-
#840
by
skywalker
on 24 Mar, 2007 18:46
-
Jim - 24/3/2007 2:40 PM
ULAwantabe - 24/3/2007 2:54 PM
Skywalker,
No problem on the quote since these things happen.
For me when GD moved to Denver they reset our retirement benefits to zero, and that was enough for me as a young engineer to see no benefit to move (having already received other San Diego job offers at the time).
In my opinion ULA would be a fantastic place to work, and before attempting to send in my resume to ULA, I spent a weeks vacation in Littleton looking at housing prices with a realtor, and studying the area. In my opinion, Littleton is a fantastic place to raise a family, relatively low cost of housing compared to California, and good schools, nice people, pretty scenery, and less taxes. The only two negatives are (IMHO) is needing a winter coat four months / year, and no ocean. I say not a problem for me.
Now the only question I have is if ULA will ramp up hiring before the kids go back to school in August. Well they have about five months to prove that they are serious about ramping up hiring.
Remember. ULA won't be in Littleton. They have leased a building near Centennial Airport
So you can't live in Littleton?
-
#841
by
Jim
on 24 Mar, 2007 18:47
-
He was focusing on Littleton, I just was pointing where the job will probably be. Highlands Ranch is closer
-
#842
by
ULAwantabe
on 25 Mar, 2007 00:23
-
I value this feedback. Of course my sources say that if I nail a low level design position I would be stationed at the LM site.... I think?
-
#843
by
ULAwantabe
on 25 Mar, 2007 12:57
-
..... That is the Waterton Plant, I think? I hear that they are placing all the vehicle design efforts at this Waterton location. Correct? Or maybe that is just for Atlas design?
-
#844
by
bombay
on 25 Mar, 2007 20:58
-
Assuming Skywalkers facts to be correct (20% enginneering acceptance with half of that having 2yrs or less experience), it's obvious to me what the ULA must do.
Many experienced Atlas engineers will be put on the Delta program whether they like it or not. The Atlas engineering positions will be filled by inexperienced new hires rather than filling the empty Delta positions with new hires. So you'll have a bunch of Atlas people learning about Delta and a bunch of new hires learning about Atlas. If the Atlas new hires have problems, they'll hit up the "former" Atlas engineers now working Delta for advise.
-
#845
by
bombay
on 25 Mar, 2007 21:13
-
You wonder why the Atlas people don't want to make the move to Delta? Read back on this thread and you'll find the answer. The ex-Lockheed influence will run roughshod over the ULA similar to what happened to Atlas post GD. What will the work horse rocket down the road be, Atlas or Delta? If they phased out an upperstage, what would it be - Centaur or Delta? The answer to this question is no doubt why the Atlas engineers want to stay put.
-
#846
by
mr_crabby
on 25 Mar, 2007 21:42
-
bombay - 25/3/2007 2:13 PM
You wonder why the Atlas people don't want to make the move to Delta? Read back on this thread and you'll find the answer. The ex-Lockheed influence will run roughshod over the ULA similar to what happened to Atlas post GD. What will the work horse rocket down the road be, Atlas or Delta? If they phased out an upperstage, what would it be - Centaur or Delta? The answer to this question is no doubt why the Atlas engineers want to stay put.
I feel compelled to add a view from the inside.
It is true that in HB we have heard there is a reluctance among the Atlas folks to come over to Delta and help out. The reason we have heard is due to a difference in culture between the two organizations. Delta is function driven for the most part. What that means is that engineers are identified first by the function and then secondly by what program they work. So an Avionics guy for example can bounce around from delta II to IV without much worry regarding career advancement. In fact on Delta a breadth of experience is highly regarded.
We have heard that LM, however, operates under a seniority culture for the most part (heard directly from an Atlas guy by the way). What this means is that while broadening one's experience may be good, LM folks are reluctant to leave their program to help Delta, because they fear losing seniority on their "home" program.
By the way, even with this concern, there are Altas guys right now learning Delta to help support the program while the CA folks make moves this summer.
-
#847
by
Jim
on 25 Mar, 2007 23:53
-
bombay - 25/3/2007 5:13 PM
You wonder why the Atlas people don't want to make the move to Delta? Read back on this thread and you'll find the answer. The ex-Lockheed influence will run roughshod over the ULA similar to what happened to Atlas post GD. What will the work horse rocket down the road be, Atlas or Delta? If they phased out an upperstage, what would it be - Centaur or Delta? The answer to this question is no doubt why the Atlas engineers want to stay put.
There was never any Lockheed influence on Atlas. And further more, the Martin influence improved the product, even before the Atlas V
-
#848
by
Gus
on 26 Mar, 2007 00:27
-
Please elaborate on this positive Martin influence. Just know that the "we bought you" attitude was very real, very discouraging, very rude, and still lingers.
-
#849
by
bombay
on 26 Mar, 2007 00:33
-
Yes, I too am interested in knowing how Martin improved Atlas III. Was it the insignia on the rocket?
-
#850
by
Jim
on 26 Mar, 2007 00:51
-
Martin brought more engineering rigor
-
#851
by
bombay
on 26 Mar, 2007 00:55
-
Engineering rigor? Give me a break. They brought more gov't spools of red tape!
-
#852
by
Jim
on 26 Mar, 2007 00:57
-
bombay - 25/3/2007 8:55 PM
Engineering rigor? Give me a break. They brought more gov't spools of red tape!
Haven't splashed any since the merger
-
#853
by
bombay
on 26 Mar, 2007 01:01
-
And what of Titan before the merger? I'm guessing it was lack of engineering rigor that led to the Titan failures.
-
#854
by
Gus
on 26 Mar, 2007 01:08
-
Please elaborate on how this engineering rigor was improved from the GD days.
Edit - To Bombay's point on the Titan failures that did not benefit from this rigor.
-
#855
by
bombay
on 26 Mar, 2007 01:17
-
For those that missed the pictures of the cracks, a Florida newspaper has published them:
http://www.floridatoday.com/floridatoday/blogs/spaceteam/2007/03/ph...
Good powerpoint link at the bottom of the page.
Edited by Dexter 24/3/2007 11:22 AM
Something tells me that ITAR wasn't the reason for pulling the pictures from this site!!! What do you suppose was the real reason for the censorship?
-
#856
by
Jim
on 26 Mar, 2007 01:20
-
Gus - 25/3/2007 9:08 PM
Please elaborate on how this engineering rigor was improved from the GD days.
Edit - To Bombay's point on the Titan failures that did not benefit from this rigor.
One was a Boeing failure and one was a "GD" failure. The true titan failure was bad work by a union shop with union inspectors. Engineering can't help that.
-
#857
by
Jim
on 26 Mar, 2007 01:21
-
bombay - 25/3/2007 9:17 PM
For those that missed the pictures of the cracks, a Florida newspaper has published them:
http://www.floridatoday.com/floridatoday/blogs/spaceteam/2007/03/ph...
Good powerpoint link at the bottom of the page.
Edited by Dexter 24/3/2007 11:22 AM
Something tells me that ITAR wasn't the reason for pulling the pictures from this site!!! What do you suppose was the real reason for the censorship?
That is under the DSP thread. Has nothing to with this topic, unless the name has changed to "ULA Bashing"
-
#858
by
Gus
on 26 Mar, 2007 01:41
-
Jim - 25/3/2007 6:20 PM
Gus - 25/3/2007 9:08 PM
Please elaborate on how this engineering rigor was improved from the GD days.
Edit - To Bombay's point on the Titan failures that did not benefit from this rigor.
One was a Boeing failure and one was a "GD" failure. The true titan failure was bad work by a union shop with union inspectors. Engineering can't help that.
If the GD failure you are referring to is the software constant issue on the Centaur flight software, you may want to check your facts. The failure was post Martin acquisition and the failure should have been avoided with the engineering rigor you are claiming. That failure was in 1999.
-
#859
by
bombay
on 26 Mar, 2007 01:47
-
"That is under the DSP thread. Has nothing to with this topic, unless the name has changed to "ULA Bashing"
Delta IV heavy and the corresponding launch pad are under the ULA banner. It has everything to do with this thread under the ongoing topic discussed in this thread of "deceit".