-
#700
by
ULAwantabe
on 28 Jan, 2007 00:42
-
Am I sensing that Chirs is also a "ULAwantabe" in disguise as a popular forum modulator?
-
#701
by
James (Lockheed)
on 28 Jan, 2007 02:21
-
ULAwantabe - 27/1/2007 7:42 PM
Am I sensing that Chirs is also a "ULAwantabe" in disguise as a popular forum modulator?
Modulator
Chris is the main journalist/editor for this site (
www.nasaspaceflight.com ) that happens to have this forum included, there some other guys who moderate the forum, but he can obviously moderate too, seen as it's his site. If you go on the news pages you'll see he writes most of the articles.
-
#702
by
Delta Manager
on 28 Jan, 2007 02:27
-
Chris owns the site too I was surprised to hear. Doing a great job. I think we've all been holding out for a site like this for a long time.
-
#703
by
ULAwantabe
on 28 Jan, 2007 06:05
-
Well I am very grateful to Chris for providing this opportunity to communicate. I am amazed that he operates out of London. We live in such a small world these days.
-
#704
by
Chris Bergin
on 28 Jan, 2007 12:59
-
Thanks...although I'm no where near London
Anyway, back to your regular programming...
-
#705
by
Jim
on 28 Jan, 2007 18:19
-
Propforce - 27/1/2007 7:36 PM
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
Jim - 21/11/2006 5:27 AM (from the USA thread)
Basically, NASA is management with the contractors doing hands on work
The problem is they don't know. Actually, they keep asking how to do their work. Boeing even wants us to do more of the work we are paying them for.
I guess that's why NASA managed ELV missions have almost a 10% better success rate than commercial missions and 7% better than DOD.
-
#706
by
Propforce
on 29 Jan, 2007 01:15
-
Jim - 28/1/2007 11:19 AM
The problem is they don't know. Actually, they keep asking how to do their work. Boeing even wants us to do more of the work we are paying them for.
I doubt that very much. I bet if you leave them alone, things will get done much faster and more reliable, without having you constantly tapping their shoulder every 5 minutes and asking stupid questions. If they don't know what they're doing, chances are you guys are giving them conflicting instructions.
I guess that's why NASA managed ELV missions have almost a 10% better success rate than commercial missions and 7% better than DOD.
That's because NASA's missions use primarily the D-II, the most reliable launch vehicle that still flies today. The reason that it is very reliable is because it is a very simple system. Simplicity = Reliability.
You're giving the NASA managed ELV missions too much credits. Oh patting yourself on the back, eh?
-
#707
by
AlabamaHome
on 29 Jan, 2007 01:57
-
Interesting thread. I was born and raised in Decatur, Alabama and after living in many other parts of the country, I found that North Alabama and Decatur was a great place to live. I came back and have never been sorry. Sure, our accents are southern, but the cost of living is reasonable (about $95 to $100 a square foot for houses) and it is a great place to raise kids. I am hoping to get a job here with ULA, but am more on the administrative and not engineering or manufacturing end of the process. Any leads would be great. I am an attorney with contract management training and certification.
-
#708
by
bombay
on 29 Jan, 2007 02:26
-
AlabamaHome - 28/1/2007 8:57 PM
Interesting thread. I was born and raised in Decatur, Alabama and after living in many other parts of the country, I found that North Alabama and Decatur was a great place to live. I came back and have never been sorry.
As the old saying goes: "There's no place like home".
I'm sure that those born and raised in SoCal echo your feelings about living in SoCal - even though it costs an arm and a leg to live there.
-
#709
by
AlabamaHome
on 29 Jan, 2007 02:46
-
Bombay, I am sure your are right.
-
#710
by
yinzer
on 29 Jan, 2007 05:27
-
Propforce - 28/1/2007 6:15 PM
I guess that's why NASA managed ELV missions have almost a 10% better success rate than commercial missions and 7% better than DOD.
That's because NASA's missions use primarily the D-II, the most reliable launch vehicle that still flies today. The reason that it is very reliable is because it is a very simple system. Simplicity = Reliability.
Or, alternatively, the Delta II (which is somewhat less reliable than the various Atlas-Centaurs of the last twenty years, and about the same as the Soyuz) has been flying in more or less its current state for a very long time, which means that design flaws have been uncovered and fixed. There's something to be said for sticking to what works.
-
#711
by
ULAwantabe
on 29 Jan, 2007 22:52
-
-
#712
by
bombay
on 01 Feb, 2007 23:19
-
So now we get to see the fallout from Lockheed's decision to go on the cheap and not go full throttle with the necessary funding to co-produce the RD-180.
Lockheed (now ULA) may find out that it would have been much more economical to fund P&W to Americanize the RD-180 than it is to try to Americanize the Russians in terms of what's expected in terms of providing root cause and implementing proper corrective action.
How brilliant to rely purely on Russian technology for the national security of the U.S. Just Brilliant!!
-
#713
by
yinzer
on 02 Feb, 2007 00:53
-
If Boeing had spent the time and effort they put toward stealing Lockheed's documents and engaging in procurement fraud toward designing cost-effective and operationally-responsive launch vehicles, we could rely on them instead. Or had they admitted that they couldn't produce a competitive launch vehicle, we could have just gone with the Atlas V and put the money that went to the Decatur plant toward RD-180 coproduction.
Or, who knows, maybe the Russians will provide quick and effective root cause determination and corrective action.
-
#714
by
Jim
on 02 Feb, 2007 01:03
-
bombay - 1/2/2007 7:19 PM
So now we get to see the fallout from Lockheed's decision to go on the cheap and not go full throttle with the necessary funding to co-produce the RD-180.
Lockheed (now ULA) may find out that it would have been much more economical to fund P&W to Americanize the RD-180 than it is to try to Americanize the Russians in terms of what's expected in terms of providing root cause and implementing proper corrective action.
How brilliant to rely purely on Russian technology for the national security of the U.S. Just Brilliant!!
Phooey.
It will be no different than any other stand down caused by different LV's employing related systems (i.e. RL-10)
-
#715
by
bombay
on 02 Feb, 2007 01:17
-
Jim - 1/2/2007 8:03 PM
bombay - 1/2/2007 7:19 PM
So now we get to see the fallout from Lockheed's decision to go on the cheap and not go full throttle with the necessary funding to co-produce the RD-180.
Lockheed (now ULA) may find out that it would have been much more economical to fund P&W to Americanize the RD-180 than it is to try to Americanize the Russians in terms of what's expected in terms of providing root cause and implementing proper corrective action.
How brilliant to rely purely on Russian technology for the national security of the U.S. Just Brilliant!!
Phooey.
It will be no different than any other stand down caused by different LV's employing related systems (i.e. RL-10)
Now how in the world can you draw that conclusion? Assuming the Sea Launch failure is attributed to the RD-171, what experience does Lockheed (i.e. ULA) have working with the Russians in providing root cause and corrective action? What if the Russians balk at what ULA expects from them?
The Atlas stand down could last for the rest of the year for all you know!
-
#716
by
Propforce
on 02 Feb, 2007 05:02
-
yinzer - 1/2/2007 5:53 PM
If Boeing had spent the time and effort they put toward stealing Lockheed's documents and engaging in procurement fraud toward designing cost-effective and operationally-responsive launch vehicles, we could rely on them instead.
Name ONE part of Delta IV that is stolen from the Atlas V design.
-
#717
by
Antares
on 02 Feb, 2007 05:18
-
bombay - 1/2/2007 9:17 PM
Jim - 1/2/2007 8:03 PM
bombay - 1/2/2007 7:19 PM
So now we get to see the fallout from Lockheed's decision to go on the cheap and not go full throttle with the necessary funding to co-produce the RD-180.
Lockheed (now ULA) may find out that it would have been much more economical to fund P&W to Americanize the RD-180 than it is to try to Americanize the Russians in terms of what's expected in terms of providing root cause and implementing proper corrective action.
How brilliant to rely purely on Russian technology for the national security of the U.S. Just Brilliant!!
Phooey.
It will be no different than any other stand down caused by different LV's employing related systems (i.e. RL-10)
Now how in the world can you draw that conclusion? Assuming the Sea Launch failure is attributed to the RD-171, what experience does Lockheed (i.e. ULA) have working with the Russians in providing root cause and corrective action? What if the Russians balk at what ULA expects from them?
The Atlas stand down could last for the rest of the year for all you know!
Atlas has experience with C/CA from the Russians. Do you think they buy the engines sight unseen?
-
#718
by
Antares
on 02 Feb, 2007 05:20
-
Propforce - 2/2/2007 1:02 AM
yinzer - 1/2/2007 5:53 PM
If Boeing had spent the time and effort they put toward stealing Lockheed's documents and engaging in procurement fraud toward designing cost-effective and operationally-responsive launch vehicles, we could rely on them instead.
Name ONE part of Delta IV that is stolen from the Atlas V design.
They didn't steal the parts (or if they did, they didn't use them). They stole the pricing.
-
#719
by
Propforce
on 02 Feb, 2007 14:58
-
Antares - 1/2/2007 10:20 PM
Propforce - 2/2/2007 1:02 AM
yinzer - 1/2/2007 5:53 PM
If Boeing had spent the time and effort they put toward stealing Lockheed's documents and engaging in procurement fraud toward designing cost-effective and operationally-responsive launch vehicles, we could rely on them instead.
Name ONE part of Delta IV that is stolen from the Atlas V design.
They didn't steal the parts (or if they did, they didn't use them). They stole the pricing.
How could they have stole the pricing from LM when Boeing
OUTSPENT LM in just about every respect of the launch infrastructure? They built a Heavy version, an extra launch pad on the west coast, a brand new factory that's capable of producing 50 rockets a year, and a marine shipping vessel. They spent over $2B of their own money to provide the capability while LM milks government's every penny instead?
One unscrupulous ex-Boeing employee stole his ex-employer LM data, and a couple of Boeing managers handled it badly. But that does not diminish what Boeing has brought to the table in launch capabilities. They provides more launch flexibility for the Air Force and their pricing certainly did not undercut LM.
