JIS - 1/4/2008 9:02 AMCan anybody explain me where all those money end up? Thousands of lost jobs means a lot of spare money every month. Unless they are going to pay hughe pensions and compensations.It looks like they are redirecting workload from KSC.
OV-106 - 1/4/2008 7:46 AMBefore everyone jumps on the anti-Ares bandwagon too much, keep this in mind. The "gap" was sanctioned by the Administration and was a part of the original VSE speech, which was later endorsed by Congress. While, the gap was supposed to be 4 years, slips and delays happen and if the Administration and Congress cannot live up to their promises with funding, this was bound to happen anyway completely regardless of any technical development issues that need to be addressed.
Wildthing - 1/4/2008 3:28 PMHow many of these "gap" jobs would be saved if the Shuttle kept flying, say a couple of flights every year from 2011 - 2015 ??....I know it added expense but if you weigh the cost of unemployment and the impact of thousands unemployed engineers on the economy, might be worthwhile for Congress to come up with money to support a limited but continued Shuttle Extension Program through the gap years.....
Lee Jay - 1/4/2008 9:32 AMQuoteOV-106 - 1/4/2008 7:46 AMBefore everyone jumps on the anti-Ares bandwagon too much, keep this in mind. The "gap" was sanctioned by the Administration and was a part of the original VSE speech, which was later endorsed by Congress. While, the gap was supposed to be 4 years, slips and delays happen and if the Administration and Congress cannot live up to their promises with funding, this was bound to happen anyway completely regardless of any technical development issues that need to be addressed. The words used were "no later than 2014". No later than is not the same as NET. When assigned a deadline like that, one must come up with a solution that should easily beat that goal such that margin in the schedule remains. Margin is what is needed to handle slips. The original architecture had no margin and no chance of meeting that goal.Griffin failed to recognize this. These are his own words:"Our earlier plans called for operational deployment of the CEV not later than 2014. However, given the role of the CEV as a replacement for the Shuttle in providing human access to space, we are now seeking programmatic alternatives to allow development of the CEV to be completed as soon as possible. Acceleration of the CEV program will be accomplished by down-selecting to a single contractor sooner than originally planned, and by deferring other elements of the Exploration Systems Research and Technology plan not required for the CEV or for the early phases of human return to the Moon."He said "will be accomplished". Didn't happen. It had no chance of happening.
wannamoonbase - 1/4/2008 5:09 AMSmells a bit like a play to increase funding for Orion and Ares to keep the work force numbers up.
Wildthing - 1/4/2008 10:28 AMHow many of these "gap" jobs would be saved if the Shuttle kept flying, say a couple of flights every year from 2011 - 2015 ??....I know it added expense but if you weigh the cost of unemployment and the impact of thousands unemployed engineers on the economy, might be worthwhile for Congress to come up with money to support a limited but continued Shuttle Extension Program through the gap years.....
Wildthing - 1/4/2008 9:28 AMHow many of these "gap" jobs would be saved if the Shuttle kept flying, say a couple of flights every year from 2011 - 2015 ??....I know it added expense but if you weigh the cost of unemployment and the impact of thousands unemployed engineers on the economy, might be worthwhile for Congress to come up with money to support a limited but continued Shuttle Extension Program through the gap years.....
OV-106 - 1/4/2008 10:37 AMYou can't have it both ways. If you also look at the speech it had a funding profile which never materialized. You can hate Griffin how ever much you want to but if you don't have the money it takes and you were promised you cannot meet the dates.
OV-106 - 1/4/2008 3:37 PM You can hate Griffin how ever much you want to but if you don't have the money it takes and you were promised you cannot meet the dates.
Chris Bergin - 1/4/2008 9:54 AMI have a potential counterpoint/question in relation to the fact that Mr Griffin is responsible for running this agency, and "not having the money" is a not a blanket statement that answers the questions relating to the Agency's ability to carry out a mitigation of the gap problem.I'm asking the question, rather than making a statement, as I simply do not know, but I remember reading an official report a few years ago that NASA is "saturated" by "civil servants" - and that can't come cheap?Anyone think there could be a leadership driven change to NASA's structure to allow a realignment of NASA's priorities and spending that would allow "that money they don't have" to reduce the gap. I note leadership, as I know he's not made himself popular with the likes of Sen. Nelson on the decision to thrown a billion at the Russians - directly relating to the gap, rather than using it to mitigate, or bolster COTS.Sidenote: I do concede that Mr Griffin has already stated that Ares can't be ready before 2014, because of long pole development (J-2X), regardless of cash....so maybe it is the vehicle after all.Feel free to jump up and down on my head over the above But I think there's value in a debate on the related aspects to all of this, rather than throwing URLs to op ed and journalist reports all over this thread (as no one knows better than those involved with the program).
Ronsmytheiii - 1/4/2008 10:07 AMIn my urban geography class we are talking about Florida, specifically south central Florida in the vicinity of Sanford dealing with sprawl and the Florida aquifer. After class I told him about the 6400 job loss, and he seemed stunned. Also predicted a huge shift ro the service industry and an economic decline. however since I am scheduled to graduate in 2010, I am seriously considering the future of being an aerospace engineer due to lower jobs and higher competition.
Chris Bergin - 1/4/2008 9:54 AMQuoteOV-106 - 1/4/2008 3:37 PM You can hate Griffin how ever much you want to but if you don't have the money it takes and you were promised you cannot meet the dates.Careful. Words in people's mouths with the "hate" there I would ban people for saying they "hate" Mr Griffin or anyone, as it would not be becoming of this site's forum.I have a potential counterpoint/question in relation to the fact that Mr Griffin is responsible for running this agency, and "not having the money" is a not a blanket statement that answers the questions relating to the Agency's ability to carry out a mitigation of the gap problem.I'm asking the question, rather than making a statement, as I simply do not know, but I remember reading an official report a few years ago that NASA is "saturated" by "civil servants" - and that can't come cheap?Anyone think there could be a leadership driven change to NASA's structure to allow a realignment of NASA's priorities and spending that would allow "that money they don't have" to reduce the gap. I note leadership, as I know he's not made himself popular with the likes of Sen. Nelson on the decision to thrown a billion at the Russians - directly relating to the gap, rather than using it to mitigate, or bolster COTS.Sidenote: I do concede that Mr Griffin has already stated that Ares can't be ready before 2014, because of long pole development (J-2X), regardless of cash....so maybe it is the vehicle after all.Feel free to jump up and down on my head over the above But I think there's value in a debate on the related aspects to all of this, rather than throwing URLs to op ed and journalist reports all over this thread (as no one knows better than those involved with the program).
OV-106 - 1/4/2008 4:20 PMCxP has been around for four years now. The money we were told we would get never came so I do not see how anyone can expect the original operational dates to be maintained. You can have the best mitigation plans ever conceived but if you have no way to implement them with any kind of financing they are just hollow.
Chris Bergin - 1/4/2008 10:28 AMQuoteOV-106 - 1/4/2008 4:20 PMCxP has been around for four years now. The money we were told we would get never came so I do not see how anyone can expect the original operational dates to be maintained. You can have the best mitigation plans ever conceived but if you have no way to implement them with any kind of financing they are just hollow. Thanks, so that's the kicker. It's a political failure, rather than a management failure?
OV-106 - 1/4/2008 9:37 AMQuoteLee Jay - 1/4/2008 9:32 AMQuoteOV-106 - 1/4/2008 7:46 AMBefore everyone jumps on the anti-Ares bandwagon too much, keep this in mind. The "gap" was sanctioned by the Administration and was a part of the original VSE speech, which was later endorsed by Congress. While, the gap was supposed to be 4 years, slips and delays happen and if the Administration and Congress cannot live up to their promises with funding, this was bound to happen anyway completely regardless of any technical development issues that need to be addressed. The words used were "no later than 2014". No later than is not the same as NET. When assigned a deadline like that, one must come up with a solution that should easily beat that goal such that margin in the schedule remains. Margin is what is needed to handle slips. The original architecture had no margin and no chance of meeting that goal.Griffin failed to recognize this. These are his own words:"Our earlier plans called for operational deployment of the CEV not later than 2014. However, given the role of the CEV as a replacement for the Shuttle in providing human access to space, we are now seeking programmatic alternatives to allow development of the CEV to be completed as soon as possible. Acceleration of the CEV program will be accomplished by down-selecting to a single contractor sooner than originally planned, and by deferring other elements of the Exploration Systems Research and Technology plan not required for the CEV or for the early phases of human return to the Moon."He said "will be accomplished". Didn't happen. It had no chance of happening.You can't have it both ways. If you also look at the speech it had a funding profile which never materialized. You can hate Griffin how ever much you want to but if you don't have the money it takes and you were promised you cannot meet the dates.
wingod - 1/4/2008 11:36 AMYou need to look to John Marburger's 2006 Goddard Symposium speech to see why NASA did not get the increases that were promised. It is down toward the end of the speech. The ESAS architecture ignored economic development of the solar system as a core value and the administration has been unwilling to fund a science project. Until this seeps into everyone's bones that this is the case, this will continue to happen.
PaulyFirmbiz - 1/4/2008 11:44 AMim not an expert.. nor am i gonna sit here and pretend to know the mechanics or fiscal situation of NASA or the related programs.. but i see it this way.. when apollo went offline, it took them what? 6 or 7 years to get back in space rite? wouldnt you think in todays world with todays technology, there would be a way to shortin that gap even with the fiscal moves made by congress? the russians do it far cheaper then we do.. al be it there technology is half the size and provin far longer but it works and its employable by a country whos econimical standing is nothing to ours.. there has to be a logical way to do it.. i personally belive in direct 2.0.. its a shame others at NASA dont.. i think it woulda kept us flying alot quicker and kept alot of those jobs from disapearing.. but thats just my opinion, and please dont take me like i know all the facts hard down or i am a rocket scientist.. im a 25 yr old kid with a serious love for watching these things go up and do what they do...