-
#240 by lmike on 29 Oct, 2006 17:11
-
Quote
bombay - 28/10/2006 6:50 PM
...
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!!!
Easy, now. Remember when the Japanese sold some CNC tooling to the Soviets in the 80s that was used in some nuclear sub's drive shaft manufacturing? They trade with everyone nowadays (China especially) And the US may be dumped as soon as they find a better "protector"
The bottom line is, the (perceived) closeness of relationship doesn't matter squat as far the National Security is concerned. Alliances shift and change... It's been true for hundreds of centuries, no reason to believe it wont' be true now... Either we (the US) control the full production of a launcher (and we don't for either), or we don't. (and the domes and engines are not the only things "foreign"...) Heck, we wanted the globalization in the first place didn't we...?
-
#241 by meiza on 29 Oct, 2006 17:58
-
Probably the domes aren't that critical though, they'd be just more expensive to build in USA.
-
#242 by lmike on 29 Oct, 2006 18:03
-
Neither are the RD-180s. The US has a license, the schematics and the hardware. A tank dome's manufacturing to the tolerances is not a trivial task... Agreed, it'd be equally more expensive.
[edit] I'm pretty sure we could hire over some Energomash engineers to kick start the domestic production... -
#243 by Jim on 29 Oct, 2006 20:03
-
Quote
bombay - 29/10/2006 12:36 PM
QuoteR&R - 28/10/2006 7:44 PM
In comparing boost capability to GTO, a strong argument in favor of Atlas V could be made:QuoteJim - 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.
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.
There are more Atlas V variants to fill the gap between Delta Med plus and Heavy. Dial a rocket, just add a solid. Any core can take 1-5 solids (4XX can only have 3 due to qual environments). D-IV cores are specialized with specific tanks and intertanks to be the designated LV type. A Med can only be a medium and Med plus (5,2) can't be a (5, 4) -
#244 by Dexter on 30 Oct, 2006 03:40
-
Quote
lmike - 29/10/2006 12:46 PM
Neither are the RD-180s. The US has a license, the schematics and the hardware. A tank dome's manufacturing to the tolerances is not a trivial task... Agreed, it'd be equally more expensive.
[edit] I'm pretty sure we could hire over some Energomash engineers to kick start the domestic production...
Its not just RD-180s for Atlas V versus tank domes for Delta 4
Atlas 5 buys a payload fairing from Contraves(Switzerland), and interstage structure from CASA (Spain), and Payload Seperation system is Saab/Ericsson (Sweden).
Reference page 5
http://www.futron.com/pdf/US%20Commercial%20Launch%20Industry%20White%20Paper.pdf
Do you see a non-Japanese company for H2?
Do you see a non-European company for Arianne?
Do you see a non-Russian company for Proton?
So much for the assured access argument.
Lets save some real money and forget about ULA and go with Protons instead. They are cheaper and they even have a web site we can go to to buy them commercially.
-
#245 by quark on 30 Oct, 2006 04:43
-
Quote
Dexter - 29/10/2006 9:23 PM
Quotelmike - 29/10/2006 12:46 PM
Neither are the RD-180s. The US has a license, the schematics and the hardware. A tank dome's manufacturing to the tolerances is not a trivial task... Agreed, it'd be equally more expensive.
[edit] I'm pretty sure we could hire over some Energomash engineers to kick start the domestic production...
Its not just RD-180s for Atlas V versus tank domes for Delta 4
Atlas 5 buys a payload fairing from Contraves(Switzerland), and interstage structure from CASA (Spain), and Payload Seperation system is Saab/Ericsson (Sweden).
Reference page 5
http://www.futron.com/pdf/US%20Commercial%20Launch%20Industry%20White%20Paper.pdf
Do you see a non-Japanese company for H2?
Do you see a non-European company for Arianne?
Do you see a non-Russian company for Proton?
So much for the assured access argument.
Lets save some real money and forget about ULA and go with Protons instead. They are cheaper and they even have a web site we can go to to buy them commercially.
Eliminating one or the other of Atlas or Delta will be extremely messy. Dexter and Bombay are worried about preserving the workforce. A downselect puts one or the other of America's heritage rocket systems out of business and eliminates a large percentage of our rocket expertise. So we lose some great technology and assured access. By the way, assured access (through two independent systems) is policy issued by the OSTP of the Wite House.
Beyond the workforce and assured access concerns, the USG will still be left with a monopoly.
The process for downselect is not at all thought out. Would it be a competition? What sort of competition? Would others be allowed to compete (like SpaceX)? Current policy required the DOD to revisit assured access by 2010.
One of the benefits of ULA is that it takes alot of pressure of the USG to deal with the downselect issue. They can just let ULA "handle it". But the point of ULA is to preserve both systems for as long as possible---hopefully forever. -
#246 by Jim on 30 Oct, 2006 11:19
-
"Payload Seperation system is Saab/Ericsson (Sweden)"
Both Delta and Atlas use it. But it not required. Most DOD spacecraft provide their own sep systems and there still are others available
'Atlas 5 buys a payload fairing from Contraves(Switzerland), and interstage structure from CASA (Spain)"
That is only the 5 meter version
"Do you see a non-Japanese company for H2? "
Yes,, Boeing provides some support
"Do you see a non-Russian company for Proton? "
Yes, ILS and SAAB
"Lets save some real money and forget about ULA and go with Protons instead. They are cheaper and they even have a web site we can go to to buy them commercially."
This is just plain stupidity at an attempt at humor -
#247 by bombay on 31 Oct, 2006 00:22
-
"Eliminating one or the other of Atlas or Delta will be extremely messy. Dexter and Bombay are worried about preserving the workforce. A downselect puts one or the other of America's heritage rocket systems out of business and eliminates a large percentage of our rocket expertise. So we lose some great technology and assured access. By the way, assured access (through two independent systems) is policy issued by the OSTP of the Wite House"
The initial intent of EELV was to remove one or the other via downselect. So the process to do so is likely still intact.
I'm not on some crusade to preserve jobs. It's the ULA proponents that keep singing the tune about assured access to space and preservation of nat'l security as if this will happen under ULA without securing key personnel. Without doing so, Delta core engineering and Atlas manufacturing and support engineering are reduced to a huge question mark. Therefore, ULA will weaken assured access and nat'l security concerns rather than strengthen them.
After 18 months following the announcement of ULA you would have thought that Boeing and Lockheed would have: identified key employees, approached key employees, offered incentives to key employees to stay on-board, secured key employees. They've done none of this nor do they have a contingency in place should these people choose to not make the move.
Given that nat'l security and assured access is the trump card used by the DoD and FTC in allowing ULA to proceed, you might think that Boeing/Lockheed would have a plan other than "lets just form the company and they will come".
-
#248 by Jim on 31 Oct, 2006 01:09
-
"After 18 months following the announcement of ULA you would have thought that Boeing and Lockheed would have: identified key employees, approached key employees, offered incentives to key employees to stay on-board, secured key employees"
They can't by law. Not until the merger is oked, can the companies go ahead with the detailed planning. -
#249 by Dexter on 31 Oct, 2006 06:04
-
Quote
Jim - 30/10/2006 6:02 AM
"Lets save some real money and forget about ULA and go with Protons instead. They are cheaper and they even have a web site we can go to to buy them commercially."
This is just plain stupidity at an attempt at humor
This is called hyperbole and is used as a means of exaggeration. You claim that the Atlas V is a better system for launching all the National security payloads in spite all the foreign content.
But using a totally foreign system like Proton is "just plain stupidity". So where do we draw the line on how much foreign content should be in a rocket for launching national security payloads.
Is there some defined threshold.
And what of the promise made in 1997 to Americanize RD-180s. The Rand report is very explicit in ther concern on this matter. How long does it take to build one of these engines in the US.
Perhaps Lockheed is just delaying the process to foot ULA with the $800M tab. -
#250 by Dexter on 31 Oct, 2006 06:20
-
Quote
quark - 29/10/2006 11:26 PM
Eliminating one or the other of Atlas or Delta will be extremely messy. Dexter and Bombay are worried about preserving the workforce. A downselect puts one or the other of America's heritage rocket systems out of business and eliminates a large percentage of our rocket expertise. So we lose some great technology and assured access. By the way, assured access (through two independent systems) is policy issued by the OSTP of the Wite House.
.
Option 1 - Status quo. No risk of loosing workforce through relocations.
Option 2 - Downselect one supplier. The other supplier can excercise some entreprenurial spirit and try to capture business in the commercial market or fold up their tent.
Option 3 - ULA - Combine two programs into one which means:
Atlas V - risk loosing critcal manufacturing skills
Delta IV - risk loosing critical engineering skills
End result, risk loosing national security payloads.
DOD and FTC acknowledge no cost savings so why do ULA.
Option 2 is the original intent of EELV.
Option 1 meets the OSTP requirement (Teets).
Option 3
?
-
#251 by GraphGuy on 31 Oct, 2006 20:45
-
Quote
lmike - 29/10/2006 11:54 AM
Easy, now. Remember when the Japanese sold some CNC tooling to the Soviets in the 80s that was used in some nuclear sub's drive shaft manufacturing? They trade with everyone nowadays (China especially) And the US may be dumped as soon as they find a better "protector"
Not to throw water on you, but who would the Japanese look to for a protector apart from America?
China: not going to happen, they are still is a bit sore over Japan invading and occupying them in WWII.
Russia: not going to happen, Japan fought a war with them and won.
Korea: see China.
EU: not going to happen, the EU can barely offer a credible military deterrent for their own borders, let alone protecting Japan if Kim lobs a nuke at Japan.
Japan isn't going to find another protector, ever. I'm perfectly fine with us having them manufacture fuel tanks. We sell them F-15s and PAC-3s. We licensed Aegis technology to them so why not let them make fuel tanks?
-
#252 by Dexter on 02 Nov, 2006 03:33
-
Here is something interesting form the White House Office of Management and Budget.
"1.4 Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?
Explanation: Currently the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) system and associated programs can meet user demands and launch to their manifests. However, there are continuing issues associated with both the launch industry and definition of underlying EELV requirements. The EELV program, when conceived, was to be leveraged on the commercial launch market projections for a large volume of launches. Since then the commercial market has collapsed resulting in a significantly lower launch rate than anticipated. This low launch rate has delayed the build-up in flight experience, reducing confidence in the system's reliability, and driving up the costs per launch. These cost pressures, low vehicle production rates, and low launch volumes are some of the factors influencing the industry consolidation: United Launch Alliance (ULA), a proposed joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
OMB is concerned that creation of ULA could, in the long term, be counter to many of the 'assured access' requirements postulated for 'assured access to space'. In addition, 'assured access' space launch requirements are not matched by an 'assured space capability' investment strategy, invalidating many 'assured access' benefits. This is a major shortfall in DoD and Air Force space strategy.
Evidence: National Security Space Acquisition Policy, Number 03-01, Dec 27, 2004 DoDI 5000.1, The Defense Acquisition System, May 12, 2003 (Recertified Nov 24, 2003 DoDI 5000.2, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, May 12, 2003 Operational Requirements Document: Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, Sep 98. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10003204.2005.html -
#253 by Dexter on 03 Nov, 2006 05:16
-
I missed this quote in section 1.3
"The Air Force and DoD have interpreted the 'assured access to space' strategy as requiring two EELV launch vehicle contractors. It is not clear to OMB that this strategy is the best method to satisfy the 'assured access to space' requirements. "
Does anyone rememeber who was the Secretary of the Air Force when this strategy was adopted? -
#254 by Jim on 03 Nov, 2006 11:52
-
Quote
Dexter - 3/11/2006 12:59 AM
I missed this quote in section 1.3
"The Air Force and DoD have interpreted the 'assured access to space' strategy as requiring two EELV launch vehicle contractors. It is not clear to OMB that this strategy is the best method to satisfy the 'assured access to space' requirements. "
Does anyone rememeber who was the Secretary of the Air Force when this strategy was adopted?
Can the conspriacy BS.
As SECAF, he would have to divest himself of stocks and such from previous emplyment.
This is getting really tiring, all your inane comments
-
#255 by Dexter on 03 Nov, 2006 14:37
-
Quote
Jim - 3/11/2006 6:35 AM
QuoteDexter - 3/11/2006 12:59 AM
I missed this quote in section 1.3
"The Air Force and DoD have interpreted the 'assured access to space' strategy as requiring two EELV launch vehicle contractors. It is not clear to OMB that this strategy is the best method to satisfy the 'assured access to space' requirements. "
Does anyone rememeber who was the Secretary of the Air Force when this strategy was adopted?
Can the conspriacy BS.
As SECAF, he would have to divest himself of stocks and such from previous emplyment.
This is getting really tiring, all your inane comments
Noticed you did not respond to the White House assessments that contradict the DOD /USAF interpretation. I did not make those up and they are not my opinions. I have provided you quotes and links.
As far as the conspiracy theory, every conspiracy is vehemently denied until it is uncovered.
