Slashdot Mirror
1,200 NASA Layoffs, Shuttle Fuel Tank Plant Shuts Down
As the space shuttle program winds down, 1,200 NASA workers were laid off today, and thousands more will lose their jobs in the months ahead. "Many shuttle workers held out hope that they could find new jobs in the Constellation program, which would have included two new rocket systems and a new crew module to transport astronauts into space. From the beginning, Constellation was plagued by underfunding. This year, Obama killed the program's future funding because of budget overruns and because it was behind schedule. That could affect more than 20,000 workers along Florida's space coast, according to Rice." This comes alongside news that Lockheed Martin has stopped work at the production plant that supplied 136 external fuel tanks for the space shuttles since 1973.
I think a career in Congress is right up your alley.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Change is often painful. These layoffs and the others that are coming from the discontinuation of the Shuttle program are nothing compared to the layoffs that would be necessary to get defense spending in line with the DoD's actual needs. The military-industrial complex is a huge jobs program, with branches in every Congressional district in the country.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Reading the article, Bush actually ended the shuttle program back in 2004. The article further says that if Obama signs a NASA budget bill that authorizes another shuttle mission, those workers could stay employed for one mission longer.
What Obama is ending is Bush's proposed "shuttle replacement" program, the Constellation. Much as I'd like to see space exploration continue, if the Constellation is already behind schedule and over budget I can understand it. Especially in this current climate.
It's definitely going to hurt Democrats in Florida though.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
And what private company had built a program from scratch and sent humans to the moon. What private company built launched and continues to monitor probes that have sailed past the edge of our solar system. What private company built, delivered and continues to run an exploration program on the surface of another planet.
NASA has had flops, they've had triumphs, but to say that "these people should be put out of a job" is disingenuous at best, insulting to the good people that worked to expand our knowledge of space and space travel. Unless it is for profit no company will take the same high risks NASA took to accomplish some amazing feats. There is need for both types of programs. One to do something that no For profit company will undertake, one to exploit the knowledge found. Through out history we have examples where government sponsored exploration led to business exploitation, got for all but those being on the receiving end of exploitation. Use your brain before you open your mouth (or type) next time and realize there are real people, real lives behind your comment.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
It always sucks to lose your job. But government layoffs like this are the inevitable result of the long overdue move to getting out of the way of commercial spaceflight.
Plus, when a highly skilled workforce gets furloughed that is an opportunity for new companies in the area to improve their human capital. Necessity is the mother of invention.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The article says October 1 is coincidence. Well, the layoffs are *because* October 1 is the beginning of the new fiscal year for NASA. I (working for a contractor) had my last day yesterday along with a lot of other folks because the goddamn budget still hasn't gone through for the contracts. It's okay for me--I'm a kid, I'm taking a vacation until the money comes back--but for the real talent who still got screwed, who have families, they'll need to find other jobs. The brain drain on the contractors could be a bad thing.
From what I've seen, we'll get a good NASA back when we fix the problems with its masters. There are lots of good people who are doing lots of good work that then gets mercilessly thrown away by the folks on top. There are other problems, lord knows--endless, useless conferences, useless hangers-on, and an institutional memory that's inching towards 100% Powerpoint--but being able to fund a project to completion goes a long damn way.
As a Brit, I follow the US space programme with intereset, because it's the best hope the human race has for getting off this rock.
It seems to me that buying routine human access to LEO from commercial companies is a good idea nowadays that the technology is sufficiently advanced and well understood, and it seems silly to waste public money on that which can be accomplished quicker, cheaper and safer by the private sector. Ares I looked like a disaster waiting to happen both financially and in terms of crew safety.
The space shuttle was a remarkable piece of over-engineering, but 14 people lost their lives in it.
I feel really sorry for these people being layed off. The transition from Shuttle to whatever the successor may be has been very poorly handled. Minds keep changing and there is no plan. Tens of thousands of people will suffer and a great deal of technical skills will be squandered.
I'd like to see NASA developing a new heavy-lift booster for going beyond LEO, something that can lift huge payloads (100 tonnes?) and people if necessary. I'd like to see big space telescopes, a long-term human outpost on the moon, the manned asteroid missions and a space dock and construction facility for building a real space ship for going to Mars.
Where is the vision? My country doesn't have any, alas. We cancelled our rocket programme back in the 1970s because the politicians couldn't see a future in satellite launching...
China is coming along, I suppose, so there might be some home there, maybe even a new space race?
One thing's for sure, we (the human race) will never get anywhere unless someone sets some goals. We need to learn to live on other planets and the only way we'll do that is by trying.
So, is NASA going to build a DIRECT launcher now or will there be yet another politically-driven paper study of an over-engineered, under-performing white elephant?
Stick Men
Hey, former NASA employees, I have some thoughts for you. I just graduated with a degree in aero engineering myself a couple years back. I've been paying attention to the space industry since well before then so I have some advice if you are looking for new jobs.
1) Frankly, we don't know if there will be a government funded replacement for the shuttle ever. As such, start thinking about where your skills could apply elsewhere. Right now SpaceX, Bigelow, Boeing, the ESA, JAXA, Energia, IOS, and numerous other startup space companies are working on manned space programs. These include everything from space station building to capsule development. Most of your decades worth of skills and experience are directly transferable to these companies so start checking them out and applying.
2) There are other tech. industries where your skills could come in handy. If you worked on automation, data processing, signal filtering, or control dynamics, start looking into the robotics industry. All of those skills apply well there. If you worked in antennae theory, try checking out all of the new research going into wireless technology development (wi fi, 3g, 4g, etc.). If you worked in human-habitat development, I read about a few companies trying to design underwater habitats for humans. That's pretty analogous to habitat development in space. Also, most skills that go into designing spacecraft are directly transferable to designing boats and/or submarines. Those are also some industries you can look into.
3) Don't neglect to mention the qualities that made you a good employee for NASA in the first place on your resume. You worked on a project the likes of which had never been done before. You are obviously intelligent and a good general problem solver. You are not a pidgeon-holed employee. When the shuttle program started, you had to figure out how to design and build a space plane. There was almost no research in that area before. Likewise, those same problem-solving skills need to be emphasized on your resume now. Don't just talk about that one bracket that you designed. Talk about how that bracket solved a problem that was unique without any prior art. It will make you very appealing to start-up companies.
You guys worked hard on a great project. But you have to admit that an ~30 year long engineering project is a very long project lifecycle in this industry. Few, if any employees at other organizations can brag about working on a single project that long. That said, thanks for all the hard work, but you, as well as the rest of us, know that the shuttle was past its prime and needed to be put to bed. So please, don't become angry old fogies reminiscing about the good old days. Use those uniquely awesome and genius skills that you have to help lead my generation into a new era of space infrastructure development the likes of which has never been seen before. We have new technologies. We have new mission architectures. We have unprecedented levels of access to enormous amounts of information. We need your wisdom. We need mentors like you as we find our own way in this industry. Seize those resources along side the rest of us in this industry and let's show the solar system just what our silly little species is capable of!
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
There are B-52s still being built. Admittedly, not using the original design and the only similarity with the original is the name, but they are there.
NASA should be funded in a similar way to the way the BBC is funded in the UK - given a fixed amount for a fixed length of time and a charter for that period of time, with zero interference permitted outside of the GAO verifying that the charter is being complied with to the limits possible given the funding. This hybrid state should have the right to make additional money and should have some of the rights granted to private organizations but not granted to public organizations, but also have some of the protections granted to the civil service.
This is the only way to give it the funding necessary without the political ties that corrupted the Space Shuttle program, leading to an overweight monstrosity.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The shuttle program was a huge waste of money, for almost no science benefit. See http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm
A random quote: "And of course, there was John Glenn, monitored inside and out, blood tested, urine sampled, entire organism analyzed for signs of accelerated aging. Close observation of the Senator suggested that there might not be any medical obstacles to launching the entire legislative branch into space, possibly the most encouraging scientific result of the mission."
Check out the DIRECT Program. That might be what you are referring to. There are also a lot of other possible shuttle replacements that rely on various degrees of existing vs. nonexisting technology. A little Googling can reveal a lot of them, but I will leave that as an exercise to the reader.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
No we don't.
Not any more than we have to pay down the umpty-trillion dollars in personal debt.
We may have to pay off the bonds we issued 30 years ago, but we can issue more bonds to be paid in 30 years. They're being done for different projects, so the old projects are being paid for and the new ones are just getting started. Similarly, I may have to pay off my house, but my children can borrow to build theirs. There's still debt in the family, and in the banking system, and it gets bigger as time goes on.
And it's crucial to the size of the economy. Think "money multiplier" and you'll understand what I mean.
If we actually did try to pay off the national debt, it could only be by not doing anything new on credit, and insisting on only doing those things we could pay cash for.
Individuals can do that, after they've paid off their houses and stopped driving anywhere, but it implies your life is coming to a close and you have no use for growth. And their children aren't going to have to live under their parents' paid-off roof for their whole lives, as paupers, because they won't have enough cash to buy a house for decades, if they ever do, because once they have kids they'll have to use the savings for the additional expenses.
