-
#780
by
Jim
on 14 Feb, 2007 01:19
-
bombay - 13/2/2007 7:42 PM
If a good chunk of the 41% acceptees are non-technical and/or non-critical, the 41% might sound good, but it would be very deceiving.
non-critical/non technical were not offered moves
-
#781
by
ULAwantabe
on 14 Feb, 2007 01:28
-
So as you say there are 900 critical people, and if 41% are moving, then that totals 369 moving.
The current ULA careers page has 270 new jobs posted.
So the math yeilds = 900 - 270 - 369 = 261 critical jobs reduction between current HB staffing and new anticipated staffing in Denver.
Therefore, either ULA is saving by reducing 261 jobs, or they still need to post many new jobs on thier Careers web site.
Does this rational pan out?
-
#782
by
ULAwantabe
on 14 Feb, 2007 01:29
-
Of course many of those jobs on the careers page are not in Denver, but the 261 job difference number for the whole company still holds water.
-
#783
by
bombay
on 14 Feb, 2007 02:22
-
Jim - 13/2/2007 8:18 PM
bombay - 13/2/2007 8:00 PM
As picky as Aerospace representatives are, they're going to have a field day with this one as their stonewalled in their attempts to gather information. This launch might not happen for six months.
Get real. bah bah bah. It has nothing to do with the engine
I guess the only thing that ULA has to tell the Air Force and Aerospace to gain flight clearance is: "Jim says that it's not the engine so all systems go".
Nothing conclusive has been determined and until it is, Atlas is grounded.
-
#784
by
Propforce
on 14 Feb, 2007 04:26
-
Jim - 13/2/2007 4:45 AM
Dexter - 12/2/2007 9:26 AM
Its been a while since the HB offers went out.
Jim, how is the HB list looking?
41% and climbing
How did you arrive at this %?
-
#785
by
edkyle99
on 14 Feb, 2007 04:30
-
bombay - 13/2/2007 9:22 PM
Jim - 13/2/2007 8:18 PM
bombay - 13/2/2007 8:00 PM
As picky as Aerospace representatives are, they're going to have a field day with this one as their stonewalled in their attempts to gather information. This launch might not happen for six months.
Get real. bah bah bah. It has nothing to do with the engine
I guess the only thing that ULA has to tell the Air Force and Aerospace to gain flight clearance is: "Jim says that it's not the engine so all systems go".
Nothing conclusive has been determined and until it is, Atlas is grounded.
There were hints in the Russian news today that the result of the Zenit investigation should be known in March. I doubt we'll see Atlas grounded for six months, and maybe not even for six weeks.
- Ed Kyle
-
#786
by
Dexter
on 14 Feb, 2007 05:22
-
Propforce - 13/2/2007 11:26 PM
Jim - 13/2/2007 4:45 AM
Dexter - 12/2/2007 9:26 AM
Its been a while since the HB offers went out.
Jim, how is the HB list looking?
41% and climbing
How did you arrive at this %?
Let me give this a shot.
Dan Collins was hoping for around a third.
31% is around a third. Jim as part of NASA had access to the HB list which is essentially NASA oversight or "monitoring" so they made it 10% better, therfore 41%. Continued NASA oversight will make this number climb.
-
#787
by
Dexter
on 14 Feb, 2007 05:41
-
Jim - 13/2/2007 8:18 PM
bombay - 13/2/2007 8:00 PM
As picky as Aerospace representatives are, they're going to have a field day with this one as their stonewalled in their attempts to gather information. This launch might not happen for six months.
Get real. bah bah bah. It has nothing to do with the engine
So why the delay in launch of the Atlas v from Feb 23 to March 9?
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.htmlULA was justified for requiring two vehicles to assure access to space instead of downselecting one. Now we have a national asset sitting on the pad and no desire to launch because America cannot access the Russian failure data.
If the engine has nothing to do with the SeaLaunch failure, go ahead and launch Atlas V on the 23rd.
-
#788
by
Antares
on 14 Feb, 2007 13:37
-
America cannot access the Russian failure data
This is utterly false.
-
#789
by
mr_crabby
on 14 Feb, 2007 15:37
-
Jim - 13/2/2007 8:19 PM
bombay - 13/2/2007 7:42 PM
If a good chunk of the 41% acceptees are non-technical and/or non-critical, the 41% might sound good, but it would be very deceiving.
non-critical/non technical were not offered moves
I work on Delta IV in HB and that is incorrect. All Delta employees, from OAs to Dan Collins, were offered relocation packages. What differed between non-technical and technical folks were the level of extra incentives offered.
The 41% number really needs an asterisk also. Management here is not counting those folks who decided to leave the company in the time between when the ULA announcement was made back at the beginning of 2005 and the closing date in December 2006. The vast majority of those losses were due entirely to the impending move to Denver.
-
#790
by
ULAwantabe
on 14 Feb, 2007 16:10
-
Is the moral high among the ULA employees that choose to move? I would think this is a very exciting time for those who took the packages. But also some heart ach too in all the hassle of leaving friends, departing employees, and family behind.
-
#791
by
Propforce
on 14 Feb, 2007 17:11
-
Dexter - 13/2/2007 10:22 PM
Propforce - 13/2/2007 11:26 PM
Jim - 13/2/2007 4:45 AM
Dexter - 12/2/2007 9:26 AM
Its been a while since the HB offers went out.
Jim, how is the HB list looking?
41% and climbing
How did you arrive at this %?
Let me give this a shot.
Dan Collins was hoping for around a third.
31% is around a third. Jim as part of NASA had access to the HB list which is essentially NASA oversight or "monitoring" so they made it 10% better, therfore 41%. Continued NASA oversight will make this number climb.
Oh yes, I forgot about the NASA oversight factor.
Actually NASA oversight increases program cost expenditures by 300%, so Dan Collins' hoping for a 33% multiply by a 300% "NASA oversight factor" would means that 99% of Delta employees will move to Denver.
There goes the ULA hope for eliminating cost....
-
#792
by
Dexter
on 15 Feb, 2007 22:43
-
-
#793
by
quark
on 15 Feb, 2007 23:43
-
Dexter - 15/2/2007 4:43 PM
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/070215/delay.shtml
The Decatur daily thinks that the reason for the Atlas V delay is engine related.
Chris Bergin published an article that cites the concerns for the Atlas V delay are engine related:
http://nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5022
How is this assured access?
What if the problem was truly engine related?
How quickly could this sattelite be transferred to a Delta IV?
The launched was delayed to give the Atlas and AF folks time to carefully consider and review the rationale to clear the engine. There is every expectation that the launch will go on the 8th as scheduled. Being careful is one reason Atlas has been failure free for the last 13 years.
-
#794
by
Jim
on 15 Feb, 2007 23:44
-
Dexter - 15/2/2007 6:43 PM
How quickly could this sattelite be transferred to a Delta IV?
Not needed. It is a test spacecraft
-
#795
by
bombay
on 16 Feb, 2007 01:34
-
It's more of a hypothetical question that's being asked.
That question being, if a swap to Delta IV were necessary, about how long would it take integrate/interface the satellite from Atlas to Delta?
-
#796
by
quark
on 16 Feb, 2007 01:52
-
bombay - 15/2/2007 7:34 PM
It's more of a hypothetical question that's being asked.
That question being, if a swap to Delta IV were necessary, about how long would it take integrate/interface the satellite from Atlas to Delta?
It depends.
This particular mission would be difficult because it's a "one off" with a large number of unique requirements. Because of that, and because it's a bunch of experimental payloads, it was not dual integrated. Time would be at least a year if not more.
Other missions where there are a number of satellites (like GPS) it would be very easy to swap, because both systems have integrated the payload. In those cases, the constraint would be HW availability and launch slot availability. Time of months unless a LV happened to be sitting around at the launch site.
If you wanted the time to be smaller, you'd have to pre stage HW and take the integration analysis for both down to the end. Not a problem with enough $$.
-
#797
by
bombay
on 16 Feb, 2007 02:16
-
quark - 15/2/2007 6:43 PM
The launched was delayed to give the Atlas and AF folks time to carefully consider and review the rationale to clear the engine. There is every expectation that the launch will go on the 8th as scheduled. Being careful is one reason Atlas has been failure free for the last 13 years.
The AF & Aerospace previously had all proprietary information at their disposal. Data transfer was seamless and transparent allowing them to be extremely thorough and careful in their review, such is not the case now. You can't treat this review like all others because it's not like all others; the players are totally different. How thorough the AF & Aerospace can conduct their review and come away happy remains to be seen.
-
#798
by
quark
on 16 Feb, 2007 02:26
-
bombay - 15/2/2007 8:16 PM
The AF & Aerospace previously had all proprietary information at their disposal. Data transfer was seamless and transparent allowing them to be extremely thorough and careful in their review, such is not the case now. You can't treat this review like all others because it's not like all others; the players are totally different. How thorough the AF & Aerospace can conduct their review and come away happy remains to be seen.
Agreed. This is a unique situation. Though it appears (without benefit of any inside information) there is a pretty clear cut case the failure was in the propulsion system upstream of the engine. Proof of that is really all that's required to clear Atlas.
-
#799
by
bombay
on 16 Feb, 2007 02:34
-
Regardless of whether or not the RD-180 is of any concern to the upcoming Atlas launch, the current situation should serve as a wake-up call to ULA. How can anyone expect to believe that the usage/reliance of Russian built engines (with no viable U.S. alternative) on Atlas V (EELV) is not a big national security risk!
There hasn't been any major U.S. investment in LOX-kerosene pump-fed engines in 30 years.
