ULA is getting green light

• #580 by Jim on 02 Jan, 2007 05:22
• Quote

  Dexter - 2/1/2007  12:51 AM
  
  1.  Last time I checked, Lockheed was launching satellites for commercial customers without NASA's help.  Boeing also did the same on a few missions.
  
  2. As far as NASA's expertise, wasn't there a Mars mission that crashed because of a english vs. metric system issue?  That sounds like a big picture problem to me.
  
  

  
  1.  I can decide if some does something better
  
  2.  NASA procured launches have almost 10% better success rate than commercial missions since 1988
  
  3.  The thread is about ULA and not spacecraft contractors, so we are talking about space launch not mission ops
• #581 by Propforce on 02 Jan, 2007 08:40
• Quote

  Captain Scarlet - 29/12/2006  4:24 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Propforce - 18/12/2006  8:33 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Propforce - 18/12/2006  12:24 AM
  
  ..... We will be required to work for a minimum period of 2 years before we're eligible to seek employment back in Boeing.  But we will be paid a 6 month bonus if we do.

  
  Damn, just found out the executives will be getting a one-year bonus if they stay for 2 years.  ^&*(%^ class system !!
  
  

  
  One of the NASA people on here said you don't get paid a ton of money working for NASA. What's it like working for Boeing, LM etc? Do those companies attract people out of NASA, or is there more prestige going to NASA?
  
  Hope that question doesn't p*** anyone off Just interested from an outside perspective where I didn't even know about Atlas' and Deltas till I came to this site because the Shuttle owns the overseas interest.

  
  Hello Captain Scarlet,
  
  First Happy New Year to you and all here at NSF.com
  
  Second,  I want to say that if you're interested in making lots of money, not just a living, do NOT work in aerospace, not NASA, not Boeing, nor LM.  Aerospace is no longer the high pay & respected profession like it once was during the 50's and 60's.  Today, you could be a business major and rise faster and make more money than a technical engineer in aerospace companies such as Boeing, LM, NGC, etc.  The aerospace industry pays a DECENT but NOT-GREAT salary.  Most of us chose this profession because there're something we love, either because it's space-related or because we get to participate in the cutting-edge of physics.  I got into this industry and decided to stay because I enjoy making things work.  I get to play with some pretty cool toys,  developed some pretty cutting-edge technologies, and I work with groups of super-smart but very nice human beings.  
  
  As far as the salary differences between NASA, Boeing or LM, I would think it depends more on WHERE you live rather than your title or companies.  For example, NASA employees gets a cost-of-living differential if they work in a high cost-of-living area such as Moffett Field, CA or the HQ in Washington, D.C.  Likewise, Boeing employees in southern california tend to get pay higher than say, those in Huntsville, AL or Seattle, WA.  I don't know what LM's salary structure is like, but I assume it is same as Boeing.  For example, I know LM in Sunnyvale pays really well as opose to say Denver.
  
  I was offerred a job at NASA some years ago.  These were my customers on a previous project.  They had an in-house "special project" and wanted me to be a lead-person therefore I had to wear a NASA badge (as oppose to work for them as "contractor"), but they can only offer a salary that's approx 25% LESS than what I was making at the time.   I politely turned down the opportunity.
  
  Also keep in mind that while we may all seem like working in the aerospace industry, we serve different roles in a project's life cycle, that's why we have different perspectives.  For example, most of us in HB were in the early development cycle of Delta IV, where we not only do design of rocket subsystems, we also write specifications and instructions for the operations of these subsystems.  Those who are in the field (launch site) take our specifications and instructions as a starting point for operations.  We also manage our suppliers throughout this cycle from writing SOW, product specs, participate in development and finaly qualification testing, conduct analysis in parallel, and finally review/ approve each product's acceptance test data and accept the hardware delivery.  
  
  Likewise, there are various NASA centers where some do research & development (ARC, LaRC, MSFC, GRC, etc.), some do mission planning & analysis (JSC)  and others just act like "pencil pusher".  Having spent some time at KSC, I can tell you that there are some pretty smart NASA engineers who pay attention to details and get their hands dirty from time to time to ensure the Shuttle safety and launches.
  
