Ares I supporting 1,500 ATK employees

[radarredux]

From Aviation Week article "Spending Money":<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Development and production of the Ares I first stage--a five-segment version of the four-segment reusable solid rocket motor (RSRM) that ATK now builds for the shuttle program--should keep ATK's 1,500-strong RSRM workforce stable after the shuttle retires in 2010, says Ron Dittemore, president of ATK's Space Launch Group.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Certainly smells a little bit like a jobs program and not a space program. Some of you may remember Dittemore as the face of shuttle program right after Columbia broke up saying to the press that NASA had done everything right and there was nothing that they could have done to prevent the tragedy.

 

[askold]

"Certainly smells a little bit like a jobs program .."<br /><br />Is the Pope Catholic?

 

[docm]

Another member of the revolving door club <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

Better question, does he wear a funny hat?<br />or<br />Does a bear defecate in the woods?<br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[edkyle98]

It is the world's most powerful rocket stage in terms of total impulse and thrust. <br /><br />How many people do you think *should* be working on it?<br /><br />United Launch Alliance has about 3,800 employees. Is that too many?<br /><br />Stennis Space Center has 4,500 workers, and they mostly just do Space Shuttle Main Engines. Is that too many?<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>How many people do you think *should* be working on it?<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think the skepticism here is this guy Dittemore.<br /><br />Of course they are going to try to keep their workforce employed. Any company would do that given the chance. After all in any manufacturing company your greatest asset and liability is your labor force. <br /><br />Its just CYA SOP! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[askold]

It's no secret that NASA curries favor with congress by spreading its work all over the country. It's hard to imagine any goverment program that isn't partially a jobs program.

 

[edkyle98]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br /> In reply to:<br /><br /> How many people do you think *should* be working on it?<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />I think the skepticism here is this guy Dittemore.<br /><br />Of course they are going to try to keep their workforce employed. Any company would do that given the chance. After all in any manufacturing company your greatest asset and liability is your labor force.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The movement of NASA people to and from NASA contractors does seem ethically questionable on the face of it, but it must not be illegal or it wouldn't be happening, right? I figure that anyone doing anything illegal will eventually find justice. <br /><br />As for myself, I've grown weary of the constant anti-ATK talk. ATK is a company that tries to make a profit for its shareholders. It just also happens to make the world's most powerful rocket - a true national asset. It would take far more people, and money, to build a comparable alternative - liquid or solid. Ethics or not, the bald truth here is that no one can offer a more cost-effective, or more reliable, option than SRB for high-thrust, high total impulse rocketry.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[jimfromnsf]

"one can offer a more cost-effective, or more reliable, option than SRB for high-thrust, high total impulse rocketry."<br /><br />It is far from cost effective. ATK numbers of for the SRB, exclude the cost of USA support needed to process and refurb the boosters. <br /><br />It is a square peg in a round hole solely as a first stage booster. It was designed as thrust augmentation.<br />

 

[edkyle98]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />It is far from cost effective. ATK numbers of for the SRB, exclude the cost of USA support needed to process and refurb the boosters.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Says here, SRB-based launchers (including five-segment) is more cost effective than EELVs, etc. Says "the estimates are based on parametric cost models, principally the NASA and Air Force Cost Model (NAFCOM)." Etc.<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/140643main_ESAS_12.pdf<br /><br />I know, ESAS was total fabrication. Lies, all lies, etc. <br /><br />Fine. Provide a reference to another equally in-depth study that rebukes the ESAS cost findings. I would love to read and believe just such a study.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Provide a reference to another equally in-depth study that rebukes the ESAS cost findings. I would love to read and believe just such a study.</font>/i><br /><br />In general, I am not sure NASA funds and publishes studies demonstrating that they made the wrong decision.<br /><br />One alternative source would be marketing material by one of the other vendors, but that would certainly be considered biased.<br /><br />Rumors a few months ago were that NASA basically told the other vendors to shutup about criticizing the ATK decision or else -- and of course NASA still has a number of contracts to award. Even if NASA didn't say or imply that, being perceived as a bad team player (e.g., by criticizing the leadership's decisions) can have negative consequences in the future.<br /><br />I suspect the best chance for an unbiases and relatively in-depth study would be by the GAO.</i>

 

[tomnackid]

ATK is a pipsqueak compared to Boeing and LocMart--both of whom cold easily out lobby, out bribe, out extort their utah rival. They haven't really seemed interested in going to the mat on using Atlas or Delta. Kind of tells me they aren't all that interested. Maybe, and I know this is a crazy idea, but just maybe NASA knows what they are doing? I dunno I'm not an engineer. The only horror stories I hear about Ares I are "unmamed inside sources". It may all be true for all I know, but it hardly inspires journalistic confidence! From what NASA releases it seems like the typical challenges with developing a new rocket--realatively small at that compared to the Saturn V and the Shuttle. And believe me, I remember the shuttle developement vividly! Every glitch and delay made the nightly news.<br /><br />Jobs program? Well you do need workers to build something. If we want to keep the SRBs available we have to keep the production lines open. You just can't shut down the line, send the workers home then reopen when you want and SRB 10 years down the line. Anyway 1,500? employees? Are you serious? That's easily falls within the margin of error when it comes to government waste.<br /><br />Remember also a man-rated Atlas or Delta capable of lifting Orion is a viewgraph rocket as well. It may be a good idea. They may even be used down the road. But they aren't off-the-shelf.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>but just maybe NASA knows what they are doing?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />No. I have inside information that this is not the case. And thats a fact.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />( j/k )

 

[brandido]

Very funny - had to check the user name twice to make sure it wasn't someone else <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[docm]

Me too <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

I agree, but more like MSFC and Horiwitz don't know what they are doing. Might include Griffin and Constellation launcher personnel. NASA is too broad

 

[vulture2]

>>ATK is a pipsqueak compared to Boeing and LocMart--both of whom cold easily out lobby, out bribe, out extort their utah rival. They haven't really seemed interested in going to the mat on using Atlas or Delta. Kind of tells me they aren't all that interested.<br /><br />Boeing's decisions are understandably based on maximizing profits. Which rocket is technically best is not really a factor. In this case the management weren't that interested in man-rating because they thought they would have a string of highly profitable DOD launches (which were later taken away). They also concluded (to the chagrin of some employees, but probably correctly) that NASA had firmly decided on the ATK design, and that the usual lobbying would not make a lot of difference. <br /><br />Regardless of technical merits, Boeing (later ULA) saw no percentage in irritating their major customer by trying to convince them they were wrong.

 

[windnwar]

Am I the only one that caught this "unmamed inside sources" <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <br /><br />I had a good laugh at that <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"Remember also a man-rated Atlas or Delta capable of lifting Orion is a viewgraph rocket as well. It may be a good idea. They may even be used down the road. But they aren't off-the-shelf."<br /><br />The Delta IV Heavy is completely off the shelf. Order one today and ULA will deliver it by Q109, or your pizza is free.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The Delta IV Heavy is completely off the shelf. Order one today and ULA will deliver it by Q109, or your pizza is free.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />How do you account for the 5000lbs missing from Delta IV as compared to ARES I? Seems unlikely that Delta can deliver.<br /><br />Delta IV 50,000 lbs<br /><br />Ares I 55,000 lbs <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

Check out the 'Delivery Orbit' figures for Ares 1, especially on ATK's own 'Simple, Safe, Soon' website: the 'Nett' payload is actually 48,000lb. That is, if that is even achievable without shrinking Orion even more, or adding additional strap-ons (GEM-40 or 60).<br /><br />http://www.safesimplesoon.com/default.htm<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">or adding additional strap-ons</font>/i><br /><br />There is something sadly ironic about even discussing adding strap-on boosters to what was originally a strap-on booster.</i>

 

[holmec]

That's a great comparative pic on that site. Thanks.<br /><br />I guess we will see what the end product will be. Obviously NASA seems to be struggling with that issue. All in all that's not a bad thing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

What would truly be ironic is if the strap on eventually chosen was liquid fueled. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

What could be wrong with American tax dollars going to American companies that hire American workers to do things for the American people that are paying the tax dollars in the first place???<br /><br />Out entire system of government is based on individual representatives from various parts of this country who then work for the people in their own area (that voted to put them into office in the first place). <br /><br />Also, many on these boards may not realize that the ONLY industry left to this country that runs a positive balance of payments in international markets IS the American aerospace industry! If one of the reasons that our aerospace industry is one of the very best in the world (if not THE very best in the world) are my tax dollars, then I consider this to be money well spent!!<br /><br />Of course, if you really wanted to talk about pork, we could take about Halliburton getting contracts worth far more than any of the contracts that NASA gives out to multiple bidders at the very least. Whereas, Halliburton with its ex CEO who just happens to be vice president Cheney does not even have to compete for such contracts. WOW, you want to talk about pork! <br /><br />So do try to stop leaning on the best government agency there is. And that agency just happen to be NASA!