Author Topic: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC  (Read 27676 times)

Offline Tim S

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • MSFC
  • Liked: 187
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #80 on: 04/02/2008 06:48 PM »
Yeah but Dennis, there comes a point where some people are repeating themselves so much with the doom and gloom it becomes monotonous to the point of a Jeffrey Bell op ed about how he would have done it better if he was in charge of NASA. You're speaking to the wrong crowd here if it's negative and brings nothing to the table. No offense, but someone needed to say it.

Let's look to the future, not the past.

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1663
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #81 on: 04/02/2008 09:09 PM »
Quote
James Lowe1 - 2/4/2008  8:50 PM

Let's please keep it on the "6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC". Some of this is turning into opinionated 'venting'.

It would only be fair for someone to start a thread here, named "6,400 equivalent jobs to be gained at xyz-somewhere".

As NASA's budget remains constant, if 6,400 spacecraft-pipe-fitter-equivalent jobs vanished from x site, then at y site, 6,400 spacecraft-pipe-fitter-equivalent jobs would materialize.

=======

IOW the correct premise for drama here is site specific, not number nor method specific.


Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #82 on: 04/02/2008 11:29 PM »
Most of the cash saved is to be used for all the development work involved in the current plan.

That means that 4 technicians being paid $25K each at KSC/MAF each are being replaced by 1 design guy being paid $100K at MSFC.

Great for Alabama.   Really bad for Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi though.

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

Offline Scotty

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Merritt Island, Florida
  • Liked: 663
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #83 on: 04/03/2008 01:26 AM »
That would be more like 3 $35K techs or 2 $50K techs being replaced by 1 $100K engineer.
Still, there will be a lot of $20K to $30K jobs lost at KSC over the next few years.

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #84 on: 04/03/2008 02:17 PM »
Quote
Tim S - 2/4/2008  1:48 PM

Yeah but Dennis, there comes a point where some people are repeating themselves so much with the doom and gloom it becomes monotonous to the point of a Jeffrey Bell op ed about how he would have done it better if he was in charge of NASA. You're speaking to the wrong crowd here if it's negative and brings nothing to the table. No offense, but someone needed to say it.

Let's look to the future, not the past.

Oh Tim, you cut me to the core!

Thanks for that, I need to craft this better to get the point across.  I am just so incredibly incensed at how this slow train wreck is happening that sometimes I just want to scream.

I am going to write a few long missives on the underlying philosophy of why space, as this seems to be at the core of why these things happen.

Oh by the way, I am paid from time to time by NASA to figure out better ways of doing architectures so from that perspective I have been many times part of the team that has helped to craft these things.



Offline Formant

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #85 on: 04/04/2008 06:41 AM »
I have to agree with Mr. Hartnett and wingod. IANARS, but I know a little about economics, politics and marketing. NASA, simply put, does not have a product to sell that is worth what it needs to survive, much less for what it needs to grow and thrive. wingod's referencing the Pacific Railroad Act as a possible model for NASA's future has, as Analyst pointed out, some basic flaws. wingod's basic premise, however, of the federal government investing vast sums of cash into building the infrastructure to bootstrap industries in a whole new realm is basically sound. What is missing is a reason to build the infrastructure. What is needed is for the government (NASA, in this case) to provide the initial mission for the infrastructure along with the infrastructure itself.

You want a "mission" which is big enough to require building a big (20 person or larger, preferably much larger) permanent base on the moon along with developing ISRU there. You also want a "mission" that requires launching enough mass to various orbits and the moon so that your launch infrastructure is pushed hard to deliver. The "mission" must be one that requires only classical engineering and no Technology X or unobtainium alloys. The "mission" must promise to not only improve Americans' quality of life in little ways, but in huge ways, and make the United States the undisputed world industrial leader again in no uncertain terms. Finally, the "mission" must be to "Save the world!" (you want a couple $trillion for this, right? You are competing with the "need" to kill angry, scary-looking folks who all speak a weird language Americans don't understand. Your "mission" MUST be more important than that).

Wow! Pretty tough, huh? And where can you find such a "mission"? Actually, it is pretty easy. Orbital solar power collection. That would justify building the launch infrastructure that you want, be it Ares 1+5, Jupiter, or what have you. That would get you your moon base and some manufacturing infrastructure on the moon and in orbit. That manufacturing infrastructure need not be terribly complex, as all you will be doing with it is making propellent and building girders and photovoltaic panels. Finally, you get to "Save the world!" by fighting Global Warming, making electricity "too cheap to meter" and giving the US the most awesome export commodity ever (Once the infrastructure is in place, how much do you think it would actually cost to build a 10 gigawatt satellite? How much would Germany, France, Japan or especially China pay for a couple of them?).

The ultimate goal of this whole thing, however, is to make the mission budget big enough that issues like developing an efficient NTP motor or a modern F-1 become minor technical details. Launch traffic will increase dramatically, as will the number of facilities and personnel stationed long term off of Earth. This will drive down launch costs. It will also provide lots of opportunities for private enterprises to get a manned industrial foothold in space, initially just in support roles, but eventually doing their own thing.

Fact is, we don't need any more space science than what can be carried out with robots. If you want manned space flight, you NEED to be talking about industrial activity. NASA has done the basics already. . .they don't need to do them again. When the US returns to the moon, it should be for industrial development, not science. The easiest and most valuable industry to develop in space is power collection. That makes the path to follow to get a budget for your favorite rocket a no-brainer.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32443
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #86 on: 04/04/2008 08:03 AM »
Quote
Formant - 4/4/2008  2:41 AM

 The easiest and most valuable industry to develop in space is power collection.

It is hasn't be proven if SPS is even viable.  It may not the killer application.  It is another holy grail.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8511
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 353
  • Likes Given: 155
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #87 on: 04/04/2008 09:12 PM »
Quote
pad rat - 4/4/2008  5:43 PM
It's not a holy grail - yet. There should be an R&D effort to determine whether it is technically viable. Then, after a test article or two (or more) are flown, determine if it is economically viable.

I believe that it is a holy grail as well.

There is a major Earth problem - producing a 5 mile circular building zone near every town in which homes, offices, factories, shops, children and farm animals are banned.  This is where the ground collector lives.

The microwave collector could be moved to a desert.  In which case it can be replaced by solar panels, solar thermal generators or wind turbines.

There are villages and military bases that could do with 100 kW of power.  So a viability test is to build a satellite and ground receiver that produce 100 kW of power.  The military may be willing to pay 10 times what everyone else does in say some of the wilder areas of Afghanistan.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 985
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #88 on: 04/05/2008 09:23 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 1/4/2008  10:30 AM
Analyst, thats really a topic for a different thread, but I tend to agree.   There isn't much commercially viable use for space yet beyond what we already use it for
Strategic resources.
There are several types of strategic resources out there, that will become very, very relevant in not too distant future. Whether you guys want to leave it up to Norilsk Nickel to control, up to you.

But other emerging economies are coming to a realization that earth, with its relatively "unfair" geographical distribution of scarce resources just has that much of each available, and everyone ultimately wants their piece. Global population isnt exactly declining too.
Opening up new mines off earth will be a transformative event.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Tags: