Author Topic: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview  (Read 446570 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35996
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18429
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #620 on: 02/27/2011 11:45 am »

I think the relevant quote is;
"We fired not just NASA people but had the people that were there at the contractor fired also "


NASA people were not "fired" as in losing employment.  They were removed from their current assignments and moved elsewhere within NASA.
« Last Edit: 02/27/2011 11:50 am by Jim »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11609
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 6115
  • Likes Given: 2999
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #621 on: 02/27/2011 01:01 pm »

I think the relevant quote is;
"We fired not just NASA people but had the people that were there at the contractor fired also "

NASA people were not "fired" as in losing employment.  They were removed from their current assignments and moved elsewhere within NASA.

Correct. "NASA people" are not "employees". They are civil servants and cannot be "fired" in the way most people understand the term; they do *not* loose their employment. They can only be reassigned elsewhere. It takes an enormous effort and many, many thousands of funding dollars to actually "fire" a civil servant.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline pummuf

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #622 on: 02/27/2011 05:27 pm »

I think the relevant quote is;
"We fired not just NASA people but had the people that were there at the contractor fired also "

NASA people were not "fired" as in losing employment.  They were removed from their current assignments and moved elsewhere within NASA.

Correct. "NASA people" are not "employees". They are civil servants and cannot be "fired" in the way most people understand the term; they do *not* loose their employment. They can only be reassigned elsewhere. It takes an enormous effort and many, many thousands of funding dollars to actually "fire" a civil servant.
that explains a lot, thanks.

Offline Starlab90

  • NASA Retired
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Huntsville, AL
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 309
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #623 on: 02/27/2011 09:35 pm »
Correct. "NASA people" are not "employees". They are civil servants and cannot be "fired" in the way most people understand the term; they do *not* loose their employment. They can only be reassigned elsewhere. It takes an enormous effort and many, many thousands of funding dollars to actually "fire" a civil servant.

It actually depends on the cause. For poor performance, it can take a long time and a lot of effort by the supervisors involved. For certain types of misconduct, it can be very fast. Stories are told around NASA of a couple of cases where the employee involved had security officers suddenly show up in his office and immediately escort him off the premises. One is alleged to have involved procurement violation(s), and another is alleged to be a case of having child porn on his Government computer. Most civil servants are smart enough to avoid the "land mines" and keep themselves employed.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14713
  • Liked: 7174
  • Likes Given: 1147

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11609
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 6115
  • Likes Given: 2999
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14713
  • Liked: 7174
  • Likes Given: 1147
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #626 on: 02/28/2011 06:00 pm »
Heads should roll for the CxP fiasco.


Considering that the program was never properly funded, who, specifically, failed?   

But haven't you noticed?  Heads *are* rolling.  Thousands of them.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/09/michoud_layoffs_expected_thurs.html
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100926/NEWS0204/9260338/For-KSC-workers-reality-hits-home
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/10/constellation_layoffs_begin_in.html
http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2010/08/post_307.html
http://news.hjnews.com/news/article_b993cacc-ccf4-11df-90ba-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=image

 - Ed Kyle

Wrong heads

Then which "heads" should be guillotined?  I'm interested in the specific names of the people allegedly responsible for the Constellation "fiasco".  What specifically did these individuals do, or not do?

I have my own list.  It has two names on it, and neither work, or worked, for NASA or its contractors.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35996
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18429
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #627 on: 02/28/2011 06:03 pm »

Then which "heads" should be guillotined?  I'm interested in the specific names of the people allegedly responsible for the Constellation "fiasco".  What specifically did these individuals do, or not do?


The initiators and implementers of ESAS.  CXP had a sustainable path before ESAS. ESAS is the "fiasco".

Also, those initiators and implementers of Ares I-X which wasted nearly $3/4 billion for very little data.
« Last Edit: 02/28/2011 06:07 pm by Jim »

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 164
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #628 on: 02/28/2011 10:54 pm »
The initiators and implementers of ESAS.  CXP had a sustainable path before ESAS. ESAS is the "fiasco".

Yes, the complexity creep started with ESAS, but it didn't end there.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 675
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #629 on: 02/28/2011 11:39 pm »
Then which "heads" should be guillotined?  I'm interested in the specific names of the people allegedly responsible for the Constellation "fiasco".  What specifically did these individuals do, or not do?

I have my own list.  It has two names on it, and neither work, or worked, for NASA or its contractors.

 - Ed Kyle

Really? If anyone's head should roll (figuratively) for the CxP fiasco, I would imagine that Mike Griffin should top most people's list. I figure ramming through the Ares I/V architecture and spreading FUD about EELV's (black zone myths) should make him pretty high on any list.

(for anyone who thinks heads should roll for CxP, of course - some seem to have great admiration for the man)

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #630 on: 03/01/2011 02:20 am »
Really? If anyone's head should roll (figuratively) for the CxP fiasco, I would imagine that Mike Griffin should top most people's list. I figure ramming through the Ares I/V architecture and spreading FUD about EELV's (black zone myths) should make him pretty high on any list.

(for anyone who thinks heads should roll for CxP, of course - some seem to have great admiration for the man)
Professor Griff is gone.  However, his lieutenants are alive and well.
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 675
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #631 on: 03/01/2011 02:24 am »
I know he is gone - I was just reacting to Ed's opinion that the two people who should have been fired for CxP/ESAS did not include Mr. Griffin.
« Last Edit: 03/01/2011 02:25 am by Lars_J »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4359
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1128
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #632 on: 03/01/2011 03:02 pm »
Really? If anyone's head should roll (figuratively) for the CxP fiasco, I would imagine that Mike Griffin should top most people's list. I figure ramming through the Ares I/V architecture and spreading FUD about EELV's (black zone myths) should make him pretty high on any list.

(for anyone who thinks heads should roll for CxP, of course - some seem to have great admiration for the man)
Professor Griff is gone.  However, his lieutenants are alive and well.

It should be noted that griffin wasn't the only one responsible for that fiasco. Others shared his views were helping with the "ramming through" of the bad designs. On the policy side those who lobbied for it or were operating or representing MSFC or Alabama ops essentially managed to attached the Ares rockets to the goals of CXP. This made it essentially impossible for any change of design to occur, without scrapping the whole program. Most of them are gone now.

As for his "men" I can tell you personally, they have little or no sway left. Congress has moved on without them, or Mr. Obama quite frankly. Congress for once, on this issue anyway, had clearer heads prevail and showed ALOT of leadership and common sense.

Congress and America moved on. Those that continue to cry about the past or wanting something impossible are, I assure you, being ignored.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2997
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 649
  • Likes Given: 112
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #633 on: 03/01/2011 03:22 pm »
Quote from: RocketScientist327
Professor Griff is gone.  However, his lieutenants are alive and well.

A few of them have jumped ship.
« Last Edit: 03/01/2011 03:23 pm by kkattula »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15310
  • Liked: 5754
  • Likes Given: 2554
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #634 on: 03/01/2011 04:21 pm »
A CR extension of 2 weeks is likely to be passed by the House and Senate:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50384.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/146715-dem-senator-says-senate-has-accepted-house-gop-spending-plan

Here is a copy of the draft (2 week extension) House bill:
http://rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/legislativetext/March-18-CR_xml.pdf

It doesn't contain anything specific about NASA.
« Last Edit: 03/01/2011 05:02 pm by yg1968 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14713
  • Liked: 7174
  • Likes Given: 1147
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #635 on: 03/01/2011 04:49 pm »
I know he is gone - I was just reacting to Ed's opinion that the two people who should have been fired for CxP/ESAS did not include Mr. Griffin.

That's correct.  The people responsible for this failed lunar landing program were Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.  Bush initiated the program, but never intended to pay for it (and never did).  Obama hated it, said he would cancel it while running for office, and did cancel it once elected. 

The program failure had nothing whatsoever to do with rocket or spacecraft designs.  It had to do with lack of national will - and lack of national leadership.  Any program to land humans on the Moon will cost a stupendous amount of cash - far beyond anything we've seen provided to NASA since Apollo and certainly far beyond anything authorized for Constellation.

