-
#480
by
Propforce
on 06 Dec, 2006 05:42
-
Jim - 5/12/2006 5:08 PM
1. Yes, it is cost reduction measure but not across the board, only labor. The previous cost cutting measures included reduced testing and analysis.
Jim,
What do you think LABOR means? Do you think you're not in the LABOR category as well? What do you think the most expensive part of testing and analysis involve?
2. a given. But Atlas survived the move to Denver and shuttle survived the move to houston (STS-107 was not due to the move)
Hmmm.. okay, so most of you who are not directly impacted just shrug off the lost of "critical skill" personnel thinking it will be business as usual with or without these "LABOR".
I got news for you. The Shuttle Columbia was partially contributed due to the Boeing's move to Houston and the "experienced personnel" opted not to move. As a result, "inexperienced" analysts were not able to make the right calls. I believe I've covered this issue previously already.
Anyways, a loss of a vehicle in the next few years is not going to prove anything. Statistically, we due for one.
As long as the NASA Mission Integration Office is not to blame, you'll have no worries about your job security
-
#481
by
Propforce
on 06 Dec, 2006 05:46
-
quark - 5/12/2006 5:36 PM
Wasn't there a ULA kick off meeting in Huntington Beach today? What was the mood? And violent demonstrations or effigy burning?
There's no need. Everyone is getting their ducks in order.
-
#482
by
bombay
on 06 Dec, 2006 23:12
-
quark - 5/12/2006 7:36 PM
Atlas survived the move to Denver. And both engineering and production were moved. Delta is moving only engineering to Denver. Production is staying put in Decatur.
Delta II survived production move to Decatur.
That is not to minimize the task, just to say it's been done successfully in the past by the same people.
Production of the core structure of the Atlas II, IIAS, III booster, Centaur upperstage, and associated propellant ducting didn't move to Denver.
Both Denver Atlas V booster production and San Diego production are slated to move to Decatur. You could make a case for comparison in regards to the Delta with moving booster production, but not Centaur.
The GD engineers did move to Denver. I wonder though if the percentage that moved was as low as what the Delta percentage is panning out to be.
-
#483
by
bombay
on 06 Dec, 2006 23:46
-
Jim - 5/12/2006 7:08 PM
3. Where is this? This not applicable to ULA
4. Where is this? This not applicable to ULA
Anyways, a loss of a vehicle in the next few years is not going to prove anything. Statistically, we due for one.
3. ULA's manufacturing rockets, aren't they?
4. The rockets will be built and inspected to specific quality requirements, won't they?
Your ending statement is totally rediculous!
-
#484
by
Jim
on 07 Dec, 2006 00:03
-
There is no connection between
3) inadequate manufacturing process controls
4) insufficient oversight on quality assurance
and ULA.
No, it is true. It has been X years since the last one
-
#485
by
bombay
on 07 Dec, 2006 00:44
-
Jim - 6/12/2006 6:46 PM
There is no connection between
3) inadequate manufacturing process controls
4) insufficient oversight on quality assurance
and ULA.
No, it is true. It has been X years since the last one
I agree, as of right now there's no connection between 3 and 4 and ULA. That's because the Atlas/Centaur manufacturing facilities haven't been moved yet.
I know there hasn't been a failure. But if a failure does occur, which is bound to happen, it may very well be attributed to inexperienced personnel decisions should the key experienced people not move. That's what investigations are all about.
-
#486
by
edkyle99
on 07 Dec, 2006 03:38
-
bombay - 6/12/2006 7:27 PM
Jim - 6/12/2006 6:46 PM
There is no connection between
3) inadequate manufacturing process controls
4) insufficient oversight on quality assurance
and ULA.
No, it is true. It has been X years since the last one
I agree, as of right now there's no connection between 3 and 4 and ULA. That's because the Atlas/Centaur manufacturing facilities haven't been moved yet.
I know there hasn't been a failure. But if a failure does occur, which is bound to happen, it may very well be attributed to inexperienced personnel decisions should the key experienced people not move. That's what investigations are all about.
I look at it his way. The EELVs are not that much different from any other of the world's existing two dozen or so space launch vehicles. They benefit from being new designs created with an eye toward meeting set reliability goals, etc., but they are still unforgiving machines with little margin for error or malfunction.
The very best space launch vehicles have failure rates (predicted rates) in the 2-3% range. Together, both EELVs have flown 15 times to date, with one failure - a result that puts them in the same reliability range as other "biggies" like Proton M and Zenit 3SL (although they are expected to do better than this over the long term).
It doesn't matter if you build them in Denver or San Diego or Pueblo or Decatur or Moscow or Dnepropetrovsk. The failures will come no matter where the things are built. In the bigger scheme of things, it isn't the place or the people that determine the overall failure rate. It is the technology.
- Ed Kyle
-
#487
by
quark
on 07 Dec, 2006 05:07
-
Propforce - 5/12/2006 11:29 PM
quark - 5/12/2006 5:36 PM
Wasn't there a ULA kick off meeting in Huntington Beach today? What was the mood? And violent demonstrations or effigy burning?
There's no need. Everyone is getting their ducks in order.
Good! Time to move on, make it work.
-
#488
by
quark
on 07 Dec, 2006 05:11
-
bombay - 6/12/2006 4:55 PM
The GD engineers did move to Denver. I wonder though if the percentage that moved was as low as what the Delta percentage is panning out to be.
I heard offers will go out next week.
Hey, skiing's really good right now, lots of powder.
-
#489
by
Jim
on 07 Dec, 2006 11:49
-
GX production is moving to ULA
-
#490
by
Propforce
on 07 Dec, 2006 15:06
-
quark - 6/12/2006 9:54 PM
Hey, skiing's really good right now, lots of powder.
Yeah... on the interstate no less !
-
#491
by
edkyle99
on 07 Dec, 2006 20:30
-
Jim - 7/12/2006 6:32 AM
GX production is moving to ULA
Centaur tank production too?
It is a shame that JAXA turned the GX second stage into another costly high-tech national space research project, rather than just applying common sense to develop something that could have been far more cost-effective and flying already.
- Ed Kyle
-
#492
by
yinzer
on 08 Dec, 2006 00:30
-
Flying what, though? Delta II and Soyuz already provide probably five times as much capacity as this part of the market requires. Adding yet another launch vehicle, no matter how "cost effective", is almost certainly not the answer.
-
#493
by
bombay
on 08 Dec, 2006 00:55
-
edkyle99 - 6/12/2006 10:21 PM
I look at it his way. The EELVs are not that much different from any other of the world's existing two dozen or so space launch vehicles. They benefit from being new designs created with an eye toward meeting set reliability goals, etc., but they are still unforgiving machines with little margin for error or malfunction.
The very best space launch vehicles have failure rates (predicted rates) in the 2-3% range. Together, both EELVs have flown 15 times to date, with one failure - a result that puts them in the same reliability range as other "biggies" like Proton M and Zenit 3SL (although they are expected to do better than this over the long term).
It doesn't matter if you build them in Denver or San Diego or Pueblo or Decatur or Moscow or Dnepropetrovsk. The failures will come no matter where the things are built. In the bigger scheme of things, it isn't the place or the people that determine the overall failure rate. It is the technology.
- Ed Kyle
I agree that the structurally stable rocket body design is generally uniform throughout the world. The methods of manufacturing the domes and skins and assembling them into rockets would therefore be comparable, I would think.
The Centaur however, is completely different in design, manufacturing, and assembly. When it was initially designed 40-50 yeras ago, the basic structure was designed to zero margins; the initial skin thickness was something like .012".
Any flaw in the manufacturing process would potentially result in a negative margin condition. I believe that the same holds true today in that there's virtually no margin to play with in the basic structure.
The complexity and uniqueness of the Centaur build coupled with having to build it near perfect isn't going to be easily duplicated in Decatur unless a vast portion of those that know all of the tricks in working with flimsy stainless steel go there.
And yes, random failure is part of the business and I don't know of any failure that was structurally related. Perhaps that's a testimonial of the work of excellent design engineers, structural analysts, and factory workers.
-
#494
by
Jim
on 08 Dec, 2006 02:20
-
the first flight of a Mercury spacecraft on an Atlas had a structural failure at the interface
-
#495
by
edkyle99
on 08 Dec, 2006 06:19
-
yinzer - 7/12/2006 7:13 PM
Flying what, though? Delta II and Soyuz already provide probably five times as much capacity as this part of the market requires. Adding yet another launch vehicle, no matter how "cost effective", is almost certainly not the answer.
National prestige and "assured launch" considerations account for much of the world's excess launch capacity. The "world" may have plenty of medium launch vehicles, but Japan does not. Currently, Japan only has H-2A, which is too big and costly for smaller payloads. GX was initially meant to replace the failed J-1, which itself was meant to replace part of Japan's lost N-1/N2 capacity. Japan also recently flew its final M-V rocket, shrinking its launch options further.
GX was expected to perform 3-4 commercial and/or government launches per year. Payloads could include mobile communications, geodetic survey, navigation, weather, information gathering, land survey, space science, and science satellites.
Meanwhile, with the demise of Delta II on the horizon, and with new polonium discoveries in London seemingly every day, we are reminded that the "world's" medium lift options are by no means assured forever into the future.
- Ed Kyle
-
#496
by
edkyle99
on 08 Dec, 2006 06:26
-
Jim - 7/12/2006 9:03 PM
the first flight of a Mercury spacecraft on an Atlas had a structural failure at the interface
And the first Centaur suffered a structural failure, but only after one of its insulation panels ripped away, causing the propellant tank to overheat.
Centaur, like Atlas, is a rugged machine when loaded and pressurized, but it is a bit more delicate on the ground. At least one Centaur tank was destroyed on the pad at Cape Canaveral during the 1980s or early 1990s when a work platform or tool struck an empty stage and ruptured the tank skin.
But I suspect that a structurally stable upper stage wouldn't fare much better under similar circumstances. Titan stages used to spring leaks, for example, and I believe that at least one was ripped open by a dropped tool in a silo.
- Ed Kyle
-
#497
by
Jim
on 08 Dec, 2006 10:36
-
the destroyed Centaur was in 87. But there were other instantances. It was a work platform. The Titan was punctured by a 18 lb socket that was dropped scores of feet.
-
#498
by
Dexter
on 11 Dec, 2006 04:09
-
How does a work platform punch a hole in a tank?
Sounds like people not following procedures.
Dropped tools, incorrect software entry, and work platforms punching holes in tanks are symptoms of inexperience.
This is how the risk of losing people because they will not relocate under the ULA scheme will manifest itself.
-
#499
by
Nick L.
on 11 Dec, 2006 04:16
-
Dexter - 10/12/2006 10:52 PM
How does a work platform punch a hole in a tank?
Sounds like people not following procedures.
Dropped tools, incorrect software entry, and work platforms punching holes in tanks are symptoms of inexperience.
This is how the risk of losing people because they will not relocate under the ULA scheme will manifest itself.
Or it could just be humans being humans. We all make mistakes all the time. No amount of expertise/training/procedures/whatever will change that.
Nick
