Slashdot Mirror


Layoff Anxiety Is Top Risk To Space Shuttle

pickens writes "Florida today reports that as NASA marches toward its final two shuttle flights, the safety of the crew rests with workers who know every bolt they turn, every heat-shield tile they inspect, brings them that much closer to the unemployment line in April 2011 raising concerns that people might jump ship early if other job opportunities open up. 'We've been most concerned about maintaining and sustaining the knowledge necessary to safely conduct mission operations,' says Retired Navy Vice Adm. Joseph Dyer. But shuttle work force surveys show a fierce loyalty and a dedication to sticking it out as long term employees want to be there when the last shuttle touches down. 'They love being part of NASA and what NASA does, and they love being part of the space shuttle program. And they want to be a part of it as long as we're doing the kinds of things that we're doing,' says LeRoy Cain, NASA's deputy shuttle program manager."

178 comments

  1. Layoff Anxiety? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is exactly the reason that restaurants and other companies don't tell employees about plant or store closures until the last moment. It's not entirely fair to the workers, but many would rather find a new job quickly instead of being unemployed. I was out of work for nearly 2 months (and even then I was lucky in finding new work) when the restaurant I worked out told us 5 minutes before we walked out the door for the evening that we wouldn't be open in the morning.

    I imagine those these folks working for NASA have skills that the private space agencies will definitely want and I wouldn't be surprised to see most of these guys going to work the next day for one of those companies.

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    1. Re:Layoff Anxiety? by qpawn · · Score: 2, Funny

      From Arrested Development:

      Narrator: "Before firing his employees, George Sr. would be sure to clear the office of its valuables. [...] The employees never saw it coming, although their first task was to unload their equipment from a truck."

    2. Re:Layoff Anxiety? by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Peter Gibbons: You're gonna lay off Samir and Michael?

      Bob Slydell: Oh yeah, we're gonna bring in some entry-level graduates, farm some work out to Singapore, that's the usual deal.

      Bob Porter: Standard operating procedure.

      Peter Gibbons: Do they know this yet?

      Bob Slydell: No. No, of course not. We find it's always better to fire people on a Friday. Studies have statistically shown that there's less chance of an incident if you do it at the end of the week.

    3. Re:Layoff Anxiety? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And that's why in many of those "socialist" countries like France, firing or resigning has to be preceded by a notice at least 3 months before. It can be shorter if both parties agree but if they do not, the three months salary is due (to the employer if the employee quits earlier or to the employee if the employer wants to fire quickly). Exceptions exist though (professional fault, mainly) but it tends to make things a lot clearer and to give less incentive to hide the situation.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    4. Re:Layoff Anxiety? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      And that's why in many of those "socialist" countries like France...

      Uh, what the fuck are you talking about? The most cursory examination of French politics shows a wide streak of fascism.

    5. Re:Layoff Anxiety? by ghjm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's talking about the caricature of France as understood by Americans.

    6. Re:Layoff Anxiety? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      You can get fired in France? I was under the impression that it was legally impossible to get fired.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    7. Re:Layoff Anxiety? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      I knew those names were familiar. Hilarious movie. (:

      have you seen Waiting...

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    8. Re:Layoff Anxiety? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      No wonder the rest of the world thinks Americans are stupid.

    9. Re:Layoff Anxiety? by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      The most cursory examination of French politics shows a wide streak of fascism.

      He just missed out "national" before "socialism", honest mistake.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    10. Re:Layoff Anxiety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem is that companies like SpaceX (purely anecdotal evidence here) are not interested in hiring the NASA folks. They want the "top 2%" of applicants. Most of those top 2% aren't the people that know what the heck is going on.

      Tangent: These commercial companies will just love it when NASA starts telling them how big, and the safety rating of, each bolt on the water dispenser needs to be when they go for man rating.

    11. Re:Layoff Anxiety? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Seriously...

      The political spectrum really is not a linear spectrum. It is circular. Think of a compass to picture this. Libertarians are north; Progressives are west and Conservatives are east. All of the various forms of dictatorships are at south.

      Viewed this way, the only difference between communism and fascism really is "from which direction did you approach?" because they both restrict freedom to equal extents. They just make up different excuses for doing it.

    12. Re:Layoff Anxiety? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the short term problem of not getting the last two launches prepared is the LEAST of NASA's problems. The REAL problem is that once these guys are gone and the teams broken up, that technical ability is gone... poof. NASA doesn't even have the program to build a capsule for basic maintenance of the space station and servicing satellites STARTED YET! This is going to be a 20 year blight on the agency when it happens... these jobs aren't going to be replaced, private industry isn't legally ALLOWED to do the kinds of things these employees did.

    13. Re:Layoff Anxiety? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      more importantly, it saves the accounting the department from having to recalculate half-a-weeks pay for all the people they layoff.... MOST companies DON'T have any severance for layoff other than maybe owed vacation time.

    14. Re:Layoff Anxiety? by riT-k0MA · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you're mistaking France with South Africa.
      (Just about the only time you can get fired here is if you're caught stealing and are not in government)

    15. Re:Layoff Anxiety? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      ah.

      Either way, completely lame and removes any incentive to do a good job.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    16. Re:Layoff Anxiety? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      The only problem is that companies like SpaceX (purely anecdotal evidence here) are not interested in hiring the NASA folks. They want the "top 2%" of applicants. Most of those top 2% aren't the people that know what the heck is going on.

      That's an issue in and of itself. Personally, I want people who know what's going on. A college degree means you know how to learn from books.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    17. Re:Layoff Anxiety? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      That is an issue that needs to be addressed first and foremost by changing the law so that these private companies can do those things. Otherwise it won't be 20 year blight on the agency, but a 20 year blight for the entire nation (at least in this area).

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  2. Why? by trout007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since I work at KSC I guess I can provide some insight. The purpose of these new space plans is to reduce the cost of launches. The way you do that is by using a simpler vehicle and less people. So there is no way all or most of the people here will get new jobs in private space. Also Brevard County has a few other employees but most of it relies on KSC. So as people need to start moving to find other jobs housing prices will continue to plummet so expect lots of foreclosures and a total decimation of the local economy. The article is correct. Even facing these prospects most of the employees continue to do their job perfectly day in day out because of the love of the program and their country. When you see the orbiters they look like they just rolled out of the factory. Anything you read about orbiters deteriorating is a lie. They are pristine. Many people are still in denial that this county would be so stupid as to throw away such magnificent machines and they want to be there to keep them flying when we come to our senses.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:Why? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you see the orbiters they look like they just rolled out of the factory. Anything you read about orbiters deteriorating is a lie. They are pristine.

      With all the money and attention lavished on them, that is as it should be.

      Many people are still in denial that this county would be so stupid as to throw away such magnificent machines and they want to be there to keep them flying when we come to our senses.

      The shuttles barely have a niche now, and that niche only exists because people work hard to make it exist - the shuttles are a prime example of what not to do, and I couldn't care less (yes, that is the correct way to use that phrase - its "couldn't" not "could") if the shuttles never fleww again.

      What the US needs now is a commuter vehicle, something that runs as regular as a standard family car, with similar maintenance levels, not classic car levels. The US does not need a 'do it all' vehicle which comes with an appropriately sized superbudget, it does not need the ability to haul the entire house with it each time it makes the commute from the house to the office. Leave the heavy lift to specialised vehicles, and leave the commuting to specialised vehicles - they are separate problems, they should have separate solutions.

    2. Re:Why? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      proud of our country?

      do you realize (I'm sure you do) that all chips, transistors, resistors and caps (especially caps; see the china syndrome 'bad caps' that made the news the last, oh, 10 or so years) are made overseas.

      we can't trust or rely on their parts quality anymore (the entire world got screwed over by trusting the chinese build caps and not have the electrolyte explode in years to come).

      I'm actually surprised more things aren't failing and falling out of the sky due to bad caps (they are even in military supply channels from what I've been told).

      if we want pride we should start making parts (tiny parts, not just whole boards) and THEN we can say 'hurrah! this was really an american accomplishment'.

      as it is, its a world wide effort and I wonder - I really wonder - how much design and engineering is done onshore these days.

      the space program used to get us 'new inventions' but lately, in the last 10 or 20 yrs, what have we gained from it? how much has it cost?

      I'm just not sure its the best use of our VERY limited funds, these days. we're hurting, in case you haven't heard. money is better spent on other things (and yes, I'm a science guy but even I realize that we are throwing a lot of money away at a time where its needed on more directl and urgent things).

      if/when we have a sound financial footing again in this country (...) then it would be time to put money toward luxuries like 'space'. but it clearly is a luxury and one that I'm not sure we can (or should) afford right now.

      national pride in 'space' is bullshit, these days. lets feed our own people, send them to school and rebuild our failing roads and infrastructure! invest in our data comm infra (we're way behind in that compared to many other countries). lots of things our money could go better towards that would improve the life of real people, not just the select few that go into space.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Or use the same resources, but get more launches/mass to orbit.

    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      "What the US needs now is a commuter vehicle, something that runs as regular as a standard family car, with similar maintenance levels, not classic car levels"

      Why? Commuting implies a destination. The Space Age is over. The sooner you fruitcakes come to grips with the fact that space is utterly hostile and empty, the better.

    5. Re:Why? by RaymondKurzweil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well thank god we didn't outsource those O-rings for the fuel tanks to some country of assholes! Who knows what could have happened.

    6. Re:Why? by strack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      when it costs a billion dollars per launch, it had better bloody well be pristine. a bad design still in pristine condition is still a bad design. the original concept of the space shuttle was to make space access inexpensive and safer. it has failed on both those fronts. it has frozen advancement in space launch for 30 years. hell, more than 30 years. the saturn V could do it cheaper, per kg, and safer too. with engine out capability, a real crew escape system, etc. etc. the shuttle is a dead end, and i for one want to make sure the door hits it in the ass on the way out. and as for those people out of a job, well damn, they could all still be employed by private space if nasa ups its commitment to private space, to the extent that they need the same manpower. only this time, a whole lot more tonnage will be getting to orbit.

    7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the shuttles are a prime example of what not to do, and I couldn't care less (yes, that is the correct way to use that phrase - its "couldn't" not "could")

      the usual phrasing ("could care less") is sarcastic, smart guy

    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, I'm very sorry to say that aluminium electrolytic capacitors are not used in space vehicles. Their inherent poor reliability (even the best japanese ones) and tendency to outgas nasty things makes them a no-no. You can find some steel-cased, hermetically sealed ones in jet planes, but not in space applications.
      And by the way, lots of american semiconductor manufacturers have their rad-hard/space-grad fab located in the US.

    9. Re:Why? by alexmin · · Score: 1

      Talking about "local economy", I have great idea how to really revive it. Why don't we all get a slingshot and a bunch of stones; then shoot out about 10 windows each? That's sure to provide great jobs for laid off construction workers. Maybe not so much that Space Shuttle, but it could be a start.

    10. Re:Why? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      There's never any moderator points around when you really want them. That's one of the best summaries of the shuttle program's failures I've seen. We're still screwing around in Low Earth Orbit when we should be well on the way to putting a Mars colony together, and that's thanks in large part to the shuttle.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    11. Re:Why? by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why? Commuting implies a destination. The Space Age is over. The sooner you fruitcakes come to grips with the fact that space is utterly hostile and empty, the better.

