Author Topic: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC  (Read 27824 times)

Offline jcopella

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Orlando, FL
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 7
RE: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #60 on: 04/01/2008 09:59 pm »
Quote
psloss - 1/4/2008  5:27 PM

Quote
Norm Hartnett - 1/4/2008  5:23 PM

Here is how it should be done.

http://www.google.com/virgle/index.html
The idea is likely to get lost in the joke.

If it was anybody but Branson.

I suspect he'll end up having the last laugh.
"I don't think the country is really going to realize what a good deal that we had in the space shuttle until we don't have it anymore." -- Wayne Hale

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17400
  • Liked: 2067
  • Likes Given: 1263
RE: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #61 on: 04/01/2008 10:20 pm »
Quote
jcopella - 1/4/2008  5:59 PM

If it was anybody but Branson.

I suspect he'll end up having the last laugh.
Sure got the first one.

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #62 on: 04/01/2008 11:41 pm »
Quote
Analyst - 1/4/2008  2:11 PM

Quote
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.

This is the part I never got: “Economic development of the solar system”. I still don’t and probably will never get it.

What do you want to do “in the solar system” to make a profit? Because this is what "economic" means in the end (at least within the lifetime of the investor): profit. This profit - and with it the economic development - is soooo far into the future, we all born and living today will never see it. Everything economically useful will center arround earth, as all (few) current commercial space activities do (communication, earth observing, etc.). Because the people using and paying for these services live on earth, not on the Moon or elsewhere in the solar system. And the verse will stay this way for a long time. Noone there, noone benefitting, noone paying. Other than scientific interest, there is no reason for spaceflight - manned or unmanned - beyond the sphere of earth, where people live, can use it and pay for it.

The same can be said about the “national security argument”. Military satellites in earth orbit effect people on earth, may decide wars on earth. This is not true for satellites arround Mars or elesewhere. Because there is noone who can enjoy any security beyond earth and therefore noone pays for it.

So for a very long time - at least a decade, maybe longer - the economic development of the solar system is not possible and can’t be almost by definition. And national security is not enhanced by going to the moon, Mars and beyond (Maybe indirect, but this could be (and has been and still is) achieved much cheaper by dedicated development projects).

So all what remains is science. And if the administration is unwilling to fund a science project, there will be nothing done in space beyond the sphere of earth. Apollo was a one time event, there will never be another Apollo – on steroids or not.

Analyst

Not possible according to whom?  The very first step in that is already underway with the teams who are competing for the google x prize.  That aside, if NASA had done what they were told, and focused on economic activity then the "Architecture" would have ISRU as a central piece of the system.  There is no contradiction here in that originally it was the U.S. government that paid for the development of the panama canal (support trade), the "National" railroad of the 1860's and even the Interstate highway system today (along with Airports).

The common thread is infrastructure.  Unfortunately the ESAS architecture, if economic development is your goal, is the worst possible architecture.  As Boeing and other folks have shown, even it could be improved with a LEO propellant depot (economic activity) an L1 facility, or to bring private enterprise in for the ISRU system.  This is not that much different than COTS and anyone who says that ISRU is not possible, has simply not studied the problem.

The first step in this process is defining economic activity as a goal.  That has been done and NASA completely dropped the ball on the implementation.



Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4926
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 154
RE: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #63 on: 04/02/2008 01:46 am »
this is all very sad..  I hope they the Gov. will put and end to outsourcing to every other nation on the planet, so that these folks have options.

It would also help if the public was behind the program, like with Apollo.
Clearly there are issues with the current admin and vehicle selection, so as to cause this and still leave a nation without assured access to space.. it just Stinks.

How I would be absolutely trilled if another option could be imposed (if that is what is takes) to prevent such carnage and end with another set of moon landings in my lifetime..

I would hate to see the impact assessment of job losses on the rest of the  suppliers/ vendors to the STS system.. its not a good time for this to be happing, yes there is a time for it.. but now?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13125
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4379
  • Likes Given: 797
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #64 on: 04/02/2008 02:10 am »
Quote
psloss - 1/4/2008  9:13 AM

Quote
JIS - 1/4/2008  10:02 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.
I would presume that the document scheduled to be released in about three hours might address that, but you might also look at the NASA budget documentation:
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/

For example, looking at the FY 2009 budget request, it looks like almost the entire shuttle operations budget is "moved" to Exploration / Constellation systems:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/210019main_NASA_FY09_Budget_Estimates.pdf

This tells part of the tale.  Shuttle was a partially reusable system, which required labor at KSC to turn around the "reusable" part of the system.  Orion/Ares will be a mostly expendable system, which will require a larger percentage of the funding to be directed away from KSC, to the places that will repeatedly build the "expendable" parts of the system.  The total pie may be smaller too, but of the pie that remains, KSC would seem to chew on a smaller slice.  

Today, for example, I visited the Titan Missile Museum, south of Tucson, AZ.  The Titan II ICBM silos, the superb tour guides told us, were constantly manned by a crew of four (per missile, each with one warhead).  Today, Minuteman III missiles use a crew of only two, who control ten missiles fitted with a total of up to 30 warheads.  

Progress came to the now-museum Titan silo two decades ago.  KSC is about to be visited by the same inevitable force.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #65 on: 04/02/2008 03:38 am »
Can I ask a question here - are we all upset at the fact that there are job losses?  Or are we upset at the number of job losses?  Or is it some other sort of frustration (don't like VSE, don't like Ares, etc)?

IMHO, it's real simple - Cx has to be cheaper than Shuttle to operate.  Otherwise there is no $ for Lunar Development.  Or the $ that are there, severely impact schedule and capability.  You could also say Cx has to be cheaper than Shuttle because "collective wisdom" tells us Shuttle was too expensive to operate.  YMMV there, but there does seem to be a current flowing against the "high" costs of Shuttle operation (regardless of whether you fly once or 4 times a year).  For reference, you could ballpark Shuttle Ops in a given FY at approx 3.3-4.0B.  (if someone has better numbers then so be it)

Cost for NASA is not a materials game.  It's a people and facilities game. (even with the 'unobtanium')

If GO is to get cheaper, they must get the job done with less people.  

To me the answer would be the same regardless of architecture (DIRECT, EELV, or otherwise)...why?  Because the challenge would be the same: reduce operations cost - either through people or facilities.  I don't think you can really expect to just "do something for cheaper".  Either you are doing less, or using less.  That's how you make the biggest impact on cost overall.
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #66 on: 04/02/2008 03:51 am »
Quote
BeanEstimator - 1/4/2008  10:38 PM

Can I ask a question here - are we all upset at the fact that there are job losses?  Or are we upset at the number of job losses?  Or is it some other sort of frustration (don't like VSE, don't like Ares, etc)?

IMHO, it's real simple - Cx has to be cheaper than Shuttle to operate.  Otherwise there is no $ for Lunar Development.  Or the $ that are there, severely impact schedule and capability.  You could also say Cx has to be cheaper than Shuttle because "collective wisdom" tells us Shuttle was too expensive to operate.  YMMV there, but there does seem to be a current flowing against the "high" costs of Shuttle operation (regardless of whether you fly once or 4 times a year).  For reference, you could ballpark Shuttle Ops in a given FY at approx 3.3-4.0B.  (if someone has better numbers then so be it)

Cost for NASA is not a materials game.  It's a people and facilities game. (even with the 'unobtanium')

If GO is to get cheaper, they must get the job done with less people.  

To me the answer would be the same regardless of architecture (DIRECT, EELV, or otherwise)...why?  Because the challenge would be the same: reduce operations cost - either through people or facilities.  I don't think you can really expect to just "do something for cheaper".  Either you are doing less, or using less.  That's how you make the biggest impact on cost overall.

I wonder about this.  With the expending of just about everything on the Ares 1/Orion system  will it really be cheaper than a Shuttle launch?  A number that I have seen here of $183M dollars for a launch strains credibility as an EELV heavy is more than that and there is no expendable CEV.  I doubt seriously that the cost per flight is going to be less than $500M dollars in the absolute worst case and that does not included the fixed overhead.  Also, what about the fixed overhead at the contractor facilities that are building these things.   Additionally, the ISS version is not the same hardware anymore as the Lunar version so there is a few billion extra DDT&E that was not accounted for before.





Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13125
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4379
  • Likes Given: 797
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #67 on: 04/02/2008 05:01 am »
Quote
wingod - 1/4/2008  10:51 PM

With the expending of just about everything on the Ares 1/Orion system  will it really be cheaper than a Shuttle launch?  A number that I have seen here of $183M dollars for a launch strains credibility .....

