Author Topic: Direct thread on job losses  (Read 14601 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Direct thread on job losses
« on: 04/01/2008 08:32 pm »
What we need, but can't afford, is additional work to cover these folk during the "transition years" (for want of a better term).

I don't know any way to do it on the budget NASA needs for Ares, but it *can* be done if your systems aren't so expensive.

That is one of the approaches we've looked at with DIRECT - and yes, you might consider this a blatant plug, but I'm *actually* just trying to use it as a demonstration of *HOW* these staff could be protected if we had the money and DIRECT is the only example I have to demonstrate the point with...


Assuming we chose to retain all of the staff, how do you do it?   We clearly retain everyone involved in launch processing involving anything to do with the ET and SRB's.   Essentially, nothing changes there.

We accelerate the Core Stage by removing all of the long lead pole items from the schedule, like J-2X, 5-segment SRB and re-building the whole of KSC & MAF's infrastructure.

We can essentially start building some elements of Jupiter Core's tomorrow if we chose to.   We put our Test Fit Article and Main Propulsion Test Article(s) down the same production line Shuttle ET's are going down right now - even before the last tanks roll.   By doing this we can realistically have a Test Flight due to fly just before the last Shuttle does.   But to do this we must retain ALL the current contractors and suppliers involved in ET/SRB work today.   We 100% preserve that entire echelon of workforce and infrastructure.

We need Core units to *fly* in 2010, 2011 and 2012.   There's a bunch of valuable work for staff to do to maintain that schedule (although we have 12 months "slippage" already built-in I better say).


That leaves the "Orbiter" as the only real element to worry about - though because of its complexity, about half the Shuttle workforce is assigned to that one element alone.   There are some highly skilled specialists but the majority (at least here at KSC) are technicians who can be retrained.

So, what *could* you do with them if you had the option?

Well, our approach is to accelerate the program quite a lot and add some new (and rather cool) missions specifically to "take up the slack" while we're working to get the Lunar program fully operational - at which point we can use all the staff again.

What do I mean by that?

Well, having gotten rid of the expensive long lead time items (5-seg, MAF, KSC Infrastructure) from the budget, and slowed the rest (J-2X) down, we have now sufficient budget to allow the Orion development work to be accelerated by 2.5 years - to be ready for IOC in September 2012 instead of March 2015.   That is going to require quite a bit of extra effort and workforce to accomplish.   Anyone with the appropriate skills from the Space Shuttle Program would be a major benefit there as soon as they are no longer required by SSP.   One bunch of Orbiter personnel are protected.

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.

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.

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.

TPS.   The new "Payload Bay" modules need TPS, but most of these guys can be retrained.

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.

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.

Hubble SM #5.   Requires Payload processing staff and a whole team to prepare the mission.   Lets use staff we have available.

Lunar Flyby.   Possibly one of the most exciting missions we can enable.   Using a Jupiter-120 and a Delta-IV Upper Stage we can fly around the moon with an Orion as early as 2013!   There's a *huge* amount of work needed though - plenty of work to go around.   The Delta-IV must be human-rated.   It must be integrated with the Jupiter.   Orion's computers must be integrated with its systems too.   Procedures, redundancies, RCS systems, planning, management and processing all need to be done in the 2010-2013 time frame.   That'll sure keep quite a few folk busy.


We pay for all this by deleting Ares-V from the budget entirely (sans EDS of course), by extending the delivery schedule for J-2X by two years, by not requiring any new SRB's and supporting infrastructure, by re-using all of the tooling and processing equipment currently utilized at both MAF and KSC for processing ET/Cores and by removing almost all of the costly changes to the infrastructure at KSC to support not just one, but two new radically different Ares launch systems.

Doing all this effectively saves approximately $2-3bn *every* single year from 2009 thru 2020.   The budget breakdown validates this.

That money is what we use to pay for all these additional missions and to accelerate the program (EDS, CEV, LSAM etc) so those elements can pick staff up much sooner.

