-
#200
by
Kabloona
on 24 Jun, 2015 22:08
-
Question: Did he really believe it could happen, or was he just a paid lobbyist trying to make a Hail Mary pass that he knew would probably fail, because that's what he was paid to do?
Honest question because I don't know the answer.
-
#201
by
edkyle99
on 24 Jun, 2015 22:44
-
Question: Did he really believe it could happen, or was he just a paid lobbyist trying to make a Hail Mary pass that he knew would probably fail, because that's what he was paid to do?
Honest question because I don't know the answer.
Griffin is not a lobbyist. He is the CEO of Shafer Corporation.
http://www.schafercorp.com/The original reporting on this focused mostly on Aerojet Rocketdyne, not Shafer. Regardless, the intent seems to me to have been to tweak the Pentagon and Congress, to raise awareness that Atlas 5 - the best rocket in the current U.S. DoD launch business inventory - is in danger of going away even though a straight up re-engining option exists. Mission accomplished.
Of course Griffin and everyone else making this request knew that ULA and Lockheed own the rights to Atlas 5. Now everyone else in Washington D.C. also knows.
- Ed Kyle
-
#202
by
Kabloona
on 25 Jun, 2015 00:22
-
Griffin is not a lobbyist. He is the CEO of Shafer Corporation.
http://www.schafercorp.com/
Yes, I know. But what does he bring to the table except a high profile for lobbying Congress and the
Pentagon? And I assume he/Shafer didn't do this pro bono.
Regardless, the intent seems to me to have been to tweak the Pentagon and Congress, to raise awareness that Atlas 5 - the best rocket in the current U.S. DoD launch business inventory - is in danger of going away even though a straight up re-engining option exists. Mission accomplished.
Which sounds a lot like lobbying. I don't know what else to call it.
-
#203
by
edkyle99
on 25 Jun, 2015 04:13
-
Griffin is not a lobbyist. He is the CEO of Shafer Corporation.
http://www.schafercorp.com/
Yes, I know. But what does he bring to the table except a high profile for lobbying Congress and the
Pentagon? And I assume he/Shafer didn't do this pro bono.
"Griffin received a bachelor's degree in physics from Johns Hopkins University; a master's degree in aerospace science from Catholic University of America; a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering from the University of Maryland; a master's degree in electrical engineering from the University of Southern California; a master's degree in applied physics from Johns Hopkins University; a master's degree in business administration from Loyola College; and a master's degree in Civil Engineering from George Washington University."
http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_bio.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officerRegardless, the intent seems to me to have been to tweak the Pentagon and Congress, to raise awareness that Atlas 5 - the best rocket in the current U.S. DoD launch business inventory - is in danger of going away even though a straight up re-engining option exists. Mission accomplished.
Which sounds a lot like lobbying. I don't know what else to call it.
Whatever you call it, it is Mr. Griffin's job as CEO to look out for his company's interests. Just as Elon Musk did when he sued the U.S. Air Force. Or as Mr. Bruno is currently doing as he beats the drums for more RD-180s for ULA.
- Ed Kyle
-
#204
by
Kabloona
on 25 Jun, 2015 04:34
-
Honestly, I'm not questioning Mike Griffin's academic credentials or his role as a CEO. I'm simply observing that it looks like the reason Shafer is involved is that Mike Griffin has/had the name recognition, influence and connections to make the case to the Pentagon and Congress for transferring Atlas V rights to Aerojet Rocketdyne and Dynetics. Which I would loosely define as "lobbying," and I don't mean that term pejoratively.
If Griffin's role was somehow different, I welcome the enlightenment. As I said, I was asking an honest question about Griffin/Shafer's function in this AR/Dynetics/Shafer team.
-
#205
by
sdsds
on 25 Jun, 2015 05:47
-
"Saying Vulcan while meaning more RD-180's and holding off AR1 because of its necessary cost rise"
Meaning that Vulcan is/was a stalling maneuver to out wait the crisis and go back to RD-180's as before.
Best analysis I've seen.
-
#206
by
sdsds
on 25 Jun, 2015 05:50
-
Whatever you call it, it is Mr. Griffin's job as CEO to look out for his company's interests.
When did a guy with that many graduate degrees become "Mr Griffin?"
-
#207
by
woods170
on 25 Jun, 2015 09:52
-
If Griffin's role was somehow different, I welcome the enlightenment. As I said, I was asking an honest question about Griffin/Shafer's function in this AR/Dynetics/Shafer team.
Bingo. The role of Aerojet was all too clear: push AR-1 as a straight replacement of RD-180. But the roles of Dynetics and Shafer corp. continue to allude me. My question is: what was in this for Griffin? What gain was in this for Shafer corp.?
-
#208
by
Kabloona
on 25 Jun, 2015 14:06
-
If Griffin's role was somehow different, I welcome the enlightenment. As I said, I was asking an honest question about Griffin/Shafer's function in this AR/Dynetics/Shafer team.
Bingo. The role of Aerojet was all too clear: push AR-1 as a straight replacement of RD-180. But the roles of Dynetics and Shafer corp. continue to allude me. My question is: what was in this for Griffin? What gain was in this for Shafer corp.?
This seems to be the reason why Dynetics is part of the team:
"“Compared to starting with a clean-sheet launch system, upgraded launch pad and clean sheet engine, we believe that re-engining the Atlas V is the lowest cost, risk and schedule solution to getting the U.S. off of dependence on Russian engines,” King tells Aviation Week in an email. He notes that the
company has been under contract to NASA for the past two and a half years developing and demonstrating kerosene-powered booster stages and engines. This work will provide lessons on the Atlas V re-engining project."http://aviationweek.com/space/industry-team-hopes-resurrect-atlas-v-post-rd-180As for Shafer and Mike Griffin, Griffin was a member of this Air Force RD-180 study team last year:
http://www.schafercorp.com/mike-griffin-participating-board-member-rd-180-availability-risk-mitigation-study/So presumably he knows the issues and the key players, which is why it seems to me his role might be more along the lines of using his influence in Pentagon/Congress to promote the AR agenda.
-
#209
by
RedLineTrain
on 25 Jun, 2015 14:15
-
Dynetics is part of the team in order to keep the Alabama delegation on-side.
-
#210
by
Endeavour_01
on 25 Jun, 2015 19:42
-
Regardless, the intent seems to me to have been to tweak the Pentagon and Congress, to raise awareness that Atlas 5 - the best rocket in the current U.S. DoD launch business inventory - is in danger of going away even though a straight up re-engining option exists. Mission accomplished.
Which sounds a lot like lobbying. I don't know what else to call it.
Whatever you call it, it is Mr. Griffin's job as CEO to look out for his company's interests. Just as Elon Musk did when he sued the U.S. Air Force. Or as Mr. Bruno is currently doing as he beats the drums for more RD-180s for ULA.
- Ed Kyle
Exactly right Ed. CEOs are supposed to look out for their companies interests. Griffin is doing the right thing for his company. If ULA is truly done with the Atlas V and they go with the BE-4 for Vulcan it is better for the country that they sell the rights to Atlas V to AR and co. They won't because that would mean Vulcan would have another competitor. That is their right and I think the Air Force made the right call on that.
-
#211
by
sdsds
on 26 Jun, 2015 18:32
-
Tory Bruno provides a very cogent analysis of a hypothetical Atlas V using AR-1, starting at 1:04:45 in of his congressional testimony.
-
#212
by
jongoff
on 27 Jun, 2015 00:29
-
"Saying Vulcan while meaning more RD-180's and holding off AR1 because of its necessary cost rise"
Meaning that Vulcan is/was a stalling maneuver to out wait the crisis and go back to RD-180's as before.
Best analysis I've seen.
Doesn't jibe with what I've seen at Blue and ULA--they are both putting resources into making Vulcan and BE-4 work, unlike AR which has primarily been putting resources into trying to get Congress to force ULA to buy their rocket engines. Also, ULA is only pushing to be allowed to finish paying for and receiving engines they've already signed previous contracts for--not an indefinite extension, but long enough to get Vulcan flying and certified for gov't payloads.
~Jon
-
#213
by
ArbitraryConstant
on 27 Jun, 2015 02:52
-
Tory Bruno provides a very cogent analysis of a hypothetical Atlas V using AR-1, starting at 1:04:45 in of his congressional testimony.
Interesting, AR-1 does have a performance loss compared to RD-180 until they increase tank volume.
-
#214
by
Kabloona
on 27 Jun, 2015 03:02
-
@Space Ghost, OK, everyone has his favorite Congresspeople trying to advance his cause. What's new.
Does that mean that Tory Bruno isn't sincerely wanting to get Vulcan flying ASAP? I don't buy the suspicion that
ULA secretly wants RD-180's and Atlas V forever. Atlas V is not going to be competitive with F9/FH and they need to get off it ASAP. Unfortunately the only way to do so is to ride its revenue stream with an RD-180 extension long enough to get to Vulcan. And with all the political turmoil RD-180 has caused, do you seriously think they want to expose themselves to the potential in future for another round of beatings like they're getting now? No way.
I can't imagine any universe in which ULA really believes they can go back to business as usual with Atlas V/RD-180 for the long term. They can't survive that way and it isn't going to happen.
-
#215
by
Coastal Ron
on 27 Jun, 2015 03:04
-
Tory Bruno provides a very cogent analysis of a hypothetical Atlas V using AR-1, starting at 1:04:45 in of his congressional testimony.
Interesting, AR-1 does have a performance loss compared to RD-180 until they increase tank volume.
Which is why Bruno has been saying that the AR-1 is not a drop-in replacement.
-
#216
by
sdsds
on 27 Jun, 2015 04:03
-
Which is why Bruno has been saying that the AR-1 is not a drop-in replacement.
When Bruno says AR-1 is not a drop in replacement he goes on to specifically mention its Russian thrust vector control scheme (via propellant tap-off shenanigans) which he says he has no interest in reproducing. He says he can otherwise put an AR-1 under an unstretched Atlas tank and still get payloads to orbit by adding solids ... except of course that won't work for the configurations which already max out the solids. AIUI his
implication is that would force moving some payloads to DIV-H that could have been carried by an RD-180 powered AV-551.
This was in the context of the $200 million estimated cost to "drop in" AR-1.
-
#217
by
sdsds
on 27 Jun, 2015 04:11
-
what I've seen at Blue and ULA--they are both putting resources into making Vulcan and BE-4 work
I believe this, and I believe Bruno wants Vulcan, but I don't think we can necessarily conclude Vulcan would be the first choice of ULA's owners if the RD-180 imbroglio were to evaporate. Bruno though is clearly a highly capable strategist and has every base covered. He seems confident he can somehow leverage ("by hook or by crook") ULA's current dominant position into at least a viable second place position behind SpaceX. AR-1 looks like his third choice, but he clearly knows how to make that choice work too if necessary.