-
#800
by
quark
on 16 Feb, 2007 20:03
-
bombay - 15/2/2007 8:34 PM
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.
The current situation has nothing to do with Russia per se. It is caused by HW that is common or related between different launch systems. Any time there is a failure in the industry, all potential intersections should be addressed by other affected parties.
There was a very similar case when the Delta III upper stage failed which grounded both Delta III and Atlas due to the RL-10 intersection. Because Atlas and Delta were in competition it was actually far harder for Atlas to get info then than is the case here.
-
#801
by
bombay
on 16 Feb, 2007 22:17
-
quark - 16/2/2007 3:03 PM
There was a very similar case when the Delta III upper stage failed which grounded both Delta III and Atlas due to the RL-10 intersection. Because Atlas and Delta were in competition it was actually far harder for Atlas to get info then than is the case here.
Delta IV and Atlas V were also in competition with one another a few years ago when Lockheed allowed Boeing to use their battery design, albeit at a cost, so Delta could launch. Lockheed could have easily just sat back and watched Boeing suffer, but such wasn't the case. The competition was fierce between the two companies, but not to the point where failure investigation data wasn't openly shared in hopes that the other would fail.
ULA is supposed to minimize risk of launch delay, not maintain the status quo or for that matter, increase the risk of launch delay. ULA apparently dodged a bullet in that the RD-171 was not the Zenit cause of failure. If however co-production remains stalled as it is, and the RD-180 fails, Atlas would be real lucky to launch within two years.
-
#802
by
bigdog
on 16 Feb, 2007 23:33
-
It was not a Lockheed design they were built by a private manufacturer. Boeing payed for the qualification data so they would not have to do the work. Also ULA had been announced for some time at that point so Lockheed knew they were helping themselves.
-
#803
by
bombay
on 17 Feb, 2007 22:38
-
bigdog - 16/2/2007 6:33 PM
It was not a Lockheed design they were built by a private manufacturer. Boeing payed for the qualification data so they would not have to do the work. Also ULA had been announced for some time at that point so Lockheed knew they were helping themselves.
The manufacturer of the batteries is irrelevant. Boeing had to contract with Lockheed to gain whatever was necessary to use the Lockheed designed batteries.
The battery issue occured about a month after the ULA announcement, long before it was gov't approved. Lockheed benefitted not one iota from helping Boeing. If anything, the rationale behind the formation of ULA would have been further supported by not helping Boeing through the argument that two separate/competing companies can't help one another.
-
#804
by
bombay
on 17 Feb, 2007 23:05
-
The theme of my recent posts suggests that full-scale funding and co-production of the RD-180 is vital.
I don't understand why there is more emphasis on funding various "illogical" transition moves versus pouring the money into RD-180 development.
As an example, prior posts on this thread mentioned that Harlingen isn't on the move list to Decatur but San Diego is. Here you have an "aluminum" manufacturing/welding center of excellence in Decatur, and yet Harlingen, which deals predominantly with "aluminum" manufacturing is not on the table to move to Decatur.
San Diego, the "stainless steel" manufacturing/welding center of excellence, which has nothing in common with Decatur, is on the move list. It wasn't it cost affective to move San Diego to Denver 10-12 years ago, so what changed?
This has politics written all over it!! The place that's a natural fit for Decatur, which would present limited risk, and would cost little to move is totally ignored - not even considered, but the place that presents enormous risk, has no commonality with Decatur, and costs a fortune to move is being moved.
The hundreds of millions of dollars being spent to realize savings that will not materialize according to the FTC and DoD should be rolled into RD-180 development.
-
#805
by
bigdog
on 18 Feb, 2007 14:04
-
bombay - 17/2/2007 4:38 PM
The battery issue occured about a month after the ULA announcement, long before it was gov't approved. Lockheed benefitted not one iota from helping Boeing.
At the time the announcement was made they thought ULA would only take a couple of months not a year and a half. If they had chosen to be protectionist the Range would have benn forced to let Delta fly wit the batteries they had which were not all disqaulified.
-
#806
by
Antares
on 20 Feb, 2007 04:16
-
Bombay, it's all about labor rates. San Diego >> Decatur. Harlingen ~= Decatur, probably Harlingen < Decatur.
-
#807
by
Dexter
on 21 Feb, 2007 03:09
-
Perhaps it is labor rates but I believe the $80 million that the state of Alabama offered is more inplay here.
-
#808
by
bombay
on 21 Feb, 2007 03:56
-
San Diego is located on an Air Force base, so any lease payment that they make would go to the gov't. Moving San Diego would potentially take money away from the gov't when the objective is to save the gov't money.
Is the suspect percentage savings in labor attached to a move really worth the substantial increase in risk attached to a move? What's it worth to ULA to eliminate risk? The $6 or $7 dollars an hour more that they pay the people in San Diego with the knowledge to build the rocket right is a bargain.
-
#809
by
Dexter
on 21 Feb, 2007 04:31
-
bombay - 20/2/2007 10:56 PM
San Diego is located on an Air Force base, so any lease payment that they make would go to the gov't. Moving San Diego would potentially take money away from the gov't when the objective is to save the gov't money.
Is the suspect percentage savings in labor attached to a move really worth the substantial increase in risk attached to a move? What's it worth to ULA to eliminate risk? The $6 or $7 dollars an hour more that they pay the people in San Diego with the knowledge to build the rocket right is a bargain.
Labor Rates in Decatur:
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/051029/boeing.shtmlaverage wage for union workers $19.29
Union Labor rates in San Diego according to the IAM web site:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:s_FzdsqR85UJ:home.att.net/~iamawdl725a1/Update.htmLots of different scales with highs in electrical and computer analyst positions. The wage scales on average appear to be equitable, not the $ 6-7/hour or the SD>>Decatur presumption being presented here.
The reason is not wages it is $80 million in incentives to put people in Alabama.
First the factory workers and then the engineers.
You heard it here first!
-
#810
by
Antares
on 21 Feb, 2007 04:50
-
The ULA/Atlas facility in San Diego is leased from the government for One Dollar per year.
Good find on the true labor rates. I was going more on cost of living. The calculator on bestplaces.net shows a $40K job in Decatur would need to be $84K+ in San Diego to have the same standard of living. Was there another incentive by Alabama during the ULA talks or was this the original one from Boeing locating it there initially?
-
#811
by
bombay
on 22 Feb, 2007 01:03
-
Antares - 20/2/2007 11:50 PM
The ULA/Atlas facility in San Diego is leased from the government for One Dollar per year.
Good find on the true labor rates. I was going more on cost of living. The calculator on bestplaces.net shows a $40K job in Decatur would need to be $84K+ in San Diego to have the same standard of living. Was there another incentive by Alabama during the ULA talks or was this the original one from Boeing locating it there initially?
The $1/yr factory usage when amortized for the production of gov't LV's and other gov't related products ended 20 yrs ago.
It appears as if the ULA objective is to move whatever can fit into Decatur regardless of cost, risk, commonality, loss of skilled labor, etc.
The RAND report suggests that the AF will fund transition costs for the first 3 yrs. You'd think that there's a ceiling on what the AF will dish out and that they would scrutinize any move study to protect there investment.
-
#812
by
Dexter
on 22 Feb, 2007 02:23
-
Antares - 20/2/2007 11:50 PM
The ULA/Atlas facility in San Diego is leased from the government for One Dollar per year.
Good find on the true labor rates. I was going more on cost of living. The calculator on bestplaces.net shows a $40K job in Decatur would need to be $84K+ in San Diego to have the same standard of living. Was there another incentive by Alabama during the ULA talks or was this the original one from Boeing locating it there initially?
This was the original incentive but it was preceeded by the Mercedes deal that the state took a lot of flak on. They stated that with the Boeing package that they would get back anything that Boeing failed to deliver on. The initial assumptions were 3,000 jobs in Decatur. The present outlook is about 750.
On the wage index, I would agree with the numbers but, the $84,000 employee from SD is not likely to accept a $40,000 job in Decatur in my opinion.
Also, the $19 per hour translates to $40K gross. The need would be in the key technical positions where the Titan program experienced a short fall resulting in failures.
-
#813
by
George CA
on 28 Feb, 2007 02:46
-
What's the latest with this. People moving already?
Did the Unions come into play with those who are unhappy?
-
#814
by
bombay
on 01 Mar, 2007 01:09
-
George CA - 27/2/2007 9:46 PM
What's the latest with this. People moving already?
Did the Unions come into play with those who are unhappy?
Your mention of Unions brings up an interesting dilemma that ULA will soon face.
The Union membership in Denver and San Diego are fully aware of what happened to those represented people that followed Tomahawk Cruise missile to Tucson, and Atlas to Denver - they got layed-off unless they were converted to salaried positions.
The Decatur move will provide no seniority protection to Union members that move from Denver or S.D. to Decatur over the existing Decatur Union membership. In other words, they will go to Decatur at the bottom of the seniority list and will be the first people to get layed-off.
If risk rather than simply increasing head count in the Decatur factory was seriously considered, certain moves wouldn't have even been considered.
-
#815
by
Dexter
on 10 Mar, 2007 05:19
-
http://ulalaunch.com/index.html "ULA program management, engineering, test and mission support functions are headquartered in Denver, Colo. Manufacturing, assembly and integration operations are located at Decatur, Ala. and Harlingen, Tex."
I did not know that they already shut down Denver and San Diego manufacturing. They sure were quick in doing so.
-
#816
by
Gus
on 17 Mar, 2007 14:55
-
-
#817
by
Gus
on 17 Mar, 2007 15:00
-
bombay - 28/2/2007 6:09 PM
George CA - 27/2/2007 9:46 PM
What's the latest with this. People moving already?
Did the Unions come into play with those who are unhappy?
Your mention of Unions brings up an interesting dilemma that ULA will soon face.
The Union membership in Denver and San Diego are fully aware of what happened to those represented people that followed Tomahawk Cruise missile to Tucson, and Atlas to Denver - they got layed-off unless they were converted to salaried positions.
The Decatur move will provide no seniority protection to Union members that move from Denver or S.D. to Decatur over the existing Decatur Union membership. In other words, they will go to Decatur at the bottom of the seniority list and will be the first people to get layed-off.
If risk rather than simply increasing head count in the Decatur factory was seriously considered, certain moves wouldn't have even been considered.
The union issue gets complicated by the fact that Denver's union is UAW and Decatur's union is IAM so there is no possibility of negotiating seniority protection. Add to that the fact that the UAW workers did not transition to ULA but are still LM employees.
-
#818
by
bombay
on 18 Mar, 2007 02:31
-
http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-27/117344...
Granted, the ULA can't control everything the media writes, but would it have been so beneath ULA management to inform the Denver and San Diego employees by way of an intercompany memo of the error and to offer appreciation where appreciation was due? What a sorry bunch!!!
-
#819
by
bombay
on 18 Mar, 2007 02:55
-
I'm amazed and confused by the pattern of deceit tied to this company!
Just recently, the ULA prompted this site to remove the pictures of the cracked metal in the Delta launch stand in the name of ITAR. To many, the real reason for the removal of the pictures was to censor the severity of the accident, to muzzle opinion, and to hide the truth.
At the same time, they make zero effort to correct (or at least apologize for) the AP article stating that the recently launched Atlas V was built in Alabama. One can only assume that no effort was made to correct the content because the lie works in the favor of the company's long term agenda.
It's just one half-truth after another with this company!