kraisee - 1/4/2008 4:32 PM1. All Shuttle OME engineers can find a place within Orion fairly easily. We would recommend flying early Orion's with regular 6,000lb OME variants initially, and upgrade to the Lunar-spec 10,000lb thrust version for a "Block-II" variant down the line a bit.2. SSME engineers can switch over initially to the RS-68B. J-2X development is coming too and we accelerate the LSAM project by two years too, so the option to move into their propulsion systems will open around 2011/12. Some staff may be required to re-locate, but we would hope these can done be on a mostly voluntary basis. We certainly wish to keep all of those valuable skills "in the family" for that short period without any headaches so will make an extra effort here to make sure we have no losses.3. Aero-Structures guys are going to be completely lost with the current plan, but we have a fill-in program until we need them for projects like LSAM a little bit later. We need some cheap, in-expensive cargo carrying modules to replicate the mountings found in the Shuttle Payload Bay. I can't think of a better group of engineers and workers who are more familiar with the current structure of that than the guys routinely doing OMDT's and such maintenance on the Orbiters today. So we set these great folk on the project of building half a dozen of these between STS retirement and our 2013 FOC date when we plan to begin using them on every ISS Crew Rotation Mission - and we have the payload lift capability to actually make use of it too.4. TPS. The new "Payload Bay" modules need TPS, but most of these guys can be retrained.5. Electronics/Comms: We have a whole new program starting up. We need Firing Rooms updated, we need MLP's and Pads reconfigured. There is a new launcher and new spacecraft in development which need supporting. There's plenty of work to be going around. What it requires though is very careful management of these resources to ensure we keep all the staff working at their best efficiency on all the different projects.6. ISS: There are currently grounded payloads which we are going to launch. AMS, CAM, SPP, MPLM's etc. All of these will require ground processing work. Orbiter workers can be re-trained to fill positions here temporarily too while the rest of the program ramps up.7. Hubble SM #5. Requires Payload processing staff and a whole team to prepare the mission. Lets use staff we have available.
Lee Jay - 1/4/2008 5:27 PMISS is a research laboratory. Laboratories are supposed to teach us things. So far, the most important thing we've learned from ISS is that you don't build multi-hundred-ton objects in LEO with a 20 ton launcher. Now that it's getting some research space, we'll start to learn a lot more, but that's the take-home lesson as far as launchers are concerned.
kraisee - 1/4/2008 5:25 PMJim,Forgive me, but it isn't a myth. We've done an awful lot of research into this now and there are no show-stoppers at all, not budget, not schedule, not technical, not workforce. Everything we have detailed has live data to back it up.1. Sure, Goddard, Marshall, Glenn or any number of other centers could also do this sort of work - but none of them are facing 6,400 job losses and KSC is *capable* of doing it. With the job loss situation *this time* KSC would get automatic priority for this sort of work.2. And the modules like CAM are all mostly completed. They are all sitting in various warehouses, mothballed and still sealed. Systems have certainly been pillaged for other modules, but every one of these grounded payloads I mentioned above can all be unpacked, shipped-out and prepared to fly within 5 years, given that we are allocating a 9-digit budget to each one. That's quite doable.3.Union issues like you mention become irrelevant if you change employer and job title, and Unions always prefer options which keep their members in jobs rather than cuing in unemployment lines. The Unions will not stand in the way of everybody changing from company A to company B and doing similar, but different, work given that the only alternative is everybody leave company A and go nowhere.
alexterrell - 1/4/2008 5:19 PMQuoteLee Jay - 1/4/2008 5:27 PMISS is a research laboratory. Laboratories are supposed to teach us things. So far, the most important thing we've learned from ISS is that you don't build multi-hundred-ton objects in LEO with a 20 ton launcher. Now that it's getting some research space, we'll start to learn a lot more, but that's the take-home lesson as far as launchers are concerned.Unless you're using inflatables?
