Jump to content

Talk:Alliant Techsystems

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The company's divisions are a mess

[edit]

The article (as of 5 Set 2012) mentions that "ATK Launch Systems" is the division that Thiokol became in 2006 ("the sole manufacturer of the reusable Solid Rocket Motor used to launch the NASA Space Shuttle, which will be adapted to the Space Launch System."), but fails to mention that division later in the article, in the article section Major divisions later in the article. In that section, "ATK Aerospace Systems", "ATK Missile Products", and "ATK Security and Sporting" are all listed as divisions. And that fails to get at yet another division, not mentioned in the article—the "ATK Space Division" in Beltsville[, Maryland] ... born out of the old Swales Aerospace. ATK acquired [Swales] in 2007, and we are the satellite side of the ATK business, and we build satellites for commercial, civil, international, and defense programs."—quote taken from this interview on The Space Show, on 17 Aug 2012, (at c. 1:35 in the interview).

So the division claims in the article are a mess; definitely incomplete and outdated. Anyone have a good source that would clarify all of them? N2e (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I attempted to change "Major Divisions" to Business Units, listing the business divisions below that. The hope was that the ATK corporate website is up to date. Otherwise someone can revert my changes and spend a couple days on the phone. Assuming the people you call even understand what are managements' latest reorganizations whims. And regarding "ATK Launch Systems", how does one handle discussions of such things when company divisions are always in flux? "namedAsOf" or some similar tag?? AndreQ (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI disclosure

[edit]

I am a consultant employed by ATK. I want to follow the rules here, so I am posting this disclosure. I don't want to damage the article in anyway or inadvertently break any rules, so I am going to post on this talk page for the time being when I have a substantial edit to make. Singaporebobby (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add this text:

On October 28th, 2014, ATK announced that it would be seeking approval of issuance of shares to Orbital stockholders on December 9th. [1]

Singaporebobby (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made this edit myself on the advice of another editor I queried. I marked the edit as COI in my edit summary. Singaporebobby (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I am no longer employed by ATK. I do enjoy contributing here though and will do so as my time allows.Singaporebobby (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Rocket explosion unlikely to hurt ATK-Orbital merger - analyst". Reuters. 29 October 2014. Retrieved 11 November 2014.

Orbital Rocket explosion

[edit]

I would also like to add the following text to the part of the article on the merger.

ATK responded to news of the explosion of a rocket built by Orbital in an earnings call. ATK stated it would conduct a "thorough evaluation of any potential implications resulting from the incident, including current operating plans, long-term strategies, and the proposed transaction.” ATK also said that it was taking a careful look at its Castor 30XL motor, which is used in the second stage of Orbital's Antares rocket. ATK further noted that the explosion occurred before ignition of the second stage. [1]

Singaporebobby (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made this edit myself on the advice of another editor I queried. I marked the edit as COI in my edit summary. Singaporebobby (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add this bit:
On November 17th, 2014 ATK stated that its due-diligence assessment of its merger with Orbital Sciences undertaken in response to the failure of Orbital's Antares rocket found that the transaction remained in the best interest of its shareholders. Both firms rescheduled shareholder votes on the merger from December 9th, 2014 to January 27th, 2015. [2]
Thank you! Singaporebobby (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jayakumar, Amrita (3 November 2014). "ATK-Orbital merger is a wait-and-watch game". New York Times. New York, New York USA.
  2. ^ de Selding, Peter B. (18 November 2014). "ATK, Orbital Sciences Postpone Merger Vote to Late January". Space News.

Ammunition Plant

[edit]

I would like to replace what is currently written about the Lake City facility with this:

Lake City Army Ammunition Plant

[edit]

In 2012, ATK was selected by the US Army to continue operating and maintaining the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (LCAAP) for an additional seven to ten years. The LCAAP is a federally owned facility in Independence, Missouri. It was built by Remington Arms in 1941 to manufacture and test small-caliber ammunition for the army. As of July 2007, the plant produced about 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition per year. The LCAAP still tests ammunition and is the largest producer of small-arms ammunition for the US military. ATK has operated the LCAAP since April 2001. [1][2]

Singaporebobby (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made this edit myself on the advice of another editor I queried. I marked the edit as COI in my edit summary. Singaporebobby (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add the following paragraph to this section:
The United States Army and ATK opened a renovated ammunition production facility at the LCAAP in December of 2014. The renovations improved efficiency and quality control. The Army and ATK invested $11 million to modernize "Building 65" for the production of 20 millimeter ammunition. These large caliber rounds are usually fired from automatic cannons mounted on ground vehicles and aircraft. Building 65 housed 20 millimeter round production until 1997, when it was moved to Building 3. About 50 people are employed on this line. [3]
Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Singaporebobby (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Lake City Army Ammunition Plant". GlobalSecurity.org.
  2. ^ Lardner, Richard. "Ammo makers prepare for drop in demand". USA Today. 23 July 2007.
  3. ^ Dornbrook, James (3 December 2014). "ATK, U.S. Army invest $11M in Independence ammo plant". Kansas City Business Journal.

Orion

[edit]

I would like to add the following text on the Orion space capsule to the section on ATK Aerospace:

Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle

[edit]
Main article: Orion (spacecraft)

The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle is a spacecraft intended to carry a crew of up to four astronauts to destinations beyond-low Earth orbit. Currently under development by NASA,[1] for launch on the Space Launch System,[2] Orion will facilitate human exploration of the Moon, asteroids and Mars.

ATK developed the launch abort motor that sits on top of the Orion capsule. This device would push the capsule and its crew away from the rocket in the event of major fault on the launch pad or during descent. ATK also developed numerous composite parts that provide heat protection for Orion. [3]

Singaporebobby (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bergin, Chris. "EFT-1 Orion completes assembly and conducts FRR". NASASpaceflight.com. Retrieved November 10, 2014.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference report was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Lopez, Jesus (2 December 2014). "ATK test rocket one step forward to landing humans on Mars". Standard Examiner. Ogden, Utah.

Merger and spinoff

[edit]

On February 10th Orbital's merger with ATK will close and Vista Outdoor will be spun off as an independent company. I plan to rename this article to something like "Orbital ATK" and create a new article for Vista Outdoor. What do you think? Singaporebobby (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine, but you should probably leave a good part of what's there now, which is pretty short, minus the bulleted list of product lines, for historical purposes. Hopefully the Vista Outdoors article could say something more, otherwise it's barely worth having an article. Overall, there's not much to write about a holding company. Rezin (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response! Please take a look at my sandbox. I am in the process of digging up more research to make sure that the Vista Outdoor article has "meat." Singaporebobby (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. It's borrowed meat, but that's the best that can be expected of an article on a holding company. Rezin (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will post today under Vista Outdoor Inc. Please feel free to edit away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singaporebobby (talk • contribs) 12:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article for Vista Outdoor. I don't want to move forward on Orbital and ATK without input from other editors, as the situation with those two articles is not nearly as simple as Vista. Does anyone have any ideas about how to move forward? Thanks! Singaporebobby (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote for keeping "Alliant Techsystems" and "Orbital Sciences Corporation" as historical articles, and then starting a new "Orbital ATK" page. Both component companies were notable for many years, and this would be consistent with the way Wikipedia has covered other aerospace mergers such as Lockheed Martin = Lockheed Corporation + Martin Marietta. I'll leave a note at the Orbital talk page to let them know about this discussion. Brian the Editor (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the important histories of each company, during the epochs they existed as corporate entities, I concur with Brian the Editor and believe that both articles—"Alliant Techsystems" and "Orbital Sciences Corporation"—should be retained as historical articles. I very much support the creation of a new article, Orbital ATK, on the new merged corporate entity that got its start here in 2015, as well as for the Vista Outdoor Inc. entity that is new to take on some of the former corporate assets that Orbital did not want to buy. N2e (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

agree with Brian the Editor--Wuerzele (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well that both company's history (and their Wikipedia's pages) is sufficiently rich that they should be kept for historical purposes. This is true especially since this was a "merger of equals" (company's language, not mine), and not an acquisition. It is not clear which page should be modified if one of the two pages needed to be "upgraded" to the new Orbital ATK. I've edited the Orbital Sciences page to capture the fact that the company ceased to exist and to link to the new Orbital ATK page. Spaceman13 (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alliant Techsystems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does the "K" stand for in ATK?

[edit]

I understand that ATK was the company's stock symbol. Did they simply adopt the stock symbol as an abbreviation for the company name, even though the K doesn't really stand for anything? 75.163.201.188 (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alliant Techsystems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from "Allied Technologies"

[edit]

Why does the term "Allied Technologies" redirect to this article? There is no mention of this term in the article. If that was a former/alternative name for this company, shouldn't it be mentioned? FBitterlich (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alliant_Techsystems&oldid=1258808708"