-
#100
by
lmike
on 10 Oct, 2006 06:31
-
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)
-
#101
by
Jim
on 10 Oct, 2006 12:20
-
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.
-
#102
by
Propforce
on 10 Oct, 2006 17:24
-
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.
-
#103
by
Propforce
on 10 Oct, 2006 17:37
-
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.
-
#104
by
spacedreams
on 10 Oct, 2006 18:21
-
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
-
#105
by
Jim
on 10 Oct, 2006 18:30
-
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
-
#106
by
Jim
on 10 Oct, 2006 18:31
-
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.
-
#107
by
Propforce
on 10 Oct, 2006 19:19
-
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.
-
#108
by
edkyle99
on 10 Oct, 2006 20:35
-
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
-
#109
by
Jim
on 10 Oct, 2006 23:10
-
HB is not going away. Just the Delta program
-
#110
by
Propforce
on 11 Oct, 2006 00:00
-
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.
-
#111
by
bombay
on 11 Oct, 2006 00:41
-
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!!!
-
#112
by
quark
on 11 Oct, 2006 00:57
-
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.
-
#113
by
lmike
on 11 Oct, 2006 09:08
-
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.
-
#114
by
Propforce
on 11 Oct, 2006 23:34
-
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.
-
#115
by
Gus
on 12 Oct, 2006 01:52
-
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.pdfat 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.
-
#116
by
bombay
on 12 Oct, 2006 02:46
-
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.
-
#117
by
Dexter
on 12 Oct, 2006 04:56
-
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.
-
#118
by
Dexter
on 12 Oct, 2006 05:08
-
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.
-
#119
by
Jim
on 12 Oct, 2006 11:18
-
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.