Jim - 1/4/2008 7:30 PMQuotekraisee - 1/4/2008 5:25 PMJim,Forgive me, but it isn't a myth. We've done an awful lot of research into this now and there are no show-stoppers at all, not budget, not schedule, not technical, not workforce. Everything we have detailed has live data to back it up.1. Sure, Goddard, Marshall, Glenn or any number of other centers could also do this sort of work - but none of them are facing 6,400 job losses and KSC is *capable* of doing it. With the job loss situation *this time* KSC would get automatic priority for this sort of work.2. And the modules like CAM are all mostly completed. They are all sitting in various warehouses, mothballed and still sealed. Systems have certainly been pillaged for other modules, but every one of these grounded payloads I mentioned above can all be unpacked, shipped-out and prepared to fly within 5 years, given that we are allocating a 9-digit budget to each one. That's quite doable.3.Union issues like you mention become irrelevant if you change employer and job title, and Unions always prefer options which keep their members in jobs rather than cuing in unemployment lines. The Unions will not stand in the way of everybody changing from company A to company B and doing similar, but different, work given that the only alternative is everybody leave company A and go nowhere.1. It is not that they could do the work, it is their work. HST hardware is their contractor's. They do the engineering, they do the hands on work. This is not work for KSC to do, regardless of KSC's situation. 2. The only modules that exist are the MPLM's . CAM is not in a warehouse but outside in parking lot rusting. SPP parts have been used to make the DCM.3. The issue is not different companies but different unions. Flight hardware unions (orbiter, ISS, etc) are different than facility (LCC) unions (electricians).
kraisee - 1/4/2008 11:44 PMQuoteJim - 1/4/2008 7:30 PMQuotekraisee - 1/4/2008 5:25 PM2. And the modules like CAM are all mostly completed. They are all sitting in various warehouses, mothballed and still sealed. Systems have certainly been pillaged for other modules, but every one of these grounded payloads I mentioned above can all be unpacked, shipped-out and prepared to fly within 5 years, given that we are allocating a 9-digit budget to each one. That's quite doable.2. The only modules that exist are the MPLM's . CAM is not in a warehouse but outside in parking lot rusting. SPP parts have been used to make the DCM.2) The flight unit is still safely mothballed. The engineering test unit is rotting away though. Perhaps that's the one you're thinking of? Where is the "rusting" one situated?
Jim - 1/4/2008 7:30 PMQuotekraisee - 1/4/2008 5:25 PM2. And the modules like CAM are all mostly completed. They are all sitting in various warehouses, mothballed and still sealed. Systems have certainly been pillaged for other modules, but every one of these grounded payloads I mentioned above can all be unpacked, shipped-out and prepared to fly within 5 years, given that we are allocating a 9-digit budget to each one. That's quite doable.2. The only modules that exist are the MPLM's . CAM is not in a warehouse but outside in parking lot rusting. SPP parts have been used to make the DCM.
kraisee - 1/4/2008 5:25 PM2. And the modules like CAM are all mostly completed. They are all sitting in various warehouses, mothballed and still sealed. Systems have certainly been pillaged for other modules, but every one of these grounded payloads I mentioned above can all be unpacked, shipped-out and prepared to fly within 5 years, given that we are allocating a 9-digit budget to each one. That's quite doable.
Lee Jay - 1/4/2008 3:27 PMISS is a research laboratory. Laboratories are supposed to teach us things. So far, the most important thing we've learned from ISS is that you don't build multi-hundred-ton objects in LEO with a 20 ton launcher. Now that it's getting some research space, we'll start to learn a lot more, but that's the take-home lesson as far as launchers are concerned.
Lee Jay - 1/4/2008 6:38 PMQuotealexterrell - 1/4/2008 5:19 PMQuoteLee Jay - 1/4/2008 5:27 PMISS is a research laboratory. Laboratories are supposed to teach us things. So far, the most important thing we've learned from ISS is that you don't build multi-hundred-ton objects in LEO with a 20 ton launcher. Now that it's getting some research space, we'll start to learn a lot more, but that's the take-home lesson as far as launchers are concerned.Unless you're using inflatables?Do they add up to multi-hundred tons?
alexterrell - 3/4/2008 3:57 AM Another lessons from ISS: Don't put your space stations in high inclination orbits. VSE could have benefited from a low inclination space station.
alexterrell - 3/4/2008 9:57 AMAnother lessons from ISS: Don't put your space stations in high inclination orbits. VSE could have benefited from a low inclination space station.
kraisee - 1/4/2008 4:25 PMJim,Forgive me, but it isn't a myth. We've done an awful lot of research into this now and there are no show-stoppers at all, not budget, not schedule, not technical, not workforce. Everything we have detailed has live data to back it up.Ross.
Jim - 3/4/2008 7:00 AMQuotealexterrell - 3/4/2008 3:57 AM Another lessons from ISS: Don't put your space stations in high inclination orbits. VSE could have benefited from a low inclination space station.that is not a lesson. It is not a big payload hit.