-
#500
by
Jim
on 11 Dec, 2006 11:43
-
Dexter - 10/12/2006 11:52 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.
Dropped tool was a USAF sergeant and no contractors were around for miles
work platform was due to a very experience crew not checking that a extension cord was tangled in a platform.
incorrect software entry wasn't an inexperience person
Nick is correct.
your logic doesn't hold water.
-
#501
by
Dexter
on 11 Dec, 2006 14:06
-
So, What you are saying is that even experienced crews make human errors.
What is the logical conclusion for comparing the amount of errors of an experienced crew versus in an inexperienced crew???
-
#502
by
Jim
on 11 Dec, 2006 14:22
-
Dexter - 11/12/2006 9:49 AM
So, What you are saying is that even experienced crews make human errors.
That is basic human nature
And, we don't know if ULA will have "inexperienced" crews. That has yet to be seen
-
#503
by
edkyle99
on 11 Dec, 2006 14:52
-
Jim - 11/12/2006 9:05 AM
Dexter - 11/12/2006 9:49 AM
So, What you are saying is that even experienced crews make human errors.
That is basic human nature
I once watched the most experienced, trusted electrical technician at a well-known military contractor - a guy who had umpteen years experience, who was initially and rigorously trained in the U.S. Navy, and who every engineer in the company knew was the "guy who could get the job done" - hook up a brand new microprocessor "green" board that he had just spent one week wiring - up to the power supply backward - instantly blowing every one of the dozens of chips on the board.
He knew what he had done as soon as he flipped the power supply switch. In fact, he turned the switch off all most as soon as he turned it on, but it was too late. Then, he took a big breath, unhooked the power supply leads, and turned on his soldering iron to start over.
- Ed Kyle
-
#504
by
Dexter
on 12 Dec, 2006 05:53
-
Jim - 11/12/2006 9:05 AM
Dexter - 11/12/2006 9:49 AM
So, What you are saying is that even experienced crews make human errors.
That is basic human nature
And, we don't know if ULA will have "inexperienced" crews. That has yet to be seen
True.
However, based on the ULA executive, Dan Collins saying he would be happy with 1/3 of the HB engineers relocating, I can see the ULA management using Atlas people to plug the holes in Denver to support Delta, which would then dilute the talent pool.
Couple that with more defects on the Atlas side because the factories moved and the remaining Atlas engineers have there hands full dealing with those problems.
Even the remaining experienced folks will become overwhelmed and can easily cross the leads as Ed Kyle describes above.
It just takes one component to fail.
-
#505
by
Jim
on 12 Dec, 2006 11:13
-
Dexter - 12/12/2006 1:36 AM
Jim - 11/12/2006 9:05 AM
Dexter - 11/12/2006 9:49 AM
So, What you are saying is that even experienced crews make human errors.
That is basic human nature
And, we don't know if ULA will have "inexperienced" crews. That has yet to be seen
True.
However, based on the ULA executive, Dan Collins saying he would be happy with 1/3 of the HB engineers relocating, I can see the ULA management using Atlas people to plug the holes in Denver to support Delta, which would then dilute the talent pool.
Couple that with more defects on the Atlas side because the factories moved and the remaining Atlas engineers have there hands full dealing with those problems.
Even the remaining experienced folks will become overwhelmed and can easily cross the leads as Ed Kyle describes above.
It just takes one component to fail.
And the same thing could happen without the effects of the merger. So what is the point? Either way, deligence is required.
-
#506
by
Dexter
on 12 Dec, 2006 14:33
-
The trigger or catalyst in my scenario is ULA itself and all the associated consolidations (read relocations).
Please identify how in a non-ULA environment, you would get a 2/3 reduction in engineering staff from the Delta program let alone the impact on Atlas manufacturing.
-
#507
by
edkyle99
on 12 Dec, 2006 14:39
-
Dexter - 12/12/2006 9:16 AM
The trigger or catalyst in my scenario is ULA itself and all the associated consolidations (read relocations).
Please identify how in a non-ULA environment, you would get a 2/3 reduction in engineering staff from the Delta program let alone the impact on Atlas manufacturing.
In a non-ULA environment, you would get a 100% reduction in Delta employment, engineering and production, because the program would be non-viable.
