SpacemanSpiff - 19/1/2007 12:50 PMIt'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 - 19/1/2007 3:23 PMQuoteSpacemanSpiff - 19/1/2007 12:50 PMIt'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"
Radioheaded - 19/1/2007 5:24 PMAh, 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
MATTBLAK - 19/1/2007 6:33 PMSpaceHab 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.
MATTBLAK - 19/1/2007 7:24 PMWell, I guess it was possible in an engineering sense.
Jim - 19/1/2007 7:18 PM
Jim - 19/1/2007 6:16 PMNo 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,
MATTBLAK - 19/1/2007 9:32 PMI 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 - 19/1/2007 11:47 PMThe 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.
marsavian - 19/1/2007 11:18 PMQuoteJim - 19/1/2007 6:16 PMNo 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.
MATTBLAK - 19/1/2007 10:19 PMIf SpaceHab goes, then their expertise and tooling could be hired and bought by other companies, to exist in other forms. .
Jim - 20/1/2007 9:48 AMQuotemarsavian - 19/1/2007 11:18 PMQuoteJim - 19/1/2007 6:16 PMNo 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 managerLook who is the Executive VP, a position that didn't exist before. An Astrotech person. That is the face of the company, not space hardwareIt will survive, but as Astrotech and maybe SGS.
Jim - 21/1/2007 3:55 PMthat's what I said. It will survive but as Astrotech. They can't do anything without a lot of cash infusion and who is going to do that for a company that hasn't produced in the past
Jim - 21/1/2007 4:08 PMIt doesn't matter what designs they come up with. Same thing, just different faces. No customers/users, no bucks. No bucks, no buck rogers. Enterprise, inflatable tunnels, module based architecture, APEX, etc. Who are the customers?New guys? No one is left to champion their efforts. The new Exec VP is a facility manager.
wingod - 21/1/2007 5:10 PMQuoteJim - 21/1/2007 4:08 PMIt doesn't matter what designs they come up with. Same thing, just different faces. No customers/users, no bucks. No bucks, no buck rogers. Enterprise, inflatable tunnels, module based architecture, APEX, etc. Who are the customers?New guys? No one is left to champion their efforts. The new Exec VP is a facility manager.Again, your response just illustrates that you don't know what is happening inside the company with the new management and their direction, money, or people.At this time I simply cannot say more. It will more than likely all become clear soon.
Jim - 21/1/2007 4:21 PMQuotewingod - 21/1/2007 5:10 PMQuoteJim - 21/1/2007 4:08 PMIt doesn't matter what designs they come up with. Same thing, just different faces. No customers/users, no bucks. No bucks, no buck rogers. Enterprise, inflatable tunnels, module based architecture, APEX, etc. Who are the customers?New guys? No one is left to champion their efforts. The new Exec VP is a facility manager.Again, your response just illustrates that you don't know what is happening inside the company with the new management and their direction, money, or people.At this time I simply cannot say more. It will more than likely all become clear soon.It is not clear to the current rank and file and they are bailing out.
marsavian - 22/1/2007 10:37 AMQuoteJim - 21/1/2007 4:08 PMIt doesn't matter what designs they come up with. Same thing, just different faces. No customers/users, no bucks. No bucks, no buck rogers. Enterprise, inflatable tunnels, module based architecture, APEX, etc. Who are the customers?New guys? No one is left to champion their efforts. The new Exec VP is a facility manager.There is pent up demand for cheap and returnable access to Space.
Jim - 22/1/2007 10:20 AMQuotemarsavian - 22/1/2007 10:37 AMQuoteJim - 21/1/2007 4:08 PMIt doesn't matter what designs they come up with. Same thing, just different faces. No customers/users, no bucks. No bucks, no buck rogers. Enterprise, inflatable tunnels, module based architecture, APEX, etc. Who are the customers?New guys? No one is left to champion their efforts. The new Exec VP is a facility manager.There is pent up demand for cheap and returnable access to Space. There is no commercial demand for "returnable" outside of returning crew (space tourism). If Spacehab is looking to NASA again as the customer, then they will be in the same shape as they are now. NASA is funding enough avenues (STS, Spacex, RPK, CEV, etc) for returning hardware from the ISS.
marsavian - 22/1/2007 11:49 AMI wouldn't be so sure, that interviewer was trying to fix him up with a desperate scientific experiment customer in that interview I just linked ;-).
Jim - 22/1/2007 12:05 PMQuotemarsavian - 22/1/2007 11:49 AMI wouldn't be so sure, that interviewer was trying to fix him up with a desperate scientific experiment customer in that interview I just linked ;-).Desperate equates to no money. There are hundreds of "payloads/experiments" wanting to fly and they all want free rides and even money to develop their experiments. There are very few viable experiments and they are already flying or scheduled to. look at the number of "commercial" payloads/experiments that flew on Spacehabs, less that a handful on 15 flights. All the rest were NASA sponsored. And...... some even have to be coax into flying certain flights to help full up the module
marsavian - 22/1/2007 1:24 PMJim also hangs out there spreading gloom and doom and grinding his axe as mi2also ;-).
