the $ 6-7/hour or the SD>>Decatur presumption being presented here.
The reason is not wages it is $80 million in incentives to put people in Alabama.
First the factory workers and then the engineers.
You heard it here first!
-
The ULA/Atlas facility in San Diego is leased from the government for One Dollar per year.
Good find on the true labor rates. I was going more on cost of living. The calculator on bestplaces.net shows a $40K job in Decatur would need to be $84K+ in San Diego to have the same standard of living. Was there another incentive by Alabama during the ULA talks or was this the original one from Boeing locating it there initially?
-
Antares - 20/2/2007 11:50 PM
The ULA/Atlas facility in San Diego is leased from the government for One Dollar per year.
Good find on the true labor rates. I was going more on cost of living. The calculator on bestplaces.net shows a $40K job in Decatur would need to be $84K+ in San Diego to have the same standard of living. Was there another incentive by Alabama during the ULA talks or was this the original one from Boeing locating it there initially?
The $1/yr factory usage when amortized for the production of gov't LV's and other gov't related products ended 20 yrs ago.
It appears as if the ULA objective is to move whatever can fit into Decatur regardless of cost, risk, commonality, loss of skilled labor, etc.
The RAND report suggests that the AF will fund transition costs for the first 3 yrs. You'd think that there's a ceiling on what the AF will dish out and that they would scrutinize any move study to protect there investment.
-
Antares - 20/2/2007 11:50 PM
The ULA/Atlas facility in San Diego is leased from the government for One Dollar per year.
Good find on the true labor rates. I was going more on cost of living. The calculator on bestplaces.net shows a $40K job in Decatur would need to be $84K+ in San Diego to have the same standard of living. Was there another incentive by Alabama during the ULA talks or was this the original one from Boeing locating it there initially?
This was the original incentive but it was preceeded by the Mercedes deal that the state took a lot of flak on. They stated that with the Boeing package that they would get back anything that Boeing failed to deliver on. The initial assumptions were 3,000 jobs in Decatur. The present outlook is about 750.
On the wage index, I would agree with the numbers but, the $84,000 employee from SD is not likely to accept a $40,000 job in Decatur in my opinion.
Also, the $19 per hour translates to $40K gross. The need would be in the key technical positions where the Titan program experienced a short fall resulting in failures.
-
What's the latest with this. People moving already?
Did the Unions come into play with those who are unhappy?
-
George CA - 27/2/2007 9:46 PM
What's the latest with this. People moving already?
Did the Unions come into play with those who are unhappy?
Your mention of Unions brings up an interesting dilemma that ULA will soon face.
The Union membership in Denver and San Diego are fully aware of what happened to those represented people that followed Tomahawk Cruise missile to Tucson, and Atlas to Denver - they got layed-off unless they were converted to salaried positions.
The Decatur move will provide no seniority protection to Union members that move from Denver or S.D. to Decatur over the existing Decatur Union membership. In other words, they will go to Decatur at the bottom of the seniority list and will be the first people to get layed-off.
If risk rather than simply increasing head count in the Decatur factory was seriously considered, certain moves wouldn't have even been considered.
-
http://ulalaunch.com/index.html
"ULA program management, engineering, test and mission support functions are headquartered in Denver, Colo. Manufacturing, assembly and integration operations are located at Decatur, Ala. and Harlingen, Tex."
I did not know that they already shut down Denver and San Diego manufacturing. They sure were quick in doing so.
-
This statement is an insult to the folks in Denver and San Diego factories who contributed to the mission success of STP-1. Those plant are still open.
Here is another one floating around.
http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-27/1173443962268830.xml&storylist=alabamanews
-
bombay - 28/2/2007 6:09 PM
George CA - 27/2/2007 9:46 PM
What's the latest with this. People moving already?
Did the Unions come into play with those who are unhappy?
Your mention of Unions brings up an interesting dilemma that ULA will soon face.
The Union membership in Denver and San Diego are fully aware of what happened to those represented people that followed Tomahawk Cruise missile to Tucson, and Atlas to Denver - they got layed-off unless they were converted to salaried positions.
The Decatur move will provide no seniority protection to Union members that move from Denver or S.D. to Decatur over the existing Decatur Union membership. In other words, they will go to Decatur at the bottom of the seniority list and will be the first people to get layed-off.
If risk rather than simply increasing head count in the Decatur factory was seriously considered, certain moves wouldn't have even been considered.
The union issue gets complicated by the fact that Denver's union is UAW and Decatur's union is IAM so there is no possibility of negotiating seniority protection. Add to that the fact that the UAW workers did not transition to ULA but are still LM employees.
-
http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-27/117344...
Granted, the ULA can't control everything the media writes, but would it have been so beneath ULA management to inform the Denver and San Diego employees by way of an intercompany memo of the error and to offer appreciation where appreciation was due? What a sorry bunch!!!
-
I'm amazed and confused by the pattern of deceit tied to this company!
Just recently, the ULA prompted this site to remove the pictures of the cracked metal in the Delta launch stand in the name of ITAR. To many, the real reason for the removal of the pictures was to censor the severity of the accident, to muzzle opinion, and to hide the truth.
At the same time, they make zero effort to correct (or at least apologize for) the AP article stating that the recently launched Atlas V was built in Alabama. One can only assume that no effort was made to correct the content because the lie works in the favor of the company's long term agenda.
It's just one half-truth after another with this company!
-
Bombay,
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. ITAR issues are serious. As in you can get your backside thrown in jail and your company fined a whole bunch of money serious. I'm sure that it was convenient for them to have those pictures removed, but they had a legal obligation to do something. ITAR is not their fault, get over it.
As for the news reports, once again, I think you're taking offense where none was intended.
~Jon
-
bombay - 17/3/2007 11:31 PM
http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-27/117344...
Granted, the ULA can't control everything the media writes, but would it have been so beneath ULA management to inform the Denver and San Diego employees by way of an intercompany memo of the error and to offer appreciation where appreciation was due? What a sorry bunch!!!
Since when has the media ever been accurate about something regarding spaceflight? The AP writer probably just took it off the ULA site without checking the facts first. Can't blame ULA for that.
Look where that article is coming from. It's an Alabama site; of course they'd want to say that even though it's not true. ULA can't control that.
You don't know that ULA hasn't sent a memo to those employees congratulating them/apologizing for the AP screwup. If it was inter-company like you said, then we on the outside would never know it even existed.
ULA is here. Get over it.
-
I have to admit I find it amazing how much energy has been poured into this thread, and so much of it is negative! The market place drove this consolidation. The stretch out of DoD launches, the drastic reduction in world wide commercial launches and NASA's decision to build its own rocket despite the world wide glut forced this formation. I suggest that those of you complaigning about ULA would be better served encouraging NASA to stop purchasing ISS servicing over seas, to actually put out an ISS servicing RFP to bring these dollars and this capability home. NASA is gutting science and Orion's schedule to keep ARES I on track for a 2015 ILC. ULA or not ULA is a nit compared to what else is happening in our industry.
-
Kayla,
Did you know that there is a ARES I thread on this forum? I think you took a wrong turn. See ya!
-
Kayla - 18/3/2007 1:12 PM
I have to admit I find it amazing how much energy has been poured into this thread, and so much of it is negative! The market place drove this consolidation. The stretch out of DoD launches, the drastic reduction in world wide commercial launches and NASA's decision to build its own rocket despite the world wide glut forced this formation. I suggest that those of you complaigning about ULA would be better served encouraging NASA to stop purchasing ISS servicing over seas, to actually put out an ISS servicing RFP to bring these dollars and this capability home. NASA is gutting science and Orion's schedule to keep ARES I on track for a 2015 ILC. ULA or not ULA is a nit compared to what else is happening in our industry.
I don't understand how you can argue for domestic ISS servicing and also be a proponent of the RD-180 engined Atlas V.
As for negativity, the rest of this board is riddled with anti-Ares 1 or anti EELV viewpoints. This is supposed to be a forum where people should be able to express their opinions and even back them up with evidence.
I guess if you don't agree with someone, you would call that negativity.
-
Nick L. - 18/3/2007 11:19 AM
bombay - 17/3/2007 11:31 PM
http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-27/117344...
Granted, the ULA can't control everything the media writes, but would it have been so beneath ULA management to inform the Denver and San Diego employees by way of an intercompany memo of the error and to offer appreciation where appreciation was due? What a sorry bunch!!!
Since when has the media ever been accurate about something regarding spaceflight? The AP writer probably just took it off the ULA site without checking the facts first. Can't blame ULA for that.
Look where that article is coming from. It's an Alabama site; of course they'd want to say that even though it's not true. ULA can't control that.
You don't know that ULA hasn't sent a memo to those employees congratulating them/apologizing for the AP screwup. If it was inter-company like you said, then we on the outside would never know it even existed.
ULA is here. Get over it.
Can blame ULA for putting erroneous comments on their website.
Would not characterize this as an AP screwup, just lazy or opportunistic journalism.
-
Well here we are along with ULA and we are getting over it, just like a few of you want us to do.
The numbers for the move from HB to Denver are in and 40-43% overall with 20% of the worker bee's and 1/2 of those with less than 2yrs experience. Additionally none (could be a slight undercount) of the existing Denver Atlas folks are jumping ship to the Delta porgram, maybe they will draw straws.
Okay ULA is here, but does that mean that business smarts goes out the window. Consolidation should be done smartly not blindly. The move from HB to Denver is a done deal, but the rest (SD, Denver, Harlingen) should be studied and take into account RISK (which includes loss of key people). It seems that Denver to Decatur is a done deal so that leaves three manufacturing plants. What about Denver Booster to Decatur and Denver Centaur to San Diego, and Harlingen to Decatur. What is the reason to move to Decatur and not move Harlingen? Here are the reasons:
1) Boeing promised Alabama Governor jobs, with a large kick back in taxes, this is not conspiracy it is done all the time in all states. Who knew that the rival rocket maker deal would screw the LM people in Denver and San Diego?
2) It was stated from the begining Denver and SD to Decatur and they do not want to loose face, therefore they (the powers to be) will make the trades or studies or whatever look like it is a good business decission to move, low estimates from a sole source what ever it takes. This also is not conspiracy it is what the people in charge want.
3) Harlingen is in Texas and where is the President from, nuff said. No conspiracy just politics.
Problems: I have heard that the number of jobs is something like 3000 and the kickback was 80 million, well when all the dust settles I doubt that there will be 3000 employees that can move to Decatur even if you include the people from Denver and San Diego that will move, Harlingen, Engineering, and Management that are not planned to move. The only people that ULA has that can not / will not ever move are the Cape and Vandyland people. There were 4000 approx in ULA on day 1, 933 in HB none of those are planned to be in Decatur that leaves 3100, Harlingen, and the two launch sites, and Denver people not planned to be moved make a signifcant amount, there is just under 300 between SD and Denver that are planned on moving and 600+ in Decatur now, I just do not see the 3000 goal being met.
-
skywalker - 21/3/2007 8:40 PM
Well here we are along with ULA and we are getting over it, just like a few of you want us to do.
The numbers for the move from HB to Denver are in and 40-43% overall with 20% of the worker bee's and 1/2 of those with less than 2yrs experience. Additionally none (could be a slight undercount) of the existing Denver Atlas folks are jumping ship to the Delta porgram, maybe they will draw straws.
20% of the worker bees! 1/2 with less than 2 years of experience.
That means only 10% of the workers, technical people, etc... have more than two years experience.
Does this concern anyone? or is this just a "little blip"?
It also sounds like the Atlas people are not interested in backfilling this gap.
-
What would be the reason why Atlas people do not want to move to the Delta programs? I would think it is good that they will have an opportunity to expand their knowledge with the experience from a variety of rocket systems under their belt, instead of just Atlas. What are the negatives preventing Atlas folks from volunteering? Do they need to move away from Denver? Or is it simply the reality that people feel secure in their current jobs and look at a move to Delta with increased risk?
-
ULAwantabe - 23/3/2007 6:32 PM
What would be the reason why Atlas people do not want to move to the Delta programs? QUOTE]
Number 1 reason would be is that they still don't like each other. They will need a few years to asimulate before they can play nice.
-
McDew,
It is interesting how you can say that they do not like each other when I would think that they do not know each other until after the HB --> Denver move takes place. My memories of the Atlas team are that the people are the nicest folks one could ever wish to work with. I would think that the HB folks would be excited about merging into their team. Well I only speak from the engineers perspective, and maybe my viewpoint is too idealistic.
It is interesting that with over 500 positions now posted on the ULA careers page that the true merge as far as engineering will be ATLAS + DELTA + NEW HIRES. The new variety of mix should change the skill set of ULA for the better by introducing a greater variety of skills into the ULA work force.
-
skywalker - 21/3/2007 7:40 PM
Well here we are along with ULA and we are getting over it, just like a few of you want us to do.
The numbers for the move from HB to Denver are in and 40-43% overall with 20% of the worker bee's and 1/2 of those with less than 2yrs experience. Additionally none (could be a slight undercount) of the existing Denver Atlas folks are jumping ship to the Delta porgram, maybe they will draw straws.
So you're saying that no Atlas employees will move to Delta, and that only 10% of non-management employees will have more than 2 years experience? The remaining non-mgt Delta employees will be new hires with no experience at all? I'm not sure I'm buying it, but some people are...
dexter - 23/3/2007 4:39 PM
Does this concern anyone? or is this just a "little blip"?
It also sounds like the Atlas people are not interested in backfilling this gap.
-
ULAwantabe - 23/3/2007 9:36 PM
McDew,
It is interesting how you can say that they do not like each other when I would think that they do not know each other until after the HB --> Denver move takes place.
I believe you just made my point. The Delta program will remain to be the evil empire until they move to Denver.
-
WHAP - 23/3/2007 9:55 PM
skywalker - 21/3/2007 7:40 PM
Well here we are along with ULA and we are getting over it, just like a few of you want us to do.
The numbers for the move from HB to Denver are in and 40-43% overall with 20% of the worker bee's and 1/2 of those with less than 2yrs experience. Additionally none (could be a slight undercount) of the existing Denver Atlas folks are jumping ship to the Delta porgram, maybe they will draw straws.
So you're saying that no Atlas employees will move to Delta, and that only 10% of non-management employees will have more than 2 years experience? The remaining non-mgt Delta employees will be new hires with no experience at all? I'm not sure I'm buying it, but some people are...
dexter - 23/3/2007 4:39 PM
Does this concern anyone? or is this just a "little blip"?
It also sounds like the Atlas people are not interested in backfilling this gap.
Well, I am definitely buying it because it is what I predicted and others here have as well.
Here is some coroborating evidence to support my opinion;
https://recruiter.kenexa.com/ula/cc/CCJobResultsAction.ss?command=MoveToPage
Look at how many job postings there are. 514 to be exact. Lots of technical engineering positions if I read this right. What do you suppose instigated such a large amount of job reqs?
ULA was supposed to save $150 million per year as initially advertised. That comes from combining the programs and creating "synergy" which results in reduced numbers of employees, ususally in the upper management ranks.
But there sure seems to be a lot of worker bees in the postings.
-
WHAP - 23/3/2007 9:55 PM
skywalker - 21/3/2007 7:40 PM
...Additionally none (could be a slight undercount) of the existing Denver Atlas folks are jumping ship to the Delta porgram....
So you're saying that no Atlas employees will move to Delta...
dexter - 23/3/2007 4:39 PM
Does this concern anyone? or is this just a "little blip"?
It also sounds like the Atlas people are not interested in backfilling this gap.
I did say "none (could be a slight undercount)" which means a few might jump ship, but that is yet to be seen.
McDew - 23/3/2007 8:26 PM
ULAwantabe - 23/3/2007 6:32 PM
What would be the reason why Atlas people do not want to move to the Delta programs? QUOTE]
Number 1 reason would be is that they still don't like each other. They will need a few years to asimulate before they can play nice.
I do not see it as "I don't like you because you are a Delta employee". Remember these are two rival programs each thinks their program is better than the other or at least equal. More info there were several people that went to McDac (which became Boeing Delta) from GD (which became LM Atlas) and so some of the people may have actually worked together on Atlas when it was with GD. There was a problem when San Diego People moved to Denver, but that was a different situation in that there always seemed to be an attitude of We (Martin) bought You (GD) therefore We are better, and to be quite honest there is still some of that. You can see it in this and other threads Atlas v Titan. I do not see that same thing happening because both groups (Atlas and Delta workerbees) have a common problem, how they were #$%^&@ by the formation of ULA, pension, being forced to move, etc...
I think the #1 reason people will not move from Atlas to Delta would be pride in the program they currently work for, Atlas people think their program is better than Delta so why would they work for the Delta / inferior program.
-
skywalker,
I do not know how my quote got changed since it was not me that said "Number 1 reason would be is that they still don't like each other. They will need a few years to assimilate before they can play nice".
My guess is that the ULA employees will all feel as one team once the moves of HB folks to Denver is completed. After all everybody is considered a new ULA employee now.
It would not surprise me if the ULA Atlas and Delta managers are proposing at this very moment a reorganized staffing of both Atlas and Delta with existing employees. I have noticed that ULA is not staffing up with new hire engineers very quickly, and I would think that new hire staffing will ramp up quickly after the current employees have been given their new permanent assignments.
-
ULAwantabe,
Sorry about that I guess it was McDew that said that, I can not edit it to correct the problem.
Anyway I agree with your latest comment management will need to do something about the staffing issues. Again I would like to say that I do not think the differences between Delta and Atlas will be nearly as bad as Martin and GD was/is, simply because they have common problems.
-
Consolidation issues are a plenty, but I think the employees getting along will be the least of the issues. I think first and formost is: are the employees affected by proposed consolidation going to simply accept what management says? Will they believe the trades that the company puts forth? I know that if what is put forth is truely best for the company the employees would be more willing to accept it, but if it is fudged (just to move one place to another because they want to) there will not be a good following. I know there are laws, and I seriously doubt any will be broken or covered up, but ethics might be in trouble.
-
Skywalker,
No problem on the quote since these things happen.
For me when GD moved to Denver they reset our retirement benefits to zero, and that was enough for me as a young engineer to see no benefit to move (having already received other San Diego job offers at the time).
In my opinion ULA would be a fantastic place to work, and before attempting to send in my resume to ULA, I spent a week’s vacation in Littleton looking at housing prices with a realtor, and studying the area. In my opinion, Littleton is a fantastic place to raise a family, relatively low cost of housing compared to California, and good schools, nice people, pretty scenery, and less taxes. The only two negatives are (IMHO) is needing a winter coat four months / year, and no ocean. I say not a problem for me.
Now the only question I have is if ULA will ramp up hiring before the kids go back to school in August. Well they have about five months to prove that they are serious about ramping up hiring.
-
ULAwantabe - 24/3/2007 2:54 PM
Skywalker,
No problem on the quote since these things happen.
For me when GD moved to Denver they reset our retirement benefits to zero, and that was enough for me as a young engineer to see no benefit to move (having already received other San Diego job offers at the time).
In my opinion ULA would be a fantastic place to work, and before attempting to send in my resume to ULA, I spent a weeks vacation in Littleton looking at housing prices with a realtor, and studying the area. In my opinion, Littleton is a fantastic place to raise a family, relatively low cost of housing compared to California, and good schools, nice people, pretty scenery, and less taxes. The only two negatives are (IMHO) is needing a winter coat four months / year, and no ocean. I say not a problem for me.
Now the only question I have is if ULA will ramp up hiring before the kids go back to school in August. Well they have about five months to prove that they are serious about ramping up hiring.
Remember. ULA won't be in Littleton. They have leased a building near Centennial Airport
-
Jim - 24/3/2007 2:40 PM
ULAwantabe - 24/3/2007 2:54 PM
Skywalker,
No problem on the quote since these things happen.
For me when GD moved to Denver they reset our retirement benefits to zero, and that was enough for me as a young engineer to see no benefit to move (having already received other San Diego job offers at the time).
In my opinion ULA would be a fantastic place to work, and before attempting to send in my resume to ULA, I spent a weeks vacation in Littleton looking at housing prices with a realtor, and studying the area. In my opinion, Littleton is a fantastic place to raise a family, relatively low cost of housing compared to California, and good schools, nice people, pretty scenery, and less taxes. The only two negatives are (IMHO) is needing a winter coat four months / year, and no ocean. I say not a problem for me.
Now the only question I have is if ULA will ramp up hiring before the kids go back to school in August. Well they have about five months to prove that they are serious about ramping up hiring.
Remember. ULA won't be in Littleton. They have leased a building near Centennial Airport
So you can't live in Littleton?
-
He was focusing on Littleton, I just was pointing where the job will probably be. Highlands Ranch is closer
-
I value this feedback. Of course my sources say that if I nail a low level design position I would be stationed at the LM site.... I think?
-
..... That is the Waterton Plant, I think? I hear that they are placing all the vehicle design efforts at this Waterton location. Correct? Or maybe that is just for Atlas design?
-
Assuming Skywalkers facts to be correct (20% enginneering acceptance with half of that having 2yrs or less experience), it's obvious to me what the ULA must do.
Many experienced Atlas engineers will be put on the Delta program whether they like it or not. The Atlas engineering positions will be filled by inexperienced new hires rather than filling the empty Delta positions with new hires. So you'll have a bunch of Atlas people learning about Delta and a bunch of new hires learning about Atlas. If the Atlas new hires have problems, they'll hit up the "former" Atlas engineers now working Delta for advise.
-
You wonder why the Atlas people don't want to make the move to Delta? Read back on this thread and you'll find the answer. The ex-Lockheed influence will run roughshod over the ULA similar to what happened to Atlas post GD. What will the work horse rocket down the road be, Atlas or Delta? If they phased out an upperstage, what would it be - Centaur or Delta? The answer to this question is no doubt why the Atlas engineers want to stay put.
-
bombay - 25/3/2007 2:13 PM
You wonder why the Atlas people don't want to make the move to Delta? Read back on this thread and you'll find the answer. The ex-Lockheed influence will run roughshod over the ULA similar to what happened to Atlas post GD. What will the work horse rocket down the road be, Atlas or Delta? If they phased out an upperstage, what would it be - Centaur or Delta? The answer to this question is no doubt why the Atlas engineers want to stay put.
I feel compelled to add a view from the inside.
It is true that in HB we have heard there is a reluctance among the Atlas folks to come over to Delta and help out. The reason we have heard is due to a difference in culture between the two organizations. Delta is function driven for the most part. What that means is that engineers are identified first by the function and then secondly by what program they work. So an Avionics guy for example can bounce around from delta II to IV without much worry regarding career advancement. In fact on Delta a breadth of experience is highly regarded.
We have heard that LM, however, operates under a seniority culture for the most part (heard directly from an Atlas guy by the way). What this means is that while broadening one's experience may be good, LM folks are reluctant to leave their program to help Delta, because they fear losing seniority on their "home" program.
By the way, even with this concern, there are Altas guys right now learning Delta to help support the program while the CA folks make moves this summer.
-
bombay - 25/3/2007 5:13 PM
You wonder why the Atlas people don't want to make the move to Delta? Read back on this thread and you'll find the answer. The ex-Lockheed influence will run roughshod over the ULA similar to what happened to Atlas post GD. What will the work horse rocket down the road be, Atlas or Delta? If they phased out an upperstage, what would it be - Centaur or Delta? The answer to this question is no doubt why the Atlas engineers want to stay put.
There was never any Lockheed influence on Atlas. And further more, the Martin influence improved the product, even before the Atlas V
-
Please elaborate on this positive Martin influence. Just know that the "we bought you" attitude was very real, very discouraging, very rude, and still lingers.
-
Yes, I too am interested in knowing how Martin improved Atlas III. Was it the insignia on the rocket?
-
Martin brought more engineering rigor
-
Engineering rigor? Give me a break. They brought more gov't spools of red tape!
-
bombay - 25/3/2007 8:55 PM
Engineering rigor? Give me a break. They brought more gov't spools of red tape!
Haven't splashed any since the merger
-
And what of Titan before the merger? I'm guessing it was lack of engineering rigor that led to the Titan failures.
-
Please elaborate on how this engineering rigor was improved from the GD days.
Edit - To Bombay's point on the Titan failures that did not benefit from this rigor.
-
For those that missed the pictures of the cracks, a Florida newspaper has published them:
http://www.floridatoday.com/floridatoday/blogs/spaceteam/2007/03/ph...
Good powerpoint link at the bottom of the page.
Edited by Dexter 24/3/2007 11:22 AM
Something tells me that ITAR wasn't the reason for pulling the pictures from this site!!! What do you suppose was the real reason for the censorship?
-
Gus - 25/3/2007 9:08 PM
Please elaborate on how this engineering rigor was improved from the GD days.
Edit - To Bombay's point on the Titan failures that did not benefit from this rigor.
One was a Boeing failure and one was a "GD" failure. The true titan failure was bad work by a union shop with union inspectors. Engineering can't help that.
-
bombay - 25/3/2007 9:17 PM
For those that missed the pictures of the cracks, a Florida newspaper has published them:
http://www.floridatoday.com/floridatoday/blogs/spaceteam/2007/03/ph...
Good powerpoint link at the bottom of the page.
Edited by Dexter 24/3/2007 11:22 AM
Something tells me that ITAR wasn't the reason for pulling the pictures from this site!!! What do you suppose was the real reason for the censorship?
That is under the DSP thread. Has nothing to with this topic, unless the name has changed to "ULA Bashing"
-
Jim - 25/3/2007 6:20 PM
Gus - 25/3/2007 9:08 PM
Please elaborate on how this engineering rigor was improved from the GD days.
Edit - To Bombay's point on the Titan failures that did not benefit from this rigor.
One was a Boeing failure and one was a "GD" failure. The true titan failure was bad work by a union shop with union inspectors. Engineering can't help that.
If the GD failure you are referring to is the software constant issue on the Centaur flight software, you may want to check your facts. The failure was post Martin acquisition and the failure should have been avoided with the engineering rigor you are claiming. That failure was in 1999.
-
"That is under the DSP thread. Has nothing to with this topic, unless the name has changed to "ULA Bashing"
Delta IV heavy and the corresponding launch pad are under the ULA banner. It has everything to do with this thread under the ongoing topic discussed in this thread of "deceit".
-
bombay - 25/3/2007 9:47 PM
"That is under the DSP thread. Has nothing to with this topic, unless the name has changed to "ULA Bashing"
Delta IV heavy and the corresponding launch pad are under the ULA banner. It has everything to do with this thread under the ongoing topic discussed in this thread of "deceit".
Doesn't matter. It is being discuss on that thread.
Also, get over it, ULA is here to stay. you will sleep better
-
Jim - 25/3/2007 8:20 PM
Gus - 25/3/2007 9:08 PM
Please elaborate on how this engineering rigor was improved from the GD days.
Edit - To Bombay's point on the Titan failures that did not benefit from this rigor.
One was a Boeing failure and one was a "GD" failure. The true titan failure was bad work by a union shop with union inspectors. Engineering can't help that.
Blaming union workers is pathetic. The engineering rigor should have caught or eliminated that problem.
This does serve a point that the weakest link will cause you problems and that the union workers are just as key to the success or failure of one of these rocket programs as the engineers.
-
How did the Martin Engineering Rigor improve Atlas III? Avionics, Fluids, Structures, what was it?
The only people that should care about the ULA bashing are the upper management and maybe the Air Force, but you say you are a NASA employee, but your passion towards ULA sure makes it seem like you are part of the MICP.
-
Dexter - 25/3/2007 10:04 PM
This does serve a point that the weakest link will cause you problems and that the union workers are just as key to the success or failure of one of these rocket programs as the engineers.
It was union worker that installed the wiring and union inspectors that ok'ed them. Engineers can't touch the hardware or they get a greivance
-
skywalker - 25/3/2007 10:09 PM
How did the Martin Engineering Rigor improve Atlas III? Avionics, Fluids, Structures, what was it?
The only people that should care about the ULA bashing are the upper management and maybe the Air Force, but you say you are a NASA employee, but your passion towards ULA sure makes it seem like you are part of the MICP.
No, I just don't believe in the doom and gloom. It is SSDD in the aerospace business. Sure it is something to watch and monitor but the world isnt' going to end nor will any rockets splash.
But like I have said before, the numbers are starting to catch up and we (big Aerospace) are due to splash one. The naysayers will say it is due to ULA.
-
Dexter - 25/3/2007 7:04 PM
Jim - 25/3/2007 8:20 PM
Gus - 25/3/2007 9:08 PM
Please elaborate on how this engineering rigor was improved from the GD days.
Edit - To Bombay's point on the Titan failures that did not benefit from this rigor.
One was a Boeing failure and one was a "GD" failure. The true titan failure was bad work by a union shop with union inspectors. Engineering can't help that.
Blaming union workers is pathetic. The engineering rigor should have caught or eliminated that problem.
This does serve a point that the weakest link will cause you problems and that the union workers are just as key to the success or failure of one of these rocket programs as the engineers.
The blaming of union workers needs a little clarification. The failure resulted from a a chaffed wiring harness that was damaged during an out of position repair. The work instructions provided by engineering failed to take the proper safeguards to protect the harness and was not checked subsequent to the repair. Blaming only union workers is short of the truth as the blame could have been spread in other areas including the Martin/Titan engineers and their perceived rigor.
-
"But like I have said before, the numbers are starting to catch up and we (big Aerospace) are due to splash one. The naysayers will say it is due to ULA."
Edited by Jim 25/3/2007 9:17 PM
Of course if it is due to ULA you no doubt will be in complete denial.
-
Jim - 25/3/2007 9:13 PM
skywalker - 25/3/2007 10:09 PM
How did the Martin Engineering Rigor improve Atlas III? Avionics, Fluids, Structures, what was it?
The only people that should care about the ULA bashing are the upper management and maybe the Air Force, but you say you are a NASA employee, but your passion towards ULA sure makes it seem like you are part of the MICP.
No, I just don't believe in the doom and gloom. It is SSDD in the aerospace business. Sure it is something to watch and monitor but the world isnt' going to end nor will any rockets splash.
But like I have said before, the numbers are starting to catch up and we (big Aerospace) are due to splash one. The naysayers will say it is due to ULA.
So the naysayers blame it on the formation of ULA, who cares? I know the Atlas way is one launch at a time, one in a row, every launch is a first. But the formation of ULA has put the Delta Engineering forces at disadvantage and if the consolidation of San Diego and Denver manufacturing moves them to Decatur it will put the Atlas and Centaur fabrication at a disadvantage. These are both links in a chain that could hurt both programs. This is why Boeing and LM worker-bees were against ULA, they are concerned for their products. People are resistant to change, we do not like it! The ULA management team knew all this from the begining and this give the impression to the worker-bees that they (ULA management) do not care if either program succeeds or not. And why should they I know they were paid handsomely upon the completion of the formation. We love our products and are very concerned we do not want to fail, this is why we bash ULA. Hopefully they get smart and do not move Centaur into a foreign environment for the sake of someone getting a bonus!
-
Jim
You claimed that Martin provided engineering rigor that GD did not possess. Of course, I disagree. As I stated before, I would like some elaboration on this claim. As for the numbers catching up and we are due to splash one, I sincerely hope that you do not board a plane with that mentatility.
-
mr_crabby - 25/3/2007 2:42 PM
bombay - 25/3/2007 2:13 PM
I feel compelled to add a view from the inside.
It is true that in HB we have heard there is a reluctance among the Atlas folks to come over to Delta and help out. The reason we have heard is due to a difference in culture between the two organizations....
....By the way, even with this concern, there are Altas guys right now learning Delta to help support the program while the CA folks make moves this summer.
OK, any inside insight into when ULA will start hiring with vigor to fill some of those over 500 posted positions? Will folks like me just have to hang low until all the needed Atlas guys are assigned to Delta, and the management truly knows what skill emphasis is needed for new hires? Like do you think the big hiring blitz will occur before or after HB has moved to Colorado? For me I am talking from an engineering perspective. I keep searching for a specific job title and there have been 15 positions posted in this skill search area for 8 weeks now without a single positions being filled.
-
mr_crabby - 25/3/2007 5:42 PM
By the way, even with this concern, there are Altas guys right now learning Delta to help support the program while the CA folks make moves this summer.
This customer hopes every day that the Atlas engineering culture (whatever its lineage, Lock, Mart, or GD) wins out. I emphasize culture. It's not the individuals. It's the environment of technical rigor. I don't know enough about each shop to talk about the techs - good workmanship on both sides. I can only hope enough tribal knowledge moves to Decatur.
-
Gus - 25/3/2007 9:55 PM
Jim
You claimed that Martin provided engineering rigor that GD did not possess. Of course, I disagree. As I stated before, I would like some elaboration on this claim. As for the numbers catching up and we are due to splash one, I sincerely hope that you do not board a plane with that mentatility.
I believe what Martin brought to the table was the threat of an independent central engineering function outside of the program who's sole function was to be a big brother to second guess the program and ask any technical question.
In most cases this big brother function was just a pain in the xxx, but what it did do was encourage the program to be extremely thorough, since no one want's to let an independent group point out that you might have missed something. This also provided the engineers top cover to bring forward any potential issue under the auspices of "Mission Success".
-
Jim - 25/3/2007 10:13 PM
skywalker - 25/3/2007 10:09 PM
How did the Martin Engineering Rigor improve Atlas III? Avionics, Fluids, Structures, what was it?
The only people that should care about the ULA bashing are the upper management and maybe the Air Force, but you say you are a NASA employee, but your passion towards ULA sure makes it seem like you are part of the MICP.
The formation of ULA is very personal to me as it affected my wife, who was legacy McDonnell-Douglas and now has gone through another change (reduction) in benefits.
-
bombay - 25/3/2007 10:24 PM
"But like I have said before, the numbers are starting to catch up and we (big Aerospace) are due to splash one. The naysayers will say it is due to ULA."
Edited by Jim 25/3/2007 9:17 PM
Of course if it is due to ULA you no doubt will be in complete denial.
I should have said "due to the formation of ULA". Of course, it will be ULA or one of their subs fault, if they splash one. Unless they act like the Chinese and say that the spacecraft exploded.
-
Gus - 25/3/2007 10:17 PM
The blaming of union workers needs a little clarification. The failure resulted from a a chaffed wiring harness that was damaged during an out of position repair. The work instructions provided by engineering failed to take the proper safeguards to protect the harness and was not checked subsequent to the repair. Blaming only union workers is short of the truth as the blame could have been spread in other areas including the Martin/Titan engineers and their perceived rigor.
you are right and there could have been a review of the closeout photos prelaunch vs post accident. But it still doesn't absolve the inspectors
-
Sorry I quoted things wrong.
My question is .... Does anybody have any inside insight into when ULA will start hiring with vigor to fill some of those over 500 posted positions? Will folks like me just have to hang low until all the needed Atlas guys are assigned to Delta, and the management truly knows what skill emphasis is needed for new hires? Like do you think the big hiring blitz will occur before or after HB has moved to Colorado? For me I am talking from an engineering perspective. I keep searching for a specific job title and there have been 15 positions posted in this skill search area for 8 weeks now without a single positions being filled.
-
ULAwantabe - 25/3/2007 6:57 AM
..... That is the Waterton Plant, I think? I hear that they are placing all the vehicle design efforts at this Waterton location. Correct? Or maybe that is just for Atlas design?
It didn't look like anyone responded to this. At this time, ULA's design groups appear to be located at Waterton. The other building Jim mentioned is currently planned to hold upper management, finance, HR, etc.
-
WHAP,
Thank you, that reflects exactly what my sources at ULA told me. They also said that for the long term that ULA may build a new building just outside the Waterton main gate so that the upper management people are ultimately located closer to the design teams. But for the next few years at least these people will be located near the Tech Center. I suppose that living in Highlands Ranch is an ideal location for both options. Although HR residents need to get on the 470 freeway to go to Waterton between HR and S Platte Canyon Road and the Google maps "Traffic" option always shows that stretch of the 470 congested during rush hour. My one buddy that lives in Littleton near West Coal Mine Ave (zip 80126) says that the side road of S Wadsworth Blvd is never stop and go at rush hour. Anyway, I probably hold the record for researching a prospective future living area more then anyone else, without even the definite prospects of a job interview down the road.
-
Jim - 26/3/2007 9:29 AM
Jim - 25/3/2007 10:13 PM
skywalker - 25/3/2007 10:09 PM
How did the Martin Engineering Rigor improve Atlas III? Avionics, Fluids, Structures, what was it?
The only people that should care about the ULA bashing are the upper management and maybe the Air Force, but you say you are a NASA employee, but your passion towards ULA sure makes it seem like you are part of the MICP.
The formation of ULA is very personal to me as it affected my wife, who was legacy McDonnell-Douglas and now has gone through another change (reduction) in benefits.
I am sorry to hear about the reduction in benefits. I was not aware ULA would be reducing benefits. I would imagine that this is a repetitive theme with a merger/acquisition where executives seize on the opportunity to reduce benefits while giving themselves a raise (can anyone say Home Depot).
The worker bees suffer or quit to pursue different opportunities as they should, the product suffers, the nation loses capability, and the executives pat themselves on the back and line their wallets. This is not a ULA unique situation but a corporate trend that should never have been allowed into the of launching national security payloads.
As Kenneth Krieg stated in his arguments to the FTC, he was leaving it up to the companies to ensure critical technical skills be retained by ULA. Reducing benefits is not the way to do this.
A 10% acceptance for relocation by folks with more than two years of experience is a very good indicator that ULA paid no heed to this concern as it was not binding in the agreement and therefore opened the door to the present situation.
Now the government has a monopoly that it sanctioned and must make it work because there is no alternative.
-
Jim - 26/3/2007 7:29 AM
The formation of ULA is very personal to me as it affected my wife, who was legacy McDonnell-Douglas and now has gone through another change (reduction) in benefits.
Oh geez Jim, let me wipe that little tears off my eyes... NOT !!!
Now imagine if your wife face a choice of moving to another state in order to keep her job WITH a reduced benefit and whether YOU keep your job in Florida and live a thousand mile apart from your wife, or QUIT your job to go with her... Now welcome to our dilema. Walk a mile in our shoes.
I was at a conference a month ago and got to talk to a few Lockheed ULA engineers. NONE, no one, nada, was happy about being "forced" to go into the ULA but at least they don't have to force the wife to quit her job and relocate.
-
Propforce - 28/3/2007 1:24 AM
Jim - 26/3/2007 7:29 AM
The formation of ULA is very personal to me as it affected my wife, who was legacy McDonnell-Douglas and now has gone through another change (reduction) in benefits.
Oh geez Jim, let me wipe that little tears off my eyes... NOT !!!
Now imagine if your wife face a choice of moving to another state in order to keep her job WITH a reduced benefit and whether YOU keep your job in Florida and live a thousand mile apart from your wife, or QUIT your job to go with her... Now welcome to our dilema. Walk a mile in our shoes.
I was at a conference a month ago and got to talk to a few Lockheed ULA engineers. NONE, no one, nada, was happy about being "forced" to go into the ULA but at least they don't have to force the wife to quit her job and relocate.
I have walked a mile and more. Don't preach to me about job moves, you still have a choice, I was in the Air Force before I was with Boeing and NASA.
-
"I don't know enough about each shop to talk about the techs - good workmanship on both sides. I can only hope enough tribal knowledge moves to Decatur."
I've pondered the above partial quote by Antares about retention of tribal knowledge in Decatur. I've concluded that the ULA has made a decision that will take years, at great expense and risk, to overcome.
What is tribal knowledge? In the manufacturing world it's knowing what it takes to actually build a quality product that's not covered on a blue print, CAD model, planning instructions, or any other form of documentation. It's knowledge gained through years of experience of trial and error.
In the case of Centaur where the entire rocket is built in house from pulling raw material to completion, what can Decatur personnel provide to build a Centaur should, as anticipated, the critical Centaur production engineers and mechanics, those with all of the tribal knowledge refuse to go to Decatur? Who else knows how to build a thin guage stainless balloon without crumpling the thing up like a prune?
Was there even one iota of thought that went into the decision to move all production to Decatur?
-
Jim - 28/3/2007 1:10 PM
Propforce - 28/3/2007 1:24 AM
Jim - 26/3/2007 7:29 AM
The formation of ULA is very personal to me as it affected my wife, who was legacy McDonnell-Douglas and now has gone through another change (reduction) in benefits.
Oh geez Jim, let me wipe that little tears off my eyes... NOT !!!
Now imagine if your wife face a choice of moving to another state in order to keep her job WITH a reduced benefit and whether YOU keep your job in Florida and live a thousand mile apart from your wife, or QUIT your job to go with her... Now welcome to our dilema. Walk a mile in our shoes.
I was at a conference a month ago and got to talk to a few Lockheed ULA engineers. NONE, no one, nada, was happy about being "forced" to go into the ULA but at least they don't have to force the wife to quit her job and relocate.
I have walked a mile and more. Don't preach to me about job moves, you still have a choice, I was in the Air Force before I was with Boeing and NASA.
I would suppose that you knew that when you joined the USAF that there would be job moves.
In contrast, Propforce has painted a situation where someone in there 40s working for an aerospace company is looking for stability, not adventure. With kids and a spouse who may also have a career the decision is not as easy as receiving orders from your CO.
The key point in all of this is that the employees do have a choice and they seem to be resolutely excersizing their choice in not moving.
I find it interesting that noone has denied or refuted the information that only 10% of the "worker-bees" have more than two years of experience that have chosen to relocate.
The key issue here is how does that choice affect our ability to launch national security payloads?
-
Dexter - 30/3/2007 1:22 AM
I would suppose that you knew that when you joined the USAF that there would be job moves.
In contrast, Propforce has painted a situation where someone in there 40s working for an aerospace company is looking for stability, not adventure. With kids and a spouse who may also have a career the decision is not as easy as receiving orders from your CO.
I was an engineer in the Air Force with kids and spouse. Adventure doesn't apply to engineering
-
Dexter - 30/3/2007 1:22 AM
I find it interesting that noone has denied or refuted the information that only 10% of the "worker-bees" have more than two years of experience that have chosen to relocate.
Now you are just assuming all the bad is real and not even looking at it from a balance point of view
Just numerically, I doubt it. The freeze was on for more than a years. Also people coming into the program weren't that many. If 43% of all the workers chose to move and since most have more than 2 years, the 10% can't be true
-
Jim - 30/3/2007 6:58 AM
Dexter - 30/3/2007 1:22 AM
I find it interesting that noone has denied or refuted the information that only 10% of the "worker-bees" have more than two years of experience that have chosen to relocate.
Now you are just assuming all the bad is real and not even looking at it from a balance point of view
Just numerically, I doubt it. The freeze was on for more than a years. Also people coming into the program weren't that many. If 43% of all the workers chose to move and since most have more than 2 years, the 10% can't be true
I am referring to skywalker's post from last week who stated that it was 43% total but that included all management and supervision.
At the working level, the total was 20% acceptance with half being new hires with less than two years experience.
That leads me to conclude that only 10% of the working people have more than two years experience.
Another poster here did state that the 43% did include people who were recently hired with the condition that they were relocating to Denver.
It was also pointed out by Proforce in December that the incentives for top mangement was higher than for the worker bees to relocate.
This would support the stratification of acceptance with the top levels seeing more acceptance and the lower levels seeing less acceptance.
I don't think the tribal knowledge and technical expertise resides in the top layers of management.
-
bombay - 29/3/2007 7:55 PM
"I don't know enough about each shop to talk about the techs - good workmanship on both sides. I can only hope enough tribal knowledge moves to Decatur."
I've pondered the above partial quote by Antares about retention of tribal knowledge in Decatur. I've concluded that the ULA has made a decision that will take years, at great expense and risk, to overcome.
What is tribal knowledge? In the manufacturing world it's knowing what it takes to actually build a quality product that's not covered on a blue print, CAD model, planning instructions, or any other form of documentation. It's knowledge gained through years of experience of trial and error.
In the case of Centaur where the entire rocket is built in house from pulling raw material to completion, what can Decatur personnel provide to build a Centaur should, as anticipated, the critical Centaur production engineers and mechanics, those with all of the tribal knowledge refuse to go to Decatur? Who else knows how to build a thin guage stainless balloon without crumpling the thing up like a prune?
Was there even one iota of thought that went into the decision to move all production to Decatur?
This is a very good point because in all of the ULA factories, the metal of choice is Aluminum except in San Diego where it is stainless steel. Here, in Denver and Harlingen as well, there is more reliance on machined aluminum isogrid panels bought from suppliers with less internal fabrication and more assembly of bolted on components. In San Diego, the process starts out with raw material and fabricates the balloon tank with resistance welding and is extremely labor intensive. A lack of tribal knowledge transfer from there would put us in deep do-do.
-
Gus - 30/3/2007 11:37 PM
bombay - 29/3/2007 7:55 PM
"I don't know enough about each shop to talk about the techs - good workmanship on both sides. I can only hope enough tribal knowledge moves to Decatur."
I've pondered the above partial quote by Antares about retention of tribal knowledge in Decatur. I've concluded that the ULA has made a decision that will take years, at great expense and risk, to overcome.
What is tribal knowledge? In the manufacturing world it's knowing what it takes to actually build a quality product that's not covered on a blue print, CAD model, planning instructions, or any other form of documentation. It's knowledge gained through years of experience of trial and error.
In the case of Centaur where the entire rocket is built in house from pulling raw material to completion, what can Decatur personnel provide to build a Centaur should, as anticipated, the critical Centaur production engineers and mechanics, those with all of the tribal knowledge refuse to go to Decatur? Who else knows how to build a thin guage stainless balloon without crumpling the thing up like a prune?
Was there even one iota of thought that went into the decision to move all production to Decatur?
This is a very good point because in all of the ULA factories, the metal of choice is Aluminum except in San Diego where it is stainless steel. Here, in Denver and Harlingen as well, there is more reliance on machined aluminum isogrid panels bought from suppliers with less internal fabrication and more assembly of bolted on components. In San Diego, the process starts out with raw material and fabricates the balloon tank with resistance welding and is extremely labor intensive. A lack of tribal knowledge transfer from there would put us in deep do-do.
So what happens when only 10% relocate like the HB acceptance?
-
Dexter - 30/3/2007 7:48 AM
I am referring to skywalker's post from last week who stated that it was 43% total but that included all management and supervision.
At the working level, the total was 20% acceptance with half being new hires with less than two years experience.
That leads me to conclude that only 10% of the working people have more than two years experience.
Another poster here did state that the 43% did include people who were recently hired with the condition that they were relocating to Denver.
It was also pointed out by Proforce in December that the incentives for top mangement was higher than for the worker bees to relocate.
This would support the stratification of acceptance with the top levels seeing more acceptance and the lower levels seeing less acceptance.
I don't think the tribal knowledge and technical expertise resides in the top layers of management.
The number of management and supervision personnel are still small compared to the number of "working people". The working level acceptance rate is closer to 43% than 20%. I don't know how many of those are new hires, but I think the 10% number is low (that is, more than 10% of the working people have more than 2 yrs experience). Many of the mid-level supervisors (probably not as highly incentivized as the top mgt, but more so than the lowest level) do have tribal knowledge and technical expertise.
I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture. The numbers are still relatively low, but that has to be expected given the different factors the HB folks need to weigh (housing, family, current job market, CO vs. CA climate, etc.).
-
Based on what I've seen, a solid 70-80% of the HB senior managers are moving, and about half of the worker bees are. The ones who aren't moving are generally the most experienced. Considering the deficiencies in the "Delta way", it's probably better that way.
When ULA spins up in Denver, things are going to be done the Atlas way. The younger people from HB will adapt, and the ex-HB managers will probably bail.
-
Gov't Seagull - 31/3/2007 5:59 PM
Based on what I've seen, a solid 70-80% of the HB senior managers are moving, and about half of the worker bees are. The ones who aren't moving are generally the most experienced. Considering the deficiencies in the "Delta way", it's probably better that way.
When ULA spins up in Denver, things are going to be done the Atlas way. The younger people from HB will adapt, and the ex-HB managers will probably bail.
If the Delta way is so deficient, why was it not allowed to die out instead of forming ULA?
If the Ex HB managers will probably just bail, why even offer them incentives to stay?
If the Delta way is so bad, why risk the Atlas manufacturing to a plant that only knows the Delta way?
If the experienced Delta worker-bees don't relocate, who will teach the younger people?
There is a great disparity in the numbers on relocation acceptance. Who has the truth?
-
I don't see a great disparity in the relocation numbers. My numbers are close to Gov't Seagull's. The 43% is pretty consistent as well. The only number I don't think people have a real handle on is the % of people in the non-mgt ranks who have more than 2 years experience. It's not that people aren't telling the "truth", that number may just not be floating around ready to be posted on the Internet.
I guess I'd like to understand the "deficiencies" as well. Care to elaborate, Dexter? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your statement, just looking for details.
-
Dexter - 1/4/2007 1:12 AM
If the Delta way is so deficient, why was it not allowed to die out instead of forming ULA?
If the Ex HB managers will probably just bail, why even offer them incentives to stay?
If the Delta way is so bad, why risk the Atlas manufacturing to a plant that only knows the Delta way?
If the experienced Delta worker-bees don't relocate, who will teach the younger people?
There is a great disparity in the numbers on relocation acceptance. Who has the truth?
Let me rephrase - like most space launch engineering operations, Delta is far above average compared to the broad spectrum of engineering in general. But compared to Atlas, the Delta engineering operation is deficient. Their processes are less rigorous, they have a commercial mindset, and they are stuck with a bunch of composite primary structure that requires huge chunks of their engineering resources. And actually, whether Delta is better or worse than Atlas, the physical fact of ULA engineering being at Waterton and the comparative numbers of Atlas vs. Delta engineers means Atlas will win out, I think. But hey, GD ended up dominating Martin, so maybe it won't happen.
I don't know all the factors ULA considered in deciding who to move where, who to try to hang on to, etc., so I can't speak for them. My guess is that the ex-HB people were perceived as being better than trying to start from scratch with fresh-outs. HB tends to resist new methods and ideas until there is no alternative. We're talking data inputs on 40-year-old punched-card forms because "that's the way we've always done it." The guy who up to now has refused to get rid of the punch-card forms is the guy who's going to quit when it becomes clear that he'll have to adapt to Atlas methods.
Why move manufacturing to Decatur? Good question. Probably someone high up saw that Decatur was a brand new factory with excess capacity and that was that.
Atlas will teach the young Delta guys.
-
WHAP - 1/4/2007 9:51 AM
The only number I don't think people have a real handle on is the % of people in the non-mgt ranks who have more than 2 years experience.
Very few HB people in a position of any kind of responsibility have less than 5 years' experience. Almost all of them were around during Delta IV development. A lot of those guys will go, and will adapt. It's the over-40s that are going to stay in HB or bail.
-
Gov't Seagull - 1/4/2007 9:26 AM
WHAP - 1/4/2007 9:51 AM
The only number I don't think people have a real handle on is the % of people in the non-mgt ranks who have more than 2 years experience.
Very few HB people in a position of any kind of responsibility have less than 5 years' experience. Almost all of them were around during Delta IV development. A lot of those guys will go, and will adapt. It's the over-40s that are going to stay in HB or bail.
I see that as a problem based on the Titan failures of the 90's. You think this will solve some problems on Delta if I understand you correctly.
Consider this, when the Atlas folks are training the inexperienced Delta folks the "Atlas way", who will be minding Atlas?
I see a dilution of "Atlas way" experience with the scenario you paint..
-
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_5562832
350 out of 900 - 38% from HB
24 out of 100 from Denver to Decatur. 24%
-
Dexter - 1/4/2007 10:06 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_5562832
350 out of 900 - 38% from HB
24 out of 100 from Denver to Decatur. 24%
The numbers for the HB move are consistent (maybe a little low - probably some rounding going on). BTW, those are NOT "working level" folks in that article. ;)
Where did the 24 of 100 come from? I didn't think any offers had been made for moves to Decatur yet.
-
I am curious how many of the HB folks who said that they will move actually plan to follow through?
One measure of this commitment is if they actually seem energized to sell their homes. Would any insider be willing to identify to us if option A or option B below seems more prevalent to describe the people who said that they would move:
Option A) All excited about moving, already put house up for sale, or gave notice if renting, have gone on house hunting trips already to Colorado, and showing true excitement about moving.
Option B) Seem worn out from all the stress of a move, showing no enthusiasm at work about the future, spending minimal hours at work, seem to be aggressively interviewing elsewhere, show no interest in selling their home.
Just curious because I went through all this at GD. A lot of folks who said they were going to make the move aggressively interviewed during this period of time. I was up front with my management since my father had just died, and no way was I going to leave my family. But others were not so honest to management. And as an insider you could tell who these people were.
-
WHAP - 31/3/2007 8:11 AM
Dexter - 30/3/2007 7:48 AM
I am referring to skywalker's post from last week who stated that it was 43% total but that included all management and supervision.
At the working level, the total was 20% acceptance with half being new hires with less than two years experience.
That leads me to conclude that only 10% of the working people have more than two years experience.
Another poster here did state that the 43% did include people who were recently hired with the condition that they were relocating to Denver.
It was also pointed out by Proforce in December that the incentives for top mangement was higher than for the worker bees to relocate.
This would support the stratification of acceptance with the top levels seeing more acceptance and the lower levels seeing less acceptance.
I don't think the tribal knowledge and technical expertise resides in the top layers of management.
The number of management and supervision personnel are still small compared to the number of "working people". The working level acceptance rate is closer to 43% than 20%. I don't know how many of those are new hires, but I think the 10% number is low (that is, more than 10% of the working people have more than 2 yrs experience). Many of the mid-level supervisors (probably not as highly incentivized as the top mgt, but more so than the lowest level) do have tribal knowledge and technical expertise.
I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture. The numbers are still relatively low, but that has to be expected given the different factors the HB folks need to weigh (housing, family, current job market, CO vs. CA climate, etc.).
Gov't Seagull - 31/3/2007 5:59 PM
Based on what I've seen, a solid 70-80% of the HB senior managers are moving, and about half of the worker bees are. The ones who aren't moving are generally the most experienced. Considering the deficiencies in the "Delta way", it's probably better that way.
When ULA spins up in Denver, things are going to be done the Atlas way. The younger people from HB will adapt, and the ex-HB managers will probably bail.
Dexter - 1/4/2007 11:06 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_5562832
350 out of 900 - 38% from HB
24 out of 100 from Denver to Decatur. 24%
I know that there were 933 HB people on Day 1 (I have seen the list that was on the ULA home page).
Assume 40% Managers (373) and 60% Worker-bees (560)
Total movers 401 = 43%
20% of the Worker-bees 112 move (56 with less than 2yrs)
this leaves 289 or 77% of Management move or
Assume 30% Managers (280) and 70% Worker-bees (653)
20% of the Worker-bees 131 move (65 with less than 2ys)
this leaves 219 or 78% of Management move
Yes is is manipulation of the numbers but it falls in line with Gov't Seagull's 70-80% stated above. In other words my initial 20% worke-bees is not out of line. There is another quote from a different thread
-
Dexter - 30/3/2007 11:57 PM
Gus - 30/3/2007 11:37 PM
bombay - 29/3/2007 7:55 PM
"I don't know enough about each shop to talk about the techs - good workmanship on both sides. I can only hope enough tribal knowledge moves to Decatur."
I've pondered the above partial quote by Antares about retention of tribal knowledge in Decatur. I've concluded that the ULA has made a decision that will take years, at great expense and risk, to overcome.
What is tribal knowledge? In the manufacturing world it's knowing what it takes to actually build a quality product that's not covered on a blue print, CAD model, planning instructions, or any other form of documentation. It's knowledge gained through years of experience of trial and error.
In the case of Centaur where the entire rocket is built in house from pulling raw material to completion, what can Decatur personnel provide to build a Centaur should, as anticipated, the critical Centaur production engineers and mechanics, those with all of the tribal knowledge refuse to go to Decatur? Who else knows how to build a thin guage stainless balloon without crumpling the thing up like a prune?
Was there even one iota of thought that went into the decision to move all production to Decatur?
This is a very good point because in all of the ULA factories, the metal of choice is Aluminum except in San Diego where it is stainless steel. Here, in Denver and Harlingen as well, there is more reliance on machined aluminum isogrid panels bought from suppliers with less internal fabrication and more assembly of bolted on components. In San Diego, the process starts out with raw material and fabricates the balloon tank with resistance welding and is extremely labor intensive. A lack of tribal knowledge transfer from there would put us in deep do-do.
So what happens when only 10% relocate like the HB acceptance?
You could argue that Atlas engineering personnel could absorb Delta engineering deficiencies in personnel based on the fact that common rules/laws of engineering will apply to either rocket.
The same can't be said for Centaur manufacturing. There's nothing in common between Centaur manufacturing and Atlas/Delta booster or Delta upperstage, absolutely nothing! There's no answer to what the ULA will do if the right people don't follow Centaur to Decatur.
-
Being that the ULA will be subjected to intense engineering rigor, when Centaur moves to Decatur and if the appropriate people refuse to go along for the ride, the Air Force/Aerospace should demand that the Centaur be completely requalified. Considering that 50 years of knowhow that was passed down from generation to generation would no longer be part of the build or inspection process, engineering rigor should demand a complete requalification.
-
As I was trying to say above there is a quote some where on this site that discussed that fact that tribal knowledge resides in the the people not the company and the managers in my opinion are the company and the worker-bees are the people. Needless to say (so why am I saying it?) ULA is in trouble with Delta and will be in trouble with Atlas if they move Centaur to Decatur pure and simple!
-
WHAP - 2/4/2007 9:07 AM
Dexter - 1/4/2007 10:06 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_5562832
350 out of 900 - 38% from HB
24 out of 100 from Denver to Decatur. 24%
The numbers for the HB move are consistent (maybe a little low - probably some rounding going on). BTW, those are NOT "working level" folks in that article. ;)
Where did the 24 of 100 come from? I didn't think any offers had been made for moves to Decatur yet.
"In order to ensure the Department achieves the national security benefits, the companies need to retain their critical capabilities through the transition and relocation of key employees."
"We are concerned that these employees remain with the launch vehicle operations to provide the quality, reliability, innovation, and "best of breed" benefits to the Department."
These are a couple of quotes from the DoD to the FTC to justify the formation of ULA. It's beginning to look like every facet of ULA critical capabilities from engineering down to the factory floor will be suffering big-time by years end.
-
bombay - 2/4/2007 7:55 PM
Dexter - 30/3/2007 11:57 PM
Gus - 30/3/2007 11:37 PM
bombay - 29/3/2007 7:55 PM
"I don't know enough about each shop to talk about the techs - good workmanship on both sides. I can only hope enough tribal knowledge moves to Decatur."
I've pondered the above partial quote by Antares about retention of tribal knowledge in Decatur. I've concluded that the ULA has made a decision that will take years, at great expense and risk, to overcome.
What is tribal knowledge? In the manufacturing world it's knowing what it takes to actually build a quality product that's not covered on a blue print, CAD model, planning instructions, or any other form of documentation. It's knowledge gained through years of experience of trial and error.
In the case of Centaur where the entire rocket is built in house from pulling raw material to completion, what can Decatur personnel provide to build a Centaur should, as anticipated, the critical Centaur production engineers and mechanics, those with all of the tribal knowledge refuse to go to Decatur? Who else knows how to build a thin guage stainless balloon without crumpling the thing up like a prune?
Was there even one iota of thought that went into the decision to move all production to Decatur?
This is a very good point because in all of the ULA factories, the metal of choice is Aluminum except in San Diego where it is stainless steel. Here, in Denver and Harlingen as well, there is more reliance on machined aluminum isogrid panels bought from suppliers with less internal fabrication and more assembly of bolted on components. In San Diego, the process starts out with raw material and fabricates the balloon tank with resistance welding and is extremely labor intensive. A lack of tribal knowledge transfer from there would put us in deep do-do.
So what happens when only 10% relocate like the HB acceptance?
You could argue that Atlas engineering personnel could absorb Delta engineering deficiencies in personnel based on the fact that common rules/laws of engineering will apply to either rocket.
The same can't be said for Centaur manufacturing. There's nothing in common between Centaur manufacturing and Atlas/Delta booster or Delta upperstage, absolutely nothing! There's no answer to what the ULA will do if the right people don't follow Centaur to Decatur.
I am a new watcher and contributor. I have read the 60+ pages of this thread, it is very interesting. Bombay makes a good point here. Centaur manufacturing is different, very different not only in the process of starting with raw material, but also with the welding. San Diego site is a world class welding facility, I have met the weld engineers from their and all of us (well at least the people I know) in the Welding world realize they do what no one else does, it is top notch. So if the weld engineers do not move to Decatur, Centaur manufacturing will struggle. I am not even sure of the other processes, but just ensuring the weld quality will be very difficult.
-
The latest news report on this web site has the lunar lander study, http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5063 that would use to Centaur to get to the moon. I have seen the presentations using the Wide Body Centaur for this concept but this is the first time with the standard 10 foot Centaur. Requalifying the Centaur is an interesting concept and one used when changing suppliers on other controlled components.
-
porthos - 2/4/2007 9:29 PM
So if the weld engineers do not move to Decatur, Centaur manufacturing will struggle. I am not even sure of the other processes, but just ensuring the weld quality will be very difficult.
What about the state of the art automated friction stir welding machines in Decatur? An Atlas-Centaur with FSW would seem to be a giant leap forward.
-
Gus - 2/4/2007 9:35 PM
The latest news report on this web site has the lunar lander study, http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5063 that would use to Centaur to get to the moon. I have seen the presentations using the Wide Body Centaur for this concept but this is the first time with the standard 10 foot Centaur. Requalifying the Centaur is an interesting concept and one used when changing suppliers on other controlled components.
Gus,
I was at one of the conferences where this concept was presented. As you would know, that was basically a marketing paper. A lot of details would need to be flushed out before anyone has any idea what this "Centaur" will look like at the end.
I would point out that landing Centaur horizontally would require a complete different load path. Your prop mass fraction would suffer quite a bit. You will end up with any but looking like a current Centaur except for the license plate. So I wouldn't worry about the manufacturing capability for this concept just yet.
-
I thought they where talking about switching from Stainless to Al Li for Centuar wide body. So Wide body would have to be fully recertfied and would use a different manufacturing process anyway.
A good way to hide the recert costs from the move if you ask me... Instead of moving the current Centuar line, start up the new wide body line in a new location instead.
-
kevin-rf - 3/4/2007 7:30 AM
I thought they where talking about switching from Stainless to Al Li for Centuar wide body. So Wide body would have to be fully recertfied and would use a different manufacturing process anyway.
A good way to hide the recert costs from the move if you ask me... Instead of moving the current Centuar line, start up the new wide body line in a new location instead.
Sounds unethical to me.
I wonder when we will be seeing the promised $150 million dollar savings that was promised at the begining?
Or has that been hidden as well?
-
Dexter - 3/4/2007 9:49 AM
kevin-rf - 3/4/2007 7:30 AM
I thought they where talking about switching from Stainless to Al Li for Centuar wide body. So Wide body would have to be fully recertfied and would use a different manufacturing process anyway.
A good way to hide the recert costs from the move if you ask me... Instead of moving the current Centuar line, start up the new wide body line in a new location instead.
Sounds unethical to me.
I wonder when we will be seeing the promised $150 million dollar savings that was promised at the begining?
Or has that been hidden as well?
It is going into launch table repair
But seriously, it was over a period of years, not instantaneously
-
Dexter - 3/4/2007 8:49 AM
kevin-rf - 3/4/2007 7:30 AM
I thought they where talking about switching from Stainless to Al Li for Centuar wide body. So Wide body would have to be fully recertfied and would use a different manufacturing process anyway.
A good way to hide the recert costs from the move if you ask me... Instead of moving the current Centuar line, start up the new wide body line in a new location instead.
Sounds unethical to me.
I wonder when we will be seeing the promised $150 million dollar savings that was promised at the begining?
Or has that been hidden as well?
Not really, it is just how you do your cost accounting. That is the problem with numbers, you can make them say what ever you want. What I proposed was not move stainless centuar but instead use the opportunity to develop wide body centuar instead.
From the spin standpoint you are doing two things.
1. Showing you are investing in the products future.
2. Not having to be crucified over the move costs by instead pumping the money into new product development.
Think of it this way (and yes both these things happened on the big dig in boston)
1. It is ethical to pay a contractor to haul dirt away from the site. It is also ethical to be charged by a contractor for dirt needed at the site, even if it is the same dirt.
2. It is unethical to have the same cement truck run through the front gate and be counted as a new load then go out the back gate and do it all over again with the same load.
It is this kind of stuff ( replace with four letter word) that drives real engineers crazy. Any company that is not operating at a loss in the tax mans eyes is miss managed. The sad part is many of the people that play with these numbers often loose the ability to tell the difference between smoke, mirrors, and a real blue sky.
And that is what the debate of this thread is all about. Is ULA looking at blue sky's or a set of mirrors. By the nature of what they do, anything but a blue sky view will endanger this nation.
-
bombay - 2/4/2007 9:05 PM
Being that the ULA will be subjected to intense engineering rigor, when Centaur moves to Decatur and if the appropriate people refuse to go along for the ride, the Air Force/Aerospace should demand that the Centaur be completely requalified.
Riiight...intense engineering rigor. The AF is still stuck in the corner they painted themselves into in the 90s. ULA will tell the AF that Centaur is moving to Decatur and the AF will not only accept the hardware but also run an ad in Aviation Week saying how much they like it.
"Buy 4" anyone?
-
Gov't Seagull - 3/4/2007 2:52 PM
bombay - 2/4/2007 9:05 PM
Being that the ULA will be subjected to intense engineering rigor, when Centaur moves to Decatur and if the appropriate people refuse to go along for the ride, the Air Force/Aerospace should demand that the Centaur be completely requalified.
Riiight...intense engineering rigor. The AF is still stuck in the corner they painted themselves into in the 90s. ULA will tell the AF that Centaur is moving to Decatur and the AF will not only accept the hardware but also run an ad in Aviation Week saying how much they like it.
"Buy 4" anyone?
Going back and looking at EELV program office presentations where they talk about how much money they'll save by going to two launch vehicles so that they can capture the huge forecasted commercial demand is an interesting experience. Like a horror movie where you want to shout "Don't open the door!" even though you know they can't hear you.
On a similar note, go look at the fuel cost projections that were used to reject re-engining the B-52.
-
Antares - 3/4/2007 12:45 AM
porthos - 2/4/2007 9:29 PM
So if the weld engineers do not move to Decatur, Centaur manufacturing will struggle. I am not even sure of the other processes, but just ensuring the weld quality will be very difficult.
What about the state of the art automated friction stir welding machines in Decatur? An Atlas-Centaur with FSW would seem to be a giant leap forward.
FSW is great for aluminum, but I think the Centaur is Stainless Steel. San Diego welding of the Centaur is completely different than any other welding anywhere. Very few people (I believe they work in San Diego) know how to maintain the quality required, which is higher than anywhere.
-
porthos - 3/4/2007 8:15 PM
Antares - 3/4/2007 12:45 AM
porthos - 2/4/2007 9:29 PM
So if the weld engineers do not move to Decatur, Centaur manufacturing will struggle. I am not even sure of the other processes, but just ensuring the weld quality will be very difficult.
What about the state of the art automated friction stir welding machines in Decatur? An Atlas-Centaur with FSW would seem to be a giant leap forward.
FSW is great for aluminum, but I think the Centaur is Stainless Steel. San Diego welding of the Centaur is completely different than any other welding anywhere. Very few people (I believe they work in San Diego) know how to maintain the quality required, which is higher than anywhere.
Some inroads have been made in friction stir welding thicker steel versus thinner stuff, but there's issues with the stylus that stirs the weld pool; it breaks down too fast.
Lets not forget that the only significant welding on Atlas and Delta boosters is welding large skins panels together then welding them to large spun formed domes where FSW makes sense.
Centaur's a different animal. Not only is the basic tank skins and domes welded together, but all brackets, bosses, outlets, reinforcement doublers, rings, and more are welded onto the tank. The amount of welding on a Centaur is quite large and difficult and the people that are involved with it are masters of the processes used.
The ULA management, Air Force, or any other group that simply thinks moving Centaur to Decatur will automatically qualify as a cost saving move is living in the dark.
-
Gov't Seagull - 3/4/2007 4:52 PM
bombay - 2/4/2007 9:05 PM
Being that the ULA will be subjected to intense engineering rigor, when Centaur moves to Decatur and if the appropriate people refuse to go along for the ride, the Air Force/Aerospace should demand that the Centaur be completely requalified.
Riiight...intense engineering rigor. The AF is still stuck in the corner they painted themselves into in the 90s. ULA will tell the AF that Centaur is moving to Decatur and the AF will not only accept the hardware but also run an ad in Aviation Week saying how much they like it.
"Buy 4" anyone?
Come-come now! It was pointed out on this very thread how thanks to "engineering rigor" (a.k.a gov't bureacracy), all went well with Atlas after being sold to Martin. So considering that a bunch of people in Decatur who wouldn't know a spot weld from there dog spot will be building Centaur, requalification would seem appropriate.
-
bombay - 3/4/2007 10:08 PM
It was pointed out on this very thread how thanks to "engineering rigor" (a.k.a gov't bureacracy), all went well with Atlas after being sold to Martin.
Neither Boeing, Lockheed, or Martin would be in the business if it weren't for the gov't, who held their hand until 1988. And since then they have done worst on their own.
-
bombay - 3/4/2007 8:59 PM
porthos - 3/4/2007 8:15 PM
Antares - 3/4/2007 12:45 AM
porthos - 2/4/2007 9:29 PM
So if the weld engineers do not move to Decatur, Centaur manufacturing will struggle. I am not even sure of the other processes, but just ensuring the weld quality will be very difficult.
What about the state of the art automated friction stir welding machines in Decatur? An Atlas-Centaur with FSW would seem to be a giant leap forward.
FSW is great for aluminum, but I think the Centaur is Stainless Steel. San Diego welding of the Centaur is completely different than any other welding anywhere. Very few people (I believe they work in San Diego) know how to maintain the quality required, which is higher than anywhere.
Some inroads have been made in friction stir welding thicker steel versus thinner stuff, but there's issues with the stylus that stirs the weld pool; it breaks down too fast.
Lets not forget that the only significant welding on Atlas and Delta boosters is welding large skins panels together then welding them to large spun formed domes where FSW makes sense.
Centaur's a different animal. Not only is the basic tank skins and domes welded together, but all brackets, bosses, outlets, reinforcement doublers, rings, and more are welded onto the tank. The amount of welding on a Centaur is quite large and difficult and the people that are involved with it are masters of the processes used.
The ULA management, Air Force, or any other group that simply thinks moving Centaur to Decatur will automatically qualify as a cost saving move is living in the dark.
bombay - 3/4/2007 9:08 PM
Gov't Seagull - 3/4/2007 4:52 PM
bombay - 2/4/2007 9:05 PM
Being that the ULA will be subjected to intense engineering rigor, when Centaur moves to Decatur and if the appropriate people refuse to go along for the ride, the Air Force/Aerospace should demand that the Centaur be completely requalified.
Riiight...intense engineering rigor. The AF is still stuck in the corner they painted themselves into in the 90s. ULA will tell the AF that Centaur is moving to Decatur and the AF will not only accept the hardware but also run an ad in Aviation Week saying how much they like it.
"Buy 4" anyone?
Come-come now! It was pointed out on this very thread how thanks to "engineering rigor" (a.k.a gov't bureacracy), all went well with Atlas after being sold to Martin. So considering that a bunch of people in Decatur who wouldn't know a spot weld from there dog spot will be building Centaur, requalification would seem appropriate.
Bombay mentions the most important thing "requalification". The only way Centaur will be FS welded is to completly redesign it and then REQUAL, that in it self would be cost prohibative. Then again isn't that what Wide Body Centaur is all about?
-
Jim - 3/4/2007 9:18 PM
bombay - 3/4/2007 10:08 PM
It was pointed out on this very thread how thanks to "engineering rigor" (a.k.a gov't bureacracy), all went well with Atlas after being sold to Martin.
Neither Boeing, Lockheed, or Martin would be in the business if it weren't for the gov't, who held their hand until 1988. And since then they have done worst on their own.
Holding their hands = Gov't sponsored cost-plus contracting until 1988. When companies continue to operate like the gov't (no regard for cost control) under fixed cost conditions, then you might expect those companies to do worse. Blame it on the horrible display of managerial decisions, not lack of engineering rigor.
-
Jim - 3/4/2007 8:18 PM
bombay - 3/4/2007 10:08 PM
It was pointed out on this very thread how thanks to "engineering rigor" (a.k.a gov't bureacracy), all went well with Atlas after being sold to Martin.
Neither Boeing, Lockheed, or Martin would be in the business if it weren't for the gov't, who held their hand until 1988. And since then they have done worst on their own.
The Atlas program was actually profitable for a few years after moving to Denver (1994, well after the "hand holding" ended). I'm sure the bargain basement price for GD Space Systems didn't hurt. But the Atlas program was not run like a cost-plus program back then.
-
bombay - 3/4/2007 11:22 PM
Jim - 3/4/2007 9:18 PM
bombay - 3/4/2007 10:08 PM
It was pointed out on this very thread how thanks to "engineering rigor" (a.k.a gov't bureacracy), all went well with Atlas after being sold to Martin.
Neither Boeing, Lockheed, or Martin would be in the business if it weren't for the gov't, who held their hand until 1988. And since then they have done worst on their own.
Holding their hands = Gov't sponsored cost-plus contracting until 1988. When companies continue to operate like the gov't (no regard for cost control) under fixed cost conditions, then you might expect those companies to do worse. Blame it on the horrible display of managerial decisions, not lack of engineering rigor.
Incorrect, Holding their hands = Gov't did some of the engineering or independent engineering
-
Jim - 4/4/2007 4:05 AM
bombay - 3/4/2007 11:22 PM
Jim - 3/4/2007 9:18 PM
bombay - 3/4/2007 10:08 PM
It was pointed out on this very thread how thanks to "engineering rigor" (a.k.a gov't bureacracy), all went well with Atlas after being sold to Martin.
Neither Boeing, Lockheed, or Martin would be in the business if it weren't for the gov't, who held their hand until 1988. And since then they have done worst on their own.
Holding their hands = Gov't sponsored cost-plus contracting until 1988. When companies continue to operate like the gov't (no regard for cost control) under fixed cost conditions, then you might expect those companies to do worse. Blame it on the horrible display of managerial decisions, not lack of engineering rigor.
Incorrect, Holding their hands = Gov't did some of the engineering or independent engineering
Please elaborate because I do not see any released engineering from the government nor do I see their signature on any of the analytical tools and models used by our analysts. There is a lot of "mother may I" with the government now that we do not need for commercial launches.
-
Jim - 4/4/2007 6:05 AM
bombay - 3/4/2007 11:22 PM
Jim - 3/4/2007 9:18 PM
bombay - 3/4/2007 10:08 PM
It was pointed out on this very thread how thanks to "engineering rigor" (a.k.a gov't bureacracy), all went well with Atlas after being sold to Martin.
Neither Boeing, Lockheed, or Martin would be in the business if it weren't for the gov't, who held their hand until 1988. And since then they have done worst on their own.
Holding their hands = Gov't sponsored cost-plus contracting until 1988. When companies continue to operate like the gov't (no regard for cost control) under fixed cost conditions, then you might expect those companies to do worse. Blame it on the horrible display of managerial decisions, not lack of engineering rigor.
Incorrect, Holding their hands = Gov't did some of the engineering or independent engineering
Jim you have been telling everyone that is anti-ULA to get over it, well now it is our turn (well at least my turn, I don't want to lump everyone in this) to tell you get over yourself and your thoughts that the gov't designed and named all the rockets in the free world. Both Atlas and Delta were designed and named by their respective companies period. Asking for new and improved rocket is not designing them. I agree with Gus be specific "some of the engineering or independant engineering" establishing criteria is not design it is however what the brilliant men of industry must design to!
-
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.
-
skywalker - 21/3/2007 8:40 PM
Consolidation should be done smartly not blindly. The move from HB to Denver is a done deal, but the rest (SD, Denver, Harlingen) should be studied and take into account RISK (which includes loss of key people). It seems that Denver to Decatur is a done deal so that leaves three manufacturing plants. What is the reason to move to Decatur? Here are the reasons:
1) Boeing promised Alabama Governor jobs, with a large kick back in taxes.
2) It was stated from the begining Denver and SD to Decatur and they do not want to loose face, therefore they (the powers to be) will make the trades or studies or whatever look like it is a good business decission to move, low estimates from a sole source what ever it takes.
If this is true, then the numbers presented to the AF should be closely scrutinized being that the reasons behind the desire to move had nothing to do with cost savings and assured access.
Moreover, if the people doing the trade studies did in fact ignor relevant costs, risks, critical skill retention, and so forth, for the sole purpose of skewing the trade study numbers in favor of a move in order to benefit the Alabama congressional district, then those people should be brought up on charges of fraud!
-
Jim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.
You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
-
bombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.
You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.
-
Jim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.
You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.
Atlas engineering (design, stress, flight dynamics, etc.) was performed by GD engineers, not NASA engineers. Quit giving NASA more credit than its due, at least as far as Atlas is concerned!
-
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:21 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.
You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.
Atlas engineering (design, stress, flight dynamics, etc.) was performed by GD engineers, not NASA engineers. Quit giving NASA more credit than its due, at least as far as Atlas is concerned!
We are talking the 60's and especially Centaur. NASA bailed GD out.
This has nothing to do with my current employment. I knew this when I was in the Air Force in the early 80's
-
Jim - 5/4/2007 9:43 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:21 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.
You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.
Atlas engineering (design, stress, flight dynamics, etc.) was performed by GD engineers, not NASA engineers. Quit giving NASA more credit than its due, at least as far as Atlas is concerned!
We are talking the 60's and especially Centaur. NASA bailed GD out.
This has nothing to do with my current employment. I knew this when I was in the Air Force in the early 80's
NASA provided opportunity for GD back in the 60's, I won't deny that. If that's what you mean by "bailing out", then fine, I agree. But don't tell me that NASA bailed out GD engineering, that's an out right lie!
-
bombay - 5/4/2007 8:18 PM
skywalker - 21/3/2007 8:40 PM
Consolidation should be done smartly not blindly. The move from HB to Denver is a done deal, but the rest (SD, Denver, Harlingen) should be studied and take into account RISK (which includes loss of key people). It seems that Denver to Decatur is a done deal so that leaves three manufacturing plants. What is the reason to move to Decatur? Here are the reasons:
1) Boeing promised Alabama Governor jobs, with a large kick back in taxes.
2) It was stated from the begining Denver and SD to Decatur and they do not want to loose face, therefore they (the powers to be) will make the trades or studies or whatever look like it is a good business decission to move, low estimates from a sole source what ever it takes.
If this is true, then the numbers presented to the AF should be closely scrutinized being that the reasons behind the desire to move had nothing to do with cost savings and assured access.
Moreover, if the people doing the trade studies did in fact ignor relevant costs, risks, critical skill retention, and so forth, for the sole purpose of skewing the trade study numbers in favor of a move in order to benefit the Alabama congressional district, then those people should be brought up on charges of fraud!
Lets look at a little history:
1993 - Norm Augustine promises savings of 150 million dollars per year to the FTC for approval of acquiring Atlas from GD. No evidence of savings to the taxpayer.
1995 - Lockheed promises to co-produce RD-180 engines in the United States for US government missions. Most recent Atlas launch is first in the EELV program and uses Russian made engine to launch US government satellite(s) 12 years after the initial promise.
1996 - EELV programs downselects both Atlas and Delta based on optimistic market forecasts with no concern of risk in the forecast.
2003 - Commercial satellite market collapses. Secretary of the AF and former Lockheed Martin executive Peter Teets argues for maintaining two suppliers for national security reasons for "assured access to space". Policy has no concrete requirements like requiring co-manifesting so that DSP23 can be moved from one rocket to the other. Conclusion - Public officials were lied to regarding the need to maintain two vehicles to "assure access".
2004 - Boeing executives caught with LM information. Direct violation of Procurement Integrity Act.
Boeing hires Darleen Drunyun, former Pentagon offical, and relationship is mired with unethical behavior and improprieties.
2005-2006 - ULA announced. DOD uses same "assured access" argument to the FTC to approve a monopoly
of rocket programs. Promised savings of 150 milion dollars.
2007 - Opportunity for "assured access" cannot be demonstrated on DSP23 for various reasons indicating that the initial arguments by Teets and Krieg were baseless.
2007 - And now we have consolidation being based on optimistic forecasts with no regard for risk and a desire to pursue Alabama incentives with no regard for the loss of technical employees.
Ironically this would degrade "assured access" but would enhance the bottom line of ULA executives.
The history is full of examples of lies and unethical behavior. It should surprise no one.
-
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:55 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 9:43 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:21 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.
You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.
Atlas engineering (design, stress, flight dynamics, etc.) was performed by GD engineers, not NASA engineers. Quit giving NASA more credit than its due, at least as far as Atlas is concerned!
We are talking the 60's and especially Centaur. NASA bailed GD out.
This has nothing to do with my current employment. I knew this when I was in the Air Force in the early 80's
NASA provided opportunity for GD back in the 60's, I won't deny that. If that's what you mean by "bailing out", then fine, I agree. But don't tell me that NASA bailed out GD engineering, that's an out right lie!
Wrong. Centaur was going to be cancelled and LERC bailed it out. It helped GD fix it. GD had no experience in dealing with LH2. It was LERC that insisted on a full up Centaur tests at either Plumbrook or Arnold AFS. Altas was one thing and totally GD. That was the way the USAF wanted it. Centaur was different and for a while it was treated differently within GD.
-
Dexter - 5/4/2007 11:09 PM
1995 - Lockheed promises to co-produce RD-180 engines in the United States for US government missions. Most recent Atlas launch is first in the EELV program and uses Russian made engine to launch US government satellite(s) 12 years after the initial promise.
1996 - EELV programs downselects both Atlas and Delta based on optimistic market forecasts with no concern of risk in the forecast.
These dates were later
The study contracts (4) were let in 1995.
The 1996 downselect wasn't going to be the final one. This was the 4 to 2 down select.
1997-98 is when it was decided to keep two
-
Jim - 5/4/2007 10:11 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:55 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 9:43 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:21 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.
You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.
Atlas engineering (design, stress, flight dynamics, etc.) was performed by GD engineers, not NASA engineers. Quit giving NASA more credit than its due, at least as far as Atlas is concerned!
We are talking the 60's and especially Centaur. NASA bailed GD out.
This has nothing to do with my current employment. I knew this when I was in the Air Force in the early 80's
NASA provided opportunity for GD back in the 60's, I won't deny that. If that's what you mean by "bailing out", then fine, I agree. But don't tell me that NASA bailed out GD engineering, that's an out right lie!
Wrong. Centaur was going to be cancelled and LERC bailed it out. It helped GD fix it. GD had no experience in dealing with LH2. It was LERC that insisted on a full up Centaur tests at either Plumbrook or Arnold AFS. Altas was one thing and totally GD. That was the way the USAF wanted it. Centaur was different and for a while it was treated differently within GD.
You're right. GD was given an ultimatum based on initial failures with Centaur. Old GD engineers freely admit that their knowledge of LH2 affects was limited, but they're the ones that ultimately established LH2 material allowables and discovered the key that led to a successful product. To this day, the AF (or its representives) will insist that various tests or analyses be conducted over and beyond baseline, however they're not the ones that do it. That's left to the company engineers, as its always been.
-
Gus - 5/4/2007 1:05 AM
There is a lot of "mother may I" with the government now that we do not need for commercial launches.
Yes, and commercial launch customers don't put up one of a kind satellites and planetaries. And they have insurance. And when one goes in the water, the Board of Directors meeting is behind closed doors; the government's is on C-Span and the web. And people who fund the commercial sats do so by choice: they're customers. People who fund government sats don't: they're taxpayers.
Find me a government agency willing to take that risk and a Congress and electorate who won't get angry when they fail. I'll take away the mother may I's.
-
Jim - 5/4/2007 10:20 PM
Dexter - 5/4/2007 11:09 PM
1995 - Lockheed promises to co-produce RD-180 engines in the United States for US government missions. Most recent Atlas launch is first in the EELV program and uses Russian made engine to launch US government satellite(s) 12 years after the initial promise.
1996 - EELV programs downselects both Atlas and Delta based on optimistic market forecasts with no concern of risk in the forecast.
These dates were later
The study contracts (4) were let in 1995.
The 1996 downselect wasn't going to be the final one. This was the 4 to 2 down select.
1997-98 is when it was decided to keep two
RD-180 co-production in 1995
http://www.engineeringatboeing.com/dataresources/rd-180-pres-100101.pdf page 2
I stand corrected on the decision to downselect 2 programs. It was Nov. 1997 as stated in the executive summary of the Rand report.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG503.sum.pdf
Dates aside, I still stand by my assertions of unethical behavior and corporate greed.
-
Jim - 5/4/2007 10:11 P
Wrong. Centaur was going to be cancelled and LERC bailed it out. It helped GD fix it. GD had no experience in dealing with LH2. It was LERC that insisted on a full up Centaur tests at either Plumbrook or Arnold AFS. Altas was one thing and totally GD. That was the way the USAF wanted it. Centaur was different and for a while it was treated differently within GD.
I would characterize it that “they bailed each other out”. People need to understand that Centaur was a NASA funded and led development program. NASA was essentially the “prime contractor / integrator”. GD, P&W, etc. were officially associate contractors. LERC was the led center and as Jim pointed out, they were a very active participant in the development.
-
bombay - 5/4/2007 11:45 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 10:11 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:55 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 9:43 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:21 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.
You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.
Atlas engineering (design, stress, flight dynamics, etc.) was performed by GD engineers, not NASA engineers. Quit giving NASA more credit than its due, at least as far as Atlas is concerned!
We are talking the 60's and especially Centaur. NASA bailed GD out.
This has nothing to do with my current employment. I knew this when I was in the Air Force in the early 80's
NASA provided opportunity for GD back in the 60's, I won't deny that. If that's what you mean by "bailing out", then fine, I agree. But don't tell me that NASA bailed out GD engineering, that's an out right lie!
Wrong. Centaur was going to be cancelled and LERC bailed it out. It helped GD fix it. GD had no experience in dealing with LH2. It was LERC that insisted on a full up Centaur tests at either Plumbrook or Arnold AFS. Altas was one thing and totally GD. That was the way the USAF wanted it. Centaur was different and for a while it was treated differently within GD.
You're right. GD was given an ultimatum based on initial failures with Centaur. Old GD engineers freely admit that their knowledge of LH2 affects was limited, but they're the ones that ultimately established LH2 material allowables and discovered the key that led to a successful product. To this day, the AF (or its representives) will insist that various tests or analyses be conducted over and beyond baseline, however they're not the ones that do it. That's left to the company engineers, as its always been.
ADDJUST was a joint development.
-
Jim - 6/4/2007 9:53 AM
bombay - 5/4/2007 11:45 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 10:11 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:55 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 9:43 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:21 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.
You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.
Atlas engineering (design, stress, flight dynamics, etc.) was performed by GD engineers, not NASA engineers. Quit giving NASA more credit than its due, at least as far as Atlas is concerned!
We are talking the 60's and especially Centaur. NASA bailed GD out.
This has nothing to do with my current employment. I knew this when I was in the Air Force in the early 80's
NASA provided opportunity for GD back in the 60's, I won't deny that. If that's what you mean by "bailing out", then fine, I agree. But don't tell me that NASA bailed out GD engineering, that's an out right lie!
Wrong. Centaur was going to be cancelled and LERC bailed it out. It helped GD fix it. GD had no experience in dealing with LH2. It was LERC that insisted on a full up Centaur tests at either Plumbrook or Arnold AFS. Altas was one thing and totally GD. That was the way the USAF wanted it. Centaur was different and for a while it was treated differently within GD.
You're right. GD was given an ultimatum based on initial failures with Centaur. Old GD engineers freely admit that their knowledge of LH2 affects was limited, but they're the ones that ultimately established LH2 material allowables and discovered the key that led to a successful product. To this day, the AF (or its representives) will insist that various tests or analyses be conducted over and beyond baseline, however they're not the ones that do it. That's left to the company engineers, as its always been.
ADDJUST was a joint development.
Not true, Not so, Wrong, the only way NASA bailed GD out was by buying more Atlas Centaurs during the 60's and 70's when the program died a thousand deaths. NASA did not engineer they provided requirements and oversite. Prgram offices do not design, they do not engineer hardware, Chief Engineer's office does do engineering, and the basic Deisgn groups, but NASA was not involved with this process. I will say it again it was the brilliant people of industry the designed the Atlas PERIOD!
-
skywalker - 6/4/2007 11:36 AM
Jim - 6/4/2007 9:53 AM
bombay - 5/4/2007 11:45 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 10:11 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:55 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 9:43 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:21 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.
You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.
Atlas engineering (design, stress, flight dynamics, etc.) was performed by GD engineers, not NASA engineers. Quit giving NASA more credit than its due, at least as far as Atlas is concerned!
We are talking the 60's and especially Centaur. NASA bailed GD out.
This has nothing to do with my current employment. I knew this when I was in the Air Force in the early 80's
NASA provided opportunity for GD back in the 60's, I won't deny that. If that's what you mean by "bailing out", then fine, I agree. But don't tell me that NASA bailed out GD engineering, that's an out right lie!
Wrong. Centaur was going to be cancelled and LERC bailed it out. It helped GD fix it. GD had no experience in dealing with LH2. It was LERC that insisted on a full up Centaur tests at either Plumbrook or Arnold AFS. Altas was one thing and totally GD. That was the way the USAF wanted it. Centaur was different and for a while it was treated differently within GD.
You're right. GD was given an ultimatum based on initial failures with Centaur. Old GD engineers freely admit that their knowledge of LH2 affects was limited, but they're the ones that ultimately established LH2 material allowables and discovered the key that led to a successful product. To this day, the AF (or its representives) will insist that various tests or analyses be conducted over and beyond baseline, however they're not the ones that do it. That's left to the company engineers, as its always been.
ADDJUST was a joint development.
Not true, Not so, Wrong, the only way NASA bailed GD out was by buying more Atlas Centaurs during the 60's and 70's when the program died a thousand deaths. NASA did not engineer they provided requirements and oversite. Prgram offices do not design, they do not engineer hardware, Chief Engineer's office does do engineering, and the basic Deisgn groups, but NASA was not involved with this process. I will say it again it was the brilliant people of industry the designed the Atlas PERIOD!
The issue isn't design, it is engineering. NASA did engineering on the Centaur period. ADDUST is one example, redesign of the jettisonable panels is another.
-
Jim - 6/4/2007 10:50 AM
skywalker - 6/4/2007 11:36 AM
Jim - 6/4/2007 9:53 AM
bombay - 5/4/2007 11:45 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 10:11 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:55 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 9:43 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:21 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.
You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.
Atlas engineering (design, stress, flight dynamics, etc.) was performed by GD engineers, not NASA engineers. Quit giving NASA more credit than its due, at least as far as Atlas is concerned!
We are talking the 60's and especially Centaur. NASA bailed GD out.
This has nothing to do with my current employment. I knew this when I was in the Air Force in the early 80's
NASA provided opportunity for GD back in the 60's, I won't deny that. If that's what you mean by "bailing out", then fine, I agree. But don't tell me that NASA bailed out GD engineering, that's an out right lie!
Wrong. Centaur was going to be cancelled and LERC bailed it out. It helped GD fix it. GD had no experience in dealing with LH2. It was LERC that insisted on a full up Centaur tests at either Plumbrook or Arnold AFS. Altas was one thing and totally GD. That was the way the USAF wanted it. Centaur was different and for a while it was treated differently within GD.
You're right. GD was given an ultimatum based on initial failures with Centaur. Old GD engineers freely admit that their knowledge of LH2 affects was limited, but they're the ones that ultimately established LH2 material allowables and discovered the key that led to a successful product. To this day, the AF (or its representives) will insist that various tests or analyses be conducted over and beyond baseline, however they're not the ones that do it. That's left to the company engineers, as its always been.
ADDJUST was a joint development.
Not true, Not so, Wrong, the only way NASA bailed GD out was by buying more Atlas Centaurs during the 60's and 70's when the program died a thousand deaths. NASA did not engineer they provided requirements and oversite. Prgram offices do not design, they do not engineer hardware, Chief Engineer's office does do engineering, and the basic Deisgn groups, but NASA was not involved with this process. I will say it again it was the brilliant people of industry the designed the Atlas PERIOD!
The issue isn't design, it is engineering. NASA did engineering on the Centaur period. ADDUST is one example, redesign of the jettisonable panels is another.
GD engineers were the prinicipal architects of the jettisonable panel redesign. The whole concept of jettisonable panels came about years before NASA was even born. Bossart proved the concept on MX-774 in the early 50's.
-
GD did the analysis as well as the design. Prgram offices deal with the money and the program, they do not concur, approve, or buy-off the design that is left to the Design and Analysis groups. NASA established criteria or requirements and the GD engineers met them and "sold" them to NASA engineeers who bought them. NASA ONLY accepted engineering on the Centaur PERIOD. What did NASA do on the panels? GD redeisgned them from flat to the "spring" in house, GD also came up with the teflon on the tank side to prevent the panels from sticking, so what did NASA do? And ADDJUST was Richard Brusch GENERAL DYNAMICS, SAN DIEGO, CA, the work was performed for NASA
[PDF] Trajectory Optimization for the Atlas/Centaur Launch VehicleFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
The work reported here was performed for the NASA ... Swanson, D.C., "ADDJUST—An Automated System for ... Trajectories," NASA TN D-3189, Jan. 1966. ...
pdf.aiaa.org/GetFileGoogle.cfm?gID=27983&gTable=japaperimportPre97 - Similar pages
Trajectory optimization for the Atlas/Centaur launch vehicle
BRUSCH, R. G. (General Dynamics Corp., Convair Div., San Diego, Calif.)
JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS 1977
0022-4650 vol.14 no.9 (550-555)
-
skywalker - 6/4/2007 12:30 PM
GD did the analysis as well as the design. Prgram offices deal with the money and the program, they do not concur, approve, or buy-off the design that is left to the Design and Analysis groups. NASA established criteria or requirements and the GD engineers met them and "sold" them to NASA engineeers who bought them. NASA ONLY accepted engineering on the Centaur PERIOD. What did NASA do on the panels? GD redeisgned them from flat to the "spring" in house, GD also came up with the teflon on the tank side to prevent the panels from sticking, so what did NASA do? And ADDJUST was Richard Brusch GENERAL DYNAMICS, SAN DIEGO, CA, the work was performed for NASA
[PDF] Trajectory Optimization for the Atlas/Centaur Launch VehicleFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
The work reported here was performed for the NASA ... Swanson, D.C., "ADDJUST—An Automated System for ... Trajectories," NASA TN D-3189, Jan. 1966. ...
pdf.aiaa.org/GetFileGoogle.cfm?gID=27983&gTable=japaperimportPre97 - Similar pages
Trajectory optimization for the Atlas/Centaur launch vehicle
BRUSCH, R. G. (General Dynamics Corp., Convair Div., San Diego, Calif.)
JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS 1977
0022-4650 vol.14 no.9 (550-555)
Now you are way offbase
All program offices concur, approve, andbuy-off the designs. Maybe not piece parts.
I know former NASA Engineers that did do engineering on Centaur and I even know one of them that helped develop ADJJUST
There is a difference between design and system engineering. Granted NASA didn't design the Centaur, but NASA engineers did analyses, tests, etc that changed the Centaur design.
There was a difference between the way a USAF program office was run vs a NASA one. USAF was hands off. NASA was more integral in the system engineering process
The first ADDJUST publications is a NASA author
-
Jim - 6/4/2007 11:59 AM
skywalker - 6/4/2007 12:30 PM
GD did the analysis as well as the design. Prgram offices deal with the money and the program, they do not concur, approve, or buy-off the design that is left to the Design and Analysis groups. NASA established criteria or requirements and the GD engineers met them and "sold" them to NASA engineeers who bought them. NASA ONLY accepted engineering on the Centaur PERIOD. What did NASA do on the panels? GD redeisgned them from flat to the "spring" in house, GD also came up with the teflon on the tank side to prevent the panels from sticking, so what did NASA do? And ADDJUST was Richard Brusch GENERAL DYNAMICS, SAN DIEGO, CA, the work was performed for NASA
[PDF] Trajectory Optimization for the Atlas/Centaur Launch VehicleFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
The work reported here was performed for the NASA ... Swanson, D.C., "ADDJUST—An Automated System for ... Trajectories," NASA TN D-3189, Jan. 1966. ...
pdf.aiaa.org/GetFileGoogle.cfm?gID=27983&gTable=japaperimportPre97 - Similar pages
Trajectory optimization for the Atlas/Centaur launch vehicle
BRUSCH, R. G. (General Dynamics Corp., Convair Div., San Diego, Calif.)
JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS 1977
0022-4650 vol.14 no.9 (550-555)
Now you are way offbase
All program offices concur, approve, andbuy-off the designs. Maybe not piece parts.
I know former NASA Engineers that did do engineering on Centaur and I even know one of them that helped develop ADJJUST
There is a difference between design and system engineering. Granted NASA didn't design the Centaur, but NASA engineers did analyses, tests, etc that changed the Centaur design.
There was a difference between the way a USAF program office was run vs a NASA one. USAF was hands off. NASA was more integral in the system engineering process
The first ADDJUST publications is a NASA author
The people that are responsible are the people with their names on it. I beg you to find me one piece of anything to do with the design or analysis of the Centaur that has a NASA logo or name on it. YOU CAN NOT because it does not exist. Centaur was designed and analyzed FOR NASA. NASA and Program Offices are users and reviewers, they are not creators, creation is done by the designers. All NASA did was buy a product and prior to accepting the product they reviewed the product and the paper that build the product. After the fact analysis is not design or creation. That was done buy the Engineers that worked/work for GD/ULA
System Engineering is different than product Design and Analysis.
Can you Name the Author and give reference to the Publication? Once again unsubstantiated claims simply making statements as you tend to do does not make it true. Look it up I think were your words to someone else. Well the reference I gave above was from a google search using NASA ADDJUST
I see you backed off the Insulation Panels as well you should have.
-
skywalker - 6/4/2007 2:41 PM
Jim - 6/4/2007 11:59 AM
skywalker - 6/4/2007 12:30 PM
GD did the analysis as well as the design. Prgram offices deal with the money and the program, they do not concur, approve, or buy-off the design that is left to the Design and Analysis groups. NASA established criteria or requirements and the GD engineers met them and "sold" them to NASA engineeers who bought them. NASA ONLY accepted engineering on the Centaur PERIOD. What did NASA do on the panels? GD redeisgned them from flat to the "spring" in house, GD also came up with the teflon on the tank side to prevent the panels from sticking, so what did NASA do? And ADDJUST was Richard Brusch GENERAL DYNAMICS, SAN DIEGO, CA, the work was performed for NASA
[PDF] Trajectory Optimization for the Atlas/Centaur Launch VehicleFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
The work reported here was performed for the NASA ... Swanson, D.C., "ADDJUST—An Automated System for ... Trajectories," NASA TN D-3189, Jan. 1966. ...
pdf.aiaa.org/GetFileGoogle.cfm?gID=27983&gTable=japaperimportPre97 - Similar pages
Trajectory optimization for the Atlas/Centaur launch vehicle
BRUSCH, R. G. (General Dynamics Corp., Convair Div., San Diego, Calif.)
JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS 1977
0022-4650 vol.14 no.9 (550-555)
Now you are way offbase
All program offices concur, approve, andbuy-off the designs. Maybe not piece parts.
I know former NASA Engineers that did do engineering on Centaur and I even know one of them that helped develop ADJJUST
There is a difference between design and system engineering. Granted NASA didn't design the Centaur, but NASA engineers did analyses, tests, etc that changed the Centaur design.
There was a difference between the way a USAF program office was run vs a NASA one. USAF was hands off. NASA was more integral in the system engineering process
The first ADDJUST publications is a NASA author
The people that are responsible are the people with their names on it. I beg you to find me one piece of anything to do with the design or analysis of the Centaur that has a NASA logo or name on it. YOU CAN NOT because it does not exist. Centaur was designed and analyzed FOR NASA. NASA and Program Offices are users and reviewers, they are not creators, creation is done by the designers. All NASA did was buy a product and prior to accepting the product they reviewed the product and the paper that build the product. After the fact analysis is not design or creation. That was done buy the Engineers that worked/work for GD/ULA
System Engineering is different than product Design and Analysis.
Can you Name the Author and give reference to the Publication? Once again unsubstantiated claims simply making statements as you tend to do does not make it true. Look it up I think were your words to someone else. Well the reference I gave above was from a google search using NASA ADDJUST
I see you backed off the Insulation Panels as well you should have.
I did not back off the panels. Helium purging of the panels was due to LERC
Swanson, D.C., "ADDJUST—An Automated System for ... Trajectories," NASA TN D-3189, Jan. 1966. Swanson is NASA.
Go to http://ntrs.nasa.gov and search on Centaur. There are 100's of NASA analyses and tests on Centaur
At a celebration of 50 years of Centaur, Lockheed honored two former NASA employees (the only people honored) as significant contributors to the Centaur program. They were engineers and not managers or program office workers,
-
Jim - 6/4/2007 2:26 PM
skywalker - 6/4/2007 2:41 PM
Jim - 6/4/2007 11:59 AM
skywalker - 6/4/2007 12:30 PM
GD did the analysis as well as the design. Prgram offices deal with the money and the program, they do not concur, approve, or buy-off the design that is left to the Design and Analysis groups. NASA established criteria or requirements and the GD engineers met them and "sold" them to NASA engineeers who bought them. NASA ONLY accepted engineering on the Centaur PERIOD. What did NASA do on the panels? GD redeisgned them from flat to the "spring" in house, GD also came up with the teflon on the tank side to prevent the panels from sticking, so what did NASA do? And ADDJUST was Richard Brusch GENERAL DYNAMICS, SAN DIEGO, CA, the work was performed for NASA
[PDF] Trajectory Optimization for the Atlas/Centaur Launch VehicleFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
The work reported here was performed for the NASA ... Swanson, D.C., "ADDJUST—An Automated System for ... Trajectories," NASA TN D-3189, Jan. 1966. ...
pdf.aiaa.org/GetFileGoogle.cfm?gID=27983&gTable=japaperimportPre97 - Similar pages
Trajectory optimization for the Atlas/Centaur launch vehicle
BRUSCH, R. G. (General Dynamics Corp., Convair Div., San Diego, Calif.)
JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS 1977
0022-4650 vol.14 no.9 (550-555)
Now you are way offbase
All program offices concur, approve, andbuy-off the designs. Maybe not piece parts.
I know former NASA Engineers that did do engineering on Centaur and I even know one of them that helped develop ADJJUST
There is a difference between design and system engineering. Granted NASA didn't design the Centaur, but NASA engineers did analyses, tests, etc that changed the Centaur design.
There was a difference between the way a USAF program office was run vs a NASA one. USAF was hands off. NASA was more integral in the system engineering process
The first ADDJUST publications is a NASA author
The people that are responsible are the people with their names on it. I beg you to find me one piece of anything to do with the design or analysis of the Centaur that has a NASA logo or name on it. YOU CAN NOT because it does not exist. Centaur was designed and analyzed FOR NASA. NASA and Program Offices are users and reviewers, they are not creators, creation is done by the designers. All NASA did was buy a product and prior to accepting the product they reviewed the product and the paper that build the product. After the fact analysis is not design or creation. That was done buy the Engineers that worked/work for GD/ULA
System Engineering is different than product Design and Analysis.
Can you Name the Author and give reference to the Publication? Once again unsubstantiated claims simply making statements as you tend to do does not make it true. Look it up I think were your words to someone else. Well the reference I gave above was from a google search using NASA ADDJUST
I see you backed off the Insulation Panels as well you should have.
I did not back off the panels. Helium purging of the panels was due to LERC
Swanson, D.C., "ADDJUST—An Automated System for ... Trajectories," NASA TN D-3189, Jan. 1966. Swanson is NASA.
Go to http://ntrs.nasa.gov and search on Centaur. There are 100's of NASA analyses and tests on Centaur
At a celebration of 50 years of Centaur, Lockheed honored two former NASA employees (the only people honored) as significant contributors to the Centaur program. They were engineers and not managers or program office workers,
Wow, Lockheed recognized the customer, that is a very nice gesture.
Search on Centaur Development you get 118 docs, but as you know some are Centaur only and some are development only. One was both the first one "Test of improved ignitor for first stage separation rockets for the Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle". The problem with this site is you can not tell where the author is from, I did notice on some of the Centaur articles the authors were ULA employees (I know their names) when I searched just Centaur. Most of the Articles appeared to be after the fact, not development stuff until I ran across the one mentioned above. The authors are Heath, R. W.; Schmiedlin, R. F.; Synor, H., I do not know who they worked for. Additionally just because the test was done at LeRC does not mean it was done totally by NASA or totally by anyone else. GD and others used LeRC.
Finally a good post by you with some meat. By the way you should do this all the time, do not just make statements of "wrong", "not true", "incorrect", etc.
-
Jim - 6/4/2007 12:59 PM
Now you are way offbase
All program offices concur, approve, andbuy-off the designs. Maybe not piece parts.
I know former NASA Engineers that did do engineering on Centaur and I even know one of them that helped develop ADJJUST
There is a difference between design and system engineering. Granted NASA didn't design the Centaur, but NASA engineers did analyses, tests, etc that changed the Centaur design.
There was a difference between the way a USAF program office was run vs a NASA one. USAF was hands off. NASA was more integral in the system engineering process
USAF is more hands-off than NASA, but Aerospace does have its own analysis and (limited) test capability, not just a program office. A couple of significant pieces of EELV were designed based on analysis and testing done at Aerospace. They are even more heavily involved in satellite concept design. Aerospace created some widely used analysis codes, like SAAS. Contrary to what skywalker seems to be implying, there is more to engineering than just cutting drawings and test plans.
-
skywalker - 6/4/2007 4:09 PM
Search on Centaur Development you get 118 docs,
Search on "Centaur", there is over 1000.
That remark about the "customer" was a cheap shot. As I said they weren't "part" of the program office.. They were honored as engineering contributors to the Centaur program
Even at a much reduced level, NASA still has "engineering" influence on Atlas. During an IV&V effort on Atlas vehicle loads, it was discovered that LM modeled the ATS wrong. They subsequently updated the model for future flights.
-
Jim - 7/4/2007 8:12 AM
skywalker - 6/4/2007 4:09 PM
Search on Centaur Development you get 118 docs,
Search on "Centaur", there is over 1000.
That remark about the "customer" was a cheap shot. As I said they weren't "part" of the program office.. They were honored as engineering contributors to the Centaur program
Even at a much reduced level, NASA still has "engineering" influence on Atlas. During an IV&V effort on Atlas vehicle loads, it was discovered that LM modeled the ATS wrong. They subsequently updated the model for future flights.
Modelling is not absolute and it never will be. NASA and Aerospace engineers often question "assumptions" that are an integral part of any model. It's perfectly within their right to do so, since assumptions are subjective.
LM and Boeing engineers will more often than not adjust their model or analysis to incorporate a NASA or Aerospace concern rather than go to war with them over what should or shouldn't be taken into consideration. It's often the easiest path to follow and doesn't suggest that the NASA or Aerospace input was actually relevant.
-
bombay - 7/4/2007 1:55 PM
Jim - 7/4/2007 8:12 AM
skywalker - 6/4/2007 4:09 PM
Search on Centaur Development you get 118 docs,
Search on "Centaur", there is over 1000.
That remark about the "customer" was a cheap shot. As I said they weren't "part" of the program office.. They were honored as engineering contributors to the Centaur program
Even at a much reduced level, NASA still has "engineering" influence on Atlas. During an IV&V effort on Atlas vehicle loads, it was discovered that LM modeled the ATS wrong. They subsequently updated the model for future flights.
Modelling is not absolute and it never will be. NASA and Aerospace engineers often question "assumptions" that are an integral part of any model. It's perfectly within their right to do so, since assumptions are subjective.
LM and Boeing engineers will more often than not adjust their model or analysis to incorporate a NASA or Aerospace concern rather than go to war with them over what should or shouldn't be taken into consideration. It's often the easiest path to follow and doesn't suggest that the NASA or Aerospace input was actually relevant.
It was an error and LM corrected it.
-
bombay - 7/4/2007 1:55 PM
Modelling is not absolute and it never will be. NASA and Aerospace engineers often question "assumptions" that are an integral part of any model. It's perfectly within their right to do so, since assumptions are subjective.
LM and Boeing engineers will more often than not adjust their model or analysis to incorporate a NASA or Aerospace concern rather than go to war with them over what should or shouldn't be taken into consideration. It's often the easiest path to follow and doesn't suggest that the NASA or Aerospace input was actually relevant.
It doesn't matter whether an assumption is "subjective" or "absolute". I am not even sure I understand the distinction. The only thing that matters is whether the assumption affects the results. If my analysis requires a value for x, and I can only pin it down to 3 < x < 5, and my analysis gives totally different answers for x=3 compared to x=5, then my analysis is useless and I will need to revise my methodology or try to measure the real value of x.
The situation you describe in the second paragraph doesn't happen very often, for the following reason: no competent engineer is going to arbitrarily change an analysis input even if the Secretary of Defense tells him to, unless he can prove the change doesn't affect the results. And if he can do that, there's no longer any reason to ask for a change. The way you put it makes the government engineers look unreasonable or easily manipulated, which they are not. Usually.
-
Gov't Seagull - 10/4/2007 9:37 PM
The situation you describe in the second paragraph doesn't happen very often, for the following reason: no competent engineer is going to arbitrarily change an analysis input even if the Secretary of Defense tells him to, unless he can prove the change doesn't affect the results. And if he can do that, there's no longer any reason to ask for a change. The way you put it makes the government engineers look unreasonable or easily manipulated, which they are not. Usually.
Which means (in the current Administration) that the engineers' data will be discarded in favor of the outcome the politicians appointed by this Administration prefer.
Also, if you are outraged enough to disagree/publicly discount with their conclusions, you'll be either demoted or outright fired from your job.
-
porthos - 2/4/2007 6:29 PM
bombay - 2/4/2007 7:55 PM
Dexter - 30/3/2007 11:57 PM
Gus - 30/3/2007 11:37 PM
bombay - 29/3/2007 7:55 PM
"I don't know enough about each shop to talk about the techs - good workmanship on both sides. I can only hope enough tribal knowledge moves to Decatur."
I've pondered the above partial quote by Antares about retention of tribal knowledge in Decatur. I've concluded that the ULA has made a decision that will take years, at great expense and risk, to overcome.
What is tribal knowledge? In the manufacturing world it's knowing what it takes to actually build a quality product that's not covered on a blue print, CAD model, planning instructions, or any other form of documentation. It's knowledge gained through years of experience of trial and error.
In the case of Centaur where the entire rocket is built in house from pulling raw material to completion, what can Decatur personnel provide to build a Centaur should, as anticipated, the critical Centaur production engineers and mechanics, those with all of the tribal knowledge refuse to go to Decatur? Who else knows how to build a thin guage stainless balloon without crumpling the thing up like a prune?
Was there even one iota of thought that went into the decision to move all production to Decatur?
This is a very good point because in all of the ULA factories, the metal of choice is Aluminum except in San Diego where it is stainless steel. Here, in Denver and Harlingen as well, there is more reliance on machined aluminum isogrid panels bought from suppliers with less internal fabrication and more assembly of bolted on components. In San Diego, the process starts out with raw material and fabricates the balloon tank with resistance welding and is extremely labor intensive. A lack of tribal knowledge transfer from there would put us in deep do-do.
So what happens when only 10% relocate like the HB acceptance?
You could argue that Atlas engineering personnel could absorb Delta engineering deficiencies in personnel based on the fact that common rules/laws of engineering will apply to either rocket.
The same can't be said for Centaur manufacturing. There's nothing in common between Centaur manufacturing and Atlas/Delta booster or Delta upperstage, absolutely nothing! There's no answer to what the ULA will do if the right people don't follow Centaur to Decatur.
I am a new watcher and contributor. I have read the 60+ pages of this thread, it is very interesting. Bombay makes a good point here. Centaur manufacturing is different, very different not only in the process of starting with raw material, but also with the welding. San Diego site is a world class welding facility, I have met the weld engineers from their and all of us (well at least the people I know) in the Welding world realize they do what no one else does, it is top notch. So if the weld engineers do not move to Decatur, Centaur manufacturing will struggle. I am not even sure of the other processes, but just ensuring the weld quality will be very difficult.
Rumor coming out of a recent ULA management summit here in Denver has Centaur tank fabrication staying in San Diego for now because it is expensive and risky to move.
-
Gus - 12/5/2007 6:32 PM
Rumor coming out of a recent ULA management summit here in Denver has Centaur tank fabrication staying in San Diego for now because it is expensive and risky to move.
The wonders of 40-year-old legacy systems...
Simon ;)
-
simonbp - 14/5/2007 6:24 AM
Gus - 12/5/2007 6:32 PM
Rumor coming out of a recent ULA management summit here in Denver has Centaur tank fabrication staying in San Diego for now because it is expensive and risky to move.
The wonders of 40-year-old legacy systems...
Simon ;)
Yeah.. the Techs are probably MILLIONAIRES just from the price of their houses alone !
-
Propforce - 14/5/2007 3:48 PM
Yeah.. the Techs are probably MILLIONAIRES just from the price of their houses alone !
And mostly likely use half of each pay check to pay the property taxxes ;)
-
kevin-rf - 15/5/2007 5:42 AM
Propforce - 14/5/2007 3:48 PM
Yeah.. the Techs are probably MILLIONAIRES just from the price of their houses alone !
And mostly likely use half of each pay check to pay the property taxxes ;)
Hah Hah :laugh:
That's probably what would be in other states/ nations but not in California !!
We have proposition-13 that limits our property tax to the original purchased price which, in these techs case, VERY VERY LOW ! :laugh:
-
simonbp - 14/5/2007 6:24 AM
Gus - 12/5/2007 6:32 PM
Rumor coming out of a recent ULA management summit here in Denver has Centaur tank fabrication staying in San Diego for now because it is expensive and risky to move.
The wonders of 40-year-old legacy systems...
Simon ;)
I am not sure how to interpret this but in defense of the 45 year old Centaur design, I would like to point out that the Ares 1 upper stage spec looks like a scaled up version of the Centaur. A study using the Delta IV upper stage, a much newer design, on an Atlas V actually has a loss of performance. The 747 is approaching 40 years of age. The wonders of a brilliant innovative design that has stood the test of time and the brilliant men that designed it...
-
Gus - 12/5/2007 6:32 PM
Rumor coming out of a recent ULA management summit here in Denver has Centaur tank fabrication staying in San Diego for now because it is expensive and risky to move.
What does "staying for now" mean?
Will the expense and risk of a move decrease in the near future when it hasn't done so for 45 years?
-
Gus - 19/5/2007 11:59 AM
...I would like to point out that the Ares 1 upper stage spec looks like a scaled up version of the Centaur. A study using the Delta IV upper stage, a much newer design, on an Atlas V actually has a loss of performance.
I would argue that the Ares I upper stage looks a LOT like the S-IV or S-IVB during the Apollo program. It's the same diameter as S-IV, uses common propellant bulkheads like S-IV & S-IVB, and uses a J-2 derived engine (like S-IVB.) The difference is that the Ares I upper stage is significantly longer, to make up for the weak performance of the solid first stage.
It has been noted that the upper stage of Jupiter in the DIRECT 2.0 proposal looks like a scaled-up Centaur. Even if NASA sticks with Ares I&V, they can hopefully apply the pressure-stabilized structural concept from Centaur to the Ares V upper stage (EDS) to increase its performance. Structures like the Delta IV upper stage have lower performance than Centaur due to their heavier, more rigid construction.
Perhaps Centaur production is staying put, at least for the time being. Stay classy, San Diego!
-
CFE - 20/5/2007 4:48 AM
It has been noted that the upper stage of Jupiter in the DIRECT 2.0 proposal looks like a scaled-up Centaur. Even if NASA sticks with Ares I&V, they can hopefully apply the pressure-stabilized structural concept from Centaur to the Ares V upper stage (EDS) to increase its performance. Structures like the Delta IV upper stage have lower performance than Centaur due to their heavier, more rigid construction.
Centaur ICES are not pressure stablized
-
CFE - 20/5/2007 3:48 AM
Structures like the Delta IV upper stage have lower performance than Centaur due to their heavier, more rigid construction.
Delta IV has lower performance because it is narrow for an all cryogenic rocket. ET/ARES V cores are simple, large, and wide enough for high volume LH2.
Delta IV is awkward. Small for a cryogenic booster, but unwieldy compared to Atlas. And no engine out.
-
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_5904279
Being discussed in another thread titled "Lockheed Looks to youth" but it fits nicely with what I had previously predicted.
"One of Lockheed Martin's biggest hiring efforts is for the Orion crew exploration vehicle, to bring its workforce from about 450 to 600. "
So Lockheed needs 150 new employees for Orion in Denver. I would have to assume the majority would be engineering related positions.
"The Colorado-based United Launch Alliance also has an urgent interest in the pipeline of skilled employees. It is looking to hire about 300 people, half of them new college graduates this summer and half of them more-experienced employees over the next six months. "
"Those hires are meant to fill openings made available by former Boeing employees who are not moving to Colorado from their jobs on the Delta rocket program in Huntington Beach, Calif. About 400 of the roughly 900 who received offers will move from Huntington Beach to Colorado, while roughly 1,000 Atlas employees already work for the ULA here.
The company is concerned that many new college graduates have already been hired for other jobs, "but we are pressing ahead anyway," said ULA spokeswoman Julie Andrews.
A key goal of the ULA is to cut costs for the government for rocket launches through the consolidation, but much of the consolidation will happen at launch sites, and not immediately, Andrews said."
So ULA is trying to hire new engineers but they have already been hired elsewhere and they are competing against Lockheed which is designing the next manned space vehicle..
Where do you think the cream of the crop of new engineers will want to work?
And now consolidation will happen but not immediately so the promised savings used to justify this scheme of 150 million dollars per year are now not going to be realized, if ever.
-
Here is an interesting article over 10 years old but sure seems topical:
http://pogo.org/p/contracts/ca-970311-reform.html
And then there is this little tid bit:
http://www.mcaleese.com/articles/dbdriven/show_items.php
"Apr 16, 2007 Increased EELV Costs in SARs Concern Analysts, Mike Fabey, Aerospace Daily, USD(ATL) December 2006 SAR report of 12% cost increase in USAF EELV program"
Silly me, I thought they said there would be a savings.....
-
Dexter - 30/5/2007 9:28 PM
And then there is this little tid bit:
http://www.mcaleese.com/articles/dbdriven/show_items.php
"Apr 16, 2007 Increased EELV Costs in SARs Concern Analysts, Mike Fabey, Aerospace Daily, USD(ATL) December 2006 SAR report of 12% cost increase in USAF EELV program"
Silly me, I thought they said there would be a savings.....
And the point you're making is that Boeing and LM lied because EELV costs went up prior to the formation of ULA? Thanks for sharing.
-
WHAP - 31/5/2007 1:02 PM
Dexter - 30/5/2007 9:28 PM
And then there is this little tid bit:
http://www.mcaleese.com/articles/dbdriven/show_items.php
"Apr 16, 2007 Increased EELV Costs in SARs Concern Analysts, Mike Fabey, Aerospace Daily, USD(ATL) December 2006 SAR report of 12% cost increase in USAF EELV program"
Silly me, I thought they said there would be a savings.....
And the point you're making is that Boeing and LM lied because EELV costs went up prior to the formation of ULA? Thanks for sharing.
Perhaps the point is why would the cost go up prior to ULA formation?
Let's go into the grab bag of defense contractor excuses.
Commercial market collapsed - used in 2003
Cracked launch pad resulted in not launching anything - too early for that.
This program has been through a Nunn-McCurdy review already, so why the increase especially with the fixed cost already covered by the AF.
I am sure that the ULA owned by Boeing and Lockheed will claim a 12% savings and everyone will pat themselves on the back and the executives will give themselves a bonus.
Here is another tid bit for your reading enjoyment:
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?documentid=3015&programID=68&from_page=../friendlyversion/printversion.cfm
-
Dexter, what would your solution be? It's not like there are viable alternatives out there. For example, one can complain about Ares I because EELV is a viable alternative. The only option out there besides ULA would be a downselect, and that would violate the Assured Access policy.
-
Dexter - 30/5/2007 9:28 PM
... http://www.mcaleese.com/articles/dbdriven/show_items.php ...
Silly me, I thought they said there would be a savings.....
Dexter - 31/5/2007 11:30 PM
Perhaps the point is why would the cost go up prior to ULA formation?
Let's go into the grab bag of defense contractor excuses.
Commercial market collapsed - used in 2003
Cracked launch pad resulted in not launching anything - too early for that.
This program has been through a Nunn-McCurdy review already, so why the increase especially with the fixed cost already covered by the AF.
I am sure that the ULA owned by Boeing and Lockheed will claim a 12% savings and everyone will pat themselves on the back and the executives will give themselves a bonus.
Here is another tid bit for your reading enjoyment:
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?documentid=3015&programID=68&from_page=../friendlyversion/printversion.cfm
But your second point was not the one you were making in your first post. That first clip you posted was essentially a headline with no information. Over what period did those cost increases occur? Were they part of or independent of the Nunn-McCurdy review? What was the baseline for the 12% increase? Was the increase related to Buy III?
Boeing and LM executives may get bonuses, but their job is to make money for their shareholders. If I owned their stocks (up ~20% and ~35% in the past year, respectively), I wouldn't mind them getting bonuses. Besides, those execs can no longer claim much from their rocket businesses, since they no longer control them. They'd much rather forget they existed, based on their effects on earnings (hence the reason for ULA).
One other point - the latest "tidbit" you posted had the statement "Also suspect is that once the ULA has been approved by government regulatory agencies, assuming that it does not snag on any rules against monopolies, the lawsuit against Boeing will quietly be dropped." What's the point of the modifier "quietly"? This was one of the conditions of the formation of ULA - it was no secret. The lawsuit was by LM, not the US government, so the taxpayers aren't missing out on a big windfall here.
I, too, would like to know what your solution to the "EELV shenanigans" are.
-
Antares - 1/6/2007 8:51 AM
Dexter, what would your solution be? It's not like there are viable alternatives out there. For example, one can complain about Ares I because EELV is a viable alternative. The only option out there besides ULA would be a downselect, and that would violate the Assured Access policy.
Good question. I frankly don't care about what configuration is used whether it is Atlas, Delta, Ares.... as most of the folks here perpetually argue over the merits of each. I just don't like the inconsistent logic that changes as the wind blows.
My concern is that one thing is promised whether it is performance of a rocket or a cost savings due to a merger, and when we as a country make decisions based on those promises and fail to deliver on those promises, you have to ask, what would have been the decision if the promise was anchored in reality or with some experience from previous programs.
If you look at the list from macaelse.com provided above, you see that the norm with defense contracting is cost overruns and failure to deliver on promised parameters whether it is cost or performance. JSF, Littoral combat ship, Space Shuttle etc.. I suspect Ares will be no different. I am of the opinion that this ritual of promising something like a savings and then not delivering on it is intentionally done because we are banking on short-term memory loss. After all we are an ADD society. EELV is just a classic example of this and now ULA follows that pattern. Maybe this is just the way Washington DC works
At its inception, EELV was supposed to be a modernization of the ICBM derived “legacy” systems which included cheaper pricing - Promise not delivered.
At its inception EELV was supposed to be a single program downselect . Mr. Teets argued to keep both Atlas and Delta with the thought that two providers would create competiton. Boeing decided to violate PIA and completely destroy competition – Promise not delivered.
At its inception, the Lockheed EELV was to have American produced RD-180 engines. 12 years after the initial promise, the first Lockheed/ULA EELV has Russian made-engines. Promise not delivered
At the announcement of ULA in May 2005, the promised savings of $100-150 million was touted by the companies. Now, reports are surfacing that the savings will not be immediate and may be relative to a revised higher cost baseline.
As far as the "assured access policy", I believe this was created by the AF for purposes of keeping two systems. Prior to EELV, you had Titans launching heavy sattellites from three pads, two east cost and one west, Atlas doing intermediates from three, same as Titan, and Delta doing mediums with the same set-up. Nine total launch pads. Now one cracked pad has a critical mission grounded. So, while assured access might be a good principle to some people, it has been poorly executed.
In another thread here there is a comparison of Russian paper to American paper requirements. It seems to me that the increase in paperwork has an associated increase in cost due to the bureacracy required to manage it. This creates more management and mangement is typically paid higher salaries and that is why we have a spiraling cost of launch vehicles which no longer makes us competitive in the commercial market.
My solution would have been to stop ULA from forming in the first place because the monopoly situation created as was of concern to the FTC. Too late now. The very nature of your question suggests you do not have an answer to this monopoly so you would accept status quo.
Solution 1 - Since ULA is a monopoly catering to the Air Force, the AF should come in and question every single cost element and strip away every bureaucratic element that does not add value to the product, in much the same way as the Japanese do. Take the Russian paperwork model and ask which paperwork is important and which is not. Streamline ULA .
Solution 2 – The AF should focus money on creating competition by helping SpaceX develop the Falcon 9.
-
Dexter - 1/6/2007 4:59 PM
Solution 1 - Since ULA is a monopoly catering to the Air Force, the AF should come in and question every single cost element and strip away every bureaucratic element that does not add value to the product, in much the same way as the Japanese do. Take the Russian paperwork model and ask which paperwork is important and which is not. Streamline ULA .
Solution 2 – The AF should focus money on creating competition by helping SpaceX develop the Falcon 9.
Boeing claimed that they were not making profits off of their Delta line and that they were considering getting out of the launch business if ULA did not happen. So, even if you did not end up with The Borg, you very well may have gained an Atlas monopoly.
Also, the government is often the cause of the bureaucratic elements in the business.
Also, that Japanese approach that you referred to (commonly known as a kaizen) is widely used throughout the industry.
-
WHAP - 1/6/2007 10:18 AM
Boeing and LM executives may get bonuses, but their job is to make money for their shareholders. If I owned their stocks (up ~20% and ~35% in the past year, respectively), I wouldn't mind them getting bonuses. Besides, those execs can no longer claim much from their rocket businesses, since they no longer control them. They'd much rather forget they existed, based on their effects on earnings (hence the reason for ULA).
One other point - the latest "tidbit" you posted had the statement "Also suspect is that once the ULA has been approved by government regulatory agencies, assuming that it does not snag on any rules against monopolies, the lawsuit against Boeing will quietly be dropped." What's the point of the modifier "quietly"? This was one of the conditions of the formation of ULA - it was no secret. The lawsuit was by LM, not the US government, so the taxpayers aren't missing out on a big windfall here.
The quote that stands out to me in that article is :
"Overall, the Air Force has estimated that this ethics lapse by Boeing brought on around $230 million in extra costs."
But lying and unethical behavior seem to be OK.
How could the DOD have spent that money for equipment and salaries of soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? For death benefits of widows of fallen servicemen?
That's $230M that the companies avoided paying so no wonder the price of the stocks are rising at 25-30%.
As an investor, I too would be happy, as a taxpayer, however, I am PI$$ED.
-
Dexter - 1/6/2007 7:36 PM
As an investor, I too would be happy, as a taxpayer, however, I am PI$$ED.
I suspect your anguish runs deeper than just being a taxpayer as you do not seem to be as vocal about other questionable government decisions discussed throughout this website.
-
Dexter - 1/6/2007 6:36 PM
The quote that stands out to me in that article is :
"Overall, the Air Force has estimated that this ethics lapse by Boeing brought on around $230 million in extra costs."
But lying and unethical behavior seem to be OK.
How could the DOD have spent that money for equipment and salaries of soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? For death benefits of widows of fallen servicemen?
That's $230M that the companies avoided paying so no wonder the price of the stocks are rising at 25-30%.
As an investor, I too would be happy, as a taxpayer, however, I am PI$$ED.
$230M is probably an understatement. I guess you're going to be even more frakked.
But that money didn't necessarily "take away" from money spent anywhere else. Why not spend it on highway repair? Space exploration? Clean water? I bet there's waste in every other government program (and some is probably much larger than $230M). Why not take away from others to support EELV?
The $230M is close to the amount spent to create the Atlas V pad at VAFB. LM wasn't going to spend that money at all before PIA. While there may be some profit in there, neither Atlas nor Delta was contributing anything positive to either parent company's bottom line. If anything it was the unloading of these divisions that allowed the stock to climb, but even that is unlikely given the money LM and Boeing are making elsewhere (like the 787).
In response to one of your earlier posts, RD-180 was never intended to be "American built" from the inception of the EELV program. And just so you don't set your expectations too high, don't look for an American RD-180 - it is very unlikely that it will ever happen.
As far as ULA cost savings, anyone who thought the "cost savings" of $150M/year were going to be realized within the first three years was dreaming. I don't think that was ever promised, and it's naive to think that consolidation expenses would not prevent any savings for a while. Also, think about how much $150M is relative to government expenses in general. To you and me, that's a lot of money. The government probably spends that much on toilet paper for the Pentagon each year.
-
WHAP - 2/6/2007 11:09 AM
In response to one of your earlier posts, RD-180 was never intended to be "American built" from the inception of the EELV program. And just so you don't set your expectations too high, don't look for an American RD-180 - it is very unlikely that it will ever happen.
Covered this earlier (Page 24):
1995 - "Key to the Lockheed Martin system is a liquid oxygen/kerosene (LO 2 -RP-1) common core booster that yields significant cost savings. The common core boosters are powered by the Pratt & Whitney manufactured RD-180 engine for U.S. government missions."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/eelv_l.htm
1997 - "Yeltsin approves U.S. production of RD-180 engine foe EELV."
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5556764_ITM
1997 - "On November 6, 1997 the Air Force modified its procurement plans for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. The original concept -- a single winner-take-all award -- was amended, splitting the work between a pair of finalists for the multi-billion launch contracts, McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) and Lockheed Martin. One of the major reasons given for the redirection was to enhance U.S. space launch competitiveness by keeping two rocket builders in business." (Notice no mention of assured access to space)
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/business/delta_eelv-991124....
2003 - On July 24, 2003, the Air Force concluded that Boeing was in possession of proprietary Lockheed documents during the 1998 Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) source selection.
www.mcaleese.com/10282004Presentation.ppt
Lockheed has been advertising co-production since 1995. They were awarded a contract in 1997. The official announcement came out about the espionage in 2003.
What was Lockheed doing for the 5+ years in between?
What was going to be the source of financing for the 1997-2003 time period?
What was going to be the source of financing if Boeing never got caught or never spied in the first place?
I think they rolled the dice and dragged their feet on co-production hoping that Boeing would fail on Delta 4.
And now we should not expect American co-production?
What happened to the Buy-American Act?
-
Dexter - 2/6/2007 3:36 PM
What was Lockheed doing for the 5+ years in between?
What was going to be the source of financing for the 1997-2003 time period?
What was going to be the source of financing if Boeing never got caught or never spied in the first place?
I think they rolled the dice and dragged their feet on co-production hoping that Boeing would fail on Delta 4.
And now we should not expect American co-production?
I believe a lot of effort in the 5+ years went into obtaining production and material information that was not necessary for Atlas III. LM spent money (both its and the government's), but I don't think the Boeing PIA made much difference. The cost of building the infrastructure capable of producing and testing an American RD-180 probably ended up being more than either LM or the government wanted to spend.
Again, you make it sound like LM and Boeing were making a killing on EELV's. If they were, then ULA would not have been necessary. IIRC, LM spent $1B of its own money and Boeing spent $1.5B. Neither company had much hope of recovering that amount given the cost of their rockets and the commercial market.
-
Retirement seems likely for rocket made in Decatur; ULA hopeful:
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/business/070603/delta2.shtml
-
The US government was going to buy a lot more Atlas Vs than they ended up buying, and the commercial market was going to end up buying many times more than they ended up buying. The inital buy of 100 RD-180s was expected to last a few years, maybe 10; at that point co-production would have been ironed out. Sadly, that's not what happened.
-
WHAP - 2/6/2007 6:03 PM
Dexter - 2/6/2007 3:36 PM
What was Lockheed doing for the 5+ years in between?
What was going to be the source of financing for the 1997-2003 time period?
What was going to be the source of financing if Boeing never got caught or never spied in the first place?
I think they rolled the dice and dragged their feet on co-production hoping that Boeing would fail on Delta 4.
And now we should not expect American co-production?
I believe a lot of effort in the 5+ years went into obtaining production and material information that was not necessary for Atlas III. LM spent money (both its and the government's), but I don't think the Boeing PIA made much difference. The cost of building the infrastructure capable of producing and testing an American RD-180 probably ended up being more than either LM or the government wanted to spend.
Again, you make it sound like LM and Boeing were making a killing on EELV's. If they were, then ULA would not have been necessary. IIRC, LM spent $1B of its own money and Boeing spent $1.5B. Neither company had much hope of recovering that amount given the cost of their rockets and the commercial market.
Earlier you said and I quote.
"In response to one of your earlier posts, RD-180 was never intended to be "American built" from the inception of the EELV program. And just so you don't set your expectations too high, don't look for an American RD-180 - it is very unlikely that it will ever happen."
Hypothetically speaking, do you think the Air Force would have given any consideration to a Russian engined launch vehicle at the time of the downselect if Lockheed did not make this promise? Do you think the Atlas V would have ever made it of the drawing board?
This is my whole beef here.
Promise something, get a decision made in your favor, and then never deliver on the promise.
As far as your post above, there is something we can agree on. The cost ended up being more than was expected. This was either due to maliciousness or ineptitude. You decide.
Expect the same thing from ULA.
-
Dexter - 3/6/2007 11:15 PM
Hypothetically speaking, do you think the Air Force would have given any consideration to a Russian engined launch vehicle at the time of the downselect if Lockheed did not make this promise? Do you think the Atlas V would have ever made it of the drawing board?
This is my whole beef here.
Promise something, get a decision made in your favor, and then never deliver on the promise.
As far as your post above, there is something we can agree on. The cost ended up being more than was expected. This was either due to maliciousness or ineptitude. You decide.
Expect the same thing from ULA.
May be your beef but LM was't doing anything in a vacuum. It had full USAF concurrence (more so the NRO) on every move it made and it didn't/hasn't "blackmailed" anyone
-
Dexter - 3/6/2007 9:15 PM
Hypothetically speaking, do you think the Air Force would have given any consideration to a Russian engined launch vehicle at the time of the downselect if Lockheed did not make this promise? Do you think the Atlas V would have ever made it of the drawing board
Yes, and yes. If the Air Force wanted to have multiple providers, what other choice did they have? I think the Atlas III had already flown at the time of the downselect, so there was some confidence in the RD-180, regardless of the production location. An American RD-180 may have been a goal, but this isn't the only program where the end state has been modified over time. And I'm not sure if either maliciousness or ineptitude applies. There could be a bunch of other reasons - is the risk of not having access to the RD-180 for an extended period of time really worth the cost of creating the co-production facilities.
Also, I don't think LM dragged its feet hoping Delta 4 would fail. I won't speculate as to whether they dragged their feet or not, but they probably wanted more assistance than the government wanted to provide.
If the RD-180 were an American engine, would Delta 4 exist?
-
Jim - 3/6/2007 12:05 AM
Dexter - 3/6/2007 11:15 PM
Hypothetically speaking, do you think the Air Force would have given any consideration to a Russian engined launch vehicle at the time of the downselect if Lockheed did not make this promise? Do you think the Atlas V would have ever made it of the drawing board?
This is my whole beef here.
Promise something, get a decision made in your favor, and then never deliver on the promise.
As far as your post above, there is something we can agree on. The cost ended up being more than was expected. This was either due to maliciousness or ineptitude. You decide.
Expect the same thing from ULA.
May be your beef but LM was't doing anything in a vacuum. It had full USAF concurrence (more so the NRO) on every move it made and it didn't/hasn't "blackmailed" anyone
Who said anything about blackmail?
This is a case of false advertising. Lockheed misled the AF with a claim of American RD-180s.
-
WHAP - 4/6/2007 5:36 PM
An American RD-180 may have been a goal, but this isn't the only program where the end state has been modified over time. And I'm not sure if either maliciousness or ineptitude applies. There could be a bunch of other reasons - is the risk of not having access to the RD-180 for an extended period of time really worth the cost of creating the co-production facilities.
The end state in the case of the RD-180 was modified contractually in 2004 between the AF and LM to have co-production capabilities in the US by 2010 to comply with the NSTP requirement for "domestically produced" launch capability. This tied in with current and past space policies that prohibited dependence on a "foreign-made" critical component. All development of on-shore production capability was to be funded by LM, although the AF recognized that being the primary customer, they too would absorb much of the cost.
That was then. It's ULA's baby now and short of 100% gov't funding, RD-180 won't be co-produced.
Sadly, not having to adhere to gov't regulations or contractual requirements as related to EELV seems to be no big deal.
-
Dexter - 4/6/2007 10:35 PM
This is a case of false advertising. Lockheed misled the AF with a claim of American RD-180s.
There is no misleading either or false advertising. The USAF has been fully engaged in this matter. the USAF could "force" the issue but choose not to
-
Jim - 4/6/2007 11:46 PM
Dexter - 4/6/2007 10:35 PM
This is a case of false advertising. Lockheed misled the AF with a claim of American RD-180s.
There is no misleading either or false advertising. The USAF has been fully engaged in this matter. the USAF could "force" the issue but choose not to
Why?
-
WHAP - 4/6/2007 5:36 PM
Dexter - 3/6/2007 9:15 PM
Hypothetically speaking, do you think the Air Force would have given any consideration to a Russian engined launch vehicle at the time of the downselect if Lockheed did not make this promise? Do you think the Atlas V would have ever made it of the drawing board
Yes, and yes. If the Air Force wanted to have multiple providers, what other choice did they have? I think the Atlas III had already flown at the time of the downselect, so there was some confidence in the RD-180, regardless of the production location. An American RD-180 may have been a goal, but this isn't the only program where the end state has been modified over time. And I'm not sure if either maliciousness or ineptitude applies. There could be a bunch of other reasons - is the risk of not having access to the RD-180 for an extended period of time really worth the cost of creating the co-production facilities.
Also, I don't think LM dragged its feet hoping Delta 4 would fail. I won't speculate as to whether they dragged their feet or not, but they probably wanted more assistance than the government wanted to provide.
If the RD-180 were an American engine, would Delta 4 exist?
Downselect -1998
First Atlas 3 launch 2000
If RD-180 were American, how much more would it cost? Cost compared to D4?
-
Dexter - 5/6/2007 8:13 AM
Downselect -1998
First Atlas 3 launch 2000
If RD-180 were American, how much more would it cost? Cost compared to D4?
Actually, I found some earlier posts that had the 4-2 downselect in 1996, with the decision to not perform the 4-2 downselect in late 1997. I guess the question is what did the government really expect from co-production, and when? One of your earlier posts:
Dexter - 5/4/2007 10:42 PM
RD-180 co-production in 1995
http://www.engineeringatboeing.com/dataresources/rd-180-pres-100101.pdf page 2
doesn't really back up some of your assertions. Co-production is actually never mentioned on page 2 of that document. It is mentioned on the timeline on page 14, but nothing on that chart shows any actual co-production of engines.
However, I did find this link that says a co-production facility was supposed to be up and running by 2002 (the same year Atlas V was supposed to begin launching military payloads according to the article - I guess that milestone came and went, too). But it also appears that the government was involved in this decision as well.
http://dev.space.com/spacenews/archive00/sn2000.fff38.html
By your last statement, are you implying that an American RD-180 would cost more than an RS-68? (hopefully you didn't mean that it would cost more than an entire D4). If that's the case, isn't LM saving the government money by NOT pursuing co-production? You make a lot of statements about how LM is ripping off the government - which is more important, saving money or co-production?
By the way, how much do these engines "cost" anyway?
-
One of the reasons for the RD-180 was Rocketdyne didn't want to handle another engine development with the RS-68
-
WHAP - 5/6/2007 7:56 AM
By your last statement, are you implying that an American RD-180 would cost more than an RS-68? (hopefully you didn't mean that it would cost more than an entire D4). If that's the case, isn't LM saving the government money by NOT pursuing co-production?
Not trying to play sides on if LM tried to rip-off the government, but anyone knows how each engine works would know that to produce an American made RD-180 would be a MONUMENTAL task & cost. Re-engineering something like the RD-180 is not as simple as it "seemed", as we lack of unique metallurgical & coating properties produced by Russia. The U.S. has a different approach & philosophy toward engine design and sometime they're fundamentally different from the Russians. There's a reason why after 10-years of studying the RD-180, P&W is nowhere near able to "re-engineer" the engine. Perhaps this is why both LM & the AF understood and chosed not to pursue this risky & costly path.
-
Jim - 5/6/2007 9:01 AM
One of the reasons for the RD-180 was Rocketdyne didn't want to handle another engine development with the RS-68
Huh? IIRC, LM picked the RD-180 long before even McDonnell Douglas has down-selected to the RS-68.
Rocketdyne was, and always will be, an engine "merchant supplier"; which means they don't pick sides between LM & McDD. It'a purely a business for them and the more the better. But as I posted above, at the time, Rocketdyne did not understand the Russian engine technology much and would be a very high risk to under-take this venture, way beyond what LM was willing to pay for Rocketdyne to "try".
-
Dexter - 5/6/2007 8:10 AM
Jim - 4/6/2007 11:46 PM
Dexter - 4/6/2007 10:35 PM
This is a case of false advertising. Lockheed misled the AF with a claim of American RD-180s.
There is no misleading either or false advertising. The USAF has been fully engaged in this matter. the USAF could "force" the issue but choose not to
Why?
The original LM plan for US RD-180 was tied to the original AF plan of a single EELV provider (winner take all). When the AF strategy changed to two providers, so did LM's plan. Everything was done above board and in compliance with policy and contracts.
It's logical. You need US RD-180 for national security reasons if Atlas is your only EELV system. It's assured access. If you have two vehicle systems, then the assured access requirement is met by the other system and you can avoid the cost of a US RD-180.
-
Propforce - 5/6/2007 2:14 PM
Jim - 5/6/2007 9:01 AM
One of the reasons for the RD-180 was Rocketdyne didn't want to handle another engine development with the RS-68
Huh? IIRC, LM picked the RD-180 long before even McDonnell Douglas has down-selected to the RS-68.
Rocketdyne was, and always will be, an engine "merchant supplier"; which means they don't pick sides between LM & McDD. It'a purely a business for them and the more the better. But as I posted above, at the time, Rocketdyne did not understand the Russian engine technology much and would be a very high risk to under-take this venture, way beyond what LM was willing to pay for Rocketdyne to "try".
The original decision to buy RD-180 was to power an upgraded version of Atlas IIA (I think it was then named "Atlas IIAR"), which was ultimately named Atlas III. Rocketdyne was initially one of the bidders - it bid a two-chambered (or dual) engine that would have to have been developed largely from scratch. It was going against RD-180 and NK-33. Rocketdyne withdrew its bid before the award was made, eliminating itself from the competition.
- Ed Kyle
-
quark - 5/6/2007 7:06 PM
It's logical. You need US RD-180 for national security reasons if Atlas is your only EELV system. It's assured access. If you have two vehicle systems, then the assured access requirement is met by the other system and you can avoid the cost of a US RD-180.
The cracked Delta IV pad along with no Atlas V heavy alternative proves your logic about assured access to be nothing more than high level spin!
-
WHAP - 5/6/2007 9:56 AM
Dexter - 5/6/2007 8:13 AM
Downselect -1998
First Atlas 3 launch 2000
If RD-180 were American, how much more would it cost? Cost compared to D4?
Actually, I found some earlier posts that had the 4-2 downselect in 1996, with the decision to not perform the 4-2 downselect in late 1997. I guess the question is what did the government really expect from co-production, and when? One of your earlier posts:
Dexter - 5/4/2007 10:42 PM
RD-180 co-production in 1995
http://www.engineeringatboeing.com/dataresources/rd-180-pres-100101.pdf page 2
doesn't really back up some of your assertions. Co-production is actually never mentioned on page 2 of that document. It is mentioned on the timeline on page 14, but nothing on that chart shows any actual co-production of engines.
However, I did find this link that says a co-production facility was supposed to be up and running by 2002 (the same year Atlas V was supposed to begin launching military payloads according to the article - I guess that milestone came and went, too). But it also appears that the government was involved in this decision as well.
http://dev.space.com/spacenews/archive00/sn2000.fff38.html
The assertion is based on this information dated back in 1995.
1995 - "Key to the Lockheed Martin system is a liquid oxygen/kerosene (LO 2 -RP-1) common core booster that yields significant cost savings. The common core boosters are powered by the Pratt & Whitney manufactured RD-180 engine for U.S. government missions."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/eelv_l.htm Lockheed said in 1995 that the RD-180 would be American made for US government missions.
With the 4 to 2 downselect in 1996, if Lockheed said that it might still be Russian because we don't understand the metallurgy or we think that our cost estimate might be overly optimistic, don't you think that the USAF may have ruled out Atlas V and gone with Alliant Tech or the Boeing proposal along with the Mac Dac's Delta 4???
Promise something, get a favorable decision, never deliver and then spin it.
-
bombay - 5/6/2007 9:48 PM
quark - 5/6/2007 7:06 PM
It's logical. You need US RD-180 for national security reasons if Atlas is your only EELV system. It's assured access. If you have two vehicle systems, then the assured access requirement is met by the other system and you can avoid the cost of a US RD-180.
The cracked Delta IV pad along with no Atlas V heavy alternative proves your logic about assured access to be nothing more than high level spin!
In fact the assured access principle is in full force today. As Delta IV is down for pad repairs, launches can continue of other satellites on Atlas. An Atlas is going to launch a NRO sat within the next few weeks. If it were only Delta IV we'd be stuck waiting for the launch table to be fixed before we could launch anything at all. If something were to go wrong with Atlas and it was the only launch system we had we'd be in a tight spot.
One payload or so that can't be switched between the two doesn't invalidate the concept.
-
quark - 5/6/2007 7:06 PM
Dexter - 5/6/2007 8:10 AM
Jim - 4/6/2007 11:46 PM
Dexter - 4/6/2007 10:35 PM
This is a case of false advertising. Lockheed misled the AF with a claim of American RD-180s.
There is no misleading either or false advertising. The USAF has been fully engaged in this matter. the USAF could "force" the issue but choose not to
Why?
The original LM plan for US RD-180 was tied to the original AF plan of a single EELV provider (winner take all). When the AF strategy changed to two providers, so did LM's plan. Everything was done above board and in compliance with policy and contracts.
It's logical. You need US RD-180 for national security reasons if Atlas is your only EELV system. It's assured access. If you have two vehicle systems, then the assured access requirement is met by the other system and you can avoid the cost of a US RD-180.
Talk about spin!
Here is one for you backing up what edkyle stated:
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5512599_ITM
GD signed the contract with NPO Energomash in 1994 to develop an engine for Atlas.
So now, let me get this logic straight.
In 1998 the Air Force decides to downselect the two finalists with the hope that competition between the two will result in lower prices.
The National Space Transportation Policy dictates that critical components will be domestically produced. Boeing complies with this requirement. Lockheed promises to.
If Russian engines are cheaper, allowing Lockheed to stay with the Russian made engine provides an advantage to Lockheed.
So much for competition.
-
edkyle99 - 5/6/2007 5:38 PM
Propforce - 5/6/2007 2:14 PM
Jim - 5/6/2007 9:01 AM
One of the reasons for the RD-180 was Rocketdyne didn't want to handle another engine development with the RS-68
Huh? IIRC, LM picked the RD-180 long before even McDonnell Douglas has down-selected to the RS-68.
Rocketdyne was, and always will be, an engine "merchant supplier"; which means they don't pick sides between LM & McDD. It'a purely a business for them and the more the better. But as I posted above, at the time, Rocketdyne did not understand the Russian engine technology much and would be a very high risk to under-take this venture, way beyond what LM was willing to pay for Rocketdyne to "try".
The original decision to buy RD-180 was to power an upgraded version of Atlas IIA (I think it was then named "Atlas IIAR"), which was ultimately named Atlas III. Rocketdyne was initially one of the bidders - it bid a two-chambered (or dual) engine that would have to have been developed largely from scratch. It was going against RD-180 and NK-33. Rocketdyne withdrew its bid before the award was made, eliminating itself from the competition.
- Ed Kyle
Oh yeah, I remember now. Rocketdyne offered a "MA-5D" version, an upgrade from its heritage MA-5A Atlas II booster/ sustainer engine as option. But as I said, the MA-5 GG cycle is really no competition against the RD-180's staged combustion cycle (imagine a turbo-charged equivalent). It's no suprise that they withdrew their offer before the decision was made. They knew they can not compete against the cheap Russian currency and existing technology.
BTW, you know that Atlas II "AR" stands for American/ Russian (hence the "AR")? :wink:
-
Nick L. - 5/6/2007 11:09 PM
bombay - 5/6/2007 9:48 PM
quark - 5/6/2007 7:06 PM
It's logical. You need US RD-180 for national security reasons if Atlas is your only EELV system. It's assured access. If you have two vehicle systems, then the assured access requirement is met by the other system and you can avoid the cost of a US RD-180.
The cracked Delta IV pad along with no Atlas V heavy alternative proves your logic about assured access to be nothing more than high level spin!
In fact the assured access principle is in full force today. As Delta IV is down for pad repairs, launches can continue of other satellites on Atlas. An Atlas is going to launch a NRO sat within the next few weeks. If it were only Delta IV we'd be stuck waiting for the launch table to be fixed before we could launch anything at all. If something were to go wrong with Atlas and it was the only launch system we had we'd be in a tight spot.
One payload or so that can't be switched between the two doesn't invalidate the concept.
Does not validate the execution either.
So you got a cracked pad and then Mr. Vladimir "I'm mad at the US for deploying missile defense systems in Eastern Europe" Putin decides to stop exporting RD-180s for Atlas V, how do you assure access to space?
-
Quit whining and live with it. There are much worse issues, like alternative energy
-
Propforce - 6/6/2007 5:22 AM
Oh yeah, I remember now. Rocketdyne offered a "MA-5D" version, an upgrade from its heritage MA-5A Atlas II booster/ sustainer engine as option. But as I said, the MA-5 GG cycle is really no competition against the RD-180's staged combustion cycle (imagine a turbo-charged equivalent). It's no suprise that they withdrew their offer before the decision was made. They knew they can not compete against the cheap Russian currency and existing technology.
BTW, you know that Atlas II "AR" stands for American/ Russian (hence the "AR")? :wink:
This site
http://engine.aviaport.ru/issues/03/page40.html
says MA-5D was comparable to RD-180 in spec?
MA-5D pressure seems to be about 175 bars (compared to RD-180:s 250), but ISP is 308/337 on both? How's that possible?
(I don't know russian, so someone can correct if I'm wrong.)
This pdf:
http://www.psu.edu/dept/PERC/symposium/PERC1998.pdf
says MA-5D was an oxidizer rich staged combustion engine, so similar to the RD-170/180 family in that regard.
I didn't find many references to MA-5D by google.
What were the biggest showstoppers? The materials handling the hot oxidizer rich gases?
The RS-76 then was a longer term tech project with broadly similar performance, but seems to have vanished? Has it been officially cancelled? RS-76 is only mentioned on Boeing's RS-84 page as a predecessor here:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/propul/RS84.html
And RS-84 is cancelled, right?
-
Jim - 6/6/2007 12:32 AM
Quit whining and live with it. There are much worse issues, like alternative energy
I will guess, based on your clever retort that you can not come up with a counter argument.
Worse issues include:
Cancer
Aids
Terrorism
Proliferation of Nuclear armaments
Famine
Hunger
Global Warming
etc...
This board is full of whiners and complainers for and against Ares, for and against using EELV for Orion.
Why don't we shut down this board and supress people's ideas and opinions since there are worse issues out there?
Who made you the censor??
-
Dexter - 6/6/2007 12:52 AM
Nick L. - 5/6/2007 11:09 PM
bombay - 5/6/2007 9:48 PM
quark - 5/6/2007 7:06 PM
It's logical. You need US RD-180 for national security reasons if Atlas is your only EELV system. It's assured access. If you have two vehicle systems, then the assured access requirement is met by the other system and you can avoid the cost of a US RD-180.
The cracked Delta IV pad along with no Atlas V heavy alternative proves your logic about assured access to be nothing more than high level spin!
In fact the assured access principle is in full force today. As Delta IV is down for pad repairs, launches can continue of other satellites on Atlas. An Atlas is going to launch a NRO sat within the next few weeks. If it were only Delta IV we'd be stuck waiting for the launch table to be fixed before we could launch anything at all. If something were to go wrong with Atlas and it was the only launch system we had we'd be in a tight spot.
One payload or so that can't be switched between the two doesn't invalidate the concept.
Does not validate the execution either.
So you got a cracked pad and then Mr. Vladimir "I'm mad at the US for deploying missile defense systems in Eastern Europe" Putin decides to stop exporting RD-180s for Atlas V, how do you assure access to space?
I will not profess to know the answer to that. All I can say is that there are limits to everything, including assured access. We cannot forsee and plan for every single eventuality that may arise, or we'd be forever paralyzed by fear of "what if this/that/whatever happens?" We could put 50 tiny engines in Ares V to give it serious engine-out, but would it be worth it? Aircraft could have 10 or more engines in case one fails, is that worth the extra cost? Regardless of silly hypothetical situations, two is better than one.
What do you propose? Bring in a third competitor, only to have them come back to the government for help when the newcomer finds that the commercial market can't support three?
-
What's the beef with the RD-180? It's performed flawlessly on all 14 Atlas III and V missions so far. Great performance (thrust and ISP). The Russians have never missed a delivery and the quality is outstanding.
Furthermore, the national security space community has never had it so good. They are able to switch almost all missions back and forth between systems as has happened on numerious programs in the manifest already like WGS and AEHF.
From the USG perspective, the success of EELV is unprecidented.
Is the concern that LM hasn't yet completed the US co-production program? The program continues under ULA and a substantial amount of money is being spent. In the meantime, there is a sizeable stockpile of engines.
-
quark - 7/6/2007 8:06 PM
What's the beef with the RD-180? It's performed flawlessly on all 14 Atlas III and V missions so far. Great performance (thrust and ISP). The Russians have never missed a delivery and the quality is outstanding.
I suspect all the "beef" with the RD-180 are mostly politically and not technical. As you stated, the engine has been performing flawlessly and we are evidently benefiting from the end of cold war with Russian's investment made during that period of time.
But the issues extend beyond the engine itself as far as I can see. It has mostly to do with the large picture of the USA growing dependence of foreign technologies and inexpensive imports (such as from India & China with the commercial sector). As such, we are making both China & India the fastest growing economic countries in the WORLD while our engineers (in the commercial sector) are being told to train those guys and after that they will be "surplused", e.g., RIF'd, layoffed, etc. This is a much bigger macro-economic problem with the U.S. as we step off as an industrial nation and become reliant on "developing nations" for our needs. Isn't that what happened to the British Empire in the 1900's?
To be certain, competition is a good thing as we all benefited from resulting superior quality, reliability and cheaper prices. Take the Japanese products for example, it went from a "cheap import" of the 50's to its superior quality today, replacing the detroit "big-3", swiss watch-makers, and electronics, etc. Today, China has surpassed Japan as the 2nd biggest auto-maker in the world. Someday, it might even produce better quality products in not so distance future.
In regarding to our national defense capability (note: not just technologies), this trend adds complexity of our growing dependence of foreign suppliers, though I must admit most of our foreign suppliers tend to provide superior products with less-cost, on-schedule deliviery than most of our domestic suppliers. The issue is less problematic when the foreign suppliers is a part of our "allied nations", it gets more touchy when it's a formal communist-block nation.
But in order to have competition, the US must invest on its own capabilities. So the issue is more like should the U.S. invest in our own advanced engine technologies, or should we continue to rely on inexpensive Russian imports to meet our national security needs?
-
Nick L. - 6/6/2007 12:07 AM
Dexter - 6/6/2007 12:52 AM
Nick L. - 5/6/2007 11:09 PM
bombay - 5/6/2007 9:48 PM
quark - 5/6/2007 7:06 PM
It's logical. You need US RD-180 for national security reasons if Atlas is your only EELV system. It's assured access. If you have two vehicle systems, then the assured access requirement is met by the other system and you can avoid the cost of a US RD-180.
The cracked Delta IV pad along with no Atlas V heavy alternative proves your logic about assured access to be nothing more than high level spin!
In fact the assured access principle is in full force today. As Delta IV is down for pad repairs, launches can continue of other satellites on Atlas. An Atlas is going to launch a NRO sat within the next few weeks. If it were only Delta IV we'd be stuck waiting for the launch table to be fixed before we could launch anything at all. If something were to go wrong with Atlas and it was the only launch system we had we'd be in a tight spot.
One payload or so that can't be switched between the two doesn't invalidate the concept.
Does not validate the execution either.
So you got a cracked pad and then Mr. Vladimir "I'm mad at the US for deploying missile defense systems in Eastern Europe" Putin decides to stop exporting RD-180s for Atlas V, how do you assure access to space?
I will not profess to know the answer to that. All I can say is that there are limits to everything, including assured access. We cannot forsee and plan for every single eventuality that may arise, or we'd be forever paralyzed by fear of "what if this/that/whatever happens?" We could put 50 tiny engines in Ares V to give it serious engine-out, but would it be worth it? Aircraft could have 10 or more engines in case one fails, is that worth the extra cost? Regardless of silly hypothetical situations, two is better than one.
What do you propose? Bring in a third competitor, only to have them come back to the government for help when the newcomer finds that the commercial market can't support three?
Discussed previously but pertinent to your quote.
http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=461
"During the Vietnam War, Sony withheld TV cameras used to guide tactical missiles. In 1983, the Socialists in the Japanese Diet blocked the sale of ceramic packaging used in U.S. cruise missiles to protest Reagan administration policies. Last year, the Bush administration approached Holland and Germany about selling submarines to Taiwan; both countries refused, citing policy differences. And the gap between the United States and Europe on a host of foreign policy matters continue to widen. 1917 was a long time ago; and so was 1945; and even 1989"
This is not an unforeseen circumstance, it is a situation that has occurred in the past with legislation passed in the form of the Berry ammendment which modified the Buy America Act.
The issue here is not whether or not the the RD-180 is a good rocket engine, the issue is that Lockheed made a promise to co-produce the engine for US government missions and so far has not.
Would the Air Force have downselected Lockheed's proposal for EELV from the 4 to 2 downselect if the engine was Russian???????
ULA was formed on the promise that it would save $100-150 million dollars a year. It did not specify where the savings would go. It did not specify when the savings would start or what the savings were relative to.
Would the DOD and FTC have approved ULA if savings were not promised??????
The game has already started with ULA people saying that the savings would not be immediate and the cost rose prior to ULA formation.
The script is the same.
Promise something, get a favorable decision, never deliver on the promise and spin it due to unforeseen circumstances.
-
ULAwantabe,
What was the outcome of your job search with ULA?
-
Since sending in my resume a few months ago I decided to disappear from this site’s radar as my hopes are to some day be a ULAwantabeNOT. I am sorry I feel that I must remain silent from this point on while I wait for a possible interview. I also am not so sure if ULA would approve my input if I ever get a job offer. I do not want to do anything wrong. I hope you understand. I must admit that I do enjoy the conversation to this thread and it has been very educational to me. So are any of you folks attending the Atlas reunion? I guarantee that I will NOT ware a T-shirt with the words “ULAwantabe” although the ULA VP of Atlas Program will be in attendance…Reference:
================================================================================
The Atlas 50th Celebration is less than two months away and we need your help in assuring it’s a success.
In order to facilitate planning, the deadline for advance registration for the Saturday afternoon “Main Event” and inclusion in the reunion directory is July 1st. Registration after July 1st or at the door will be $30, if space is available. Your pre-printed name tag, available at sign- in, is your ticket for the afternoon. Early registration for the Saturday evening dinner is also recommended.
****************************************************
Check web site periodically for latest information.
****************************************************************
The registration form is attached as an interactive Acrobat form. Fill it in, print it and mail with your remittance. or go to the web site:
http://members.cox.net/atlas_reunion/
and fill it out there, print and mail.
The flyer below is attached as an Acrobat document, if it does not open below, open the attachment
Thanks,
Your Atlas 50th Anniversary Commemoration Planning Team
-
Sure seems like a lot of opportunities with 707 postings:
https://recruiter.kenexa.com/ula/cc/CCJobSearchAction.ss;jsessionid=2C3E407E3AB415A8C9B1682255C43BC5?command=CCSearchAll
Wish you all the luck.
This change over in talent seems to be having an effect on ULA wth all the problems to date
1. Cracked Delta 4 pad
2. Delta 2 pad crane breaks down - who is doing maintenance????
3. Damaged solar array on DAWN spacecraft.
4. Atlas V fails to put NRO satellites in correct orbit.
Seems like a lot of little blips in the road that could be random or maybe there is a direct cause and effect.
707 new jobs at ULA. Hmmmmmm
-
Dexter - 18/6/2007 11:13 PM
1. Cracked Delta 4 pad
2. Delta 2 pad crane breaks down - who is doing maintenance????
3. Damaged solar array on DAWN spacecraft.
4. Atlas V fails to put NRO satellites in correct orbit.
Only 1 and 4 are within the scope of ULA. USAF owns the Delta 2 pad. DAWN damage was not ULA techs, I think. The other two are debatable. Cracked pad could have benefitted from some cross-pollination from Atlas, whose flight hardware caught a similar leak a few years ago. Worry over jobs could be distracting folks in both cases.
-
Dexter - 18/6/2007 10:13 PM
Sure seems like a lot of opportunities with 707 postings:
https://recruiter.kenexa.com/ula/cc/CCJobSearchAction.ss;jsessionid=2C3E407E3AB415A8C9B1682255C43BC5?command=CCSearchAll
This change over in talent seems to be having an effect on ULA wth all the problems to date
1. Cracked Delta 4 pad
2. Delta 2 pad crane breaks down - who is doing maintenance????
3. Damaged solar array on DAWN spacecraft.
4. Atlas V fails to put NRO satellites in correct orbit.
Seems like a lot of little blips in the road that could be random or maybe there is a direct cause and effect.
707 new jobs at ULA. Hmmmmmm
Are people bailing this company like rats off of a sinking ship? Is there a lack of attention to detail due to the lack of basic information being communicated down to the employees at the engineering and manufacturing sites?
It appears as though the engineering situation is in disarray and with all of the consolidation talk, it's safe to say that the manufacturing sites are in the state of confusion, which leads me to believe that there is something systematically wrong with how decisions are being made and executed.
-
Delta engineering folks don't want to leave SoCal, so they're leaving ULA.
A lot of good Atlas folks at the Cape were displaced by more senior Titan folks when Cx40 shut down.
Cape Delta folks are quaking because of the foreseen end of Delta II and layoffs because of redundancies between Atlas and Delta. Cape Atlas laid off a lot of people at the end of Titan, so they're about as lean as they can get.
Many Decatur folks (blue and white collar) are leaving and going down the road to better paying Constellation and Missile Defense jobs in Huntsville.
Atlas Denver engineering and San Diego manufacturing seem to be relatively unscathed, except for dealing with the uncertainty of change.
It's not a rosy picture, but we can't say we want cost savings on one hand and expect a seamless transition on the other. People are going to exercise their free will and leave on their own terms before they don't have a choice.
-
Dexter - 18/6/2007 11:13 PM
This change over in talent seems to be having an effect on ULA wth all the problems to date
1. Cracked Delta 4 pad
2. Delta 2 pad crane breaks down - who is doing maintenance????
3. Damaged solar array on DAWN spacecraft.
4. Atlas V fails to put NRO satellites in correct orbit.
it is total BS to blame this on the formation of ULA.
1. The cracked pad is completely independent of this
2. A separate USAF contractor performs maintenance on the D-II pads
3. Not a Delta II tech but a spacecraft tech (even if it were, it is not due to ULA, since the same techs are there)
4. RL-10 problems are not ULA
-
Jim - 19/6/2007 11:03 AM
4. RL-10 problems are not ULA
RL-10?
Jim how do you jump to blaming the RL-10? The only thing that has been released to date is the second centuar burn was to short. Are you implying a Delta III style chamber breach?
-
Jim, I disagree. ULA, like any prime, has to manage their subs. I don't care if it's an engine, a valve, a fuse, a box, the capacitor in the box. ULA certifies the rocket is good. And, from my biased perspective, Aerospace/NRO has as much if not more blame than ULA. Just like NASA ELV would be if it had been a science bird.
-
Antares - 19/6/2007 4:20 PM
Jim, I disagree. ULA, like any prime, has to manage their subs. I don't care if it's an engine, a valve, a fuse, a box, the capacitor in the box. ULA certifies the rocket is good. And, from my biased perspective, Aerospace/NRO has as much if not more blame than ULA. Just like NASA ELV would be if it had been a science bird.
I meant due to the formation of ULA
-
Antares - 19/6/2007 1:20 PM
Jim, I disagree. ULA, like any prime, has to manage their subs. I don't care if it's an engine, a valve, a fuse, a box, the capacitor in the box. ULA certifies the rocket is good.
In reality, an engine company is like a wife once you married her. Your vehicle is designed around its capabilities and limitations. There's not much you can do to "manage" the engine company especially, in this case, they are the only game in town and they know it all too well. You will pay and pay even if the issues are in-house with P&W as you are deeply dependent on them. Both Atlas & Delta have continue to buy RL-10s coming off production lines, eventhough they were not launching many birds, in order to keep the RL-10 people employed and the production line open. That decision went above head of both launch houses and straight to the Air Force.
You buy an engine even when its Isp falls below your spec value. You'll just have to assign it to a lower performance mission. The politics go beyond your contract "management".
And, from my biased perspective, Aerospace/NRO has as much if not more blame than ULA. Just like NASA ELV would be if it had been a science bird.
With all due respect to the Aerospace/NRO, their engine knowledge don't go beyond which side flame "should" come out of. I hope NASA is slightly better but I am not holding my breath. Most of the technical staff don't know much about the engines beyond what they read from textbooks and/or previous briefings. During any "anomaly" investigations, both the Aerospace/NRO and the vehicle primes continue to rely on engine companies to solve its own problem as they don't have the expertise to over-ride engine company's technical solutions. This trend continues to furter aggrevate issue #1 above.
-
Propforce - 8/6/2007 11:12 AM
quark - 7/6/2007 8:06 PM
What's the beef with the RD-180? It's performed flawlessly on all 14 Atlas III and V missions so far. Great performance (thrust and ISP). The Russians have never missed a delivery and the quality is outstanding.
I suspect all the "beef" with the RD-180 are mostly politically and not technical. As you stated, the engine has been performing flawlessly and we are evidently benefiting from the end of cold war with Russian's investment made during that period of time.
::::
:::
:::
But in order to have competition, the US must invest on its own capabilities. So the issue is more like should the U.S. invest in our own advanced engine technologies, or should we continue to rely on inexpensive Russian imports to meet our national security needs?
Wow.. it's been over a week since I posted this issue and the silence to the response is deafening. Apparently we can debate technical issues in details but shrugs off on the bigger picture of national capabilities and our growing dependence on foreign technologies & productions to our national security needs.
What says you pro-RD-180 folks?
-
Huh, straight talk, Propforce, thanks for the insight! I didn't realize it was so weird. So there are not that much good stick or carrot mechanisms to keep PWR in control.
I wonder how it's like in Europe with EADS Astrium and Arianespace and all that...
Competition should be good but these are such capabilities that the market can't really support that many players...
-
There's a limited amount of money to go around for national security needs, and it's not at all clear that large high-peformance kerosene-oxygen engines are the best place to put it. The payload is more important than the rocket, and given the current sorry state of the FIA, NPOESS, SBIRS, and all the rest, I'd say that taking care of launch needs by buying on the open market is a pretty good idea.
Edited to add I think it would have been a better idea to recompete the entire EELV buy once Boeing's industrial espionage came to light; it would have also been a good idea to reconsider the wisdom of keeping two families of launch vehicles once the commercial market imploded. Combining all the weather satellites into NPOESS was a predictably bad idea. Giving the FIA to Boeing, or at least not taking it away when it was clear they were screwing it up, was also another bad idea. Invading Iraq was a phenomenally bad idea. Compared to these, the effect of using the RD-180 on national security is minimal.
-
Propforce - 19/6/2007 5:00 PM
Propforce - 8/6/2007 11:12 AM
quark - 7/6/2007 8:06 PM
What's the beef with the RD-180? It's performed flawlessly on all 14 Atlas III and V missions so far. Great performance (thrust and ISP). The Russians have never missed a delivery and the quality is outstanding.
I suspect all the "beef" with the RD-180 are mostly politically and not technical. As you stated, the engine has been performing flawlessly and we are evidently benefiting from the end of cold war with Russian's investment made during that period of time.
::::
:::
:::
But in order to have competition, the US must invest on its own capabilities. So the issue is more like should the U.S. invest in our own advanced engine technologies, or should we continue to rely on inexpensive Russian imports to meet our national security needs?
Wow.. it's been over a week since I posted this issue and the silence to the response is deafening. Apparently we can debate technical issues in details but shrugs off on the bigger picture of national capabilities and our growing dependence on foreign technologies & productions to our national security needs.
What says you pro-RD-180 folks?
The RD-180 engine is a great engine that the Russians continue to advance. One of the great traits of LO2 and kerosene engines is the ease of storing and handling the fuel, unlike LH2. It's been over 30 years since any major U.S. investment in LO2-kerosene pump fed engine technology, thus the reason why the two Atlas V engine candidates were the RD-180 or the NK-33. This is really sad!
Then comes the U.S. initiative to coproduce the RD-180 after recognizing the level of technology associated with the engine, which would have revitalized the U.S. LO2 and kerosene technology and industrial base. As we all now know, this initiative has been circumvented. This also is very sad!
Is there a beef with the RD-180 unto itself - absolutely not. The beef is with ignoring the requirements set forth by the NSTP and highlighted in the DoD report regarding the continued usage of Russian produced hardware.
-
Jim - 19/6/2007 10:03 AM
it is total BS to blame this on the formation of ULA.
4. RL-10 problems are not ULA
Assuming the RL-10 engine was the issue with the Centaur mishap, this is example of a potentially troubling source of a single-point failure that could ground both the Delta and Atlas fleets.
I understand that there are different variants of the engine, regardless, they represent a common component in both systems that could hinder the U.S. nat'l policy of assuring access to space.
Couple this with the cracked Delta IV pad and you're left with zero launch capability.
-
bombay - 19/6/2007 5:29 PM
Jim - 19/6/2007 10:03 AM
it is total BS to blame this on the formation of ULA.
4. RL-10 problems are not ULA
Assuming the RL-10 engine was the issue with the Centaur mishap, this is example of a potentially troubling source of a single-point failure that could ground both the Delta and Atlas fleets.
I understand that there are different variants of the engine, regardless, they represent a common component in both systems that could hinder the U.S. nat'l policy of assuring access to space.
Couple this with the cracked Delta IV pad and you're left with zero launch capability.
It would appear the recent Atlas NRO launch will have a similar failure investigation as Delta III. First there will be some investigation on [i[whose fault[/i] is it, e.g., did the problem occurred on the 2nd stage itself, or did the problem lies on the RL-10 engine? Unless there's a strong evidence point one way or the other, there will be some finger pointings from both sides.
In either case, both Atlas and Delta were grounded until the investigation & follow-up actions were completed. If indeed this NRO launch "anomaly" does point to the RL-10 engine, this could ground the fleet for 12 ~ 18 months.
-
Propforce - 19/6/2007 7:40 PM
bombay - 19/6/2007 5:29 PM
Jim - 19/6/2007 10:03 AM
it is total BS to blame this on the formation of ULA.
4. RL-10 problems are not ULA
Assuming the RL-10 engine was the issue with the Centaur mishap, this is example of a potentially troubling source of a single-point failure that could ground both the Delta and Atlas fleets.
I understand that there are different variants of the engine, regardless, they represent a common component in both systems that could hinder the U.S. nat'l policy of assuring access to space.
Couple this with the cracked Delta IV pad and you're left with zero launch capability.
It would appear the recent Atlas NRO launch will have a similar failure investigation as Delta III. First there will be some investigation on [i[whose fault[/i] is it, e.g., did the problem occurred on the 2nd stage itself, or did the problem lies on the RL-10 engine? Unless there's a strong evidence point one way or the other, there will be some finger pointings from both sides.
In either case, both Atlas and Delta were grounded until the investigation & follow-up actions were completed. If indeed this NRO launch "anomaly" does point to the RL-10 engine, this could ground the fleet for 12 ~ 18 months.
The Delta III flight that you're referring to failed in May 1999. The Maiden flight of Atlas III was delayed from Feb. 2000 to May 2000. So a one year grounding of the fleets is a distinct possibility depending on the actual cause.
-
bombay - 19/6/2007 6:09 PM
Propforce - 19/6/2007 7:40 PM
It would appear the recent Atlas NRO launch will have a similar failure investigation as Delta III. First there will be some investigation on [i[whose fault[/i] is it, e.g., did the problem occurred on the 2nd stage itself, or did the problem lies on the RL-10 engine? Unless there's a strong evidence point one way or the other, there will be some finger pointings from both sides.
In either case, both Atlas and Delta were grounded until the investigation & follow-up actions were completed. If indeed this NRO launch "anomaly" does point to the RL-10 engine, this could ground the fleet for 12 ~ 18 months.
The Delta III flight that you're referring to failed in May 1999. The Maiden flight of Atlas III was delayed from Feb. 2000 to May 2000. So a one year grounding of the fleets is a distinct possibility depending on the actual cause.
Nice try. The Delta III failure grounded the Atlas fleet from June, when the inaugural Atlas III was expected to fly, until September, when an Atlas IIAS launched EchoStar 5. Three months.
It took time for Lockheed to line up a customer for the inaugural Atlas III flight after Loral jumped ship, but there was no further readiness impact from the RL10, as can be seen by the five other Atlas IIA family flights between September 1999 and May 2000.
-
yinzer - 19/6/2007 6:38 PM
Nice try. The Delta III failure grounded the Atlas fleet from June, when the inaugural Atlas III was expected to fly, until September, when an Atlas IIAS launched EchoStar 5. Three months.
IIRC, there were some finger pointings between the vehicle guy (Delta III) and the engine guy (RL-10). Boeing, the vehicle guy, claimed the failure was due to a "breach" to the RL-10 combustion chamber, e.g., it came apart, during the 2nd burn, while P&W kept insisting on the engine cut-off was due to vehicle faults. I don't know what was the final official findings.
It was apparent that P&W performed additional analysis/ testing and convinced Lockheed & Air Force that the engine on the Atlas III was good enough to fly. The problem was unique to the B2 variant so Atlas III was cleared to flight.
-
For those of you who have discussed the savings ULA is supposed to provide, this weekend's Denver Post had a interview with the ULA CEO.
http://www.denverpost.com/aerospace/ci_6155029
The relevant paragraph:
"Q: How long do you think it will take for the U.S. government to realize the $150 million in expected savings from the rocket joint venture?
A: They start showing the actual budget savings in 2011. We are guaranteeing the savings in the form of a 2-for-1 guarantee, that for every dollar we spend in consolidation costs to form this company, we have to deliver $2 in savings. We've already spent quite a bit of money. We have to deliver the savings if we want to get reimbursed."
I'm not actually sure how to read it. ULA is going to incur consolidation costs, and those will be reimbursed by the government. In 2011, ULA will start showing a savings for operations (consolidation should be done by then) over the original plan for the separate companies. ULA has to show double the the savings of the consolidation costs in order to be reimbursed by the government for those costs. I'm sure there are a lot of ways to make this work...
It's interesting that the question said "$150 million in savings", not $150 million per year in savings.
-
Propforce - 19/6/2007 6:55 PM
yinzer - 19/6/2007 6:38 PM
Nice try. The Delta III failure grounded the Atlas fleet from June, when the inaugural Atlas III was expected to fly, until September, when an Atlas IIAS launched EchoStar 5. Three months.
IIRC, there were some finger pointings between the vehicle guy (Delta III) and the engine guy (RL-10). Boeing, the vehicle guy, claimed the failure was due to a "breach" to the RL-10 combustion chamber, e.g., it came apart, during the 2nd burn, while P&W kept insisting on the engine cut-off was due to vehicle faults. I don't know what was the final official findings.
It was apparent that P&W performed additional analysis/ testing and convinced Lockheed & Air Force that the engine on the Atlas III was good enough to fly. The problem was unique to the B2 variant so Atlas III was cleared to flight.
Manufacturing flaw in the RL10 - incorrect brazing of stiffener rings on the main combustion chamber. They went back through X-Rays taken during the manufacture and found proof.
-
yinzer - 19/6/2007 7:42 PM
Manufacturing flaw in the RL10 - incorrect brazing of stiffener rings on the main combustion chamber. They went back through X-Rays taken during the manufacture and found proof.
Good link! :) It sure is better to reference a document than relying on one's memory!
Apparently the failure investigation was concluded in September 1999, the same time Atlas III was cleared for launch.
-
WHAP - 19/6/2007 9:23 PM
For those of you who have discussed the savings ULA is supposed to provide, this weekend's Denver Post had a interview with the ULA CEO.
http://www.denverpost.com/aerospace/ci_6155029
The relevant paragraph:
"Q: How long do you think it will take for the U.S. government to realize the $150 million in expected savings from the rocket joint venture?
A: They start showing the actual budget savings in 2011. We are guaranteeing the savings in the form of a 2-for-1 guarantee, that for every dollar we spend in consolidation costs to form this company, we have to deliver $2 in savings. We've already spent quite a bit of money. We have to deliver the savings if we want to get reimbursed."
I'm not actually sure how to read it. ULA is going to incur consolidation costs, and those will be reimbursed by the government. In 2011, ULA will start showing a savings for operations (consolidation should be done by then) over the original plan for the separate companies. ULA has to show double the the savings of the consolidation costs in order to be reimbursed by the government for those costs. I'm sure there are a lot of ways to make this work...
It's interesting that the question said "$150 million in savings", not $150 million per year in savings.
ULA is getting reimbursed for what? They're the ones that should be doing the reimbursing.
Supposedly the gov't is paying the transitions costs for the first three years (Nat'l Sec. Space Launch Report). After three years, the gov't is supposed to realize $100M-$150M per year from the joint venture, which would go towards paying back the upfront transition costs that the gov't provided.
-
Propforce - 19/6/2007 5:53 PM
In reality, an engine company is like a wife once you married her. Your vehicle is designed around its capabilities and limitations. There's not much you can do to "manage" the engine company especially, in this case, they are the only game in town and they know it all too well. You will pay and pay even if the issues are in-house with P&W as you are deeply dependent on them. Both Atlas & Delta have continue to buy RL-10s coming off production lines, eventhough they were not launching many birds, in order to keep the RL-10 people employed and the production line open. That decision went above head of both launch houses and straight to the Air Force.
Much of what you are saying is true. The AF must keep PWR in profitable business, and ultimately pays for any problems, even if they are PWR's fault. That being the case, I modestly propose that the AF just buy PWR outright. It'd only cost about the same as one big NRO bird, and it would solve a lot of problems at one fell swoop. The idea that PWR is a free-market company engaged in open competition with other players is a charade and everyone knows it. Even if the AF is willing to go Russian, PWR gets a slice (RD-180). They should just buy out PWR, declare it the "Rocketdyne National Propulsion Laboratory", and contract with United Technologies to manage it.
Obviously, certain political realities would have to be overcome in order to do this. A National Lab is prohibited by law from making campaign contributions, so key Congressmen would have to be persuaded to give up their piece of the action.
-
Jim - 19/6/2007 10:03 AM
Dexter - 18/6/2007 11:13 PM
This change over in talent seems to be having an effect on ULA wth all the problems to date
1. Cracked Delta 4 pad
2. Delta 2 pad crane breaks down - who is doing maintenance????
3. Damaged solar array on DAWN spacecraft.
4. Atlas V fails to put NRO satellites in correct orbit.
it is total BS to blame this on the formation of ULA.
1. The cracked pad is completely independent of this
2. A separate USAF contractor performs maintenance on the D-II pads
3. Not a Delta II tech but a spacecraft tech (even if it were, it is not due to ULA, since the same techs are there)
4. RL-10 problems are not ULA
In your denial that this is not ULA related, how do you account for the fact that there are 707 (now 731) openings for positions in the newly formed ULA??
How can a company that is justifying savings by manpower reductions be in need of so many new job requisitions??
How is this different from the Titan failures of the mid 1990s that were attributed to a loss of key technical personell???
Inquiring minds want to know!
-
Which Titan failures were attributed to loss of key technical personnel?
I'm with Jim on this (mostly):
1. The pad issue was not that long after ULA formation. Certainly there have been folks leaving the Delta program since ULA was announced, but the launch folks have probably not seen nearly the attrition that the HB folks have.
2. Poor oversight by the AF, maybe, but not ULA.
3. Maybe poor oversight by ULA, but probably not. Most times the launch vehicle folks don't come near the spacecraft (except maybe encapsulation and lift), and are certainly not involved directly with spacecraft processing.
4. I disagree with Jim that RL10 problems are not ULA. But until someone provides the cause of the problem, it would be hard to say the ULA formation was to blame. If it was RL10 related, that may be even harder because that engine was probably built long before ULA.
-
WHAP - 21/6/2007 9:07 PM
Which Titan failures were attributed to loss of key technical personnel?
August 1998, a Titan IVA carrying a $1B NRO satellite exploded after liftoff.
April 1999, a Titan IVB failed to place a $632M satellite in the desired orbit.
April 1999, a Titan IVB placed the most expensive unmanned satellite ($1.23B) in space launch history in a useless orbit.
The internal review noted numerous discrepancies, but the following shortfalls were consistently identified throughout: 1) emphasis on cost cutting measures; 2) loss of experienced personnel; 3) inadequate manufacturing process controls; and 4) inefficient oversight on quality assurance.
It was further concluded that the emphasis on cost cutting measures influenced the other three findings, particularly in the loss of key personnel.
All of this, I think, sounds eerily familiar with the ULA current state of affairs.
-
I really don't understand this ULA witchhunt, especially given that the effects of it have been mild so far. The only noticeable effects have been poor morale and HB attrition. Neither of those have contributed to any of these problems. Well, poor morale could be a distraction for cracked pad, but that's a big stretch.
Bombay, I'll put the question to you that I put to Dexter: what feasible alternate state would you rather see? Without ULA, one of these rockets would have left the business. If the nation is willing to put all of its launch eggs in one basket and have even fewer cost controls, that's a viable solution. But no one in SMC, SpaceCom or DoD in their right mind would do that.
-
Antares - 21/6/2007 10:51 PM
Bombay, I'll put the question to you that I put to Dexter: what feasible alternate state would you rather see? Without ULA, one of these rockets would have left the business. If the nation is willing to put all of its launch eggs in one basket and have even fewer cost controls, that's a viable solution. But no one in SMC, SpaceCom or DoD in their right mind would do that.
*Cough* SpaceX *Cough*
I agree there's a bit of a witch hunt going on, but disagree that if one or the other launch vehicle went away that there'd be no other providers.
I'd rather see nimble startups taking swings at all types of business, if for no other reason than to keep existing competitors actually being competitive.
The verdict is still out in my opinion because if ULA succeeds in lowering overall costs for whatever EELVs survive then it will turn out to be a good thing for all.
-
Antares - 21/6/2007 11:51 PM
I really don't understand this ULA witchhunt, especially given that the effects of it have been mild so far. The only noticeable effects have been poor morale and HB attrition. Neither of those have contributed to any of these problems. Well, poor morale could be a distraction for cracked pad, but that's a big stretch.
Bombay, I'll put the question to you that I put to Dexter: what feasible alternate state would you rather see? Without ULA, one of these rockets would have left the business. If the nation is willing to put all of its launch eggs in one basket and have even fewer cost controls, that's a viable solution. But no one in SMC, SpaceCom or DoD in their right mind would do that.
Let me reiterate what I have been saying all along.
Option 1 - Downselect one programs.
Option 2 - Keep both programs.
Option 3 - Form ULA.
Option 1 and 2 keep programs intact. Option 3 damages Delta engineering expertise and Atlas manufacturing expertise. How can option 3 have been the best option?
And now we hear that ULA is considering killing Delta 2. In light of recent developments, how can this be part of an "assured access to space" strategy?
As stated by jimvela, SpaceX is a lean upstart that should be given every opportunity to demonstrate EELV capabilty to create true competition.
To put it in layman's terms, SpaceX is like Southwest airline. Lockheed/ Boeing/ULA is like Pan AM/TWA/Eastern airlines.
Anatres, since you have challenged us with what the alternatives are, let me challenge you to answer why ULA has job postings for 731 employees, how this affects the expertise within the company, and how ULA will prevent this exodus of expertise from manifesting itself as additonal "incidents/anomalies"????
-
Other than existing contract flight hardware for the next few years, Delta II is already a cancelled program, isn't it?
-
Dexter - 22/6/2007 2:01 AM
. Lockheed/ Boeing/ULA is like Pan AM/TWA/Eastern airlines.
Wrong, more like Delta and United airlines
-
SpaceX: where does one draw the line between a viable company that still hasn't flown yet and Joe's Rocket Shop that never will? Federal Acquisition Regs require an unassailable rationale to justify spending money on one company over the others. The "Me Toos" will come out of the woodwork if the case is not a dead lock cinch. This is even a problem when deciding which companies a government agency might visit.
Delta II: ULA is not killing it. The market is.
ULA vacancies: The better engineering culture is winning. Anything more I might say would require a couple of pages to properly explain or else it would be unfair to the good ones at ULA-Delta. Everyone has known about the loss of talent problem since ULA was announced in May 2005. That's more than enough time to manage the transition. If I were ULA-Atlas, I'd be salivating at the chance to learn another rocket, especially my main competitor. At this point, the sooner Delta moves, the sooner the Atlas folks can start learning it. In actuality, many of the Delta IV designers left the company before ULA was just a gleam in Chicago's eye.
-
Antares - 22/6/2007 7:08 AM
SpaceX: where does one draw the line between a viable company that still hasn't flown yet and Joe's Rocket Shop that never will?
When they actually fly? SpaceX hasn't sucessfully put a customer payload into orbit yet, but they have actually gotten two launch vehicles off of the ground, and one actually into space.
Aside from that, they have credible facilities, credible workforce, credible designs, and credible processes.
SpaceX is not an example of an inviable company, they're an example of a potentially viable startup in a very high risk endeavor. What happens next for them depends entirely on how they manage to perform. That's exactly what an entrepreneur would want to have in their startup.
A better example would be Armadillo Aerospace, whom looks for all the world to be doing amazing work on a shoestring, but *at the moment* is not a credible launch provider for anything other than suborbital work and prize competitions. If they can secure funding and start demonstrating launch platforms that can credibly and reliably exhibit orbital capabilities then they too could fall into that category if for no other reason than actually flying hardware. They probably will be a factor in suborbital space tourism, but I'm not sure that any of them will be getting rich from that market.
-
MKremer - 22/6/2007 2:20 AM
Other than existing contract flight hardware for the next few years, Delta II is already a cancelled program, isn't it?
Far from it, another block buy of Delta II’s is almost guaranteed. All NASA needs to do is just dust off the sole source justification they used for the Pack 19 award and change the date.
Key words: “High Value” + “Cat 3” + “Medium Class” + “Wait and See poses unacceptable risks” = Sole Source Award per FAR 16.505(b)(2)
-
McDew - 22/6/2007 12:49 PM
MKremer - 22/6/2007 2:20 AM
Other than existing contract flight hardware for the next few years, Delta II is already a cancelled program, isn't it?
Far from it, another block buy of Delta II’s is almost guaranteed. All NASA needs to do is just dust off the sole source justification they used for the Pack 19 award and change the date.
Key words: “High Value” + “Cat 3” + “Medium Class” + “Wait and See poses unacceptable risks” = Sole Source Award per FAR 16.505(b)(2)
Actually, MKremer is more correct, it is not far from being shutdown. There will be no equivalent "19 pack" because there aren't enough missions out there.
-
Jim - 22/6/2007 3:02 PM
McDew - 22/6/2007 12:49 PM
MKremer - 22/6/2007 2:20 AM
Other than existing contract flight hardware for the next few years, Delta II is already a cancelled program, isn't it?
Far from it, another block buy of Delta II’s is almost guaranteed. All NASA needs to do is just dust off the sole source justification they used for the Pack 19 award and change the date.
Key words: “High Value” + “Cat 3” + “Medium Class” + “Wait and See poses unacceptable risks” = Sole Source Award per FAR 16.505(b)(2)
Actually, MKremer is more correct, it is not far from being shutdown. There will be no equivalent "19 pack" because there aren't enough missions out there.
"it is not far from being shutdown" I agree, which is driving NASA's need to make a decision by this summer on a program extension / block buy to meet NASA’s mission model requirements of about 2/yr. If they bite, a likely quantity could be 6-10 vehicles. See key words, “Wait and See poses unacceptable risks”. Time will tell.
-
McDew - 22/6/2007 10:49 AM
Far from it, another block buy of Delta II’s is almost guaranteed. All NASA needs to do is just dust off the sole source justification they used for the Pack 19 award and change the date.
Key words: “High Value” + “Cat 3” + “Medium Class” + “Wait and See poses unacceptable risks” = Sole Source Award per FAR 16.505(b)(2)
Where are they getting the engines for this next buy?
-
There is no "next" buy
-
McDew - 22/6/2007 3:39 PM
"it is not far from being shutdown" I agree, which is driving NASA's need to make a decision by this summer on a program extension / block buy to meet NASA’s mission model requirements of about 2/yr. If they bite, a likely quantity could be 6-10 vehicles. See key words, “Wait and See poses unacceptable risks”. Time will tell.
NASA doesn't have to make a decision, it has already been done. NASA doesn't have a need for 2/yr at this moment.
-
Jim - 22/6/2007 3:48 PM
NASA doesn't have to make a decision, it has already been done. NASA doesn't have a need for 2/yr at this moment.
So are you saying that the "study" NASA is currently conducting has a preordained result?
My vote is that a shutdown makes the most sense, but the NASA system is wired for Delta II. As a wild card, keep in mind KP is back to help from the AF/NRO side.
-
No, not pre ordained. The manifest doesn't support it. 2 per year on 2 launch sites won't be cost effective
-
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/nro062207.xml&headline=NRO%20Shortfall%20May%20Delay%20ULA%20Missions
"The U.S. Air Force also is expected to order a review of the failure, which one former military intelligence officer with knowledge of the program called "a major blow, major disappointment."
-
Dexter,
You have made it quite clear that you were against ULA forming in the first place. ULA exists. Now that it exists, what would you propose to do?
Continuing agruing about what was and what has become to be is a rather pointless, repetitive, and exhausting exercise. Perhaps you should propose your idea for the future based on the current state of the business.
Note, I consider your Posted 22/6/2007 2:01 AM (#154176 - in reply to #154155) to be arguements that had validity prior to the formation. I'm asking what you propose now that ULA is here.
-
Antares - 22/6/2007 8:08 AM
If I were ULA-Atlas, I'd be salivating at the chance to learn another rocket, especially my main competitor. At this point, the sooner Delta moves, the sooner the Atlas folks can start learning it. In actuality, many of the Delta IV designers left the company before ULA was just a gleam in Chicago's eye.
In my opinion, this is the most promising aspect of ULA's formation. This education and sharing of data is already happening. This cross education will result in improvements to both Delta and Atlas and any future vehicles.
-
MySDCUserID - 22/6/2007 7:21 PM
Dexter,
You have made it quite clear that you were against ULA forming in the first place. ULA exists. Now that it exists, what would you propose to do?
Continuing agruing about what was and what has become to be is a rather pointless, repetitive, and exhausting exercise. Perhaps you should propose your idea for the future based on the current state of the business.
Note, I consider your Posted 22/6/2007 2:01 AM (#154176 - in reply to #154155) to be arguements that had validity prior to the formation. I'm asking what you propose now that ULA is here.
Would you be willing to consider that the USAF, NRO, DOD tell ULA as their sponsors to stop the expertise drain and allow Delta engineers in Huntington Beach to support Delta without having to relocate to Denver? Atlas manufacturing expertise remain in Denver??? (There is still that $80M package from the state of Alabama) I don't believe any of this has gotten to the point of no return.
But if there is some "saving face" situation which prevents executives from reassessing a bad plan then let SpaceX take over the vacated Delta 2 market so that they can further develop the expertise to compete in the EELV market (I use the term market loosely here).
As for my continued arguing, I am just pointing out issues that are ocurring now that I predicted would happen prior to the formation.
Perhaps ULA should be left alone to serve as an example to the DOD and FTC about the dangers of creating such a scheme.
-
Dexter - 22/6/2007 5:54 PM
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/nro062207.xml&headline=NRO%20Shortfall%20May%20Delay%20ULA%20Missions
"The U.S. Air Force also is expected to order a review of the failure, which one former military intelligence officer with knowledge of the program called "a major blow, major disappointment."
It's too bad AvWeek went to a "former military intelligence officer", who probably has no direct knowledge of this situation, to get this quote. As someone with nothing to lose, you think he could have explained himself.
By the way, there is a separate thread to discuss the NRO L-30 launch - which is where the quoted post really belongs.
-
WHAP - 22/6/2007 11:18 PM
Dexter - 22/6/2007 5:54 PM
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/nro062207.xml&headline=NRO%20Shortfall%20May%20Delay%20ULA%20Missions
"The U.S. Air Force also is expected to order a review of the failure, which one former military intelligence officer with knowledge of the program called "a major blow, major disappointment."
It's too bad AvWeek went to a "former military intelligence officer", who probably has no direct knowledge of this situation, to get this quote. As someone with nothing to lose, you think he could have explained himself.
By the way, there is a separate thread to discuss the NRO L-30 launch - which is where the quoted post really belongs.
Someone with nothing to loose might also be more honest and not be obligated to tow the company line.
I chose to put the quote here because it deals with the repercussions of the formation of ULA which was championed by the DOD. If you you would like to post it on the other thread, be my guest.
-
A failure (whenever it happens) is always a "major disappointment" to all the folks who were involved in preparing it. That's no surprise to anyone here, is it?
From a corporate perspective, the Atlas team was flying pretty high on the fact that the Atlas had not had a failure in 70+ missions. Even though failures are inevitable in this business, to have one now is going to take a lot of wind out of their sails. "A major blow" is not an inaccurately description in this context.
There will be an investigation because *all* failures have investigations. The investigations are to locate the cause and make damn sure it never happens again. That much is just routine procedure for any launcher problem, small or large.
The fact that this particular failure involved a highly classified national asset means it'll probably be a fairly big (though pretty secret) investigation. That's just the nature of this circumstance. It is what should be expected in the event of any such failure.
It's certainly a news worthy story, but it isn't that big of a deal. Nobody died, the payload still reached a suitable orbit to continue its work, so nothing much was actually lost.
The investigation will find out what went wrong, then the Atlas team will fix the problem and carry on. Best of luck to 'em and I hope this helps to ensure it is at least another 70+ missions before the next significant problem.
Ross.
-
Dexter - 22/6/2007 11:59 PM
As for my continued arguing, I am just pointing out issues that are ocurring now that I predicted would happen prior to the formation.
You are diluting yourself if you think you have "predicted" the recent issues.
1. They are not due to the formation of ULA.
2. You didn't predict anything close
-
Dexter - 23/6/2007 12:52 AM
WHAP - 22/6/2007 11:18 PM
Dexter - 22/6/2007 5:54 PM
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/nro062207.xml&headline=NRO%20Shortfall%20May%20Delay%20ULA%20Missions
"The U.S. Air Force also is expected to order a review of the failure, which one former military intelligence officer with knowledge of the program called "a major blow, major disappointment."
It's too bad AvWeek went to a "former military intelligence officer", who probably has no direct knowledge of this situation, to get this quote. As someone with nothing to lose, you think he could have explained himself.
By the way, there is a separate thread to discuss the NRO L-30 launch - which is where the quoted post really belongs.
Someone with nothing to loose might also be more honest and not be obligated to tow the company line.
I chose to put the quote here because it deals with the repercussions of the formation of ULA which was championed by the DOD. If you you would like to post it on the other thread, be my guest.
You can always find a quote that favors your point of view. It still doesn't mean it is valid. Hell, I could even say something and get it printed.
Anyways, the quote DOES NOT "deals with the repercussions of the formation of ULA". It only deals with one mission
-
Jim - 22/6/2007 5:45 PM
No, not pre ordained. The manifest doesn't support it. 2 per year on 2 launch sites won't be cost effective
I know the writing is on the wall for Delta 2, etc., but I still have to say this, one last time for the record.
Is is a mistake to terminate the world's most successful, versatile space launch vehicle - especially before the upscale EELV "replacements" have proven themselves. To date, neither EELV has shown an ability to meet the Delta 2 standard of reliability.
It is also a mistake to eliminate a medium payload launcher that should, and I believe still could, cost less that its larger EELV replacements. It is almost like the mid 1980s, when NASA shut Delta down to force its payloads onto Shuttle. It didn't work then. Why should it now?
- Ed Kyle
-
edkyle99 - 23/6/2007 9:57 AM
It is also a mistake to eliminate a medium payload launcher that should, and I believe still could, cost less that its larger EELV replacements. It is almost like the mid 1980s, when NASA shut Delta down to force its payloads onto Shuttle. It didn't work then. Why should it now?
- Ed Kyle
because Delta II has been subsidized since 1989 by GPS. There never was really any "low" prices. The USAF bought vehicles (hardware) and then paid separately to launch them. The separation of launch ops from vehicle procurement kept the launch bases manned and facilities maintain (by a separate contractor) for a 60 day GPS call up. NASA and commercial customers were able to take advantage of this since MDC/Boeing was able to provide lower prices for the "additional" missions. In the end, the cost of each launch is the same, just NASA will have to pay all of it. vs splitting with the USAF
It can't cost less, it more manpower intensive.
-
Jim - 23/6/2007 10:22 AM
It can't cost less, it more manpower intensive.
Remember ESAS? Total Cost Accounting can come up with surprising results.
NASA has been responsible for all West Coast launch base costs for several years.
-
VAFB launches still were subsidized by CCAFS facilities. Anyways, NASA VAFB costs were not paid by the user (spacecraft), they were funded separately
-
Jim - 23/6/2007 8:05 AM
Dexter - 23/6/2007 12:52 AM
WHAP - 22/6/2007 11:18 PM
Dexter - 22/6/2007 5:54 PM
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/nro062207.xml&headline=NRO%20Shortfall%20May%20Delay%20ULA%20Missions
"The U.S. Air Force also is expected to order a review of the failure, which one former military intelligence officer with knowledge of the program called "a major blow, major disappointment."
It's too bad AvWeek went to a "former military intelligence officer", who probably has no direct knowledge of this situation, to get this quote. As someone with nothing to lose, you think he could have explained himself.
By the way, there is a separate thread to discuss the NRO L-30 launch - which is where the quoted post really belongs.
Someone with nothing to loose might also be more honest and not be obligated to tow the company line.
I chose to put the quote here because it deals with the repercussions of the formation of ULA which was championed by the DOD. If you you would like to post it on the other thread, be my guest.
You can always find a quote that favors your point of view. It still doesn't mean it is valid. Hell, I could even say something and get it printed.
Anyways, the quote DOES NOT "deals with the repercussions of the formation of ULA". It only deals with one mission
It's also easy to discredit quotes that don't fit with your viewpoint.
If I recall correctly, Aviation Week is also the publication that stated that the Titan failures from the mid 1990s was due to loss of key technical personell.
ULA now has requisitions for 741 employees.
Jim, what is going on there? Why so many new people needed in a company that needs to cut jobs to show a savings? Maybe there is a loss of key technical personell??
-
Jim - 23/6/2007 8:03 AM
Dexter - 22/6/2007 11:59 PM
As for my continued arguing, I am just pointing out issues that are ocurring now that I predicted would happen prior to the formation.
You are diluting yourself if you think you have "predicted" the recent issues.
1. They are not due to the formation of ULA.
2. You didn't predict anything close
I have been drinking a lot of water lately ;)
Deluding is the word you are looking for.
-
Dexter - 23/6/2007 8:11 PM
If I recall correctly, Aviation Week is also the publication that stated that the Titan failures from the mid 1990s was due to loss of key technical personell.
which is wrong.
Frayed electricals were caused by the same people who installed the same ones for all the other vehicles
Bad software input wasn't done by a newbie
IUS failure was by another contractor
SRM failure was by another contracto
-
Dexter - 23/6/2007 8:11 PM
Maybe there is a loss of key technical personell??
No, just a loss of some people.
Give it a rest. It is over and done with
-
Jim - 23/6/2007 9:22 AM
It can't cost less, it more manpower intensive.
According to another thread, each bare-bones EELV-Medium mission is costing about $200 million, including fixed costs. You are saying that Delta II costs $200 million per flight?
- Ed Kyle
-
Dexter - 23/6/2007 6:11 PM
Jim - 23/6/2007 8:05 AM
Dexter - 23/6/2007 12:52 AM
WHAP - 22/6/2007 11:18 PM
Dexter - 22/6/2007 5:54 PM
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/nro062207.xml&headline=NRO%20Shortfall%20May%20Delay%20ULA%20Missions
"The U.S. Air Force also is expected to order a review of the failure, which one former military intelligence officer with knowledge of the program called "a major blow, major disappointment."
It's too bad AvWeek went to a "former military intelligence officer", who probably has no direct knowledge of this situation, to get this quote. As someone with nothing to lose, you think he could have explained himself.
By the way, there is a separate thread to discuss the NRO L-30 launch - which is where the quoted post really belongs.
Someone with nothing to loose might also be more honest and not be obligated to tow the company line.
I chose to put the quote here because it deals with the repercussions of the formation of ULA which was championed by the DOD. If you you would like to post it on the other thread, be my guest.
You can always find a quote that favors your point of view. It still doesn't mean it is valid. Hell, I could even say something and get it printed.
Anyways, the quote DOES NOT "deals with the repercussions of the formation of ULA". It only deals with one mission
It's also easy to discredit quotes that don't fit with your viewpoint.
If I recall correctly, Aviation Week is also the publication that stated that the Titan failures from the mid 1990s was due to loss of key technical personell.
ULA now has requisitions for 741 employees.
Jim, what is going on there? Why so many new people needed in a company that needs to cut jobs to show a savings? Maybe there is a loss of key technical personell??
What was the point of posting that quote from AvWeek? You criticize us when we discredit quotes that don't fit with our viewpoints, but that quote, from "Someone with nothing to loose" (I think you meant "lose"), who "might also be more honest" didn't really say anything. I stand by my original statement - someone with nothing to lose would have explained what he meant, not made a vague statment that could have applied to anything from the spacecraft designers, to the Atlas employees, to the NRO. It appears that you posted that quote to criticze or rebut the official releases from the NRO and Air Force that state that the problem may not be as big a deal as some talking head would like you to believe. As you said, it's easy to discredit quotes that don't fit your viewpoint.
With respect to your statement "Maybe there is a loss of key technical personell??" (I think you meant "personnel"), it should be expected that when the average acceptance rate of HB employees is 40-something percent, there are going to be key technical personnel who decide not to move. You make it seem like this big secret that you've uncovered, but it's not. It is going to be a challenge for ULA, but it wasn't unexpected by anyone.
What I want to know is why does ULA need so many financial analysts and actuaries?
-
edkyle99 - 23/6/2007 12:11 AM
Jim - 23/6/2007 9:22 AM
It can't cost less, it more manpower intensive.
According to another thread, each bare-bones EELV-Medium mission is costing about $200 million, including fixed costs. You are saying that Delta II costs $200 million per flight?
- Ed Kyle
no, and neither does a medium EELV. MSL launch service costs were under 200 million. (there is a thread on that)
-
WHAP - 23/6/2007 11:36 PM
What was the point of posting that quote from AvWeek? You criticize us when we discredit quotes that don't fit with our viewpoints, but that quote, from "Someone with nothing to loose" (I think you meant "lose"), who "might also be more honest" didn't really say anything. I stand by my original statement - someone with nothing to lose would have explained what he meant, not made a vague statment that could have applied to anything from the spacecraft designers, to the Atlas employees, to the NRO. It appears that you posted that quote to criticze or rebut the official releases from the NRO and Air Force that state that the problem may not be as big a deal as some talking head would like you to believe. As you said, it's easy to discredit quotes that don't fit your viewpoint.
You make a very good point here. The difference is that I did not personally rebut the official NRO press releases, I quoted a publication that many would say is reputable.
Based on the RD-180 situation, there is nothing that I believe in the official press releases. By their very nature, they are not objective. It's interesting how the ULA web page makes no mention of the issue with the NRO mission - http://www.ulalaunch.com/ . They do try to bury it by showing Deltas being stacked and place this most recent launch at the bottom which is out of norm from previous launches.
I have issues when Jim refutes something as he is prone to stating his opinion as fact. I would suggest you re-read this entire thread with particular attention to his statement that Seattle is the suicide capital of the world. When challenged to offer proof, he posted something on Tacoma. When other posters in this board post information form astronautix.com or wikipedia, he quickly refutes the source but not the content and makes no attempt to specifically state what was wrong with the content.
WHAP - 23/6/2007 11:36 PM
With respect to your statement "Maybe there is a loss of key technical personell??" (I think you meant "personnel"), it should be expected that when the average acceptance rate of HB employees is 40-something percent, there are going to be key technical personnel who decide not to move. You make it seem like this big secret that you've uncovered, but it's not. It is going to be a challenge for ULA, but it wasn't unexpected by anyone.
The loss of key people was a concern for Kenneth Krieg when he wrote to the FTC. http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0510165/0510165dodletterkriegtomajoras.pdf
In order to ensure the Department achieves the national security benefits, the companies need to retain their critical capabilities through the transition and relocation of key employees. While a significant number of the jobs will relocate to their proposed locations of Denver, Colorado and Decatur, Alabama. There will be some employees who will choose not to move. We are concerned that these employees remain with the launch vehicle operations to provide the quality, reliability, innovation, and "best of breed" benefits to the Department. It is our understanding that the companies will provide retention incentives for key and critical employees to relocate.
What kind of retention incentives were provided? Did all the key and critical employees relocate? Where the incentives adequate?
Is the US ensuring the national security benefits?
When HB employees suggest that the 40% is based on a denominator that did not include people who left between ULA announcement and ULA formation, I see that as spinning the number.
And recently, other posters are suggesting that many employees at Decatur are leaving for other jobs in Huntsville for Constellation and missile defense work, 30 miles up the road. Do you see an impact to manufacturing capability? Why would you consolidate manufacturing there? Do State of Alabama incentives trump national security requirements? Look at the number of recent posting for Trinity, Alabama (I assume this is Decatur).
WHAP - 23/6/2007 11:36 PM
What I want to know is why does ULA need so many financial analysts and actuaries?
You make an excellent point here which I completely agree with!
-
Jim - 24/6/2007 9:52 AM
edkyle99 - 23/6/2007 12:11 AM
Jim - 23/6/2007 9:22 AM
It can't cost less, it more manpower intensive.
According to another thread, each bare-bones EELV-Medium mission is costing about $200 million, including fixed costs. You are saying that Delta II costs $200 million per flight?
- Ed Kyle
no, and neither does a medium EELV. MSL launch service costs were under 200 million. (there is a thread on that)
O.K.. $194.7 million.
http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/NASA_Awards_Mars_Science_Lab_Launch_Contract.html
Still more than Delta II.
- Ed Kyle
-
I've been lurking for a long time and have seen fit to hold my tongue, but this is getting out of hand. I'm certain there are few individuals who will won't believe a word I say... But then there are people who believe we didn't land on the moon.
First off let me say the 40% was surprisingly high number for everyone in Delta, and no it wasn't all chiefs and no indians as some have suggested. The 1-2 level management acceptance rate was actually lower than the workerbees. This acounts for ~600 job openings, as said repeatedly said in the Denver press. We have been allowed to replace each person leaving, and savings will not be by workforce reductions. Savings are to realized by a reduction in facilities/overhead, and to eliminate a lot of double work. Delta and Atlas often had to solve the same problem, and came up with the same solution at twice the cost.
As for the amount of financial people... You do know that any company needs financial people (accoutants, contract lawyers, etc) if they expect to get paid by the government? If you would have bothered to read the FTC order it said ULA must have a completely seperate systems. From physical seperation, to IT, to financial systems... Atlas/Delta prior to the JV used LockMart/Boeing systems and people, who were badged the bigger company not the programs. So Atlas/Delta are "renting" LockMart/Boeing systems and people until a new organization can be stood up on is own.
Finally if anyone would have bothered to read into the Decatur situation beyond ULA they would have noticed what's really happening. The Decatur, and Launch Site, people are leaving due to big incenives being offered by companies working on various NASA programs. There are a lot of companies ramping up to support Orion & Ares, and are offering big incentive packages to those with DeltaIV experience. This would happen ULA or no ULA... And is regular attrition that any organization faces.
-
Dexter - 24/6/2007 12:19 PM
When other posters in this board post information form astronautix.com or wikipedia, he quickly refutes the source
Because they are not independently validated. Both have many errors.
Also
Seattle or Tacoma? it IS the same place, the same metropolitan area.
-
edkyle99 - 24/6/2007 12:57 PM
O.K.. $194.7 million.
http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/NASA_Awards_Mars_Science_Lab_Launch_Contract.html
Still more than Delta II.
- Ed Kyle
That is for a launch service and includes other costs in addition to the launch vehicle.
As more being more than a Delta II, of course, it is not a medium EELV
-
Jim - 24/6/2007 10:35 AM
Seattle or Tacoma? it IS the same place, the same metropolitan area.
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen you write. I can't believe you are still standing by it.
-
Jim - 24/6/2007 12:37 PM
edkyle99 - 24/6/2007 12:57 PM
O.K.. $194.7 million.
http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/NASA_Awards_Mars_Science_Lab_Launch_Contract.html
Still more than Delta II.
- Ed Kyle
That is for a launch service and includes other costs in addition to the launch vehicle.
As more being more than a Delta II, of course, it is not a medium EELV
As a taxpayer, I don't care about how much each launch costs NASA, or the Air Force, or how much goes to which contractor or through which contracting medium. I only care how much it costs my government in total. As best I can tell, the MSL mission is costing the government customer $194.7 million to launch.
Of course Delta II costs less to launch than an EELV Medium. That is my point. When Delta II is gone, there won't be a lower-cost option for the current Delta II-class payloads, many of which are civil science payloads. You noted that NASA is only projecting two such payloads annually in the future, versus four now. Perhaps the doubling of the launch cost required to fly on the bigger, more expensive EELV is the reason!
This, as I said earlier, is a mistake. Ending Delta II is a stupid strategic blunder being made by a combination of U.S. government entities.
- Ed Kyle
-
Antares - 21/6/2007 11:51 PM
Bombay, I'll put the question to you that I put to Dexter: what feasible alternate state would you rather see? Without ULA, one of these rockets would have left the business. If the nation is willing to put all of its launch eggs in one basket and have even fewer cost controls, that's a viable solution. But no one in SMC, SpaceCom or DoD in their right mind would do that.
Let's not forget, the initial intent of EELV was winner take all! The highlighted is nothing more than a "slogan" that came about after the fact to help justify the monopoly formation.
Both Boeing and Lockheed generate $35B or so/yr in gov't related gross revenue. The LV contribution to that was maybe $1B/yr. Boeing and/or Lockheed were in no position to strong-arm the AF/gov't by threateneing to pull out of the LV business. The AF/gov't could just as easily came back with a threat to block future F-22 funding, F-35 STOVL, gov't satellite contracts, future missile defense shield contracting, etc...., which is where the real money lies or will lay with these companies.
Considering that the ULA was approved and is here to stay, at a minimum I make the following suggestions:
The ULA is and will be heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars to support it's "startup efforts". Why shouldn't SpaceX as an example, receive the same gov't subsidies/financial help for their startup efforts? Wouldn't that in fact support competition, which by rule would increase innovation, enhance quality, and reduce costs?
Why is it the ULA is getting upfront gov't money to begin with? If it's such a money saver as the ULA is suggesting, why don't they invest in consolidation on their own and not have to worry about 2-1 payback as the Denver Post article alluded to? It's because there will be no real savings!
-
Spacex does not equate to ULA. ULA is not a startup by any means.
-
edkyle99 - 24/6/2007 10:08 PM
As a taxpayer, I don't care about how much each launch costs NASA, or the Air Force, or how much goes to which contractor or through which contracting medium. I only care how much it costs my government in total. As best I can tell, the MSL mission is costing the government customer $194.7 million to launch.
Of course Delta II costs less to launch than an EELV Medium. That is my point. When Delta II is gone, there won't be a lower-cost option for the current Delta II-class payloads, many of which are civil science payloads. You noted that NASA is only projecting two such payloads annually in the future, versus four now. Perhaps the doubling of the launch cost required to fly on the bigger, more expensive EELV is the reason!
This, as I said earlier, is a mistake. Ending Delta II is a stupid strategic blunder being made by a combination of U.S. government entities.
- Ed Kyle
No, Delta II is not cheaper than EELV. That was my point, the cost to the gov't was more for a Delta II. NASA and commercial companies were subsidized by the USAF GPS launches. Also, the same costs that are in the MSL numbers need to be added to Delta II prices. Any Delta II costs that NASA and Boeing published never took into account the USAF subsidy, so they were never total cost to the gov't. The MER missions would have never been launched if it weren't for the USAF, NASA could have never funded two pads and two launch team. MER had the benefit of the requirement to launch a GPS on a 60 day callup
Actually, NASA requirements are only 1 per year now and it is not due launch costs. VSE is the reason
You can't see the big picture. even if it were cheaper, there isn't enough flights to justify it
-
Jim - 25/6/2007 6:46 AM
No, Delta II is not cheaper than EELV. That was my point, the cost to the gov't was more for a Delta II. NASA and commercial companies were subsidized by the USAF GPS launches. Also, the same costs that are in the MSL numbers need to be added to Delta II prices. Any Delta II costs that NASA and Boeing published never took into account the USAF subsidy, so they were never total cost to the gov't. The MER missions would have never been launched if it weren't for the USAF, NASA could have never funded two pads and two launch team. MER had the benefit of the requirement to launch a GPS on a 60 day callup
Actually, NASA requirements are only 1 per year now and it is not due launch costs. VSE is the reason
You can't see the big picture. even if it were cheaper, there isn't enough flights to justify it
I think Delta II would continue to be cheaper, even from the "big picture" perspective.
When I look at old budgets, I see that each Delta II cost about $64 million
in 2006 dollars ($52 million in 1998 dollars) to procure. See, for example, Pg 161 of this document.
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070223-246.pdf
I also see relatively low sustaining engineering costs. For example, this document shows total Delta II launch operations costs amounting to $172 million in 1999 ($207 million in 2006 dollars).
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2001/AirForce/0305119F.pdf
If you look at similar budget information for EELV, you'll see that each EELV costs at least twice as much, on average, as a Delta II to procure. You'll also see that the launch operations and other costs are about twice as much for EELV.
GPS has accounted for less than half of Delta II launches in recent years. If non-GPS payloads were not forced onto EELVs by the Air Force, there would naturally be at least 2-4 Delta II launches per year (NASA, NRO, and foreign customers). These could be accommodated by one pad per coast, which would cut operations costs from current levels.
There are plenty of launch vehicle programs that run at 2-4 launches per year. Delta IV and Atlas V, for example.
- Ed Kyle
-
edkyle99 - 25/6/2007 10:37 AM
There are plenty of launch vehicle programs that run at 2-4 launches per year. Delta IV and Atlas V, for example.
and with NASA and GPS flying on them, it will increase the flight rate reducing the per unit cost, saving the gov't more money
Delta II 3 stage missions put unusual contraints on spacecraft (spinning at 70 rpm), which complicates the spacecraft design, increasing costs.
-
pad rat - 25/6/2007 1:18 PM
"Someone with nothing to loose might also be more honest and not be obligated to tow the company line."
"Toe" is the word you are looking for.
Touche. I always thought it was "tow". I stand corrected.
-
TrueGrit - 24/6/2007 12:02 PM
First off let me say the 40% was surprisingly high number for everyone in Delta, and no it wasn't all chiefs and no indians as some have suggested. The 1-2 level management acceptance rate was actually lower than the workerbees. This acounts for ~600 job openings, as said repeatedly said in the Denver press. We have been allowed to replace each person leaving, and savings will not be by workforce reductions. Savings are to realized by a reduction in facilities/overhead, and to eliminate a lot of double work. Delta and Atlas often had to solve the same problem, and came up with the same solution at twice the cost.
What is the logical outcome of of eliminating double work? You would be staffed at twice the level required so you could get rid of half your staff in those areas.
TrueGrit - 24/6/2007 12:02 PM
Finally if anyone would have bothered to read into the Decatur situation beyond ULA they would have noticed what's really happening. The Decatur, and Launch Site, people are leaving due to big incenives being offered by companies working on various NASA programs. There are a lot of companies ramping up to support Orion & Ares, and are offering big incentive packages to those with DeltaIV experience. This would happen ULA or no ULA... And is regular attrition that any organization faces.
This may not be a ULA problem now but what happens when the Atlas production is brought to a facility that is facing this attrition described above?
-
Dexter - 25/6/2007 9:29 PM
This may not be a ULA problem now but what happens when the Atlas production is brought to a facility that is facing this attrition described above?
No big issue. wages increase due to market forces.
Again, looking at a small, insignificant issue (ULA)
Dexter, do you have more at stake than being just a taxpayer? If not, there are bigger fish to fry in the DOD.
ULA, it is here to stay. Embrace it.
-
-
Jim - 25/6/2007 9:10 PM
Dexter - 25/6/2007 9:29 PM
This may not be a ULA problem now but what happens when the Atlas production is brought to a facility that is facing this attrition described above?
No big issue. wages increase due to market forces.
Again, looking at a small, insignificant issue (ULA)
I believe the Denver represented workforce is Lockheed, not ULA. They likely won't be going to Decatur to support Atlas as they hook up with other Lockheed programs in Denver.
The Atlas engineering support group will likely attempt to fill the numerous vacant engineering positions in Denver, hence, they won't be going to Decatur.
A significant number of experienced Delta test engineers, production engineers, mechanics, etc., are leaving the Delta program as previously stated.
This means that Decatur production will have (or has) a large shortfall of experienced Delta production people and will have an especially large shortfall of experienced Atlas production people.
This is not a small, insignficant issue.
-
As I said you guys wouldn't ever believe the real story... Guess it's more fun to dream up conspiracy theories about how this or that will fail. How a line replacement decision made 2 yrs ago is the fault of ULA.
The risk to moving production facilities is being overblown... Would this be the same Decatur facility that started from nothing less than a decade ago? One which went from an empty field to rolling out rockets in 4 yrs. Delta II has moved from Huntington Beach to Pueblo to Decatur and you can't tell me of a single Delta II failure in that time due to this. We’ve already done this twice in the last decade. Is it difficult? Yes, but to say ULA is doomed to failure is a little insulting... There’s a reason why NASA and USAF consider Decatur is a national asset.
As for the personal retention issue... Once again you guys are blowing things far out of proportion. Quite simply there is a plus a minus for being near Marshall and Redstone. And while another difficulty is far from unusual. Anyone in this business knows that there is a set of people who move from one hot job to another. As someone with inside knowledge let me say that everyone who left has been filled by people moving up and that left openings at the bottom for new blood. I simply see this as a normal course of business that people leave and you have to replace them, and in the course of doing that you get some new ideas and reward those who excel.
-
May I ask how intact the Delta engineering was during the the move from HB to Pueblo to Decatur?
The ULA plan depletes the Delta engineering pool with relocation to Denver and at the same time impacts the manufacturing. Can you provide a similar scenario where this occured in the past?
And if as Jim suggested, market forces just raise the wages, then how will this affect the promised $100-150M savings per year which now don't occur until 2011?
-
Dexter - 26/6/2007 7:49 AM
The ULA plan depletes the Delta engineering pool with relocation to Denver and at the same time impacts the manufacturing. Can you provide a similar scenario where this occured in the past?
The move of the Atlas program to Denver. I think that event was worse, since manufacturing did move at the same time. In the current situation, manufacturing probably won't move for a year or two, giving a little time for things to stabilize in the engineering area before affecting the production facilities.
-
Your forgeting that it's two seperate programs... Each with their own near term problems. Remember it is Atlas that is moving manufacturing and they are retaining their engineering base. Delta is the reverse... losing engineering but retaining manufacturing. Each of those cases taken as a seperate event that has plenty of experience to draw on.
As for you whining about delayed savings... What dream world are you in that a company doesn't lose money in the middle of restructuring? ULA is picking up the bill to move people to Denver, while at the same time paying severence to those not moving. These are called "on time restructing costs" to those that bother to read financial statements. For example Ford lost $12 bil last year right? Well in truth the day to day operating loss was $2 bil and they spent $10 bil in restructuring costs. Spend a moment to look at the details in context...
-
This thread needs to be killed. It's been retread more than a recalled Chinese tire.
-
Antares - 26/6/2007 1:00 PM
This thread needs to be killed. It's been retread more than a recalled Chinese tire.
This thread has evolved from the rumor of ULA formation to arguing whether that formation is a right move or not. But the reality is that ULA has already happened. Those who were directly affected have voted with their feet one way or the other. Time is too early to tell what is the fate of Delta and/or its engineers of those who will move to Denver.
One thing is for sure, the ULA will continue even if the Air Force has to put more money and takes more time to do things. The Air Force has no choice, you've bought it and now you will pay to keep it going. The government does not want you to be good, efficiency or brilliant. It moves at a pace that requires everyone to be medicore, and it's happiest when everyone move along at that pace.
In light of Air Force "acquiring" the ULA, and NASA went "sole-source" with its in-house design of Ares 1, this spells the end of competitive procurement in the U.S. government launch services market. Correspondingly, this will most likely drastically slow down the R&D fundings related to launch vehicles, e.g., innovativations in rocket engine, materials and manufacturing technologies, etc. Both agencies will only feed their own beasts instead. The last innovation was done during the last EELV procurement and we will unlikely see that in the next 10~ 15 years, or until the next retired general to head up another "commission" to study what went wrong with its space-access capabilities, whichever comes first.
-
There are some DoD / NASA funding efforts with smaller launchers though.
-
TrueGrit - 26/6/2007 1:08 PM
As for you whining about delayed savings... What dream world are you in that a company doesn't lose money in the middle of restructuring? ULA is picking up the bill to move people to Denver, while at the same time paying severence to those not moving. These are called "on time restructing costs" to those that bother to read financial statements. For example Ford lost $12 bil last year right? Well in truth the day to day operating loss was $2 bil and they spent $10 bil in restructuring costs. Spend a moment to look at the details in context...
Just to be clear - I'm not the one whining about "delayed" savings. That's to be expected. I had never seen a public announcement of when the savings would be realized until the Denver Post article.
You had mentioned earlier that the level 1-2 mgt acceptance rate was lower than that of the worker bees. Although my information may have been dated, I found nothing that substantiated that - I doubt the numbers would have changed enough after they were printed to make a significant impact.
If you don't believe that there are going to be some cost savings from personnel reductions, you're going to be surprised. It's going to happen - maybe not right away, but in two years the overall workforce is not going to be as large as the separate Delta and Atlas programs were before ULA. Except for all those extra finance people. :)
Of course, you are correct that ULA does need those extra people to run the business side as an independent company. My problem is that when it comes time for reductions, the overhead organizations will probably come out better than the engineering world - it's happened that way before.
-
WHAP - 26/6/2007 9:34 AM
Dexter - 26/6/2007 7:49 AM
The ULA plan depletes the Delta engineering pool with relocation to Denver and at the same time impacts the manufacturing. Can you provide a similar scenario where this occured in the past?
The move of the Atlas program to Denver. I think that event was worse, since manufacturing did move at the same time. In the current situation, manufacturing probably won't move for a year or two, giving a little time for things to stabilize in the engineering area before affecting the production facilities.
Let me point out a few differences between the SD transition to Denver and the present situation. At the risk of recycling, the job market in 1994 in San Diego was very weak and many people made the transition like myself because there were no other opportunities. There were also Titan engineers available who came over to Atlas. Now, Constellation, NMD and the retiring baby-boomers make the opportunity picture for a job seeker better than in 1994. In 1994, we did not transition all manufacturing, just final assembly. The Harlingen and San Diego factories remained intact. In 1994, there was no requirement for stand-alone system so we transitioned the GD systems or adopted existing Martin systems. Somebody had the expertise in those systems. Now - we are implementing SAP which nobody in the company has used before and it represents a completely different way of doing business.
-
Propforce - 26/6/2007 5:18 PM
The last innovation was done during the last EELV procurement...
Really? The only innovation I can think of was designing the RS-68 to cost, and that was done with the full support of the USAF. Were there others?
-
Gov't Seagull - 29/6/2007 8:17 PM
Propforce - 26/6/2007 5:18 PM
The last innovation was done during the last EELV procurement...
Really? The only innovation I can think of was designing the RS-68 to cost, and that was done with the full support of the USAF. Were there others?
... and that was done during the EELV development (EMD) phase ! :laugh:
That's what I meant by EELV "procurment", sorry if you misunderstood.
Other innovations during during that period (on Delta IV that I know of) are:
Incorporation of Friction Stir Welding (FSW) on large propellant tanks. Delta IV did not invent the FSW process but I believe they were the first to incorporated it into tank manufacturing for the U.S. launch vehciles.
Incorporation of the horizontal integration of launch vehicles. Again, Delta did not invent the process but they incorporated it on a U.S. launch vehicle assembly line. BTW, you may have to visit the Decautor factory to appreciate this, but they took a lot of "lessons learned" from the Boeing aircraft assembly and applied them to launch vehicles, making the whole process more efficient and less time consuming.
The use of extentible nozzle on RL-10. This really should be credited back to Delta III, but since the D-III never flew successfully but Delta IV continued to incorporate the B-2 engine and made changes to "upgrade" it. It deserves an honorable mention.
The "hung stage" design on the 2nd stage. Again, this traces back to Delta III but D-IV continues this which was novel for U.S. launch vehicles. (Actually there were some interesting discussions as to whether we, the Delta, invented this or did MHI (japanese) invented first for the H-2 vehicle, but that's another discussion).
Was the RS-68 really designed to cost? What was the final unit production cost of RS-68 compared to its initially projected cost during the CAIV process? :laugh:
-
Gus - 29/6/2007 8:47 AM
WHAP - 26/6/2007 9:34 AM
Dexter - 26/6/2007 7:49 AM
The ULA plan depletes the Delta engineering pool with relocation to Denver and at the same time impacts the manufacturing. Can you provide a similar scenario where this occured in the past?
The move of the Atlas program to Denver. I think that event was worse, since manufacturing did move at the same time. In the current situation, manufacturing probably won't move for a year or two, giving a little time for things to stabilize in the engineering area before affecting the production facilities.
Let me point out a few differences between the SD transition to Denver and the present situation. At the risk of recycling, the job market in 1994 in San Diego was very weak and many people made the transition like myself because there were no other opportunities. There were also Titan engineers available who came over to Atlas. Now, Constellation, NMD and the retiring baby-boomers make the opportunity picture for a job seeker better than in 1994.
So Gus....
If the job market look better back in 1994, i.e., if the Delta III were hiring the GD talents sooner.... you would've stay in California?
I just had this conversation with a Delta IV employee and I've learned something may be you can validate or put it out?
The offices and buildings that ULA planned to house Delta IV employees are old, dark, and smelly... is that true?
This person was actually happy to move to Denver becuase she was originally from Pueblo (with Delta II). She had to move to Decatur for 9 months with the program and she hated the place (being out in the country with cow manure smell along the way into work and the only place for lunch was the subway sandwich shop housed inside the factory and all...)
But you know what's the most scary of all?
Based on what she saw, she's predicting that the ULA will eventually move EVERYONE to Decatur.
What do you think?
-
Yes the Waterton Canyon facilities are dated... But I can't see how that will have any bearing on the long term future of ULA in Denver. And it should be noted that we moving exactly where Lockheed (Atlas and others) where... To tell the truth those in Huntington Beach were a little spoiled. My experieince from other companies (in and out of aerospace) was that the HB facilities were at the top. Everyone in HB was in new cubes, while most every other company I know doesn't invest in offices until they are about to falldown around everyones ears. The quality of cubicles have nothing to do with the choice to move... The cubes weren't upgraded because they barly have enough time to get the move done as it satnds without extra scope. Those who've been the Denver facility will quickly realize the facility isn't halfway ready for the influx of Delta people. But then conspiracy theroies start with a conclusion and only pick the facts that support them (ignoring the contrary facts).
And if you think the LA job market is good for aerospace engineers you really have no clue... Rocketdyne, SpaceX, and Raytheon are hiring... Or should I say were until the NASA and DoD budgets were slashed. You can go play startup and but heads with Elan... But be prepared to not get a raise of note, have to deal with a terrible commute, and have to work 60hrs per week without overtime. People have left and been forced to comeback from both SpaceX and Raytheon since the merger was annonced (and in the process forfited their moving bonus). For me... I couldn't afford to move into another house in LA without facing a $5000 tax bill at a minimum, and wouldn't handle 1-2 hr one way commute everyday. Unlike some I work to live, with work being a means to enjoy life with my family. I no interest in spending 1/4 of my waking hours on the 405. Engineering companies are leaving LA and nothing is moving in to replace the void. Nissan has moved it's operations to Nashville... C-27 will be built in Jacksonville not Long Beach... USAF tanker will be finished in either Mobil or Witchita... Government budgets are being squeezed to support the troops in harms way, and companies have no interest in investing in LA in the long term. Would you? Considering you can't bring in experieinced workers because the housing situation.
-
Propforce - 30/6/2007 1:38 AM
The "hung stage" design on the 2nd stage. Again, this traces back to Delta III but D-IV continues this which was novel for U.S. launch vehicles. (Actually there were some interesting discussions as to whether we, the Delta, invented this or did MHI (japanese) invented first for the H-2 vehicle, but that's another discussion).
That isn't new or novel. The Delta II and I have had a hung second stage since the Delta first stage went to the constant 8 foot diameter in the early 70's
-
Propforce - 30/6/2007 1:59 AM
This person was actually happy to move to Denver becuase she was originally from Pueblo (with Delta II). She had to move to Decatur for 9 months with the program and she hated the place (being out in the country with cow manure smell along the way into work and the only place for lunch was the subway sandwich shop housed inside the factory and all...)
But you know what's the most scary of all?
Based on what she saw, she's predicting that the ULA will eventually move EVERYONE to Decatur.
What do you think?
Was this at the new facility at Centennial?
-
Propforce - 30/6/2007 1:38 AM
Other innovations during during that period (on Delta IV that I know of) are:
Incorporation of Friction Stir Welding (FSW) on large propellant tanks. Delta IV did not invent the FSW process but I believe they were the first to incorporated it into tank manufacturing for the U.S. launch vehciles.
That one I agree with
Incorporation of the horizontal integration of launch vehicles. Again, Delta did not invent the process but they incorporated it on a U.S. launch vehicle assembly line. BTW, you may have to visit the Decautor factory to appreciate this, but they took a lot of "lessons learned" from the Boeing aircraft assembly and applied them to launch vehicles, making the whole process more efficient and less time consuming.
Maybe. I've been to Decatur and it is a shiny new factory, but have all those efficiency improvements been worth the investment given EELV's glacial production rate?
The use of extentible nozzle on RL-10. This really should be credited back to Delta III, but since the D-III never flew successfully but Delta IV continued to incorporate the B-2 engine and made changes to "upgrade" it. It deserves an honorable mention.
Gotta disagree with this one. The RL10A-4 has a nozzle extension (albeit much smaller), and nozzle extensions flew on IUS long ago. The DIV-specific improvements to the B-2 were rinky-dink, part of a normal variant development.
The "hung stage" design on the 2nd stage. Again, this traces back to Delta III but D-IV continues this which was novel for U.S. launch vehicles. (Actually there were some interesting discussions as to whether we, the Delta, invented this or did MHI (japanese) invented first for the H-2 vehicle, but that's another discussion).
The DIV upper stage is very similar to DIII. In fact, Boeing promoted DIV as low-risk for that very reason.
Was the RS-68 really designed to cost? What was the final unit production cost of RS-68 compared to its initially projected cost during the CAIV process? :laugh:
I don't know the details, but design-to-cost was the general idea. In terms of unit cost, I think RS-68 is as competitive a design as has ever come out of a US program.
-
Propforce - 29/6/2007 10:59 PM
So Gus....
If the job market look better back in 1994, i.e., if the Delta III were hiring the GD talents sooner.... you would've stay in California?
I just had this conversation with a Delta IV employee and I've learned something may be you can validate or put it out?
The offices and buildings that ULA planned to house Delta IV employees are old, dark, and smelly... is that true?
This person was actually happy to move to Denver becuase she was originally from Pueblo (with Delta II). She had to move to Decatur for 9 months with the program and she hated the place (being out in the country with cow manure smell along the way into work and the only place for lunch was the subway sandwich shop housed inside the factory and all...)
But you know what's the most scary of all?
Based on what she saw, she's predicting that the ULA will eventually move EVERYONE to Decatur.
What do you think?
So Gus....
If the job market look better back in 1994, i.e., if the Delta III were hiring the GD talents sooner.... you would've stay in California?
An interesting “what if”; probably, a move to LA/Orange County would have been more appealing than Denver. Bear in mind that Denver is a nice place to live. I did hear that the RS-68 expert took a job with SpaceX because an Atlas propulsion engineer went over to Delta to replace him with only a limited time to get a data dump.
I just had this conversation with a Delta IV employee and I've learned something may be you can validate or put it out?
The offices and buildings that ULA planned to house Delta IV employees are old, dark, and smelly... is that true?
The plan is to co-locate Atlas and Delta employees by engineering discipline. Not sure where she is sitting so I cannot confirm and I don't know what you are use to at HB. There is a lot of moving around between three buildings to prepare for the peak of relocations from HB in July.
This person was actually happy to move to Denver becuase she was originally from Pueblo (with Delta II). She had to move to Decatur for 9 months with the program and she hated the place (being out in the country with cow manure smell along the way into work and the only place for lunch was the subway sandwich shop housed inside the factory and all...)
But you know what's the most scary of all?
Based on what she saw, she's predicting that the ULA will eventually move EVERYONE to Decatur.
What do you think?
This is one rumor that keeps surfacing. The lease on the three buildings is with LM Space. The executives just moved to East Mineral which is over by the Denver Tech Center, about a half-hour drive from Waterton. According to my sources, the lease for the engineering buildings occupied by ULA in the Waterton campus is for two years. Add to that, it appears the Decatur facility has a lot of incentives to expand to maintain tax incentives (http://www.mceda.org/default.aspx?id=28) A lack of long-term commitment in Waterton and a financial incentive to increase headcount in Decatur make this very plausible. I am approaching early retirement so if the move takes place after Dec 1, 2008, I can pursue a job back with LM Space where I have some contacts, or retire instead of relocating again, should this scenario become reality.
What did she see that would make her think that the Decatur move was imminent?
-
The bean counters and those who determine stock dividends of course want to move everything to the low cost of living in Northern Alabama. In practice, it's obviously harder than that, and no one is naive enough to expect it to happen seamlessly if at all.
Besides, I hope someone in the DoD looks at such a potentiality from an eggs in one basket perspective and notes that such a move would be one large Nuke-Bio-Chem warhead away from totally erasing all of America's rocket engineering expertise.
-
Gov't Seagull - 30/6/2007 11:29 AM
Propforce - 30/6/2007 1:38 AM
Other innovations during during that period (on Delta IV that I know of) are:
Incorporation of Friction Stir Welding (FSW) on large propellant tanks. Delta IV did not invent the FSW process but I believe they were the first to incorporated it into tank manufacturing for the U.S. launch vehciles.
That one I agree with
Kewl. Then at least we agree on something :laugh:
Incorporation of the horizontal integration of launch vehicles. Again, Delta did not invent the process but they incorporated it on a U.S. launch vehicle assembly line. BTW, you may have to visit the Decautor factory to appreciate this, but they took a lot of "lessons learned" from the Boeing aircraft assembly and applied them to launch vehicles, making the whole process more efficient and less time consuming.
Maybe. I've been to Decatur and it is a shiny new factory, but have all those efficiency improvements been worth the investment given EELV's glacial production rate?
I personally think that, while these "efficiency improvements" may not be obvious at today's glacial production rate, it may fundamentally change how rockets are/ will be assembled. Little thing such as having a computer terminal next to each assembly station, so techs don't have to walk all the way back to some central depository to find spec/ manuals/ latest instructions, etc., fundamentally save cycle time by minimizing "slacks". These are good practice and it will be hard to go back to the old & inefficient way of doing business because it will no longer "make sense" doing that way.
The use of extentible nozzle on RL-10. This really should be credited back to Delta III, but since the D-III never flew successfully but Delta IV continued to incorporate the B-2 engine and made changes to "upgrade" it. It deserves an honorable mention.
Gotta disagree with this one. The RL10A-4 has a nozzle extension (albeit much smaller), and nozzle extensions flew on IUS long ago. The DIV-specific improvements to the B-2 were rinky-dink, part of a normal variant development.
The A-4 nozzle extension is much smaller and shorter, the B-2's NEDS is definitely more impressive.
Also how about the innovative engine LOx trickle purge inflight chilldown method that they developed? Now I'd say that's an innovative solution.
The "hung stage" design on the 2nd stage. Again, this traces back to Delta III but D-IV continues this which was novel for U.S. launch vehicles. (Actually there were some interesting discussions as to whether we, the Delta, invented this or did MHI (japanese) invented first for the H-2 vehicle, but that's another discussion).
The DIV upper stage is very similar to DIII. In fact, Boeing promoted DIV as low-risk for that very reason.
All true. No argument here.
Was the RS-68 really designed to cost? What was the final unit production cost of RS-68 compared to its initially projected cost during the CAIV process? :laugh:
I don't know the details, but design-to-cost was the general idea. In terms of unit cost, I think RS-68 is as competitive a design as has ever come out of a US program.
OK I asked that question mainly tongue & cheek and I don't expect anyone (including myself) publish those numbers. In short, the final price went substantially higher than the initial CAIV cost target. My main point is that not everyone will agree with you that this "design-to-cost" process was a good approach on the RS-68. Several "poor designs" were incorporated on the engine in the name of this "design-to-cost", aka CAIV, and we're paying the price for them now. The current "upgrades" are to "un-do" some of those but not all of them.
-
Gus - 1/7/2007 9:02 AM I did hear that the RS-68 expert took a job with SpaceX because an Atlas propulsion engineer went over to Delta to replace him with only a limited time to get a data dump.
Well, this RS-68 expert has decided to come back to Delta and agree to move to Denver. He will be doing other tasks in the Propulsion group instead. But another Boeing propulsion expert (ex-2nd stage prop-lead) is still at SpaceX and enjoying it.
The plan is to co-locate Atlas and Delta employees by engineering discipline. Not sure where she is sitting so I cannot confirm and I don't know what you are use to at HB. There is a lot of moving around between three buildings to prepare for the peak of relocations from HB in July.
We have it pretty good by most standard, some refer here as "campus" like atmosphere. Our 5 engineering buildings (5-quads) all have large windows with green grasses/ trees or nice court yards between buildings. Engineers have individual 8 X 8 cubicles with 5 foot walls, a large one compared to what they'll be getting at Waterton (from what I've heard). Managers/ Senior managers & Sr. Tech guys have individual 8 X 12 cubicles, some Sr. Mgrs have walled offices with doors. Most directors & VPs gets walled office with windows.
We hear that some of your managers/sr. mgrs have to share cubicles? Your directors gets a cubicle while the execs get really big walled offices. A big disparity?
Between buildings are "lounges" with vending machines for the employees, and some open work area for 1~3 person meetings and work area with ethernet plug-ins. Some buildings have "hide-out" rooms, indidual rooms with doors if you want a quiet place to work (or make a conference call), they have nice sofas, speaker phones and network access. It's a nice escape if you need to be on the phone and needed to be quiet or not to bother your neighbors, or just want to be alone, just bring your company-issued laptop.
Our cafeteria serve suprisingly good food based on comments from suppliers & customers. They serve 2 ~ 3 choice of hot entres, a separate grill counter, and a separate fresh salad counter. Tuesday is "taco" day and Wednesay is "sushi" day. Director & VPs eat at the same cafeteria food as workerbees since they eliminated the exec dinning rooms a few years ago. We still hear that Delta folks will be separated from the Atlas folks, despite the "plan" to co-locate.
According to my sources, the lease for the engineering buildings occupied by ULA in the Waterton campus is for two years. Add to that, it appears the Decatur facility has a lot of incentives to expand to maintain tax incentives (http://www.mceda.org/default.aspx?id=28)
A lack of long-term commitment in Waterton and a financial incentive to increase headcount in Decatur make this very plausible. I am approaching early retirement so if the move takes place after Dec 1, 2008, I can pursue a job back with LM Space where I have some contacts, or retire instead of relocating again, should this scenario become reality.
What did she see that would make her think that the Decatur move was imminent?
I think it's based on what she sees at Decatur, plus everything you've said confirms the "forces" are moving toward that direction.
The rumor here is that all/most of the Delta execs are NOT selling their houses in California. This is not instilling confidence to the troops. By the end of 2 years, they could come back to Boeing with "upward mobility" and still receive their $M bonus based on their contract with ULA. One could hardly blame the execs' though, afterall, by law the ULA will be completely separated from Boeing. So there will be only one Gass/Collins and one Sponnick/ Wilkins. 50% of the execs will lose their jobs. Where is the smart money on who gets to keep their jobs? :laugh:
-
Antares - 1/7/2007 12:09 PM
Besides, I hope someone in the DoD looks at such a potentiality from an eggs in one basket perspective and notes that such a move would be one large Nuke-Bio-Chem warhead away from totally erasing all of America's rocket engineering expertise.
Not ALL of "... America's rocket engineering expertise..." unless you don't think NASA has any of those expertise.
-
Gus - 1/7/2007 10:02 AM
I did hear that the RS-68 expert took a job with SpaceX because an Atlas propulsion engineer went over to Delta to replace him with only a limited time to get a data dump.
Interesting how stories get twisted around. Your cause and effect are reversed.
-
WHAP - 2/7/2007 11:24 AM
Gus - 1/7/2007 10:02 AM
I did hear that the RS-68 expert took a job with SpaceX because an Atlas propulsion engineer went over to Delta to replace him with only a limited time to get a data dump.
Interesting how stories get twisted around. Your cause and effect are reversed.
Actually neither of you are correct. The man gave up his RS-68 integration job a few months before he quit. He then served as lead for all engines working with individuals who are engine integrators on RS-27A, AJ10s, RL10B-2, and RS-68, etc.
-
Antares - 1/7/2007 2:09 PM
The bean counters and those who determine stock dividends of course want to move everything to the low cost of living in Northern Alabama. In practice, it's obviously harder than that, and no one is naive enough to expect it to happen seamlessly if at all.
Besides, I hope someone in the DoD looks at such a potentiality from an eggs in one basket perspective and notes that such a move would be one large Nuke-Bio-Chem warhead away from totally erasing all of America's rocket engineering expertise.
It's worse than you think. Decatur lies in North Alabama little Tornado Alley, and the region has had near misses in 1989's F-4, 1974s F-5s, etc.
-
Lets talk facts not rumours... I just returned from Waterton, and while the cubes are out of date I wouldn't call them dark and dingy. I'd put them about the same level as what we had in HB 5 yrs ago. There was talk of updating the cubes for the move, but it just wasn't possible to do that plus incorporate everyone. I can't speak to other groups, but in mine Atlas and Delta engineering disaplinces will be co-located. I am going to share a cube with an Atlas engineer, so will all my guys (no gals in the group as of now)... Senior engineers will double up on a 14x14 cube, with junior guys squeezing three per cube. And while I haven't paid much attention to other groups situations, all the managers in my disapline get private offices. After looking at the cubes in person I'm confident all my team will have as much room in Waterton as they had in HB, if not more. Problem is going to be less privacy and a lack of conference rooms...
-
Propforce - 2/7/2007 3:13 AMAntares - 1/7/2007 12:09 PM
Besides, I hope someone in the DoD looks at such a potentiality from an eggs in one basket perspective and notes that such a move would be one large Nuke-Bio-Chem warhead away from totally erasing all of America's rocket engineering expertise.
Not ALL of "... America's rocket engineering expertise..." unless you don't think NASA has any of those expertise.
Well, what rocket expertise NASA has, which has produced nothing but paper and sustaining for the last 30 years (they're relearning what their predecessors learned in Apollo and what Atlas and Delta already know from the 80s and 90s), is in Northern Alabama. JSC does not know launch vehicles, just crew pod and human space ops.
OK I asked that question mainly tongue & cheek and I don't expect anyone (including myself) publish those numbers.
There's an AIAA paper that says RS-68 was developed for $500M (some guesstimate the real number is twice that). It, and an awesome plethora of PWR capabilities, can be found here:
http://www.rocketdynetech.com/data.htm
We have it pretty good by most standard, some refer here as "campus" like atmosphere. Our 5 engineering buildings (5-quads) all have large windows with green grasses/ trees or nice court yards between buildings.
Don't forget this fun trivium: The Huntington Beach facility was used as Starfleet Academy in one of the Star Trek iterations, or so they say.
-
ULA have been busy!!
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5230
-
Rob in KC - 19/9/2007 12:29 PM
ULA have been busy!!
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5230
But can they produce? Word is they couldn't build more Atlas boosters/Centaurs even if they wanted to. Too many issues with bad forecasting, supply chain deliveries, and basic decision making relative to being postured to take on additional business.
The so-called "up-tempo" launch manifest (about 8 launches/yr) can't even keep up with what it was back in the 90's (as many 12/yr).
-
bombay - 21/9/2007 4:47 PM
But can they produce? Word is they couldn't build more Atlas boosters/Centaurs even if they wanted to. Too many issues with bad forecasting, supply chain deliveries, and basic decision making relative to being postured to take on additional business.
The so-called "up-tempo" launch manifest (about 8 launches/yr) can't even keep up with what it was back in the 90's (as many 12/yr).
Whose word?
The average in the 90's was less than 8/year with only one year at 11
-
Jim - 21/9/2007 3:56 PM
bombay - 21/9/2007 4:47 PM
But can they produce? Word is they couldn't build more Atlas boosters/Centaurs even if they wanted to. Too many issues with bad forecasting, supply chain deliveries, and basic decision making relative to being postured to take on additional business.
The so-called "up-tempo" launch manifest (about 8 launches/yr) can't even keep up with what it was back in the 90's (as many 12/yr).
Whose word?
The average in the 90's was less than 8/year with only one year at 11
They had full capabilty of launching more than 8/yr back then, unlike now! If they could do more than 8/yr, they would have been in position to grab some Proton launches, which they couldn't do - not to mention the FACT that they couldn't build more due to supply issues.
Whose word? Try asking some of your ULA connections. You just might find that there's much more than just the supply chain that's in need of repair.
-
Jim - 21/9/2007 3:56 PM
bombay - 21/9/2007 4:47 PM
But can they produce? Word is they couldn't build more Atlas boosters/Centaurs even if they wanted to. Too many issues with bad forecasting, supply chain deliveries, and basic decision making relative to being postured to take on additional business.
The so-called "up-tempo" launch manifest (about 8 launches/yr) can't even keep up with what it was back in the 90's (as many 12/yr).
Whose word?
The average in the 90's was less than 8/year with only one year at 11
12 in 1995. Now you have how many EELV launches in 2007? What is it 2 Atlas and how many Delta 4s?
I find it interesting that Sealaunch and Proton both experienced failures and Arianne has been able to win launches as a result. Delta had their cracked pad but why didn't Atlas win any new business? This would tend to support Bombay's assertion. Too bad they spent all that money on that fancy new pad.
It makes you wonder what was wrong with the old two pad system that they used in 1995.
-
Dexter - 22/9/2007 12:19 AM
It makes you wonder what was wrong with the old two pad system that they used in 1995.
Too small
-
Jim - 22/9/2007 8:29 AM
Dexter - 22/9/2007 12:19 AM
It makes you wonder what was wrong with the old two pad system that they used in 1995.
Too small
Huh???
http://www.nishkian.com/Complete/Dean_PDFs/SLC-3E_ARTICLE_12-04-03.pdf
Didn't seem to be a problem at Vandenberg Air Force Base.
-
Dexter - 22/9/2007 1:51 PM
Jim - 22/9/2007 8:29 AM
Dexter - 22/9/2007 12:19 AM
It makes you wonder what was wrong with the old two pad system that they used in 1995.
Too small
Huh???
http://www.nishkian.com/Complete/Dean_PDFs/SLC-3E_ARTICLE_12-04-03.pdf
Didn't seem to be a problem at Vandenberg Air Force Base.
As usual, you ignore the facts, just so you can keep up your usual rant.
The SLC-41 is designed for a heavy vehicle. The old Atlas pads couldn't accomodate* a heavy and the old pads were still launching Atlas II's and III's (11 total) while Atlas V was flying. SLC-41 is just an upgrade (not a new pad) too like the VAFB pad.
It doesn't matter what has happened in the past, things have moved forward and there is no going back. ULA is here, learn to love and embrace it. It is not going away.
* neither can the upgraded VAFB pad.
-
pad rat - 22/9/2007 8:42 AM
Flight rate is predicated on *payload rate*. If you have the capability of launching twenty times per year, but only have ten payloads, how often will you launch?
It's not an easy thing to "grab launches" from Proton, given the price disparity between the vehicles, and the lead time needed to customize the launcher to the mission. Launchers don't tend to be "plug 'n' play".
BTW, ULA's combined manifest for next year includes 17 launches from the Cape. Seven of those are Atlas V's. IIRC, the western range includes 4 Atlas V's. Lessee, 7+4=11, and 11 is still > 8. Wow, math is cool, eh?
One of the early premises of the EELV program was to use the commercial market to help defray costs. The commercial market collapsed as people repeatedly pointed out. Most commercial satellites are GSO.
The Atlas program was able to launch 12 rockets from the Cape in 1995, but your math has to include Vandenberg.
With Sealaunch and Proton down, Arianne seems to have been able to pick up business including the replacement from the most recent Proton failure, an A2100 satellite. Don't tell me that ULA doesn't know how to launch one of these.
As for, cheaper labor, that may be, but I think you will find the gap is closing and the US dollar is at a low point in terms of exchange rates. Couple that with the COMSATS loosing potential revenue while waiting for these cheaper rockets to go through their failure investigations.
It just makes me wonder why ULA can't compete against Arianne with its high labor costs. There is definitely an opprtunity to capture this "payload rate".
Maybe the desire isn't there. Or maybe with this slick new pad, they can't launch more than 7 from the Cape.
-
pad rat - 22/9/2007 8:55 AM
As for Atlas scooping up orders due to Delta's problems, rockets and payloads aren't plug 'n' play systems. It takes more time to remanifest a payload, do the mission specific mods and analyses, and provide the flight hardware, than it took to repair the Delta pad.
Wasn't that one of the requirements of EELV? Payloads could go to either booster with little or no modification? If it wasn't, why not? What's the point in paying for two boosters (both grounded now, by the way) if payloads can only use one or the other?
-
Jim - 22/9/2007 1:16 PM
Dexter - 22/9/2007 1:51 PM
Jim - 22/9/2007 8:29 AM
Dexter - 22/9/2007 12:19 AM
It makes you wonder what was wrong with the old two pad system that they used in 1995.
Too small
Huh???
http://www.nishkian.com/Complete/Dean_PDFs/SLC-3E_ARTICLE_12-04-03.pdf
Didn't seem to be a problem at Vandenberg Air Force Base.
As usual, you ignore the facts, just so you can keep up your usual rant.
The SLC-41 is designed for a heavy vehicle. The old Atlas pads couldn't accomodate* a heavy and the old pads were still launching Atlas II's and III's (11 total) while Atlas V was flying. SLC-41 is just an upgrade (not a new pad) too like the VAFB pad.
It doesn't matter what has happened in the past, things have moved forward and there is no going back. ULA is here, learn to love and embrace it. It is not going away.
* neither can the upgraded VAFB pad.
Good Point. When is that next Atlas V Heavy launch??
-
pad rat - 22/9/2007 2:14 PM
My reference to 11 vehicles in one year dealt with production capacity, not launch rate from one pad. I made it in response to Bombay's assertion regarding what he perceives as production limitations.
No, not perception. My comment dealt specifically with lack of inventory of long lead item parts, the unwillingness to release funds to procure long lead item parts to build inventory, and consequently, the inability to increase production output if desired/warranted or for that matter, to even keep up with the current build rate.
Tightly controlling funds is not a bad thing when it makes sense. This makes no sense. Is this company so cash strapped that they can't release funds to purchase parts that have 6-10 month lead times?
-
pad rat - 22/9/2007 3:14 PM
BTW, I just read in AW&ST that Delta IV is being commercially offered again.
That's good. Maybe with a few commercial customers Delta IV prices will drop.
-
It almost certainly will, if it is competitive.
-
bombay - 22/9/2007 1:16 PM My comment dealt specifically with lack of inventory of long lead item parts, the unwillingness to release funds to procure long lead item parts to build inventory, and consequently, the inability to increase production output if desired/warranted or for that matter, to even keep up with the current build rate. Tightly controlling funds is not a bad thing when it makes sense. This makes no sense. Is this company so cash strapped that they can't release funds to purchase parts that have 6-10 month lead times?
Spending a lot of their own money on hardware that never got used while hoping for a commercial market to develop is what put both Lockheed and Boeing in the red to begin with and caused both of the companies to break off their rocket divisions (and eventually merge). It simply isn't profitable and like it or not, they are commercial companies. This isn't the rocket field of dreams where if you build them they will come. Honestly, I can't blame them for not wanting to go out and spend a couple million on hardware that nobody has promised to buy
-
How much Delta III hardware is still sitting in a warehouse somewhere...
-
kevin-rf - 27/9/2007 12:38 PM
How much Delta III hardware is still sitting in a warehouse somewhere...
How much Delta IV hardware is sitting in a warehouse somewhere? It may eventually fly, but it's a purchase Boeing made that is not providing any return.
-
kevin-rf - 27/9/2007 2:38 PM
How much Delta III hardware is still sitting in a warehouse somewhere...
Few upperstages (maybe just one) were put on display. There weren't that many in production
Most of the first stage hardware is being used for D-II heavies.
Just a few 4 meter tanks are hangin around.
-
WHAP - 27/9/2007 2:44 PM
kevin-rf - 27/9/2007 12:38 PM
How much Delta III hardware is still sitting in a warehouse somewhere...
How much Delta IV hardware is sitting in a warehouse somewhere? It may eventually fly, but it's a purchase Boeing made that is not providing any return.
none. They are being built to support the current flight rate
-
spacedreams - 27/9/2007 9:56 AM
Spending a lot of their own money on hardware that never got used while hoping for a commercial market to develop is what put both Lockheed and Boeing in the red to begin with and caused both of the companies to break off their rocket divisions (and eventually merge). It simply isn't profitable and like it or not, they are commercial companies. This isn't the rocket field of dreams where if you build them they will come. Honestly, I can't blame them for not wanting to go out and spend a couple million on hardware that nobody has promised to buy
The money that GD invested in building 60 or so LVs back in the 90's didn't go to waste. They all were sold and flown - commercial and gov't. So they were built and they did come! The Atlas and Delta EELV rocket programs falling on hard times under Boeing and Lockheed had nothing to do with purchasing needed flight hardware.
Buy 3 was a given and Buy 4 is a given.
-
There is 1 Delta IV first stage on display at the CCAS USAF Space Museum.
-
bombay - 27/9/2007 8:51 PM
The money that GD invested in building 60 or so LVs back in the 90's didn't go to waste. They all were sold and flown - commercial and gov't. So they were built and they did come!
Not quite. The production rate still matched the flight rate. There was no stockpiling of launch vehicles.
-
Jim - 27/9/2007 9:15 PM
bombay - 27/9/2007 8:51 PM
The money that GD invested in building 60 or so LVs back in the 90's didn't go to waste. They all were sold and flown - commercial and gov't. So they were built and they did come!
Not quite. The production rate still matched the flight rate. There was no stockpiling of launch vehicles.
What about the stockpiling of RD-180s?
This has to be one of the most expensive components on a rocket. It was mentioned here that ULA has about 20 engines and also mentioned here that they are $10-15 million dollars per. Now that's a cash outlay!
Assuming Bombay's information is correct that there are shortages which is why ULA can't capture commercial launches, how does this fit with the stockpiling of engines.
Maybe the stockpiling has resulted in a lack of cash for everything else.
-
mike robel - 27/9/2007 9:09 PM
There is 1 Delta IV first stage on display at the CCAS USAF Space Museum.
I wondered what they were going to do with that CBC. I'd seen it in photos and on Google Earth just sitting outside the HIF. That's the one they used for the initial testing of the pad equipment (FPE, launch table, MLP and other stuff), right?
-
Jim - 27/9/2007 1:14 PM
WHAP - 27/9/2007 2:44 PM
kevin-rf - 27/9/2007 12:38 PM
How much Delta III hardware is still sitting in a warehouse somewhere...
How much Delta IV hardware is sitting in a warehouse somewhere? It may eventually fly, but it's a purchase Boeing made that is not providing any return.
none. They are being built to support the current flight rate
I haven't been to Decatur, but my understanding is that there's a lot more hardware than required to support the "current" flight rate. Buying in large quantities provides some discounts, so I guess it's for the finance guys to say whether it's worth it or not.
-
Dexter - 27/9/2007 8:36 PM
Jim - 27/9/2007 9:15 PM
bombay - 27/9/2007 8:51 PM
The money that GD invested in building 60 or so LVs back in the 90's didn't go to waste. They all were sold and flown - commercial and gov't. So they were built and they did come!
Not quite. The production rate still matched the flight rate. There was no stockpiling of launch vehicles.
What about the stockpiling of RD-180s?
This has to be one of the most expensive components on a rocket. It was mentioned here that ULA has about 20 engines and also mentioned here that they are $10-15 million dollars per. Now that's a cash outlay!
Assuming Bombay's information is correct that there are shortages which is why ULA can't capture commercial launches, how does this fit with the stockpiling of engines.
Maybe the stockpiling has resulted in a lack of cash for everything else.
More assumptions. Define what you mean by "ULA can't capture commercial launches". Like the COSMO-SkyMed 3 awarded to Delta II? Atlas V and Delta IV may be available to the commercial market, but they are expensive, and ULA/LM/Boeing aren't going to cut the price, especially with Buy 3, just to capture commercial missions.
Remember this thread? http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=9529&posts=87&start=1
You took ULA to task for not planning properly. I'd say the stockpiling of these engines, vs. RL-10 or RS-68, is proper planning.
-
WHAP - 27/9/2007 10:54 PM
Dexter - 27/9/2007 8:36 PM
Jim - 27/9/2007 9:15 PM
bombay - 27/9/2007 8:51 PM
The money that GD invested in building 60 or so LVs back in the 90's didn't go to waste. They all were sold and flown - commercial and gov't. So they were built and they did come!
Not quite. The production rate still matched the flight rate. There was no stockpiling of launch vehicles.
What about the stockpiling of RD-180s?
This has to be one of the most expensive components on a rocket. It was mentioned here that ULA has about 20 engines and also mentioned here that they are $10-15 million dollars per. Now that's a cash outlay!
Assuming Bombay's information is correct that there are shortages which is why ULA can't capture commercial launches, how does this fit with the stockpiling of engines.
Maybe the stockpiling has resulted in a lack of cash for everything else.
More assumptions. Define what you mean by "ULA can't capture commercial launches". Like the COSMO-SkyMed 3 awarded to Delta II? Atlas V and Delta IV may be available to the commercial market, but they are expensive, and ULA/LM/Boeing aren't going to cut the price, especially with Buy 3, just to capture commercial missions.
Remember this thread? http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=9529&posts=87&start=1
You took ULA to task for not planning properly. I'd say the stockpiling of these engines, vs. RL-10 or RS-68, is proper planning.
You are correct. I should have specified that as a result of the Sealaunch and Proton failures, neither Atlas nor Delta has captured any of the business.
I recognize that Atlas may have a few commercial contracts like ICO G. Delta just plain stopped marketing the IV. If you read my post earlier in this thread you will notice that I speculated that commercial Comsats may not be willing to wait for the cheaper Russian/Ukrainian rockets if their sattellite is ready as it might be a loss of potential revenue if they wait. During this time frame, hasn't Arianne captured many of these customers not willing to wait? After the Proton failure, if I recall correctly, JSAT contracted with Arianne for a replacement flight.
One of the early premises of EELV was to downselect two providers because of a robust commercial market. The market collapsed but now there are opportunities which ULA cannot capture against the French. Why Not?
Is it cheaper labor? Then what of the dollar to Euro exchange rate?
Is it because Arianne is subsidized? Then what is this whole Buy 3 thing?
Next item.
I was just responding to Jim's comment that ULA is not stock piling rockets.
RD-180s have been stockpiled long before ULA was formed so please don't claim credit for ULA on this decision.
But why are they stockpiling? Unstable foreign source? Breach of the National Space Transportation policy?
If they would have followed through with their advertised plan on co-production, none of this stockpiling would have been necessary.
Here is a piece of history for you from June 22, 1997:
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRNews/FR970622.htm#RD-180
"A total of 101 RD-180 have been ordered by Lockheed Martin to equip the new Atlas version IIAR and to test the company's EELV contribution. The contract worth one billion US-Dollars was signed recently with Energomash in Russia. Pratt has already begun construction of a new production facility in Clearwater, Florida, where the company will center its liquid propulsion space business and also will put up a coproduction facility for the RD-180. Beginning April 1st next year Pratt will be able to use this facility with the first delivery planned in June 1998.
The deal with Energomash leaves the production of the RD-180 to the Russian manufacturer for the commercial launches of Atlas IIAR and eventually after 2000 Lockheed's EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle). A decision whether Lockheed Martin or Boeing McDonnell Douglas will build the US Air Force's new launcher is due for June 1998.
The RD-180 for government launches will have to be built in the USA and Energomash will get a financial contribution out of any one of them. "
Does the Atlas V get downselected from the 4 to 2 competition of EELV if Lockheed does not state that the first American RD-180 will be ready in June 1998?
-
Sea Launch, correct. Proton, it's probably too soon to tell. Was the JSAT award a jump from Proton to Ariane, or just something that was already in the works? It sure happened awfully soon after the failure to not have been in work already. But I don't know the details.
There may be many reasons for Atlas V not capturing more commercial contracts. When Atlas V first flew, it didn't really have the benefit of a cheaper dollar. You can look at Buy 3 as a subsidy, but it also has some responsibility associated with it. There are government missions on the manifest for both vehicles, and they actually fill it up pretty well. Until a spacecraft has a problem; then everyone moves out a little bit. Although I've never seen it happen, there may be the perception that a commercial customer may end up taking a "back seat" if an urgent government payload appears (like magic). Atlas can essentially launch 5 - 6 per year from LC-41 (essentially the same rate per pad as back in 1995) and that's what was on the books for 2007 and 2008. But go watch GWSimulations' US launch schedule thread over the next year and see what happens to government payloads (assuming all launches between now and then are successful - another variable in the equation). Even ICO has moved out due to its own issues. Atlas still has an Inmarsat 4 out there (if there is an earlier one on Proton, it is a different spacecraft), and maybe some others.
I didn't mean to specify that ULA would take credit for the stockpiling. But Atlas management hasn't really changed with the transition to ULA, so you can say it was LMA, but it's really the same people. The stockpiling occurred before the NTS, so that's not a reason. Unstable foreign source is a risk, and stockpiling is prudent.
You keep saying (I was going to say implying, but given the number of posts you've made, it's more than an implication) that LM hoodwinked the government into selecting it for EELV because of co-production. Which of the other 2 competitors do you think would have built as capable a vehicle given $1B? SpaceX? Not there yet, regardless of whose money they're spending. Kistler? Not based on past or recent performance. Although that article may have some dates in it, it's just someone's press release, not a contract with the government (Does Pratt even have a production facility in Clearwater?). If the government actually believed that a co-production facility would be up an running within one year (I'm sure they were fully aware of the state of co-production in June 1997), then they deserved to be hoodwinked. But that wasn't the case. As I and others have mentioned before, changes in the co-production goals and schedule have been fully coordinated with the government.
-
Dexter - 28/9/2007 12:59 AM
Does the Atlas V get downselected from the 4 to 2 competition of EELV if Lockheed does not state that the first American RD-180 will be ready in June 1998?
No, because the USAF like LMA and the other two were non viable.
Also quoting something from 1997 is not applicable today.
Like I said ULA, Delta IV and Atlas V are here to stay. Learn to love it Bitching and whining isn't going to change things. ULA customers are happy
-
Jim - 28/9/2007 1:21 PM
ULA customers are happy
I don't know, but this can be true. But there aren't that many. DoD, NASA and only very few commercial. And if you discount Delta II commercial, there are even less. Not to imply something, just a fact.
Analyst
-
I wasn't referring to the org but the individual spacecraft projects
-
Dexter - 27/9/2007 9:36 PM
What about the stockpiling of RD-180s?...It was mentioned here that ULA has about 20 engines and also mentioned here that they are $10-15 million dollars per. Now that's a cash outlay!
Invalid comparison. How many RS-68s are waiting to fly in MS, AL or FL right now? And there are more RL10s than either one of those.
-
Nick L. - 27/9/2007 10:04 PM
mike robel - 27/9/2007 9:09 PM
There is 1 Delta IV first stage on display at the CCAS USAF Space Museum.
I wondered what they were going to do with that CBC. I'd seen it in photos and on Google Earth just sitting outside the HIF. That's the one they used for the initial testing of the pad equipment (FPE, launch table, MLP and other stuff), right?
It was also used in stage testing at Stennis.
-
Jim - 27/9/2007 2:13 PM
kevin-rf - 27/9/2007 2:38 PM
How much Delta III hardware is still sitting in a warehouse somewhere...
Few upperstages (maybe just one) were put on display. There weren't that many in production
Most of the first stage hardware is being used for D-II heavies.
Just a few 4 meter tanks are hangin around.
I was surprised to read something related to this in ULA's recent "RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES". It said that "an additional six Delta II Heavies are also available..."
Does that mean that Boeing bought enough GEM-46 SRMs for about one dozen Delta 3 launch vehicles? (There were three Delta 3 flights and there have been four Delta 2 Heavy launches to date, one of which may have been included in the "additional six" mentioned above.) Or does it mean that Boeing procured some for Delta III, and then bought more for Delta 2 Heavy?
I presume that Delta 2 Heavy first stages have different SRM mounting points than standard Delta 2 first stages. Some of this "Heavy" tank hardware may have been handed down from the Delta 3 program, but I doubt it would have been a full dozen.
- Ed Kyle
-
Something in the back of my head is saying at the time Boeing was shaking out the Delta III they where building 12 flight sets, so that would make sense. That was a reason for my coment a few pages back of how many Delta III's are still sitting in a warehouse. Jim indicated they used many of the parts for Delta II heavy (RS-27, GEM's, Computers ?) and Delta IV (RL-10 I presume).
-
Antares - 28/9/2007 10:26 AM
Dexter - 27/9/2007 9:36 PM
What about the stockpiling of RD-180s?...It was mentioned here that ULA has about 20 engines and also mentioned here that they are $10-15 million dollars per. Now that's a cash outlay!
Invalid comparison. How many RS-68s are waiting to fly in MS, AL or FL right now? And there are more RL10s than either one of those.
The large inventory of RD-180 engines is in direct response to the US space transportation policy that seeks to insulate national security concerns from possible disruptions in supply. It's one part of the insurance policy. The other part is the establishment of the "capability to co-produce", a program that has been ongoing for many years. This approach has been bought off by the DOD at the highest levels. The ultimate safety net is the DIV.
In the meantime, the US enjoys the benefit of the world's best rocket engine, while Russia enjoys the steady stream of cash and the maintanence of a highly skilled workforce. 16 successful flights and counting. It's a huge win-win for both countries.
-
quark - 28/9/2007 11:07 PM
Antares - 28/9/2007 10:26 AM
Dexter - 27/9/2007 9:36 PM
What about the stockpiling of RD-180s?...It was mentioned here that ULA has about 20 engines and also mentioned here that they are $10-15 million dollars per. Now that's a cash outlay!
Invalid comparison. How many RS-68s are waiting to fly in MS, AL or FL right now? And there are more RL10s than either one of those.
The large inventory of RD-180 engines is in direct response to the US space transportation policy that seeks to insulate national security concerns from possible disruptions in supply. It's one part of the insurance policy. The other part is the establishment of the "capability to co-produce", a program that has been ongoing for many years. This approach has been bought off by the DOD at the highest levels. The ultimate safety net is the DIV.
In the meantime, the US enjoys the benefit of the world's best rocket engine, while Russia enjoys the steady stream of cash and the maintanence of a highly skilled workforce. 16 successful flights and counting. It's a huge win-win for both countries.
The "capability to co-produce" was never meant to be a perpetual study with no end in sight. Co-production was to kick in the 2005 time frame, which was about 10yrs after the introduction of the EELV concept.
Let's face it, with the formation of ULA and the real threat of a downselect gone, there's no incentive to co-produce RD-180's when they can be purchased for pennies on the dollar from Russia compared to what P&W would charge. This is all about money - not national security, NSTP requirements, or any other thought of reason that would suggest co-production is vital.
-
bombay - 29/9/2007 11:17 AM
This is all about money - not national security, NSTP requirements, or any other thought of reason that would suggest co-production is vital.
Absolutely correct. Not LM, ULA, or the government really wants to spend what it would take to get full co-production going.
By the way, I can see national security as vital, but I'm not sure I would use that term for NSTP.
-
Denver production operations (Atlas booster) is slated to move to Decatur, and as rumor has it, San Diego production (Centaur) is back on the move list as well despite "risk" being an integral reason for not moving it initially.
The perception is that Atlas is becoming the LV of choice for ULA (Delta II replacement) and prospective customers (COTS and other things). Current launch manifest through 2009 and recent news regarding the use of Atlas would support this claim.
With Atlas becoming more and more in demand, so it seems, at what point does ULA pull the plug on moving these facilities being that the window of opportunity to execute a move appears non-existant being that what's launched in 2009 is being built today and so on.
Are those involved in pushing a move actually working for personal gain (i.e. bonus, position, recognition) rather than what's best for ultimate success? Are important variables (risk, people retention, disruption of production, etc.) being conveniently ignored to sell a move at any cost for the purpose of personal gain? Is the AF and NASA at all concerned about this?
-
And if the Atlas facilities didn't move, at Decatur they would just build a few Delta IV:s a year for DoD (NASA uses Atlas and the commercial stuff fell through)... Pretty empty shiny new halls, a shame. At least P&W Rocketdyne can sell RS-68A engines for Ares V.
-
And Delta IV.
-
tnphysics - 7/10/2007 8:04 PM
And Delta IV.
I think P&W/RD/Boeing were originally projecting moving 10-15 engines a year, at least, to justify the new engine development and costs. That would make everyone happy cost-wise and profit-wise. As it stands now, averaging only 3-4 engines a year they're losing money unless they jack the engine prices way, way up.
-
Jim - 28/9/2007 6:21 AM
Dexter - 28/9/2007 12:59 AM
Does the Atlas V get downselected from the 4 to 2 competition of EELV if Lockheed does not state that the first American RD-180 will be ready in June 1998?
.... quoting something from 1997 is not applicable today.
I think this to be especially pertinent. Using WHAP's expression that Lockheed was able to "hoodwink" the government with the RD-180, why should anyone believe that ULA will deliver on the promised savings of $150M per year. They have already qualified that the savings will be delayed. and thus, the dance begins.
WHAP established that it is the same management team in place that made the RD-180 stockpiling decisions after promising American RD-180s. I don't think they are done "hoodwinking".
-
Dexter - 16/10/2007 8:34 PM
I think this to be especially pertinent. Using WHAP's expression that Lockheed was able to "hoodwink" the government with the RD-180, why should anyone believe that ULA will deliver on the promised savings of $150M per year. They have already qualified that the savings will be delayed. and thus, the dance begins.
WHAP established that it is the same management team in place that made the RD-180 stockpiling decisions after promising American RD-180s. I don't think they are done "hoodwinking".
Please do not imply that I think LM/ULA "hoodwinked" the government. I used that term to describe your statements, not my opinions.
WHAP - 27/9/2007 11:40 PM
You keep saying (I was going to say implying, but given the number of posts you've made, it's more than an implication) that LM hoodwinked the government into selecting it for EELV because of co-production. ... If the government actually believed that a co-production facility would be up an running within one year (I'm sure they were fully aware of the state of co-production in June 1997), then they deserved to be hoodwinked. But that wasn't the case. As I and others have mentioned before, changes in the co-production goals and schedule have been fully coordinated with the government.
As far as the savings being delayed - where is that documented? I had posted a link to a Denver Post article where the ULA CEO said the savings would start sometime in the 2010/2011 time frame (I don't remember exactly) and that was the first documentation I saw of when the savings would start. I think I had mentioned earlier that anyone who believed ULA would save the government any money in the first few years after formation was fooling themselves. That is not a realistic expectation, and not one that was ever suggested by ULA management. If someone has documentation otherwise, I'd love to see it.
-
WHAP - 17/10/2007 12:40 PM
As far as the savings being delayed - where is that documented? I had posted a link to a Denver Post article where the ULA CEO said the savings would start sometime in the 2010/2011 time frame (I don't remember exactly) and that was the first documentation I saw of when the savings would start. I think I had mentioned earlier that anyone who believed ULA would save the government any money in the first few years after formation was fooling themselves. That is not a realistic expectation, and not one that was ever suggested by ULA management. If someone has documentation otherwise, I'd love to see it.
From the RAND report to the DoD (Copywrite 2006):
"After three years, according to the contractors, the gov't will save approximately $100M to $150M per year, or approximately 10-20 percent. The Office of the Sec. of Def. extimates that the savings will be $145M per year ...... etc."
Savings should then kick in at the end 2009 (3 yrs after ULA formation). As I recall, shortly after the ULA annoucement, an executive was quoted as saying that savings wouldn't be realized for 7 yrs. I don't think any rationale thinking person believes that they'll be any savings at all.
-
Expecting savings of $100 mil+ at the end of 2009 is not realistic. The Denver Post article I posted earlier (many pages back) from June of this year quoted the CEO as the savings starting in 2011. That's 1 year different than the Rand report - not worth complaining over, especially since there were still a lot of unknowns before ULA actually formed.
-
How did it work out for everyone in the end? Did people move, are they settled in now? I'm asking after the concerns were raised about this in the earlier pages, about how some people didn't like the idea of relocation (understandable).
-
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/22/from-bitter-rivals-to-budding-friends/
-
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/09/05/commercial-crew-eelv-and-avoiding-repeating-history/
George Sowers, vice president of business development for United Launch Alliance, noted during a panel session at the AIAA Space 2010 conference in Anaheim, California, last Thursday that the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program had a mixed outcome. The program was a technical and programmatic success, he noted, and “an even bigger success” for the US government, in that it invested $1 billion into the program ($500 million each to Boeing and Lockheed Martin), while the two companies put about $4 billion of their own money to develop the Atlas 5 and Delta 4 launch vehicle families. However, it was “a business failure” for the two companies, he said, as they failed to recoup their investment into the vehicles, especially as anticipated commercial launch demand failed to materialize. He noted that at one point in the 1990s Lockheed had a conservative forecast of 19 Atlas 5 launches a year; current launch rates are instead about five a year, virtually all for government customers.