bombay - 3/4/2007 11:22 PMQuoteJim - 3/4/2007 9:18 PMQuotebombay - 3/4/2007 10:08 PM
It was pointed out on this very thread how thanks to "engineering rigor" (a.k.a gov't bureacracy), all went well with Atlas after being sold to Martin.
Neither Boeing, Lockheed, or Martin would be in the business if it weren't for the gov't, who held their hand until 1988. And since then they have done worst on their own.Holding their hands = Gov't sponsored cost-plus contracting until 1988. When companies continue to operate like the gov't (no regard for cost control) under fixed cost conditions, then you might expect those companies to do worse. Blame it on the horrible display of managerial decisions, not lack of engineering rigor.
Jim - 4/4/2007 4:05 AMQuotebombay - 3/4/2007 11:22 PMQuoteJim - 3/4/2007 9:18 PMQuotebombay - 3/4/2007 10:08 PM
It was pointed out on this very thread how thanks to "engineering rigor" (a.k.a gov't bureacracy), all went well with Atlas after being sold to Martin.
Neither Boeing, Lockheed, or Martin would be in the business if it weren't for the gov't, who held their hand until 1988. And since then they have done worst on their own.Holding their hands = Gov't sponsored cost-plus contracting until 1988. When companies continue to operate like the gov't (no regard for cost control) under fixed cost conditions, then you might expect those companies to do worse. Blame it on the horrible display of managerial decisions, not lack of engineering rigor.
Incorrect, Holding their hands = Gov't did some of the engineering or independent engineering
Jim - 4/4/2007 6:05 AMQuotebombay - 3/4/2007 11:22 PMQuoteJim - 3/4/2007 9:18 PMQuotebombay - 3/4/2007 10:08 PM
It was pointed out on this very thread how thanks to "engineering rigor" (a.k.a gov't bureacracy), all went well with Atlas after being sold to Martin.
Neither Boeing, Lockheed, or Martin would be in the business if it weren't for the gov't, who held their hand until 1988. And since then they have done worst on their own.Holding their hands = Gov't sponsored cost-plus contracting until 1988. When companies continue to operate like the gov't (no regard for cost control) under fixed cost conditions, then you might expect those companies to do worse. Blame it on the horrible display of managerial decisions, not lack of engineering rigor.
Incorrect, Holding their hands = Gov't did some of the engineering or independent engineering
skywalker - 21/3/2007 8:40 PM
Consolidation should be done smartly not blindly. The move from HB to Denver is a done deal, but the rest (SD, Denver, Harlingen) should be studied and take into account RISK (which includes loss of key people). It seems that Denver to Decatur is a done deal so that leaves three manufacturing plants. What is the reason to move to Decatur? Here are the reasons:
1) Boeing promised Alabama Governor jobs, with a large kick back in taxes.
2) It was stated from the begining Denver and SD to Decatur and they do not want to loose face, therefore they (the powers to be) will make the trades or studies or whatever look like it is a good business decission to move, low estimates from a sole source what ever it takes.
Jim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.
bombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Jim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:21 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.Atlas engineering (design, stress, flight dynamics, etc.) was performed by GD engineers, not NASA engineers. Quit giving NASA more credit than its due, at least as far as Atlas is concerned!
Jim - 5/4/2007 9:43 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 10:21 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.Atlas engineering (design, stress, flight dynamics, etc.) was performed by GD engineers, not NASA engineers. Quit giving NASA more credit than its due, at least as far as Atlas is concerned!
We are talking the 60's and especially Centaur. NASA bailed GD out.
This has nothing to do with my current employment. I knew this when I was in the Air Force in the early 80's
bombay - 5/4/2007 8:18 PMQuoteskywalker - 21/3/2007 8:40 PM
Consolidation should be done smartly not blindly. The move from HB to Denver is a done deal, but the rest (SD, Denver, Harlingen) should be studied and take into account RISK (which includes loss of key people). It seems that Denver to Decatur is a done deal so that leaves three manufacturing plants. What is the reason to move to Decatur? Here are the reasons:
1) Boeing promised Alabama Governor jobs, with a large kick back in taxes.
2) It was stated from the begining Denver and SD to Decatur and they do not want to loose face, therefore they (the powers to be) will make the trades or studies or whatever look like it is a good business decission to move, low estimates from a sole source what ever it takes.If this is true, then the numbers presented to the AF should be closely scrutinized being that the reasons behind the desire to move had nothing to do with cost savings and assured access.
Moreover, if the people doing the trade studies did in fact ignor relevant costs, risks, critical skill retention, and so forth, for the sole purpose of skewing the trade study numbers in favor of a move in order to benefit the Alabama congressional district, then those people should be brought up on charges of fraud!
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:55 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 9:43 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 10:21 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.Atlas engineering (design, stress, flight dynamics, etc.) was performed by GD engineers, not NASA engineers. Quit giving NASA more credit than its due, at least as far as Atlas is concerned!
We are talking the 60's and especially Centaur. NASA bailed GD out.
This has nothing to do with my current employment. I knew this when I was in the Air Force in the early 80'sNASA provided opportunity for GD back in the 60's, I won't deny that. If that's what you mean by "bailing out", then fine, I agree. But don't tell me that NASA bailed out GD engineering, that's an out right lie!
Dexter - 5/4/2007 11:09 PM
1995 - Lockheed promises to co-produce RD-180 engines in the United States for US government missions. Most recent Atlas launch is first in the EELV program and uses Russian made engine to launch US government satellite(s) 12 years after the initial promise.
1996 - EELV programs downselects both Atlas and Delta based on optimistic market forecasts with no concern of risk in the forecast.
Jim - 5/4/2007 10:11 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 10:55 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 9:43 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 10:21 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.Atlas engineering (design, stress, flight dynamics, etc.) was performed by GD engineers, not NASA engineers. Quit giving NASA more credit than its due, at least as far as Atlas is concerned!
We are talking the 60's and especially Centaur. NASA bailed GD out.
This has nothing to do with my current employment. I knew this when I was in the Air Force in the early 80'sNASA provided opportunity for GD back in the 60's, I won't deny that. If that's what you mean by "bailing out", then fine, I agree. But don't tell me that NASA bailed out GD engineering, that's an out right lie!
Wrong. Centaur was going to be cancelled and LERC bailed it out. It helped GD fix it. GD had no experience in dealing with LH2. It was LERC that insisted on a full up Centaur tests at either Plumbrook or Arnold AFS. Altas was one thing and totally GD. That was the way the USAF wanted it. Centaur was different and for a while it was treated differently within GD.
Gus - 5/4/2007 1:05 AM
There is a lot of "mother may I" with the government now that we do not need for commercial launches.
Jim - 5/4/2007 10:20 PMQuoteDexter - 5/4/2007 11:09 PM
1995 - Lockheed promises to co-produce RD-180 engines in the United States for US government missions. Most recent Atlas launch is first in the EELV program and uses Russian made engine to launch US government satellite(s) 12 years after the initial promise.
1996 - EELV programs downselects both Atlas and Delta based on optimistic market forecasts with no concern of risk in the forecast.
These dates were later
The study contracts (4) were let in 1995.
The 1996 downselect wasn't going to be the final one. This was the 4 to 2 down select.
1997-98 is when it was decided to keep two
Jim - 5/4/2007 10:11 P
Wrong. Centaur was going to be cancelled and LERC bailed it out. It helped GD fix it. GD had no experience in dealing with LH2. It was LERC that insisted on a full up Centaur tests at either Plumbrook or Arnold AFS. Altas was one thing and totally GD. That was the way the USAF wanted it. Centaur was different and for a while it was treated differently within GD.
bombay - 5/4/2007 11:45 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 10:11 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 10:55 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 9:43 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 10:21 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.Atlas engineering (design, stress, flight dynamics, etc.) was performed by GD engineers, not NASA engineers. Quit giving NASA more credit than its due, at least as far as Atlas is concerned!
We are talking the 60's and especially Centaur. NASA bailed GD out.
This has nothing to do with my current employment. I knew this when I was in the Air Force in the early 80'sNASA provided opportunity for GD back in the 60's, I won't deny that. If that's what you mean by "bailing out", then fine, I agree. But don't tell me that NASA bailed out GD engineering, that's an out right lie!
Wrong. Centaur was going to be cancelled and LERC bailed it out. It helped GD fix it. GD had no experience in dealing with LH2. It was LERC that insisted on a full up Centaur tests at either Plumbrook or Arnold AFS. Altas was one thing and totally GD. That was the way the USAF wanted it. Centaur was different and for a while it was treated differently within GD.You're right. GD was given an ultimatum based on initial failures with Centaur. Old GD engineers freely admit that their knowledge of LH2 affects was limited, but they're the ones that ultimately established LH2 material allowables and discovered the key that led to a successful product. To this day, the AF (or its representives) will insist that various tests or analyses be conducted over and beyond baseline, however they're not the ones that do it. That's left to the company engineers, as its always been.
Jim - 6/4/2007 9:53 AMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 11:45 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 10:11 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 10:55 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 9:43 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 10:21 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.Atlas engineering (design, stress, flight dynamics, etc.) was performed by GD engineers, not NASA engineers. Quit giving NASA more credit than its due, at least as far as Atlas is concerned!
We are talking the 60's and especially Centaur. NASA bailed GD out.
This has nothing to do with my current employment. I knew this when I was in the Air Force in the early 80'sNASA provided opportunity for GD back in the 60's, I won't deny that. If that's what you mean by "bailing out", then fine, I agree. But don't tell me that NASA bailed out GD engineering, that's an out right lie!
Wrong. Centaur was going to be cancelled and LERC bailed it out. It helped GD fix it. GD had no experience in dealing with LH2. It was LERC that insisted on a full up Centaur tests at either Plumbrook or Arnold AFS. Altas was one thing and totally GD. That was the way the USAF wanted it. Centaur was different and for a while it was treated differently within GD.You're right. GD was given an ultimatum based on initial failures with Centaur. Old GD engineers freely admit that their knowledge of LH2 affects was limited, but they're the ones that ultimately established LH2 material allowables and discovered the key that led to a successful product. To this day, the AF (or its representives) will insist that various tests or analyses be conducted over and beyond baseline, however they're not the ones that do it. That's left to the company engineers, as its always been.
ADDJUST was a joint development.
skywalker - 6/4/2007 11:36 AMQuoteJim - 6/4/2007 9:53 AMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 11:45 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 10:11 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 10:55 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 9:43 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 10:21 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PMQuotebombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PMQuoteJim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.Atlas engineering (design, stress, flight dynamics, etc.) was performed by GD engineers, not NASA engineers. Quit giving NASA more credit than its due, at least as far as Atlas is concerned!
We are talking the 60's and especially Centaur. NASA bailed GD out.
This has nothing to do with my current employment. I knew this when I was in the Air Force in the early 80'sNASA provided opportunity for GD back in the 60's, I won't deny that. If that's what you mean by "bailing out", then fine, I agree. But don't tell me that NASA bailed out GD engineering, that's an out right lie!
Wrong. Centaur was going to be cancelled and LERC bailed it out. It helped GD fix it. GD had no experience in dealing with LH2. It was LERC that insisted on a full up Centaur tests at either Plumbrook or Arnold AFS. Altas was one thing and totally GD. That was the way the USAF wanted it. Centaur was different and for a while it was treated differently within GD.You're right. GD was given an ultimatum based on initial failures with Centaur. Old GD engineers freely admit that their knowledge of LH2 affects was limited, but they're the ones that ultimately established LH2 material allowables and discovered the key that led to a successful product. To this day, the AF (or its representives) will insist that various tests or analyses be conducted over and beyond baseline, however they're not the ones that do it. That's left to the company engineers, as its always been.
ADDJUST was a joint development.
Not true, Not so, Wrong, the only way NASA bailed GD out was by buying more Atlas Centaurs during the 60's and 70's when the program died a thousand deaths. NASA did not engineer they provided requirements and oversite. Prgram offices do not design, they do not engineer hardware, Chief Engineer's office does do engineering, and the basic Deisgn groups, but NASA was not involved with this process. I will say it again it was the brilliant people of industry the designed the Atlas PERIOD!