-
#220
by
Dexter
on 28 Oct, 2006 16:13
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 10:21 AM
A yahoo message board is the last place to get reliable info.
Notice the mention of rumor in the first sentence. Notice the author (obviously a Dr. Strangelove fan) used rumor in his post.
I also noticed that it has been 17 months since the announcement (Fact)
Also, Boeing and DOD have not completed the Buy 3 (Fact).
What's that saying about smoke and fire?
-
#221
by
Jim
on 28 Oct, 2006 16:14
-
Buy 3 is complete (Fact)
-
#222
by
Dexter
on 28 Oct, 2006 16:17
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 10:47 AM
bombay - 28/10/2006 11:34 AM
Jim - 28/10/2006 10:21 AM
A yahoo message board is the last place to get reliable info.
No more so than you get reliable info. from this board that logically supports ULA.
Logically is the correct term.
I believe Bombay is once again using that clever literary device known as sarcasm.
-
#223
by
bombay
on 28 Oct, 2006 16:46
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 10:57 AM
Buy 3 is complete (Fact)
Not for Boeing (Fact)
-
#224
by
bombay
on 28 Oct, 2006 17:05
-
On the subject of retaining key personnel. Given that pending ULA management would have difficulty in forecasting the winner of a one-horse race as represented by their grade-F attempt in forecasting out year launch markets, you could confidently conclude that their forecasted percentage of retaining key personnel will be some pie-in-the-sky number.
What back-up plan is in place should the percentage of key personnel be far lower than what is forecasted? I am 100% confident that pending ULA management is in total denial regarding this likely possibility and that there is not one back-up plan in place.
-
#225
by
Jim
on 28 Oct, 2006 17:16
-
-
#226
by
Dexter
on 28 Oct, 2006 18:21
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 11:59 AM
It was the FAA and their contractors and studies that have the grade-F attempt in forecasting out year launch markets. The DOD used this in deciding that they would keep two contractors.
http://ast.faa.gov/rep_study/forcasts_and_reports.htm
This is what I don't get. According to this, the original intent of EELV was to downselect to 1 provider. ULA would not even be a consideration now because of one provider with no one else to unite with.
The bad forecast led to a bad decision which should have been corrected "when the market collapsed".
Now inorder to keep two suppliers we use the "assured access to space" argument, not part of the original intent of EELV.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_hr/031203teets.html
"Since maintaining two launch providers is critical to assuring access to space for our national security programs, we will continue to grow our EELV capability for near term assured access."
Reference Section 4.
The person providing the testimony is Peter Teets.
If you don't know who he is, check out his biography.
http://www.aero.org/news/newsitems/teets6-9-05.html
Notice who he was an executive for and where he started his career.
Who wins with ULA? LM in Denver.
Who potentially loses w/o ULA? LM in Denver.
Now that's a conspiracy!
-
#227
by
Jim
on 28 Oct, 2006 19:54
-
LM in Denver does not lose without ULA. Atlas V is the better system.
-
#228
by
Propforce
on 28 Oct, 2006 19:55
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 8:57 AM
Buy 3 is complete (Fact)
Not true (Fact)
-
#229
by
bombay
on 28 Oct, 2006 20:09
-
The silent majority of employees at Boeing and Lockheed fully recognize, without any doubt, that the beneficiaries of ULA are not the gov't, not the taxpayers, not the Boeing/Lockheed engineers and factory workers, not nat'l security. Believe it or not, they don't fall for everthing that's preached to them in lock-step by those championing ULA.
Thus the reason by those that stand to benefit the most of their obvious denial and/or ignoring of the many warning signs in place (i.e. key personnel retention, quality concerns, cost control, reliability issues, etc.) that would refute every argument in favor of forming ULA.
-
#230
by
Dexter
on 28 Oct, 2006 21:30
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 2:37 PM
LM in Denver does not lose without ULA. Atlas V is the better system.
If this is the case, then why does Lockheed support ULA?
By the way, what happens to the price of the "better system" when you have to amortize the development cost of Americanized RD-180s and the heavy variant mentioned in the Rand Report?
At least Boeing has complied with the requirements of EELV.
