Rollout Plan for Griffin's Architecture Stumbles

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wvbraun

Guest
Link to nasawatch<br /><br /><i>Multiple sources point to a delay in the rollout of Mike Griffin's new exploration architecture. It won't be rolled out in early September. It would seem that multiple offices in the executive branch simply do not agree on key elements of what Griffin wants to do - and have serious problems with certain aspects - finances being the most important point of disagreement. Stay tuned.<br /></i><br /><br />That doesn't sound too good. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />
 
B

blairf

Guest
"That doesn't sound too good"<br /><br />if you like pork, monopsonies, waste, paperwork, jobs for the boys, stultifying bureaucracy, corporatism, monopolies then yes that is not too good.<br /><br />But then with a screen name like wvbraun ;-)
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"if you like ..."</font><br /><br />??? Any disagreements that the executive branch might have that would revolve around most of those items would likely mean that Griffin hasn't included <b>enough</b> pork, etc. in the 60-day plan. Ergo your argument is backwards.<br /><br />As for the monopsony aspect -- I have to wonder how you think this can be eliminated. In order to change -- more buyers would have to appear in the market (i.e. other than NASA)... where would they come from?
 
B

blairf

Guest
Hello Mrmorris<br /><br />Think of it as tough love - a baroque statist edifice will not be reformed peacably. Why does Griffin wants to blow 10 bn of your Yankee dollars on pools for BoLockMart executives?
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
Monopsony, stultify, edifice ... One of the things I like in this site is that people write proper, interesting english instead of the usual brainrotting lol-omg-asl-rofl-n00b internet crap. Even if it sometimes means constant surfing at webster.com to decipher your talk it's still great to learn all these interesting words <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Sorry, completely off-topic, continue.
 
A

askold

Guest
It looks like Griffin let slip the primary reason the current shuttle/ISS build plan - maintaining the current workforce.<br /><br />In other words, NASA is becoming a typical government bureaucracy - its primary reason for existence is to keep on exisiting. <br /><br />Regarding the actual flights - we're going to build the ISS (or, at least, some parts of it) because we said we would and we need the shuttle to build the ISS. Nevermind that the original purpose for the ISS no longer exists - we're going to build it anyway.
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
<font color="yellow">"...we're going to build it anyway"</font><br /><br />It's already built. We have a lot of expensive hardware waiting for launch, and it makes no sense to back out now. When most of the money has already been spent, I think it's well worth the relatively small incremental cost to see a project through to completion.
 
A

askold

Guest
"... to see a project through to completion."<br /><br />That kind of logic only works in a government bureaucracy - throwing good money after bad. An effective business would never think this way. If a project no longer makes sense, you can it. Happens all the time in the real world.
 
C

chriscdc

Guest
Sorry but <br />'becoming typical government bureaucracy'
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Good for you!! For at least once we are on the same wavelength here! My biggest worry is that the kind of negative people here (such as askold, who has stated that he wants only robotic exploration of space, and spacefire, who seems to be sarcastically against anything that NASA has ever done) will be able to prevail with such a congress against someone like Mike Griffin. Already I see where congress is heading down the same path that in the early 1970's RESULTED in the much despised shuttle. <br /><br />What is so very sad to me is that it would take so relatively little to let the experts as NASA (if they aren't more expert that the negativists, and congress, then I don't know who would be) design and build the next system. Evidently what Griffin wants to do is to save those portions of the STS system that do have merit, such as the much tested SRB's to be used with what design inovations that the shuttle lessons have taught us, to come up with a system that can carry out President Bush's vision for NASA, at as reasonable a rate as can be had. Otherwise, what would these experts here do, start all over from scratch?? This IS his job, and all the carping by people who have NEVER had to deal with the reality of placing human beings into space, is NOT helpful. <br /><br />We in the US spend far more on cigaretts, booze, and illegal drugs by several times (and not only do our tax dollars go to combat these evils, but this is one of the elements in the high cost of health care, that WE ALL pay for), maybe as much combined as even 10x as much as NASA's entire budget. Where is askold's and spacefire's indignation at paying for this total waste!<br /><br />My God, what a horrible thought! NASA might have to keep its experianced people on in their middle class jobs, with middle class benifits and wages! Why shouldn't we all want to work at Wal Mart for just a tad over minimum wage, and no benifits. Then some of these very people wonder why the scientific and engineer
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
And so the merry dance has begun. I'd like to go on record now as saying 2010 is little more than a pipe dream in this real world we live in.<br /><br />The negativist in me would like to say that the original 2014 date was probably pushing it. Also that, while using existing elements of the STS does have some merit, if you are substantially redesigning those elements to make them fit the vision perhaps you might be better off with a clean sheet of paper. For example, the fact that you have fancy tools at Michoud that can bend metal into the diameter of an ET is probably not the best reason to build a ET-based in-line HLV.<br /><br />However, the optimist in me would like to point out that the STS is largely a very fine space vehicle, both in terms of capability and operational history to be blunt. You'll all be pleased to know that the Orbiters are all under half way through their designed lifetime and, as long as NASA can continue scrounging parts for them from time to time, the STS stands ready to continue putting men and materiel into orbit for however many years behind schedule and over budget the new rockets become. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Already I see where congress is heading down the same path that in the early 1970's RESULTED in the much despised shuttle."</font><br /><br />Yes. Unfortunately, Griffin has to walk a tightrope with Congress regarding the VSE. There's some merit to the assertion that using shuttle-derived hardware will make the best use of existing facilities. However, there's much <b>more</b> in the unstated corrolary that this means that the shuttle related workforce will see the smallest change. This is <b>not</b> necessarily a bad thing. If the Shuttle system were completely disbanded in favor of a clean sheet... immediately upon firing all of the shuttle workforce, an entirely new one would have to be hired to create and support the CS launcher. <i>That new workforce might be larger or smaller... who knows?</i> What <b>is</b> certain is that doing this would immediately generate a backlash from every congressman and senator that has a facility that employs shuttle-related people. Staying shuttle-derived costs Griffin the least amount of political support. However, as I've said before if the VSE requires the same standing workforce for operations as the shuttle -- it will fail (mind you the workforce during <b>development</b> can be larger -- but the day-to-day operational workforce must shrink).<br /><br />So Griffin has to present ideas for the VSE. He's then asked by the Congress and Senate how he's going to pay for it. Since the budget isn't doubling, the only reasonable response is that NASA will be cutting back on these areas here, here, and here. Essentially that means reducing the workforce there, there, and there. At that point Congressman and Senators from the affected areas hate the plan and suggest that NASA is making a hasty and ill-informed decision.<br /><br />The only thing that makes me optimistic is the recent report about NASA's aging workforce. Properly handled, attrition could be the key to a workforce reduction that
 
S

sequencor

Guest
Updated information: <br /><br /><b>Karl Rove has signed off on NASA's proposed operations plan yet serious issues remain at OMB as to the financial aspects of what Mike Grifin wants to do. This will all come to a head on 12 September when NASA presents its plans - and budget needs - to OMB. Some NASA sources speak of a need on the part of Griffin's team to get a $5.5 billion plus up in NASA's budget between FY 2006-2010. Stay tuned</b>.<br /><br />http://www.nasawatch.com/
 
M

mattblack

Guest
I so much want Mike Griffin's new architecture to work. If the powerful and potentially very flexible Shuttle infrastructure is thrown away, this would be a loss nearly comparable to getting rid of the Saturn V.<br /><br />I've said it several times before in this forum: America, support your manned Space Program because it needs you now more than ever before. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
 
C

cuddlyrocket

Guest
I agree that NASA needs to put forward a plan for dealing with the reductions in personnel for the new launcher systems.<br /><br />Although an absolute reduction in jobs will not be welcome to the companies and other employers involved (if it means a reduction in their turnover and, more importantly, profit), thereby producing a political backlash, this will be muted greatly if the reduction can be attained by natural wastage - i.e. retirement and/or re-deployment. After all, although companies can donate, it's workers and their families who actually have the votes.<br /><br />There's also the point that the money saved on the launch systems is supposedly going on other projects for manned space exploration. These will presumably generate jobs themselves, and this should be estimated now to include in the figures for redeployment.
 
N

no_way

Guest
What i dont get about this jobs reduction thing ... <br /><br />I suppose the people working on Shuttle and its infrastructure are the best, highly skilled technicians and engineers and managers etc etc.<br /><br />So why cant they simply reassigned and trained to other worthwhile projects ? Theres this whole Moon and Beyond vision after all, it needs thousands of highly competent people to pull off all the great plans for lunar development.<br />This goes for both NASA itself and the contractors.<br />So, why all the talk about workforce reduction ?
 
N

no_way

Guest
I still dont get it. Most of the NASA budget, which is supposed to remain relatively fixed over the coming years, goes to salaries right ? Whether directly to NASA employees, or via contracts to contractor employees ? Theres other places of course where the money is going but a significant chunk is payroll. <br /><br />Are you saying, that the percentage of the chunk that is going to payrolls is going to decrease sometime between letting the shuttle go and before getting the Moon projects in full swing , and thus the layoffs ? <br />If so, which chunk is increasing ? Something has to increase if total budget stays the same, right ?
 
C

cuddlyrocket

Guest
I was thinking more that they need to put out the plan for dealing with the employees at the same time as their proposals for the Shuttle replacements. Best to try and head off, or at least minimise, any objections to the latter becuase of perceived job losses.
 
N

no_way

Guest
So the contractors should be hiring, especially people with relevant experience. I see no problem here.
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"If so, which chunk is increasing ? Something has to increase if total budget stays the same, right ?"</font><br /><br />Right now, essentially all of NASA's money is accounted for. They're getting a small budgetary increase, but not a whole heckuva lot. With the VSE, they have a lot of new expenses coming -- ergo something has to give.<br /><br />The largest single chunk of NASA's existing expenses goes towards operating the shuttle -- namely towards salaries (as you say either direct NASA employees or via contracts). They are about to have to spend a bunch of money to start development of numerous pieces of hardware, the CEV, the stick, the in-line booster, etc. The people who <b>maintain</b> the shuttle orbiters are not going to be the same people that are required to <b>develop</b> the new hardware required for the VSE. You can't simply switch your tile-inspector dude over to a position working on CEV development. Jobs are going to be lost somewhere, and jobs are going to be created somewhere else.<br /><br />Now -- why do I say that payrolls need to decrease -- why can't they they simply maintain at the same level (albeit different people in different places doing different jobs)? It can't because the VSE is going to be much more hardware and development intensive than the shuttle system. The current shuttle budget gets us a few orbiters to LEO and back on a good year. The VSE means developing a lot of hardware and dropping it off at the moon. We need to have a bigger slice of the budget available to design and build this hardware or the VSE will be another flags and footprints effort. The more the manpower cost can be reduced on the operations side, the more hardware we can get to the moon, the more successful and sustainable the entire project can be. Figure each employee costs NASA about 100K per year (generally you can take a salary and double it to determine true cost). This means that for each ten employees removed f
 
L

lunatic133

Guest
But what happens when the CEV is in full operation, and more people are then needed to work for various VSE aspects? Will they just hire new people? It seems like a waste of the old people. Of course, if it means they will hire me, I'm definitely not going to complain.
 
J

john_316

Guest
Ok folks...<br /><br />My two cents worth here...<br /><br />The initial stages of CEV and Inline will see drop off in work for contractors in several areas. However these people will be also recruited again in full upscale production work begins. Attrittion can also be a friend.<br /><br />Some of these people will also move onto other jobs with T/Space, Kistler, who ever else will be needing good people.<br /><br />We all understand the way a government agency works. Look at the military. We downsized too fast and too soon in the 90's.<br /><br />I think the offsets with Shuttle to CEV will slow layoffs and attrittion to allow these people to transition in other jobs within the company and outsourced to whoever else. <br /><br />When Inline comes online many of these people will be rehired and or outsourced and contracted as per need basis until full upscale launches are common place.<br /><br />You dont need 10,000 workers a year for just two launchs a year with Inline and you still dont need that many for CEV.<br /><br />I think the point I am making is this. Even CEV+SRB will be a transitional stage. It wont last longer than 12-15 years as CEV-2 takes presidence and comes online in the late 2020's and early 2030's. <br /><br />So i think they are taking an approach that you wont be able to keep a system for more than 20 years at a pop unless you can make that system so reliable you never need another one.<br /><br />Ok hit my rambling....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />
 
R

ronatu

Guest
Leave it to private sector... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
T

thecolonel

Guest
There is one ramification of dismantling the civilian space sector, even if only temporarily, that I have not previously heard mentioned. An individual must reacquire employment in their area of expertise, and sans civilian space exploration... all of us are going to have to go off and work for the other side of aerospace, the defense industry. Is that really what you want instead?<br /><br />Those smaller firms that were mentioned (Kistler, T/Space, SpaceX) are currently only hiring at a trickle rate. Dumping a load more people into an already saturated market is not a viable alternative.<br /><br />Because of this fact, I have heard some joke that the civilian space sector and its prime contractors are a welfare program for engineers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts