ULA is getting green light

#720 by Jim on 02 Feb, 2007 15:17
Quote
Propforce - 2/2/2007 10:58 AM

They provides more launch flexibility for the Air Force and their pricing certainly did not undercut LM.

Atlas is more flexible. Delt -IV has a huge gap between the M+ (5,4) and Heavy.
#721 by Antares on 02 Feb, 2007 16:02
Quote
Propforce - 2/2/2007 10:58 AM

Quote
Antares - 1/2/2007 10:20 PM

Quote
Propforce - 2/2/2007 1:02 AM

Quote
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.

What that unscrupulous employee stole was what was charged for each launch. That's why the initial award (and Atlas's initial VAFB abandonment decision) was 19 Deltas and 7 Atlases. When Boeing had to be honest about their prices, they increased dramatically - to the point they abandoned commercial marketing. I wasn't saying anything about what they spent. LM made very good development decisions from a business case so they didn't have to spend multi-$B (though they obviously have the Russian risk). I don't think they should be penalized for that. Looking at the lobbying behavior of Atlas and Delta execs, I disagree that one milks the government more than the other.

And I agree with Jim: Atlas V is more flexible - if by flexible you mean can accommodate more gradations in payload size, not to mention being able to accommodate those gradations late in the flow.
#722 by yinzer on 02 Feb, 2007 16:18
Quote
Propforce - 2/2/2007 7:58 AM

Quote
Antares - 1/2/2007 10:20 PM

Quote
Propforce - 2/2/2007 1:02 AM

Quote
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.

All of the contemporaneous news reports state that the Air Force went with the Delta IV over the Atlas V largely because the Delta IV was cheaper. Lockheed didn't build a pad on the west coast because the vast majority of the Vandenberg missions went to Boeing, and it wasn't worth it to build a pad that would get used once every other year. Lockheed didn't finish their Heavy configuration because the contracts for the Heavy launches went to Boeing. Lockheed didn't build a shipping vessel because their rockets fit on airplanes.

All of this was happening at roughly the same time Boeing also had confidential Raytheon data that it was using to try to win a missile defense contract, and at the same time that they were putting together their disastarous FIA bid.
#723 by publiusr on 02 Feb, 2007 21:19
Quote
Propforce - 2/2/2007 9:58 AM

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.

Was that Sachel or Alexio? I thought I had the website with a link to the perps before it was dismissed...

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0332/news-boeing.php
http://www.aurorawdc.com/ci/000002.html
#724 by Propforce on 03 Feb, 2007 05:06
Quote
Antares - 2/2/2007 9:02 AM

What that unscrupulous employee stole was what was charged for each launch. That's why the initial award (and Atlas's initial VAFB abandonment decision) was 19 Deltas and 7 Atlases. When Boeing had to be honest about their prices, they increased dramatically - to the point they abandoned commercial marketing.

Hello Antares, I don't know if you were involved with the initial buy in 1999, but IIRC, a significant # out of that 19 launches that Boeing got was for the Heavy, then plus some west coast launches. None of which LM has capability when they submitted the initial buy proposals.

So what I am saying is that, the Air Force made an honest & fair decision during the initial buy. Boeing was awarded for its strength, e.g., Heavy missions & west coast launches, and Lockheed was awarded the majority of Medium & east coast launches. Since by that time the Air Force has already intended to support BOTH launches, thereby splitting the mission roughly equally, I do not believe pricing was a major factor driving its decision.

As for the price increases, I think that came later -- of which BOTH companies increased their prices due to the anticipated commercial launch market collapsed. I don't think you can comingle the two.

Quote
And I agree with Jim: Atlas V is more flexible - if by flexible you mean can accommodate more gradations in payload size, not to mention being able to accommodate those gradations late in the flow.

I do not dispute that Delta has a payload gap between its M(5,4) and the Heavy. That was recognized early on. In fact, the Arianne dominates the market for that payload range. Boeing had planned on an in-house upgrade of its cryo 2nd stage with an MB-XX engine back in 2000 ~ 2001. But that capital expenditure plan too got canceled when the commercial launch market went out of window.
#725 by Propforce on 03 Feb, 2007 05:16
Quote
yinzer - 2/2/2007 9:18 AM

All of the contemporaneous news reports state that the Air Force went with the Delta IV over the Atlas V largely because the Delta IV was cheaper.

Don't think so. See my argument on the post above.

Quote
Lockheed didn't build a pad on the west coast because the vast majority of the Vandenberg missions went to Boeing, and it wasn't worth it to build a pad that would get used once every other year. Lockheed didn't finish their Heavy configuration because the contracts for the Heavy launches went to Boeing.

I think you put the cart before the horse Lockheed did not get the Heavy launches in the initial buy because they did NOT have the heavy under development at all. For one reason or the other, they concluded that they are NOT going to spend their OWN money to build a heavy --- unless the government is going to pay them to do so. Likewise, they chosed not to build a west coast pad.

So how can you fault the government awarding ALL of the heavy missions to Boeing and ALL of west coast launches to Boeing? Firgure out that logic first

Quote
All of this was happening at roughly the same time Boeing also had confidential Raytheon data that it was using to try to win a missile defense contract, and at the same time that they were putting together their disastarous FIA bid.

Again you have your timeline mixed up. The missile defense thing happened to then-Rockwell several years before this thng with EELV, who was then-McDonnell Douglas. In the missile defense case, Rockwell voluntarily withdrew itself from the kill vehicle bid, thereby the contract was awarded to Raytheon by default.

The FIA was disastrous but not as bad as SBIR-High
#726 by Propforce on 03 Feb, 2007 05:17
Quote
publiusr - 2/2/2007 2:19 PM
Was that Sachel or Alexio? I thought I had the website with a link to the perps before it was dismissed...

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0332/news-boeing.php
http://www.aurorawdc.com/ci/000002.html

You're going to do your own research on that one publiusr. I am not giving out names
#727 by yinzer on 03 Feb, 2007 07:57
I think you're misremembering things, Propforce. The initial award in 1998 was 19 Boeing and 9 Lockheed, with both having two west coast launches, and Boeing having two Heavy flights. Both providers were going to build pads at VAFB. In 2000, Lockheed decided that they didn't want to build a west coast launch pad to fly two vehicles out of, especially when it looked like future launches would go to Boeing, so they gave those launches (the DMSP flights) to Boeing, and the Air Force decided to buy a Heavy demo flight. Boeing only got all the VAFB flights after they'd already cheated their way into getting 2/3rds of the initial EELV contracts. In 2003, Boeing's misdeeds came to light, and 7 launches were shifted back over, including two from VAFB (one of the DMSP flights and an NRO flight), and 3 more VAFB flights were awarded to LM.
#728 by Dexter on 04 Feb, 2007 05:24
Quote
publiusr - 2/2/2007 4:19 PM

Quote
Propforce - 2/2/2007 9:58 AM

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.

Was that Sachel or Alexio? I thought I had the website with a link to the perps before it was dismissed...

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0332/news-boeing.php
http://www.aurorawdc.com/ci/000002.html

Of course alot of the decision on indicting the whole company can rest in the hands of the person making the decision and who his buddies were that he used to work with and possibly still playing golf with.

http://www.aero.org/news/newsitems/teets6-9-05.html
#729 by Dexter on 04 Feb, 2007 05:30
Quote
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. 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.

Sounds like a nice place. I wouldn't know. But the fact that homes cost more in Southern California than Alabama is an economic form of voting.

www.zillow.com
#730 by Dexter on 04 Feb, 2007 05:37
Quote
Jim - 28/1/2007 1:19 PM

Quote
Propforce - 27/1/2007 7:36 PM

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

Quote
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.

1. Can you provide some back up data to this 10% claim?

2. What is it that NASA does that makes teh same vehicle 10% better?

3. How much extra does it cost?
#731 by Antares on 04 Feb, 2007 23:59
Quote
Dexter - 4/2/2007 1:37 AM

Quote
Jim - 28/1/2007 1:19 PM

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.

1. Can you provide some back up data to this 10% claim?

2. What is it that NASA does that makes teh same vehicle 10% better?

3. How much extra does it cost?

NASA hasn't lost a Delta mission since GOES-G soon after Challenger. Since then, there was GPS 2R1 for the DoD and 3 commercial Delta failures.

There were 3 Atlas I failures after the "commercial Atlas" program started in the early 90's. 2 were commercial, 1 was a Navy comsat (which I think was a commercially licensed launch). Prior to Atlas I, the launches were run by the government (NASA, I think). Graybeards, please verify that as it was before my time.

There were 4 DoD Titan 4 failures, 3 DoD Titan 34 failures and 1 commercial Titan 34 failure. I believe all Titan launches were run by the USAF.

There were 3 DoD and 1 NASA Pegasus failures. I don't count the X-43 failure since it was not managed by NASA's ELV group. QuikTOMS on Taurus 6 was a secondary, so NASA did not have launcher insight there either.

I think any comparisons older than ~20 years are invalid. We're technically smarter than we were before, though 51L and 107 show we're not politically smarter. Programmatic structures are far different now than they used to be too.

NASA does it with a combination of targeted insight (which increased after CAIB); a smart, small, agile organization; good contractor relations; good contractors; and probably a little luck.

The NASA ELV organization is about 400 people (compare THAT to Shuttle). You can use your favorite multiplier for personnel costs. Launch costs are higher than commercial because of mission mods, additional instrumentation and production and design reviews required by contracts.
#732 by Jim on 05 Feb, 2007 00:13
And the US Gov't self insures launches and spacecraft (i.e. no commercial insurance policy). Current insurance rates are between 10-20% of launch costs and covers the cost of other launch and/or another spacecraft
#733 by ULAwantabe on 05 Feb, 2007 00:57
Well I went to my accountant yesterday and he sent me this link:

http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofliving/costofliving.html?step=form&x=32&y=8

Just put in your salary and Bingo! For example, say you (for the purposes of round numbers) are earning $90,000 in Huntington Beach ----> That translates to the following equivalent saleries in these locations:

Salary in Los Angeles-Long Beach CA: $90,000 --> Comparable salary in Denver CO: $60,896.37...
If you move from Los Angeles-Long Beach CA to Denver CO...
Groceries will cost: 10.216% less
Housing will cost: 55.427% less
Utilities will cost: 24.593% less
Transportation will cost: 16.426% less
Healthcare will cost: 7.124% less

Salary in Los Angeles-Long Beach CA: $90,000 ---> Comparable salary in Decatur-Hartselle AL: $52,093.49
If you move from Los Angeles-Long Beach CA to Decatur-Hartselle AL...
Groceries will cost: 21.38% less
Housing will cost: 69.756% less
Utilities will cost: 24.626% less
Transportation will cost: 14.594% less
Healthcare will cost: 21.39% less

Not to sound sarcastic but all costs are marked "LESS". Just imagine to have $30K extra spending money by simply moving to these locations! So for me that is the driving force for my desire to leave California. ... Not to mention the idea of working for an absolutely fantastic job on a remarkable product line.
#734 by Dexter on 05 Feb, 2007 05:42
ULAW.

I don't dispute the fact that te cost of living is less in Alabama or even Denver relative to Southern California.

My point is that the price of real estate which is the major component in your savings and probably the most heavily weighted in your numbers above is not driving too many people away from So Cal. $30K extra would be desirable but the questions I have are:

Why haven't people jumped at the chance already?

Why has the ULA management quoted in another thread stated that they would not move engineering to Decatur because of the bugs (you mentioned this yourself)?

Why does So Cal real estate remain expensive?

How do you quantify desirability to live somewhere?

Why does ULA feel it necessary to bar there employees from moving back to the parent companies?
#735 by Dexter on 05 Feb, 2007 05:53
Quote
Antares - 4/2/2007 6:59 PM

Quote
Dexter - 4/2/2007 1:37 AM

Quote
Jim - 28/1/2007 1:19 PM

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.

1. Can you provide some back up data to this 10% claim?

2. What is it that NASA does that makes teh same vehicle 10% better?

3. How much extra does it cost?

NASA hasn't lost a Delta mission since GOES-G soon after Challenger. Since then, there was GPS 2R1 for the DoD and 3 commercial Delta failures.

There were 3 Atlas I failures after the "commercial Atlas" program started in the early 90's. 2 were commercial, 1 was a Navy comsat (which I think was a commercially licensed launch). Prior to Atlas I, the launches were run by the government (NASA, I think). Graybeards, please verify that as it was before my time.

There were 4 DoD Titan 4 failures, 3 DoD Titan 34 failures and 1 commercial Titan 34 failure. I believe all Titan launches were run by the USAF.

There were 3 DoD and 1 NASA Pegasus failures. I don't count the X-43 failure since it was not managed by NASA's ELV group. QuikTOMS on Taurus 6 was a secondary, so NASA did not have launcher insight there either.

I think any comparisons older than ~20 years are invalid. We're technically smarter than we were before, though 51L and 107 show we're not politically smarter. Programmatic structures are far different now than they used to be too.

NASA does it with a combination of targeted insight (which increased after CAIB); a smart, small, agile organization; good contractor relations; good contractors; and probably a little luck.

The NASA ELV organization is about 400 people (compare THAT to Shuttle). You can use your favorite multiplier for personnel costs. Launch costs are higher than commercial because of mission mods, additional instrumentation and production and design reviews required by contracts.

Looking at the launch history for Atlas on astronautix.com, I see three failures of Atlas I vehicles in the early 1990s which was an existing Atlas version from prior to Atlas going commenrcial when it was essesntially a NASA LV.

The record for Atlas II, III, and V shows no failures with NASA missions included.

So, did NASA make the commercial Atlas 2, 3, & 5's 10% better??

I think this 10% claim is more a matter of luck in not flying on doomed vehicles like a game of Russian Roulette.

Hypothetically speaking, if the Sea Launch/Zenit is found to be attributable to the pumps common with RD-180, then what would this NASA oversight have done to prevent a failure on the MRO or Pluto missions?
#736 by Jim on 05 Feb, 2007 11:07
Atlas I was not the same as an Atlas G

10% across all LV fleets

10% is statistically too big to be attributed to "randomness"

So Dexter, what is your issue? ULA is bad, Atlas is bad, Delta is bad, Boeing is bad, LM is bad, NASA procured launches are bad,

Is there anything out there you agree with?

Or should we just not launch anything?
#737 by Jim on 05 Feb, 2007 13:00
1982-2006 (don't know when exactly in 2006)

DOD 164 out of 176 = 93.2%
Commercial 105 out of 116 = 88.2%
NASA 110 of 113 = 97.3%
#738 by Dexter on 05 Feb, 2007 14:45
Quote
Jim - 5/2/2007 6:07 AM

Atlas I was not the same as an Atlas G

10% across all LV fleets

10% is statistically too big to be attributed to "randomness"

So Dexter, what is your issue? ULA is bad, Atlas is bad, Delta is bad, Boeing is bad, LM is bad, NASA procured launches are bad,

Is there anything out there you agree with?

Or should we just not launch anything?

Let me tell you what I am against.

Corporate welfare.

Corporate claims of savings that never materialize

Corporations playing the assured access card because of their failure to manage.

People not learning from the past.

Government bureaucracies.

I watch Apollo 13 and think that was a great NASA with Gene Krantz and all the engineers who did great things with the limited computing power of the time.

I don't see the great innovations today. I see a lot of stagnation and corporate excess and ULA represents everything I am against.
#739 by Dexter on 05 Feb, 2007 14:48
Quote
Jim - 5/2/2007 8:00 AM

1982-2006 (don't know when exactly in 2006)

DOD 164 out of 176 = 93.2%
Commercial 105 out of 116 = 88.2%
NASA 110 of 113 = 97.3%

Now, when I quote a statistic or some fact that is more than 10 years old you are quick to point out that it is old data.

So what would the data look like for the last 10 years(1997-2007)?

And of course, we are assuming expendable vehicles.