Author Topic: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs  (Read 66760 times)

Offline telomerase99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #40 on: 04/02/2011 12:51 AM »
It was a single personal anecdote in response to Chris' post. You can think of your own life experience and find paralell evidence Im sure. For example, are you on the clock right now?

Offline northanger

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #41 on: 04/02/2011 12:52 AM »
"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 :)

Lots of devil's advocate stuff below, so remember I'm just trying to provoke some level of "no, it's not that, it's this". I'm purposely not going after any one poster, just think it won't be just me who's confused about this.

Forget about the vehicle for a second, are you and some others saying you are opposed to space industry jobs? Less jobs, excellent news! Some of these workers will be costing me more tax dollars as they'll be on social security, as opposed to being in a white collar job and contributing - bring it on!! Clearly not, so what's the deal here?

Always personally found this use of "jobs program" to be highly insulting, as it sounds like they are dragging unemployable people off the streets and paying over the odds for them. Clearly not, so what's the deal here?

Not least when we have a good number of these people on the site in this industry, having to read some comments that are akin to jumping all over their graves because all of a sudden your goal in life is to streamline NASA's budget, like your using your spreadsheet outrage to post "Oh crap, that smaller rocket costs X billions, but that larger rocket some moooooooore and - OMG - employes more people!! Where's the phone number for my Congressman!" - probably at the same time as as in the corner of your eye the TV is showing $500K a pop Tomahawks being thrown into Libya like it's a frakking Xbox game. Are we seeing posters concerned about "government spending" or just NASA specific?

By the way, I could hardly claim to be one of those anti-war types, but there's your frakking SLS - spent after a week chasing that plastic faced wierdo. Send in the SAS and snap his neck. Oh, better not, we need the Navy, bloody job's program ;)

Notably, no one seems to say a word when commercial (hang on, aren't Boeing commercial?) hire workers, not many, and in SpaceX's case the majority of who they've hired of late being admin people, not engineers. Probably because that's all good, no one should be moaning about that. Concur.

No one says "Jobs program" when discussing using EELVs for exploration - which would be Boeing getting money. Yet for SLS, no way! Job's program! For EELV exploration, oh, goody good!

I must be missing something.

I can't respond to all of this, but...

I guess the question is when does a space program end up a "jobs program"? Currently, some people are saying it's when a president doesn't make Space the #1 priority.

Bush gave the shuttle program an end date, but he also allowed it to continue and ISS to be completed. I believe, 100 years from now, Return to Flight and ISS will be more than footnotes to space history. 20/20 is always perfect, but here's my big What If? when thinking about the state of things today: Columbia crashed February 1, 2003 and the Iraq War began March 19, 2003. I wish (as a nation) we zigged and fully realized a new vision for space exploration instead of zagged. VSE could have been so much more.

As far as NASA vs Commercial go (yes, I'm oversimplifying), I don't think this is a shakeup of NASA overall. But whatever it is, NASA's getting all the blame.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #42 on: 04/02/2011 12:57 AM »
It was a single personal anecdote in response to Chris' post. You can think of your own life experience and find paralell evidence Im sure. For example, are you on the clock right now?

No.  In fact I am on leave.  The reason?  Because I have a second job in the United States Air Force where I have just spent the last 36 hours over 3 days simulating war in MOPP gear and 85 degree temperatures working on aircraft so if and when the day comes I can defend your right to say nonsense.