  Speaking of hiring lower-pay engineers, did you know that the U.S. aerospace engineers were very upset because the companies were hiring these "foreigners" from England at ~50% of pay because they were willing to take a lower salary than the U.S. aerospace engineers?   I understand that was quite an "anti-immingrant" sentiment back in the 50's and 60's !
  
  
  
  
• #582 by Dexter on 03 Jan, 2007 01:34

• Quote

  Jim - 2/1/2007 12:05 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Dexter - 2/1/2007 12:51 AM
  
  1. Last time I checked, Lockheed was launching satellites for commercial customers without NASA's help. Boeing also did the same on a few missions.
  
  2. As far as NASA's expertise, wasn't there a Mars mission that crashed because of a english vs. metric system issue? That sounds like a big picture problem to me.
  
  

  
  1. I can decide if some does something better
  
  2. NASA procured launches have almost 10% better success rate than commercial missions since 1988
  
  3. The thread is about ULA and not spacecraft contractors, so we are talking about space launch not mission ops

  
  You claim NASA's expertise in systems integration and yet Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander are both abmysmal failures of the big picture folks.

  But you are right as far as this thread being about ULA so lets look at the cause of the failure of the the Mars Climate Orbiter as reported on Space.com;

   http://www.space.com/news/mco_report-b_991110.html

   "The Mars Climate Orbiter was lost at the Red Planet nearly seven weeks ago because the mission's navigation team was unfamiliar with the spacecraft. It lacked training, and failed to detect a mistake by outside engineers who delivered navigation information in English rather than metric units, according to a mission failure investigation report released Wednesday."

   "One of the most glaring criticisms to come out of the day's announcements was made by Arthur Stephenson, Chairman of the Mission Failure Investigation Board and Director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, who blamed many of the problems on the navigation team's unfamiliarity with the spacecraft"

   So in the ULA environment, many of the key enginerring positions on Delta will be performed by Atlas folks, unfamiliar with the Delta system.

  Many of the Atlas manufacturing jobs will be performed by Delta folks in Decatur unfamiliar with the Atlas system.

  Between the loss of experienced folks blamed for Titan failures, the Columbia tragedy directly related to loss of key people who did not move to Houston, and the quotes above regarding Mars Climate Orbiter, I think I have made a pretty good argument on the risk of ULA and the consolidation plan.

   Call my position Doom and Gloom.

  I think your position is utter denial. 

   

• #583 by Jim on 03 Jan, 2007 01:40
• Different time.  MCO and MPL were doomed by FBC.  Totally different environment.  FBC didn't allow for system engineering.
  
  
• #584 by Jim on 03 Jan, 2007 01:44
• Quote

  Dexter - 2/1/2007  9:17 PM
  1.  So in the ULA environment, many of the key enginerring positions on Delta will be performed by Atlas folks, unfamiliar with the Delta system.
  
  2.  Many of the Atlas manufacturing jobs will be performed by Delta folks in Decatur unfamiliar with the Atlas system.

  
  1.  No, they will be done by Delta people in Denver.  
  
  2.  No, they will be done by Atlas people in Decatur.  Also Atlas made the move from San Diego with no issue.
  
  
• #585 by Rocket Ronnie on 03 Jan, 2007 03:41
• Quote

  Propforce - 2/1/2007  3:23 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Captain Scarlet - 29/12/2006  4:24 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Propforce - 18/12/2006  8:33 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Propforce - 18/12/2006  12:24 AM
  
  ..... We will be required to work for a minimum period of 2 years before we're eligible to seek employment back in Boeing.  But we will be paid a 6 month bonus if we do.

  
  Damn, just found out the executives will be getting a one-year bonus if they stay for 2 years.  ^&*(%^ class system !!
  
  

  
  One of the NASA people on here said you don't get paid a ton of money working for NASA. What's it like working for Boeing, LM etc? Do those companies attract people out of NASA, or is there more prestige going to NASA?
  
  Hope that question doesn't p*** anyone off Just interested from an outside perspective where I didn't even know about Atlas' and Deltas till I came to this site because the Shuttle owns the overseas interest.

  
  Hello Captain Scarlet,
  
  First Happy New Year to you and all here at NSF.com
  
  Second,  I want to say that if you're interested in making lots of money, not just a living, do NOT work in aerospace, not NASA, not Boeing, nor LM.  Aerospace is no longer the high pay & respected profession like it once was during the 50's and 60's.  Today, you could be a business major and rise faster and make more money than a technical engineer in aerospace companies such as Boeing, LM, NGC, etc.  The aerospace industry pays a DECENT but NOT-GREAT salary.  Most of us chose this profession because there're something we love, either because it's space-related or because we get to participate in the cutting-edge of physics.  I got into this industry and decided to stay because I enjoy making things work.  I get to play with some pretty cool toys,  developed some pretty cutting-edge technologies, and I work with groups of super-smart but very nice human beings.  
  
  As far as the salary differences between NASA, Boeing or LM, I would think it depends more on WHERE you live rather than your title or companies.  For example, NASA employees gets a cost-of-living differential if they work in a high cost-of-living area such as Moffett Field, CA or the HQ in Washington, D.C.  Likewise, Boeing employees in southern california tend to get pay higher than say, those in Huntsville, AL or Seattle, WA.  I don't know what LM's salary structure is like, but I assume it is same as Boeing.  For example, I know LM in Sunnyvale pays really well as opose to say Denver.
  
  I was offerred a job at NASA some years ago.  These were my customers on a previous project.  They had an in-house "special project" and wanted me to be a lead-person therefore I had to wear a NASA badge (as oppose to work for them as "contractor"), but they can only offer a salary that's approx 25% LESS than what I was making at the time.   I politely turned down the opportunity.
  
  Also keep in mind that while we may all seem like working in the aerospace industry, we serve different roles in a project's life cycle, that's why we have different perspectives.  For example, most of us in HB were in the early development cycle of Delta IV, where we not only do design of rocket subsystems, we also write specifications and instructions for the operations of these subsystems.  Those who are in the field (launch site) take our specifications and instructions as a starting point for operations.  We also manage our suppliers throughout this cycle from writing SOW, product specs, participate in development and finaly qualification testing, conduct analysis in parallel, and finally review/ approve each product's acceptance test data and accept the hardware delivery.  
  
  Likewise, there are various NASA centers where some do research & development (ARC, LaRC, MSFC, GRC, etc.), some do mission planning & analysis (JSC)  and others just act like "pencil pusher".  Having spent some time at KSC, I can tell you that there are some pretty smart NASA engineers who pay attention to details and get their hands dirty from time to time to ensure the Shuttle safety and launches.
  
  Speaking of hiring lower-pay engineers, did you know that the U.S. aerospace engineers were very upset because the companies were hiring these "foreigners" from England at ~50% of pay because they were willing to take a lower salary than the U.S. aerospace engineers?   I understand that was quite an "anti-immingrant" sentiment back in the 50's and 60's !
  
  
  
  

  
  Awesome post Propforce!
  
  I was chatting with some US Marines last month and they were shocked at me telling them what stuff costs back home, such as $10 a gallon on the petrol/gas. Going to the US for less than the current salary expected is certainly backed up by the hugely lower cost of living in the US. Also, given the lack of an aerospace industry here.......and no one wants to work for the French at ESA etc
• #586 by Dexter on 03 Jan, 2007 05:47
• Quote

  Jim - 2/1/2007  8:27 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Dexter - 2/1/2007  9:17 PM
  1.  So in the ULA environment, many of the key enginerring positions on Delta will be performed by Atlas folks, unfamiliar with the Delta system.
  
  2.  Many of the Atlas manufacturing jobs will be performed by Delta folks in Decatur unfamiliar with the Atlas system.

  
  1.  No, they will be done by Delta people in Denver.  
  
  2.  No, they will be done by Atlas people in Decatur.  Also Atlas made the move from San Diego with no issue.
  
  

  
  So you are saying that there will be 100% relocation after previously saying that the thermal analysis people would be staying in HB earlier in this thread.
  
  I am not familiar with this logic.  Please explain.
  
  
  Dan Collins would be "very pleased" with 33% according to Gus suggesting many unfamiliar people working on Delta.
• #587 by Jim on 03 Jan, 2007 10:30
• Quote

  Dexter - 3/1/2007  1:30 AM
  
  
  So you are saying that there will be 100% relocation after previously saying that the thermal analysis people would be staying in HB earlier in this thread.
  
  I am not familiar with this logic.  Please explain.
  
  
  Dan Collins would be "very pleased" with 33% according to Gus suggesting many unfamiliar people working on Delta.

  
  100% relocation is not required.  There is a 2 year transition, which is more time than a new hire gets to learn his job.  
  
  the difference is experienced personnel just have to learn a new system, not how do to their jobs
  
  
• #588 by Dexter on 03 Jan, 2007 14:05

• Quote

  Jim - 3/1/2007 5:13 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Dexter - 3/1/2007 1:30 AM
  
  
  So you are saying that there will be 100% relocation after previously saying that the thermal analysis people would be staying in HB earlier in this thread.
  
  I am not familiar with this logic. Please explain.
  
  
  Dan Collins would be "very pleased" with 33% according to Gus suggesting many unfamiliar people working on Delta.

  
  100% relocation is not required. There is a 2 year transition, which is more time than a new hire gets to learn his job.
  
  the difference is experienced personnel just have to learn a new system, not how do to their jobs
  
  

   

  That sounds a lot like the Mars Climate Orbiter scenario. 

   Experienced people have 10+ years of experience with not only the knowledge of how to do it right, but what to do when things go wrong.  With the current launch rate for Delta as you have provided that doesn't seem like enough exposure to the new Delta crew to be properly transitioned.

   

• #589 by bombay on 03 Jan, 2007 23:41
• Looks like another option for the Delta and Atlas guys.  
  
  From http://public.blueorigin.com that was posted on another thread:
  
  "As I said above, Blue Origin is actively hiring. We are particularly looking for experienced propulsion engineers and experienced turbomachinery engineers, as well as a senior leader to head our turbopump group. Folks with turbopump or propulsion experience on large, modern, cryogenic engines such as the RS-68 are of particular interest."
  
  "Another high priority for us is an experienced leader for our structures team. Structures experience on large, modern vehicles such as Delta IV or Atlas V is of particular interest."
  
  "We are searching to fill other positions as well. Please check out our careers page on this website. Feel free to send a note and resume to our head of recruiting, Walt McCleery at [email protected]."
  
  
  
  
• #590 by bombay on 03 Jan, 2007 23:47
• Quote

  Jim - 2/1/2007  8:27 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Dexter - 2/1/2007  9:17 PM
  1.  So in the ULA environment, many of the key enginerring positions on Delta will be performed by Atlas folks, unfamiliar with the Delta system.
  
  2.  Many of the Atlas manufacturing jobs will be performed by Delta folks in Decatur unfamiliar with the Atlas system.

  
  1.  No, they will be done by Delta people in Denver.  
  
  2.  No, they will be done by Atlas people in Decatur.  Also Atlas made the move from San Diego with no issue.
  
  

  1. Wrong.  If only 30% of the engineers are moving that filled 100% of the jobs and only a fraction of that percentage is likely to be key personnel, Atlas folks will be doing the bulk of the tasks.
  
  2.  Wrong again.  Atlas manufacturing didn't move, only final assembly did.  Atlas V booster was never built in San Diego, and Centaur was never built in Denver.
  
  Know more.
  
  
• #591 by Dexter on 04 Jan, 2007 05:23

• Quote

  bombay - 3/1/2007 6:24 PM
  
  Looks like another option for the Delta and Atlas guys.
  
  From http://public.blueorigin.com that was posted on another thread:
  
  "As I said above, Blue Origin is actively hiring. We are particularly looking for experienced propulsion engineers and experienced turbomachinery engineers, as well as a senior leader to head our turbopump group. Folks with turbopump or propulsion experience on large, modern, cryogenic engines such as the RS-68 are of particular interest."
  
  "Another high priority for us is an experienced leader for our structures team. Structures experience on large, modern vehicles such as Delta IV or Atlas V is of particular interest."
  
  "We are searching to fill other positions as well. Please check out our careers page on this website. Feel free to send a note and resume to our head of recruiting, Walt McCleery at [email protected]."
  
  
  
  

  
  Beat me to it. Link does not work so try this one;
  
  http://public.blueorigin.com/index.html
  
  also
  
  http://public.blueorigin.com/jobs.htm
  
  Jobs available.
  
  We have immediate openings for:
  Ground Support Systems Engineer
  Systems Engineer
  Mechanical Systems Engineer
  Propulsion Development Engineer
  Propulsion Design Engineer
  Turbomachinery Engineer
  Propulsion Component Engineer
  Engineering Analysis Software Developer
  Senior Safety Engineer
  Flight Mechanics Engineer
  Structural Engineer
  Guidance and Navigation Engineer
  Crew Systems Engineer
  Embedded Software Engineer
  NC Machinist
  
  Looks like a nice place to work and they are definitely interested in RS-68, D4 and A5 people. If I had to relocate, this would be worth a look.    Cool to see the owner sharing in the experience. 
  
  Should have got that engineering degree in college.

   

   

• #592 by Jim on 04 Jan, 2007 05:27
• Like that is a better option.  Seattle, the city with the highest suicide rate
  
• #593 by Dexter on 04 Jan, 2007 05:51
• Quote

  Jim - 4/1/2007  12:10 AM
  
  Like that is a better option.  Seattle, the city with the highest suicide rate
  

  
  Not sure where you get your facts from.
  
  Try this one:
  
  http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&page_id=05114FBE-E445-7831-F0C1494E2FADB8EA
  
  Notice where Washington is relative to Florida.
  
  Edit:  Bringing up suicide;  Now there is some real doom and gloom.
• #594 by Jim on 04 Jan, 2007 13:02
• city, not state
• #595 by Dexter on 04 Jan, 2007 14:33
• Quote

  Jim - 4/1/2007  7:45 AM
  
  city, not state

  
  Do you have something to back up your opinion?
• #596 by MySDCUserID on 04 Jan, 2007 22:47
• Regardless of actual statistics, I think Jim is referring to the fact that most people think of Seattle as a cold and often cloudy/rainy geographic location.  Which gives many people the impression that it may be a rather depressing and undesirable place to live as opposed to Cali or FL.
• #597 by Propforce on 05 Jan, 2007 01:33
• Quote

  Jim - 30/12/2006  7:15 AM
  
  SoCal has its earthquakes , wildfires, storms etc too

  
  Jim,
  
  Earthquake is no big deal here in so. cal.  
  
  Just imagine your wife actually shake in the bed  ::: drum roll please:::  
  
  
• #598 by Propforce on 05 Jan, 2007 01:41
• Quote

  MySDCUserID - 4/1/2007  3:30 PM
  
  Regardless of actual statistics, I think Jim is referring to the fact that most people think of Seattle as a cold and often cloudy/rainy geographic location.  Which gives many people the impression that it may be a rather depressing and undesirable place to live as opposed to Cali or FL.

  
  ... and the key word is "impression".  Actually the pacific northwest is a wonderful place to live.  I've visited there several times on both business and pleasure, and have friends & relatives in the area.  
  
  Now I can't say the same about Florida, it's hot & humid 6 months out of a year.  The mosquitos are HUGE and they bite every skin exposed.  Sink holes appears out of nowhere and houses been known to get "sucked in".  Just about the only saving graces there is no state income tax & the strippers are better than the ones in California.
  
  
• #599 by bombay on 05 Jan, 2007 01:53
• Quote

  Propforce - 4/1/2007  8:24 PM
  
  Now I can't say the same about Florida, it's hot & humid 6 months out of a year.  The mosquitos are HUGE and they bite every skin exposed.  Sink holes appears out of nowhere and houses been known to get "sucked in".  Just about the only saving graces there is no state income tax & the strippers are better than the ones in California.
  
  

  Thus the reason why everything is screened in Florida.   They even have screen door garage doors to keep the bugs out.  Pretty good idea I must admit.
  
  Not only that, I think the highest elevation of Florida is about 6 feet.