Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/02/2011 12:29 amIf you're uncivil, you lose your post. If you respond to an uncivil post, you lose your post.It's not rocket science.Right then, no one's taken on my post, and with respect, RE's post "didn't do it for me" So..........it's just about some people being anti-NASA, anti-Shuttle.Anyone want to prove me wrong?PS RE's post did remind me I need to write up that presentation!For me the only reason I am "anti-shuttle" or "anti-hlv" is because I strongly believe that the long term budget trend for NASA is a downward slope. I fear that in an environment of budget overruns and shrinking budgets that the HLV will consume an ever larger part of NASA's budget till earth sciences and unmanned exploration all but cease to exist.If congress came out with a 22 Billion dollar budget and added 1-2 billion a year for the next 10 years I would be the 1st one cheering HLV development. I trust ULA because they have a history of on time delivery on budget, I have faith in SpaceX because they have only been given fixed cost contracts, and even though they are behind schedule, the over budget part does not effect NASA.I think this last year has shown us who runs NASA, it's not Bolden, it's Senator Shelby et all. I have ZERO faith that Senator Shelby and the others see HLV as anything more than campaign donations and clout for their district.If you in this forum, your 99% likely pro space flight, I just wish the pro Ares 5, Ares 5 redux, Shuttle extension crowd could at least see that the ones that are not pro HLV are not anti HSF, we are just worried HLV is driving NASA's Ford Gremlin into a brick wall.
If you're uncivil, you lose your post. If you respond to an uncivil post, you lose your post.It's not rocket science.Right then, no one's taken on my post, and with respect, RE's post "didn't do it for me" So..........it's just about some people being anti-NASA, anti-Shuttle.Anyone want to prove me wrong?PS RE's post did remind me I need to write up that presentation!
"Jobs Program" Seeing this a lot of late, and I've got to be honest, I really, really don't get posts complaining about "job's program". So, rather than moaning about it, let me ask you about it
To the original article and post...I will caveat my response first. I have sympathy for our contractor friends who have or will lose their jobs from the changes going on with our space program. I have personally lost contractors on my team over the last year due to the pending cancellation of Ares. What some/most people who will read this article do not realize is the situation could have been avoided to some extent. Hiring workers either direct or through subs doesn't make business sense on a contracted program that has been announced for termination. Yes..that is correct.. As soon as a month ago Boeing was hiring contractors to work Ares. I expect they were planning to transfer those folks to HLV eventually. And to be fair they are under contract for manufacturing and assembly for the Upper Stage until October. However I'm sure the contract milestones they do have to meet under program of record don't require an increase in manpower. In my mind this article as well as the editorial in the Huntsville times a few weeks back represent scare tactics and political games being played out in the media. Should Congress get off the dime and pass a budget? YES. Does NASA need to define a mission and vehicle to support that mission ? YES. Should layoff threats be used to influence gain for sole source contracts? No.
Scare tactics? With all due respect to you, I assume you are NASA. It is easy to say "we need to define a plan", etc when your job is not at risk. You know you will have a job. You know you will have a paycheck your family can count on. You know that you will remain in this industry. You know that you don't have the strain of having to finish a job and then compete with thousands of others (assuming one stays in this industry at all) for a reasonably few number of jobs. You know that you don't have to sell your home or if you will be able to sell your home.You don't have to worry, if you do get a job somewhere in this industry somewhere else, if your family will be happy there.
In the long run, with a vibrant, new space industry that generates actual wealth, the jobs will be real, productive and sustainable, no longer reliant on a broken budget and a fickle Congress for the opening of a new frontier.
Oh, I think there is enough blame to go around. NASA, the President of the United States, the Congress...
I have my own opinions about SLS, but I must say one thing:It sucks for the average worker. I know how hard it is to find a job these days. I heard a statistic this morning that the average time for a job hunt is now 39 weeks.
To do anything but lay them off would be ridiculous.You can't just demand for someone to pay you to begin building something/anything just to ensure your staff have jobs.
While I can empathize with Mr Shaw, if this is a new vehicle (it is), isn't NASA required by FAR regulations to competitively bid the work? Not trying to justify any "foot-dragging", just trying to ask a question. Wasn't Aerojet recently making the claim that even the SRB contract (if they go SDHLV) would have to be bid competitively?
SEC. 302. SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM AS FOLLOW-ON LAUNCH VEHICLE TO THE SPACE SHUTTLE.<snip>(b) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall, as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act, initiate development of a Space Launch System meeting the minimum capabilities requirements specified in subsection (c).(2) MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS.—In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs and support critical capabilities, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph (1), including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System.
Quote from: Calorspace on 04/02/2011 08:07 amTo do anything but lay them off would be ridiculous.You can't just demand for someone to pay you to begin building something/anything just to ensure your staff have jobs.Those people embody a capability for their employer to undertake Aerospace work.If they need to lay off that capability due to short-term politics, how much do you think it will cost them to build it back up when NASA comes calling with a new contract in a year or two's time? How much less competent will that workforce be until they've taken a year or two (??) to settle back into the swing of things. How long did it take NASA to reinstate capabilities lost when Apollo was closed down?If their competitor has retained their capabilities, how would Boeing be able to compete against them for this contract? Basically, Boeing are out of that sector of the business semi-permanently and/or it costs NASA much more than was expected and budgeted for.MSFC has been accused of doing a poor job in running the Ares I upper stage project because they had completely lost the capability, and were building that back up as part of this project.Quote from: jongoff on 04/01/2011 05:00 pmWhile I can empathize with Mr Shaw, if this is a new vehicle (it is), isn't NASA required by FAR regulations to competitively bid the work? Not trying to justify any "foot-dragging", just trying to ask a question. Wasn't Aerojet recently making the claim that even the SRB contract (if they go SDHLV) would have to be bid competitively?NASA was specifically instructed to novate existing contracts where possible in Public Law 111-267 (previously S.3729):-QuoteSEC. 302. SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM AS FOLLOW-ON LAUNCH VEHICLE TO THE SPACE SHUTTLE.<snip>(b) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall, as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act, initiate development of a Space Launch System meeting the minimum capabilities requirements specified in subsection (c).(2) MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS.—In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs and support critical capabilities, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph (1), including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System.(My highlight)."...shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to" [develop the Space Launch System].Regarding Aerojet, ATK seem to get a shoe-in - "extend or modify existing ... contracts ... including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors".cheers, MartinEdit 1: can't believe we got to post #73 in this thread before someone brought up the contract clause in PL 111-267. Surely it applies here?Edit 2: now I wonder if it does. The existing contract is Ares I upper stage, not directly applicable to a LEO-only SDLV by 2016.
What you are trying to describe, I think, is people being hired, and paid, to do little in the way of producing value. They are being hired for the sole purpose of making sure they can collect a paycheck. I have to tell you that nobody in their right mind would hire people to do that. And for folks to insinuate that is what is going to happen at NASA is just plain wrong and destructive to civil conversation. Find another term - please - because what you are so deathly afraid of just isn't going to happen. There will *NOT* be a "jobs program" put in place to pay people to do nothing. That is not going to happen folks, so just get off it, ok? Please! Jobs programs hire people to produce value for their wages, and anybody hired to perform on any NASA contract is going to be earning their pay by actually working for it. There is and will not be any NASA welfare program.
SpaceX has a lot of kudos from people like me because have much less administration. Less fat, more muscle.