-
#1080
by
Dexter
on 26 Jun, 2007 01:29
-
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?
-
#1081
by
Jim
on 26 Jun, 2007 02:10
-
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.
-
#1082
by
TrueGrit
on 26 Jun, 2007 03:23
-
-
#1083
by
bombay
on 26 Jun, 2007 04:50
-
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.
-
#1084
by
TrueGrit
on 26 Jun, 2007 08:54
-
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.
-
#1085
by
Dexter
on 26 Jun, 2007 13:49
-
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?
-
#1086
by
WHAP
on 26 Jun, 2007 16:34
-
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.
-
#1087
by
TrueGrit
on 26 Jun, 2007 19:08
-
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...
-
#1088
by
Antares
on 26 Jun, 2007 20:00
-
This thread needs to be killed. It's been retread more than a recalled Chinese tire.
-
#1089
by
Propforce
on 26 Jun, 2007 21:18
-
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.
-
#1090
by
meiza
on 26 Jun, 2007 22:37
-
There are some DoD / NASA funding efforts with smaller launchers though.
-
#1091
by
WHAP
on 27 Jun, 2007 03:23
-
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.
-
#1092
by
Gus
on 29 Jun, 2007 15:47
-
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.
-
#1093
by
Gov't Seagull
on 30 Jun, 2007 03:17
-
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?
-
#1094
by
Propforce
on 30 Jun, 2007 05:38
-
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:
-
#1095
by
Propforce
on 30 Jun, 2007 05:59
-
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?
-
#1096
by
TrueGrit
on 30 Jun, 2007 17:52
-
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.
-
#1097
by
Jim
on 30 Jun, 2007 18:04
-
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
-
#1098
by
Jim
on 30 Jun, 2007 18:08
-
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?
-
#1099
by
Gov't Seagull
on 30 Jun, 2007 18:29
-
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.
