Dexter - 12/10/2006 12:39 AMQuotequark - 10/10/2006 7:40 PMQuotebombay - 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 10:29 PMQuotequark - 10/10/2006 7:40 PMQuotebombay - 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.
Jim - 12/10/2006 6:02 AMQuoteDexter - 12/10/2006 12:39 AMQuotequark - 10/10/2006 7:40 PMQuotebombay - 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 AMQuoteDexter - 12/10/2006 12:51 AMQuotebombay - 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.
Jim - 12/10/2006 6:04 AMQuotebombay - 11/10/2006 10:29 PMQuotequark - 10/10/2006 7:40 PMQuotebombay - 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.
Dexter - 12/10/2006 10:54 PM
Using the wrong facts to prove nothing - worthless
Jim - 13/10/2006 6:20 AMQuoteDexter - 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 6:17 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
Dexter - 13/10/2006 9:57 AMQuoteJim - 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?
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.
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?
Dexter - 14/10/2006 12:51 AMQuoteJim - 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.
Jim - 14/10/2006 7:32 AMQuoteDexter - 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.
Jim - 14/10/2006 7:33 AMQuoteDexter - 14/10/2006 12:51 AMQuoteJim - 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