-
#740
by
Jim
on 05 Feb, 2007 15:23
-
Dexter - 5/2/2007 10:45 AM
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.
Get use to it. Corporate welfare equates to defense and NASA contractors
This isn't new, it's been happen forever. The money involved in spacelaunch is peanuts compared to other contracts
And you have no problem with the ARES vehicles? They are the definition of Government bureaucracies and Corporate welfare.
Great innovations? stagnation? There are a bunch in the EELV program but you will listen to none of it.
-
#741
by
Jim
on 05 Feb, 2007 15:25
-
Dexter - 5/2/2007 10:48 AM
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.
NASA gets better with no failures
-
#742
by
ULAwantabe
on 05 Feb, 2007 16:23
-
Dexter,
If you are an HB engineer planning not to move to Denver then I wish you much good fortune in the job market where hopefully you can find some rewarding work where you think company ethic and product decisions are good. Since leaving the "rocket shop" with Atlas I have yet to find work that I truly LOVE. I loved every bit of my employment on Atlas. I went to one company that had a habit of laying everyone off each year after each job ended, and fortunately my skill set was strong enough to find another project to work on each year without a career interruption. Then I went on to a company that was highly rated on the Forbes top 100 list. But at the end their management choose to cut jobs not by skills or employee performance ranking, but by what project you happened to be working on at the time management choose to offshore work to India. Now I work for a fantastic aerospace company that has a very interesting product, yet I still miss the rockets! What I have now is quite OK, but then I have to deal with the high real-estate costs of San Diego. So what I am saying is that you got to consider the whole package. If you like rockets, but do not like corporate policy then turn your head away from the politics and think about the good aspects of the company and your work. Man, if I only get another chance to return to the "rocket shop" all my wishes will be fulfilled. Cheaper housing, love of the job, etc. etc.... So please, give me some positives you see in the rocket programs. I would like to hear about the positives a little bit more! Thank you.
-
#743
by
Propforce
on 05 Feb, 2007 18:57
-
ULAwantabe - 5/2/2007 9:23 AM
... Now I work for a fantastic aerospace company that has a very interesting product, yet I still miss the rockets!
There are only 3 aerospace companies in SD and 2 of them builds UAVs. The 3rd one was your ex-employer.
... Man, if I only get another chance to return to the "rocket shop" all my wishes will be fulfilled. Cheaper housing, love of the job, etc. etc.... So please, give me some positives you see in the rocket programs. I would like to hear about the positives a little bit more! Thank you.
This beginning to sound like the "dot-com" days message boards with "... what will I do with my millions of $ when my penny stocks hit the big time !!..."
-
#744
by
McDew
on 05 Feb, 2007 20:26
-
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?
Jim,
Hate to burst your bubble, but NASA was the prime systems integrator when they designed in the "failure modes" which resulted in the first two commercial Atlas failures. If you recall, the failure mode was caused by the deep prelaunch chilldown for the RL10 engines that NASA implimented to gain a few pounds of performance. Bad systems engineering resulted in not analyzing the potential failure modes this would produce. General Dynamics, P&W and Rocketdyne were all associate contractors. No change in this system from Atlas G to Atlas I. The fact that the failures occured on commercial missions vs NASA missions was pure random luck (and that more commercial mission were being flown). Nothing NASA did would have prevented this failure from ocurring on their missions. Shame on both GD and NASA for not figuring this out in the first failure investigation.
Likewise the 3rd commercial Atlas failure, set screw comming loose on the sustainer regulator, also could have happened on any NASA mission.
Don't get me wrong, I believe NASA provides a very valuable service of IV&V for the each LV program which improves the overall system reliability. You need to ask youself whether NASA's IV&V would have prevented these failures from ocurring on a NASA mission. The obvious answer is NO.
We are all very happy about the success rate on NASA missions. Just don't get a false sense of security that this is only becuase of NASA involment. As shown here, it was random luck as to when they ocurred. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.
-
#745
by
Jim
on 05 Feb, 2007 20:59
-
NASA's last mission where they were "prime systems integrator" was AC-67, the last Atlas-Centaur G. All subsequent missions AC-68 and on (Atlas I's) were handled by GD alone.