      Earth is, of course, a prime example of the utter hostility and emptiness of space. With considerable effort, I'm sure we could make a bunch more hostile and empty places like Earth.

    12. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" --Robert Kennedy, paraphrasing George Bernard Shaw

      If space is empty, then we can make it useful.

    13. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Do you listen to yourself, or read before you submit? You are *the* prime example of the deluded nutcases I refer to as Space Nutters. Please explain how you think we have anything near the energy resources and technology to build planets?

      We can barely build tin cans in the high atmosphere with all the industrial might we can bring to bear.

      Seriously, re-read what you wrote. You're a clinical example of delusion. Get help, in the form of a simple high-school level course of physics.

      If you're that attached to ideas of colonizing hostile places, hey, 75% of the planet is underwater, and there's always Siberia.

      What's that? Too harsh? Too difficult? There's nothing there? Hm. Strange that.

    14. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the usual phrasing ("could care less") is an Nth-generation requote so removed from its original context that all intention of the original utterance has been lost and all that remains is an awkward phrase which few realize is stupid and backward, moron.

    15. Re:Why? by The+Shootist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      sorry bub. I have no desire to dis NASA, but you fucks haven't done anything since we landed on the moon. Politician's fault, not yours.

      When I see NASA monies being used to "uplift" Moslems and Women, I shake my head in wonder.

      Then I notice that Advanced Propulsion research has been canceled.

      Then I noticed that while we once flew to the Moon, we no longer can.

      Pournelle's Iron Law has prevailed at NASA. Fire them all and give Space to the Navy.

    16. Re:Why? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      What the US needs is to not be in such a desperate rush to put humans in space with such very early supporting tech.

      We could develop many of the robotic and remote-manned systems we (require) to function usefully in space without sending humans. Humans in space are sent to performs tasks. We should work to not needing that, then send humans for its own sake after other tech matures.

      There is _zero_ reason to rush. Manned vehicles are doomed to glacially slow development cycles at our primitive level of supporting technology.
      Astronauts _explore_ nothing, they are along for the ride. Robots and remote-manned systems are already highly effective for dangerous jobs on Earth. We can develop new ones and throw away the old ones. This is perfect for space exploration where sending anything valuable is silly.

      Exploration of Earth proceeded quickly because ships and men were expendable. Now, men are not expendable, and the cost to protect them is more than their participation is worth.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    17. Re:Why? by hyades1 · · Score: 1, Troll

      You think we can stay cooped up on one little planet with an increasing population and a diminishing pool of resources forever? You really are a small-minded, ignorant little creep, aren't you! Perhaps it's eluded your tiny, uninformed mind, but just about every war ever fought, once all the bullshit is stripped away, is about resources.

      Come back when you've educated yourself. Until then, please quit intruding on your betters.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    18. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also live in Brevard County, there is little or no opportunity outside of the aerospace industry or service industry. Thats about it.

    19. Re:Why? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Please explain how you think we have anything near the energy resources and technology to build planets?

      [...]

      We can barely build tin cans in the high atmosphere with all the industrial might we can bring to bear.

      There you go. Demonstration that people can live in space. Keep in mind that the ISS isn't the only "tin can" that has made it into space/"high atmosphere". We have three others prior to it. It's also worth noting that the "industrial might" continues to grow more capable over the decades. I imagine what is barely possible today (especially when it's government run) will be considerably more routine in a few decades.

      If you're that attached to ideas of colonizing hostile places, hey, 75% of the planet is underwater, and there's always Siberia.

      That's already been done and we continue to colonize these places. Space is more interesting because it has greater potential, more stuff, space, and energy.

    20. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I could name a few other "utterly hostile" things that we've managed to come to terms with, and the only 'fruitcakes" in this debate are you neolithic know-nothings who continue to run your mouths bashing anything you either don't understand or which doesn't immediately benefit you personally. You should give up the tech field--you're a prime candidate for modern-day American management.

      Now, it's easy to find some things that are wrong with the space program--more than a few, the root causes of most of which boil down to politicians to pandering to the military or pandering to know-nothings. The shuttle, for all you NASA bashers, is a primary example of the "pandering to the military" end of this, by the way. It's also pretty easy to say just about anything about just about anything if you're not the one who actually has to deal with the problem. That's also typical of modern American management.

    21. Re:Why? by strack · · Score: 1

      you do realise that what you have to say is not important enough to warrant double spacing every damn line of your comment.

    22. Re:Why? by skids · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Someday you will wake up and realize that you are stuck here with the rest of us until we clean up our own household. As things currently stand politically, culturally, and technologically, the best we would be able to manage for the next several decades would be to basically destroy our own civilization in order to get an unsurvivably small population of humans off this rock.

      I don't think space exploration is a waste of time mind you -- we put about the right level of resources into it. If we're smart we'll put all our resources WRT space into unmanned capabilities where they do the most good, with a few long-term deep space survivability tests using human volunteers.

      (My bet is we will be nothing resembling today's human by the time serious terrestrial emmigration occurs. Genetically modified and loaded with implants.)

    23. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      When you see the orbiters they look like they just rolled out of the factory. Anything you read about orbiters deteriorating is a lie. They are pristine.

      While I agree that they may be in near perfect flight condition, this photo of Discovery prior to entering the VAB (meaning after leaving the Shuttle Processing Facility) for STS-131 says otherwise. Yes, it's in pristine MECHANICAL condition, but to say it LOOKS pristine is a bit farfetched.

    24. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Most of the "Private Space" jobs are not at KSC though, they are elsewhere in the US...it's not trivial to up and move when everyone else is trying to do the same at the same time. That whole region will look like the rust-belt in a few years with nothing left...

    25. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nice to hear, given who was quoted, the program director, I wouldn't really expect to hear him acknowledge wide spread defections even if that were the case. Hope everyone finds new work quickly after the shuttle ends.

    26. Re:Why? by Idiomatick · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Tons of wars were because of Religion...

    27. Re:Why? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Please tell us all, with your clearly vast experience putting spacecraft into space, how you would have met the same requirements. Let's make it simple for you, 65000 lbs to a polar orbit with a 1200 mile crossrange capability. Dazzle us!

    28. Re:Why? by Kaboom13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The shuttles are a definitely not the best possible design, we know that now, but at the time they were built they seemed like a good idea. Either way, just because the shuttles aren't the ideal vehicle doesn't mean we should toss the whole program away, which is what we are doing. I live in Floida, and visit the space coast often and know a lot of the "little people" in the space program. They are insanely dedicated, even the people who do jobs others would consider demeaning or unimportant. They knew the people who died in the various NASA accidents way better then the engineers in Houston did, and they work every day to keep the astronauts safe. The majority of them can and will get better paying jobs in the private sector, many of them routinely turned down offers when economic times were better (no one is getting rich at NASA).

      There is a ridiculous amount of institutional knowledge in the shuttle program, as well as a culture the defies all the regular government stereotypes. Once the team is disbanded and goes their separate ways we will have lost our best shot as a country at safe sustained manned space flight. We should have had a next generation vehicle ready to transition them too, but politics and the vague promise that somehow commercial space flight will fill in has killed it. Apparently as a country we no longer want to lead in the realms of science and engineering, and are content to have our only government funded innovations come in the form of new banking procedures to steal from the poor and give to the rich.

    29. Re:Why? by hyades1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Someday you will wake up and realize that you are stuck here with the rest of us until we clean up our own household.

      I realized that long ago, and have done more than a little toward that end. I won't bore you with a biography, but I helped design and implement a waste management program in a mid-sized city that tripled its waste diversion rate. I've also been active politically, and in habitat-protection programs for species at risk.

      You don't seem to understand what a tiny percentage of the GDP, peoples' tax dollars...however you want to measure it...goes to space. A workable colony on the Moon or Mars isn't beyond our current or near-future capabilities, and needn't "destroy our own civilization". If that were true, the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would already have done the job. Here's just one suggestion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct . There are others as good or better.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    30. Re:Why? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      I couldn't care less (yes, that is the correct way to use that phrase - its "couldn't" not "could")

      Phrase it any way you want to, I could care less.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    31. Re:Why? by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Cause it is fucking cool. Why the fuck do people think that we need some boring reason for going to space like minerals or w/e excuse we come up with. Going to space isn't really about backing up society off planet and it sure as fuck isn't about resources. Those are rationalizing doing something because its awesome.

      I just watched a movie. It wasn't very educational. I probably could have been more productive doing something else. But I did it anyways. Why can't society do this together?

      Think of it on a more personal level. What makes Aristotle, Gandhi Darwin or Caesar important to us as a society? They left a mark and changed history. Why shouldn't we then as a society strive for the same levels of greatness?

    32. Re:Why? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between criticism and insult. If you don't understand this simple fact, then you don't understand much of anything. And yes, I'm being insulting in return. You richly deserve it.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    33. Re:Why? by WCLPeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're that attached to ideas of colonizing hostile places, hey, 75% of the planet is underwater, and there's always Siberia.

      True, but then all it takes is one little asteroid to ruin your day.

      It generally is not a good idea to "keep all your eggs in one basket". The small, admittedly expensive, forays we make into space today provide future generations the knowledge they need to create sustainable habitats away from Earth, necessary to preserve our species when another Extinction Level Event occurs. You are welcome to live in a tin can under the ocean and be crushed by the intense compression waves of a meteorite impact, I'll be safely watching the from one of our orbital habitats.

    34. Re:Why? by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Thats so true, my head literally exploded from the truthiness.

    35. Re:Why? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Why haven't we tried an update of the shuttle?

      I know it's got like, 60s-70s era computers in it and whatnot and it has its flaws, but they've run hundreds of missions with the damn thing and they've went pretty fine. The ability to land on a runway has got to be a pretty big bonus as well. Why haven't we tried to make a modernized version of that?

      I'm sure there's valid engineering and financial reasons for the "rocket and capsule" route that we (and pretty much every private agency) seem to be going, but aesthetically it seems like a step backward from what I imagine would have eventually been a vehicle that could launch into space under its own power and land similarly.

    36. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have had vast experience working STS ascent GN&C in the 80's and early 90's. I worked about 22 missions and I can tell you the Shuttle has never been able to put 65,000 lbs in polar orbit. The best it could do for a 90 degree launch would be about 35,000 lbs. It would also have had to launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base since you can't launch polar from KSC due to abort restrictions. Vandenberg was never used due to the Challenger disaster and the launch pad there was converted to launch Delta IVs so you couldn't even do a Shuttle polar mission.

      BTW, even though the original design specs called for 65,000lbs, the Shuttle has never been able to put 65,000 lbs in orbit heading due east from KSC. It gets a maximum of 55,250 lbs.

      Even though I loved working on the Shuttle program, I think we would have been better off building a separate crew transport and improving the heavy lift capability we already had.

    37. Re:Why? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your post reminds me of yesterday's QOTD: "I'm prepared for any emergency, it's just day to day stuff I can't handle" (or something to that effect).

      We have a much better chance of handling an 'Extinction Level Event' if we a) don't completely trash the planet so there are some habitable areas left by the time the big ball hits b) try to figure out how to run civilizations so that even trivial little things like earthquakes, floods and rush hour don't cause major issues and c) learn how to maybe, perhaps, get along with ourselves and our current lifeboat.

      Remember, that even big ball hits leave survivors. I had one of them for dinner last night. Tasted like chicken.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    38. Re:Why? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Could be worse you know. Space is hard on things.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    39. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you fucks haven't done anything since we landed on the moon"

      You have not been paying attention.

    40. Re:Why? by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Wow I got a lot of flak there. All I was doing was giving some of the reasons people I know plan to stick around to the end of the program. I personally think NASA should get out of the launch vehicle business completely. We should design the missions around what LV's exist. This would leverage all of the money DOD spends on developing it's rockets. When DOD upgrades we can use them as well. And for some reason what DOD wants DOD gets.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    41. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (My bet is we will be nothing resembling today's human by the time serious terrestrial emmigration occurs. Genetically modified and loaded with implants.)

      Pamela Anderson welcomes you to the future.

    42. Re:Why? by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough.You are correct that I meant mechanical condition.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    43. Re:Why? by PNutts · · Score: 1

      the usual phrasing ("could care less") is an Nth-generation requote so removed from its original context that all intention of the original utterance has been lost and all that remains is an awkward phrase which few realize is stupid and backward, moron.

      Yeah, but I remember when it was the bee's knees.

    44. Re:Why? by Swanktastic · · Score: 1

      For all intensive purposes, I'm reclined to agree with you.

    45. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (yes, that is the correct way to use that phrase - its "couldn't" not "could")

      IHTBAGN (I hate to be a grammar nazi) but it's "it's not "its."

    46. Re:Why? by Samy+Merchi · · Score: 2

      Why not go back to expendable men though?

      One of the reasons manned flights are so damn expensive is because there's redundancy after redundancy to try to do absolutely everything to ensure 99.99999% crew survival rate. By letting crew survival rate go down to, say, 25%, things could get a lot cheaper.

      Now, some people are going to say, it's inhuman of society to gamble with the lives of its citizens, but I ask, isn't it ultimately the choice of every *individual* whether or not they want to gamble with their lives? Shouldn't an individual have the right to risk their life if they choose to? Tons of people bungee jump, hang glide, ride motorcycles, parachute, rock climb and so on, taking risks with their lives and society doesn't stop them. I know there would be people who would also choose to risk their lives for the advancement of our spaceflight. Why not take on those people who are willing to volunteer their lives, build some risky rockets, and go to space a lot cheaper.

    47. Re:Why? by thrich81 · · Score: 1

      The AC's reply before mine is much better, so read that one, but the Shuttle never put a payload into polar orbit (at least not any big ones, and none at all that I'm aware of) -- that would have required a launch from Vandenberg which never happened after some billion+ $$ was put into a launch facility there. And the Shuttle certainly never exercised a 1200 mile crossrange capability. Given its lack of meeting any other operational requirements, who knows if it ever could? The customer for those requirements (USAF) abandoned the system as soon as it could. NASA didn't have that option.

    48. Re:Why? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's so much CYA going around about those, I'm not sure what to believe, but I was under the impression that they performed to specs. The issue is they were operated out of spec. Whether that's because the spec wasn't properly defined, the requested spec didn't match the delivered spec, or the shuttle was launched outside its specified environmental window, I don't know. But my impression is that the o-rings were delivered with a rated operational temperature and never failed in that range.

    49. Re:Why? by Teancum · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have no doubt that the finest work ever done in relation to the Shuttle program is perhaps being done now by the workers at KSC, and that these vehicles are in the best shape that they have ever been in.

      The issue is that the time to save the Shuttle program has passed by and that the production lines needed to replace parts currently being used for the maintenance have now shut down, and that there is a need to at least replace the Columbia and perhaps create a few more new orbiters in order to really use this capability to its fullest. Getting that supply chain going again including restoring the staff at the Michoud Assembly Facility is not just difficult, I would dare say that in the current federal budget environment would be impossible to accomplish. And that is but the most obvious facility that has already had lay-offs with the employees already gone and moved on to other things. Many other factories involved with the construction and maintenance of the Space Shuttle have had similar kinds of lay-offs.

      If anything, what is happening at KSC is just a delayed action to stuff that has been happening for years now.

      Would it stink if it were me in the position you are in? Absolutely! I would be hating life in that kind of circumstance. I am very much aware that this is going to force many people to change their lifestyles in Brevard County. Then again, the problem is that everybody is depending on the government here where there are another thousand counties or so in America that are asking why are they sending money to this county when they would be just as deserving.

      Over time, I think this is going to be something better for that part of Florida anyway, and in terms of places to perform launches into orbit, KSC is quite difficult to beat. It still is one of the premier locations on the Earth for orbital spaceflight and that is a fact of geography that other places like Virginia, Texas, and New Mexico can't beat.

      I agree that what needs to happen is to reduce the cost of launches and spaceflight in general. I personally don't think that the Ares/Orion (or this new "heavy lift vehicle" for that matter) is going to be any cheaper, but that is a personal opinion and the sentiment is well in hand. To me, the best chance that KSC has is to encourage The Florida Space Authority to get its act together and turn KSC into the spaceflight equivalent of the O'Hare International Airport. I believe that day is coming where even NASA is going to be told to wait for an opening for launch with a launch window measured on the order of minutes instead of days because of the sheer traffic happening there. Perhaps other locations could open up that might work out better, but I think it would take an idiot to pass up on the potential of that launch location for all but specialized flights.

      It is time to let the Space Shuttle go gracefully into history. That program has served our country well, and so have the thousands of dedicated people who have help to get that hunk of equipment into orbit. The jobs are eventually going to return, but it won't be the same kind of jobs and the companies involved won't be the same either. In fact, many of the companies who will eventually be there may not even exist yet. That would be my suggestion: find those companies or form one of them if you have the skills necessary.

    50. Re:Why? by JWW · · Score: 1

      I wish I still had some mod points. Fantastic post!

    51. Re:Why? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      This is the right approach in my books.

      For the effort, expense and materials you can do more with a robot in space
      because it does not need food, water, or air.

      If a robot breaks in space fair odds you can repair it with another robot
      if you got the parts up there.

      If a human breaks in space...not so much.

      Any mission to mars with humans would require so much food, water,
      and other supplies that it would take up most of the room on the spacecraft.

      Build a few tougher rovers and send them.

      Make it so they can repair each other.

      Make it so it can dust its solar panel off so it doesn't just
      end up parked due to dust on its panel.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    52. Re:Why? by WCLPeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We have a much better chance of handling an 'Extinction Level Event' if we a) don't completely trash the planet so there are some habitable areas left by the time the big ball hits

      If an ELE occurs it won't matter how nice to the planet we've been, the entire ecosystem will be thrashed and the survivors are going to wish they had died. The life they will have to live will be so incredibly hard; war for the scant resources remaining will be common, many will die of starvation, and simple diseases easily curable before the impact will claim many.

      b) try to figure out how to run civilizations so that even trivial little things like earthquakes, floods and rush hour don't cause major issues

      If you think an earthquake or flood is a trivial event, you're not paying attention to recent events. Five years later they are *still* putting New Orleans back together. Haiti is still a mess, I remember reading estimates its going to take years and at least 14 Billion just to put Haiti back the way it was.

      When an event like this happens even the concerted effort of a group of nations, and Billions in donations from a concerned public, can only alleviate some of the suffering and it will take years rebuild their lost infrastructure.

      An ELE event, if it doesn't outright kill you first, is going to catastrophically cripple everyone.

      We'd lose our global manufacturing base, the one thing that could help clean up the mess, and effectively put us back to the early stone age. In a North American society, and a good chunk of Europe, few of us know anything about basic survival. Do you honestly expect the majority of survivors from a "modern" society to know how to eke out a basic living when we're so used to the conveniences of take out, fast food, gourmet restaurants, and grocery stores?

      c) learn how to maybe, perhaps, get along with ourselves and our current lifeboat.

      It won't matter if everyone is all fluffy bunnies and roses when an ELE event occurs.

      When it does happen our fluffy bunnies and roses mentality will get pushed aside and our base instincts will take over. The only reason "modern" societies are even able to function is because our manufacturing and infrastructure base allows even the weakest amongst us to survive without too much struggle. Take that away and it quickly will devolve into a "survival of the fittest" situation.

      Our best hope for survival as a species is to spread out to as many places as we can, as far away from Earth as we can, so if something bad happens to any one of those colonies the rest of the species has a fighting chance for survival and can use their infrastructure and manufacturing bases to help the others pick up the pieces.

    53. Re:Why? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The biggest expense for the US is military.

      We have 700+ bases in 130+ countries, we are the new Rome.

      Just the cost of maintaining multiple carrier groups is staggering.

      Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex on
      the way out of office.

      JFK tried to do something in that regard and he got his head blown off.

      The NASA budget is a tiny joke compared to the military one.

      The next biggest budget is Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid and
      the way to deal with that would be a Co-op similar to the way
      the insurance company USAA is run.

      The current system is bloated and ppl have to sue the government
      just to get their benefits some of the time.

      Having the nations of the world police themselves and reforming
      SSI and Medicare would take care of our money problems.

      Using Algae oil grown in the desert and ending all imports of
      oil would totally eliminate the trade deficit in just a few years.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hioZ7C6HLs

      100,000 gal/acre/yr in the desert using non-arable land.

      It would pay better than any legal crop at this time.

      It would make jobs and solve our energy issues til we
      can migrate the infrastructure over to hydrogen.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production

      Then with time we can get one of the several ideas for Fusion
      off the ground and move to an primary electric system.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_plasma_focus#DPF_for_nuclear_fusion_power

      Dense plasma focus has the lead at this point for cost
      effective use.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    54. Re:Why? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The Shuttle is history already, only the walking zombies are insisting that it lives on. The time to save the Shuttle was about two years ago.... and about two years after (at the time) the original decision to end the Shuttle program had been made. There was a chance and there were even groups within the space community that were saying "now is the time to save the Shuttle".... but nobody paid attention at the time in terms of politicians or anybody that mattered.

      Yes, I realize there may be institutional knowledge in the Shuttle program that is going to be lost, just as there was a whole bunch of useful knowledge lost when the Apollo program was canceled. America survived just fine, recovered, and moved on although we lost the ability to go to the Moon. That is the sad part, if anything.

      We can preserve at least some of that knowledge by supporting a robust commercial spaceflight industry where the costs for access to space are in a steady decline and more people would be willing to invest into those vehicles. If the costs for access to space decline, more and new opportunities will arise in terms of what can be done, and hopefully some of those laid off will be of use to some of these new companies that are being created.

      Bigelow Aerospace is hiring right now, and they need people with the kinds of experience that the workers at KSC can provide. Moving from Florida to Las Vegas may not be the most idea thing in the world, but it is at least a job and I hear that the housing is pretty cheap in Vegas at the moment (compared to a couple of years ago). Besides, Bigelow may be opening a facility at KSC in the near future too.

    55. Re:Why? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Why haven't we tried an update of the shuttle?

      NASA has tried. There has been a singular failure within NASA to get any sort of new vehicle for manned spaceflight developed. From the CRV to the DC-X, the Apollo II project and several other interesting but failed experiments leading up to the Ares I/Ares V/Orion spacecraft system (and arguably even the DIRECT concept) keep getting massive amounts of funding but also consistently get shut down eventually... usually due to political expediency or lack of congressional support to get those projects to completion. Like the Ares I-X vehicle (arguably just a slightly modified Shuttle SRB designed to fly on its own), the DC-X also had "hardware" built to demonstrate the concept and even flew a couple of missions (a couple short hops off the ground to a couple hundred feet).

      As for why a Shuttle "Mark 2" vehicle hasn't been built? A very excellent question. I would argue because the company who made it in the first place (Rockwell International) doesn't exist any more and the engineers who designed the vehicle are either retired or dead from old age. It is a classic case of "not invented here" syndrome, where everybody wants to do something new and different. Starting up a Shuttle orbiter production line would also cost billions of dollars... something that Congress is very reluctant to spend all at one time as would be necessary for such a project.

    56. Re:Why? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The Saturn V could put more into orbit and do it cheaper than the Shuttle. So why was the Saturn V abandoned again? This time the Shuttle is being abandoned for the Ares I, which puts even fewer astronauts into orbit for more money still, and this time without any cargo capacity at all except for a couple hundred pounds in the "trunk". Yes, an Ares I launch is at least the same cost if not more than a Shuttle lanuch.

      I'd like to be dazzled too. And as pointed out by the AC poster, the Shuttle never had a 65k pound payload even in the best of circumstances.

    57. Re:Why? by Teancum · · Score: 4, Informative

      The biggest expense for the US is military.

      This used to be true. Now the largest expense in the federal government is interest on federal debt, with the #2 largest expense being Social Security payments, and #3 is health care benefits to federal workers (and this was before Obamacare went into effect).

      Military spending is now #6 or #7 on the list of top fiscal outlays, and falling. Appropriations for NASA hardly even show up on the pie graphs at all, and this year are down to 0.1% of the federal budget.

      You point is well taken, but military spending shouldn't be made out to be the bad guy here even though they still do get a huge hunk of change every year.

    58. Re:Why? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is, I imagine Virgin Galactic or a similar company is going to essentially have this and beat most world governments to the punch.

      As it stands we have Spaceship One/Two which uses a mothership to launch the craft into low orbit. I'm sure with some scaling up this could be done on a level where we have ships that are capable of dragging cargo out into space if need be. It's sad to see the decline of one of America's finest government institutions.

    59. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This happened so long ago that my recollection may be a bit fuzzy, but if I recall it correctly, NASA managers were more concerned about the icicles that formed on the shuttle stack damaging the tiles on the orbiter more than the O-rings.

      In essence however, you are both correct and incorrect. The O-Ring problem was identified within the testing phase, and wasn't considered a loss of vehicle risk unless operated outside of the temperature specification range. I am not sure however if that specification range was ambient temperature or some form of adjusted temperature to take into account the time it would take for the structure to warm up. So during the launch, the ambient temperature at launch had risen to a safe level, however the SRB's hadn't warmed up, so the O-Rings were still too cold.

      What should have happened is that once the issue was identified in the testing phase, the safety guidelines should have been updated to reflect the problem and at that point, a longer term program to replace the SRB's with an updated design should have been started. It is sad that it took the loss of a shuttle and 7 lives to get that done. Even after that, that lesson was never learned. To me, this is an issue that Washington didn't address. They were so fixated on making a profit, when we aren't even close to the stage of making a profit in space, that they demanded that an experimental vehicle be operated like an airliner. That is ignoring the question of should the government be involved in something that can make a profit. They shouldn't which is why they SHOULD have been involved in the shuttle program.

    60. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That assumes that all you want to do is put stuff into orbit. In that scenario, then yes, the shuttle is extremely inefficient for that purpose. however, one of the requirements for the shuttle was to have a return payload capability.

      Unfortunately without a station with the ability to produce that payload, that capability stayed extremely underutilized. (While I think the return of satellites was a fine demonstration of that capability, the logistics of that function were unrealistic).

      Using that requirement as a basis, I believe that the shuttle was a reasonable design for the time. As to the other requirements. I honestly believe that it was the politicians who had to be sold that bill of goods to approve the program in the first place. The space shuttle should always have been considered an experiment and treated as such. I honestly believe that even the politicians knew that it would never be a 'profitable' vehicle. If it was, then that is something that private industry should have funded themselves.

      Even now, private industry isn't proposing to replace NASA, they only want to replace the bits and pieces of it that aren't really the bulk of the cost. NASA will still be responsible for the structural overhead costs. People need to understand that. NASA is still going to require the 9 billion a year to run a manned space program using the SpaceX option. It is just that a different group is going to get some of that pie. I am not saying this to say we shouldn't go that route, I am just saying we need to be realistic as to what it is that is being proposed.

    61. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct, the shuttle never launched into polar orbit, however the requirement wasn't that the shuttle needed to put 65000 pounds into polar orbit, but that it put that payload into an orbit from KSC (not sure of the exact inclination). It never met that requirement but he differences wasn't that large.

      The problem with that is that because on launch the shuttle is essentially part of the payload and the internal payload can't be affected when weight estimates go out of scope, the effective launch payload is affected. It is the same thing with launching to the ISS, which is in an orbital inclination appropriate from launching from Russia, the payload loss is purely in the payload bay.

      As to the 1200 mile cross range, because of the deadstick landing that the shuttle must do, the vehicle needed to have that, without the military, in order to have enough margin to be able to safely land. After the design was finalize, even Max Faget agreed to that (he was a proponent of a straight wing design). Other aspects that were 'imposed' by the military, were also in the end necessary to make the vehicle useful. Without the station being part of the overall system, it was necessary.

      ISS probably could not have been built without a shuttle (ignoring the question of whether we should have built ISS in the first place). It needed the flexibility that the shuttle provides. It is just too bad that the station came into play towards the end of the shuttles life.

    62. Re:Why? by DwySteve · · Score: 1

      Hot damn! I live in Brevard county and I've seen lots of launches but never an orbiter up close like that.

      I can't believe that we're putting that into oribt. That's redneck engineering at its best!

      True story: one of the defense contractors around here got the idea to bring the technicians in on design reviews so they could offer their expertise. This is after the engineers would all huddle together, design something then hand it off to the techs after which they usually looked at it and said "Seriously!? Are you all idiots?" It's hard to make everything go according to plan when the plan is flat out impossible. So they figured by bringing the techs in on the design process they could remove some of the frank impossibilities from the design of their widgets and improve compliance (or some other buzzword). As a bonus, they offered cash bonuses if their input resulted in a positive design change.

      It didn't last.

      Because they ended up paying out too much money and stopped the program.

      I'm sure there's a bunch of impossible designs running around out there that a diligent tech is fixing.

      Bottom line: trust the techs. If you can, hire them. They ARE the best. You won't regret it.

      --
      http://angryee.blogspot.com
    63. Re:Why? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The quality of the o-rings wasn't the issue - choosing to launch when they knew the weather was unsuitable is what caused the explosion. On the other hand, China has had some FAR worse disasters while developing their own space program, and those failures were entirely due to poor design/manufacture.

    64. Re:Why? by MrWa · · Score: 3, Informative

      Link to data showing military spending at #6 or #7, because this shows you are WAY off in that regard.

    65. Re:Why? by Ostracus · · Score: 1

      Genetically modified and loaded with implants.)

      Wonderful..."We are the Borg..."

      --
      Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    66. Re:Why? by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      Since I work at KSC I guess I can provide some insight. The purpose of these new space plans is to reduce the cost of launches. The way you do that is by using a simpler vehicle and less people.

      Exactly. I am glad guys at the KSC are thinking about the long term future of space transport rather than wanting to keep maintaining such an expensive vehicle, even though the cost of maintaining it is primarily spent hiring people in the KSC. Efficiency is key to progress, a cheaper way of launching must involve simplification and cuts, if we are ever to get affordable launches for all, we must be prepared to loose a bit of the awe and glamour of the huge space shuttle.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    67. Re:Why? by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      It won't matter if everyone is all fluffy bunnies and roses when an ELE event occurs. When it does happen our fluffy bunnies and roses mentality will get pushed aside and our base instincts will take over. The only reason "modern" societies are even able to function is because our manufacturing and infrastructure base allows even the weakest amongst us to survive without too much struggle. Take that away and it quickly will devolve into a "survival of the fittest" situation. Our best hope for survival as a species is to spread out to as many places as we can, as far away from Earth as we can, so if something bad happens to any one of those colonies the rest of the species has a fighting chance for survival and can use their infrastructure and manufacturing bases to help the others pick up the pieces.

      Wow, you make humanity sound just likes spores off a fungus... I guess if you look at the big picture, thats pretty clear. Our corrupt basic instinct survival spreading to where we can smash and grab an existence... If I were an extra terrestrial.. I'd nuke us fast before we can spread. Humanity, the toxic mold of the universe.

    68. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems that despite what the shuttle would have been best suited for, it never performed a single mission that used that capability. (At least the public known non-military missions.) And that particular job would be to recover an a satellite from orbit and bring it back down intact. For all the other work, other launch platforms are cheaper if not more capable.

      Since NASA has no apparent need for such mission, why support such an expensive vehicle where it's only special capability that made it worthwhile is the one that they never used?

      It's a shame that it has to go though, as I think the shuttle is sort of cool. They had it all these years, and never had it do the one exact thing none of their other launch systems could do.

    69. Re:Why? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      you do realize that NASA's entire budget at this point is just a few months of what the military is spending in the Middle East. NASA has been gutted to the point that money put in is wasted. They've put more money into secret bombers than the next space ship in the last 20 years.

    70. Re:Why? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      There is no "cost" problem, it is a PRIORITY problem. We spend more than 1 Billion dollars a month (all borrowed outside the usual 25% military budget) on our little "peace" missions. Six months of not paying for any more wars would put people on Mars quite easily. The problem is that after we went to the Moon, we didn't KEEP doing it. We threw away all the technology and experience in the 1970s, and we're about to throw away the ability to put ANY people in orbit. NASA's budget is a fraction of what it was in the 1980's even and it's almost all service to Military or Infrastructure missions that are absolutely necessary, very little "blue sky" research has been done beyond what can fit in the astronauts "carry on" luggage.

    71. Re:Why? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      we don't actually spend that much on NASA any more, it's budget has been cut to a fraction of even 20 years ago. The real problem is that we have to do BOTH, we have plenty of food in this country, sure there are hungry people but that is a social problem not a money problem and there are still fewer than any other time in US history. Our transit systems need work, but again, that money and employees can come from the Military budget if it was really important. As far as digital infrastructure, again to compare us to other countries is silly unless you are including all of Russia, China or Canada... and no just the cities. The US is incredibly well wired for the amount of space involved... you might compare other countries to single most populated US states to get a more realistic picture. The same is true of schools, the numbers the US uses come from ALL schools except maybe "special ed" who knows where numbers for other countries (especially Asian countries) come from as they "track" students into "worker" programs at a younger age and don't report those numbers the same way we do.

      Space is something only the government can do right. Sure we could have commercial space programs... they aren't even at the level of the Mercury program the government had 60+ years ago to put ONE MAN in orbit. Space is all about bragging rights, doing something that nobody else CAN do. but even now, China, Japan, India are all putting up a better effort than the USA.

    72. Re:Why? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Even that chart doesn't show the "off budget" funds when Congress does pure borrowing in 100 Billion a pop. All that money is "off the books" as far as the budget keepers are concerned, which is why even though every other program is seeing cuts, the deficit is ballooning at record rates. Adding in off-budget military funding they are definitely in first place now. The stating of the military "minimum" is deceptive because Congress is constitutionally not allowed to guarantee military funds year-over-year, they have to vote on nearly all of it every year, even though most of the budget is just rubber stamping what they did last year.

    73. Re:Why? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say it was that short sighted though. All the agencies kept adding their own hobby projects to the list and that was probably a good thing. Considering the USA has not developed or tested any other manned vessel since before the shuttle was launched in 1981 and the last new shuttle was launched in 1992 (and Apollo ended several years before that) the shuttle program is a raging success for a 1970's design. Five vehicles (Enterprise was never launch worthy. Columbia, Challenger, Atlantis, Discovery, Endeavor) were the entire manned program for 30 years, that's not a bad run. The ships have launched satellites, sent astronauts on repair missions, carried ISS modules, and even brought instruments back to Earth again for repairs. While it might not have been the most efficient, it's ability to be a platform for many types of projects was the design purpose and it did a pretty good job.

      In the interim, maybe they should build a system that uses shuttle-compatible boosters and tanks, but without the wings and return capability. If they were really clever, they could even use the ships as pieces of the ISS, so they didn't just burn up. The real problem is that even if somebody liked the idea right now, it takes close to 10 years to get anything that will be manned through planning, design, and manufacturing, effectively the US manned space program is dead for the next decade unless we borrow ships from other countries.

    74. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try, but remember *why* the costs for healthcare to federal workers are so high. It's not because there are thousands and thousands of FDA employees shot every year. It's just a way of hiding the true costs of the military. If you add all military costs: direct spending, two extra war budgets, black budgets, and indirect spending such as halthcare for soldiers and veterans, you will see it is again the #1 expenditure.

      Interest on federal debt isn't actually that high, as other lenders are even less trusted. China just can't move its cash to other investments.

    75. Re:Why? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The hard, harsh reality that no one wants to accept is that there *are no* "sustainable habitats away from Earth." With our bent for science fiction, our "We can do it!" attitude, our infatuation with our technology, and our frontier spirit; we just can't accept that there are some frontiers which simply *can't* be settled. The other bodies in this solar system are more inhospitable than most people can even imagine. For an asteroid hit to render this planet more inhospitable than even the most earth-like and accessible other body in the solar system would require a hit that would tear this planet to pieces. Even an extinction-level hit would still leave this planet WAY more survivable than Mars or any other body. And anything outside this solar system is completely inaccessible (again, most people have no idea of the incredible distances involved in interstellar travel).

      The fate of humanity is forever tied to the fate of earth. There is no other place for us. Deal with it.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    76. Re:Why? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons manned flights are so damn expensive is because there's redundancy after redundancy to try to do absolutely everything to ensure 99.99999% crew survival rate. By letting crew survival rate go down to, say, 25%, things could get a lot cheaper.

      25% survival rate is useless for almost all purposes. It means that only one flight in 4 succeeds, which is far below the sweet spot of most bang for buck, even if the payload were free of cost. It also means that you'll be replacing your crew constantly, making everyone a novice in every flight.

      Also, exactly why do you think we do manned flights at all? It's precisely to increase the safety to the point where you can sell tourist tickets to celebrities, after which we can concentrate on decreasing price until Joe Average can get one too. At that point space colonization should really start kicking in.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    77. Re:Why? by Samy+Merchi · · Score: 1

      It also means that you'll be replacing your crew constantly, making everyone a novice in every flight.

      Which is a non-issue if we're sending people up for other reasons than to get astronaut training. If we're sending a geologist up to study a comet, then it doesn't matter that he's a novice at astronauting.

      Also, exactly why do you think we do manned flights at all? It's precisely to increase the safety to the point where you can sell tourist tickets to celebrities

      That may be your reasoning, but there are other lines of reasoning too, that don't require increased safety. For example, sending people up to do construction work on comets. That doesn't require increasing safety to massively redundant levels.

      At a 25% level (or pick any other number, really, that you can agree with -- the point is reduced safety from current, not the exact 25% number) if you need 10 geologists up there, you send up 40. If you need 100 construction workers to build a moonbase, send 400. With a different safety percentage the numbers will be different, but the point is we don't need to be absolutely sure that if we send n people, then n people reach the destination. That's just an added excessive cost, and we can do it for cheaper if we accept some losses.

    78. Re:Why? by skids · · Score: 1

      I do realize that. As I said, I think that's about the right level of spending for this program.

    79. Re:Why? by RaymondKurzweil · · Score: 1

      I never said the quality of the o-rings themselves was the issue.
      But every recount/analysis of the disaster I have heard has placed at least some of the blame on operations within the supplier of the O-rings (Thiokol), which is an American company. You can read about this yourself.

      You also seem to imply that the US space program went along flawlessly from the very beginning in the 50s. Note: It didn't.

      And if all the Chinese are fucking retards/dishonest fucks (and Americans are just better), then what does it say about the Americans outsourcing or offshoring to them??

      My snarky comment was more to point out that hatred for another country (stemming mainly from "taking yer jerbs") has little to do with actually solving engineering/economic problems and getting to the root of why businesses act the way they do.

      Here's another one: I'm glad we don't outsource most of our food supply. Imagine the horrors if we imported our eggs from a bunch of gooks.

    80. Re:Why? by RaymondKurzweil · · Score: 1

      Well for what it's worth, the point I was making was more of a comment on the fact that the machinations of Thiokol (the American contractor) were found to play a role in the cause of the disaster.

      My point is that if you want to just pretend that Chinese businesses and people are all fundamentally assholes and American businesses and people are just somehow magically better and that economic incentives and political realities have nothing to do with it, then fine with me, just don't be surprised when your ship blows up.

    81. Re:Why? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      At least beat the American government to the punch. Billions of dollars are now going to fund the Russian space program by the U.S. Government, but they don't want to spend any money on private spacecraft developers that happen to be in America... unless those jobs happen to go to their own district/state in a pork fest. On top of that, those in congress really don't care if anything is actually built as long as their constituents are employed on the government gravy train.

      I wouldn't call the Democrats the heroes on this either, but at least in this case the Obama administration is supporting private enterprise, entrepreneurial efforts, and self-initiative in order to get something to happen that at least allows all of that money going to launch American astronauts on Soyuz spacecraft to try and launch a private spaceflight industry in America. To me, that is the one thing Obama actually got right the whole time he has been in office. The Republicans are too busy worrying about their lobbyist groups and collecting bribes (*cough* "campaign contributions") to notice how they are destroying the capabilities of American spaceflight.

      Democrats can't figure out how to make business work here on Earth, but the Republicans can't figure out how to get it to happen in space either. To me it is surreal to see Democrats promoting smaller government, reduced taxes, and increased privatization of government services. I have to do a reality check to see if these guys really are who they say they are... including the Republicans.

    82. Re:Why? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You also seem to imply that the US space program went along flawlessly from the very beginning in the 50s.

      No, I just don't seem to remember it killing hundreds of civilians.

      My snarky comment was more to point out that hatred for another country

      That would be a fair point, if his comment had actually been based on xenophobic hatred of China. It wasn't. Chinese products generally are of inferior quality, just like Japanese products used to be utter crap when we first started buying stuff from them. You don't get to prop up an inferior product by claiming that those who dislike it are all racist assholes who just hate the Chinese.

    83. Re:Why? by RaymondKurzweil · · Score: 1

      That would be a fair point, if his comment had actually been based on xenophobic hatred of China. It wasn't.

      If you reread the post I was replying to carefully, I think you will find it difficult to honestly conclude what the hell it was "based" on.

      To be honest, the part I was speaking to is only loosely addressed in the beginning and then the rest of the post just goes off into la-la land.

      But reading phrases interspersed through there like "done onshore" and "proud of our country" you're going to have a hard time convincing me that its completely detached from anti-globalization/xenophobic talking points.

      I'll also point out that there are a number of products that are for all intents and purposes only mass-produced in China and Taiwan. What are they "inferior" to?
      For instance, where are most of these Apple products made that people are constantly orgasming over? What are the Chinese versions inferior to.

      The fact is, at this point, the standards of manufacturing quality out of China are highly variable and probably will be for a long time to come. There are some very carefully constructed and well made products made in China and there is also utter crap. I cannot agree with the "Chinese products generally are of inferior quality," it is far too simplistic.

      The Chinese political and legal landscape and economy is still a backwater, and only customers that have a half-wit of economic sense to implement proper incentivization and quality management for their outsourcing providers are going to get good quality out of China. And some do.

      The original post loosely makes the claim that the real solution is to just insist that we just make everything here ourselves, as if the outsourcing to foreigners itself is the real problem. This is really the only point I was facetiously calling out. I don't have any special love for the Chinese.

    84. Re:Why? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The Space Shuttle (STS) is basically the spaceship version of the SUV (or worse, the RV). Something designed for too many different tasks, and which excels at none of them (without enormous expense). We should have stuck with capsules.

    85. Re:Why? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Colonization is a long, long, long way away with current technology.

      However, if we got our space tech in better shape, and had more spacecraft looking for incoming asteroids, it really wouldn't be that hard to be fully prepared for any planet-killer asteroids. We've already got one of the technologies developed that would be useful for deflecting asteroids: the thermonuclear bomb. Now we just need observation spacecraft to track asteroids and predict their courses, and delivery vehicles to intercept asteroids early enough and change their trajectory.

      Sitting on our asses and never going into space, as the Luddites here suggest, will guarantee that an asteroid would destroy us, just like not bothering to stay abreast of developing hurricanes and their paths will cause much greater loss of life and property than staying prepared.

    86. Re:Why? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The shuttles are a definitely not the best possible design, we know that now, but at the time they were built they seemed like a good idea.

      No, they didn't. They were always a stupid idea, and the only people who thought they were a good requirement were the morons at the Pentagon, who insisted on a spacecraft that could bring military satellites back from orbit intact. That's the ONLY reason the Space Shuttle happened. If it weren't for the stupid military, we'd have a much cheaper and more effective space transport program.

    87. Re:Why? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      We have tons and tons and tons of money that we could spend on space exploration. The problem is that all that money is being used for the military to pursue an imperialist agenda. Cut the military down to focus solely on DEFENSE, which would probably require less than 10% of its current budget, and then you'll have enough money to quadruple NASA's budget, and still have lots left over to give back to the taxpayers through reduced taxes.

      The amount spent on NASA is a tiny, tiny fraction of that spent on the DoD and the mideast wars.

    88. Re:Why? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It's a stupid requirement. WHY do you need to return a payload? You don't. There's no reason to ever return a payload; it's cheaper to just dump it in the atmosphere and build a new one if there's a problem with it.

      The only thing you EVER need to return to Earth is crew. That can be done much, much cheaper with a simple capsule.

      When we start mining asteroids, THEN we'll have a reason to return things intact to the surface, but that's a ways off, and can probably be done in a much cheaper way than with the Shuttle.

      The only people that ever though returning cargo to earth was an important capability were the morons in the Pentagon.

    89. Re:Why? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      When you see the orbiters they look like they just rolled out of the factory.

      ROTFLMAO. Not even remotely do they look like they just rolled out of the factory - they look worn and dirty and tired out.
       
      Look at this picture in the large size - and you can plainly see the accumulated dirt. Find a picture showing the underside, and you can see where re-entry heat has heated and redeposited all kinds of things on the heatshield.
       
      That's what happens to real vehicles in the real world - I don't know about whatever fantasy world you inhabit.
       

      Anything you read about orbiters deteriorating is a lie. They are pristine.

      Horseshit. I've worked around vehicles every bit as complicated as the Shuttle and wear and tear does accumulate. See the picture above, and consider (for just one example) the worn Kapton wiring that had to be replaced back in the late 90's.
       

      Many people are still in denial that this county would be so stupid as to throw away such magnificent machines and they want to be there to keep them flying when we come to our senses.

      No, the people in denial are those willing to lie as you did above.

    90. Re:Why? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The O-rings are all but utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue is that the SRB's had a faulty joint design and NASA knew it to be faulty and continued to fly anyway. The temperature contributed to Challenger's loss - but the reality is that most of the flights with the worst damage (that is, which came closest to failure) occurred at joint temperatures well within the 'spec'. (To the minimal extent that they had a spec, which wasn't based on anything but ill-informed guesswork to start with.)

    91. Re:Why? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex on the way out of office. JFK tried to do something in that regard and he got his head blown off.

      Quite the contrary. JFK ran, and was elected, on a platform that included considerably expanded defense spending - and followed through on that promise.

    92. Re:Why? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Which is a non-issue if we're sending people up for other reasons than to get astronaut training. If we're sending a geologist up to study a comet, then it doesn't matter that he's a novice at astronauting.

      Except that we don't need to send a geologist, we need to send at least 4 of them to have decent chances of one of them surviving :(. And of course experience at astronauting matters, just like experience at piloting a helicopter would matter for a geologist using one to get to an interesting rock formation here on Earth.

      That may be your reasoning, but there are other lines of reasoning too, that don't require increased safety. For example, sending people up to do construction work on comets. That doesn't require increasing safety to massively redundant levels.

      Yes, it does. Do you have any idea how much training that kind of work would take? And how much that training would cost?

      At a 25% level (or pick any other number, really, that you can agree with -- the point is reduced safety from current, not the exact 25% number) if you need 10 geologists up there, you send up 40.

      And for this to feasible, the costs per launch would need to drop to much less than 1/4th as a result of relaxed safety. They won't.

      With a different safety percentage the numbers will be different, but the point is we don't need to be absolutely sure that if we send n people, then n people reach the destination. That's just an added excessive cost, and we can do it for cheaper if we accept some losses.

      The people we send up to do anything interesting in space will require a lot of training, and there's nowhere near infinite pool of people willing to sign up for a certain death on the off chance that they get to space, and training also costs money. Your idea is simply unworkable, and will likely remain unworkable no matter how you massage the numbers. Even in the best imaginable case it would lower the cost per succesful launch at most a few percents.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  3. Welcome to the Real World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh great.. government employees now have to worry about being laid off? Those poor bastards.
    Meanwhile, millions of workers in the real world who actually produce and contribute to the economy have been watching their backs for the last 2 years.

     

  4. Layoff Anxiety Is Top Risk To Space Shuttle? by vandelais · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here it was I thought dying in a gigantic fireball upon liftoff or reentry was the top risk.
    Those were the days.

    --
    Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
    1. Re: Layoff Anxiety Is Top Risk To Space Shuttle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's not a risk to the Space Shuttle. It's a Risk OF the Space Shuttle.

      Slight, but critical difference in parsing.

    2. Re: Layoff Anxiety Is Top Risk To Space Shuttle? by vandelais · · Score: 1

      You'd better move your tent, then.

      --
      Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
  5. look up warn act by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 4, Informative

    look up warn act

    WARN Act layoff notice laws require employers to give employees notification before mass layoffs or plant closings

    1. Re:look up warn act by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      WARN Act layoff notice laws require employers to give employees notification before mass layoffs or plant closings

      Or pay a modest fine that can't be collected from a bankrupt store/restaurant etc and is probably less than the productivity losses from pre-announcing at the plant.

      On the other hand theres no point in carrying this too far, once you get to assembly plants (automotive, etc) everyone knows when no supply orders are delivered anymore, etc.

      As a hint, if the store is accumulating empty unstocked shelves, its going down....

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:look up warn act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      look up warn act

      WARN Act layoff notice laws require employers to give employees notification before mass layoffs or plant closings

      Or just pay them for the notification time & let them go immediately. I know because it happened to me :(

    3. Re:look up warn act by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yep.The WARN Act is practically pointless. You can always tell when massive layoffs are starting because the company will do things like institute a freeze on all hiring, stop buying office supplies, refuse requests for purchase orders, cancel projects previously thought to be important, etc.

    4. Re:look up warn act by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lockheed Martin only gave me and other engineers/programmers 8 hours notice in 2001.

      Guess the WARN Act doesn't really work. As for looking for a new job, I've learned from experience that it's better to work until your last day. (And collect the 3-6 months of severance bonus.) If someone wants to hire you, they'll be willing to wait another 1 or 2 months.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:look up warn act by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      I too got severance pay. Unfortunately, it was based on 2 weeks of work (I was rehired after working elsewhere for a year, had I stayed I would have had 3 years of work for that package to have been based on UGH).

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    6. Re:look up warn act by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 0, Redundant

      agreed.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    7. Re:look up warn act by mysidia · · Score: 1

      They need to change it from a "fine" into forced compensation for the employees, for the number of days in advance the warning was supposed to be given in.

      And secure it in the form of a lien against the company's and the company owners' physical property.

    8. Re:look up warn act by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Lockheed Martin only gave me and other engineers/programmers 8 hours notice in 2001.

      Is that normal?

      My employer could tell me not to come in to work any more, but they'd still have to pay me for four weeks, plus any unused holiday days. (The four week period increases the longer I work here. Four weeks is the minimum.)

      Quoting from the staff policy book: Redundancy: This is not entertained lightly at ___. However, where this is unavoidable, management will provide counselling for staff and allow time off with pay for staff to seek alternative work or make arrangements for training before their departure.

      It does work both ways though: Resignation: Staff are required to give written notice of their intention to resign to their line manager in accordance with their contractual notice period. [...] for permanent contracts, staff are required to give the organisation 4 weeks notice.

    9. Re:look up warn act by mhajicek · · Score: 1
      There are several a fundamental design flaws in the concept of financial punishment. 1. If you have a ton of money, it means nothing to you. 2. If you have no money (or can hide / shield your money) it means nothing to you. 3. It can be redirected away from those responsible for making the decision to violate the law. When's the last time a CEO paid a fine for something his company did? 4. A minor, unintentional violation can ruin you if you're in the wrong financial bracket. Example: the DMV screws up your tabs in the computer (they've given me tabs for the wrong car in the past, I was almost arrested for it) or suspend your drivers license without telling you due to a paperwork error (also happened to me when Minnesota had to shut down for a couple weeks for lack of a budget), and all of a sudden you can't make rent / pay insurance / buy gas because you had to pay a fine.

      Fines are class discriminatory. They mean a whole lot more to poor people than to rich people, and when imposed on a company mean almost nothing to anyone in that company unless they're astronomical.

    10. Re:look up warn act by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Most places they can just tell you not to come in tomorrow, they decided your services are no longer required.

    11. Re:look up warn act by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I forgot to add: what I described is normal in the UK, normal in the EU, and most of it required by law.

    12. Re:look up warn act by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It'd be easy to enforce if the government really wanted to. It's simple: make the penalties very harsh, and collect from the owners of the (now-bankrupt) company. In most cases, these companies' owners have substantial assets: bank accounts, real estate, vehicles, etc. They're not "going down with the ship", they're just abandoning ship when the going gets too tough, and keeping as much of their stuff as possible. It would be trivial for the government to seize all these assets if it wanted to.

      The problem is that the government never wants to be very hard on big-business owners, and prefers to socialize losses, so that they can keep their "campaign donations" rolling in.

    13. Re:look up warn act by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Government have some good options to impose financial penalties and still not make them class discriminatory.

      They could use penalties against corporations such as:

      $10 + amount equal to 10 x 5% of your top paid employee's wages + amount equal to 3% of the total of all your employees' wages + 5% of your gross receivables/cash flow for the year the offense occured + 1% of the maximum value of all assets held during the year that the offense occured + 1% of the value paid for all real property owned by the corporation + 5% of the fair market value of all real property rented by the corporation + 5% of the total assets held by all entities that hold shares in the company TIMES their proportion of ownership, if any shareholders are corporations, then that corporation's shareholders' assets are also included.

      Then make a law piercing the veil of "limited liability", and allow shareholders to be liable for the fine, up to a certain percentage of their investment (amount they are liable for, above the cost of their share).

  6. Headline FAIL by Catbus · · Score: 1

    As I read the article, layoff anxiety is a risk but not a top risk. It was addressed, in part, by worker pride wanting to stick with the mission, and a bonus scheme that encourages workers to stick to the end. On the other hand . . . "Among the chief technical risks in the latest review, presented to program managers this summer: -- Catastrophic strikes by space debris; -- Aging propellant pressurization tanks that might explode; -- Foam or ice breaking free from the shuttle's external tank and doing critical damage to heat-shield components." Those would be your top risks at the moment.

    1. Re:Headline FAIL by MurphyZero · · Score: 1

      Trust me, NASA's ability to identify & estimate risks is sub par at best. But they are getting better. Those you listed are among the chief risks. But the biggest risk in space flight has always been human error. Mainly because you don't launch unless you've addressed the external environmental risks. Stress just increases the chance for human error. All that means though is that the chance of a catastrophic failure goes up from about 1.6% per launch to 3 or 4%. Hopefully that's all. NASA will probably says those odds are more like 500 to 1 or maybe in the range from 75-150 to 1 (they'll blame most of that on micrometeorites and orbital debris), but they said the chance of a Challenger disaster was 100,000 to 1.

      --
      Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
  7. Acronyms on Sunday Mornings by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1
    OK. Being groggy on a Sunday morning and reading your post, I got hung up on the 'KSC' for a couple of minutes - and consider our advertising saturated society. I was thinking "KSC" ???

    Kentucky Seared Chicken...

    Kentucky Space Chicken

    Kentucky Sauce Chicken?

    Kentucky .S.....Chicken...

    What could the 'S' stand for...

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    1. Re:Acronyms on Sunday Mornings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      the John F. Kennedy Space Center (in Florida).

          http://www.ksc.nasa,gov

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center

    2. Re:Acronyms on Sunday Mornings by Teancum · · Score: 1

      KSC == Klondike Spicy Cheese

      Korn Sugar Calories
      Kennebunkport Salad Condiments

      Yeah, I thought of all of that, including the Colonel's spicy chicken recipe too.

      Now about that "S". There is a word there that I'm missing too.

  8. not to worry by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

    Don't have to worry much about a job opportunity for NASA workers.

  9. "Layoff Anxiety" ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Layoff Anxiety" ? ...

    "Fuck You" !

  10. Flashback by dammy · · Score: 0

    Seems to be a flash back of the 1970s when NASA and subcontractors were laying off workers (including my father who was working with TRW at the time) after Apollo 17 flight. I think Radiation (now Harris) was laying as well so it was truly a ugly time for Brevard County. This time there isn't as many subcontractors and there are more industries located in Brevard County to hire some of the soon-to-be ex employees.

    I guess the main reason why so many are going to be sticking around until the final mission is there is simply not much else out who will hire them. May as well enjoy the meal ticket until the last day.

  11. Unfortunately, the commuter model doesn't work by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The energy distance from the ground to even low earth orbit is such that your "commuter vehicle" has to carry many times its own weight in fuel, and the fuel is very nasty stuff. Human beings with their fragility and their extensive maintenance requirements are the very worst kind of payload. If your car had to make it to the office through hard vacuum, carrying many times its own weight of fuel, it would indeed need to do the equivalent of carrying the entire house with it.

    Although the ideal requirement can be stated concisely, that does not mean it is actually possible. NASA's overall problem is one of mission incompatibility. Normally if I post something like this, somebody replies "with your attitude we wouldn't have discovered fire yet". To which the reply is that fire is ridiculously easy to discover; wait for a thunderstorm after a dry period. We have got where we are because energy became more and more readily available as our tools improved. But energy has ceased to become more readily available; we do not have any feasible technology for space lift that does not require exotic chemical mixtures. NASA is being asked to look at the wrong end of the telescope. Much better fuel or lift means needs to come first. Douglas Adams, who was no fool, satirised the problem with his infinite improbability drive and bistromath drives, but in fact he identified the core problem in space travel.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Unfortunately, the commuter model doesn't work by strack · · Score: 1, Informative

      exotic chemical mixtures? its gasoline and liquid oxygen. you strike me as the sort of person who dosent know what hes talking about, so hes just spouting bullshit.

    2. Re:Unfortunately, the commuter model doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exotic chemical mixtures? its gasoline and liquid oxygen. you strike me as the sort of person who dosent know what hes talking about, so hes just spouting bullshit.

      Liquid hydrogen and hydrazine are so far removed from "gasoline" that I call troll or ignorance on you.

    3. Re:Unfortunately, the commuter model doesn't work by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand my point on several levels.

      Firstly, my point about hauling the house was meant for the unbelievably stupid concept of having the shuttle built to haul several tonnes of cargo on top of its crew of seven people while the basic issues of risk have not been solved. The very fact that you have a heavy cargo on board increases the risk to the crew to, in my humble opinion, unacceptable levels as you increase the complexity of onboard systems, control, abort scenarios etc etc etc.

      Secondly, aviation was horrendously dangerous in the first few decades - today, the number of people in the air at any one moment drastically outweighs the number of people killed in aviation related accidents every year. Airplanes regularly carry 400 or more people through the air, all the while carrying several hundred tonnes of highly flammable fuel onboard - but improvements in safety have drastically reduced the risk of carrying that fuel, allowing for longer and longer flights.

    4. Re:Unfortunately, the commuter model doesn't work by 6ULDV8 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gasoline, huh? I guess that big tank of liquid hydrogen is just used for buoyancy.

      From http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1995/environ/ENV165.HTM

      "Author: bob w whitbeck
      What kind of fuel do space shuttles use?

      Response #: 1 of 1
      Author: jade hawk
      It depends on what you mean by "space shuttle" -- the official name is Space
      Transportation System (ever wonder what the "STS" stands for in the mission
      names?). For launch the STS uses 2 systems: the main engines in the orbiter
      that burn hydrogen and oxygen from the external tank (the great big orange
      cylinder that the orbiter is attached to for launch); and the SRBs (Solid
      Rocket Boosters) that burn a solid rocket propellant that is a mixture of
      powdered aluminum and ammonium perchlorate. These are used only for launch.
      The orbiter (what most people think of as "the Space Shuttle") has two
      propulsion systems: OMS (Orbital Maneuvering System) used to change orbit and
      to return to earth, and the RCS (Reaction Control System) used for station-
      keeping and attitude control. Both systems burn hydrazine with oxygen."

      --
      Pull my finger for my public key.
    5. Re:Unfortunately, the commuter model doesn't work by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      So, really nothing that a talented high school student couldn't synthesize?

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    6. Re:Unfortunately, the commuter model doesn't work by Teancum · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hydrazine is used because it is hypergolic.... this is a very nice property for thrusters that need to be used on demand in short pulses for station keeping but it isn't the primary fuel that is used for getting into space. The main fuel being used for the 1st stages of most rockets today is simply kerosene and liquid oxygen..... the original poster was correct.

      As for the difference between kerosene and gasoline, I'll leave it to a petroleum engineer to explain the difference if you care... both are hydrocarbons derived from crude oil. While I suppose it would be possible to fuel an entire rocket on this stuff, it wouldn't be the most ideal propellant.

    7. Re:Unfortunately, the commuter model doesn't work by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Yes, the STS is using liquid hydrogen, but the Saturn V used the kerosene/LOX fuel mixture, as does the Delta IV, Atlas V, and Falcon 9 rockets for their first stages. Kerosene or some other petroleum product is indeed one of the primary fuels being used for spaceflight. If you don't mind the smell of fried foods, you could use bio-diesel for that matter. Liquid Hydrogen is being used on the Shuttle because it has a slightly higher ISP than kerosene when combined with LOX, but it requires fancier handling procedures, a whole bunch of "insulation" to keep the cold things cold and the warm things warm.

      Oh, wasn't it the "insulation" that ended up killing the astronauts on the Columbia? All on that quest to get some slightly higher performance that might not have been needed in the first place. Kerosene is liquid at "room temperatures" so you don't need any special cryogenic facilities for handling it when used for rocketry.

    8. Re:Unfortunately, the commuter model doesn't work by multi+io · · Score: 1

      It depends on what rocket and what stage of it you're looking at. The Saturn V first stage did run with a somewhat refined kind of kerosene, iirc. In any case, what fraction of the total launch cost goes into actually producing the fuel? I'd be surprised if it's even one percent.

    9. Re:Unfortunately, the commuter model doesn't work by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The only company I've heard of that spent more on rocket fuel than for the engineering department's office supply budget was Armadillo Aerospace. Even for "established" vehicles like the Space Shuttle, that still is the case.

      Or put it more this way: More paperwork is generated for each "routine" launch for most government spacecraft in both volume and weight (and all of this paper work arrives in Washington DC as "paper", not just electronic documents) than the mass which sits on the launch pad before the vehicle lights up. This isn't even the scientific reports or anything fancy, but the safety records and manufacturing sign-offs necessary just to build the thing according to government specifications. Not only is all of that paper work generated, but somebody has to read all of it too, sometimes more than once.

      As for Armadillo Aerospace, that says much more about that company and the willingness they are to actually fly hardware, to blow things up or crash them, than it says about their fuel budget. Also note that they don't have to worry about pesky government regulations (for the most part... they are now doing some NASA contract work) which helps keep their engineering to fuel cost ratio more favorable.

      Compare that to an automobile too, where you compare the cost of a new car to the amount of fuel you will be pumping into it over its lifetime. I would be surprised if you ended up spending more on fuel costs than the price of the vehicle. For the Space Shuttle, on the other hand, the fuel costs are statistical noise that might even be less than the catering budget for the public relations staff at KSC.

    10. Re:Unfortunately, the commuter model doesn't work by khallow · · Score: 1

      The energy distance from the ground to even low earth orbit

      When I did the calculation, I got something like $10 in electricity per kg of payload (at the usual $0.10 per KwH) to put something in orbit. The energy distance isn't trivial, but it's not the real obstacle here. The real obstacle is the delta v. You need to pick up somewhere around 9-10 km/s of velocity (including some that you lose to gravity since you don't instantly end up in orbit and to a burn to circularize your orbit). With our relatively inefficient engines (in terms of ISP/exhaust velocity, thermodynamically they're pretty efficient for what you get), you end up having vehicles which are 95% or more propellant by mass (so somewhere around 20 times the mass of the empty vehicle in propellant). Even at that scale, propellant costs are something like $100 per kg.

      But energy has ceased to become more readily available

      Given that we're still not intercepting most of the solar energy we receive and given that solar cells have been exponentially declining in price per watt for a couple of decades now, I think that we'll have ready energy from solar power in the next ten years. We also have fairly cheap wind power (and probably will come up with fairly cheap fission over the next decade). That means to me that we'll have plenty of power for producing rocket propellant, even if we have to break water bonds to do it.

    11. Re:Unfortunately, the commuter model doesn't work by camperdave · · Score: 1

      High school students can liquefy oxygen?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    12. Re:Unfortunately, the commuter model doesn't work by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The only company I've heard of that spent more on rocket fuel than for the engineering department's office supply budget was Armadillo Aerospace.

      Maybe NASA should look at where Armadillo gets their office supplies.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    13. Re:Unfortunately, the commuter model doesn't work by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      But the most BASIC level of improving the situation for exploring the solar system is to stop launching every rocket from Earth with enough fuel for an entire trip. A much cheaper solution is to use the Moon for the launch point, but the US hasn't put a man there in 40 years, it' s practically a myth now. Sure, that doesn't solve all the fuel problems, but it allows you to focus on efficient ships for "milk runs" from Earth to the Moon, and allow the Moon teams to build ships to go further that don't have to survive launches from Earth's gravity. Ideally, we would build some bases at the LaGrange points of the Earth-Moon system and the Sun-Earth system to improve launches even more... the US has spent the last 40 years barely making milk runs to low orbit with the ISS being the furthest thing we've done. We've banked NOTHING into the tech in that entire time, it's not really that hard to do, especially if we could get fast-tracked ships built with manufacturing in mind rather than the "engineering samples" we fly now. Imagine if we were still building cars by hand in machine shops.. with lathes and hammers and no two pieces exactly the same, that's where our space program is now.

  12. NASA tanked a long time ago by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is just the maintenance crew. NASA's real collapse came at the end of Apollo, when they laid off most of the people who designed and engineered spacecraft. NASA, like Google now, had been the place where the really smart and competent people went. That all ended around 1973.

    1. Re:NASA tanked a long time ago by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

      Always the same thing; the same either/or choice: Choose to pay to prepare America for the future, or choose to pay for stupid wars.

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    2. Re:NASA tanked a long time ago by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      Haven't studies shown that an American president who gets involved in a war is most likely to get reelected? That might be one cause for the US getting constantly involved in wars; the others being that it lets the current president pay off the military industrial complex and it lets you test new weapon systems. This would explain a lot about US foreign policy if true, sadly :P

      Caveat: I am Canadian, so my viewpoint isn't the same as a US citizen's might be.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    3. Re:NASA tanked a long time ago by lennier · · Score: 1

      Or you could do both: choose to pay to prepare America for stupid future wars!

      The new Phased Plasma Clown Gun will make our forces unstoppable.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    4. Re:NASA tanked a long time ago by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      And NASA got cut because the public at large only wanted to go to the moon as a pissing contest with Russia. Once we got there and walked around, all the average person could see was a large chunk of money going to old news. It's not all that different today, except that we don't have a lot of money going to NASA, so cutting it further cripples it, and sure, there are criticisms to be made of what NASA does/has to do (politicians from every state sticking their hand in the pork barrel doesn't help), but if we want to expand the boundaries of our knowledge of the universe, NASA is one of the best places to put our dollar.

  13. Loyalty will get you nowhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ". 'They love being part of NASA and what NASA does, and they love being part of the space shuttle program. And they want to be a part of it as long as we're doing the kinds of things that we're doing,' says LeRoy Cain, NASA's deputy shuttle program manager.""

    Yeah, and those that stick it out....NASA will be more than happy to serve their pink slip as soon as that last shuttle touches down. In fact, I wonder how many will make it back to their offices to find that pink slip sitting in their chair or the more cowardly alternative, in their email inbox.

  14. "Heavy cargo...increases risk" by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    I'm not sure what you are saying here. I thought you were arguing for a "commuter vehicle" to get payloads to LEO. My point is that it isn't the cargo that makes the system expensive and unreliable; it's the crew and the fuel. If the payload is a satellite, it's quite happy with hard vacuum and a wide temperature range. Human beings don't much like either, plus a satellite doesn't need to pee. If you are arguing for a "commuter vehicle" to deliver people to LEO, my immediate question is "why?".

    I agree that the Shuttle was always a ludicrous idea (if you like, the victory of the "pilots" and the X-project over the "chimps" and the Apollo program, sociology rather than engineering), but then so is the ISS. If rather than engage in manned spaceflight willy-waving we had waited until we had our current robot capability, we would have spent a lot less and found out just as much, and we could have had more suitable delivery vehicles to put robots around the Solar System.

    You might like to consider, vis-a-vis aviation, that we looked at supersonic passenger aircraft and then walked away from them because they were stupidly expensive (and actually unsafe.) We did much better with aircraft designed to work, as it were, with the atmosphere rather than against it. Jeremy Clarkson, no less, suggested that supersonic aircraft went away because of mobile phones and the Internet. In the same way, within the limits of our current technical capability, the need for manned spacecraft (if it ever existed, which I doubt) went away once we could put a little robot on Mars and have it wander around for years looking at things.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:"Heavy cargo...increases risk" by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      You might like to consider, vis-a-vis aviation, that we looked at supersonic passenger aircraft and then walked away from them because they were stupidly expensive (and actually unsafe.) We did much better with aircraft designed to work, as it were, with the atmosphere rather than against it. Jeremy Clarkson, no less, suggested that supersonic aircraft went away because of mobile phones and the Internet. In the same way, within the limits of our current technical capability, the need for manned spacecraft (if it ever existed, which I doubt) went away once we could put a little robot on Mars and have it wander around for years looking at things.

      That sounds nice, but isn't even close to the truth. Concorde operated at a tremendous profit for British Airways: "BA's profits have been reported to be up to 50 million in the most profitable year, with a total revenue of 1.75 billion, before costs of 1 billion." - found here, and in a documentary I recently saw. What hurt them was the single crash, and the fact that 9/11 killed a lot of their best customers. And as far as safety goes, the type had ONE hull loss. You can't conclude that it's worse than any plane which has had at least one, and that's all but the very newest types. With what they learned in the accident investigation, they made it even safer, but in the post 9/11 world it was no longer economically viable. But there's nothing wrong with the concept.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    2. Re:"Heavy cargo...increases risk" by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you are saying here. I thought you were arguing for a "commuter vehicle" to get payloads to LEO. My point is that it isn't the cargo that makes the system expensive and unreliable; it's the crew and the fuel. If the payload is a satellite, it's quite happy with hard vacuum and a wide temperature range. Human beings don't much like either, plus a satellite doesn't need to pee. If you are arguing for a "commuter vehicle" to deliver people to LEO, my immediate question is "why?".

      I think you're misunderstanding things. You need a "commuter vehicle" ONLY for humans, because most people want to go back home rather than being left to die in LEO. You don't need a "commuter vehicle" for cargo. For that, you need something cheap that's designed for a one-way trip. By not having to worry about the return trip, you can save tons of money; just let the used-up rocket fall back into the atmosphere and burn up when the cargo is released and the mission completed. It sounds wasteful, but it's less wasteful than trying to bring the ship back intact.

      As for "why" to have a commuter vehicle to space, I already said: you're not going to get many people to sign up for a one-way trip to LEO. You have to have a way to bring them back, plus you have to worry about humans' biological requirements. But, that's a lot cheaper and easier with a tiny capsule than with a giant pick-up truck (the Shuttle). If you're asking why send humans into LEO at all, the answer is research. Robots can be made to do certain (usually simple and repetitive) things well, but for versatility (like you'd need for complicated scientific experiments in zero-g), you need a human. There's a reason our crime labs don't process DNA evidence with robots. Same thing applies in space.

      And, like it or not, spaceflight has been a big economic catalyst for the last 40 years or so, spurring many spin-off technologies. You're not going to have a robust economy with everyone just making coffee drinks for each other and working in call centers or manning cash registers; you have to build something to have a strong economy. We can't build simpler things any more because we've sent all that stuff offshore to where people will work for a bowl of rice, so we need something that we can build, and for now, China and India aren't big players in the spaceflight industry, and especially not in space stations and other things more advanced than sending a man into orbit for a few minutes. We could just give up on it in the name of "saving money", and concentrate on other industries like call centers, but that's a recipe for turning our country into the next Somalia.

    3. Re:"Heavy cargo...increases risk" by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You might like to consider, vis-a-vis aviation, that we looked at supersonic passenger aircraft and then walked away from them because they were stupidly expensive (and actually unsafe.) We did much better with aircraft designed to work, as it were, with the atmosphere rather than against it. Jeremy Clarkson, no less, suggested that supersonic aircraft went away because of mobile phones and the Internet.

      Supersonic planes are coming back. There's plans on the drawing board, and a bunch of rich people who still want to cross the Atlantic in two hours. I believe there was an article on Slashdot recently.

      In the same way, within the limits of our current technical capability, the need for manned spacecraft (if it ever existed, which I doubt) went away once we could put a little robot on Mars and have it wander around for years looking at things.

      A geologist wandering around Mars could learn more in a week than a robot could in 5 years. Robots are very limited in their capabilities, plus we have the problem of a 1-hour roundtrip communications delay. Robots can't dig deep holes, or make intelligent decisions about what to do next. Sure, a robot is a lot cheaper than a manned program, if you don't mind waiting decades for the same results as you'd get in a year with actual people. And that's only if the robot exceeds its expected lifetime by 100x.

  15. Spaceshuttles are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you have a suit that has boosterrockets like ironman, you know you're on the right way.

  16. Nearly all of the people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at KSC can tell you exactly the problem with the Shuttle program. You are correct, it's a niche market that was created out of politics. So what? That's not fault of those who have worked at KSC, it's the fault of those at Washington DC who refused to listen to engineers and, ahem, the voters that voted the idiots in.

    Frankly, many people at KSC are excited by the idea of having multiple launch vehicles, including heavy life and personal lift. Cape-side, there is a host of vehicles, everything from deltas to atlases.

    Just for the record, NASA doesn't don't have a family car....or a heavy lift vehicle...currently.

  17. So much astroturf! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This post stinks of PR. Were you paid to write this? The orbiters are falling apart, that's why the last one blew up and endangered millions of lives on the ground! The ability of Americans to ignore reality will forever mystify me. In any event, I suppose it doesn't matter anymore - The writing is on the wall! American domination of space is coming to an end! The faster the Americans are grounded the safer the rest of the world will be. We'll all be cheering when the last shuttle lands forever and faces the scrapper's torch. Now all we need to do is get rid of the American parts of the ISS, get some Chinese or Indian workers up there, and we can get some REAL work done! (The russians are lazy drunks, but that's better than ignorant rednecks!)

    Hey, maybe they'll even sell the scrap to a properly civilized country with a properly civilized government! Wouldn't that be nice? Your glorious white-elephant of a shuttle might become beer cans for the REAL engineers who design SAFE, SUCCESSFUL, RELIABLE space transportation systems! I guess then it wouldn't be a complete waste, right?

    1. Re:So much astroturf! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the Chinese have a couple of successful manned launches and they are all of a sudden experts?

      Seriously man, space flight is dangerous, regardless of the vehicle you are in, manned or unmanned. At least the US doesn't put their launch facilities next to a small city only to have a failed rocket launch destroy it killing thousands.

      It is clueless attitudes like yours that is causing the US to lose her economic base making it much more difficult to grow. If the US wants to rise again, it needs to invest in things like this; not just space, but other things as well; to build up a new economic base that can create wealth. Outsourcing the work just makes it so that the US cannot benefit from what it creates long term.

    2. Re:So much astroturf! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, America is failing because you're all lazy, incompetent, ignorant, greedy, wasteful, religious fundamentalists. I know this might shock you, but there are other countries in the world besides yours, and they are quite frankly sick of putting up with your collective bullshit and want your backwards little "government" to die by the most expedient means possible. Over here in the real world we spend less than you, eat less than you. and have less than you, but we waste FAR less than you, work harder than you, longer than you, and smarter than you. There is no reason space can't be made safe, and to say otherwise is to make excuses for your laziness and incompetence. The fact that all your jobs are outsourcing to over here is proof that your corporate masters have finally clued in to how worthless Americans are and they're coming here so they can get some REAL work done! So don't come crying to me! You made your collective bed, now DIE IN IT!

  18. Re: Obama's .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Executive Order to shutter ALL space-base operations and systems of the United States of America.

    The shuttering directive affects:

    NASA, and all space-based operations and systems.

    NOAA, and all space-based operations and systems,

    Department of Defence, All space-based operations and systems.

    The Global Positiong Systems satellites, NAV STAR, will be de-orbited.

    All NOAA satellite systems wil be de-robited.

    Fearing reprisal and assinations, the National Security Council has agreed, that, Obama, is GOD.

  19. Why?-the X factor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    X-37 and X-15

  20. Shhh.... don't tell anybody.... by unixguy43 · · Score: 1

    "but we need you to stop making parts for the space shuttle, and no we're not going to tell you why."

    With the lead time on parts and equipment prior to a mission, it's difficult to try and keep the cancellation of the program hidden. Eventually, someone will notice the fact that there's fewer and fewer external fuel tanks "on the shelf", so to speak, and begin to wonder why.

    In the retail or restaurant business it's easy to move inventory to another business that is in the same line of work, but there's not much call for spare Space Shuttle parts. While I'm sure that a lot of the personnel involved in the program will be able to continue working in the field (either in private industry or possibly still within NASA), I think that the just-in-time supply of parts is really the reason that people need to be informed with a significant lead time prior to the suspension of activity.

    1. Re:Shhh.... don't tell anybody.... by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, I'm ambivalent about not telling folks they are fixing to be downsized. I think it's horrible, but I've seen first-hand the loyalty of people in general when it comes to the daily grind. It's not pretty.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    2. Re:Shhh.... don't tell anybody.... by unixguy43 · · Score: 1

      I've been on the receiving end of both- same day and month's notice. I've decided that they both suck, but I found it infinitely harder to be productive when I showed up to find out that I wouldn't be returning the following day. Having the month's notice was nice only from the standpoint that I could prepare for my imminent departure as opposed to having it sprung at the last minute.

    3. Re:Shhh.... don't tell anybody.... by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      You're lucky you got the 1-days notice. I did not even receive that. We were told the night before that the next day we wouldn't be open for business.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  21. Piffle by jhylkema · · Score: 1

    What other jobs?

    I suppose they could be prison guards. That's about the only growth industry left in America nowadays.

  22. Piffle by jhylkema · · Score: 1

    What other jobs? We're talking here about a country with near double-digit reported unemployment (the real rate is probably a lot closer to 25%) and whose largest employer is Wal-Mart. Exactly where are these guys going to find work at all, much less any that will make them prematurely jump ship?

    I suppose they could be prison guards. That's about the only growth industry left in America nowadays.