-
#520 by Dexter on 16 Dec, 2006 15:24
-
Of course, as suggested earlier, the decision will be made by Powerpoint experts who see these people as interchangable like light bulbs and the lessons from the Titan IV failures will be summarily dismissed as they have been done in this thread.
Here are a couple of interesting links for job opportunities with Nortrop Grumman and General Atomics:
http://careers.northropgrumman.com/ExternalHorizonsWeb/quickQuery.do?state=CA%3A%3AUSA&jobCategory=Engineering%2FProduct+Development
http://search9.smartsearchonline.com/generalatomics/jobs_asi/process_jobsearch.asp
There are 83 postings for engineering positions at General Atomics.
5-10 engineers could easily land a job at either company and they should be attractive candidates because they would not require relocation packages.
The same argument extends to the Huntington Beach folks as the Northrop Grumman web site has many space related opportunities in the LA area.
-
#521 by Jim on 16 Dec, 2006 15:31
-
There is a big difference in launch vehicle engineering vs spacecraft. Not many of the Boeing people could do some of the NG jobs. Plus many of the analysts (thermal, EMI, stress, etc) are to stay with Boeing.
ULA is here. You can stop your doom and gloom predictions. they have 2 years for the transitions.
BTW ULA is 1 for 1 -
#522 by Dexter on 16 Dec, 2006 16:21
-
If I was in charge of hiring people, I would think that someone with launch vehicle experience would be of great value for spacecraft design even if they are not the same, as opposed to someone with no experience at all.
Congratulations to the Delta team. This is the same pre-ULA Delta team.
The gloom and doom will take about two years. Good Luck with that Decatur built Centaur flying your NASA mission.
-
#523 by bombay on 16 Dec, 2006 17:30
-
Congratulations to the ULA team and their first launch under the ULA banner.
In 2009 or so the Delta II will be phased out and turned over to Atlas V and Delta IV, with Atlas V being the odds on favorite to carry the bulk of the load where the Centaur build will accelerate beyond what it is now.
The doom and gloom relative to Centaur becomes a reality with respects to a move to Decatur. I challenge anybody to tell me where else in the world other than San Diego are there people with any knowledge at all on how to build a Centaur and fix many of the problems before and after they happen.
I've had some experience in the past in dealing with the manufacturing side of fence with various products (some easy, some hard) and there is one common denominator in every circumstance: "There's the blue print or modeled way to build it and then there's the way to build it".
The transition period might as well be 10 years if the power point fools think that any collection of new employees can do what the San Diego people have done for 40 yrs because that's about how long it way take to put a Centaur out the door.
-
#524 by Dexter on 16 Dec, 2006 21:17
-
This issue just strikes at the core of the flawed logic used to justify ULA in the first place of maintaining assured access to space.
Now that ULA is here, the clock is ticking and we as American taxpayers better hope that the government has some control over what ULA does as consolidations commence in order to improve the bottom line.
Let's hope that people with an understanding of manufacturing are involved in decision making and not just the typical bean-counting, power-point makers.
-
#525 by Propforce on 16 Dec, 2006 22:41
-
Quote
Jim - 16/12/2006 8:14 AM
There is a big difference in launch vehicle engineering vs spacecraft. Not many of the Boeing people could do some of the NG jobs.
Obviously many of the Boeing people know how to do them as Boeing is the BIGGEST satellite manufacturer in the U.S. Many of the Delta IV engineers moved on to design the Orbital Express and X-37B, etc. Boeing HB is the ONLY site that has the personnel who actually has the MANNED SPACECRAFT design experience, e.g., the Space Shuttle.
Perhasp Jim thinks there's a big difference because on the power point chart the satellite looks short & stubby whereas a launch vehicle looks long & skinny
QuotePlus many of the analysts (thermal, EMI, stress, etc) are to stay with Boeing.
Yeah.. but not with the ULA. Those guys can find jobs most easily around the LA area, even within Boeing. Many of these senior guys have already quit. One key manager gave up his manager job so he can "transition" easily.QuoteBTW ULA is 1 for 1
You should have said that the Delta II continue to hold its DEMONSTRATED RELIABILITY RECORD for launch vehicles that is unprecedented even for Atlas, and we should keep these talented people in CALIFORNIA to continue the MISSION ASSURANCE SUCCESS with the Delta II. Don't try to move them and F^&*-UP the sucess !!
-
#526 by Jim on 16 Dec, 2006 23:02
-
Quote
Propforce - 16/12/2006 6:24 PM
Obviously many of the Boeing people know how to do them as Boeing is the BIGGEST satellite manufacturer in the U.S. Many of the Delta IV engineers moved on to design the Orbital Express and X-37B, etc. Boeing HB is the ONLY site that has the personnel who actually has the MANNED SPACECRAFT design experience, e.g., the Space Shuttle.
I was referring to the Boeing HB Delta people that would refuse to go to Denver. They aren't the satellite types. Actually, no, that was Downey. they moved them to HB and then the work went to Houston. I doubt few of them are left in HB -
#527 by Jim on 16 Dec, 2006 23:05
-
Quote
Propforce - 16/12/2006 6:24 PM
You should have said that the Delta II continue to hold its DEMONSTRATED RELIABILITY RECORD for launch vehicles that is unprecedented even for Atlas, and we should keep these talented people in CALIFORNIA to continue the MISSION ASSURANCE SUCCESS with the Delta II. Don't try to move them and F^&*-UP the sucess !!
Altas has the longest success streak now. Atlas II, III and V have a 100% success rate. -
#528 by Dexter on 17 Dec, 2006 02:00
-
Quote
Jim - 16/12/2006 10:14 AM
There is a big difference in launch vehicle engineering vs spacecraft. Not many of the Boeing people could do some of the NG jobs. Plus many of the analysts (thermal, EMI, stress, etc) are to stay with Boeing.
Since these analysts are staying with Boeing, what will ULA do to replace them?Sounds like the talent exodus is already begining according to your post.
-
#529 by edkyle99 on 17 Dec, 2006 03:23
-
Quote
Jim - 16/12/2006 5:48 PM
QuotePropforce - 16/12/2006 6:24 PM
You should have said that the Delta II continue to hold its DEMONSTRATED RELIABILITY RECORD for launch vehicles that is unprecedented even for Atlas, and we should keep these talented people in CALIFORNIA to continue the MISSION ASSURANCE SUCCESS with the Delta II. Don't try to move them and F^&*-UP the sucess !!
Altas has the longest success streak now. Atlas II, III and V have a 100% success rate.
You are comparing Apples to Oranges, Pears, and Tomatoes. Atlas 2, 3, and 5 are three different launch vehicles no matter their names.
If you want to compare vehicles this way, then you must acknowledge that Centaur only has a minor streak going - at 30-some since the last Centaur failure occurred during a Titan 4 mission.
Delta 2, by comparison, is at 71 consecutive successes now.
The only existing "Atlas" booster stage (the Atlas 5 core) has only flown eight times. RD-180 only has 14 missions under its belt. RD-180's RD-170/171 predecessor was part of two Zenit booster failures in its 67 uses to date (including Energia).
- Ed Kyle -
#530 by Jim on 17 Dec, 2006 03:51
-
Quote
Dexter - 16/12/2006 9:43 PM
QuoteJim - 16/12/2006 10:14 AM
There is a big difference in launch vehicle engineering vs spacecraft. Not many of the Boeing people could do some of the NG jobs. Plus many of the analysts (thermal, EMI, stress, etc) are to stay with Boeing.
Since these analysts are staying with Boeing, what will ULA do to replace them?Sounds like the talent exodus is already begining according to your post.
LM will be providing enough in Denver -
#531 by Jim on 17 Dec, 2006 03:51
-
Can't include the Delta II heavies then either
Cant compare RD-180 to RD171. If you were to then any MA-5 failures count towards RS-27's
and Delta 6925 can't count towards Delta II successes neither. -
#532 by Dexter on 17 Dec, 2006 05:12
-
Quote
Jim - 16/12/2006 10:34 PM
QuoteDexter - 16/12/2006 9:43 PM
QuoteJim - 16/12/2006 10:14 AM
There is a big difference in launch vehicle engineering vs spacecraft. Not many of the Boeing people could do some of the NG jobs. Plus many of the analysts (thermal, EMI, stress, etc) are to stay with Boeing.
Since these analysts are staying with Boeing, what will ULA do to replace them?Sounds like the talent exodus is already begining according to your post.
LM will be providing enough in Denver
I see two possibilities for this:
1) LM had way too many analysts in Denver and the excess capacity should have been laid-off prior to ULA which is why Atlas was not viable.
2) ULA will have to hire new analysts with no experience while competing against LM and Orion. Anyone not caught out in the ULA barrier will prefer working Orion so LM will get the "cream of the crop" of existing experienced analysts.
-
#533 by bombay on 17 Dec, 2006 06:23
-
Atlas in name has 79 (I believe) consecutive successful launches. Up through IIAS, what you might consider the traditional Atlas, it's 65.
-
#534 by bombay on 17 Dec, 2006 06:45
-
Quote
Jim - 16/12/2006 10:34 PM
This is just speculation on your part. The fact is LM has no idea whether or not they can provide enough engineering support for the Delta program-no idea at all!! That's because they expected more Delta engineers to make the move.QuoteDexter - 16/12/2006 9:43 PM
QuoteJim - 16/12/2006 10:14 AM
There is a big difference in launch vehicle engineering vs spacecraft. Not many of the Boeing people could do some of the NG jobs. Plus many of the analysts (thermal, EMI, stress, etc) are to stay with Boeing.
Since these analysts are staying with Boeing, what will ULA do to replace them?Sounds like the talent exodus is already begining according to your post.
LM will be providing enough in Denver
The closely monitored "list" of engineers that was supposedly making the transition was a farse, which every Boeing and Lockheed employee knew all along never existed.
-
#535 by Propforce on 17 Dec, 2006 07:37
-
Quote
Gus - 15/12/2006 12:55 PM
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.
Gus,
When you guys moved to Denver back in '94~'95, did you find your California salary substantially higher than the Titan folks in Denver? If so, how did your managers, institutionally speaking not your specific manager-then, reconcile this salary discrepency between the then-Titan folks and ya'll high-paying California folks? Were many of you California-type got their subsequent merit-raises held back as a result?
We (the Delta IV program) benefited from many of ex-GDers who chosed not to moved to Denver, especially in the area of cryogenic propulsion, an admittedly weak area then on the Delta team. They in fact helped Boeing in designing and building the Delta IV. One key person served in a chief engineer capacity back in GD. Maybe this ULA will also disperse some of these talents to other firms in the area and help build a next launch vehicle. -
#536 by Propforce on 17 Dec, 2006 07:53
-
Quote
Jim - 16/12/2006 3:45 PM
QuotePropforce - 16/12/2006 6:24 PM
Obviously many of the Boeing people know how to do them as Boeing is the BIGGEST satellite manufacturer in the U.S. Many of the Delta IV engineers moved on to design the Orbital Express and X-37B, etc. Boeing HB is the ONLY site that has the personnel who actually has the MANNED SPACECRAFT design experience, e.g., the Space Shuttle.
I was referring to the Boeing HB Delta people that would refuse to go to Denver. They aren't the satellite types.
I just finish telling you how ex-Delta people who, according to you, are "... not the satellite types..." went on and designed and built spacecrafts & satellites. So why would you think the current Delta people could not do the same?
Do you understand the difference between spacecrafts and launch vehicles, other than that one is short & stubby and the other is long & skinny? Tell me then why couldn't a launch vehicle engineer successfully transition to design and build spacecrafts?QuoteActually, no, that was Downey. they moved them to HB and then the work went to Houston. I doubt few of them are left in HB
LOL... you obviously don't know much about the shuttle or what's going on in that program. You "doubt" wrong.
-
#537 by Jim on 17 Dec, 2006 13:22
-
Quote
Propforce - 17/12/2006 3:36 AM
1. I just finish telling you how ex-Delta people who, according to you, are "... not the satellite types..." went on and designed and built spacecrafts & satellites. So why would you think the current Delta people could not do the same?
2. Do you understand the difference between spacecrafts and launch vehicles, other than that one is short & stubby and the other is long & skinny? Tell me then why couldn't a launch vehicle engineer successfully transition to design and build spacecrafts?
3. LOL... you obviously don't know much about the shuttle or what's going on in that program. You "doubt" wrong.
1. Boeing is the biggest manufacturer of satellites because it bought the biggest manufacturer of satellites: Hughes. and it also bought another one, Rockwell. McDonnell Douglas (Huntington Beach) had/has very little spacecraft experience (its only program finished in the early 90's). And it was evident in the X-37 program
2. Wrong, there is a hugh difference. Different environments, different mission durations, different structures. More electronics, different power system, different propulsions
3. The Boeing Shuttle work moving to Houston has been pointed out as one of the problems that led to the Columbia accident.
know more -
#538 by Gus on 18 Dec, 2006 00:14
-
Quote
Propforce - 17/12/2006 12:20 AM
QuoteGus - 15/12/2006 12:55 PM
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.
Gus,
When you guys moved to Denver back in '94~'95, did you find your California salary substantially higher than the Titan folks in Denver? If so, how did your managers, institutionally speaking not your specific manager-then, reconcile this salary discrepency between the then-Titan folks and ya'll high-paying California folks? Were many of you California-type got their subsequent merit-raises held back as a result?
The story is a little bit complicated. GD prepared to sell us by freezing all salaries in 1993. The CEO at the time was Bill Anders of Apollo 8 fame and he liquidated a lot of GD including Fort Worth, Convair, Air Defense systems, and finally Space Systems after identifying it as a core business. With salaries frozen for about two years, we lost on cost of living issues. GD also did not regionally adjust like LM did for cost of living issues. We were simply told that were paying the "sun tax" for living in Southern California. I never really had an opportunity to find out what Titan folks were making but they did get a Mission Success bonus for finishing out the program. The rumor is that the Air Force paid this directly and it was pretty good as a few folks went back to Titan to get this bonus. One thing I never cared for was the "we bought you" attitude that was prevalent in the early years. Hopefully that will not repeat itself.
LM had a regional adjustment for folks at Sunnyvale and SD that was more than the salaries for Denver based on cost of living factors. I should also point out that last Monday, we all found out by going into "LM people", our HR system, that all our salary ranges were reduced by 9 to 10 percent. The official answer is that this was a glitch in the system and that it will be corrected. It is difficult for me to understand how a salary range can be affected in a straight over conversion. The immediate impact is nil, future raises will be affected by penetration into your salary range. -
#539 by spacedreams on 18 Dec, 2006 06:01
-
I have worked in aerospace (as an engineer) in a couple different locations and I have done a great deal of comparisons with friends in several locations. What I have found is actually a bit couter-intuitive. For the most part there really isn't a great differential in engineer salaries. However, in some cases the higher salaries are found in areas with lower prices of living. The locations with the lower cost of living are often in less desireable places to live. In order to get engineers in the area they have to pay them more to attract them. You would think that an average engineer in California would make at least six figures but the truth is it is about 3/4 of that. On the other hand, I have heard from guys in the Denver area that are doing just as well if not better. Of course, that's not a full on market research, just a limited sampling .
