Author Topic: Spacehab to cut 15-20 percent work force (Read 12360 times)

Chris Bergin · « **on:** 01/18/2007 08:16 pm »

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070118/spacehab_job_cuts.html?.v=1

Radioheaded · « **Reply #1 on:** 01/18/2007 08:34 pm »

I wonder how they plan to explore (no pun intended) other marketable areas as we approach Orbiter retirement..... Honestly I never knew they were publicly traded or listed on NASDAQ.....

SpacemanSpiff · « **Reply #2 on:** 01/19/2007 04:50 pm »

It's about time that bloated pig got stuck...this company is a case of fat-cat directors literally sucking the life out of a company with their ridiculous salaries. Check out a stock quote...

Radioheaded · « **Reply #3 on:** 01/19/2007 08:23 pm »

Quote

SpacemanSpiff - 19/1/2007 12:50 PM

It's about time that bloated pig got stuck...this company is a case of fat-cat directors literally sucking the life out of a company with their ridiculous salaries. Check out a stock quote...

Interesting.....At that price, how long before they're delisted? Though I actually saw someone recommending this as a buy, soley because they "work" with NASA....In the very appropriate words of Dr. Evil, "Riiight"

marsavian · « **Reply #4 on:** 01/19/2007 08:41 pm »

Quote

Radioheaded - 19/1/2007 3:23 PM

Quote
SpacemanSpiff - 19/1/2007 12:50 PM

It's about time that bloated pig got stuck...this company is a case of fat-cat directors literally sucking the life out of a company with their ridiculous salaries. Check out a stock quote...

Interesting.....At that price, how long before they're delisted? Though I actually saw someone recommending this as a buy, soley because they "work" with NASA....In the very appropriate words of Dr. Evil, "Riiight"

'Houston, Texas, October 6, 2006 – SPACEHAB, Incorporated (NASDAQ: SPAB), a leading provider of commercial space services, announced today that the Company's common stock has closed for more than 30 consecutive days below the minimum $1.00 per share requirement for continued inclusion on the Nasdaq National Market under Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(4).

In accordance with Nasdaq rules, the Company has been afforded 180 calendar days, or until April 2, 2007, to regain compliance with the minimum bid price requirements. If at anytime before April 2, 2007 the bid price of the Company's common stock closes at $1.00 per share or more for a minimum of 10 consecutive trading days, Nasdaq will provide written notification that the Company complies with Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(

(E). '

http://www.spacehab.com/news/2006/06_10_06.htm

They already had only survived a previous one in June of that year, http://www.spacehab.com/news/2006/06_06_01.htm , but not winning a COTS I primary sent their stock as low as 0.59 afterwards ( I bought a few then

. They should have a good earnings this last quarter as their module was used for the first time in years and that may push them over the 1 again.

Radioheaded · « **Reply #5 on:** 01/19/2007 10:24 pm »

Ah, forgot about that extension....What exactly is their official plan going forward after missing out on COTS I?

BTW I do hope you do well with that Investment, wasn't trying to demean anyone's investment strategy. Mine is to simply talk about it as if I know something, but never actually put my money where my mouth is

MATTBLAK · « **Reply #6 on:** 01/19/2007 10:33 pm »

SpaceHab is a remarkable and valuable company. It would be terrible if something bad happened to their personnel & products. Their modules could potentially be upgraded for use as Lunar & Mars Habitat modules, either in space or on a planetary surface. A Double SpaceHab 'chassis' should fit on an LSAM descent stage.

Checkout the SpaceHab final doc at this link:

http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/cer_reports.html

marsavian · « **Reply #7 on:** 01/19/2007 10:43 pm »

Quote

Radioheaded - 19/1/2007 5:24 PM

Ah, forgot about that extension....What exactly is their official plan going forward after missing out on COTS I?

BTW I hope you do well with that Investment

It's still being formulated as relayed to me by their new marketing head

'As for your questions regarding the survival of Apex and associated initiatives, nothing is off the table right now as the new leadership continues to formulate their plans for the future. So stay tuned...!'

The new CEO has only been in charge since January 1st

http://www.spacehab.com/news/2006/06_12_14.htm

Jim · « **Reply #8 on:** 01/19/2007 11:16 pm »

No APEX. No one left to work it. They cut 8-9 VP's. Only ones remaining are in charge of the only revenue streams, Astrotech and SGS. The other is a caretaker to close out the module program. No R&D people,

Jim · « **Reply #9 on:** 01/19/2007 11:18 pm »

Quote

MATTBLAK - 19/1/2007 6:33 PM

SpaceHab is a remarkable and valuable company. It would be terrible if something bad happened to their personnel & products. Their modules could potentially be upgraded for use as Lunar & Mars Habitat modules, either in space or on a planetary surface. A Double SpaceHab 'chassis' should fit on an LSAM descent stage.

Not anymore.

All those people have been long gone.

The modules can't be use for anything other than shuttle payload bay. Once the shuttle is gone, there is no market for them

MATTBLAK · « **Reply #10 on:** 01/19/2007 11:24 pm »

Well, I guess it was possible in an engineering sense.

Jim · « **Reply #11 on:** 01/19/2007 11:30 pm »

Quote

MATTBLAK - 19/1/2007 7:24 PM

Well, I guess it was possible in an engineering sense.

not really. Those modules were specifically designed for the shuttle. Out of the shuttle, the design is too heavy, the shape is wrong. There is nothing special about them that would give them any advantage

Radioheaded · « **Reply #12 on:** 01/19/2007 11:34 pm »

Quote

Jim - 19/1/2007 7:18 PM

Not anymore.

All those people have been long gone.

The modules can't be use for anything other than shuttle payload bay. Once the shuttle is gone, there is no market for them[/QUOTE]

That, (albeit in complete and total ignorance about their other products) was my line of thinking.....

OT, but I must say, Jim, you are ever a worth of relevant information......

MATTBLAK · « **Reply #13 on:** 01/20/2007 02:19 am »

Jim, you talk as though this company are gonners already, with you enjoying that fact, and their product heritage is locked solely into the destiny of Shuttle. And, that it would be impossible to change them or use the modules for anything else.

>>Too heavy<<

Are you saying that they wouldn't have been made as light as possible for the Shuttle, where payload weight was always crucial? Are you saying it would not be possible to make them lighter (incorporate composites and/or Aluminium-Lithium), or even 'thin down' their structure for more said lightening? Albeit taking away some of their radiation shielding properties with that. "Takes them too far from standard tooling" you might say? Well, the aerospace industry and it's history is rife with examples of 'specifications subject to change, in line with the customers wishes'. That's certainly what the SpaceHab trade studies were saying in the articles that I provided the link for. Or were they just standard company puff pieces and wishful thinking for VSE trade studies? (wouldn't be the only ones, if true).

If SpaceHab goes, then their expertise and tooling could be hired and bought by other companies, to exist in other forms. After all, Bigelow's inflatables started life as a budget-cancelled Nasa project. For better or worse, I just cannot accept that these flown, proven, versatile, pressurised modules are gone forever in every way, or that they could not be evolved into new forms.

But I suppose there's always the possibility that they'll be scrap-heaped along with many other mature, manned space hardware in favour of some 'new guys' who may or may not be properly funded.

MATTBLAK · « **Reply #14 on:** 01/20/2007 02:32 am »

I just checked the SpaceHab final VSE document again. Their Exploration module concepts are NOT shaped like Shuttle modules, reinforcing my statements above that things would change for the mission requirements, as the customer (Nasa) would want. However, whether it was SpaceHab or some other company that ended up building Exploration & Habitat modules, the requirements would end up very much like SpaceHab portrayed in the trade studies.

marsavian · « **Reply #15 on:** 01/20/2007 03:18 am »

Quote

Jim - 19/1/2007 6:16 PM

No APEX. No one left to work it. They cut 8-9 VP's. Only ones remaining are in charge of the only revenue streams, Astrotech and SGS. The other is a caretaker to close out the module program. No R&D people,

I think we can file this one under your usual anti-SPACEHAB FUD like when you claimed they wouldn't be able to use their own module recently without any evidence apart from the fact you weren't working with them anymore ;-). The majority of SFS staff have been retained and you were always complaining about their top-heavy management structure so for you to point to this as evidence of more incapability just shows the inconsistency and subjectivity of your arguments. The other people let go were mainly in IT and HR which again are not key personnel. Apex can still be built if there is a management directive to do so. We will know more as the year unfolds at the CCs and how the personnel structure looks after STS-118 is completed. Today however is too early to be writing traditional Spacehab's obituary and the cuts only make it more leaner and more likely to survive.

marsavian · « **Reply #16 on:** 01/20/2007 03:47 am »

Quote

MATTBLAK - 19/1/2007 9:32 PM

I just checked the SpaceHab final VSE document again. Their Exploration module concepts are NOT shaped like Shuttle modules, reinforcing my statements above that things would change for the mission requirements, as the customer (Nasa) would want. However, whether it was SpaceHab or some other company that ended up building Exploration & Habitat modules, the requirements would end up very much like SpaceHab portrayed in the trade studies.

The VSE stuff would have been done by the SGS section and that wasn't cut at all so I wouldn't get too worked up by their technology going, if there is a market and contracts for it it will be built.

MATTBLAK · « **Reply #17 on:** 01/20/2007 04:24 am »

I was just putting a buck each way, because Jim might certainly know more than myself. However, I feel strongly SpaceHab's basic engineering principals for exploration will continue to be relevant.

Jim · « **Reply #18 on:** 01/20/2007 02:43 pm »

Quote

marsavian - 19/1/2007 11:47 PM

The VSE stuff would have been done by the SGS section and that wasn't cut at all so I wouldn't get too worked up by their technology going, if there is a market and contracts for it it will be built.

SGS is only doing the little configuration management contracts. No technology there.

Jim · « **Reply #19 on:** 01/20/2007 02:48 pm »

Quote

marsavian - 19/1/2007 11:18 PM

Quote
Jim - 19/1/2007 6:16 PM

No APEX. No one left to work it. They cut 8-9 VP's. Only ones remaining are in charge of the only revenue streams, Astrotech and SGS. The other is a caretaker to close out the module program. No R&D people,

I think we can file this one under your usual anti-SPACEHAB FUD like when you claimed they wouldn't be able to use their own module recently without any evidence apart from the fact you weren't working with them anymore ;-). The majority of SFS staff have been retained and you were always complaining about their top-heavy management structure so for you to point to this as evidence of more incapability just shows the inconsistency and subjectivity of your arguments. The other people let go were mainly in IT and HR which again are not key personnel. Apex can still be built if there is a management directive to do so. We will know more as the year unfolds at the CCs and how the personnel structure looks after STS-118 is completed. Today however is too early to be writing traditional Spacehab's obituary and the cuts only make it more leaner and more likely to survive.

Did you talk to anyone other than a PR person, who gives you the same BS that Kimberly spewed. I talked to the insiders and some of the laid off people. It is just Astrotech and SGS. The remaining are just there to fly out the last module. There weren't 25 Hr and IT people in the company. The same top heavy management is what conceived APEX. Now there is no champion for it. Not even a program manager

Look who is the Executive VP, a position that didn't exist before. An Astrotech person. That is the face of the company, not space hardware

It will survive, but as Astrotech and maybe SGS.