NASA is only planning two Ares I/Orion missions per year.  The Agency would have to cut its annual human spaceflight program budget by a factor of 2.0-2.5 for it to be able to even *match* the current per-mission cost of the shuttle program.  It is possible, and perhaps even likely, that NASA's total annual human spaceflight budget will decline even while per-mission costs climb substantially.  

These Ares I/Orion missions seem almost certain to exceed $1 billion per flight.  Some are suggesting that they might cost more than $2 billion per flight.  

 - Ed Kyle

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #68 on: 04/02/2008 05:30 am »
Quote
wingod - 1/4/2008  8:51 PM

I wonder about this.  With the expending of just about everything on the Ares 1/Orion system  will it really be cheaper than a Shuttle launch?  A number that I have seen here of $183M dollars for a launch strains credibility as an EELV heavy is more than that and there is no expendable CEV.  I doubt seriously that the cost per flight is going to be less than $500M dollars in the absolute worst case and that does not included the fixed overhead.  Also, what about the fixed overhead at the contractor facilities that are building these things.   Additionally, the ISS version is not the same hardware anymore as the Lunar version so there is a few billion extra DDT&E that was not accounted for before.

Totally understand where you are coming from...it is the logical extension of the discussion.

If we now agree that GO is being told to "get cheap", and if "getting cheap" means focusing on people and facilities - then the jobs going are a foregone conclusion.  Ok so moving on...  

What remains to be seen is whether or not the operations cost of Cx (Ares I/Orion) will, in fact, be lower than Shuttle.  Additionally, it is unknown as to whether the Cx Ops costs will hit their "target" (i.e. reduce Shuttle costs by, for example, 20%).

Speculate away!
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #69 on: 04/02/2008 05:33 am »
Quote
edkyle99 - 1/4/2008  12:01 AM

Quote
wingod - 1/4/2008  10:51 PM

With the expending of just about everything on the Ares 1/Orion system  will it really be cheaper than a Shuttle launch?  A number that I have seen here of $183M dollars for a launch strains credibility .....

NASA is only planning two Ares I/Orion missions per year.  The Agency would have to cut its annual human spaceflight program budget by a factor of 2.0-2.5 for it to be able to even *match* the current per-mission cost of the shuttle program.  It is possible, and perhaps even likely, that NASA's total annual human spaceflight budget will decline even while per-mission costs climb substantially.  

These Ares I/Orion missions seem almost certain to exceed $1 billion per flight.  Some are suggesting that they might cost more than $2 billion per flight.  

 - Ed Kyle

Ed

Yep, that is my bet as well.


Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #70 on: 04/02/2008 07:32 am »
Sorry wingod, but you are still missing the point.

Quote
That aside, if NASA had done what they were told, and focused on economic activity then the "Architecture" would have ISRU as a central piece of the system.

And who would use (buy) this propellant? The government conducting very few missions to the moon, Mars or beyond. Noone who finally makes a profit nor the military. Because there will be noone who is benefitting. It will still be Boeing, LM, SpaceX or whoever selling their services to the government, just not on earth.

Quote
There is no contradiction here in that originally it was the U.S. government that paid for the development of the panama canal (support trade), the "National" railroad of the 1860's and even the Interstate highway system today (along with Airports).

All these earthbound analogies are very bad. There were private people/companies with ships, railroad cars, automobiles doing the transportation business before all these projects started. There has been a demand to ship goods arround Cape Horn or across the continent and this transportation has been done long before these projects started. Because there were people living at these places, paying for these services. These government funded projects made the transportation business - which has already been there and making profits - easier, cheaper, faster etc.

Spaceflight beyond the sphere of earth is totally different: There are (and for a very long time won’t) be people paying for any service. (There are still no people at the south pole who pay for being there.) There is no business other than government sponsored science, which is no business making a profit.

Your analogy may work for transportation into earth orbit: There are already (limited) businesses (communication, earth observing, etc.), paid for by users living on earth. These businesses would probably expand with lower transportation (aka launch costs) costs into earth orbit. Enter cheaper launch vehicles, which probably have to be reuseable to be cheaper. But the “enabeler” government is turning away from RLVs, because the first and only try did not meet all expectations. As bad as anologies are, it’s like stopping building the national railrod when raching the Rockies. The government fails to help the (few) private businesses existing to make their business easier, cheaper, faster etc.

Quote
This is not that much different than COTS and anyone who says that ISRU is not possible, has simply not studied the problem.

The buyer of COTS services will be the government, as will the buyer of propellant on the moon, Mars or beyond. This may be different with a propellant depot in LEO: Existing businesses (communication or earth observing satellite companies) may buy the fuel too. But the government can support these depots in LEO without going to the moon, Mars or beyond. Should they still go - something I really hope - they do it for science (forget prestige, this worked only once for Apollo), not for economic reasons nor for national security.

Quote
The first step in this process is defining economic activity as a goal. That has been done and NASA completely dropped the ball on the implementation.

No, this has not been done, it has been said. But talk is cheap. There is no definition of what this activity will be, who will use and pay and who will turn a profit. Just because there is noone nor will be beyond the sphere of earth.

Quote
These Ares I/Orion missions seem almost certain to exceed $1 billion per flight. Some are suggesting that they might cost more than $2 billion per flight.

True, sadly. And the bad reusable Shuttle will be cheap in retrospect – well, you can calculate it today already – despite offering much more capabilities.

You can’t go to the moon on a LEO budget and so will remain in LEO. You will end up with less for more or the same money. Someday people will ask why this and maybe the next cycle will bring RLVs back. Because they worked, were less expensive for human spaceflight despite being first generation, and can help existing businesses within the sphere or earth, where people are, where profits can be made.

Analyst

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #71 on: 04/02/2008 03:08 pm »
Quote
Analyst - 2/4/2008  2:32 AM

Sorry wingod, but you are still missing the point.

Quote
That aside, if NASA had done what they were told, and focused on economic activity then the "Architecture" would have ISRU as a central piece of the system.

And who would use (buy) this propellant? The government conducting very few missions to the moon, Mars or beyond. Noone who finally makes a profit nor the military. Because there will be noone who is benefitting. It will still be Boeing, LM, SpaceX or whoever selling their services to the government, just not on earth.

Quote
There is no contradiction here in that originally it was the U.S. government that paid for the development of the panama canal (support trade), the "National" railroad of the 1860's and even the Interstate highway system today (along with Airports).

All these earthbound analogies are very bad. There were private people/companies with ships, railroad cars, automobiles doing the transportation business before all these projects started. There has been a demand to ship goods arround Cape Horn or across the continent and this transportation has been done long before these projects started. Because there were people living at these places, paying for these services. These government funded projects made the transportation business - which has already been there and making profits - easier, cheaper, faster etc.

Spaceflight beyond the sphere of earth is totally different: There are (and for a very long time won’t) be people paying for any service. (There are still no people at the south pole who pay for being there.) There is no business other than government sponsored science, which is no business making a profit.

Your analogy may work for transportation into earth orbit: There are already (limited) businesses (communication, earth observing, etc.), paid for by users living on earth. These businesses would probably expand with lower transportation (aka launch costs) costs into earth orbit. Enter cheaper launch vehicles, which probably have to be reuseable to be cheaper. But the “enabeler” government is turning away from RLVs, because the first and only try did not meet all expectations. As bad as anologies are, it’s like stopping building the national railrod when raching the Rockies. The government fails to help the (few) private businesses existing to make their business easier, cheaper, faster etc.

Quote
This is not that much different than COTS and anyone who says that ISRU is not possible, has simply not studied the problem.

The buyer of COTS services will be the government, as will the buyer of propellant on the moon, Mars or beyond. This may be different with a propellant depot in LEO: Existing businesses (communication or earth observing satellite companies) may buy the fuel too. But the government can support these depots in LEO without going to the moon, Mars or beyond. Should they still go - something I really hope - they do it for science (forget prestige, this worked only once for Apollo), not for economic reasons nor for national security.

Quote
The first step in this process is defining economic activity as a goal. That has been done and NASA completely dropped the ball on the implementation.

No, this has not been done, it has been said. But talk is cheap. There is no definition of what this activity will be, who will use and pay and who will turn a profit. Just because there is noone nor will be beyond the sphere of earth.

Quote
These Ares I/Orion missions seem almost certain to exceed $1 billion per flight. Some are suggesting that they might cost more than $2 billion per flight.

True, sadly. And the bad reusable Shuttle will be cheap in retrospect – well, you can calculate it today already – despite offering much more capabilities.

You can’t go to the moon on a LEO budget and so will remain in LEO. You will end up with less for more or the same money. Someday people will ask why this and maybe the next cycle will bring RLVs back. Because they worked, were less expensive for human spaceflight despite being first generation, and can help existing businesses within the sphere or earth, where people are, where profits can be made.

Analyst

I would submit that it is you that is missing the point.  If you look around at the space world today, you see a system that is dysfunctional to an extreme.  From a $2 billion dollar Mars Science Laboratory, to a $12 billion dollar NPOESS (it started at $5 billion).  You see a system that is groaning under the weight of its own antiquity.  The U.S. defense budget for space is darn near has high as NASA's budget but as a friend of mine in the USAF said a couple of years ago, "in aggregate we are 23 years behind schedule and $78 billion dollars over budget".  

The current processes, methods, and manufacturing base is geared toward a system that is over 40 years old, that cannot be expanded to meet the dramatically different operational requirements that we have today vs the 1960's.  Your thinking is what I quoted in a chapter that I wrote for the National Defense University called a "Geocentric mindset".  This mindset is defined as only looking at the issue of National Space Power theory as a fully earth centric viewpoint.  This viewpoint was put into place in concrete it seems during the McNamara era where he banned anything other than remote sensing and communications as "destabilizing" within the context of the cold war.

Space is larger than NASA's puny efforts at this time and the requirements of the nation in space are far larger than what the system can support today.  Therefore, we must look beyond today's solutions and bring about a new system that can support a much higher NASA, Defense, and Commercial operational tempo.  You simply cannot do that with the current system.  So, what is the solution.  The first solution set is what we called "Ubiquitous Space Operations" defined as the ability to go anywhere and do anything, first in Cislunar space.

You say that there is no need for propellant in space, I beg to differ.  Just this month another $400 million dollar commercial spacecraft was stranded (AMC-14) in a bad orbit.  A low cost propellant capability would spawn a low cost means of rescuing that bird and putting it into a bad orbit.  This happens pretty regularly, about once every 18 months to 2 years.  This puts a LOT of stress on the global insurance market, raising rates, which eventually trickles down to your cable or satellite TV bill.

A couple of years ago, the first FIA launch by the defense department failed on orbit due to a software error.  A robust propellant delivery system would have enabled a servicing craft to go up to that satellite, interface to it, and reboot the darn thing, which was the only problem.  That loss was $2 billion for the spacecraft and about $7 billion for the DDT&E for it.  On top of  that we had to make global news and reveal an operational anti satellite capability, which cost another $60 million dollars just to shoot that bird down.

This is just scratching the surface of the costs that our current everything from the Earth mentality is imposing on the space business.

We now have a beautiful, gleaming space station that can be the springboard in LEO to move outward, first to the Moon, then backwards to GEO (it is less expensive energetically to go to GEO from the Moon than from LEO), then to cover the entire cislunar operational sphere.  This can be done at no more than the current budget for ESAS and you have the temerity to suggest that I am missing the point?

With a robust space operational system such as the implementation of Ubiquitous Space Operations, those jobs at KSC would not be going away, and indeed the space industry would be on the beginning of a growth curve that would last for centuries.

I will take my version of reality over yours any day of the week.



Offline AresWatcher

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 226
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #72 on: 04/02/2008 04:22 pm »
How many workers does 25 percent represent (the retiring guys)?
"One Percent for Space"

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32552
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11357
  • Likes Given: 334
Re: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #73 on: 04/02/2008 04:27 pm »
Around 2000

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #74 on: 04/02/2008 04:51 pm »
Just to interject a little dose of reality here,
Quote
Through the first quarter 2008, job cuts totaled 200,656, up 2.4 percent from the 195,986 cuts in the same period in 2007.
In the greater scheme of things 9,000 jobs over a three year period is a drop in the bucket.

“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6694
  • Liked: 1005
  • Likes Given: 140
RE: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #75 on: 04/02/2008 05:12 pm »
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 2/4/2008  10:51 AM

Just to interject a little dose of reality here,
Quote
Through the first quarter 2008, job cuts totaled 200,656, up 2.4 percent from the 195,986 cuts in the same period in 2007.
In the greater scheme of things 9,000 jobs over a three year period is a drop in the bucket.

You have to be very careful about these numbers.  Many of these are short-term employees whose employment ends (for example, acting troop whose run of a certain play finishes).  Also, these are distributed around the country, not concentrated in a single location.  Losing long-term high-paying jobs from a single location is way, way different than losing short-term possibly lower-paying jobs in a distributed manner.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #76 on: 04/02/2008 05:23 pm »
wingod, some thoughts about your post:

Quote
If you look around at the space world today, you see a system that is dysfunctional to an extreme. From a $2 billion dollar Mars Science Laboratory, to a $12 billion dollar NPOESS (it started at $5 billion). You see a system that is groaning under the weight of its own antiquity.

I am sure improvements are needed and possible. But why isn’t the private, economic, profit making sector using this big opportunitiy you state and is doing better? Spaceflight is not easy or simple.

Quote
"Geocentric mindset"

Because there is noone beyond this earth, nor are there resources we are even remotely capable (technically and cost effective) nor in need of using. And this stays true for a long time to come: Generations.

Quote
Space is larger than NASA's puny efforts at this time and the requirements of the nation in space are far larger than what the system can support today.

Even these small steps done by NASA are very hard and expensive, and not because of the incompetence of everyone. If you were correct, why are other nations or the private sector not doing better?

Please be a little more specific: What are these requirements of the nation, economically or military. Where are they founded?

Quote
The first solution set is what we called "Ubiquitous Space Operations" defined as the ability to go anywhere and do anything, first in Cislunar space.

You fail to say what the “anything” is you will do “anywhere”. I see science, something very noble, but always hard to justify to the taxpayer, as the only thing we will do beyond the sphere of earth for the very long future. Please tell me the interests of the nation at … (put here any planet or moon in the solar system or the vacuum in between), economically or military.

Quote
You say that there is no need for propellant in space, I beg to differ.

Please read again what I said: Propellant depots within the sphere of earth may be useful. But you can have these without expensive ways of going to the moon, Mars and beyond.

Quote
1) A couple of years ago, the first FIA launch by the defense department failed on orbit due to a software error. A robust propellant delivery system would have enabled a servicing craft to go up to that satellite, interface to it, and reboot the darn thing, which was the only problem. That loss was $2 billion for the spacecraft and about $7 billion for the DDT&E for it.

2) On top of that we had to make global news and reveal an operational anti satellite capability, which cost another $60 million dollars just to shoot that bird down.

1) You are talking about USA-193? I am not aware of the failure mode of USA-193 being know in public. Nor do I know if its costs are available. $2 billion sounds very high for a Delta II launched spacecraft. And why are the DDT&E costs lost? But anyway, how would a propellant depot fix the software error?

2) Well, the government choose to do this, I am very sceptical they had to. It’s more likely they wanted. But all this has nothing to do with the topic.

Quote
… then to cover the entire cislunar operational sphere.

One last time: Why cislunar sphere. And why beyond?

Quote
This can be done at no more than the current budget for ESAS and you have the temerity to suggest that I am missing the point?

The current and planned budget is barely able to field a LEO reaching capsule and launcher at or after 2015, nothing more. Temerity: Please keep your tongue in check. No need to get personal.

Analyst

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #77 on: 04/02/2008 05:38 pm »
Quote
Analyst - 2/4/2008  12:23 PM

Quote
If you look around at the space world today, you see a system that is dysfunctional to an extreme. From a $2 billion dollar Mars Science Laboratory, to a $12 billion dollar NPOESS (it started at $5 billion). You see a system that is groaning under the weight of its own antiquity.

I am sure improvements are needed and possible. But why isn’t the private, economic, profit making sector using this big opportunitiy you state and is doing better? Spaceflight is not easy or simple.

Quote
"Geocentric mindset"

Because there is noone beyond this earth, nor are there resources we are even remotely capable (technically and cost effective) nor in need of using. And this stays true for a long time to come: Generations.

Quote
Space is larger than NASA's puny efforts at this time and the requirements of the nation in space are far larger than what the system can support today.

Even these small steps done by NASA are very hard and expensive, and not because of the incompetence of everyone. If you were correct, why are other nations or the private sector not doing better?

Please be a little more specific: What are these requirements of the nation, economically or military. Where are they founded?

Quote
The first solution set is what we called "Ubiquitous Space Operations" defined as the ability to go anywhere and do anything, first in Cislunar space.

You fail to say what the “anything” is you will do “anywhere”. I see science, something very noble, but always hard to justify to the taxpayer, as the only thing we will do beyond the sphere of earth for the very long future. Please tell me the interests of the nation at … (put here any planet or moon in the solar system or the vacuum in between), economically or military.

Quote
You say that there is no need for propellant in space, I beg to differ.

Please read again what I said: Propellant depots within the sphere of earth may be useful. But you can have these without expensive ways of going to the moon, Mars and beyond.

Quote
1) A couple of years ago, the first FIA launch by the defense department failed on orbit due to a software error. A robust propellant delivery system would have enabled a servicing craft to go up to that satellite, interface to it, and reboot the darn thing, which was the only problem. That loss was $2 billion for the spacecraft and about $7 billion for the DDT&E for it.

2) On top of that we had to make global news and reveal an operational anti satellite capability, which cost another $60 million dollars just to shoot that bird down.

1) You are talking about USA-193? I am not aware of the failure mode of USA-193 being know in public. Nor do I know if its costs are available. $2 billion sounds very high for a Delta II launched spacecraft. And why are the DDT&E costs lost? But anyway, how would a propellant depot fix the software error?

2) Well, the government choose to do this, I am very sceptical they had to. It’s more likely they wanted. But all this has nothing to do with the topic.

Quote
… then to cover the entire cislunar operational sphere.

One last time: Why cislunar sphere. And why beyond?

Quote
This can be done at no more than the current budget for ESAS and you have the temerity to suggest that I am missing the point?

The current and planned budget is barely able to field a LEO reaching capsule and launcher at or after 2015, nothing more. Temerity: Please keep your tongue in check. No need to get personal.

Analyst

As for the requirements.  Read any congressional testimony about national defense military systems.  From the problems with SBIRS, TSAT, FIA, Space based radar, and the inability of the contractor community to build these systems, we have both the requirements and the identified shortfalls in the community to build them.  To say that these things are too hard indicates that we should be looking at easier ways to build them, launch them, and then service them.  

It has been my experience (as late as the last 48 hours), that the contractor community has no interest in doing anything but the status quo as they are happy with it and make money.  Innovation is at the bottom of the list.  A major subcontractor was not even able to get the contractors to pay the freight to space qualify a major subsystem that would save both NASA and DoDo money, weight, and volume for spacecraft and this was only a small change in process that gave a 25% increase in performance.  I will absolutely agree with Mike Griffin that the avionics and power systems currently in the design process for Orion are already obsolete in the real world and great savings could be had in the mass of an overweight system but the contractors are uninterested.

As for the cost of FIA, they are known and public and at the low end of the problems that this one system has cost the taxpayers.  

The current planned budget for exploration ignores the $100 billion dollar investment in the space station, which is just one of many mistakes.  Go back to the architectures of the 1980's to see what could have been done with reusable cislunar manned cyclers, reusable landers, and propellant from space that would dramatically decrease the costs of going to and fro in cislunar space.

The current architecture is unaffordable because it is a throw away architecture, no more affordable than throwing away a 747 after every flight.  Until this mindset changes, we are going to continue to fail.

Also, temerity is defined as "audacity" and "fearless daring" which does accurately describe your statement in that is presupposes a level of knowledge and understanding to dismiss out of hand any idea that does not fit within the current structure.  It is my understanding that Samuel Langley spoke with temerity about flight.



Offline James Lowe1

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 847
  • New York City
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #78 on: 04/02/2008 05:50 pm »
Let's please keep it on the "6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC". Some of this is turning into opinionated 'venting'.

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC
« Reply #79 on: 04/02/2008 06:11 pm »
Quote
James Lowe1 - 2/4/2008  12:50 PM

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

James

There is a direct connection to what I have been talking about and the 6,400 jobs at KSC.

The connection is that aerospace is a dying field of enterprise because it has failed to grow and evolve.  The very notion of going back to an Apollo style system without understanding the implications (especially when congress told them to explicitly do so) of what that meant to the community shows this.

Each of these 6,400 jobs (Weldon is now saying that it is closer to 9,000) represents a person, the vast majority of whom work in the space field because they like to be a part of what space represents.  The longer that we ignore that we must change or die, the more likely is that people like this will continue to lose their jobs unnecessarily.  It may seem to you that there is no connection between what I wrote and the jobs, but it is there.



Tags: