-
#680 by bombay on 26 Jan, 2007 16:48
-
Quote
Gus - 25/1/2007 11:04 PM
Could it be there's a mole in our presence?QuoteJim - 24/1/2007 7:15 AM
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."
I have seen this quote but not in the public domain. This is from an internal ULA status report to all ULA employees from Michael Gass and Dan Collins. I did not know NASA was on distribution. -
#681 by bombay on 26 Jan, 2007 16:54
-
Quote
vda - 26/1/2007 5:11 AM
I think you could apply this quote to just about every decision management has made or is thinking about making in regards to ULA consolidation.
When techies say you "this goddamn thing can fail! We need to fix it!" you'd better listen to that, _especially_ if you are a manager and do not know anything about the matter. -
#682 by bombay on 26 Jan, 2007 17:15
-
Quote
Gus - 26/1/2007 12:23 AM
Thinking back on this, there were two failures in rapid succession, one in 1992 and the other in 1993. As I recall, the 1992 failure was initially attributed to FOD contamination during the manufacturing of the rocket. After implementing all kinds of FOD prevention programs as corrective action, the 1993 failure occured shortly thereafter.QuoteJim - 25/1/2007 5:10 PM
Quotebombay - 25/1/2007 8:04 PM
The Centaur could fly 1000 times and FOD contamination from the common bulkhead will NEVER be an issue because of the unique design.
But depressurization and ice ingestion happened multiple times. So you trade one risk for another
The last time ice ingestion ocurred was 1993 on AC101. The cause was a tygon tube that slipped off the sense port. The design is much more robust now.
Depressurization is something even the structurally stable designs have to contend with. They are not structurally stable under flight loads and thus have to carry a pressurization system just like a balloon design. The risk is the same for both.
It turned out to be a that a "simple adjustment" to the RL-10-3 engines was miscalculated such that they were operating on the ragid edge for quite some time. I'm guessing that the simple adjusment had to do -in part- with keeping the tygon tube in place as you pointed out. -
#683 by ULAwantabe on 26 Jan, 2007 17:15
-
Maybe I will kick in here. I worked on Centaur through many derivations including the "Shuttle/Centaur" G-Prime version which ultimately was used on the Titan vehicles for many years. (Shuttle/Centaur was going to boost Galileo to Jupiter in half the time that the Boeing IUS took, but unfortunately it never got to fly on Challenger’s next flight). So enough for today’s history lesson…
So the Centaur G-Prime had an integration support structure called the CISS for the Shuttle with 2 failure tolerant avionics throughout. It was fun work because one of my jobs was to verify that the common bulkhead stayed robust and the delta pressure was maintained between the LOX and LHX tanks so that the common bulkhead was never reversed. Of course all this was controlled by flight software on a 10 millisecond RT clock. Considering that the Centaur is a big metal balloon filled with pressurized LOX, and the LOX tank is always supporting another balloon on top with lighter Liquid Hydrogen, with only Helium gas purging the common bulkhead, many of the sustaining pressurization parameters are critical. For example, both tanks are pressurized at twice normal pressure during launch and having the flight software verified to evenly ramp down the pressures is a critical safety concern. You know that five string independent avionics, with two fault tolerant electronics is required for human space flight.
Yet, another example of the robust design of both Atlas and Centaur is a number of years ago during an A/C II launch, at approximately T-15 minutes (if I remember clearly) from launch the Florida Power and Light Company somehow managed to black out the Cape. And all backup systems failed too! So all ground computer and all interfacing communications between the block house and the Atlas and Centaur vehicles went black, both Atlas and Centaur were full of fuel, and the tower was rolled fully back. I tell you this because I want to point out that the robust design of both the Atlas and Centaur mechanical systems both safed, and saved, the vehicle during the 1 hour blackout. The alternative would have been the loss of the pad! When power was restored the vehicle just needed topping off of the cryogenic fuels and the TLS initiated. However cautious minds prevailed for holding off on the launch to another day.
Now try to create a brand new system with that capability and proven reliability, and fly people on it, and I bet you that only "maybe" it will begin flying by Bushes deadline to go to the moon in 2020. BUT NO SOONER. So go Atlas, and go Centaur, and I believe that NASA should stick to existing proven technology.
(And ULA should hire on people that have a lot of existing experience like ULAwantabe)
Lastly I wish to add, I think all that talk about ULA Engineering moving to Alabama is misleading a lot of HB engineers. You are getting people to head down the wrong set of train tracks in their thinking. If that information causes fear in the minds of the HB engineers, and they justify this as the reason to choose to stay in California, then I believe that they are making a critical mis-judgement. But if they just do not want to own a winter coat, well then that is a good excuse for staying behind.
-
#684 by ULAwantabe on 26 Jan, 2007 17:26
-
> It turned out to be a that a "simple adjustment" to the RL-10-3 engines was miscalculated such that they were operating on the ragid edge for quite some time. I'm guessing that the simple adjusment had to do -in part- with keeping the tygon tube in place as you pointed out.
A simple set screw was not secured in place allowing the fuel mixture to be off. I believe it was a failure in the Centaur. -
#685 by bombay on 26 Jan, 2007 19:32
-
Quote
ULAwantabe - 26/1/2007 12:15 PM
You're point is well taken and certainly the last thing people need while contemplating a major move decision is a bunch of false facts and inuendo to complicate matters.
Lastly I wish to add, I think all that talk about ULA Engineering moving to Alabama is misleading a lot of HB engineers. You are getting people to head down the wrong set of train tracks in their thinking. If that information causes fear in the minds of the HB engineers, and they justify this as the reason to choose to stay in California, then I believe that they are making a critical mis-judgement. But if they just do not want to own a winter coat, well then that is a good excuse for staying behind.
However, if you were to thumb through the pages of this thread, you will likely conclude that the entire formation of ULA was based on a collection of false facts and inuendo along with the circumvention of numerous anti-trust laws. So is it wise to believe all that is being preached by ULA? That's for each individual to decide.
So before those contemplating a move render a decision, it's only fair to them that all possible scenarios, based on either fact or rumor, be presented before them. Unfortunately, they will have to rely on their own due diligence in considering the source and the liklihood of the scenario coming to light.
-
#686 by Jim on 26 Jan, 2007 19:46
-
Quote
bombay - 26/1/2007 3:32 PM
However, if you were to thumb through the pages of this thread, you will likely conclude that the entire formation of ULA was based on a collection of false facts and inuendo along with the circumvention of numerous anti-trust laws. So is it wise to believe all that is being preached by ULA? That's for each individual to decide.
Speak of inuendo, there was no antitrust laws broken. -
#687 by bombay on 26 Jan, 2007 19:57
-
Quote
Jim - 26/1/2007 2:46 PM
Oh really? How about the Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act not to mention the Sherman Anti-trust Act.Quotebombay - 26/1/2007 3:32 PM
However, if you were to thumb through the pages of this thread, you will likely conclude that the entire formation of ULA was based on a collection of false facts and inuendo along with the circumvention of numerous anti-trust laws. So is it wise to believe all that is being preached by ULA? That's for each individual to decide.
Speak of inuendo, there was no antitrust laws broken.
-
#688 by Jim on 26 Jan, 2007 20:04
-
Quote
bombay - 26/1/2007 3:57 PM
QuoteJim - 26/1/2007 2:46 PM
Oh really? How about the Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act not to mention the Sherman Anti-trust Act.Quotebombay - 26/1/2007 3:32 PM
However, if you were to thumb through the pages of this thread, you will likely conclude that the entire formation of ULA was based on a collection of false facts and inuendo along with the circumvention of numerous anti-trust laws. So is it wise to believe all that is being preached by ULA? That's for each individual to decide.
Speak of inuendo, there was no antitrust laws broken.
I didn't see any charges? So, no charges, no laws broken -
#689 by bombay on 26 Jan, 2007 20:24
-
Quote
Jim - 26/1/2007 3:04 PM
C'mon now, we've been down this road before.Quotebombay - 26/1/2007 3:57 PM
QuoteJim - 26/1/2007 2:46 PM
Oh really? How about the Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act not to mention the Sherman Anti-trust Act.Quotebombay - 26/1/2007 3:32 PM
However, if you were to thumb through the pages of this thread, you will likely conclude that the entire formation of ULA was based on a collection of false facts and inuendo along with the circumvention of numerous anti-trust laws. So is it wise to believe all that is being preached by ULA? That's for each individual to decide.
Speak of inuendo, there was no antitrust laws broken.
I didn't see any charges? So, no charges, no laws broken
Don't you remember, even though it was universally accepted that the anti-trust laws were broken, in addition to the fact there would be no cost savings to taxpayers, less innovation, lower quality, and inferior service:
"The national security benefits flowing from ULA would exceed any anticompetitive harm caused by the proposed transaction".
I guess if I robbed a bank and got away with it, I could claim that I didn't break the law because I wasn't charged with the crime. -
#690 by ULAwantabe on 26 Jan, 2007 20:39
-
I verified my information with some very very close friends that work at ULA. I told them that if there is risk that ULA will move to Ala-mosquito-bama that I do not need another move in my life soon after a potential CA --> CO move. My buddies who really care for me say "ZERO CHANCE". Now in my software programs I treat zero with caution. I really try to make sure I capture that lower limit to prevent a divide by zero. I have not so far run into problems with zero. To me zero is zero is equal to live in Denver FOREVER. So this is my plan. Hopefully the monopoly ULA will have on the US government launch market will equal secure lifetime employment. I wish to for all people fortunate to be working for ULA. I also wish that for all ULAwantabe's like me.
-
#691 by yinzer on 26 Jan, 2007 22:55
-
Quote
bombay - 26/1/2007 12:32 PM
However, if you were to thumb through the pages of this thread, you will likely conclude that the entire formation of ULA was based on a collection of false facts and inuendo along with the circumvention of numerous anti-trust laws. So is it wise to believe all that is being preached by ULA? That's for each individual to decide.
"The ULA was created based on a bunch of lies, so I will have no compunction about making shit up regarding it."
Cute. -
#692 by bombay on 27 Jan, 2007 01:58
-
Quote
yinzer - 26/1/2007 5:55 PM
So now you no where people's guilt lies. Interpret how like, but speak for yourself, don't speak for me!!!Quotebombay - 26/1/2007 12:32 PM
However, if you were to thumb through the pages of this thread, you will likely conclude that the entire formation of ULA was based on a collection of false facts and inuendo along with the circumvention of numerous anti-trust laws. So is it wise to believe all that is being preached by ULA? That's for each individual to decide.
"The ULA was created based on a bunch of lies, so I will have no compunction about making shit up regarding it."
Cute. -
#693 by Dexter on 27 Jan, 2007 05:36
-
Quote
ULAwantabe - 26/1/2007 3:39 PM
I verified my information with some very very close friends that work at ULA. I told them that if there is risk that ULA will move to Ala-mosquito-bama that I do not need another move in my life soon after a potential CA --> CO move. My buddies who really care for me say "ZERO CHANCE". Now in my software programs I treat zero with caution. I really try to make sure I capture that lower limit to prevent a divide by zero. I have not so far run into problems with zero. To me zero is zero is equal to live in Denver FOREVER. So this is my plan. Hopefully the monopoly ULA will have on the US government launch market will equal secure lifetime employment. I wish to for all people fortunate to be working for ULA. I also wish that for all ULAwantabe's like me.
I would recommend that you validate what your buddies know by asking them exactly what they knew about ULA before it was formed. I seems to me that the people working on either program where left in the dark so that they would not flee and then were prevented from feeing by creating a wall.
Also, reference post 80001 in the "ULA monopoly concerns misplaced..." thread from Propforce;
"A couple of years ago Boeing attempted to move engineering to Decatur until they heard the uproar from the workers and some even transferred out of the program (they did not "freez" us then), then they dropped the idea. But one manager had warned us "wait for the other shoe to drop".
Sure enough, this time the management has found a way via the ULA and they kept it very secret, not even the "insiders" knew about this, and BAM !!! Everyone who's on the program got "frozen", i.e.,, not allowed to transfer to other Boeing programs and, if you quit, you're not allowed back into Boeing for a minimum of 2 years. The same manager who has warned us has since left the company and went to work for another "prime contractor" in the area.
Once the ULA has consolidated its engineering & program management in Denver, what will stop them from moving the entire operation to Decatur? Afterall, it sure would make sense to have engineering to be near-by the manufacturing so one is able to talk to another, and engineers are more readily to be able to trouble-shoot any production problems that may arise.
Also, will the facilities in Denver be "owned" by the ULA, or "leased" from LM? The ULA owns the Decatur facility with plenty of land to expand (the cows will get used to the buildings), and which state's senators/ congressman have more power in fund appropriations? "The desire to move engineering to Alabama has been there and is no doubt related to the $80M incentive package.
When you eventually negotiate your employment with ULA, ask them to garrantee employment in Denver (or close to Denver) until you can retire. See what they say.
-
#694 by Dexter on 27 Jan, 2007 05:45
-
Quote
bombay - 26/1/2007 11:48 AM
QuoteGus - 25/1/2007 11:04 PM
Could it be there's a mole in our presence?QuoteJim - 24/1/2007 7:15 AM
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."
I have seen this quote but not in the public domain. This is from an internal ULA status report to all ULA employees from Michael Gass and Dan Collins. I did not know NASA was on distribution.
Anti-Ares
Pro-EELV More Pro Atlas 5
Anti-MSFC
Pro-ULA
And now this. HMMMMMMM.... -
#695 by Jim on 27 Jan, 2007 12:00
-
I am not a contractor
-
#696 by ULAwantabe on 27 Jan, 2007 13:57
-
Dexter, OK, I will digest these comments more carefully.
As I only guess and nobody told me this, is that LM and ULA basically own engineering and want to keep it in Denver. And that is due to penalties against Boeing for the past wrongs by Boeing against LM. So what I am saying is that it seems that as a penalty LM forced Boeing to move all their engineering to ULA which essentially gives LM local influence over ULA engineering. I tell you that ULA and LM engineering are a close family and I know many of the LM employees too. My senses say that engineering will stay put in Denver. Just my gut feeling!
Now there are concerns about the next 2 years something happening that may force a rethinking on ULA's part but give me a break. I would think ULA engineers would jump ship to stay in the west and not move to Alabama. A move from CA --> CO is still “the west” with its endless sunny dry mountainous outdoorsy climate. CO --> HB is a total different story.
So I do not know what to say about this possible situation. I will through you in my idea… It is entirely pliable to think that both LM Space Systems and ULA will merge again in the future after the Boeing commercial launch commission agreements are exhausted. I can see Boeing having a declining interest in the ULA ownership over time. I even can see that over time Delta will be phased out. Like over a long period of 10 plus years. So the future is a crap shoot.
What is a plus in my little old mind is that I want out of California and I am thinking that the ULA move package will grease the wheels to make it happen without me having to pay for a huge commission to California realtors. I want the best for my kids and I do not see it happening with the extreme high cost of California or the real-estate here. I want great schools and I see that Denver offers this in their southern residential areas of Littleton and Highlands Ranch. I sense a fantastic job down the road for me which will totally reinvigorate my enthusiasm towards science and the space program.
I know everybody has their own situation. For me my current job is routine to say the least, my requirement to ware a tie is crap, and my company conservative and is run by management with old world ideas. My senses say that ULA is a great place to work with great people to work aside. I know many of these people. I am almost middle age now with a ton of experience in Atlas/Centaur and I think ULA "may" offer to pay me what I am worth. Yah, I do not earn the big buck of you HB people :-) so my transition to Denver might not be as big of a long time financial shock to my transfer process.
And in reality at the end of it all, if ULA does eventually move to Alabama then as long as the job stays interesting, and the people I work with stay nice, and the schools in Alabama teach English as a first language, and the housing market is not too overpriced, and then it may just be worth consideration.
Not to get too theosophical with you folks but gosh who knows what our future will bring. But you got to be happy and I believe that part of the big formula in life is that you got to be flexible and you got to like your work. Fortunately for me my kids are young enough that we can just pack up and move without too much of a social interruption. Down the road a ways that aspect of my life may become more complicated. But right now I am tired of being a slave to my mortgage and living pay check to paycheck and I don't like the direction that California is moving (getting too overcrowded and other reasons). I invite the idea 24 hours a day to release myself of all the housing debt I own, and possibly buy a house in Denver with little to no mortgage, and work in a fascinating job. If ULA lasts in Denver for even just a few years then those will be a few years of a better life style then what I have now.
Not much more to say. Some folks like the beach as their lifestyle. I want a life with less debt and therefore a better standard of living. We will see. No solution to the puzzle is perfect.
-
#697 by Propforce on 27 Jan, 2007 21:20
-
Quote
ULAwantabe - 27/1/2007 6:57 AM
... But right now I am tired of being a slave to my mortgage and living pay check to paycheck and I don't like the direction that California is moving (getting too overcrowded and other reasons). I invite the idea 24 hours a day to release myself of all the housing debt I own, ......
ULAW,
We can only make decisions on those actions that we have control over. Your immediate motivation is obvious. You can only pick which employer to work for. Unless you're the CEO, you can not decide what the company will do a few years down the road. Just do what you think is best for you & your family and worry about what will happen down the road later.
Good luck to you. -
#698 by Chris Bergin on 27 Jan, 2007 21:21
-
Quote
bombay - 26/1/2007 5:48 PM
Could it be there's a mole in our presence?
This isn't Big Brother
Everyone please keep it calm on here. I know the space industry isn't all group hugs and holding hands, but I want to keep the forum for the site at least civil.
Thanks. -
#699 by Propforce on 27 Jan, 2007 23:36
-
Quote
Jim - 27/1/2007 5:00 AM
I am not a contractor
It's OK, Jim. Next time just ask a contractor how things are REALLY done
QuoteJim - 21/11/2006 5:27 AM (from the USA thread)
Basically, NASA is management with the contractors doing hands on work