Even if so as you claim, the second failure can't be attributed to NASA. GD didn't do their fault analysis properly and NASA wasn't involved.
-
#746
by
McDew
on 05 Feb, 2007 21:49
-
I'm glad you agree that NASA was the "prime systems integrator" when the failure mode was introduced. Yes, GD enherited the system and responsibility to fix any flaws.
NASA was involved in the AC-70 failure investigation. NASA was planning on using "Atlas I" for the GOES series of spacecraft, so naturally they were involved in the failure investigation as part of their IV&V efforts. I wasn't claiming it was NASA's responsibility on not getting the failure investigation correct, only that even with their envolvement the next failure could have randomly waited until the next NASA mission to occur.
You can't have it both ways. Either NASA is "involved" and shares in the success and failures through it's IV&V or is Atlas "handeled" now by "LM/ULA alone" and per your comments NASA should not get any credit for the success.
Atlas and NASA make a great team working together and the grey beards understand the success this has brought. NASA has plenty of reasons to be proud of their effots without using misleading statistics to justfy their value to the program.
-
#747
by
Gus
on 06 Feb, 2007 04:34
-
Mc Dew
Very well stated. AC-70 was orginally attributed to foreign object contamination in the LH2 duct resulting in one RL-10 failing to start. AC-71 failure pointed out that we jumped to conclusions on the AC-70 failure even with the data staring us in the face and participation from NASA. Hindsight was certainly 20/20 in this case.
-
#748
by
McDew
on 07 Feb, 2007 00:06
-
Jim - 4/2/2007 7:13 PM
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
Your insurance rate is a few years out of date. Current rates prior to the Sea launch explosion was 6-10%. Some USG missions are insured under commercial policies. The current GOES series (N,O&P) are delivery in orbit missions on Delta by Boeing Satellite Systems. These missions were originally contracted to launch on Delta III's. Too bad NASA HQ looked the other way when they agreed to this fiasco. NOAA had to pay a mint to buy their way off of that problem.
I have to give credit to the KSC ELV folks for taking the heat and refusing to certify Delta III.
-
#749
by
Jim
on 07 Feb, 2007 00:17
-
McDew - 6/2/2007 8:06 PM
Jim - 4/2/2007 7:13 PM
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
Your insurance rate is a few years out of date. Current rates prior to the Sea launch explosion was 6-10%. Some USG missions are insured under commercial policies. The current GOES series (N,O&P) are delivery in orbit missions on Delta by Boeing Satellite Systems. These missions were originally contracted to launch on Delta III's. Too bad NASA HQ looked the other way when they agreed to this fiasco. NOAA had to pay a mint to buy their way off of that problem.
I have to give credit to the KSC ELV folks for taking the heat and refusing to certify Delta III.
Had nothing to do with certification. It was BSS and BLS decision to move to D-IV, not NASA. And it was at no expense to the gov't.
NASA/NOAA are paying through the nose because they aren't treating like delivery on orbit. They keep giving the contractors direction and the contractors are charging them for it
The Delta-IV is not yet certified, and won't be until a "real" NASA payload is manifested to fly on it.
-
#750
by
McDew
on 07 Feb, 2007 00:56
-
Jim - 6/2/2007 7:17 PM
McDew - 6/2/2007 8:06 PM
Jim - 4/2/2007 7:13 PM
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
Your insurance rate is a few years out of date. Current rates prior to the Sea launch explosion was 6-10%. Some USG missions are insured under commercial policies. The current GOES series (N,O&P) are delivery in orbit missions on Delta by Boeing Satellite Systems. These missions were originally contracted to launch on Delta III's. Too bad NASA HQ looked the other way when they agreed to this fiasco. NOAA had to pay a mint to buy their way off of that problem.
I have to give credit to the KSC ELV folks for taking the heat and refusing to certify Delta III.
Had nothing to do with certification. It was BSS and BLS decision to move to D-IV, not NASA. And it was at no expense to the gov't.
NASA/NOAA are paying through the nose because they aren't treating like delivery on orbit. They keep giving the contractors direction and the contractors are charging them for it
The Delta-IV is not yet certified, and won't be until a "real" NASA payload is manifested to fly on it.
OK, if that's how you want to play it.
NASA/NOAA provided direction to the contractor to increase the lifetime of the spacecraft and provide on-orbit storage. The way the contractor proposed to meet this requirement was to switch to a Delta IV (4,2). So NASA/NOAA paid through the nose for this "change" but got the Delta IV at no expense.
Don't you just love goverment contracting logic!
-
#751
by
Jim
on 07 Feb, 2007 01:23
-
McDew - 6/2/2007 8:56 PM
NASA/NOAA provided direction to the contractor to increase the lifetime of the spacecraft and provide on-orbit storage.
Actually BSS offered the change. NASA didn't request it.
The "direction" I was referring to was the launch no-go.
-
#752
by
McDew
on 07 Feb, 2007 01:56
-
Jim - 6/2/2007 8:23 PM
McDew - 6/2/2007 8:56 PM
NASA/NOAA provided direction to the contractor to increase the lifetime of the spacecraft and provide on-orbit storage.
Actually BSS offered the change. NASA didn't request it.
The "direction" I was referring to was the launch no-go.
I agree, the contractor offered this after NASA/NOAA repeatedly asked them to switch at no cost. To get around this silly thing called the FAR, they had to change the requirements.
I am familiar with the "direction" you are referring to.
Keep up the good work!
-
#753
by
Dexter
on 11 Feb, 2007 03:22
-
.... What I have now is quite OK, but then I have to deal with the high real-estate costs of San Diego. ...>
ULAW
You say you have too deal with the high cost of real estate in San Diego but you also state that you have been there since at least 1994.
I hope you didn't wait to buy a home until after the market went through the roof.
I hope you did not refinance your home and pull all the equity out.
In theory, you should be 13 years into a 30 year mortgage on a home that cost far less in 1994 than it does today.
The high cost of real estate will work to your advantage when you move to Denver or Decatur.
Assuming the HB engineers bought their homes before the boom, the cost of housing would not be as quoted in the CNN statistics you provided but something less than that.
-
#754
by
Dexter
on 11 Feb, 2007 03:31
-
Jim - 5/2/2007 10:23 AM
Dexter - 5/2/2007 10:45 AM
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.
Get use to it. Corporate welfare equates to defense and NASA contractors
This isn't new, it's been happen forever. The money involved in spacelaunch is peanuts compared to other contracts
And you have no problem with the ARES vehicles? They are the definition of Government bureaucracies and Corporate welfare.
Great innovations? stagnation? There are a bunch in the EELV program but you will listen to none of it.
I am game. Please provide the innovations on the EELV program.
In order to prevent me from sounding like I will listen to none fo it, make sure that these innovations were not tried on some other vehicle because then that would not be innovations but simply copying.
-
#755
by
Dexter
on 11 Feb, 2007 03:41
-
In reading the SeaLaunch failure thread, I could not help but detect that the Atlas V was in question until the failure investigation was concluded. It seems apparent now that the engine was not at fault but one can't help but wonder what the USAF, the DOD, etc.. were thinking about when they could not be active in the failure investigation with the Russians.
This is exactly the concern of the Rand report. Assured access does not seem so assured when you can't be part of a failure investigation team.
As covered previously in this thread, this is why DOD wants major components to be domestically produced.
-
#756
by
Jim
on 11 Feb, 2007 07:12
-
FSW, Moving production line, fault tolerate avionics, CCB, reduction of SPF's,
-
#757
by
quark
on 11 Feb, 2007 14:50
-
Dexter - 10/2/2007 9:41 PM
In reading the SeaLaunch failure thread, I could not help but detect that the Atlas V was in question until the failure investigation was concluded. It seems apparent now that the engine was not at fault but one can't help but wonder what the USAF, the DOD, etc.. were thinking about when they could not be active in the failure investigation with the Russians.
This is exactly the concern of the Rand report. Assured access does not seem so assured when you can't be part of a failure investigation team.
As covered previously in this thread, this is why DOD wants major components to be domestically produced.