Look at next year, for example. Two or three Delta 4 launches planned. Half a dozen or more Atlas 5 launches planned. Twice as many Atlas 5 mission in 2008 too. Etc...
- Ed Kyle
-
#508
by
bombay
on 13 Dec, 2006 00:20
-
edkyle99 - 12/12/2006 9:22 AM
In a non-ULA environment, you would get a 100% reduction in Delta employment, engineering and production, because the program would be non-viable.
Look at next year, for example. Two or three Delta 4 launches planned. Half a dozen or more Atlas 5 launches planned. Twice as many Atlas 5 mission in 2008 too. Etc...
- Ed Kyle
It makes you wonder, why even fly Delta IV mediums at all? Are the Delta IV medium, 4+2, 5+2, etc. destined to be mothballed in favor of Atlas V only to be resurrected if absolutely necessary?
With 2/3 or more of the Delta talent potentially bailing ship, I could see ULA keeping a small skeleton crew around just to maintain the program for political reasons.
-
#509
by
Jim
on 13 Dec, 2006 00:42
-
Any Atlas with more than two solids has more performance than the D-IV M+(5,2). the heavy is still needed. Anyways, the 2/3 or more is engineering, not production or launch ops. Most "users" prefer LM legacy processes vs Boeing's. Boeing never worked with USAF, NRO or NASA Lewis, only Goddard, which ran the program rather loosely
-
#510
by
bombay
on 13 Dec, 2006 01:05
-
Why build if your not going to launch? If the plan is to treat Delta IV as a spare, production and launch ops personnel will get terminated. They'll keep enough to maintain the heavy. I'm beginning to think ULA wants no more than 1/3 of the Delta engineers to make the move; it fits into this plan perfectly.
-
#511
by
skywalker
on 13 Dec, 2006 01:33
-
Have the offers gone out to the HB Engineers? Have any accepted or rejected their offer? I beleive it will be 20% max and not the right 20%.
ULA management has not even visted San Diego yet, been every where else. Apparently they will be there tomorrow wonder if they say anything about the move to Alabama. I can not see much more than 10% total moving from SD to Alabama.
I believe there are jobs in SD area and the LA area people tend to resist change or minimize it. ULA has happened so that change has occurred nothing can be done. Next is moving to new place or changing jobs - easier to change jobs than move, therefore not many will move. I would love to know the final count.
-
#512
by
Jim
on 13 Dec, 2006 02:12
-
bombay - 12/12/2006 8:48 PM
Why build if your not going to launch? If the plan is to treat Delta IV as a spare, production and launch ops personnel will get terminated. They'll keep enough to maintain the heavy. I'm beginning to think ULA wants no more than 1/3 of the Delta engineers to make the move; it fits into this plan perfectly.
Still need the heavy. Also the bulk of the Decatur plant is for Delta. It would have be cheaper to keep the Atlas Denver production.
-
#513
by
bombay
on 13 Dec, 2006 04:16
-
skywalker - 12/12/2006 8:16 PM
ULA management has not even visted San Diego yet, been every where else. Apparently they will be there tomorrow wonder if they say anything about the move to Alabama. I can not see much more than 10% total moving from SD to Alabama.
For some reason Centaur production didn't move to Denver following the GD acquisition. I have no idea what changed and what they hope to gain by attempting to move San Diego to Alabama.
-
#514
by
Dexter
on 13 Dec, 2006 05:44
-
edkyle99 - 12/12/2006 9:22 AM
Dexter - 12/12/2006 9:16 AM
The trigger or catalyst in my scenario is ULA itself and all the associated consolidations (read relocations).
Please identify how in a non-ULA environment, you would get a 2/3 reduction in engineering staff from the Delta program let alone the impact on Atlas manufacturing.
In a non-ULA environment, you would get a 100% reduction in Delta employment, engineering and production, because the program would be non-viable.
Look at next year, for example. Two or three Delta 4 launches planned. Half a dozen or more Atlas 5 launches planned. Twice as many Atlas 5 mission in 2008 too. Etc...
- Ed Kyle
If assured access to space required 2 programs, the USAF could justify making both programs viable (which is what I thought Buy3 contracts were all about). Downselecting Atlas with a 100% reduction in Delta engineers is the wrong choice from a National security standpoint.
Perhaps we will have to start screening Russian suplied RD-180s for traces of polonium-210.
-
#515
by
R&R
on 13 Dec, 2006 23:10
-
edkyle99 - 13/12/2006 8:22 AM
Look at next year, for example. Two or three Delta 4 launches planned. Half a dozen or more Atlas 5 launches planned. Twice as many Atlas 5 mission in 2008 too. Etc...
- Ed Kyle
Where did you get the Atlas numbers from? I can see the half dozen next year but the dozen in 08 sounds high.
-
#516
by
edkyle99
on 14 Dec, 2006 01:43
-
R&R - 13/12/2006 5:53 PM
edkyle99 - 13/12/2006 8:22 AM
Look at next year, for example. Two or three Delta 4 launches planned. Half a dozen or more Atlas 5 launches planned. Twice as many Atlas 5 mission in 2008 too. Etc...
- Ed Kyle
Where did you get the Atlas numbers from? I can see the half dozen next year but the dozen in 08 sounds high.
My mistake. I meant to write "twice as many Atlas 5 missions as Delta 4 missions in 2008 too."
Sorry about that!
- Ed Kyle
-
#517
by
Gus
on 15 Dec, 2006 20:12
-
skywalker - 12/12/2006 6:16 PM
I believe there are jobs in SD area and the LA area people tend to resist change or minimize it. ULA has happened so that change has occurred nothing can be done. Next is moving to new place or changing jobs - easier to change jobs than move, therefore not many will move. I would love to know the final count.
This is a very good point. When we moved to Denver in 94-95 timeframe the initial reaction of most of my peers including myself was to look for another job in SD. It was not a good time then to do so and relocation was the best option. Today the situation is different from what I understand, with Nortrop Grumman running the Globalhawk program from San Diego along with General Atomics designing and building Predators in San Diego. The UAV industry will quickly snap up these folks of they are not willing to relocate, in my humble opinion.
The internal ULA website has a roster of the 4,016 employees who are now part of ULA and there are 109 located in San Diego.
-
#518
by
bombay
on 15 Dec, 2006 22:51
-
Gus - 15/12/2006 2:55 PM
The internal ULA website has a roster of the 4,016 employees who are now part of ULA and there are 109 located in San Diego.
Under normal circumstances, from a shear business perspective, it's hard to justify keeping a production facility open when only 109 are employed in it.
San Diego is probably still a self sustaining place that never relied much on outside resources, meaning that the 109 staffs all funtional organizations that make a facility operate. Of the 109, less than half are likely to have the technical skills to build the rocket and deal with the engineering issues.
Given that there's no place else to draw from to figure out how to build a stainless steel rocket and deal with the problems that go along with it, I would say that the 30-40 shop people and 5-10 engineers in San Diego (the critical ones at least) are in a pretty good position to squeeze the ULA if they choose to do so.
-
#519
by
skywalker
on 16 Dec, 2006 06:21
-
bombay - 15/12/2006 5:34 PM
Gus - 15/12/2006 2:55 PM
The internal ULA website has a roster of the 4,016 employees who are now part of ULA and there are 109 located in San Diego.
Under normal circumstances, from a shear business perspective, it's hard to justify keeping a production facility open when only 109 are employed in it.
San Diego is probably still a self sustaining place that never relied much on outside resources, meaning that the 109 staffs all funtional organizations that make a facility operate. Of the 109, less than half are likely to have the technical skills to build the rocket and deal with the engineering issues.
Given that there's no place else to draw from to figure out how to build a stainless steel rocket and deal with the problems that go along with it, I would say that the 30-40 shop people and 5-10 engineers in San Diego (the critical ones at least) are in a pretty good position to squeeze the ULA if they choose to do so.
ULA has a choice to make about SD move it or keep it. They will not ask the employees ahead of time "Are you going to move?", therefore they will make the decision then ask. If ULA chooses to move and the employees in SD (critical ones) decide NOT to go, ULA will be in a world of trouble. The Centaur is not an easy product to make and without the correct critical skills, well your guess is as good as mine. ULA would then need to offer knowledge transfer contracts (this is where the squeeze play could happen), but that would need to be figured into the move cost, how do you predict that? This will not be a simple decsision, unless ULA chooses to stay in SD and bring other work there such as Centaur final assembly, Delta duct fabrication, etc and increas the work force. My money right this second is on SD staying put. Remember it is a different type of welding than what is done in Alabama.