-
#860
by
Jim
on 26 Mar, 2007 02:02
-
bombay - 25/3/2007 9:47 PM
"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".
Doesn't matter. It is being discuss on that thread.
Also, get over it, ULA is here to stay. you will sleep better
-
#861
by
Dexter
on 26 Mar, 2007 02:04
-
Jim - 25/3/2007 8:20 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.
Blaming union workers is pathetic. The engineering rigor should have caught or eliminated that problem.
This does serve a point that the weakest link will cause you problems and that the union workers are just as key to the success or failure of one of these rocket programs as the engineers.
-
#862
by
skywalker
on 26 Mar, 2007 02:09
-
How did the Martin Engineering Rigor improve Atlas III? Avionics, Fluids, Structures, what was it?
The only people that should care about the ULA bashing are the upper management and maybe the Air Force, but you say you are a NASA employee, but your passion towards ULA sure makes it seem like you are part of the MICP.
-
#863
by
Jim
on 26 Mar, 2007 02:10
-
Dexter - 25/3/2007 10:04 PM
This does serve a point that the weakest link will cause you problems and that the union workers are just as key to the success or failure of one of these rocket programs as the engineers.
It was union worker that installed the wiring and union inspectors that ok'ed them. Engineers can't touch the hardware or they get a greivance
-
#864
by
Jim
on 26 Mar, 2007 02:13
-
skywalker - 25/3/2007 10:09 PM
How did the Martin Engineering Rigor improve Atlas III? Avionics, Fluids, Structures, what was it?
The only people that should care about the ULA bashing are the upper management and maybe the Air Force, but you say you are a NASA employee, but your passion towards ULA sure makes it seem like you are part of the MICP.
No, I just don't believe in the doom and gloom. It is SSDD in the aerospace business. Sure it is something to watch and monitor but the world isnt' going to end nor will any rockets splash.
But like I have said before, the numbers are starting to catch up and we (big Aerospace) are due to splash one. The naysayers will say it is due to ULA.
-
#865
by
Gus
on 26 Mar, 2007 02:17
-
Dexter - 25/3/2007 7:04 PM
Jim - 25/3/2007 8:20 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.
Blaming union workers is pathetic. The engineering rigor should have caught or eliminated that problem.
This does serve a point that the weakest link will cause you problems and that the union workers are just as key to the success or failure of one of these rocket programs as the engineers.
The blaming of union workers needs a little clarification. The failure resulted from a a chaffed wiring harness that was damaged during an out of position repair. The work instructions provided by engineering failed to take the proper safeguards to protect the harness and was not checked subsequent to the repair. Blaming only union workers is short of the truth as the blame could have been spread in other areas including the Martin/Titan engineers and their perceived rigor.
-
#866
by
bombay
on 26 Mar, 2007 02:24
-
"But like I have said before, the numbers are starting to catch up and we (big Aerospace) are due to splash one. The naysayers will say it is due to ULA."
Edited by Jim 25/3/2007 9:17 PM
Of course if it is due to ULA you no doubt will be in complete denial.
-
#867
by
skywalker
on 26 Mar, 2007 02:48
-
Jim - 25/3/2007 9:13 PM
skywalker - 25/3/2007 10:09 PM
How did the Martin Engineering Rigor improve Atlas III? Avionics, Fluids, Structures, what was it?
The only people that should care about the ULA bashing are the upper management and maybe the Air Force, but you say you are a NASA employee, but your passion towards ULA sure makes it seem like you are part of the MICP.
No, I just don't believe in the doom and gloom. It is SSDD in the aerospace business. Sure it is something to watch and monitor but the world isnt' going to end nor will any rockets splash.
But like I have said before, the numbers are starting to catch up and we (big Aerospace) are due to splash one. The naysayers will say it is due to ULA.
So the naysayers blame it on the formation of ULA, who cares? I know the Atlas way is one launch at a time, one in a row, every launch is a first. But the formation of ULA has put the Delta Engineering forces at disadvantage and if the consolidation of San Diego and Denver manufacturing moves them to Decatur it will put the Atlas and Centaur fabrication at a disadvantage. These are both links in a chain that could hurt both programs. This is why Boeing and LM worker-bees were against ULA, they are concerned for their products. People are resistant to change, we do not like it! The ULA management team knew all this from the begining and this give the impression to the worker-bees that they (ULA management) do not care if either program succeeds or not. And why should they I know they were paid handsomely upon the completion of the formation. We love our products and are very concerned we do not want to fail, this is why we bash ULA. Hopefully they get smart and do not move Centaur into a foreign environment for the sake of someone getting a bonus!
-
#868
by
Gus
on 26 Mar, 2007 02:55
-
Jim
You claimed that Martin provided engineering rigor that GD did not possess. Of course, I disagree. As I stated before, I would like some elaboration on this claim. As for the numbers catching up and we are due to splash one, I sincerely hope that you do not board a plane with that mentatility.
-
#869
by
ULAwantabe
on 26 Mar, 2007 05:24
-
mr_crabby - 25/3/2007 2:42 PM
bombay - 25/3/2007 2:13 PM
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....
....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.
OK, any inside insight into when ULA will start hiring with vigor to fill some of those over 500 posted positions? Will folks like me just have to hang low until all the needed Atlas guys are assigned to Delta, and the management truly knows what skill emphasis is needed for new hires? Like do you think the big hiring blitz will occur before or after HB has moved to Colorado? For me I am talking from an engineering perspective. I keep searching for a specific job title and there have been 15 positions posted in this skill search area for 8 weeks now without a single positions being filled.
-
#870
by
Antares
on 26 Mar, 2007 05:47
-
mr_crabby - 25/3/2007 5:42 PM
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.
This customer hopes every day that the Atlas engineering culture (whatever its lineage, Lock, Mart, or GD) wins out. I emphasize culture. It's not the individuals. It's the environment of technical rigor. I don't know enough about each shop to talk about the techs - good workmanship on both sides. I can only hope enough tribal knowledge moves to Decatur.
-
#871
by
McDew
on 26 Mar, 2007 14:10
-
Gus - 25/3/2007 9:55 PM
Jim
You claimed that Martin provided engineering rigor that GD did not possess. Of course, I disagree. As I stated before, I would like some elaboration on this claim. As for the numbers catching up and we are due to splash one, I sincerely hope that you do not board a plane with that mentatility.
I believe what Martin brought to the table was the threat of an independent central engineering function outside of the program who's sole function was to be a big brother to second guess the program and ask any technical question.
In most cases this big brother function was just a pain in the xxx, but what it did do was encourage the program to be extremely thorough, since no one want's to let an independent group point out that you might have missed something. This also provided the engineers top cover to bring forward any potential issue under the auspices of "Mission Success".
-
#872
by
Jim
on 26 Mar, 2007 14:29
-
Jim - 25/3/2007 10:13 PM
skywalker - 25/3/2007 10:09 PM
How did the Martin Engineering Rigor improve Atlas III? Avionics, Fluids, Structures, what was it?
The only people that should care about the ULA bashing are the upper management and maybe the Air Force, but you say you are a NASA employee, but your passion towards ULA sure makes it seem like you are part of the MICP.
The formation of ULA is very personal to me as it affected my wife, who was legacy McDonnell-Douglas and now has gone through another change (reduction) in benefits.
-
#873
by
Jim
on 26 Mar, 2007 14:33
-
bombay - 25/3/2007 10:24 PM
"But like I have said before, the numbers are starting to catch up and we (big Aerospace) are due to splash one. The naysayers will say it is due to ULA."
Edited by Jim 25/3/2007 9:17 PM
Of course if it is due to ULA you no doubt will be in complete denial.
I should have said "due to the formation of ULA". Of course, it will be ULA or one of their subs fault, if they splash one. Unless they act like the Chinese and say that the spacecraft exploded.
-
#874
by
Jim
on 26 Mar, 2007 14:35
-
Gus - 25/3/2007 10:17 PM
The blaming of union workers needs a little clarification. The failure resulted from a a chaffed wiring harness that was damaged during an out of position repair. The work instructions provided by engineering failed to take the proper safeguards to protect the harness and was not checked subsequent to the repair. Blaming only union workers is short of the truth as the blame could have been spread in other areas including the Martin/Titan engineers and their perceived rigor.
you are right and there could have been a review of the closeout photos prelaunch vs post accident. But it still doesn't absolve the inspectors
-
#875
by
ULAwantabe
on 26 Mar, 2007 17:31
-
Sorry I quoted things wrong.
My question is .... Does anybody have any inside insight into when ULA will start hiring with vigor to fill some of those over 500 posted positions? Will folks like me just have to hang low until all the needed Atlas guys are assigned to Delta, and the management truly knows what skill emphasis is needed for new hires? Like do you think the big hiring blitz will occur before or after HB has moved to Colorado? For me I am talking from an engineering perspective. I keep searching for a specific job title and there have been 15 positions posted in this skill search area for 8 weeks now without a single positions being filled.
-
#876
by
WHAP
on 26 Mar, 2007 17:38
-
ULAwantabe - 25/3/2007 6:57 AM
..... 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?
It didn't look like anyone responded to this. At this time, ULA's design groups appear to be located at Waterton. The other building Jim mentioned is currently planned to hold upper management, finance, HR, etc.
-
#877
by
ULAwantabe
on 26 Mar, 2007 19:00
-
WHAP,
Thank you, that reflects exactly what my sources at ULA told me. They also said that for the long term that ULA may build a new building just outside the Waterton main gate so that the upper management people are ultimately located closer to the design teams. But for the next few years at least these people will be located near the Tech Center. I suppose that living in Highlands Ranch is an ideal location for both options. Although HR residents need to get on the 470 freeway to go to Waterton between HR and S Platte Canyon Road and the Google maps "Traffic" option always shows that stretch of the 470 congested during rush hour. My one buddy that lives in Littleton near West Coal Mine Ave (zip 80126) says that the side road of S Wadsworth Blvd is never stop and go at rush hour. Anyway, I probably hold the record for researching a prospective future living area more then anyone else, without even the definite prospects of a job interview down the road.
-
#878
by
Dexter
on 28 Mar, 2007 05:02
-
Jim - 26/3/2007 9:29 AM
Jim - 25/3/2007 10:13 PM
skywalker - 25/3/2007 10:09 PM
How did the Martin Engineering Rigor improve Atlas III? Avionics, Fluids, Structures, what was it?
The only people that should care about the ULA bashing are the upper management and maybe the Air Force, but you say you are a NASA employee, but your passion towards ULA sure makes it seem like you are part of the MICP.
The formation of ULA is very personal to me as it affected my wife, who was legacy McDonnell-Douglas and now has gone through another change (reduction) in benefits.
I am sorry to hear about the reduction in benefits. I was not aware ULA would be reducing benefits. I would imagine that this is a repetitive theme with a merger/acquisition where executives seize on the opportunity to reduce benefits while giving themselves a raise (can anyone say Home Depot).
The worker bees suffer or quit to pursue different opportunities as they should, the product suffers, the nation loses capability, and the executives pat themselves on the back and line their wallets. This is not a ULA unique situation but a corporate trend that should never have been allowed into the of launching national security payloads.
As Kenneth Krieg stated in his arguments to the FTC, he was leaving it up to the companies to ensure critical technical skills be retained by ULA. Reducing benefits is not the way to do this.
A 10% acceptance for relocation by folks with more than two years of experience is a very good indicator that ULA paid no heed to this concern as it was not binding in the agreement and therefore opened the door to the present situation.
Now the government has a monopoly that it sanctioned and must make it work because there is no alternative.
-
#879
by
Propforce
on 28 Mar, 2007 05:24
-
Jim - 26/3/2007 7:29 AM
The formation of ULA is very personal to me as it affected my wife, who was legacy McDonnell-Douglas and now has gone through another change (reduction) in benefits.
Oh geez Jim, let me wipe that little tears off my eyes... NOT !!!
Now imagine if your wife face a choice of moving to another state in order to keep her job WITH a reduced benefit
and whether YOU keep your job in Florida and live a thousand mile apart from your wife, or QUIT your job to go with her... Now welcome to our dilema. Walk a mile in our shoes.
I was at a conference a month ago and got to talk to a few Lockheed ULA engineers. NONE, no one, nada, was happy about being "forced" to go into the ULA but at least they don't have to force the wife to quit her job and relocate.