Griffin took the dribble of funds provided and, while continuing to fly Shuttle (after ET redesign) and ISS, built a massive J-2X test stand, built an Ares launch pad, built and tested an Orion escape and recovery system, built and tested an Ares first stage, designed, built, and flew an Ares precursor, began to build Orion and Ares Upper Stage assembly factories, and saw J-2X proceed nearly to testing (planned to occur soon).  The country thanked him for all of this service by sacking him.

 - Ed Kyle 

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #636 on: 03/01/2011 05:04 pm »
I know he is gone - I was just reacting to Ed's opinion that the two people who should have been fired for CxP/ESAS did not include Mr. Griffin.

That's correct.  The people responsible for this failed lunar landing program were Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.  Bush initiated the program, but never intended to pay for it (and never did).  Obama hated it, said he would cancel it while running for office, and did cancel it once elected. 

The program failure had nothing whatsoever to do with rocket or spacecraft designs.  It had to do with lack of national will - and lack of national leadership.  Any program to land humans on the Moon will cost a stupendous amount of cash - far beyond anything we've seen provided to NASA since Apollo and certainly far beyond anything authorized for Constellation.

Griffin took the dribble of funds provided and, while continuing to fly Shuttle (after ET redesign) and ISS, built a massive J-2X test stand, built an Ares launch pad, built and tested an Orion escape and recovery system, built and tested an Ares first stage, designed, built, and flew an Ares precursor, began to build Orion and Ares Upper Stage assembly factories, and saw J-2X proceed nearly to testing (planned to occur soon).  The country thanked him for all of this service by sacking him.

 - Ed Kyle 

Agreed, but the one point I would like to raise is that Ares I / V was selected on Griffin's watch. While Griffin did do as much as he could with those concepts, with the funds allocated, many would argue that there were other concepts that would have better utilized the small amount of funding available.

NASA was trying to purchase a Ferrari on a teacher's salary, when there were Fords and Hondas available.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35996
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18429
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #637 on: 03/01/2011 07:55 pm »


Griffin took the dribble of funds provided and, while continuing to fly Shuttle (after ET redesign) and ISS, built a massive J-2X test stand, built an Ares launch pad, built and tested an Orion escape and recovery system, built and tested an Ares first stage, designed, built, and flew an Ares precursor, began to build Orion and Ares Upper Stage assembly factories, and saw J-2X proceed nearly to testing (planned to occur soon).  The country thanked him for all of this service by sacking him.


And rightfully so, since he broke the bank with all that.  He kill the science missions and assume more money was coming and mortgaged the future
« Last Edit: 03/01/2011 08:09 pm by Jim »

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #638 on: 03/01/2011 09:05 pm »
I know he is gone - I was just reacting to Ed's opinion that the two people who should have been fired for CxP/ESAS did not include Mr. Griffin.
That's correct.  The people responsible for this failed lunar landing program were Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.  Bush initiated the program, but never intended to pay for it (and never did).  Obama hated it, said he would cancel it while running for office, and did cancel it once elected. 

The program failure had nothing whatsoever to do with rocket or spacecraft designs.  It had to do with lack of national will - and lack of national leadership.  Any program to land humans on the Moon will cost a stupendous amount of cash - far beyond anything we've seen provided to NASA since Apollo and certainly far beyond anything authorized for Constellation.
     So Obama is responsible for the "failed lunar landing program" because he did not choose to rescue it by mounting a major political effort to secure something like a doubling of funding?

     You can argue, if you like, that every President after Kennedy -- Obama included -- is fundamentally obligated by national will or natural pride of place for the US to urge the continued mounting of an Apollo-peak-scale HSF program. If so, that's an indictment of Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama.
     
     We've all fantasized about that world, for good or bad. But that's hardly the same thing as saying Obama is responsible for CxP, in particular the choice of Ares I and Ares V.

   -Alex

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1166
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 275
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #639 on: 03/01/2011 10:47 pm »
Yes, but when Obama came in he could have embraced Constellation and used his early political capital to ensure the funding increases that would be necessary.  He is great at talking the talk about winning the future, etc., but he chose not to make that case; he basically chose to re-boot the whole thing.

He could have been the hero and "saved" CxP by making tough changes within CxP and following up with modest increases in $$.

I'm not saying he should have done that, just that he could have done that.  He would be much more popular in Florida, Alabama and Texas if he would have worked it that way rather than his FY11.
Scott

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0