-
#620 by ULAwantabe on 17 Jan, 2007 03:11
-
Well my goal is to move to Littleton and let the cash out of home equity appreciate in the investment world of secure bonds and stuff. I am OK right now working at my aerospace employer in San Diego so I have no interest to move to Boeing positions that will remain in California. I just wish to work again on rocket programs, and I would like to release my family of a lot of this insane housing debt.
You know, Southern California means the home is paid off in 27 more years and never any money saved for the kid’s college fund. Littleton means the home is paid off in 15 years, and just in time for the kid’s college costs. Plus, I might venture to add that as a San Diegan I 8 L A and that whole area. It is to congested for my taste. But I would be interested in HB during a limited and pre-defined transition period.
As for my commitment to pursue ULA ... I do not think any Boeing positions on their web site have Delta programs postings. Those Delta / ULA jobs are now all located on the ULA careers page. I am just inquiring if there is a back door listing of possible entry via California. My guess is that all the postings for Delta software will be decided by ULA management after the transition of all Delta engineers that take the move package. ...And that I can only enter ULA via Littleton postings. But who knows. Networking to me means trying all possible avenues.
-
#621 by Propforce on 18 Jan, 2007 20:36
-
Chris,
You deleted your post!
Well... HB may not have the rich heritage as York, England and the thousand-year old mansions.
But we do have this...in the WINTER TIME !!
-
#622 by kevin-rf on 19 Jan, 2007 01:46
-
They must be freezing ...
-
#623 by ULAwantabe on 19 Jan, 2007 23:35
-
Propforce,
I asked Chris to delete it since I did not want to make the thread too off subject. Thanks Chris! It really means a lot to me that you honored my request. I suppose now you can go ahead and put it back.... But anyway with the latest photo I just do not know what to say.
Propforce, thanks, hopefully the photo you posted will keep the ULA HB S/W Engineers from saying yes to the offers since I guess Denver is really only warm enough to ware a bathing suit to swim during July and August. I guess in HB it is warm enough to ware the bathing suite almost all year round? Funny that in my San Diego community it is also only warm enough to ware bathing suits July and August and maybe a little in June and September. Hummm, must be that Huntington Beach MAGIC that hopefully the ULA engineers will never choose to leave! Yes, it is not a good idea for HB engineers to move to Denver so that ULAwantabe has more opportunities!!!! Please stay put! :-)
Anyway, I think I exhausted my efforts now to network via this idea on the Forum. I will keep trying via other more conventional methods.
Thank you,
- ULA_VeryMuchWantabe -
#624 by Dexter on 21 Jan, 2007 03:39
-
Quote
ULAwantabe - 16/1/2007 11:20 AM
Dexter,
>Be advised, however, that it was mentioned in another thread that Lockheed started building a facility in Huntsville prior to winning Orion and it is speculated that ULA engineering will eventually end up in North Alabama close to Decatur.
You just dropped a big bomb shell on my foot! I am wanting to send some emails to my primary contacts on ULA to double check this. Alabama will NOT work for me. (Although I hear you can buy 2 acre lots for $150K and oh yes.... that comes with a new house)... and mosquitoes too!
Are you sure you do not mean to say that Orion engineering will eventually end up in Alabama or Texas? I ask this because I heard once second hand from an Orion manager that the Lockheed space system positions on Orion may eventually move out of Denver. Please highlight if you mean ULA, or rather Orion LM positions.... Thanks!
Thank you!Orion design is supposed to be in Denver with management located in Houston where the prgram will be headquartered.
As far as ULA engineering moving to Decatur/Huntsville, please refer to the following references:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=4979&start=16&posts=32
This thread tlaks about the building that was started by Lockheed prior to winning the Orion which was not expected. Everyone thought NG/BA was going to win, so why start building for Orion?
The answer lies in this link:
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/061207/ula.shtml
and I quote:
"For the formation of the ULA," Collins said, "this plant was one of the major assets Boeing contributed."
One of Lockheed's contributions to the venture was its agreement to drop a lawsuit it filed against Boeing for the alleged theft of proprietary information about Atlas V production techniques. Gass said Lockheed dismissed the lawsuit Friday. Gass said friction between the companies related to that lawsuit and their at-times-bitter rivalry for government launch contracts are past.
Boeing contributes a brand new factory, Lockheed contributes a dropped law suit. There does not seem to be much equity there unless is something else Lockheed is contributing that is not yet advertised.
Which leads me to a post a previously made on page 32 of this thread:
http://www.siteselection.com/sshighlites/0498/9804p190.htm
"Boeing: Decatur, Ala., $450 million, 3,000 jobs
Boeing’s $400 million, 3,000-employee, 2-million-sq.-ft. (180,000-sq.-m.) rocket plant is big in ways transcending the obvious. Alabama’s largest project ever, the deal is also big in incentives and very big in risk.
Despite the industry’s rapid growth, new aerospace facility launches remain precarious ventures. Start-up costs are sky-high, with a minuscule customer base and cut-throat competition.
More risk was added with the Decatur plant, which appeared to hinge on Boeing’s landing a coveted $1.6 billion contract for the next-generation U.S. space launch vehicle.
Alabama offered Boeing $80 million in incentives for a project that may create 3,000 more jobs. Alabama development officials drew critical fire a few years earlier for the $253 million Mercedes-Benz incentive package. Neal Wade, Alabama Economic Development Partnership director insisted, "we won’t extend anything we can’t get back if it’s not built."
In April 1998, the Air Force split the $1.6 billion contract between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. But Boeing’s Decatur plant is proceeding due to skyrocketing commercial launch demand, including projects for Motorola, Hughes and Loral, says spokesman Walt Rice. Now, though, the Decatur facility is being built to be flexible enough to grow or contract as decisions are made."If the state of Alabama provided $80M in incentives for 3,000 jobs and ULA has about 750 jobs projected in Alabama, you have to wonder what penalty clauses Alabama negotiated with Boeing after the criticism of the Mercedes deal.
So let's recap:
Lockheed's only advertised contribition is a dropped lawsuit.
Alabama is expecting more than 750 jobs for their incentive package.
Lockheed started building an office building in Huntsville prior to Orion.
Add to that that according to Boeing employees, there was an attempt to move to Decatur and the HB folks refused to go reflecting your sentiments for not wanting to go to Alabama.
I speculate that the HB move to Denver is only an interim step to break away the program from Southern California and then announce a move to Alabama.
Talk about losing critical technical people.
-
#625 by Jim on 21 Jan, 2007 03:54
-
Quote
Dexter - 20/1/2007 11:39 PM
Everyone thought NG/BA was going to win, so why start building for Orion?
only outsiders did. There was no real reason for thinking this.
As for the building, think a little before spreading BS. There is more money in Huntsville dealing with NMD than launch vehicles. LM wants a bigger presence to deal with the Army
Anyways, the building can't be used for ULA. ULA is not part of LM.
And most of all:
"
Lockheed started building an office building in Huntsville prior to Orion" and it was prior to ULA
-
#626 by Dexter on 21 Jan, 2007 03:55
-
Additional Info:
Partial quote from today's Aerospace Daily
http://www.aviationnow.com/avweek1/avnow_login.jsp?&INTERCEPT_MESSAGES=F_IP_CRD&PRIOR_REQUEST_URL=%2Fpublication%2Faerospacedaily%2Floggedin%2FAvnowStoryDisplay.do%3FfromChannel%3Dhome%26pubKey%3Daerospacedaily%26issueDate%3D2006-12-04%26story%3Dxml%2Faerospacedaily_xml%2F2006%2F12%2F04%2F09.xml%26headline%3DNew%2BA350%2BMay%2BPlease%2BAirlines%252c%2BBut%2BCould%2BAlso%2BHeat%2BSubsidy%2BRow
(Copying and pasting content from other sites is a breach of copyright - EDIT/JamesLowe)
What are the sites that have yet to open that will employee 500 people?
?
-
#627 by Jim on 21 Jan, 2007 04:02
-
Stop making something out of nothing.
500 people would not be all of engineering so that doesn't fit into your "Everyone to Decatur conspiracy"
Most of ULA will not be at the LM Waterton plant but "offsite" in Denver
-
#628 by Dexter on 21 Jan, 2007 04:10
-
Quote
Jim - 20/1/2007 10:54 PM
So Lockheed can't build a building and turn it over to ULA in the same manner as Boeing building the Decatur factory??QuoteDexter - 20/1/2007 11:39 PM
Everyone thought NG/BA was going to win, so why start building for Orion?
only outsiders did. There was no real reason for thinking this.
As for the building, think a little before spreading BS. There is more money in Huntsville dealing with NMD than launch vehicles. LM wants a bigger presence to deal with the Army
Anyways, the building can't be used for ULA. ULA is not part of LM.
And most of all:
"
Lockheed started building an office building in Huntsville prior to Orion" and it was prior to ULA
What is Lockheed's contribution to ULA then that matches the Decatur facility?
-
#629 by Dexter on 21 Jan, 2007 04:12
-
Quote
Jim - 20/1/2007 11:02 PM
Stop making something out of nothing.
500 people would not be all of engineering so that doesn't fit into your "Everyone to Decatur conspiracy"
Most of ULA will not be at the LM Waterton plant but "offsite" in Denver
So what does Alabama do about ther $80M incentive package??? Especially after the Mercedes criticism. Does ULA risk loosing the $80M??
-
#630 by Jim on 21 Jan, 2007 04:16
-
Quote
Dexter - 20/1/2007 12:10 AM
QuoteJim - 20/1/2007 10:54 PM
So Lockheed can't build a building and turn it over to ULA in the same manner as Boeing building the Decatur factory??QuoteDexter - 20/1/2007 11:39 PM
Everyone thought NG/BA was going to win, so why start building for Orion?
only outsiders did. There was no real reason for thinking this.
As for the building, think a little before spreading BS. There is more money in Huntsville dealing with NMD than launch vehicles. LM wants a bigger presence to deal with the Army
Anyways, the building can't be used for ULA. ULA is not part of LM.
And most of all:
"
Lockheed started building an office building in Huntsville prior to Orion" and it was prior to ULA
What is Lockheed's contribution to ULA then that matches the Decatur facility?
Not now, since ULA is separate. ULA must contract for any services by LM and Boeing, no freebies
LM contribution is a LV system and part of the Waterton complex -
#631 by Dexter on 21 Jan, 2007 04:26
-
You just contradicted yourself about Waterton campus.
-
#632 by bombay on 21 Jan, 2007 22:30
-
Now some word through the rumor mill:
1) ULA was in the works long before it was announced in May 2005 and the building was erected prior to the ULA announcement with the understanding that ULA engineering will "eventually move" to Alabama.
2) Rumor is spreading in Denver that ULA engineering will transition to Alabama within the next five years.
Beware to all those considering a move to Denver; the bait and switch is on!!! A move from SoCal to Denver is one thing, but a move from SoCal to Decatur via Denver is a whole different story.
The underlying theme of this message is: Alabama granted Boeing (and now ULA) all kinds of concessions and now they will be holding ULA up to their end of the bargain, which is, jobs-jobs-and more jobs.
-
#633 by Propforce on 22 Jan, 2007 19:22
-
Quote
ULAwantabe - 19/1/2007 4:35 PM
Propforce,
I asked Chris to delete it since I did not want to make the thread too off subject. Thanks Chris! It really means a lot to me that you honored my request. I suppose now you can go ahead and put it back.... But anyway with the latest photo I just do not know what to say.
ULAW,
OIC. I tried to delete the pic but the computer won't let me. Chris if you happen to see the post, please delete the beach volleyball picture so that we don't get off-topic on this thread. Thank you.
Apparently you don't go to the beach often enough. SD has warm beach weather year round. But HB is more of a "hard core" surfing and beach volleyball capital. In fact, if you drive along the PCH at 6~7 am you'd find many surfers catching the morning waves before they go to work. But if you're like most S/W engineers, then chances are you're a late-night person and not much of an outdoor guy.
Good luck in your job search in ULA and an opportunity to cash in the recent California real estate price boom. Everyone has their own unique circumstances that drive them to make different decisions. I wish you the best.QuoteAnyway, I think I exhausted my efforts now to network via this idea on the Forum. I will keep trying via other more conventional methods.
- ULA_VeryMuchWantabe
5 posts in a forum is hardly what I'd call "networking", more like "fishing". But I wish you the best nonetheless. -
#634 by Gus on 23 Jan, 2007 04:41
-
Quote
bombay - 21/1/2007 3:30 PM
Now some word through the rumor mill:
1) ULA was in the works long before it was announced in May 2005 and the building was erected prior to the ULA announcement with the understanding that ULA engineering will "eventually move" to Alabama.
2) Rumor is spreading in Denver that ULA engineering will transition to Alabama within the next five years.
Beware to all those considering a move to Denver; the bait and switch is on!!! A move from SoCal to Denver is one thing, but a move from SoCal to Decatur via Denver is a whole different story.
The underlying theme of this message is: Alabama granted Boeing (and now ULA) all kinds of concessions and now they will be holding ULA up to their end of the bargain, which is, jobs-jobs-and more jobs.
I am hearing the same rumors. This makes sense with the Alabama incentive package. -
#635 by Propforce on 23 Jan, 2007 05:52
-
Quote
Gus - 22/1/2007 9:41 PM
I am hearing the same rumors. This makes sense with the Alabama incentive package.
It would make even more sense IF the ULA is eyeing as the Ares 1 US Prime Contractor. What better warm & fuzzy message to send to NASA MSFC, who's only 20 minutes away, than that the ULA engineering is effectively a part of MSFC contractor work force? -
#636 by Jim on 23 Jan, 2007 06:53
-
Quote
Propforce - 23/1/2007 1:52 AM
QuoteGus - 22/1/2007 9:41 PM
I am hearing the same rumors. This makes sense with the Alabama incentive package.
It would make even more sense IF the ULA is eyeing as the Ares 1 US Prime Contractor. What better warm & fuzzy message to send to NASA MSFC, who's only 20 minutes away, than that the ULA engineering is effectively a part of MSFC contractor work force?
ULA can't be the the Ares 1 US Prime Contractor. Not allowed, just as ULA can't sell ELV's commercially. ULA can only be a sub to another contractor. -
#637 by Propforce on 23 Jan, 2007 16:22
-
Quote
Jim - 22/1/2007 11:53 PM
ULA can't be the the Ares 1 US Prime Contractor. Not allowed, just as ULA can't sell ELV's commercially. ULA can only be a sub to another contractor.
Oh that's right... so the ULA will be "sub" to LM or Boeing, but we ALL know where the work will be carried out.
NASA MSFC would like the idea that T & E at Decatur is close to their backyard and their engineers can get involved.
-
#638 by Jim on 23 Jan, 2007 16:52
-
But also the US will be built at MAF, so no real advantage for Decatur, since production is still not co-located with enginneering
-
#639 by Propforce on 23 Jan, 2007 17:30
-
Quote
Jim - 23/1/2007 9:52 AM
But also the US will be built at MAF, so no real advantage for Decatur, since production is still not co-located with enginneering
The US will be assembled at MAF, but the subsystems can be built anywhere.
In a new launch vehicle development such as the Ares 1, it is during the EMD (engineering & manufcaturing development) phase that is the most important where many of the design & manufacturing approaches are tried, validated or changed. It is when your engineers are most intimately involved in the initial manufacturing, assembly, test & verification of their subsystems.
Since MSFC is "responsible" for the design & development phase of Ares 1, upto the 3rd flight. Their engineers would want to work closely with the T&E site to develop work flow processes, procedures, design the parts so can be handled by the T&E equpment, and jointly develop the V&V plan. They also will need to work closely with the engineers of the US production contractor during a period of transition to hand-off the drawings, work packages, and may even need to modify design so it can be produced. If the ULA engineering is located at Decatur, 20 minutes away from Huntsville, then it facilitates greatly the transition from "development" to "production".
This would be a "common sense" approach as anyone who's been through an EMD phase on either Atlas or Delta can testify. Engineers want to be near where their flight hardware so they can ensure the integrity of "as built" per their design and correct any changes as necessary.
Also, from the politics side, seeing how MSFC likes to be "in charge" these days and use mostly the "local" contractors to do the work. It is to anyone's advantage, including the ULA, to be "one of the boys" and become a "local contractor" rather than at thousand mile away.
?