Space Transport

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 9:30:38 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 3:50:37 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:


now lets go back a few years, when the shuttle was still flying.

one of thee shuttle pad rats would post info here about processing, delays, problems etc. he was very informative.

this got him fired, because competitors might gain some info. none of which was classfied. just possibly useful to the competion. new here gets conversation going. expect less with commercials.

jeff have i made that clear enough???


I don't recall anything like that. Are we once again seeing the
disconnect between the world as Bob Haller perceives it and everyone
else's present reality?

I also don't know who a 'competitor' would have been, since the
Shuttle was a government operation.


ULA was concerned about a possible competitor and it definetely did occur. very sad the fellow involved had trouble finding a new job


ULA had nothing to do with the Shuttle. As usual, Bob has apparently
gotten it wrong. At the end of the Shuttle lifespan, an LLC named
United Space Alliance was established (in 1995) to centralize Shuttle
contracts and operations. It wasn't 'competitive with anyone, so
there would be no reason for anyone to be dismissed because of "a
possible competitor".


fred just exhibits his lack of knowledge again.


I note you can't name this purported fellow fired from the Shuttle by
ULA. snicker


thats ok fred were used to it


You'd think you would be by now, as often as you get shown to be
wrong, but you still somehow think you're right and everyone else is
wrong.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

it was well known event here
wonder if google groups history search still works?

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 6:54:38 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 9:30:38 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 3:50:37 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:


now lets go back a few years, when the shuttle was still flying.

one of thee shuttle pad rats would post info here about processing, delays, problems etc. he was very informative.

this got him fired, because competitors might gain some info. none of which was classfied. just possibly useful to the competion. new here gets conversation going. expect less with commercials.

jeff have i made that clear enough???


I don't recall anything like that. Are we once again seeing the
disconnect between the world as Bob Haller perceives it and everyone
else's present reality?

I also don't know who a 'competitor' would have been, since the
Shuttle was a government operation.


ULA was concerned about a possible competitor and it definetely did occur. very sad the fellow involved had trouble finding a new job


ULA had nothing to do with the Shuttle. As usual, Bob has apparently
gotten it wrong. At the end of the Shuttle lifespan, an LLC named
United Space Alliance was established (in 1995) to centralize Shuttle
contracts and operations. It wasn't 'competitive with anyone, so
there would be no reason for anyone to be dismissed because of "a
possible competitor".


fred just exhibits his lack of knowledge again.


I note you can't name this purported fellow fired from the Shuttle by
ULA. snicker


thats ok fred were used to it


You'd think you would be by now, as often as you get shown to be
wrong, but you still somehow think you're right and everyone else is
wrong.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

it was well known event here
wonder if google groups history search still works?

Challenger Accident: 28 January 1986
Columbia Accident: 01 February 2003
ULA Founded: 01 December 2006.

The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the first incident of loss of human life during a United States space mission. At the time of the accident, most underwriters and manufacturers were under the mistaken assumption that all occupants of United States space vehicles were required to execute wavers of liability prior to partaking in a space mission. Insurance rates were most likely calculated based on this mistaken assumption.

Following the Shuttle Challenger accident, families of each of the six astronauts and of the civilian passenger, Christa McAuliffe, made claims against the United States government and Morton-Thiokol and filed lawsuits. Although each claim and lawsuit was eventually settled, a number of legal issues were forced to the forefront during the pendency of the litigation surrounding the Challenger accident.

The most interesting legal development was the application of the Death on the High Seas Act to space operations. The Death on the High Seas Act was passed by Congress long bevore aviation or space flight. It was intended to protect sailors from the vagaries of state common law which often provided no cause of action to an injured sailor or to the family of a seaman killed while on the high seas. The Death on the High Seas Act applies to any incident which occurs more than a marine league off the shores of the United States.

The Challenger explosion occurred more than a marine league off the coast of Florida. Therefore, Morton-Thiokol filed a Motion seeking the applicability of the Death on the High Seas Act to the Shuttle Challenger accident in the lawsuit filed by the Estate of Shuttle Captain Smith. The attorneys for the Estate of Captain Smith opposed the Motion stating that the actual commencement of the incident which led to the explosion, the failure of the rocket booster O rings, began immediately upon ignition while the shuttle craft was still above United States soil.

Although the space industry is still in its infancy, the number of lawsuits already filed in connection with space related operations provides some window to the future role of lawyers and insurers in space litigation.

The loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia resulted in the tragic deaths of seven
astronauts and a hail of debris strewed over parts of at least two states. The legal principles and processes that govern possible compensation for the resultant losses of life and property were identified, and the Death on The High Seas Act did not apply as the Columbia broke up over Texas.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) accepted claims from individuals who may have suffered damage due to the effects of debris from
the Space Shuttle Columbia mishap.

Congress waived sovereign immunity for some tort suits by passing the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in 1946.6 With exceptions, the FTCA makes the United States liable for injuries caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any federal employee acting within the scope of employment, in accordance with the law of the state where the act or omission occurred. Three major exceptions under which the United States may not be held liable, even in circumstances where a private employer could be held liable under state law, are

(1) the Feres doctrine, which prohibits suits by military personnel for injuries sustained incident to service;

(2) the discretionary function exception, which immunizes the United States for acts or omissions of its employees that involve policy decisions; and

(3) the intentional tort exception, which precludes suits against the United States for assault and battery, among some other intentional torts, unless they are committed by federal law enforcement or investigative officials.

In addition, the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) prohibits federal civilian employees from bringing suits under the FTCA with respect to work-related injuries.

For death resulting from an injury sustained in the performance of duty, FECA provides compensation equal to between 10 and 75 percent of the deceased employee's monthly pay to surviving family members.

The government reportedly contributed only to settlement payments to the four families which did not hire lawyers, including the families of the two crew members who were not federal employees. Congress responded to public opinion by establishing a victims' compensation fund, despite the absence of government liability.

Following fatal accidents involving U.S. astronauts, families reached settlements with private contractors in product liability suits. The widows of the three astronauts who died in the 1967 Apollo I fire obtained settlements from the spacecraft's manufacturer, North American Rockwell The Space Shuttle Challenger surviving family members sued Morton Thiokol, the manufacturer of the defective booster rockets blamed for the explosion. The settlement terms reportedly included payments of at least $1 million to each family, with Morton Thiokol and the federal government sharing the cost.

In the same year that the Challenger settlements were announced, the
Supreme Court recognized a "government contractor defense" in Boyle v. United
Technologies Corporation, allowing a contractor that is sued for damages to assert that it manufactured the product according to a government contract, and that the design was required by contract specifications.

Although the "government contractor" defense appears to shield private contractors for work done according to government specifications, public opinion may encourage the government and private contractors to reach settlements to avoid litigation, as was done in the Challenger case. Additionally, NASA may indemnify private contractors and thus assume liability costs.

NASA has indemnified United Space Alliance - a joint venture of Boeing Corporation and Lockheed Martin Corporation that manages shuttle operations - and other shuttle contractors for major shuttle accidents.

While the federal government is insulated from suits by or on behalf of its
employees for work-related injuries, it may not be secure from suits by individuals who suffer damages to themselves or their property as a result of falling debris.

A vivid example of such damage is the foot-long metal bracket that smashed through the roof of a dentist's office in Nacogdoches, Texas. In this case the legal structure of ULA protects the contractors and helps contain costs by shifting liability from those contractor to the Federal Government.

In article ,
says...

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 3:50:37 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:


now lets go back a few years, when the shuttle was still flying.

one of thee shuttle pad rats would post info here about processing, delays, problems etc. he was very informative.

this got him fired, because competitors might gain some info. none of which was classfied. just possibly useful to the competion. new here gets conversation going. expect less with commercials.

jeff have i made that clear enough???


I don't recall anything like that. Are we once again seeing the
disconnect between the world as Bob Haller perceives it and everyone
else's present reality?

I also don't know who a 'competitor' would have been, since the
Shuttle was a government operation.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

ULA was concerned about a possible competitor and it definetely did occur. very sad the fellow involved had trouble finding a new job

fred just exhibits his lack of knowledge again.

thats ok fred were used to it

As usual, your memory is only partly right. Kim Keller was fired for
"leaking" proprietary information. This has absolutely nothing to do
with a "possible competitor" and everything to do with company policy.
If I were to do the same thing at work, I'd be fired too.

Here is a cut-and-paste of a post I made back in '08:

Where were you when he lost his job? Search Google Groups for "kim
keller
fired" and you'll find this:

| Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
| From: "Kim Keller"
| Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:07:45 GMT
| Local: Mon, Feb 18 2002 10:07 pm
| Subject: Dear Woohoo:
| Thanks to all for your show of support. It's deeply appreciated. I do
want
| to expand a little on the facts surrounding my termination so everyone
| understands. As far as I can tell, NASA PAO had nothing to do with
this.
My
| website and posts were evidently discovered while USA security was
| investigating another employee's computer abuse at work - that person
and
I
| were both posting to the space.com bulletin board and I think that's
how
| they got interested in me. I was fired because my postings about the
work
we
| were doing allegedly gave away proprietary information, i.e. time
required
| to perform tasks and the number of personnel involved. USA felt this
info
| was of sufficient quantity to be considered damaging to company
interests.
I
| didn't even realize what I was discussing could be considered that
useful
to
| a potential competitor. But ignorance is no excuse, so they felt my
"crime"
| was serious enough to warrant firing. I appealed the decision, a
lengthy
| process that just concluded last week, and lost. I did find out that
my
| photos were not part of the problem, so I am thinking about putting
them
| back on the web.
|
| Again, thanks for your support.
|
| -Kim-

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

bob haller wrote:

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 3:50:37 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:


now lets go back a few years, when the shuttle was still flying.

one of thee shuttle pad rats would post info here about processing, delays, problems etc. he was very informative.

this got him fired, because competitors might gain some info. none of which was classfied. just possibly useful to the competion. new here gets conversation going. expect less with commercials.

jeff have i made that clear enough???


I don't recall anything like that. Are we once again seeing the
disconnect between the world as Bob Haller perceives it and everyone
else's present reality?

I also don't know who a 'competitor' would have been, since the
Shuttle was a government operation.


ULA was concerned about a possible competitor and it definetely did occur. very sad the fellow involved had trouble finding a new job


ULA had nothing to do with the Shuttle. As usual, Bob has apparently
gotten it wrong. At the end of the Shuttle lifespan, an LLC named
United Space Alliance was established (in 1995) to centralize Shuttle
contracts and operations. It wasn't 'competitive with anyone, so
there would be no reason for anyone to be dismissed because of "a
possible competitor".


fred just exhibits his lack of knowledge again.


I note you can't name this purported fellow fired from the Shuttle by
ULA. snicker

Bob's memory is mixing up ULA and USA. The employee fired was Kim
Keller for leaking proprietary information (i.e. posting info on shuttle
processing to sci.space.shuttle). In hindsight, he clearly should not
have been posting that information. None of this had *anything* to do
with USA fearing the information could be used by "the competition".
That's a figment of Bob's imagination, pure and simple.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...
it was well known event here
wonder if google groups history search still works?


Bob, you've missed the FACT that ULA had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
SHUTTLE.


ULA and USA, despite being two completely separate companies, seem to
have somehow gotten mixed up in Bob's head.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Since USA and ULA are alliances formed between Lockheed Martin and Boeing, both delivering space launch services to NASA and others, there is little to distinguish them save their areas of operation after 2006. They're like two divisions of the same companies achieving the same ends.

United Space Alliance was formed as a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin to consolidate Space Shuttle program contracts to one prime contractor. USA and NASA signed the Space Flight Operations Contract in September 1996 to become the single prime contractor to NASA.

United Space Alliance supported the contract for 10 years through September 2006.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin also announced their intent to form the United Launch Alliance joint venture on May 2, 2005.

ULA merges the production of the government space launch services of the two companies into one central plant in Decatur, Alabama, and merged all engineering into another central plant in Littleton, Colorado.

Boeing Integrated Defense Systems Delta IV and Lockheed Martin Space Systems Atlas V are both launchers developed for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program intended to provide the United States government with competitively priced, assured access to space.

ULA had a peak of six space launch facilities during 2005-2011. It announced a consolidation to five in 2008 with the intent to close one of its two Delta II pads, and closed the pad at Cape Canaveral after its final Delta II launch in 2011.

United Space Alliance's work was defined by the Space Program Operations Contract (SPOC) between NASA and USA. The contract runs from October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2010, which was to be the end of Space Shuttle operations.

Efforts under the Space Program Operations Contract include work and support for mission design and planning; software development and integration; astronaut and flight controller training; system integration; flight operations; vehicle processing, launch and recovery; vehicle sustaining engineering; flight crew equipment processing; and Space Shuttle and International Space Station-related support to the Constellation Program.

It is a cost reimbursement contract, with provisions for award and performance fees.

SpaceX challenged the United States antitrust law legality of the launch services monopoly created by Boeing and Lockheed Martin on October 23, 2005.

Until 2011, USA's major business was the operation and processing of NASA's Space Shuttle fleet and International Space Station at Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center and John F. Kennedy Space Center.

With NASA's transition from the Space Shuttle to smaller service and support contracts, one of the new contracts for United Space Alliance is the Integrated Mission Operations Contract (IMOC) to provide flight operations support for the Constellation Program and International Space Station Program in Houston through September 30, 2011.

In November 2010, United Space Alliance was selected by NASA for consideration for potential contract awards for heavy lift launch vehicle system concepts, and propulsion technologies.

As of September 30, 2014, the United Space Alliance no longer holds active contracts, and will not pursue future contracts. However, the USA will continue to operate in an administrative business capacity to manage government contract close-out requirements. Close-out of government contracts historically takes 5-7 years

Two years following company formation from units of Lockheed Martin and Boeing, ULA announced it would lay off 350 workers in early 2009, reducing from a company-wide employment of 4200 employees in 2008. In the event, ULA had approximately 3900 employees by August 2009.

In late 2009, ULA announced that it intended to build a new headquarters campus for its operations south of Denver, in Centennial, Colorado, in order to move away from facility space it had shared with Lockheed Martin since 2006 when ULA was founded.

In November 2010, United Launch Alliance was selected by NASA for consideration for potential contract awards for heavy lift launch vehicle system concepts, and propulsion technologies.

It was announced in August 2014 that Michael Gass, ULA CEO since ULA was founded in 2006, would step down immediately and that he would be replaced by Tory Bruno, effective immediately.

In September 2014, it was announced that the firm had won a contract from the United States Air Force for US$938 million for additional work on military rocket launch services related to its existing contracts with the US Air Force.

ULA announced in February 2015 that they are considering undertaking domestic production of the Russian RD-180 engine at the Decatur, Alabama rocket stage manufacturing facility. The US-manufactured engines would be used only for government civil (NASA) or commercial launches, and would not be used for US military launches.

So, both these operations - one oriented toward manned and reusable vehicle operations, another toward unmanned and expendible vehicle operations - were organized by the major contractors with several goals in mind. These likely included;

(1) Protection against liabilities related to ongoing operations,
(2) Winding down the US 'over investment' in space,
(3) Cherry picking skill sets for inclusion in black programs,