Author Topic: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC  (Read 27661 times)

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #20 on: 04/01/2008 02:20 PM »
Quote
JIS - 1/4/2008  9:02 AM

Can 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.

That was always part of the plan to some degree.  Money from not continuing shuttle ops would be freed up to invest in Constellation development.  

We are getting no real net increase and never have.  NASA is funding Shuttle, ISS and Constellation all within the same budget they have always had.  In addition, we still have aeronautics, roboitc probes, etc.  So you now see why tough choices have had to be made.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jeff Lerner

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 426
  • Toronto, Canada
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #21 on: 04/01/2008 02:28 PM »
How 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.....

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6683
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #22 on: 04/01/2008 02:32 PM »
Quote
OV-106 - 1/4/2008  7:46 AM

Before 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.

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #23 on: 04/01/2008 02:33 PM »
Quote
Wildthing - 1/4/2008  3:28 PM

How 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.....

As OV-106 said redirecting workload from KSC means people in other states will be employed.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #24 on: 04/01/2008 02:37 PM »
Quote
Lee Jay - 1/4/2008  9:32 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 1/4/2008  7:46 AM

Before 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.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #25 on: 04/01/2008 02:38 PM »
Quote
wannamoonbase - 1/4/2008  5:09 AM
Smells a bit like a play to increase funding for Orion and Ares to keep the work force numbers up.
Could be... but I doubt it.
1. Everybody agrees that the ground processing of the shuttle program is one of the reasons it costs so much and must be discontinued. Well, a significant part of that is the people. Orion/Ares was never going to preserve those jobs because doing so would mean the new program had unacceptable fixed costs. We would never be able to afford airline travel if each airliner needed a staff of 8000+ to maintain it between flights. Advocates of other ideas have touted the job-saving nature of those options... but that's another reason why those options were not the ones chosen. This sounds cold, and it is, which is why everybody in government delayed facing it for so long even as they all planned to do it.

2. The administration approved of this plan long ago when it approved of the plan to shift from STS to Cx; The administration might squirm a bit on the politics, but I doubt they'll now throw Griffin over the transom for doing what the administration and congress have jointly pushed him into doing.

3. The congress approved of this plan long ago when it signed-on to the transition and it has deliberately made the problem worse by choosing to make "the gap" longer by underfunding NASA. Congress has been given the chance to reduce the gap (possibly reducing the need to cut as deeply into the workforce during "the gap") and has deliberately chosen not to do so. Oh, they might call him up to the hill and grill him, but they have forced this issue, so it will all be political and for the benefit of the C-SPAN cameras. Mike's a smart guy, so he will understand this as well. Politics is often theater.

People should not be salivating over the prospect that this report will shock the politicians in D.C. and cause Mike Griffin to finally get what some here seem to think is coming to him. I am sure there will be political posturing (particularly by opponents of the administration, and by members of congress from affected districts) but the posturing politicians should be viewed as Capt. Renault in Casablanca when he is "shocked" that gambling is happening in the casino (just before he asks for his winnings). Every member of congress (including Senators Obama, Clinton, and McCain) are in the same rowboat with President Bush on this one; they could have reduced the impact and chose no to. Going forward, they could still reduce the impact and shorten "the gap" with more money, but Bush has submitted his last budget and none of the Senators running for president will spend any time on the matter this year.

I feel for all of those who will be affected, and hope that as many of these jobs as possible will be from people at or close to retirement anyway.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #26 on: 04/01/2008 02:40 PM »
Quote
Wildthing - 1/4/2008  10:28 AM

How 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.....

There is no such thing as a 'limited" shuttle program.   The shuttle program costs around 3 billion per year whether it flies or not


Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #27 on: 04/01/2008 02:41 PM »
Quote
Wildthing - 1/4/2008  9:28 AM

How 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.....

It's not that simple.  Shuttle ops are essentially a fixed price due to the people you need to employ to support.  Flying only a couple of times a year does not have a significant cost impact.  

The bottom line is more money is needed.  It can be allocated in continuing the shuttle ops and Constellation development independant of that or more money to try to accelerate CxP development and bring it on sooner.

Keeping the shuttle alive with no additional money will just kick the gap down the road but not decrease it.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17323
  • Liked: 1834
  • Likes Given: 1118
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #28 on: 04/01/2008 02:45 PM »
Quote
OV-106 - 1/4/2008  10:37 AM

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.
To embellish this point, look at a Congressional Research Service report that was highlighted by wingod in another thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=12514&start=1

NASAWatch also noted the same report, but for different reasons; more to the point here:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/04/vse_no_bucks_no.html

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #29 on: 04/01/2008 02:54 PM »
Quote
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.

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).

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22486
  • Liked: 804
  • Likes Given: 295
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #30 on: 04/01/2008 03:07 PM »
In 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.
And this is a good reminder that just because one of your fellow space enthusiasts occasionally voices doubts about the SpaceX schedule announcements or is cautious about believing SpaceX has licked a problem before actually seeing proof that's true, it doesn't mean they hate SpaceX.

Offline Rob in KC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #31 on: 04/01/2008 03:08 PM »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 1/4/2008  9:54 AM

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).

Interesting curve ball there Chris. Are you talking about it being a better decision to try and reduce the gap with a wide ranging restructuring of NASA?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #32 on: 04/01/2008 03:11 PM »
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 1/4/2008  10:07 AM

In 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.

Well you shouldn't fear competetion.  That's real wherever you go.  I'm not sure why you think there are going to be fewer jobs.  If you are determined to be at KSC then you're probably right for the first few years after you graduate.
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: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #33 on: 04/01/2008 03:20 PM »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 1/4/2008  9:54 AM

Quote
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.

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).

My bad on the "hate" word and for using it but I do get the impression of dislike and disdain which I was trying to address.  

Not having the money is very much a factor in this.  CxP 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.  

It's well known that certain politicians do not care for Griffin.  This is due partially to politics I believe and putting on a show for their constituents.  There is ample blame to go around and Griffin and company can share in that.  However, I think more goes to Congress and the Administration for making promises of funding and never backing it up.  

As for COTS and ISS, Griffin is in a tough situation.  There is and will be an operational station NASA will somehow have to maintain.  Preferably, that would be with COTS but those are high risk items with the potential of never happening.  Russia is a high risk but the hardware is there but the politics are on shakey ground.  What way do you go?  It's a tough call with a already limited and overtaxed agency budget how do you get more money for COTS?  If Congress and the Administration wanted to axe the Russian reliance, they certainly could.  NASA does not have the power to do that or make more money than what they have been allocated.  
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #34 on: 04/01/2008 03:28 PM »
Quote
OV-106 - 1/4/2008  4:20 PM

CxP 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?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #35 on: 04/01/2008 03:54 PM »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 1/4/2008  10:28 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 1/4/2008  4:20 PM

CxP 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?

I believe it's a combination but heavy on the political side.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #36 on: 04/01/2008 04:36 PM »
Quote
OV-106 - 1/4/2008  9:37 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 1/4/2008  9:32 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 1/4/2008  7:46 AM

Before 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.

You 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.



Offline PaulyFirmbiz

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #37 on: 04/01/2008 04:44 PM »
im 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...

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #38 on: 04/01/2008 04:55 PM »
Quote
wingod - 1/4/2008  11:36 AM

You 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.



That's a little silly if you believe that is the case.  Economic development can only happen if you have the means to get there.  How can you tout economic development of anything if you don't have the funding to develop the very vehicles baselined to take you there?  

The promised funding never showed up even in the first or second budget after the VSE was announced and endorsed by Congress with the NASA Autorization Act.
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: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #39 on: 04/01/2008 04:57 PM »
Quote
PaulyFirmbiz - 1/4/2008  11:44 AM

im 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...

The reason the Russians do it far cheaper than we do is the difference in their economics and standard of living.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Tags: