NASA, Other

KSC workforce announcement expected today

At a press conference this morning at the Kennedy Space Center Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis is expected to announce a new effort to deal with shuttle workforce transition, Florida Today reports. No other details about the 9 am EDT announcement have been released, although it’s thought the plan is not related to the $40 million in workforce transition and economic development support President Obama pledged in his April 15 speech there. Also attending the event are NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver and Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL), whose district includes KSC.

Update 1 pm: According to the official US Department of Labor press release, the department will provide $15 million to The Brevard Workforce Development Board Inc., who will use the funding to provide “career guidance assistance, job search skills training, resume review, skills assessment and labor market information” as well as “additional types of training and continuing education opportunities.” The funding is separate from the $40 million that President Obama said in his April speech at KSC would be provided to the region to deal with the layoffs.

Rpe. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL), who was at the press conference announcing the grant, praised the award in a press release, adding that ” I will continue working to minimize the human spaceflight gap and attract new businesses to the Space Coast in order to strengthen and diversify our economy.” (That quote also appeared in the Labor Dept. release.)

However, Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), who serves the neighboring district just south of KSC, had a mixed reaction. “While I hope this announcement will help some displaced workers, a series of ill-advised decisions by this Administration make the workforce needs all the more dire,” he said in a statement, citing among those decisions “a failure to extend the life the space shuttle, a decision to terminate the Constellation program without a real plan for future human space exploration and the Administration’s decision to pay the Russians over $1 Billion to launch our Astronauts and cargo to the Space Station.”

72 comments to KSC workforce announcement expected today

  • amightywind

    Political fallout for the dems will be significant. By now a dazed electorate knows there will be no jobs building windmills. Perhaps there is a future in oil spill clean up technology. The record will show them killing 1000’s of jobs on the space coast. They are handing the GOP the issue. What are they thinking? Florida is crucial for them in the upcoming elections in 2010 and 2012.

  • $15 million. Here’s the report on Florida Today:

    http://flametrench.flatoday.net/2010/06/brevard-gets-15-million-grant-to.html

    Personally, I don’t see why the Shuttle folks should get preference. There are a lot of us here in Brevard County who are unemployed but didn’t work on Shuttle.

    Hopefully the separate $40 million proposal made by Obama will address non-Shuttle workers.

  • In other news, SpaceX given the green light to launch on Friday:

    http://flametrench.flatoday.net/2010/06/falcon-9-destruct-system-test-clears.html

    The launch window is 11 AM – 3 PM EDT. I’ll have company in town but will try to do home video if possible.

  • CI

    What a joke. 15 million for resume, placement assistance, etc…
    Skilled people don’t need resume help they need JOBS.
    Maybe if they kept Constellation there would still be jobs, I thought Obama was concerned about the economy and jobs but apparently not.
    He cares about his Space X buddy more…

  • amightywind

    There is no question that the future of the Obamaspace debate rests on Friday’s Falcon9 launch. If it succeeds they still must battle the entrenched interests of Constellation, but with a stronger hand. If it fails spectacularly, then it is game over for Obama and we can start polishing Ares I for the next flight.

  • Bennett

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ June 2nd, 2010 at 9:54 am

    Yeah, saw that (actually heard a small piece on NPR after dropping my son off at daycare this AM). There is a link to a live web cam for launch coverage on the Falcon 9 page at SpaceX.com. Coverage starts 10:40 EDT. I look forward to seeing your video!

  • Gary Church

    Retrain them for what? Burger King?
    America is exchanging a 6 million pound thrust system for 1 million pounds of clusters last stand. Thousands out of work and a tourist industry pandering to the obscene spending habits of the ultra rich taking it’s place. It is the beginning of the end of HSF. Americans will look back on these decisions with bitter regret and loathing of the people who conned them out a priceless national asset. You good ole boys are a pathetic bunch.

  • G Clark

    Fine.

    How will you pay for it?

    It’s that simple. The STS and any system derived from it are/will be expensive – both in manpower and actual $$.

    Show me the money.

    Period.

  • Gary Church

    DOD. 40 times NASA budget. 40 times the political clout. To bomb weddings in Afland and machine gun illiterate peasants.
    Period.

  • DOD. 40 times NASA budget. 40 times the political clout. To bomb weddings in Afland and machine gun illiterate peasants.
    Period.

    LOL.

    If you still believe in the left/right wing political paradigm, write your congress-critter. Better yet, write the critters in the Space States. Not a one of them has proposed adding any extra money to back their rhetoric from other programs, and/or military.

    Good luck with that.

    LOL.

  • Gary Church

    Very Funny. Are you really laughing?
    I guess it is funny that Ike, the president who was the general in charge of the most powerful allied army ever sent to war, to destroy a nation that wanted to exterminate everyone on the planet without blue eyes and blond hair, who threatened china with nuclear destruction if they did not pull out of Korea; this president who warned us about the military industrial complex, has been ignored by the citizens he served his whole life.

    I guess it is funny that we go to war on behalf of the corporations that show the greatest profits ever passed on to shareholders in history, and do not pay a penny of taxes.

    That a former secretary of defense is so connected to private industry that he pursues downsizing the fighting force in favor of hi-tech toys. Very expensive toys, while soldiers weld scrap metal on their vehicles and cannot even get improved rifles because “it costs too much.”

    And finally, yes, I guess it is funny that the ultimate expression of mans technical achievements- actually leaving planet earth- is prostituted as a tourist trap for billionaires as political payback.

    Maybe we will go extinct. We sure won’t have a way to survive if we cast adrift our only lifeboat.

  • Rep. Posey stated:

    “… the Administration’s decision to pay the Russians over $1 Billion to launch our Astronauts and cargo to the Space Station.”

    Where was Posey when the Bush administration signed agreements in 2004, 2007, etc. to fly U.S. astronauts and cargo to the ISS?

    Funny how it’s okay when a Republican is in the White House but not when it’s a Democrat. Hypocrite.

  • John Malkin

    Don’t we have something for job transition now? Isn’t it called unemployment compensation? That’s what my dad got when the company he worked for under bid a government contract and was force to fill it even if it caused them to go bankrupt. My dad blamed himself for taking the job with the company with a much of stupid executives not the government. It is getting very hard to tell the difference between a liberal and a conservative. The middle is very deep and grey.

    Space related congressmen should have been pushing for shuttle extension or fixing Constellation three years ago.

    I was disappointed by the Great Debate. I wish Lori could have stayed because I could have watched Lori Garver and Scott Pace debate for hours. Zubrin is entertaining but he didn’t give a lot of good points to keep the Constellation program. He is really pushing the direct to Mars path which has been beaten to a pulp by both sides. I would have liked to hear Lori and Scott debate more about workforce and skill requirements.

    Cost plus vs. Fixed isn’t the issue. They need to separate development from operations which COTS Cargo has done well. This is the difference between faster, better, cheaper and COTS. We need to help develop systems with both large and small companies and reward those sucessful with operational contracts. Set short term goals instead of trying to build un-scalable vehicles. Let’s get back to orbit simple and reliably than more forward. For long range goals, why not just make a SCALABLE heavy lift like Ares V lite, EELV or something else? Ares I doesn’t make any sense. Ares I will not evolve to Ares V, they are completely different vehicles. I think NASA certifying as opposed to issuing a looooooong list of government requirements will make it easier for companies to human rate vehicles. I think the main requirement for human rating is escape, escape, escape.

    Everything isn’t running on SpaceX or Orbital. COTS Crew will have ATK, Lockheed and Boeing all working together with other companies. It’s happening now. ATK and Lockheed are hedging their bets and they want to keep Constellation which makes sense for them but not the American Tax payer.

  • Ci

    We had the hope and jobs that go with Constellation with Bush.
    Now we have nothing with Nobama
    Big difference!!!!

  • Gary Church

    “I think the main requirement for human rating is escape, escape, escape.”

    I agree. The “Dragon” has no escape system yet, though there is vague references made to hypergolic pushers.

    Someone said the Side Mount Orion escape system is unworkable. Side mount seems like the last hope. While a Side Mount is not the best, if it can blast the capsule away from the vehicle fast, it should be good enough. Unfortunately, I have not seen anything or heard any mention of Side Mount and it looks like The Empire has Struck Back.

  • Alan

    Side-mount & Shuttle-C might have made sense 20-25 years ago.

    So Gary, were you against Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company and/or Wright-Martin Aircraft Corporation manufacturing airplanes in 1916. Neither of the company’s products were “human rated” by your definition – none had an effective escape system.

    Maybe you think the US Government should have nationalized the airplane manufacturing business like they did the Railroads during WW I (go look up United States Railroad Administration). The USRA was a highly-efficient government run enterprise (NOT!!).

    Now go replace Curtis & Wright-Martin with ULA and USRA with NASA.

  • G Clark

    Every time DODs’ budget has been cut, not one penny of it has gone to NASA. It alwys goes to some social program or politically correct pork.

    NASAs’ budget has been and will continue to be flat relative to inflation (IMNSHO, of course).

    Without gutting Aeronautics and Science Missions, how do we pay for it?

  • Gary Church

    “Now go replace Curtis & Wright-Martin with ULA and USRA with NASA.”

    I have no idea what you are babbling about. I hope it makes sense to someone.

    “Every time DODs’ budget has been cut, not one penny of it has gone to NASA. It alwys goes to some social program or politically correct pork.”

    From Wiki:
    For the 2010 fiscal year, the president’s base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on “overseas contingency operations” brings the sum to $663.8 billion.[1][2]
    When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense’s budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3][4] Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff expected an additional supplemental spending bill, possibly in the range of $40–50 billion, by the Spring of 2010 in order to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.[5] Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.

    I am thinking 1 trillion. It is…..ridiculous, comparing NASA’s $18.9 billion (Fiscal Year 2010) to the DOD. 4O times NASA budget? I was kidding- are you?

  • common sense

    This thing about sidemount is really getting long in the tooth. It does not work for a crewed vehicle WITH a LAS. I said so way back when it was shown during the Augustine Committee but more importantly even NASA said so, later but still. Go dig up the reference at nasaspaceflight.com I cannot believe how often it needs to be repeated.

    Space advocacy mumbo-jumbo…

  • Very Funny. Are you really laughing?

    Yes. Like everyone else; at your inane commentary.

    What does your rant have anything to do with the topic, which is a total of $55B being awarded to the Space Coast for new jobs, assistance and other pork that isn’t going to be the CxP employing people?

    Back on topic; Yes, I agree with John Malkin in that this is all pure political pork-pie, why should these people get better treatment than the regular schmuck who loses his/her job?

  • Gary Church

    “-airplanes in 1916. Neither of the company’s products were “human rated” by your definition – none had an effective escape system.”

    From wiki;
    Parachute-the first recorded public jump in 1783.
    On 1 March 1912, US Army Captain Albert Berry made the first parachute jump in the United States

    During WWI (1916) No parachutes were issued to Allied “heavier-than-air” aircrew since it was thought at the time that if a pilot had a parachute, he would jump from the plane when hit rather than trying to save the aircraft. [9] As a result, the pilot of a disabled plane only had three options, to ride his machine into the ground, jump from several thousand feet, or commit suicide using a standard-issued revolver.

    The shuttle was built without any escape system because it was too heavy to start with- because of a process of trying to go cheap and save money on ocean recovery, then getting some very limited funding from the military to keep the program afloat by making it a spyplane, which made it heavier, and other factors. The excuse was that the orbiter was like a commercial airliner to space. That was proven false early in the program. There was no money to correct these mistakes brought on by underfunding. But they did give them parachutes and had a pole to slide clear of the plane- it was all they could afford.
    There is no cheap.

  • …which is a total of $55B …

    Oops, that should be $55M. LOL

  • Gary Church

    Very Funny. Are you really laughing?
    “Yes. Like everyone else; at your inane commentary.”

    “Go dig up the reference at nasaspaceflight.com I cannot believe how often it needs to be repeated.
    Space advocacy mumbo-jumbo…”

    I see the righteous indignation charade is ending. The infomercial team is back to their old script.

  • common sense

    @ Gary Church wrote @ June 2nd, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    “I see the righteous indignation charade is ending.”

    Look, people already told you to back up your arguments with facts. If you don’t you will not be taken seriously, no matter what you advocate.

    “The infomercial team is back to their old script.”

    Old script? Do you mean that script that you favor a solution that does not work, that cannot work and that even NASA said would not work??? Don’t take my words for it go ask NASA!

    And as a side note maybe worth repeating (?): A LAS is not and will never be *the* solution to safety. A LAS is *a* solution in a certain context. A LAS on an inline LV is not necessarily a solution either. For example the LAS on Orion on Ares I might very well kill the crew on escape (unbearable acceleration). So then what is a LAS good for? This is not infomercial. But you’re free to *believe* what you want.

    Oh well…

  • Gary Church

    “And as a side note maybe worth repeating (?): A LAS is not and will never be *the* solution to safety. A LAS is *a* solution in a certain context. A LAS on an inline LV is not necessarily a solution either. For example the LAS on Orion on Ares I might very well kill the crew on escape (unbearable acceleration). So then what is a LAS good for? This is not infomercial. But you’re free to *believe* what you want.”

    Yes, I know I am free to believe what I want, and as I remind the infomercial team often enough, I do not care if a bunch of lying con artists take me seriously- I despise what all of you are doing.

    An LAS might kill the crew- so what is it good for? You are fool if you believe that.

    “-you favor a solution that does not work, that cannot work and that even NASA said would not work???”

    Sounds like I hit a nerve. Afraid what was not being considered before in favor of something better might be resurrected? Side Mount is all of you space clowns worst nightmare right now. If Falcon blows up on the pad it might get reconsidered. I am praying cluster’s last stand displays the cheap design and poor performance inherent in that whole tourist toy scam.

  • common sense

    @ Gary Church wrote @ June 2nd, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    “An LAS might kill the crew- so what is it good for? You are fool if you believe that.”

    I’d be curious to know if you have any expertise in what you claim you know. And no you will not know mine. Already been asked… Just in case.

    “Sounds like I hit a nerve.”

    Nope. Not at all. I cannot care less.

    “Afraid what was not being considered before in favor of something better might be resurrected? ”

    Sidemount will not be resurected. Just a fact. Just trying to educate you a little. Try logic once: NASA said it is NOT safe. So now they will resurect it for crew?

    Sidemount… Falcon… Blahblahblah.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Gary Church,

    An LAS might kill the crew- so what is it good for?

    Nothing, and that is the point. Even with an LAS, the side-mount and Ares-I-style single-stick solid core are both demonstrably too dangerous for human use. An in-line with an LAS and side-mounted solids is a big safer and an all-liquid-fuelled core is safer still.

    Still, back onto the topic of this article, I get the impression that the message of today’s presser was: “We’re going to throw some money at you so our consciences feel better but don’t expect us to find you a job. Oh… and don’t forget, Obama in 2012!”

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Correction to my previous post:

    The first paragraph after the quote should read:

    “Nothing, and that is the point. Even with an LAS, the side-mount and Ares-I-style single-stick solid core are both demonstrably too dangerous for human use. An in-line with an LAS and side-mounted solids is a bit safer and an all-liquid-fuelled core is safer still.”

    Yeah, yeah, I know. Proof before posting!

  • Bennett

    @ Ben Russell-Gough,

    It’s the typos that actually spell a word correctly that kill. Like you, I see them just after clicking Submit. Everyone can figure out what I meant, but it is hard to let them stand… ;-)

  • John Malkin

    Jobs are being cut with or without Constellation elements per Bush. So are Constellation supporters saying we need to keep all the operational people waiting for Constellation to come online? When is that?

    Am I correct that it will cost 3B additional for Constellation and 2B for Shuttle extension a year? Do we fund COTS Crew if we continue Constellation? What level of spending for COTS Crew? Do we really think Congress will approve 3B to 5B more for NASA? Or do Constellation supporters think it will cost less now?

    I just want to note that I define escape as a creditable way for the crew to survive catastrophic failure. The Shuttle pole is a good example of one that really isn’t practical.

  • Robert G. Oler

    John Malkin wrote @ June 2nd, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    Am I correct that it will cost 3B additional for Constellation and 2B for Shuttle extension a year?…

    you are correct Robert G. Oler

  • Gary Church

    “Even with an LAS, the side-mount and Ares-I-style single-stick solid core are both demonstrably too dangerous”

    Demonstrably? Well demonstrate it and prove you are not lying like everyone does oh so frequently pushing your death to NASA tourist swindle.

    “An LAS might kill the crew- so what is it good for?

    “I’d be curious to know if you have any expertise in what you claim you know.”

    I have enough expertise to know you are a lying con artist simply by examining your statements; You are either a fool who is conning yourself or trying to con everyone else with that line. Either case is a con. An LAS is a demonstrably proven escape system, which makes you a liar and since you tried to be artful with your technobabble trying to make it sound true- that makes you a lying con artist.

  • Gary Church

    “I just want to note that I define escape as a creditable way for the crew to survive catastrophic failure. The Shuttle pole is a good example of one that really isn’t practical.”

    I hope you do not think I was saying the pole was credible. I was trying to make the point that cheap and the do or die directive to make a profit is what made the shuttle a failure. An LAS is credible and might have saved the challenger crew in a sidemount capsule configuration, considering there is evidence at least three of them survived in the section blown away from the vehicle in the explosion. If they had even had parachutes they might have survived since they had 3 minutes before they hit. But they did not even have parachutes.

  • Gary Church

    “An LAS might kill the crew- so what is it good for?”
    Nothing, and that is the point.

    “Sidemount… Falcon… Blahblahblah.”

    Funny how none of infomercial “regulars” can explain why the “dragon” does not have an escape system yet. I doubt it will ever have one because it will never carry a single person into orbit. It is a scam.

  • common sense

    @ Gary Church wrote @ June 2nd, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    “I have enough expertise to know you are a lying con artist simply by examining your statements; You are either a fool who is conning yourself or trying to con everyone else with that line. Either case is a con. An LAS is a demonstrably proven escape system, which makes you a liar and since you tried to be artful with your technobabble trying to make it sound true- that makes you a lying con artist.”

    Hmmm wonder why you were banned from other forums…

    @ Gary Church wrote @ June 2nd, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    “Funny how none of infomercial “regulars” can explain why the “dragon” does not have an escape system yet. ”

    Funny that you don’t know that Dragon is carrying cargo and not crew. Now maybe you can explain why a cargo vehicle would need a LAS for our enlightenment. Or no rather just for fun.

  • Gary Church

    “From the space X dragon page: Supports up to 7 passengers in Crew configuration-the cargo and crew configurations of Dragon are almost identical, with the exception of the crew escape system, the life support system and onboard controls that allow the crew to take over control from the flight computer when needed.”

    This is the only mention of an escape system on the dragon page. So where is the escape system? Have not seen one. Where is it? This is the difference between someone who simply states what is, and a bunch of lying con artists who can’t give an honest answer when asked. Explain that.

  • Gary Church

    “Hmmm wonder why you were banned from other forums…”

    Because most forums are just a bunch of people playing the infomercial game and when someone exposes the lie, the guy running it- who is on the team and a liar like the rest, gets rid of the whistleblower.

    Jeff Foust is proving this site is not an infomercial by letting me post. He would no longer let me post on Space Review I guess because I gave back a little more than I got. I am trying to limit my responses to your good ole boy high school insult games on this forum. It is pretty easy- your infomercial team is far less intelligent individually and collectively than the people on Space Review. I think most of you are XXXXXXXX, ooops, there I go again.

  • common sense

    @ Gary Church wrote @ June 2nd, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    “This is the only mention of an escape system on the dragon page. So where is the escape system? Have not seen one. Where is it? This is the difference between someone who simply states what is, and a bunch of lying con artists who can’t give an honest answer when asked. Explain that.”

    I’ll try again slowly. SpaceX has a contract for cargo to/from the ISS. Not a contract for crew to/from the ISS. Why would SpaceX show at this time the kind of LAS they intend to use on a contract they do not have? Just why? Do you think that they would provide documented design on their website for your own perusing? Ever heard of proprietary data?

  • vulture4

    Only Posey would have the panache to blame Obama for “failing to extend the Shuttle” when he went along with it completely when Bush actually canceled it. Of course, most of the Space Coast Republicans also had no objections to losing their jobs as long as Bush was in the White House, and now blame the whole thing on Obama. I believe Posey would actually rather see unemployment and economic devastation and be able to blame Obama than see Shuttle extended and the economy improving.

  • Gary Church

    I will try again slowly. Dragon has no escape system. SpaceX is presenting themselves to the public, and the infomercial team “regulars” here are pushing them as HSF providers. The TRUTH is there are only three HSF providers on this planet right now, and SpaceX is not one of them yet. If they are presenting themselves as a replacement for the provider of U.S. HSF then they need a spacecraft capable of HSF and that includes an escape system. I am saying there is no such escape system and you do not want to hear it. Because….well, you know- the whole lying con artist thing.

  • Of course, most of the Space Coast Republicans also had no objections to losing their jobs as long as Bush was in the White House, and now blame the whole thing on Obama.

    This is nonsense. No matter who was president, people on the Space Coast would be complaining about the job losses, and blaming the president (even if it was a third term of Bush), because they’re happening now. They didn’t complain about them at the time, because they were in the future (three terms away), and politicians generally don’t think past the next election.

  • Robert G. Oler

    GAry

    from what I have read (and talked to people) SpaceX intends to use a “Pusher” LAS that also doubles as a deorbit engine. it would be the last thing that the company would try and develop.

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    “In other news, SpaceX given the green light to launch on Friday”…

    It was supposed to fly today. More problems no doubt… yet no technical problems with Skype on Tuesday as Musk managed to find time to appear on CNN for 10 minutes from Hawthorne, not CAFB. The interview did not elicit confidence for the future of manned spaceflight. Stephen Colbert was more to the point that evening: Obama is going to end the U.S. manned space program.

  • Gary Church

    I did not say they would develop it Mr. Oler. I just said it does not exist. And “intend” means….it does not exist. That is alot of juice to fire off underneath the vehicle when it is attached, don’t you think? Someone said it would be Hypergolic. That does not sound right to me. I am questioning and suspect they are holding out spending a penny until they have a contract; but how can they get the contract if they do not have a man-rated vehicle? I mean, it takes a lot of testing to certify a high-powered system like that. Years. They are freaking out about it and being jerks and I am just giving it back to them.

  • DCSCA

    “Personally, I don’t see why the Shuttle folks should get preference. There are a lot of us here in Brevard County who are unemployed but didn’t work on Shuttle.” Uh, there’s a lot of people across the USA who fall into that category. But an oil spill might just end up working in Florida’s favor.

  • Gary Church

    Hey, DCSCA
    You said the Side Mount Orion had been invalidated; can you tell me where that info is please? I want to see all that hypersonic stuff in writing.
    Thanks.

  • DCSCA

    @amightywind- You should have seen Musk on CNN Tuesday. He couldn’t be bothered to be at CAFB with his rocket and skyped in his inteview from Hawthorne, CA. Seemed preoccupied with other things. Said almost in passing it would fly ‘maybe by the weekend.’

  • DCSCA

    This should be no big surprise to shuttle workers in Florida. They’ve known the program was winding down for six years. They got a better head’s up on losing their jobs than most private sector Americans did.

  • Ben Joshua

    The prolonged pain of job loss is one chapter of a very long relationship between Congress and NASA which turned dysfunctional once the Apollo lunar landing goal was in sight.

    Just look at the AAP, shuttle and ISS policy and underfunding history as exhibits A, B & C. The “Apollo on steroids” gambit may have been the final over-reach that is resulting in major change. Not in a pretty way, either.

    Add a paucity of policy and budget leadership from several presidents, rep. and dem., and you have the harsh political truth that taxpayers and Congress lost interest in mammoth HSF extravaganzas after Apollo.

    The public’s imagination was clearly sparked though by Hubble and planetary robotic missions.

    In the long run, involving the private sector more in LEO, changing the contract model from cost plus to COTS and focusing more on developing tomorrow’s multiple capabilities may do more to achieve a sustainable HSF path than trying again and again to lobby or cajole Congress into loosening the purse strings.

    The eventual outcome may be LEO ops and BEO exploration worth cheering about, but in the meantime, the wrenching change is pain plus. Be clear though, these job losses were set in motion years ago, and an attempted continuation of Ares would only have delayed and worsened the job losses.

  • Gary Church

    “The eventual outcome may be LEO ops and BEO exploration worth cheering about,”

    I would like to believe that but I cannot see it without a HLV. I just do not see how it is possible when it takes a thousand ton vehicle minimum to get a couple people to mars. And that is not taking into account the mission is really a no-go even with the vehicle because of radiation exposure, zero G debilitation, immune system compromise, and pathogen mutation. I do not really care the shuttle is gone or Ares is gone or any of these footballs being tossed around; I am worried about where that HLV is going to come from and people saying we do not need one for BEO. I do not believe it.

  • Gary Church

    “Hey, DCSCA
    You said the Side Mount Orion had been invalidated; can you tell me where that info is please? I want to see all that hypersonic stuff in writing.
    Thanks.”

    So what’s the deal? You making stuff up or is there something in writing that has data invalidating Side Mount Orion? Or is this another case of people not liking something and fabricating? Let’s have it.

  • amightywind

    DCSCA

    News says Elon Musk is broke. Now this is really a high stakes launch. Again, I can’t emphasize enough how utterly reckless it for Obamaspace zealots to heap the future of America’s space program on this midget’s shoulders. And after Ares I-X flew too! Via con dios, Elon Musk.

  • Major Tom

    “I would like to believe that but I cannot see it without a HLV. I just do not see how it is possible when it takes a thousand ton vehicle minimum to get a couple people to mars.”

    See page 11 in this presentation from NASA’s Chief Technologist.

    slideshare.net/astrosociety/investments-in-the-future-nasas-technology-programs

    With the set of technologies NASA is now pursuing, the mass of a human Mars mission can be reduced by a factor of six. A DRM requiring 12 ISS masses would be reduced to 2 ISS masses.

    “And that is not taking into account the mission is really a no-go even with the vehicle because of radiation exposure, zero G debilitation, immune system compromise, and pathogen mutation.”

    These are showstoppers for colonization — spending many years at and/or reproducing at Mars (or any deep space environment). But not for two-year missions.

    FWIW…

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    News is wrong. Elon’s run out of cash (he stated that in his divorce hearing) but is still asset rich with major holdings in SpaceX, Solar City and Tesla.

    Cheers

  • Major Tom

    “News says Elon Musk is broke.”

    Think before you post.

    Of course Musk is telling the press he’s broke. His wife is suing for divorce. Any idiot (or any idiot’s lawyer) knows to minimize their apparent wealth before the settlement when they’re in divorce proceedings.

    Duh…

    “Now this is really a high stakes launch.”

    Don’t make such ignorant statements.

    No, it’s not. There’s over 15 more Falcon 9 launches before the first crew is scheduled to launch.

    Learn something before you post.

    “Again, I can’t emphasize enough how utterly reckless it for Obamaspace zealots to heap the future of America’s space program on this midget’s shoulders.”

    Don’t make stupid statements.

    Nothing has been heaped on SpaceX’s shoulders. This week’s Falcon 9 launch could kill all of SpaceX’s investors, and NASA would still have Atlas V, Delta IV and Taurus II solutions to turn to.

    Think before you post.

    “And after Ares I-X flew too!”

    Don’t make idiotic statements.

    Ares I-X flew a four-segment lower stage, a dummy upper stage, and dead weight in place of Orion, not Ares I’s five-segment lower stage, J-2X upper stage, and Orion. It cost the taxpayer nearly half-a-billion dollars.

    This week’s Falcon 9 test vehicle is flying the same first first stage and the same second stage as the operational Falcon 9 and a boilerplate Dragon to boot. It’s one of three test flights that the taxpayer bought for $278 million.

    There is no comparison. The latter is a real test-as-you-fly demonstration. The former was a technically non-relevant waste of resources.

    Lawdy…

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ June 2nd, 2010 at 8:52 pm

    Where the leader maximus is before the big battle is always a fine edge and a tad of a trick in terms of morale and leadership.

    My experience is that the troops seem to do better when the leader maximus lets the leader immediate work more or less without some gaze over the shoulder.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “I will try again slowly. Dragon has no escape system… If they are presenting themselves as a replacement for the provider of U.S. HSF then they need a spacecraft capable of HSF and that includes an escape system. I am saying there is no such escape system and you do not want to hear it.”

    Wrong. Per p. 24 of Musk’s presentation to Augustine, SpaceX had preliminary designs for Dragon crew escape systems as of this time last year:

    spacex.com/20090617_Elon_Musk_Augustine_Commission.pdf

    Don’t make stuff up.

    ” Because….well, you know- the whole lying con artist thing.”

    Check your facts before you accuse others of lying. This is the second time this week that you’ve been wrong on basic systems knowledge.

    FWIW…

  • Gary Church

    “Check your facts before you accuse others of lying. This is the second time this week that you’ve been wrong on basic systems knowledge.”

    That trick is not going to work on me. “Preliminary Design” is not a piece of hardware that has been tested and is certified for flight. There is no escape system and just saying there is does not make it so. An image on a CAD screen does not cut it. And trying to smear someone as a fabricator and that old “Don’t make stuff up” line; You are a joke. “Wrong on basic systems knowledge.” You bunch of lying con artists would not know an honest fact if it slapped you up the side of the head. Which it will one day soon when this tourist scam is exposed for what it is.

  • Gary Church

    “With the set of technologies NASA is now pursuing, the mass of a human Mars mission can be reduced by a factor of six.”

    Pursuing- like fusion? always around the corner. Like VASMIR?
    That engine is missing some unobtainium pieces that may never happen like hi-temp superconductors and lightweight hi-power reactors.

    You see you mix all this technobabble up and present it as fact to support your lies. Yes, LIES. You cannot spend two years in space and not have a high probability of dying and it is certain you will be permanently damaged. You are trying to support the case that BEO can be done without HLV launches. And you can’t do it without making stuff up.

    So stop making stuff up Major Tom.

  • J201

    A thought about heavy lift and the construction of large spacecraft on orbit:

    We learned something from ISS: hauling a spacecraft up in 20-ton chunks is complicated, expensive, risky, and time consuming. ISS will have taken well over a decade on completion, approximately $100 billion dollars to finish, and little less than a thousand hours EVA to assemble. And not even all the planned modules will be launched due to logistics problems and cost overruns.

    Whereas a HLV with a lift capacity of 100 metric tons to LEO could lift the ISS to orbit in only 4 flights, minimizing the number of EVAs and logistic challenges that have plagued the program.

    Building a spacecraft even twice the mass of the ISS without a HLV compounds the complexities of assembly, and perhaps the cost as well.

    Just a thought.

  • Gary Church

    The infomercial team has tag teamed me to exhaustion. I have taken on all their lies and given back all their insults tit for tat. I need a break. So have fun smearing me while I recharge my batteries for a couple days. You lying con artists. If clusters last stand flies I will come back and congratulate you on another nail in the coffin of HSF. If it blows up I will come back and have fun reading your responses. See you all in a few days.

  • Gary Church

    Oh, one more thing.

    “Whereas a HLV with a lift capacity of 100 metric tons to LEO could lift the ISS to orbit in only 4 flights,”

    The wet workshop concept is a technology to be pursued. Using the empty second stage as a spaceship compartment is one of the finest concepts ever put forward and this was done a long time ago by Von Braun, and he got the idea from someone else before that. With a little more time and funding Skylab would have been a wet workshop about the size of the ISS- in one launch, by packing the dry workshop third stage with equipment and then moving it into the still attached empty second stage.

    Just another thought

  • See you all in a few days.

    We’d prefer a few months, or years. But if ignorami like you never come back, few will weep.

  • Major Tom

    “That trick is not going to work on me. “Preliminary Design” is not a piece of hardware that has been tested and is certified for flight. There is no escape system and just saying there is does not make it so. An image on a CAD screen does not cut it.”

    If you don’t like SpaceX’s in-house design, then use Orion LAS hardware:

    spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/18orionlas/

    The Orion LAS is oversized for Dragon/Falcon 9 and overly complex and expensive for the application, but don’t make up statements that SpaceX hasn’t pursued an LAS when they have or that Dragon has no LAS hardware options when it has at least two.

    Stop making stuff up.

    “You are a joke.”

    This from the poster who makes false claims about Dragon crew escape, sideline Shuttle-derived HLV capabilities, and human Mars mission masses.

    Really?

    Look in the mirror, doctor heal thyself, black kettles and pots, glass house and stones, and all that.

    “Wrong on basic systems knowledge.”

    Actually, I have to correct my earlier post. Your basic systems knowledge (or lack thereof) has been wrong three times (not twice) in under a week. See directly above.

    “Which it will one day soon when this tourist scam is exposed for what it is.”

    What “tourist scam”? NASA is contracting with SpaceX and other companies to demonstrate human ETO transport capabilities and deliver human ETO transport services that NASA needs. This is transport of and supporting professional astronauts, not tourists.

    Again, stop making stuff up.

    “Pursuing- like fusion? always around the corner. Like VASMIR?”

    No, those technologies don’t appear on that slide. Learn how to use a mouse, click on a link, read, comprehend, and think before you post.

    And for the umpteenth time, stop making stuff up.

    “The infomercial team…”

    There’s no “team”. You’re just wrong and multiple other posters know better.

    Take a hint, Sherlock.

    “…has tag teamed me to exhaustion.”

    You’ve been confronted with actual facts backed by real references showing that you’re wrong on multiple counts, and that makes your ranting no fun. It has nothing to do with “exhaustion”.

    “I have taken on all their lies and given back all their insults tit for tat… So have fun smearing me while I recharge my batteries for a couple days.”

    Try learning something while you’re gone and getting some treatment for that megalomania.

    Ugh…

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Gary Church, whoever he is, is almost as much fun as Gaetano of Ghost NASA fame. Gaetano once accused me of being a lobbyist for the DIRECT team, the proof of which being that I am a member of NASASpaceflight.com forums, which he alleges is actually the homepage of the conspiracy that seeks to strip him of his rightful glory of being the guy who really designed the NLS-In-line.

    Now, Mr. Church says that I am an ‘informercial’ guy, presumably he means a paid shill for SpaceX or the Commercial Space Foundation. If so, I want to know why I haven’t been receiving my paychecks. It is a liberty, being part of a dark conspiracy to destroy US-indigenous HSF and not even getting the blood-soaked spoils that I was promised. :D

    Anyway, for the record, my idea of an ideal CLV is an Orion on an Atlas-V-5H2. Frankly, if NASA had gone down that path, I doubt that there would be a US-indigenous crew launch gap. Frankly, whilst I like SpaceX’s style, some of their recent mis-steps with Falcon-9 (specifically the core tank insulation and the FTS saga) have been rather cringe-worthy and I’m adding years for how long it will take them to get a crew into space, assuming that they do.

  • vulture4

    “I think the main requirement for human rating is escape, escape, escape.”

    Where’s your escape system in an airliner? We lost one crew during Apollo and nearly lost two more, and a launch abort system wouldn’t have helped any of them. In almost half a century of human spaceflight, no LAS has ever been used in flight. There was one on-pad abort 45 years ago. There was also one incident in which the LAS went off prematurely, causing one death and numerous injuries. What keeps you safe isn’t emergency procedures, it’s reliable components and systems, thoroughly tested.

  • […] announcement of a $15-million Dept. of Labor grant for displaced KSC shuttle workers has a few people riled up around the Johnson Space Center, the Houston Chronicle reports. […]

  • Ben Russell-Gough wrote:

    Gary Church, whoever he is, is almost as much fun as Gaetano of Ghost NASA fame … Mr. Church says that I am an ‘informercial’ guy, presumably he means a paid shill for SpaceX or the Commercial Space Foundation.

    Gary Church is a troll. Many of us have taken a public pledge not to read or respond to his posts. This is driving him nutty, so he’s turned up his trolliness in recent days.

    My suggestion is that you take the public pledge as well. Only our host Jeff can stop someone from posting, but we are under no obligation to read or respond to anyone’s posts.

    The best way to deal with a troll is to ignore it. A troll is all about attention. When the troll doesn’t get attention, you increase the odds that it will move on. Unfortunately, someone always takes the bait, which is why it’s so hard to get rid of trolls, but at least by responding with silence you reinforce that the troll is in fact a loser.

  • John Malkin

    An airliner isn’t attached to a big first or second stage rocket. I don’t think either SpaceShipOne or SpaceShipTwo require an escape system. Escape is built into the system. Actually safety is the reason they launch from 50,000 feet.

    I think for any vehicle’s reliability vs. escape should be considered. Neither Falcon 9 nor Ares I have a proven record of reliability. So an escape system would be prudent.

  • common sense

    @ John Malkin wrote @ June 3rd, 2010 at 11:45 am

    Not all vehicles require an escape system to be “safe”. Sometimes such a system is actually a lot worse as it impacts the overall system of systems, in particular but not only added mass and consequences.

    As far as SpaceShip we saw in their first (?, not sure first) flight how close it came to White Knight right after jettison. I cannot remember if they figured why. They also had some interesting flight anomalies and having an exceptional test-pilot at the helm probably saved the day. So there is a lot more than escape system to safety. The LAS story originated in the astronaut office at NASA if I remember correctly. A LAS might save people, just not on a sidemount and most likely not on any solid 1st stage for such a huge capsule. People most often see those as independent systems but they really are not. It really is a system of systems. They have to be taken together from the get-go or you end up with… the Orion/Ares debacle.

    F9 might benefit from an escape system, Ares would probably never do.

    Oh well…

  • DCSCA

    John Malkin wrote @ June 2nd, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    Am I correct that it will cost 3B additional for Constellation and 2B for Shuttle extension a year?…

    you are correct Robert G. Oler

    Which is what… 60 to 90 days cost of the war[s].

  • Major Tom

    “Am I correct that it will cost 3B additional for Constellation and 2B for Shuttle extension a year?…”

    No, per Augustine, restoring Constellation to anything resembling a reasonable schedule and retaining ISS through 2020 requires $5 billion per year. $3 billion is if you’re willing to accept the existing, multi-year Constellation schedule slips and put ISS in the drink mid-decade.

    Shuttle “extension” is arguably impossible at this point. The program can be “reconstituted”, but the costs of bringing back and replacing the many suppliers that have shut down is unknown — maybe hundreds of millions to low billions of dollars. You have to make that downpayment before paying for operations at $2 billion per year. And you can only run Shuttle at that low of a budget for only a year or two. A normal Shuttle operations budget not in shutdown mode will cost you $4-5 billion per year. And then there’s system recertification costs per CAIB.

    FWIW…

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>