ULA is getting green light

• #640 by ULAwantabe on 23 Jan, 2007 21:38
• OK, So it seems logical that ULA may end up in Alabama dispite my good contacts in ULA in Denver saying zero chance.  This is an interesting contridiction of ideas.  It does seem logical that ULA + Alabama = Nasa is happy, however my buddy says all manufacturing goes to Decater but ALL ENGINEERING STAYS IN DENVER.   Who do I believe?
• #641 by Jim on 23 Jan, 2007 22:23
• Engineering in Denver.  The LM building in HSV is for NMD.  Somebody is just stirring the pot.  
  
  he US will be assembled at MAF, just like the ET.  Decatur doesn't make subsystems either, they assemble EELV's.  Except for the tanks and thrust section, all other systems are supplied
  
  MSFC managed the ET at MAF, SRM in Utah and SSME in CA.  They didn't move them to HSV
• #642 by bombay on 23 Jan, 2007 23:16
• Quote

  ULAwantabe - 23/1/2007  4:38 PM
  
  OK, So it seems logical that ULA may end up in Alabama dispite my good contacts in ULA in Denver saying zero chance.  This is an interesting contridiction of ideas.  It does seem logical that ULA + Alabama = Nasa is happy, however my buddy says all manufacturing goes to Decater but ALL ENGINEERING STAYS IN DENVER.   Who do I believe?

  Sounds like a choice between logic and wishful thinking.
• #643 by bombay on 23 Jan, 2007 23:24
• Quote

  Jim - 23/1/2007  1:53 AM
  
  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.

  Selling ELV's commercially and contracting to build the Ares 1 US for NASA are two different animals.  The sole purpose of ULA is to provide services for the gov't, which includes NASA, NRO, etc.
  
  There's no longer a more qualified outfit out there to build such a thing.
  
• #644 by Jim on 23 Jan, 2007 23:55
• Quote

  bombay - 23/1/2007  7:24 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 23/1/2007  1:53 AM
  
  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.

  Selling ELV's commercially and contracting to build the Ares 1 US for NASA are two different animals.  The sole purpose of ULA is to provide services for the gov't, which includes NASA, NRO, etc.
  
  There's no longer a more qualified outfit out there to build such a thing.
  

  
  Sole purpose is to build EELV's. Any other work is excluded, not allowed.  This is per meetings with ULA.  Gov't won't allow it.
• #645 by bombay on 24 Jan, 2007 00:56
• Typical U.S. Gov't logic.  Decide on using the common bulkhead concept for the Ares I US and disallow the company with the most knowledge in common bulkhead tank design from bidding the work.
• #646 by Jim on 24 Jan, 2007 01:05
• Quote

  bombay - 23/1/2007  8:56 PM
  
  Typical U.S. Gov't logic.  Decide on using the common bulkhead concept for the Ares I US and disallow the company with the most knowledge in common bulkhead tank design from bidding the work.

  
  Wrong.  Both Douglas and Rockwell (Boeing hertiage companied) built common bulkhead stages for the Saturn I, IB and V. and where did they get the experience?  Nowhere, it was first time for each.
  
  Also, the US contractor is not designing the US, MSFC is
  
  edit:
  
  Additionally, Delta II second stage is common bulkhead.
  
  common bulkhead is not that novel.  
  
  Agena had it too
  
  Edit: not all designers went to ULA from Boeing and LM
• #647 by Jim on 24 Jan, 2007 01:07
• you guys just want to complain about everything.
• #648 by bombay on 24 Jan, 2007 02:11
• Quote

  Jim - 23/1/2007  8:05 PM
  
  

  Quote

  bombay - 23/1/2007  8:56 PM
  
  Typical U.S. Gov't logic.  Decide on using the common bulkhead concept for the Ares I US and disallow the company with the most knowledge in common bulkhead tank design from bidding the work.

  
  Wrong.  Both Douglas and Rockwell (Boeing hertiage companied) built common bulkhead stages for the Saturn I, IB and V. and where did they get the experience?  Nowhere, it was first time for each.
  
  Also, the US contractor is not designing the US, MSFC is
  
  edit:
  
  Additionally, Delta II second stage is common bulkhead.
  
  common bulkhead is not that novel.  
  
  Agena had it too
  
  Edit: not all designers went to ULA from Boeing and LM

  The novelty comes when dealing with LOX and LH2 and insulating against the thermal gradient between the oxidizer and fuel- something Centaur and only Centaur does.   Delta II 2nd stage doesn't burn LOX/LH2.
  
  NASA awarded the Saturn V work to Douglas to avoid a monopoly on common bulkhead design that Convair mastered in the development of Centaur.  Was there a sharing of technology back in the 60's to support the manned moon missions? - Who knows.
  
  So now you're implying that it's perfectly fine to ignor known expertise in LOX/LH2 common bulkhead design so MSFC can try to reinvent the wheel.  I guess they have to find some excuse to blow $5 billion when the whole project can be done for a fraction of the cost with known and proven technologies.
  
  I wonder what rock the designers from Boeing and Lockheed that didn't go to ULA are hiding under, because they sure aren't working for Boeing or Lockheed.
  
  
  
  
• #649 by yinzer on 24 Jan, 2007 03:14
• Hey now; the common bulkhead bait-and-switch on Ares I was a well-executed plan by MSFC with an assist from the Astronaut Office to ensure that the EELV didn't accidentally get selected as the CLV.  It's got jack-all to do with ULA.
  
  Edited to add - but if NASA had chosen EELV for the CLV, we might not have seen the ULA, as there could be enough business to keep both Boeing and Lockheed in business.
  
  Interestingly enough, this press release seems to indicate that the ULA is selling Delta IIs to Boeing Launch Services for commercial flights.
• #650 by Propforce on 24 Jan, 2007 04:34
• Quote

  Jim - 23/1/2007  6:05 PM
  
  

  Quote

  bombay - 23/1/2007  8:56 PM
  
  Typical U.S. Gov't logic.  Decide on using the common bulkhead concept for the Ares I US and disallow the company with the most knowledge in common bulkhead tank design from bidding the work.

  
  Wrong.  Both Douglas and Rockwell (Boeing hertiage companied) built common bulkhead stages for the Saturn I, IB and V. and where did they get the experience?  Nowhere, it was first time for each.
  
  Also, the US contractor is not designing the US, MSFC is

  
  This is the first time I read Jim expressesing his confidence in MSFC's design ability... particularly on the common bulkhead tank
  
  Here's somehting you may not be aware of, Jim.  Drawing cartoons on powerpoint charts is one thing, having the ability to build a common bulkhead tank is a whole different story.
  
• #651 by Jim on 24 Jan, 2007 11:13
• Structually stable common bulkheads are no big deal.  Cryogenics and structually stable common bulkhead are no big deal, just add bond on insulation (See Saturn stages S-IV, S-IVB, and S-II).  These were not  Centaurs, there is a world of difference.  The Centaur is a ballon tank, with a double common bulkhead which have a vacuum between them.  That is what no one else can do.
  
  Actually I don't have confidence in MSFC, but the US contractor will be holding MSFC's hand though the whole process.  It won't be pretty.
  
  
  
• #652 by Dexter on 24 Jan, 2007 13:49

• Quote

  Jim - 24/1/2007 6:13 AM
  
  Structually stable common bulkheads are no big deal. Cryogenics and structually stable common bulkhead are no big deal, just add bond on insulation (See Saturn stages S-IV, S-IVB, and S-II). These were not Centaurs, there is a world of difference. The Centaur is a ballon tank, with a double common bulkhead which have a vacuum between them. That is what no one else can do.
  
  Actually I don't have confidence in MSFC, but the US contractor will be holding MSFC's hand though the whole process. It won't be pretty.
  
  
  

  In your own words, you state what I have been saying all along.

  Bringing this thread back on topic, ULA will put at great risk, this unique capability because all the experienced technical people will be gone.

   

• #653 by Dexter on 24 Jan, 2007 13:59
• Quote

  Dexter - 20/1/2007  10:55 PM
  
  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??
  

  
  Just to paraphrase what was in this article, it mentioned that 1000 people in ULA were to be headquartered in Denver with 500 at a site yet to be opened.
  
  Why would someone differentiate between Denver and a site yet to be opened if that site was not in Denver?
  
  Would not the logical strategy for moving ULA engineering closer to Decatur be kept hidden until after the HB transfers are completed? (Much in the same way as ULA was announced and all the affected employees were kept from transferring out)
  
  And how much of the $80M Alabama incentive package is at risk by not meeting the desired employment targets?
  
  My experience tells me that folks at the top are bottom line thinkers and $80M is not to be sneezed at.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• #654 by Jim on 24 Jan, 2007 14:15
• Here is your site yet to be opened.
  
  "Facilities Update:  Last Friday the ULA Board of Directors gave the go-ahead for lease of the building at 9100 East Mineral Circle in southeast Denver (which is not Denver but Centennial).  The 160,000-square-foot building has room for about 680 people.  Detailed occupancy planning is under way for the building, which will begin as early as the second quarter."
  
  
  Like I said, the LM building in huntsville can't be for ULA
  1. It is in Huntsville, which is too far away from being "colocated" with the plant in Decaut
  2.  it is still LM's. and therefore not ULA, which is separate.  ULA now has to buy services from LM and Boeing.  No more freebies
  3.  The building is for NMD.  That is where the big money in in Huntsville
  
  
• #655 by Jim on 24 Jan, 2007 14:36
• Quote

  Dexter - 24/1/2007  9:49 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 24/1/2007 6:13 AM
  
  Structually stable common bulkheads are no big deal. Cryogenics and structually stable common bulkhead are no big deal, just add bond on insulation (See Saturn stages S-IV, S-IVB, and S-II). These were not Centaurs, there is a world of difference. The Centaur is a ballon tank, with a double common bulkhead which have a vacuum between them. That is what no one else can do.
  
  Actually I don't have confidence in MSFC, but the US contractor will be holding MSFC's hand though the whole process. It won't be pretty.
  
  
  

  In your own words, you state what I have been saying all along.

  Bringing this thread back on topic, ULA will put at great risk, this unique capability because all the experienced technical people will be gone.

  
  No, I didn't say that.  I was talking about a new design.
  
  The Centaur design was completed over 40 years ago, tank builders have come and gone, the ins and outs are known by many people....  And not all the people are going to leave.
  
  No one else except ULA
• #656 by Propforce on 24 Jan, 2007 15:31
• Quote

  Jim - 23/1/2007  6:05 PM
  
  Edit: not all designers went to ULA from Boeing and LM

  
  
  That's true, especially the experienced ones and the "grey beards".
• #657 by jongoff on 24 Jan, 2007 15:31
• bombay,
  

  Quote

  So now you're implying that it's perfectly fine to ignor known expertise in LOX/LH2 common bulkhead design so MSFC can try to reinvent the wheel.  I guess they have to find some excuse to blow $5 billion when the whole project can be done for a fraction of the cost with known and proven technologies.

  
  This is assuming something rather big--that MSFC actually wants expertise from the LM Centaur guys.  AIUI, during ESAS, when they saw the Atlas V WBC mass numbers they didn't believe them, so they doubled them (along with also completely changing the cost numbers as well).  It's amazing how quickly you can prove that your facility needs to be given billions of dollars to build a new launch vehicle when you intentionally screw with the design data and cost data of your competitors.  No conflict of interest here folks.  Nothing to see.  Move along.  These aren't the droids you're looking for....
  
  Seriously, using a Centaur/WBC derived upper stage in lieu of the Shaft US or the EDS would be a very good idea....but so would ditching the Shaft altogether and going with commercial launch instead of keeping NASA mostly in the shipping stuff to LEO game.
  
  ~Jon
• #658 by Jim on 24 Jan, 2007 15:33
• Quote

  Propforce - 24/1/2007  11:31 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 23/1/2007  6:05 PM
  
  Edit: not all designers went to ULA from Boeing and LM

  
  
  That's true, especially the experienced ones and the "grey beards".

  
  And it is because the design phase is done and designers move on to the next development project.
• #659 by bombay on 25 Jan, 2007 00:41
• Quote

  Jim - 24/1/2007  10:33 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Propforce - 24/1/2007  11:31 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 23/1/2007  6:05 PM
  
  Edit: not all designers went to ULA from Boeing and LM

  
  
  That's true, especially the experienced ones and the "grey beards".

  
  And it is because the design phase is done and designers move on to the next development project.

  No it's not true.  Rocket tank designers and stress analysts don't simply pack up there pencil and paper and move on to another program to design something else upon completion of the initial design phase.  Upgrades and revisions to a design, in addition to hardware non-conformances, fit-up issues, and more is in many respects where the designers and analysts make their money.  
  
  The designers and analysts that are more likely to leave the program are the inexperienced ones through lay-off, while the more experienced ones remain.