-
#231
by
Jim
on 28 Oct, 2006 21:33
-
no they haven't, they have Japanese components on the upperstage.
Still would be cheaper
-
#232
by
Propforce
on 28 Oct, 2006 22:06
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 2:16 PM
no they haven't, they have Japanese components on the upperstage.
Not the same. Bad analogy.
-
#233
by
Jim
on 28 Oct, 2006 22:10
-
Propforce - 28/10/2006 5:49 PM
Jim - 28/10/2006 2:16 PM
no they haven't, they have Japanese components on the upperstage.
Not the same. Bad analogy.
Yes, it is the same. Reliance on foreign suppliers. DeltaIV could be shut down just as easy
LM has bought 101 RD-180's and has 20 or so on hand. The Russians are more capitalistic than anyone and cutting off the RD-180 would stop a cash flow.
-
#234
by
R&R
on 29 Oct, 2006 01:01
-
Jim - 29/10/2006 1:37 PM
LM in Denver does not lose without ULA. Atlas V is the better system.
Better system? Not asking you only Jim but I'd like to hear some discussion of which really is better and why. Might be a good new thread maybe from the perspective of a down select to.
-
#235
by
bombay
on 29 Oct, 2006 01:07
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 4:53 PM
Propforce - 28/10/2006 5:49 PM
Jim - 28/10/2006 2:16 PM
no they haven't, they have Japanese components on the upperstage.
Not the same. Bad analogy.
Yes, it is the same. Reliance on foreign suppliers. DeltaIV could be shut down just as easy
LM has bought 101 RD-180's and has 20 or so on hand. The Russians are more capitalistic than anyone and cutting off the RD-180 would stop a cash flow.
You have got to be kidding me. So now you're trying to convince us that the rock solid alliance that the U.S. has with the Japanese is on equal footing with the shaky relationship that the U.S. has with the Russians? Unbelievable!!!
-
#236
by
Dexter
on 29 Oct, 2006 04:25
-
Jim - 28/10/2006 4:53 PM
Propforce - 28/10/2006 5:49 PM
Jim - 28/10/2006 2:16 PM
no they haven't, they have Japanese components on the upperstage.
Not the same. Bad analogy.
Yes, it is the same. Reliance on foreign suppliers. DeltaIV could be shut down just as easy
LM has bought 101 RD-180's and has 20 or so on hand. The Russians are more capitalistic than anyone and cutting off the RD-180 would stop a cash flow.
Yet the Rand Report makes no mention or is concerned with the Japanese supplied tanks but is very explicit in its concern on Americanized RD-180 supply.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG503.pdfI noticed that there is a 4m and a 5m version of the D4 upper stage. Who makes the Hydrogen tank for the 5m version?
-
#237
by
R&R
on 29 Oct, 2006 15:26
-
Boeing does not get the entire Tank from the Japanese they only get the Tank Domes. The factory in Decatur should have the tooling to make the domes but they get them from Japan as part of some related project. I remember reading it was part of new engine development for the second stage. Unfortunately I can't find any more specifics googling right now. Anyone else know more?
-
#238
by
Jim
on 29 Oct, 2006 16:21
-
Boeing doesn't make any domes. They buy all of them. Core and upperstage. The upperstage ones are made in Japan
-
#239
by
bombay
on 29 Oct, 2006 16:53
-
R&R - 28/10/2006 7:44 PM
Jim - 29/10/2006 1:37 PM
LM in Denver does not lose without ULA. Atlas V is the better system.
Better system? Not asking you only Jim but I'd like to hear some discussion of which really is better and why. Might be a good new thread maybe from the perspective of a down select to.
In comparing boost capability to GTO, a strong argument in favor of Atlas V could be made:
Atlas V (401) = 10.9K lbs Delta (medium) = 9.3K lbs
Atlas V (521) = 13.2K Delta (5+2) = 10.2K
Atlas V (541) = 16.7K Delta (5+4) = 14.5K
That RD-180 engine is a beast, there's no denying that. But in a down select, it's been well documented in the RAND and elsewhere that reliance on Russian technology to support U.S. nat'l security would be the downfall of AtlasV even though the AtlasV is the better system.