Together, this double-punch approach closes the workforce "gap", closes the flight "gap" and provides a realistic mechanism which allows DIRECT to keep all the staff not just employed, but *gainfully* employed.   Wow - its not a boondoggle for a change! :)

And as a side-effect, we also get a lot more return for it too, with all those ISS payloads accomplished instead of wasted, and Hubble refreshed again, plus a Lunar Flyby mission two years before Ares-I will launch its first crew!


Workforce protection *can* be done.   NASA is *choosing* not to.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #1 on: 04/01/2008 09:08 pm »
Quote
kraisee - 1/4/2008  4:32 PM

1.  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.


Ross,

You keep pushing this but it does not save KSC jobs.  It is a myth.   Direct can save some jobs but it is still a small fraction.

1.  Other than loading the SM with propellants, there is no need for OME workers. There is no refurbishment.   See Delta II .  They are built in California.  See below.  See also Centaur and RL-10's.  

2.  There is no work done at KSC on the RS-68.  No refurbishment.  See Delta-IV.  Any rework is done by workers from Stennis or Canoga Park.   This is the SOP for all expendable vehicle.  They only have small resident offices with no techs.  

3.  Those workers have not built anything.  It is not the same as repairing. and who says it would be done at KSC.  

4.  Whose says it is done at KSC.  And it is not one for one.  

5.  Not the same as spacecraft electronics.  Union thing.  

6.  CAM and SPP are no longer grounded, they are gone,  they don't exist anymore.  Would need more money to build new ones. Anyways, like AMS, they would be processed by the contractor who built them and not KSC workers.  Once the payload is finished being built. KSC workers just do a shuttle interface test and put it into the can.  The only payloads that KSC is hands on are the MPLM's

7.   Same as above.   GSFC contractor process the hardware.  SOP

Don't stretch the truth.  Direct can sell on other points.  


Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #2 on: 04/01/2008 09:25 pm »
Jim,
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.

I'm not saying Orbiter people will remain working for the same contractor at all.   While SRB/ET-related operations stay relatively unchanged, on the Orbiter side *EVERYTHING* changes.

Essentially everything Orbiter-related is going to close whether we choose DIRECT, Ares, EELV or elect just to stay home.   That's coming one way or another.

The big problem is whether there are any new contracts waiting to pick up the staff at that point or not.   Right now it doesn't look good at all.   Virtually *anything* would be an improvement over 6,400 job losses out of 8,000 total for KSC.   Similar is expected at MAF too.

Work such as this would be *allocated* to KSC specifically to help save the workforce.   KSC and MAF are going to take the brunt of this so whatever we can do to protect these people is good as far as Congress is concerned.   They seem quite willing to grease the wheels where necessary to make it happen, just as long as there's budget to do so - the key missing ingredient in the Ares-I plan.

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.

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.

There is a huge amount of additional work here - and there is a lot of workers who will be out of jobs.

What it needs is careful management to re-apportion those staff in the best manner so as to accomplish all of the new goals which we can now *afford* to do if we're no longer paying the high costs for Ares.

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.

Nobody is saying it'll be simple and nobody is saying it will be easy.

What I am saying is that it is *doable* if we just choose to try - as long as we can shift the Ares boondoggle out of the way.

We have worked out the detailed budget and included all the replacement/new items too - and this *works* within expected budget limits.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #3 on: 04/01/2008 09:55 pm »
Don't forget the Big Magnet for ISS.

I read that Senator Bill Nelson very much likes that module and getting it up there to ISS will help keep physicists employed analyzing the data.

That Big Magnet also provides an opportunity for the physics community and the space community (usually Beltway funding adversaries) to cooperate for mutual benefit.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #4 on: 04/01/2008 10:04 pm »
Yes, Sen. Nelson has made a point of AMS to Griffin in both of the last Senate hearings.

AMS (Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer) is currently a $1.5bn fully-completed and paid-for paperweight right now.   And AMS is just one of the modules and experiments which aren't going to fly any more.

We are completing the International Space Station because we have obligations and commitments to our foreign partners.

Okay, but what about our obligations and commitments to the US Tax Payers who have been paying for NASA for 50 years?

We must not seriously be planning to just junk *all* of this valuable hardware we've spent years building.   But we have no other realistic choice with the current plan...   Just another reason to change tracks.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8565
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #5 on: 04/01/2008 10:27 pm »
ISS 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.

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #6 on: 04/01/2008 11:19 pm »
Quote
Lee Jay - 1/4/2008  5:27 PM

ISS 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?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #7 on: 04/01/2008 11:30 pm »
Quote
kraisee - 1/4/2008  5:25 PM

Jim,
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).

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8565
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #8 on: 04/01/2008 11:38 pm »
Quote
alexterrell - 1/4/2008  5:19 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 1/4/2008  5:27 PM

ISS 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?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #9 on: 04/02/2008 04:44 am »
Quote
Jim - 1/4/2008  7:30 PM

Quote
kraisee - 1/4/2008  5:25 PM

Jim,
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).


1) The HSM hardware is a payload which will be delivered to KSC, yes - as with every other payload.   I didn't intend for it to sound like KSC would be manufacturing those sorts of payloads, sorry for any confusion.   For flights such as the HSM, it would be the cargo delivery module and the processing and integration for flight which is all work which can, and should, be done at KSC.   A delivery pallet/module is required to fit all the hardware previously utilized on Shuttle missions.   We have a initial concept design which I know you've seen before, and KSC are in a perfectly good position - as good as any other center - to do such work.   They will have the need for the workforce coverage too, so the work will go there quite easily.   It's one of the ten-or-so strings to the bow which we use to cover the "gap" and keep people gainfully employed - even though our gap is two years shorter anyway.

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?

2b) The bulk of SPP still remains - albeit I understand still in Russia.   Certain systems were stripped for DCM, but the bulk of it is still viable.   Sub-systems can be replaced and it can be flight-ready within 5 years, and we don't require it any sooner than that.

3) No matter what else happens, everyone involved in Orbiter is going home with a pink slip sometime shortly after October 1st, 2010.   If the Unions stand in the way of new contracts and contractors picking up those available workers, that just isn't going to be in anyone's interests.   They need to be ready to negotiate these issues if an option like DIRECT manages to create new jobs for those experienced people to go straight into.   And the local Unions appear to be gearing up with the local governments to help ease the gap anyway, so I don't think they'll play "turf-war" in this situation - the press would not be on their side in this situation.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline brihath

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #10 on: 04/02/2008 01:22 pm »
IMO, I think a key piece of the puzzle is sustaining ongoing operations.  If there are flights to be flown, there is hardware to be processed, and you need staff to do this.  The current plan seems to be that NASA and the contractor base will be spending more money on development and testing as opposed to operations.  Any vehicle, either Direct or another,  that gets us into flight status sooner dictates the requirement to employ people at the operational level.

However, I can't imagine how even these steps will retain all of the KSC jobs, but with an architecture that gets us back to flight operations sooner, the losses will be lower.  Current plans call for us to turn over those revenue streams to the other ISS partners for five years, which I believe is in our best interest to avoid or minimize.  I think that once the workforce is lost, it will be more difficult to recover it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #11 on: 04/02/2008 02:59 pm »
"Certain systems were stripped for DCM, but the bulk of it is still viable. "

The main structure is DCM.  


Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #12 on: 04/02/2008 03:25 pm »
Quote
kraisee - 1/4/2008  11:44 PM

Quote
Jim - 1/4/2008  7:30 PM

Quote
kraisee - 1/4/2008  5:25 PM

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.

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?

At JAXA. A co-worker on business saw it. His JAXA colleagues told him it was the pressure hull for the flight unit and that the rotor was never completed. It is always possible that there was a miscommunication but the JAXA folks had very good English.
JRF

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #13 on: 04/02/2008 03:41 pm »
Quote
Lee Jay - 1/4/2008  3:27 PM

ISS 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.

I don't see that. Here are the lessons as I see them with the ISS. First, the lab depended solely on the expensive Shuttle for most of the pieces. When the Shuttle had delays or accidents, that slowed the ISS's construction schedule. Second, the ISS had been altered several times at great cost and too many parties were put in the critical paths. Third, the main purpose of the ISS has been secondary to many political and funding considerations.

Looking at the launches, there have been about 15 major components launched either by Shuttle or by the Proton-K and roughly 30-35 Shuttle flights (quick count on Wikipedia eventually planned for the ISS. I see at least 2 Proton launches as well and a large number of Soyuz launches (looks like at least 20 manned launches and 30 unmanned launches to the ISS). Almost all of the Soyuz launches are supply and crew rotation.

I don't see more than around 30 launches needed to deliver the pieces of the ISS. Masswise it just isn't that difficult. The advantage of the Shuttle was it could handle cargo with greater fairing size and volume. I think it's just a matter of modest cost to fit station components into a smaller launch vehicle. As I see it, a focused effort could have assembled the ISS using 20 ton launch vehicles in a couple of years. Even if one launch vehicle couldn't support that launch frequency, you would have access to several: Proton, Titan IV, and Ariane V. And the EELVs now.
Karl Hallowell

Offline PaulL

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Ottawa, Canada
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #14 on: 04/03/2008 12:11 am »
Quote
Lee Jay - 1/4/2008  5:27 PM

ISS 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.

Lets not forget also that building a large space station with small modules requires a lot more mass. The ISS has probably over 100 mT of extra bulkheads and modules interface equipment which would not be required to build a more "monolithic" station of same capacity/internal space.

PaulL

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #15 on: 04/03/2008 07:57 am »
Quote
Lee Jay - 1/4/2008  6:38 PM

Quote
alexterrell - 1/4/2008  5:19 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 1/4/2008  5:27 PM

ISS 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?

How many of them? Looking at the list of desirable characteristics for a space station, large mass is not one of them.

With hindsight, Shuttle C or a shuttle derived version of Ares V should have been developed before the ISS. But now that we don't have a HLV, that's not an option.

Another lessons from ISS: Don't put your space stations in high inclination orbits. VSE could have benefited from a low inclination space station.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #16 on: 04/03/2008 12:00 pm »
Quote
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.

that is not a lesson.  It is not a big payload hit.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #17 on: 04/03/2008 12:08 pm »
Quote
alexterrell - 3/4/2008  9:57 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.

Some myths sadly never die.

Analyst

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #18 on: 04/04/2008 05:33 pm »
Quote
kraisee - 1/4/2008  4:25 PM

Jim,
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.

Your data is incorrect.  Jim is absolutely right.  For example, how much work do you think we do on the OME after flight?  Why should KSC become the NASA job factory?  They will already be final assembly and checkout of the Orion, probably other vehicles as well.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #19 on: 04/04/2008 07:06 pm »
Quote
Jim - 3/4/2008  7:00 AM

Quote
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.

that is not a lesson.  It is not a big payload hit.

I thought it was if you want to head for the moon.

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #20 on: 04/04/2008 08:22 pm »
Quote
Jim - 1/4/2008  4:08 PM

Quote
kraisee - 1/4/2008  4:32 PM

1.  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.


Ross,

You keep pushing this but it does not save KSC jobs.  It is a myth.   Direct can save some jobs but it is still a small fraction.

1.  Other than loading the SM with propellants, there is no need for OME workers. There is no refurbishment.   See Delta II .  They are built in California.  See below.  See also Centaur and RL-10's.  

2.  There is no work done at KSC on the RS-68.  No refurbishment.  See Delta-IV.  Any rework is done by workers from Stennis or Canoga Park.   This is the SOP for all expendable vehicle.  They only have small resident offices with no techs.  

3.  Those workers have not built anything.  It is not the same as repairing. and who says it would be done at KSC.  

4.  Whose says it is done at KSC.  And it is not one for one.  

5.  Not the same as spacecraft electronics.  Union thing.  

6.  CAM and SPP are no longer grounded, they are gone,  they don't exist anymore.  Would need more money to build new ones. Anyways, like AMS, they would be processed by the contractor who built them and not KSC workers.  Once the payload is finished being built. KSC workers just do a shuttle interface test and put it into the can.  The only payloads that KSC is hands on are the MPLM's

7.   Same as above.   GSFC contractor process the hardware.  SOP

Don't stretch the truth.  Direct can sell on other points.  


The only thing that will save those jobs is another 2 years of STS flights and then transition over to the Shuttle C.  That is why I proposed it in the first place and now people are wailing and gnashing teeth over the job losses.  Shuttle C is not the best technical solution but is the best political solution.



Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #21 on: 04/04/2008 08:44 pm »
Quote
OV-106 - 4/4/2008  1:33 PM

Quote
kraisee - 1/4/2008  4:25 PM

Jim,
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.

Your data is incorrect.  Jim is absolutely right.  For example, how much work do you think we do on the OME after flight?  Why should KSC become the NASA job factory?  They will already be final assembly and checkout of the Orion, probably other vehicles as well.

That is going to account for only 600 jobs of the 6,400 under threat at KSC.  Thats less that 10%.

What we have here are a collection of relatively small contracts which can make use of the normal engineers and technicians available at KSC.   No one of these can save the workforce, but together they represent a work requirement for between 6-7,000 employees - exactly the ballpark we are talking about.

And these contracts will last just long enough to allow the staff to transition into the burgeoning LSAM, EDS and Lunar Base projects as they begin processing new hardware for the test programs happening around 2015-2016.

As I have said before, this has been very carefully planned out.   It takes the excess STS staff which we don't need transferred over to Jupiter processing, and gives them valuable work to do for about 5 years.    That keeps all those staff gainfully employed and places those people in an excellent position ready to be picked up again by the new CxP elements when ready.

Believe it or don't.   I really don't care.   But the people who make these decisions ARE listening and that's all that matters in the end.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2635
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 947
  • Likes Given: 2046
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #22 on: 04/07/2008 12:59 am »
Ross, as an outsider to this discussion, your points do come across as being kinda sugar-coated. I'm having a hard time swallowing this, myself, especially when Jim and OV-106 are raising all these points. I don't doubt that your team has carefully looked at the jobs requirements, and that as a pitch to politicians you want to make it seem as good as you can.

I *do* believe that it's possible to shuffle around tech jobs quite easily (changing shuttle tiles doesn't require a degree), but I am curious that you manage to exactly fit in the workforce requirements with the schedule. Are you favouring one over the other? Are you making compromises? If you could simply outline the logic in, say, a more basic argument in terms maybe of man-hours and so on, I think a lot of us non-experts would have a better understanding of where you are coming from.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #23 on: 04/07/2008 03:50 am »
Quote
kraisee - 4/4/2008  3:44 PM

Quote
OV-106 - 4/4/2008  1:33 PM

Quote
kraisee - 1/4/2008  4:25 PM

Jim,
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.

Your data is incorrect.  Jim is absolutely right.  For example, how much work do you think we do on the OME after flight?  Why should KSC become the NASA job factory?  They will already be final assembly and checkout of the Orion, probably other vehicles as well.

That is going to account for only 600 jobs of the 6,400 under threat at KSC.  Thats less that 10%.

What we have here are a collection of relatively small contracts which can make use of the normal engineers and technicians available at KSC.   No one of these can save the workforce, but together they represent a work requirement for between 6-7,000 employees - exactly the ballpark we are talking about.

And these contracts will last just long enough to allow the staff to transition into the burgeoning LSAM, EDS and Lunar Base projects as they begin processing new hardware for the test programs happening around 2015-2016.

As I have said before, this has been very carefully planned out.   It takes the excess STS staff which we don't need transferred over to Jupiter processing, and gives them valuable work to do for about 5 years.    That keeps all those staff gainfully employed and places those people in an excellent position ready to be picked up again by the new CxP elements when ready.

Believe it or don't.   I really don't care.   But the people who make these decisions ARE listening and that's all that matters in the end.

Ross.

Before I critique any further, are you saying there are 600 positions dedicated to the Orbital Maneuvering Engine, the OME?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #24 on: 04/07/2008 02:39 pm »
Quote
Lampyridae - 6/4/2008  8:59 PM

Ross, as an outsider to this discussion, your points do come across as being kinda sugar-coated. I'm having a hard time swallowing this, myself, especially when Jim and OV-106 are raising all these points. I don't doubt that your team has carefully looked at the jobs requirements, and that as a pitch to politicians you want to make it seem as good as you can.

I *do* believe that it's possible to shuffle around tech jobs quite easily (changing shuttle tiles doesn't require a degree), but I am curious that you manage to exactly fit in the workforce requirements with the schedule. Are you favouring one over the other? Are you making compromises? If you could simply outline the logic in, say, a more basic argument in terms maybe of man-hours and so on, I think a lot of us non-experts would have a better understanding of where you are coming from.

In the short-term (to FY2013) what we're doing is making about $5bn worth of savings on Ares-I's development.   We also save another $1.8bn on infrastructure cost differences too.   There's quite a lot of other changes here and there, but those are the two really big ticket items.

This money is used to speed up development of Orion first and foremost.   But it is also utilized to keep KSC/MAF operating at their full annual budgets.   You have to realize that KSC's budget is *tiny* compared to JSC or especially compared to MSFC.   Keeping the budget line item isn't actually all that difficult if you are no longer spending every single penny you have on just development like we're going to have to do to get Ares-I operational for 2015.

Anyhow, with a fully funded center, there don't need to be any job losses at all.   Many of these staff we actually *need* to remain exactly where they are.   Everyone currently involved in SRB, ET, Launch Ops, and those related jobs will be needed right where they are throughout the transition.   We have flights planned and they need to process them!   We need all of those people because Jupiter-120-X test-flight hardware will be processed through MAF to KSC starting 2009, ready to fly in 2010!

Jupiter-120-Y will go through one year later in the 2010-2011 time frame.

And two more flights, Jupiter-120-Z and Jupiter-1/Orion-4 IOC go in the 2011-2012 period.   That's a minimum of one flight per year throughout the "gap" years - essentially rendering the workforce gap down to just a "couple of slow years".   During that time we are going to need *lots* of new procedures, documentation, support systems and a ton of other things, and I can't think of a better crowd than the on-site staff at KSC to handle that themselves seeing as they are still on the payroll!


The crew flight gap will be only 9 months as long as we can plan the last of the already-contracted Soyuz flights to be scheduled as late as possible in 2011.   If it flies in Decemer, Orion-4 flies to ISS 9 months later in the following September.   I'm sure there would be plenty of American Astronaut volunteers who could stay aboard the station that long.   And it would be a valuable opportunity to gather data for future exploits to the Red planet.

This essentially means we do NOT need to change the law regarding Russia, and we do NOT need to buy any more Russian flights.   We can save that $2bn allocation and instead spend that money on this program instead - a rather handy contribution actually.


Now, how the rest of the staff will be utilized is the big question.   Approximately half of KSC's Shuttle workforce is Orbiter-related and that work essentially has nothing to do with Jupiter nor Orion.

Only 600 staff are all that are required to process Orion's from start to finish (that should answer OV-106's question above BTW).   By protecting the workforce at KSC that's going to leave a lot of Orbiter guys waiting around for new Constellation jobs - if they want them.

There will be about 5 years "gap" there while those elements are still getting up to speed though.      During this period, we are planning that all the staff not being utilized for Jupiter will be divided up into one of a whole cluster of new "small" temporary programs.   There are quite a few of these which will run between 3-6 years in duration and which will, together, utilize all of the skilled and un-skilled workers.   There will be some design work which may need to be farmed out to other centers if KSC can't handle that, but the bulk of the work for these mini-programs will be allocated at KSC whenever possible.   Each team will build and create whatever things it is allocated, and staff will have to learn to do the Shuffle if they want their jobs secure - but secure they will be.

I am not going to get into the specific money and man-hour details here on a public forum because this will very quickly become proprietary information and I'm wary about prejudicing things at this early stage.

What I will say is that our detailed projections indicate that KSC will actually see a small *increase* in its yearly budget for a few years here - in the order of $50-100m per year extra from 2011 thru 2016 at which point those projects will all be over, and the staff will be fully integrated back into the Exploration Program proper.

It's complicated.   I wish there were an easy way to describe it, but there just isn't.   I'm doing the best I can here, but I'm only covering large brush-strokes at my best.   It's a *lot* more complicated than this explanation makes it sound when you actually get down into the budget details though.   Frankly it gives me a headache :)

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Steve G

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • Ottawa, ON
    • Stephen H Garrity
  • Liked: 615
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #25 on: 04/22/2008 03:52 pm »
Speaking of job losses or Direct related job retainment (This is the thread for this, isn't it?)  have the unions been contacted?  If I was an employee at Michoud or anywhere else that Direct would keep me employed, I'd be raising hell.  I'd plaster every windshield of every car in the parking lot with those baseball cards.  I'd be going after the union local.  I'd be writing the mayor, the governor, the media and holy cow, this is an election year, isn't it? I'd be hell bent to get noticed.

 In a perfect world, find a few patriotic, sacrificial lambs who are part of the Ares team have a high profile mass resignation, have a news conference, and begin an all out insurrection against Ares.

This is not just a technical issue or a choice between architecture.  It's a political issue.  You have to approach it as such.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #26 on: 04/23/2008 05:06 am »
I'm all-for every worker at KSC and Michoud standing up and protecting their butts.

We're doing everything we can to help these people, but having them on the case and pushing the Unions to action as well would help us enormously.

We believe that with DIRECT it is possible to save every job.

We are actually talking internally about approaching the Unions to offer some sort of guarantee to Shuttle staff that they will have a job through the transition years.

The critical issue though, is that with no job confidence on the horizon - can the Shuttle Program seriously expect to keep the staff motivated and focussed on flying out the last flights completely safely?   Or will the staff be spending all their time looking for work elsewhere as D-Day draws closer and closer?

We simply do not believe Shuttle can hope to safely operate to the end of 2010 if 90%l of its staff know they aren't going to be employed after 2010.

The organization I'm convinced will be torn asunder by this is United Space Alliance (USA).   Anyone working for them today is in deep, deep, trouble 18 months from now.

If people would like pamphlets to stick on windscreens at work - I will happily produce them.   Let me know what the interest level is here on this thread or by PM.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #27 on: 04/23/2008 04:50 pm »
Quote
kraisee - 22/4/2008  12:06 AM

I'm all-for every worker at KSC and Michoud standing up and protecting their butts.

We're doing everything we can to help these people, but having them on the case and pushing the Unions to action as well would help us enormously.

We believe that with DIRECT it is possible to save every job.

We are actually talking internally about approaching the Unions to offer some sort of guarantee to Shuttle staff that they will have a job through the transition years.

The critical issue though, is that with no job confidence on the horizon - can the Shuttle Program seriously expect to keep the staff motivated and focussed on flying out the last flights completely safely?   Or will the staff be spending all their time looking for work elsewhere as D-Day draws closer and closer?

We simply do not believe Shuttle can hope to safely operate to the end of 2010 if 90%l of its staff know they aren't going to be employed after 2010.

The organization I'm convinced will be torn asunder by this is United Space Alliance (USA).   Anyone working for them today is in deep, deep, trouble 18 months from now.

If people would like pamphlets to stick on windscreens at work - I will happily produce them.   Let me know what the interest level is here on this thread or by PM.

Ross.

At KSC the union staff is quite small.  The recent strike did not stop shuttle operations so wouldn't go hunting there.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #28 on: 04/23/2008 05:04 pm »
Quote
kraisee - 22/4/2008  12:06 AM

I'm all-for every worker at KSC and Michoud standing up and protecting their butts.

We're doing everything we can to help these people, but having them on the case and pushing the Unions to action as well would help us enormously.

We believe that with DIRECT it is possible to save every job.

We are actually talking internally about approaching the Unions to offer some sort of guarantee to Shuttle staff that they will have a job through the transition years.

The critical issue though, is that with no job confidence on the horizon - can the Shuttle Program seriously expect to keep the staff motivated and focussed on flying out the last flights completely safely?   Or will the staff be spending all their time looking for work elsewhere as D-Day draws closer and closer?

We simply do not believe Shuttle can hope to safely operate to the end of 2010 if 90%l of its staff know they aren't going to be employed after 2010.

The organization I'm convinced will be torn asunder by this is United Space Alliance (USA).   Anyone working for them today is in deep, deep, trouble 18 months from now.

If people would like pamphlets to stick on windscreens at work - I will happily produce them.   Let me know what the interest level is here on this thread or by PM.

Ross.

Ross,

With respect here, stick to your message about the concept you have and try to continue to sell it if you like.  

While I've always been a fan of the concept, after all it's not new and has been around for many, many years, I'm having trouble with your salesman side of the house.  Trying to force this down everyone's throat about how it can save this or that and every job is not realistic even with a direct-style architecture.  

I do work for USA.  Where the hell is your proof we can't fly safely as we get to 2010?  Everyone knows things are going to change one way or another with whatever the architecture ends up to look like.  No one who actually works in this business is oblivious to that and we do not need you to offer pamphlets like some second rate solicitor.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #29 on: 04/23/2008 08:37 pm »
The issue for STS safety is going to be over the next 18 months, with the majority of people facing a pink slip at KSC (63.5 to 71.1% redundancy rate according to NASA's own numbers) and Michoud (57.9 to 68.4% redundancy rate), how many of the staff there today are going to stay to the bitter end?   How many are going to get out now while there are still jobs to go to?  
How many will wait until everyone else starts rushing around realizing they aren't going to be able to pay their mortgages and kids college funds within a few months time?

Do we really think most people will stay to the end and then try to figure out their career paths only once they have the pink slip in hand and there are thousands of other people all flooding the job market?

No.   People are beginning to leave the program now.   Its only a trickle right now, but it won't be as D-Day gets ever-closer.   I guarantee that the smart folk, those with experience and skills that are in demand, are the ones who will make sure they get out well before the final crunch.   Some are already planning to get clear before the rush comes sets in.   There are lots of resumes already floating about out there by all accounts.   As more people really admit to themselves what is coming, that trickle will turn into a flood before the end.

Ultimately, this is going to mean that the last handful of Shuttle flights will end up being prepared without full staffing.

The point I'm trying to make is:   Understaffed, how will Shuttle manage to remain as safe as it is today?

I don't believe that's a realistic assumption.

And I don't believe most people have so far given it much thought, but its going to be an issue.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct thread on job losses
« Reply #30 on: 04/24/2008 01:43 am »
Quote
kraisee - 23/4/2008  3:37 PM

The issue for STS safety is going to be over the next 18 months, with the majority of people facing a pink slip at KSC (63.5 to 71.1% redundancy rate according to NASA's own numbers) and Michoud (57.9 to 68.4% redundancy rate), how many of the staff there today are going to stay to the bitter end?   How many are going to get out now while there are still jobs to go to?  
How many will wait until everyone else starts rushing around realizing they aren't going to be able to pay their mortgages and kids college funds within a few months time?

Do we really think most people will stay to the end and then try to figure out their career paths only once they have the pink slip in hand and there are thousands of other people all flooding the job market?

No.   People are beginning to leave the program now.   Its only a trickle right now, but it won't be as D-Day gets ever-closer.   I guarantee that the smart folk, those with experience and skills that are in demand, are the ones who will make sure they get out well before the final crunch.   Some are already planning to get clear before the rush comes sets in.   There are lots of resumes already floating about out there by all accounts.   As more people really admit to themselves what is coming, that trickle will turn into a flood before the end.

Ultimately, this is going to mean that the last handful of Shuttle flights will end up being prepared without full staffing.

The point I'm trying to make is:   Understaffed, how will Shuttle manage to remain as safe as it is today?

I don't believe that's a realistic assumption.

And I don't believe most people have so far given it much thought, but its going to be an issue.

Ross.

When you make statements like this you show how out of touch you are with the true and real space program.  

The very fact that you don't believe people have given it much thought is nothing but flat out wrong.  It will be a challenge to retain some but if you believe folks are turning a blind eye to it then you are even more naive than I initially thought.

You are drifting way off message by making statements like this.  Your credibility has been damaged.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1