Also, the personal anecdote had nothing to do with my question and I ignored that outright because I didn't see the relevance.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline padrat

  • Payload Packer and Dragon tamer...
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1409
  • Where Dragons roam....
  • Liked: 757
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #43 on: 04/02/2011 01:00 AM »
I will agree, and I'm sure others that work here can attest, that NASA and USA was in need of trimming some fat. And quite honestly, the first few iterations of layoffs, for the most part, did just that. Point blank, due to technology and procedure streamlining, Shuttle didn't need as many people as it did in the 80's and 90's. Unfortunately, there are just some jobs that REQUIRE a certain number of people to do it safely, and work has been held up because of it sometimes. (example, why SCAPEr's are always in pairs) So if that's the definition of a "jobs program", then so be it. But, nevertheless, it still stings when the job you perform and love on a daily basis and still after 8 years gives you goosebumps, is constantly referred to, nonchalantly, as just a "jobs program". Imagine if you were lucky enough to open your own business restoring beautiful classic and antique cars, but when people talk about you you're just "an auto mechanic", or "a grease monkey"
If the neighbors think you're the rebel of the neighborhood, embrace it and be the rebel. It keeps them wondering what you'll do next...

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17797
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 3937
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #44 on: 04/02/2011 01:00 AM »
"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 :)

...
I must be missing something.

My take:

It's the outrage people are expressing for their tax dollars being spent with little to show for it.

There is magical phenomenon that happens when people see this happen - they equate it to government waste, and anything like it must be attacked vigorously. We're seeing it here because it represents the core values of people: it's something they treasure (spaceflight, in any and all forms) and they don't see good value.

So it must reside somewhere else.
1) SpaceX has succeeded (with Dragon)- once. But now everything should be a cake walk so lets go with them.

2) EELVs are reliable and have an excellent pedigree. No arguement. I'd go with them in a heartbeat but for one thing: history has shown us that NASA's designs involve incredible creep in mass that require bigger and bigger rockets. Without a clear plan, something the President & NASA has failed to provide, we are going in circles as the SLS capability evaporates (and I believe on purpose).

From where I sit, the underlying concern is that the essence of 'knowledge', however you wish to measure it, cannot simply be learned from a textbook. That knowledge resides in the sum of the experiences of the workers. The best way to capture that knowledge is to pass it down to future generations. By eliminating shuttle, CxP, a slowdown in the aerospace market (and los of skills abroad) the knowledge base is evaporating away.

And I'll give you a great example of that: When NASA was designing Orion, they went back and asked any of the previous workers still around how they did things, because the drawings simply didn't cut it. And when they couldn't find people for a certain system, they went to the (Smithsonian, IIRC) and opened up the Apollo spacecraft to see 'how it was done' (separation method of the capsule between the heat shield and the service module IIRC).

If we lose these workers, and granted not all, but a fair number, they will not be coming back. Some might go to the other companies, some already have, but this transition time could decimate this aspect of the industry. As was pointed out in another thread, at least the last time this happened with the Apollo program, the shuttle was coming being developed, so there was a transition phase. But unless something gets moving soon, we fall further behind, and faster, until the cost to catch up exceeds the perceived savings.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline telomerase99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #45 on: 04/02/2011 01:01 AM »
Not to get off on a tangent, but when Clinton cut defense spending every year in the nineties we were in the black, and when Bush raised defense spending every year for eight years we accrued trillions in debt.

I hope you had fun playing your war games, but if we were less of a military state we could probably afford a more aggressive space program.

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17797
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 3937
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #46 on: 04/02/2011 01:03 AM »

I hope you had fun playing your war games, but if we were less of a military state we could probably afford a more aggressive space program.

And I always find that funny at times considering how we got a space program: US spending on military programs. But yes, OT.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #47 on: 04/02/2011 01:07 AM »
So while keeping this within the context of the thread, and only to those who work in the industry, has the above been your experience, is it something that has changed since, is it something that's required (safety reasons), is that something which actually goes on with the commercial vehicles (thus the same charge can't be specific to - say - a SD HLV, because the same thing would be the case with a EELV)?

Of course there are and have been issues like this.  After all, it is the government and nobody has ever claimed the government is efficient. 

I have never claimed it was perfect.  If people really knew me, they would see I am hardly unique in this case.  That we "contractors", who take a certain amount of abuse from the uninformed here, actually do make many, many suggestions about how NASA could improve its efficiency.  Of course, as the customer (and just like any customer government or private) it is up to them to decide if they will implenment it. 

