-
#60 by Dexter on 07 Oct, 2006 06:55
-
Quote
Nick L. - 6/10/2006 11:01 PM
QuoteDexter - 6/10/2006 5:28 PM
And therefore, he has no authority in this matter.
Neither has Kenneth Krieg:
Yes, Delta and Atlas both use the RL10 engine. But they are significantly different versions in many ways (thrust vectoring, nozzle construction, etc.), reducing the likelihood that failure of one variant will take the other out of service. In the case of Delta 269 it happened that one of the parts that failed on the RL10B-2 might have had an impact on Atlas flights.
See for yourself how many parts are common between the RL10 versions:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/delta3/d3_report.pdf
There is an illustration of the RL10B-2 on page 1-2, you will see that there is not a lot in common. This helps reliability.
Also Delta and Atlas, apart from their second stage engine, are completely different otherwise. They have different first stage fuels and engines, different guidance systems...everything is different. This helps to maintain a fail-safe system - because there are no common components, a failure in one will not preclude the other from "taking up the slack".
As someone already said, ULA is the best option available to the US government. If the EELV competitors were forced to downselect, we would get no to minimal savings and no back-up capability. Reliability of launching satellites would be decreased, as any failure would result in a lengthy halt to launches while the failure was investigated. With ULA, we get potential cost savings (which is like icing on the cake if you will - not essential but nice to have), and complete fail-safe capability. If one vehicle should be precluded from launching, the payloads charged to that vehicle can be transferred to the other - EELV was built with that in mind.
ULA may offer taxpayer benefits. I don't know, and honestly I don't care. The national security benefits of having two robust systems backing up one another and able to launch national security payloads reliably greatly outweigh a couple hundred dollars saved by the taxpayers here and there. What ULA offers is secure capability.
Sincerely,
Nick
P.S. I don't work for Boeing or LM.Your logic eludes me? If the the undersecretary of Defense for Acquisitions has no authority, then who does?
Read his Bio. I posted it for your education. I also posted his letter to the to the FTC. You might want to read this also. His opinion based on his access to alot more information than a bunch of internet posters is that there will not be any savings, and the quality and reliability will be reduced.
I hate to keep hammering this point , but the ULA supporters here keep avoiding it.
National Security Assets cost a lot more than the rockets that launch them. Reducing reliability on the rocket does't seem to be the way to ensure National Security.
What is wrong with status quo?
-
#61 by Dexter on 07 Oct, 2006 07:14
-
Quote
Propforce - 6/10/2006 10:30 PM
How many of the current Boeing Delta employees would you guess that will volunteer to move to Denver as a result of this ULA consolidation? Many of you pay good money so your family can come to southern california for a vacation and these guys live here year round. How many of you pay good money to go vacationing in Denver?
How much of the Delta IV technical capability can be maintained when key technical guys won't go? Imagine if you're one of the Boeing Delta employee that decided to effectively move into Lockheed (their town, their building, and their people), guess who will survive when the management wants to consolidate personnel to realize these "cost savings"?
Don't forget about the folks being asked to move from Denver and San Diego to Decatur. Same thing applies.
The Air Force Failure assessment for Titan IV failures included concerns about a loss of experienced personnel.
-
#62 by Jim on 07 Oct, 2006 13:55
-
Quote
edkyle99 - 7/10/2006 12:47 AM
QuoteNick L. - 6/10/2006 11:01 PM
As someone already said, ULA is the best option available to the US government. If the EELV competitors were forced to downselect, we would get no to minimal savings and no back-up capability.
The way I see it, the logical extension of the ULA cost savings logic is to shut down one EELV altogether. Then, instead of saving millions, the country saves billions. Instead of consolidating a fraction of the total management and engineering jobs, one-half of the jobs and salaries are eliminated. The savings snowball, with the remaining launcher flying twice as often so that it becomes cheaper on a per-flight basis, allowing it to win additional commercial launch contracts, making it even more efficient, and so on. The higher flight rate results in improved reliability too, as the vehicle climbs its lessons-learned curve more rapidly.
And what of the back up capability? DoD didn't have such capability with the latter Titans, yet still weathered three consecutive Titan failures. The claimed back up capability isn't worth the billions, in my opinion.
- Ed Kyle
There is a common misconception that it is an either/or on. This is a fallacy. The EELV families are not equilivent to each other.
1. The D-IV Med has less performance that the Atlas V 401
2. There is no A-V Heavy. It is at the CDR level but there is no West Coast pad for it.
3. There is a HUGE gap in performance between the D-IV Med + (5,4) and a D-IV Heavy. Atlas V 5XX offers many solutions for a large spacecraft that does need a Heavy. Any spacecraft that use an A-V 52x or greater would have to use a D-IV Heavy.
The families complement each other. If it was one or the other, there would be more costs.
D-IV only
1. Some medium missions (A-V 401) would need the extra solids of a Med+ (4,2)
2. There would be a large increase (3-6 times more) in the # of Heavies required.
3. less commercial opportunities (Heavy and M+ (5,X) too many $ for commercial)
A-V only
1. Need to finish A-V Heavy development
2. West Coast A-V heavy pad
3. Start domestic production of RD-180 engines.
-
#63 by Jim on 07 Oct, 2006 13:57
-
Quote
Dexter - 6/10/2006 6:28 PM
QuoteJim - 6/10/2006 11:43 AM
Both Dexter and Bombay obviously never have worked in the space launch business.
Neither has Kenneth Krieg:
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/krieg_bio.html
Yet he is convinced that we will have higher prices and lower reliability.
As a NASA employee, I would think that you would be concerned by this development.
Leads me to believe that this is why NASA wants to spend $400M on Kistler and SpaceX to develop competition.
PS - I may not have an insider's view of this, but what is being presented plublicly smells!
Kister and Spacex are not for unmanned spacecraft. Kistler doesn't even have the performance of a Delta II.
Spacex is unproven and has issues.
-
#64 by Propforce on 07 Oct, 2006 14:17
-
Quote
edkyle99 - 6/10/2006 9:47 PM
QuoteNick L. - 6/10/2006 11:01 PM
As someone already said, ULA is the best option available to the US government. If the EELV competitors were forced to downselect, we would get no to minimal savings and no back-up capability.
The way I see it, the logical extension of the ULA cost savings logic is to shut down one EELV altogether. Then, instead of saving millions, the country saves billions. Instead of consolidating a fraction of the total management and engineering jobs, one-half of the jobs and salaries are eliminated. The savings snowball, with the remaining launcher flying twice as often so that it becomes cheaper on a per-flight basis, allowing it to win additional commercial launch contracts, making it even more efficient, and so on. The higher flight rate results in improved reliability too, as the vehicle climbs its lessons-learned curve more rapidly.
And what of the back up capability? DoD didn't have such capability with the latter Titans, yet still weathered three consecutive Titan failures. The claimed back up capability isn't worth the billions, in my opinion.
- Ed Kyle
I think you make better sense than most posters here realize. The DoD may have a more expensive, less assured access to space as a result, at least in the near term. This ULA that may just blow up on its face. Currently, the two teams have their own procedures, processes, and people in place and the launches are mostly successful. Now throw both teams into one pot and attempt to stir them to mix, surely confusion and chaos will follow. Follow that up by the loss of senior technical people from both companies who refuse to go to the ULA (for reasons of pension, medical, retirement or relocation, etc.), it certainly will not be a smooth transition.
This also hurts the innovations in the launch industry as both LM and Boeing will have a "non-competitive" clause with ULA, therefore will not attempt to develop new vehicles for commercial launches in the ULA payload class. Further more, both companies' manufacturing capabilities for launch vehicles will be owned by the ULA thus further losing its ability in this arena. -
#65 by Jim on 07 Oct, 2006 14:29
-
Quote
edkyle99 - 7/10/2006 12:47 AM
Instead of consolidating a fraction of the total management and engineering jobs, one-half of the jobs and salaries are eliminated.
- Ed Kyle
This is what ULA does -
#66 by Jim on 07 Oct, 2006 14:41
-
Quote
Dexter - 7/10/2006 2:38 AM
Read his Bio. I posted it for your education. I also posted his letter to the to the FTC. You might want to read this also. His opinion based on his access to alot more information than a bunch of internet posters is that there will not be any savings, and the quality and reliability will be reduced.
I hate to keep hammering this point , but the ULA supporters here keep avoiding it.
National Security Assets cost a lot more than the rockets that launch them. Reducing reliability on the rocket does't seem to be the way to ensure National Security.
What is wrong with status quo?
He just signed the letter. He did not write it, like most high ranking people, his staffers did. -
#67 by Dexter on 07 Oct, 2006 15:05
-
Quote
Jim - 7/10/2006 9:24 AM
QuoteDexter - 7/10/2006 2:38 AM
Read his Bio. I posted it for your education. I also posted his letter to the to the FTC. You might want to read this also. His opinion based on his access to alot more information than a bunch of internet posters is that there will not be any savings, and the quality and reliability will be reduced.
I hate to keep hammering this point , but the ULA supporters here keep avoiding it.
National Security Assets cost a lot more than the rockets that launch them. Reducing reliability on the rocket does't seem to be the way to ensure National Security.
What is wrong with status quo?
He just signed the letter. He did not write it, like most high ranking people, his staffers did.
Why would he sign a letter that did not reflect his thoughts and opinions?
Or is this MASH 4077 and Radar slipped this in a pile of papers that Col. Blake signed?
-
#68 by Dexter on 07 Oct, 2006 15:11
-
Quote
Jim - 7/10/2006 8:40 AM
QuoteDexter - 6/10/2006 6:28 PM
QuoteJim - 6/10/2006 11:43 AM
Both Dexter and Bombay obviously never have worked in the space launch business.
Neither has Kenneth Krieg:
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/krieg_bio.html
Yet he is convinced that we will have higher prices and lower reliability.
As a NASA employee, I would think that you would be concerned by this development.
Leads me to believe that this is why NASA wants to spend $400M on Kistler and SpaceX to develop competition.
PS - I may not have an insider's view of this, but what is being presented plublicly smells!
Kister and Spacex are not for unmanned spacecraft. Kistler doesn't even have the performance of a Delta II.
Spacex is unproven and has issues.Delta IV heavy is unproven and has issues.
Delta 3 was never proven
Arianne 5 had issues
Proton had issues.
Titan IV had issues.
Seems like it is hard enough to be successful making rockets including the EELV contractors but everyone resolves their issues.
I believe ULA will induce more issues.
-
#69 by Dexter on 07 Oct, 2006 15:16
-
Quote
Dexter - 7/10/2006 1:57 AM
QuotePropforce - 6/10/2006 10:30 PM
How many of the current Boeing Delta employees would you guess that will volunteer to move to Denver as a result of this ULA consolidation? Many of you pay good money so your family can come to southern california for a vacation and these guys live here year round. How many of you pay good money to go vacationing in Denver?
How much of the Delta IV technical capability can be maintained when key technical guys won't go? Imagine if you're one of the Boeing Delta employee that decided to effectively move into Lockheed (their town, their building, and their people), guess who will survive when the management wants to consolidate personnel to realize these "cost savings"?
Don't forget about the folks being asked to move from Denver and San Diego to Decatur. Same thing applies.
The Air Force Failure assessment for Titan IV failures included concerns about a loss of experienced personnel.
Forgot to mention Harlingen, Texas. Apparently, Lockheed has a facility in Texas as well according to the ILS Mission Planner's guide. -
#70 by Jim on 07 Oct, 2006 15:29
-
Harlingen is not shutting down. It will continue to supply Atlas components
PS. It is Lockheed Martin. The LVs come from the Martin side -
#71 by bombay on 07 Oct, 2006 16:47
-
Quote
Jim - 7/10/2006 10:12 AM
Harlingen is not shutting down. It will continue to supply Atlas components
PS. It is Lockheed Martin. The LVs come from the Martin side
That's nice to know.
Now, what of the people in Denver, Huntington Beach, and San Diego?
Denver - Atlas Booster production
Huntington Beach - Delta Core Engineering
San Diego - Centaur production
Don't tell me that you've seen the list! I'm telling you, there is no list! ULA doesn't know who's staying or who's going.
Without a collection of "key employees" signed up to relocate/transition all the talk of more reliability, cheaper product, whatever is nothing but talk - it's a crap shoot!
But then again, this concern was addressed in the paper that the Under Secretary of Defense authored and that Kenneth Krieg wet stamped and that everyone else should ignore. -
#72 by bombay on 07 Oct, 2006 17:01
-
Quote
Gus - 6/10/2006 5:06 PM
I would suggest that all read this attachment that was authored by an Air Force officer back in 2000. It supports in many respects what the paper by the Under Secretary of Defense and wet stamped (according to Jim) by Kenneth Krieg asserts.
I find this thread very entertaining. Opinions galore across the spectrum.
Here is an Air Force opinion.
https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2000/acsc/00-047.pdf
The paper includes a discussion in recent launch failures and an assessment of why those failures occured.
Some of the main points include an overemphasis on cost cutting, loss of experienced personell, inadequate manufacturing process controls, and insufficient oversight on quality assusrance.
With ULA soon to be officially blessed, the need to understand where we have been before moving forward is paramount.
Enjoy.
Overemphasis on cost cutting
Loss of experienced personnel
Less quality
Sound familiar - it should - it's ULA before ULA was invented! -
#73 by Nick L. on 07 Oct, 2006 17:09
-
Quote
Dexter - 7/10/2006 9:54 AM
Delta IV heavy is unproven and has issues.Delta 3 was never proven
Arianne 5 had issues
Proton had issues.
Titan IV had issues.
Seems like it is hard enough to be successful making rockets including the EELV contractors but everyone resolves their issues.
I believe ULA will induce more issues.
Yes, Delta IV Heavy had some problems, but they've been fixed - this is why we have TEST flights. Also, the rest of the Delta IV family, as well as the Atlas 5 family, are proven and reliable. Both are much further along than SpaceX, who have yet to figure out how to make their small liquid-fueled Roman candle fly without crashing into a reef. SpaceX talks the talk but can't walk the walk - they have big plans but nothing concrete yet. Delta IV and Atlas 5 are flying today and are proving to be quite reliable.
Delta III isn't offered anymore, so it is irrelevant. Ariane 5 is not involved in ULA (though it is a VERY good launcher), neither is Proton. Titan IV is dead.
Yes, of course developing rockets is difficult. But ULA doesn't involve development of vehicles - the vehicles have already been designed and flown. ULA is simply consolidating manufacturing and administration.
Nick
-
#74 by Jim on 07 Oct, 2006 18:51
-
Quote
bombay - 7/10/2006 12:44 PM
QuoteGus - 6/10/2006 5:06 PM
I would suggest that all read this attachment that was authored by an Air Force officer back in 2000. It supports in many respects what the paper by the Under Secretary of Defense and wet stamped (according to Jim) by Kenneth Krieg asserts.
I find this thread very entertaining. Opinions galore across the spectrum.
Here is an Air Force opinion.
https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2000/acsc/00-047.pdf
The paper includes a discussion in recent launch failures and an assessment of why those failures occured.
Some of the main points include an overemphasis on cost cutting, loss of experienced personell, inadequate manufacturing process controls, and insufficient oversight on quality assusrance.
With ULA soon to be officially blessed, the need to understand where we have been before moving forward is paramount.
Enjoy.
Overemphasis on cost cutting
Loss of experienced personnel
Less quality
Sound familiar - it should - it's ULA before ULA was invented!
that was the Titan program. A program that was phasing out -
#75 by Jim on 07 Oct, 2006 19:03
-
Quote
bombay - 7/10/2006 12:30 PM
QuoteJim - 7/10/2006 10:12 AM
Harlingen is not shutting down. It will continue to supply Atlas components
PS. It is Lockheed Martin. The LVs come from the Martin side
That's nice to know.
Now, what of the people in Denver, Huntington Beach, and San Diego?
Denver - Atlas Booster production
Huntington Beach - Delta Core Engineering
San Diego - Centaur production
Don't tell me that you've seen the list! I'm telling you, there is no list! ULA doesn't know who's staying or who's going.
Without a collection of "key employees" signed up to relocate/transition all the talk of more reliability, cheaper product, whatever is nothing but talk - it's a crap shoot!
But then again, this concern was addressed in the paper that the Under Secretary of Defense authored and that Kenneth Krieg wet stamped and that everyone else should ignore.
There is an HB list and I can see it weekly. SD was going to move anyways.
The Atlas program moved from SD without problems. The Delta II program moved from Pueblo without problems.
The shuttle program moved to Houston from HB, which moved from Downey -
#76 by Jim on 07 Oct, 2006 19:05
-
All this talk doesn't matter anyways. ULA will happen
-
#77 by bombay on 07 Oct, 2006 23:55
-
Quote
Jim - 7/10/2006 1:46 PM
Quotebombay - 7/10/2006 12:30 PM
QuoteJim - 7/10/2006 10:12 AM
Harlingen is not shutting down. It will continue to supply Atlas components
PS. It is Lockheed Martin. The LVs come from the Martin side
That's nice to know.
Now, what of the people in Denver, Huntington Beach, and San Diego?
Denver - Atlas Booster production
Huntington Beach - Delta Core Engineering
San Diego - Centaur production
Don't tell me that you've seen the list! I'm telling you, there is no list! ULA doesn't know who's staying or who's going.
Without a collection of "key employees" signed up to relocate/transition all the talk of more reliability, cheaper product, whatever is nothing but talk - it's a crap shoot!
But then again, this concern was addressed in the paper that the Under Secretary of Defense authored and that Kenneth Krieg wet stamped and that everyone else should ignore.
There is an HB list and I can see it weekly. SD was going to move anyways.
The Atlas program moved from SD without problems. The Delta II program moved from Pueblo without problems.
The shuttle program moved to Houston from HB, which moved from Downey
Big difference my friend!
In all of your examples the employees that made the move had the luxury of staying with Boeing or Lockheed - Maintaining seniority, years of service, pension accrual, benefits, etc..
Now the move will entail starting over with a new company; they will no longer be Boeing or Lockheed employees. They might as well stay put and find another job with a new company in HB, Denver, or SD, which the vast majority will no doubt do.
Nobody in their right mind would commit to a move prior to closure of ULA especially when no incentives were offered to stay on with a new company. You would have to be pretty naive to think otherwise. Your so called list isn't worth the paper that it's written on.
-
#78 by Jim on 08 Oct, 2006 00:48
-
Wrong again. The GD employees had to move to denver or get layoff. Same for the Pueblo employees.
The ULA employees retain the pensions of the previous company and get a additional one. They keep their earned vacation and accural rate, seniority
-
#79 by R&R on 08 Oct, 2006 01:18
-
Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent.