Same deal for entire nations. The only way you can justify going onto a pay-as-you-go system is to tell the future it doesn't get the right to borrow to create the sort of livable conditions you had.
So no. We never have to pay down the debt. We just have to pay off the old debt and spend the newly borrowed money on things that are good for the country as a whole, instead of on things that make a few people rich to nobody else's benefit.
Am I the only one looking at those numbers and saying "Damn what the hell did all those people do". Maybe privatization is good. 1200 people to produce a fuel tank every few months. There is a light bulb joke in there somewhere.
I don't blame them for the end of the shuttle program, but they certainly do get the blame for canceling any hope of future manned space flight!
Huh?
The NASA bill recently passed by Congress funds a new government launcher for Orion and deep space missions and includes $1.2 billion in funding over the next 3 years to start building commercial crew vehicles. This money will be distributed to commercial operators under a commercial crew contract in a similar manner to the COTS contracts for cargo that were awarded to SpaceX and Orbital.
And really, this path will get us back into space faster than Constellation. Ares I was not going to be ready until 2017 according to the Augustine Committee. The new government vehicle is supposed to be done by 2016 and several of the potential commercial crew providers have said they can have their vehicles ready in 3 years.
Human spaceflight in the US is far from dead.
We have private companies that produce better results
Not a single one has ever put anyone in orbit. I'm all for letting private enterprise launch our payloads for us, but until they star launching people, NASA will still be needed. Or would have been, had they retained the ability to launch people into space.
Um, what??
McDonnell (now part of Boeing) built the Mercury and Gemini capsules (sent many people to orbit)
Convair (parts of which are now General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin) built the Atlas rocket that launched Mercury
Martin (now part of Lockheed Martin) build the Titan rockets that launched the Gemini capsules
North American (now part of Boeing) build the Apollo command module
Grumman built the Apollo Lunar Module
Boeing, North American (now part of Boeing), and Douglas (now part of Boeing) contributed to building the Saturn V rocket that was used in the Apollo missions
Rockwell (now part of Boeing) build the Space Shuttle Orbiter
Martin (now part of Lockheed) built the Shuttle's External Tank
Thiokol built the Solid Rocket Boosters for the Shuttle
Private companies have built every vehicle ever used to send Americans (and citizens from many other countries) into space since NASA starting doing that. In fact NASA has NEVER sent anyone into space without a vehicle built by a private company.
Boeing and Lockheed Martin are still very much involved in launching things into space, and do so much more often than NASA does. All they need is a financial reason to send humans up there, and they'll do it -- with or without NASA.
Yeah. Crappy military, subpar weather prediction, useless satellite data, a white elephant of an interstate highway system, needless food- and drug- and transportation-safety regulations. JPL is a complete waste, the NSA and CIA and FBI should have been privatized long ago, and what exactly is the point of having U.S. Attorneys? Commercial interests would've managed our National Parks so much better. We should have waited for commercial enterprise to invent and deploy GPS. And the Internet. Head Start hurts young children, Pell grants hurt older ones, SBA loans are crutches for incompetent businessmen who should starve on the streets.
Take them all away. Make them never have been. Miraculously shiny-clean profitable and wholesome businesses would spring up to replace them! Let one thousand flowers bloom!
There are no bad managers or incompetent employees in corporation-land! Only good people are executives and business owners! *No* one works for the Government for the good of us all! Good people only work to make themselves rich and rich people richer! The rich only give lots of money to good people! There's no other reason to do anything at all! Bring back 14 hour workdays and six day workweeks! Get some use out of your children again! No need to pay taxes, the company provides! See you in the company town, at the company store!
</sarcasm>.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
If the DoD budget was trimmed even by half (which is still too bloody much spending) and the monies redirected toward, infrastructure, education, health, technology research, etc.. Inside of a very few short years we'd be looking at realizing a Utopian society.
First of all, no, we wouldn't. Because Utopias don't... can't... exist. This is why Sir Thomas More chose Utopia as the name of his impossible society. In Greek, it means "nowhere".
Second, whether or not you realize it, you just laid out exactly why Utopia is impossible. You say we should cut defense spending (and even being a lifelong hawk I agree with that), but then you proceed to lay out all the wonderful things the government should do with that money. And that's the problem. That's YOUR vision. Never once did you think "just let people keep the money they earned, and find their own happiness". Utopias fail because they're always someone else's vision of what's good for us... and the "rest of us" have different ideas, thanks.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel