-
#1000 by Nick L. on 07 Jun, 2007 05:07
-
Quote
Dexter - 6/6/2007 12:52 AM
QuoteNick L. - 5/6/2007 11:09 PM
Quotebombay - 5/6/2007 9:48 PM
Quotequark - 5/6/2007 7:06 PM
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!
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.
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? -
#1001 by quark on 08 Jun, 2007 03:06
-
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. -
#1002 by Propforce on 08 Jun, 2007 18:12
-
Quote
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?
-
#1003 by Dexter on 13 Jun, 2007 05:48
-
Quote
Nick L. - 6/6/2007 12:07 AM
QuoteDexter - 6/6/2007 12:52 AM
QuoteNick L. - 5/6/2007 11:09 PM
Quotebombay - 5/6/2007 9:48 PM
Quotequark - 5/6/2007 7:06 PM
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!
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.
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.
-
#1004 by Chowder on 15 Jun, 2007 02:52
-
ULAwantabe,
What was the outcome of your job search with ULA? -
#1005 by ULAwantabe on 16 Jun, 2007 01:03
-
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
-
#1006 by Dexter on 19 Jun, 2007 03:13
-
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
-
#1007 by Antares on 19 Jun, 2007 04:26
-
Quote
Dexter - 18/6/2007 11:13 PM
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.
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.
-
#1008 by bombay on 19 Jun, 2007 04:41
-
Quote
Dexter - 18/6/2007 10:13 PM
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?
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
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. -
#1009 by Antares on 19 Jun, 2007 14:56
-
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.
-
#1010 by Jim on 19 Jun, 2007 15:03
-
Quote
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
-
#1011 by kevin-rf on 19 Jun, 2007 17:26
-
Quote
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? -
#1012 by Antares on 19 Jun, 2007 20:20
-
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.
-
#1013 by Jim on 19 Jun, 2007 21:47
-
Quote
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 -
#1014 by Propforce on 19 Jun, 2007 21:53
-
Quote
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".QuoteAnd, 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.
-
#1015 by Propforce on 19 Jun, 2007 22:00
-
Quote
Propforce - 8/6/2007 11:12 AM
Quotequark - 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?
-
#1016 by meiza on 19 Jun, 2007 22:21
-
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... -
#1017 by yinzer on 19 Jun, 2007 23:22
-
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. -
#1018 by bombay on 20 Jun, 2007 00:13
-
Quote
Propforce - 19/6/2007 5:00 PM
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!QuotePropforce - 8/6/2007 11:12 AM
Quotequark - 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?
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. -
#1019 by bombay on 20 Jun, 2007 00:29
-
Quote
Jim - 19/6/2007 10:03 AM
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.
it is total BS to blame this on the formation of ULA.
4. RL-10 problems are not ULA
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.