Darleen Drunyun was a conspiracy until it uncovered.
Gulf of Tonkin Incident was an incident until Robert McFarland admitted it was a set-up.
Watergate was not a break-in until it was.
Iran-Contra, the Lewinsky scandal, Rep. Foley, Rep. Cunningham etc.....
Pardon me if I don't believe everything at face value.
Mr. Teets may not have gained monetarily but he sure had some strong links to Lockheed in Denver. The Classic "Old Boy" network. -
#256 by Jim on 03 Nov, 2006 15:47
-
"Mr. Teets may not have gained monetarily but he sure had some strong links to Lockheed in Denver. "
"Had" is the operative word.
OMB is only "concerned". Tough words. If they were against it, then that might be something
-
#257 by spacedreams on 03 Nov, 2006 16:36
-
I thought the primary reason for this merger was that both companies were losing money off their EELV programs and there was a very real concern that at least one of them could realistically pull out of the market leaving the government with only one vehicle. The merger probably isn't the ideal situation but at least some of the employees from each company would be retained, the paperwork and facilities would be retained rather than mothballed, and allow for continuation of both vehicles. I'm not an expert on the unmanned vehicles but that is the impression I got and please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm only saying this because people here seem to be comparing having ULA vs strong seperate Boeing and Lockheed entities. But is the later really a choice? At the corporate level, these guys exist to maintain stock value and the EELV programs aren't helping them. -
#258 by Dexter on 03 Nov, 2006 22:26
-
The original intent of the EELV program was to have only one vehicle with an MLV-A and HLV configurations. The FAA market forecasts for a strong commercial market which Jim provided earlier allowed the DOD to justify downselecting both finalists. When the "market collapsed" (although the satellite market is still strong), the DOD should have corrected their decision by downselecting to one. The Secretary of the Air Force at the time, Mr. Peter Teets, presented the argument of assured access and the need to keep both systems. The OMB questions this strategy.
The EELV proponents here also claim that the retirements of Atlas III and Delta 2 were done with cost savings in mind because of the cost of maintaining two sets of everything. But its OK to have two sets of everything when it comes to EELV/ULA. This is classic double standard logic.
Then the FTC questions the promised savings of $100-$150 million per year and the DOD responds that national security requirements are more important but the risk of relocating Atlas manufacturing and Delta engineering are completely ignored even though some posters here will tell you that this is a very real scenario which will impact national security.
What I find the most ironic is that the EELV proponents chastise the Ares I vehicle by characterizing it as the "Keeping ATK alive" program in the "Writing Congress" thread while supporting ULA which in essence is keeping Atlas or Delta alive. More double standard logic.
While trying to present my argument, I continue to post information from other web sites as supporting evidence while the EELV proponents counter with opinion and hide behind the cloak of priviledged information and then try to supress ideas not in line with their own by calling them inane etc...
I am convinced that "WRONG", "Wrong Conclusion", "Your Wrong" etc... are pre-programmed hot keys -
#259 by Dexter on 03 Nov, 2006 23:11
-
Quote
Jim - 30/10/2006 7:52 PM
"After 18 months following the announcement of ULA you would have thought that Boeing and Lockheed would have: identified key employees, approached key employees, offered incentives to key employees to stay on-board, secured key employees"
They can't by law. Not until the merger is oked, can the companies go ahead with the detailed planning.Would you consider a benefits package detailed planning?
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:pUHo4pPhCcMJ:www.goiam.org/uploadedFiles/ULA%2520Update%2520by%2520Mike%2520Gass%2520CEO%2520of%2520ULA%252026%2520Sept.%25202005.doc
From September 2005, I quote,
"You will be receiving group insurance annual enrollment information in October addressed to you as Lockheed Martin employees. This annual enrollment material is applicable for the next calendar year whether you are a Lockheed Martin employee or a ULA employee as of Jan. 1, 2006. All options reflected will be offered to both Lockheed Martin and ULA employees. There may be differences in the Long Term Disability, Special Accident, Group Universal Life or Dependent Optional Term Life contribution amounts if you are a ULA employee. If that is the case, the information will be provided to you after the joint venture closing date. However, the medical, dental and vision options offered and the cost of those plans that will be effective Jan. 1, 2006 will be the same whether you are a Lockheed Martin employee or a ULA employee. Please make your elections for 2006 coverage accordingly during the annual enrollment period."
