-
#1060 by Dexter on 24 Jun, 2007 00:11
-
Quote
Jim - 23/6/2007 8:05 AM
QuoteDexter - 23/6/2007 12:52 AM
QuoteWHAP - 22/6/2007 11:18 PM
QuoteDexter - 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??
-
#1061 by Dexter on 24 Jun, 2007 00:15
-
Quote
Jim - 23/6/2007 8:03 AM
QuoteDexter - 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.
-
#1062 by Jim on 24 Jun, 2007 00:57
-
Quote
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 -
#1063 by Jim on 24 Jun, 2007 01:07
-
Quote
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 -
#1064 by edkyle99 on 24 Jun, 2007 04:11
-
Quote
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 -
#1065 by WHAP on 24 Jun, 2007 04:36
-
Quote
Dexter - 23/6/2007 6:11 PM
QuoteJim - 23/6/2007 8:05 AM
QuoteDexter - 23/6/2007 12:52 AM
QuoteWHAP - 22/6/2007 11:18 PM
QuoteDexter - 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? -
#1066 by Jim on 24 Jun, 2007 14:52
-
Quote
edkyle99 - 23/6/2007 12:11 AM
QuoteJim - 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) -
#1067 by Dexter on 24 Jun, 2007 16:19
-
Quote
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.
QuoteWHAP - 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).
QuoteWHAP - 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!
-
#1068 by edkyle99 on 24 Jun, 2007 16:57
-
Quote
Jim - 24/6/2007 9:52 AM
Quoteedkyle99 - 23/6/2007 12:11 AM
QuoteJim - 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
-
#1069 by TrueGrit on 24 Jun, 2007 17:02
-
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. -
#1070 by Jim on 24 Jun, 2007 17:35
-
Quote
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.
-
#1071 by Jim on 24 Jun, 2007 17:37
-
Quote
edkyle99 - 24/6/2007 12:57 PM
That is for a launch service and includes other costs in addition to the launch vehicle.
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
As more being more than a Delta II, of course, it is not a medium EELV -
#1072 by yinzer on 24 Jun, 2007 19:40
-
Quote
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. -
#1073 by edkyle99 on 25 Jun, 2007 02:08
-
Quote
Jim - 24/6/2007 12:37 PM
Quoteedkyle99 - 24/6/2007 12:57 PM
That is for a launch service and includes other costs in addition to the launch vehicle.
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
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 -
#1074 by bombay on 25 Jun, 2007 04:06
-
Quote
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!
-
#1075 by Jim on 25 Jun, 2007 11:33
-
Spacex does not equate to ULA. ULA is not a startup by any means.
-
#1076 by Jim on 25 Jun, 2007 11:46
-
Quote
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 -
#1077 by edkyle99 on 25 Jun, 2007 14:37
-
Quote
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 -
#1078 by Jim on 25 Jun, 2007 16:16
-
Quote
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. -
#1079 by Dexter on 26 Jun, 2007 01:15
-
Quote
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.