Being part of a failure investigation is not precluded but requires a special TAA (technical assistence agreement) from the state department.
-
#758
by
ULAwantabe
on 11 Feb, 2007 15:21
-
Dexter,
Wish I could say more but my anonymity would be compromised.... Even more then I have sort of done already. If you knew me in the past then you know who I am. There must not be more then a couple of us old Atlas folks seeking this path forward.
…. But you got to admit that if one wishes less debt that a move from southern CA to Denver, Alabama, Arizona, Portland, or a number of other desirable locations would simply reduce that debt, and in my mind reduced debt equal a better life style! Yah, maybe my California house could have been smaller in size, and thus less of a mortgage, and so on, but it makes total dollars and sense to me to remove most of that debt by cashing out the California equity and moving elsewhere. And putting some of the money into a college fund for the kids or even a larger emergency spending account. What ever my future holds, I would like to say to my family that I am presenting a more beneficial standard of living for us in the new location.
I am amazed by some Californian folks that are really bad off on balancing their budgets, and that compromise on their standard of living to have an existence in California in the name of good winter weather. Can you imagine yourself getting a mortgage for the first time in Huntington Beach? Good luck! Your home would look more like the hut that Gilligan lived in, and those same mortgage payments would buy you a really nice equivalent home in Denver. And that is why in part, I believe the wise managers of ULA wish to pull out of California and keep operations in less costly areas. Lucky you for being well situated in your mortgage debt to income ratio. But your situation is not the typical for most Californians I am sorry to suggest.
But as I have stated before, I also have an intense love of rocket science. I have missed this type of work I did for Atlas. And I am currently, and intensely, exploring ULA as one of several options. Maybe I do not see my efforts come to fruition. Maybe I do not get an opportunity to really have this sort of intense love for my future work. But for those ULA folks who will choose not to move to Denver I have this to say…. I have previously lived through the huge compromise they are making. Hopefully thier love for warm California winters, and the desire to maintain their current living style, will also be reflected in the love they will find in their future years at their new job. I wish them all good fortune. But for all these folks I must say, hindsight is worthless, and there will be no ability to say “if I”, or “should of”, or “could of”, or even “would of”…. Decisions will soon need to be made that will indeed be locked in stone. I wish these people much good fortune in their future.
As for my experience in making decisions, I am quite good I must admit. I have no regrets for my past. No “dot com” frenzies was ever a decision in my past as someone suggested, and will not be in my future. Nor do I doubt the extreme rational judgments I am making now. And just a little time will disclose my path forward. I wish you all well in your futures. I would like to sign off now, but may reply to future comments.
-
#759
by
Propforce
on 11 Feb, 2007 16:11
-
ULAwantabe - 11/2/2007 8:21 AM
I am amazed by some Californian folks that are really bad off on balancing their budgets, and that compromise on their standard of living to have an existence in California in the name of good winter weather. Can you imagine yourself getting a mortgage for the first time in Huntington Beach? Good luck! Your home would look more like the hut that Gilligan lived in, and those same mortgage payments would buy you a really nice equivalent home in Denver. And that is why in part, I believe the wise managers of ULA wish to pull out of California and keep operations in less costly areas. Lucky you for being well situated in your mortgage debt to income ratio. But your situation is not the typical for most Californians I am sorry to suggest.
No need to bad-mouth those who decide to stay in California to justify your desire to join ULA. Most who stay are not because of the nice weather, but like everyone at everywhere else facing a relocation dilema, it comes down to the family, root, culture and a connection with their friends & support system.
California real estate has always been *unaffordable* by the national standard, even back 20 years ago when I purchased my first house. Older engineers talked about how *expensive* their homes were back in 1960s ($15~$20K) and complained back then at $1,000 per acre of land not even next to a major access road!! Everyone made sacrifices in order to pay their mortgages, raise their families, and still be some of the best aerospace engineers that this country has ever produced and witnessed.
A career decision & location is a highly personalized one. No one can say your decision is right or wrong
for you. There are many excellent engineers at LM who struggles with everyday issues just like those of us at HB, with mortgages, raising kids, etc. Likewise for every working men & women across this country.
Good luck to your job compaign.