Do NASA employees themselves contribute in most cases?  Of course they do.  There is a lot of knowledge and experience there.  Is it always needed?  No. 

Yet, what makes people think it will be different with "commercial"?  Ironically, it is many of these people who say some of the things above that are the most staunch advocates for increased federal funding to "commercial".  To fund development.  To hell with the business case, because "it isn't that important".  That NASA can "purchase" all the operations, etc.  They don't get that they are again, via the power of the purse, handing all the power to NASA. 

NASA will change.  Will it ever be a utopia?  Of course not.  But those who present a "get rid of this or that" because something else (even though that is still undefined) will certainly be better are not seeing the forest for the trees.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline padrat

  • Payload Packer and Dragon tamer...
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1409
  • Where Dragons roam....
  • Liked: 757
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #48 on: 04/02/2011 01:10 AM »
No.  In fact I am on leave.  The reason?  Because I have a second job in the United States Air Force where I have just spent the last 36 hours over 3 days simulating war in MOPP gear and 85 degree temperatures working on aircraft so if and when the day comes I can defend your right to say nonsense.

Sometimes I actually miss those days. Of course, I was a ground pounder, not a "flybaby", lol
If the neighbors think you're the rebel of the neighborhood, embrace it and be the rebel. It keeps them wondering what you'll do next...

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #49 on: 04/02/2011 01:10 AM »
Not to get off on a tangent, but when Clinton cut defense spending every year in the nineties we were in the black, and when Bush raised defense spending every year for eight years we accrued trillions in debt.

I hope you had fun playing your war games, but if we were less of a military state we could probably afford a more aggressive space program.

Interesting response. 

I note I have asked you a series of questions over 3 posts and you have totally ignored them.  Interesting yet again.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #50 on: 04/02/2011 01:11 AM »
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!

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.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline Diagoras

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #51 on: 04/02/2011 01:14 AM »
"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 :)

Lots of devil's advocate stuff below, so remember I'm just trying to provoke some level of "no, it's not that, it's this". I'm purposely not going after any one poster, just think it won't be just me who's confused about this.

Forget about the vehicle for a second, are you and some others saying you are opposed to space industry jobs? Less jobs, excellent news! Some of these workers will be costing me more tax dollars as they'll be on social security, as opposed to being in a white collar job and contributing - bring it on!! Clearly not, so what's the deal here?

Always personally found this use of "jobs program" to be highly insulting, as it sounds like they are dragging unemployable people off the streets and paying over the odds for them. Clearly not, so what's the deal here?

Not least when we have a good number of these people on the site in this industry, having to read some comments that are akin to jumping all over their graves because all of a sudden your goal in life is to streamline NASA's budget, like your using your spreadsheet outrage to post "Oh crap, that smaller rocket costs X billions, but that larger rocket some moooooooore and - OMG - employes more people!! Where's the phone number for my Congressman!" - probably at the same time as as in the corner of your eye the TV is showing $500K a pop Tomahawks being thrown into Libya like it's a frakking Xbox game. Are we seeing posters concerned about "government spending" or just NASA specific?

By the way, I could hardly claim to be one of those anti-war types, but there's your frakking SLS - spent after a week chasing that plastic faced wierdo. Send in the SAS and snap his neck. Oh, better not, we need the Navy, bloody job's program ;)

Notably, no one seems to say a word when commercial (hang on, aren't Boeing commercial?) hire workers, not many, and in SpaceX's case the majority of who they've hired of late being admin people, not engineers. Probably because that's all good, no one should be moaning about that. Concur.

No one says "Jobs program" when discussing using EELVs for exploration - which would be Boeing getting money. Yet for SLS, no way! Job's program! For EELV exploration, oh, goody good!

I must be missing something.

Chris, I don't quite get what you're saying here. People can oppose NASA-as-jobs-program from a variety of philosophical positions. They can believe that is is an ineffective means of achieving a goal and thus wish for a NASA more focused on accomplishing goals than employing the right people. It can be a basic opposition to the idea of using government to hand out any form of welfare, white collar or not. I doubt any two posters have the same reasons for disliking it.

I have I answered you question there?
"It’s the typical binary world of 'NASA is great' or 'cancel the space program,' with no nuance or understanding of the underlying issues and pathologies of the space industrial complex."

Offline telomerase99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #52 on: 04/02/2011 01:14 AM »
Just to answer from my perspective, deriding a "jobs program" is complaining about a program that retains funding for a specific block of jobs organized into a heirarchy with engineers, and managers, and directors all of which have been in that same heirarchy for decades.


Personally, I stopped reading right there because that was where you started to go wrong.  What "specific block of jobs" will be retained?  Where does it say that?  And you can't just take the easy way out and list large companies as the proof.  So again, what "block of jobs" are being retained?  What skills?  What departments? 

What is the heirarchy?  What engineers?  What managers?  Who will be "protected"?

No one will be protected that is the whole point. Everyone working on Shuttle or cancelled Ares programs have to find themselves new roles in competitively bid projects. If their skills are out of date, they are discarded. Nobody is protected. That is the entire point of my post. You missed it.

Offline northanger

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #53 on: 04/02/2011 01:18 AM »
What I kinda see with "Commercial" is an undeclared duke out between Old vs New Commercial. With all of them biting at NASA and good folks falling in the cracks.

And btw, the STS-134 commander is active duty on loan from the United States Navy. Go Navy!

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #54 on: 04/02/2011 01:20 AM »
So while keeping this within the context of the thread, and only to those who work in the industry, has the above been your experience, is it something that has changed since, is it something that's required (safety reasons), is that something which actually goes on with the commercial vehicles (thus the same charge can't be specific to - say - a SD HLV, because the same thing would be the case with a EELV)?

Of course there are and have been issues like this.  After all, it is the government and nobody has ever claimed the government is efficient. 

I have never claimed it was perfect.  If people really knew me, they would see I am hardly unique in this case.  That we "contractors", who take a certain amount of abuse from the uninformed here, actually do make many, many suggestions about how NASA could improve its efficiency.  Of course, as the customer (and just like any customer government or private) it is up to them to decide if they will implenment it. 

Do NASA employees themselves contribute in most cases?  Of course they do.  There is a lot of knowledge and experience there.  Is it always needed?  No. 

Yet, what makes people think it will be different with "commercial"?  Ironically, it is many of these people who say some of the things above that are the most staunch advocates for increased federal funding to "commercial".  To fund development.  To hell with the business case, because "it isn't that important".  That NASA can "purchase" all the operations, etc.  They don't get that they are again, via the power of the purse, handing all the power to NASA. 

NASA will change.  Will it ever be a utopia?  Of course not.  But those who present a "get rid of this or that" because something else (even though that is still undefined) will certainly be better are not seeing the forest for the trees.

Now this thread is getting very interesting. Appreciate the above - clearly honest and not blowing smoke up my backside - post. And Padrat too.

Would be great if one of the EELV or such members gave their view.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #55 on: 04/02/2011 01:21 AM »
Just to answer from my perspective, deriding a "jobs program" is complaining about a program that retains funding for a specific block of jobs organized into a heirarchy with engineers, and managers, and directors all of which have been in that same heirarchy for decades.


Personally, I stopped reading right there because that was where you started to go wrong.  What "specific block of jobs" will be retained?  Where does it say that?  And you can't just take the easy way out and list large companies as the proof.  So again, what "block of jobs" are being retained?  What skills?  What departments? 

What is the heirarchy?  What engineers?  What managers?  Who will be "protected"?

No one will be protected that is the whole point. Everyone working on Shuttle or cancelled Ares programs have to find themselves new roles in competitively bid projects. If their skills are out of date, they are discarded. Nobody is protected. That is the entire point of my post. You missed it.

Nope.  Sure didn't.  You're just trying to change your story.  You claimed people were being protected.  Who specifically?  What is the heirachy you claim will be put in place?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 577
  • Likes Given: 677
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #56 on: 04/02/2011 01:25 AM »
'They don't call Boeing the "Lazy B" for no reason. If you like a place where you can just get by and hang out at work without doing much "actual" work, Boeing is the place for you.'
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Boeing-RVW21609.htm

'In Seattle, Boeing has been ridiculed as the epitome of bloated big business.  One nickname from the late 20th century was “the lazy B.”'
http://www.clwill.com/leadership/new-leader-sets-boeings-focus/

'Even in hometown Seattle, citizens call Boeing the Lazy B, a slap at its plodding bureaucracy.'
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1993/01/25/77423/index.htm
-- sdsds --

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #57 on: 04/02/2011 01:25 AM »
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!

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.

That's a good post too. There's certainly been a few "if you're anti-HLV, you're anti-HSF" comments sneaking into the forum of late, so these posts help.

Wait a second, anti-shuttle? How very dare you sir! (joke) ;)

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #58 on: 04/02/2011 01:29 AM »
"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 :)

Lots of devil's advocate stuff below, so remember I'm just trying to provoke some level of "no, it's not that, it's this". I'm purposely not going after any one poster, just think it won't be just me who's confused about this.

Forget about the vehicle for a second, are you and some others saying you are opposed to space industry jobs? Less jobs, excellent news! Some of these workers will be costing me more tax dollars as they'll be on social security, as opposed to being in a white collar job and contributing - bring it on!! Clearly not, so what's the deal here?

Always personally found this use of "jobs program" to be highly insulting, as it sounds like they are dragging unemployable people off the streets and paying over the odds for them. Clearly not, so what's the deal here?

Not least when we have a good number of these people on the site in this industry, having to read some comments that are akin to jumping all over their graves because all of a sudden your goal in life is to streamline NASA's budget, like your using your spreadsheet outrage to post "Oh crap, that smaller rocket costs X billions, but that larger rocket some moooooooore and - OMG - employes more people!! Where's the phone number for my Congressman!" - probably at the same time as as in the corner of your eye the TV is showing $500K a pop Tomahawks being thrown into Libya like it's a frakking Xbox game. Are we seeing posters concerned about "government spending" or just NASA specific?

By the way, I could hardly claim to be one of those anti-war types, but there's your frakking SLS - spent after a week chasing that plastic faced wierdo. Send in the SAS and snap his neck. Oh, better not, we need the Navy, bloody job's program ;)

Notably, no one seems to say a word when commercial (hang on, aren't Boeing commercial?) hire workers, not many, and in SpaceX's case the majority of who they've hired of late being admin people, not engineers. Probably because that's all good, no one should be moaning about that. Concur.

No one says "Jobs program" when discussing using EELVs for exploration - which would be Boeing getting money. Yet for SLS, no way! Job's program! For EELV exploration, oh, goody good!

I must be missing something.

Chris, I don't quite get what you're saying here. People can oppose NASA-as-jobs-program from a variety of philosophical positions. They can believe that is is an ineffective means of achieving a goal and thus wish for a NASA more focused on accomplishing goals than employing the right people. It can be a basic opposition to the idea of using government to hand out any form of welfare, white collar or not. I doubt any two posters have the same reasons for disliking it.

I have I answered you question there?

I think we're certainly getting there on the context of what people mean when such people use the "jobs program" charge.

The question remains outstanding on if the charge is still relevant today, and/or if commercial companies are immune from similar issues when in a large program situation.

Certainly a very good conversation, as far as my own personal understanding into why people say it.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #59 on: 04/02/2011 01:33 AM »
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.

Shuttle extension?  There's a whole thread on that.  Tell me where any of the points I have made on this forum anywhere, over the entire range of reasons I have given, are out of bed.  Offer me something else other than "hope and assumption".  Offer me counterpoints in the same level of detail and don't just give me "Gremlin into a brick wall".
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Tags: