SPACE SHUTTLE EMPLOYEES

[chitown]

I'm an employee at Lockheed Martin in New Orleans and I work on the Space Shuttle external tank.
I would like to know the approximate number of total employees that will be affected by the shuttle
fleet being retired. I found it hard to believe that the stimulus package basically left us out.

 

[jim48]

Welcome, Chi! Sorry to hear that you'll soon be unemployed. Two pieces of advice: Ask the moderator to move this thread into the Missions and Launches forum, then look through all of the posts there. There has to be something about when the shuttle fleet will be retired and how many will be affected. Or try going to NASA.com. Again, welcome, keep in touch with us and good luck!

 

[CalliArcale]

I'm an employee at Lockheed Martin in New Orleans and I work on the Space Shuttle external tank.
I would like to know the approximate number of total employees that will be affected by the shuttle
fleet being retired. I found it hard to believe that the stimulus package basically left us out.

I understand there's a big meeting coming up next week regarding closing down options for keeping the fleet going past Bush's end of FY 2010 deadline. The answer may come around then.

Mind you, I rather suspect Michaud will still have work. (I presume that's where you are.) Michaud started out building S-ICs, after all, and was given Shuttle ETs to keep it busy after Saturn was cancelled. I bet they'll give you guys a big (volume-wise) piece of Ares V to build.

Would you like me to move this thread over to M&L so that the Shuttle nerds can give us their viewpoint? I'm a big fan of the Shuttle, but I'm just a software engineer with no connection whatsoever to the program. There are folks in M&L who might know more. Of course, nothing's really final until the ink dries on the paper; my hubby's coworkers are sweating about FCS right now, because Gates intends to cut *some* of that, and it's not really clear how much that will affect the piece he's working on. I imagine you're in a similar position, sweating because you don't know where the work will go. I sure hope some of the Constellation work comes your way.

 

[chitown]

PLEASE MOVE THE THREAD OVER TO M&L, I SURE WOULD LIKE TO FIND OTHER SHUTTLE CONCERNED OPINIONS.

 

[MeteorWayne]

OK, I moved it and left a copy here.. MW

 

[trailrider]

According to reports (see NASAWatch.com and the Orlando Sentinel's website), the prohibition that Congress passed back (IIRC) in October, against destroying the ET tooling at Michaud, and the PWR tooling for the Space Shuttle Main Engines, as well, expires 30 April 2009! There has been a bill introduced in the House of Representatives to extend the deadline, but there may not be time for it to go through the legislative process. The alternative would be for President Obama to issue an Excecutive Order.

As a former Martin-Marietta employee who was "doorknobbed" (RIF'ed, surplussed) with 3,499 others in 1989, I feel your pain! (I've been making custom leather sporting goods since then...turned a hobby into a business! Not what I wanted to do, but as "Wernher von Braun quoted Mark Twain, 'When it's steamboat time you steamboat... When it isn't you do something else!")

Frankly, the most important thing is to keep the SSME line viable! If Constellation proves unworkable with the 5-segment SRB, and the RS-68 engines, the SSME's may prove our true salvation! Shut down the line, and we may be grounded, or our astronauts may have to learn Chinese as well as Russian! This doesn't even include losing our technological base, as I'm sure many of you will leave the industry, not by choice, but by necessity.

Get on the horn, e-mail, call your Congressmen and Senators and the White House! SAVE THE SSME's and the engineers and technicians!

 

[vulture4]

A stop work order has been issued on the program to keep open the option of extending the Shuttle. In my opinion that was the last chance for it to continue. It's important for us to recognize the incredible effort at Michoud to overcome the problems with the External Tank insulation. It used to be routine for hundreds of pieces of foam to hit the bottom of the shuttle leaving damage to be repaired. Keeping lightweight insulation in place on the outside of a rocket is nearly impossible, yet in the last few flights there's been hardly a mark on the Shuttle. Some of the knowledge that makes this possible can be written down, but a lot of it is in the skills and years of experience of the people who will soon be gone. When the program ends, there will be no way to preserve or recreate that knowledge. We complain about the loss of knowledge after Apollo ended, but for the Shuttle it will be much greater.

A new program like Orion is exciting, but it's ultimately just a cramped capsule that drops into the ocean on a parachute, based on technology older than the Shuttle. I recently watched the rollover of the Endevour. Its patched and scarred exterior fits perfectly the image of a real spaceship, battered by years of service but still flying, 100 tons of sophisticated hardware and raw power that can blast into space and land on a dime. Perhaps people are bored because it's been flying it for close to 30 years, and have forgotten how incredible it is. Soon it will be gone, and we will not see its like again.

 

[JonClarke]

A new program like Orion is exciting, but it's ultimately just a cramped capsule that drops into the ocean on a parachute...

No final decision has been made as to the mode of landing. But regardless, there is nothing "just" about Orion. It will carry more passengers, in greater safey and higher reliability to more destinations than the Shuttle.

, based on technology older than the Shuttle.

Orion has newer avionics, more advanced materials, and uses a shuttle derived booster. The only thing "old" about Orion is the shape, but since it is a better shape for the missions it is designed to do, it's a rather silly argument.

Soon it will be gone, and we will not see its like again.

We will see something much better instead.

 

[RS_Russell]

##

 

[tylerjwyly]

Chi:
Do you know a guy named Mark Campbell that worked there? We went to grad school together and when he got hired there he automatically was worried about getting canned after the program ends. Ended up transferring to Dallas. I would hope theres a way to keep that facility humming.

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

We will see something much better instead.

Well hopefully.
I can remember as a kid wishing the Shuttle would hurry up and be finished. I don' have that feeling with the Constellation program, just seems we're not moving forward in design but backwards to the '60s. Mind you, I missed the flower power days, maybe they might return as well lol.

 

[Zipi]

I can remember as a kid wishing the Shuttle would hurry up and be finished.

Well... If they got Ares 1 and Ares 5 plans implemented as they have planned it should be much faster to build something at space. It will take much less launches to build ISS sized station or Mars transport vehicle if we have Ares 5 available to launch stuff up there.

I had to admit that I as well will be missing the shuttle. It seems much more elegant way to do manned flights, but at the same time I recognize all those safety conserns as well.... I'd like to see some sort of shuttle type vehicle at the future as well.

 

[chitown]

I appreciate every one's comments and support. I wonder if the way this country is, we could overcome the greed that envelopes us. Is it realistic that we will be able to make a commitment to these future programs. We talk about other
life out there and we can't even take care of the life on earth.

 

[vulture4]

V4: A new program like Orion is exciting, but it's ultimately just a cramped capsule that drops into the ocean on a parachute...[/quote]
JC:No final decision has been made as to the mode of landing. But regardless, there is nothing "just" about Orion. It will carry more passengers, in greater safey and higher reliability to more destinations than the Shuttle.
V4: Work on land landing has been dropped; although a land impact should be survivable it isn't being seriously considered. As to the internal volume, it is smaller than the Shuttle middeck; it could carry six for a short period but I suspect it will generally be limited to four, and there is virtually no capability for experimental payloads.

V4: , based on technology older than the Shuttle.
JC: Orion has newer avionics, more advanced materials, and uses a shuttle derived booster. The only thing "old" about Orion is the shape, but since it is a better shape for the missions it is designed to do, it's a rather silly argument.
V4: The shuttles, despite their age, have main wing spars of graphite-epoxy and wing ribs composed of boron composite trusses. The orbiters have been upgraded with glass cockpits and GPS navigation. Many parts of the thermal protection system have been updated, i.e. with FRSI, and thanks to ET improvements there has been very little tile damage post-Challenger; even a flexible carbon-carbon leading-edge material was developed at Ames, though there won't be time to actually use it. The Ares is mostly expendable but the only part derived from the Shuttle is the least cost-effective part, the SRB, which is reused even though it is not cost effective to do so. The SRB requires expensive and hazardous handling and assembly while fully fueled. The Ares requires maintaining the expensive infrastructure of the VAB, crawlers, and MLPs, and will not be significantly cheaper than the Shuttle for ISS access. It is indeed designed for and capable of human lunar flight, but whether it is capable of lunar flight at a sustainable cost remains to be seen. Apollo could also fly to the moon, but its cost was not sustainable. I could be proven wrong, but I've seen several programs stretched to oblivion by cost-cutting, and Constellation already seems to be under severe cost pressure. NASA is committed to Constellation for ISS access, but the lunar mission, for which it was designed, could easily slip. If the public really wants it, one would think they would be willing to pay a little more in taxes and raise the budget.

V4: Soon it will be gone, and we will not see its like again.
JC: We will see something much better instead.
V4: Hopefully we will. But it won't be soon, and it won't be Constellation.
I respect you views, Jon, and actually I hope you are right. But I have been around this program quite a while, and I am not hopeful.

 

[RocksterPWR]

I work on the SSME and we were told to stop work last Thursday. It’s not looking good for us, we have already had two small layoffs but this will pretty much kill us.
I just don’t understand Obama. He can give billions and billions to banks but nothing much for space programs that employ thousands of workers. I’m betting the majority of those workers were the "Responsible" type who didn’t by 800K houses they couldn’t afford etc etc. But we don’t get any considerations for saving our jobs. He decided not to continue with Griffin but has not felt the need to get a replacement or issue some sort of decree as to extension or going forward policy.
Similarly, he has cut the F-22 and other military programs that have a huge trickle down affect just like closing GM. Thousands of small companies make parts for the jet engines, airframes etc for these projects.
NO CONSIDERATION for any of those workers. I guess you have to whine to get a bailout. IM WHINING!
If we could get the money that AIG gave out to just a handful of executives....it would fund the remaining engines we want to have on hand for emergency/extension options....easily fund it and provide work to hundreds if not thousands of honest hard working employees.
I was watching "The Bailout Channel" (channel 666 on Comc**t) and I nearly fell off my chair when I heard about providing free high speed internet, new appliances and cell phones to the poor. Why work then? Where is the motivation? I recently saw a few funny and yet sad bumper stickers....
"Want nice things? WORK HARD !"
and
"Honk if you’re paying my mortgage".
This country is toast ! We have sponsored decades of people that have had babies that they can’t afford. Their incentive was to have more babies so they can get more money from welfare. When those children grew up, their parents couldn’t afford to properly educate them for good jobs soooo, they got fewer opportunities than they should have and it’s their parents fault, not mine or the Gov’ts. Those children went on welfare and the cycle continued to the present day. We will shortly, if not already, have a nation of workers that are only suitable for low paying service oriented jobs. There are only so many McDonald’s jobs needed ya know. These are the workers who will be paying into the Ponzi scheme officially known as "Social security". Their low paying jobs will not fund our retirement. But what will we hear from them....I bet it will sound like this "where's my free stuff". The sad fact of all those babies is, they can out vote all the hard workers since the hard working people have typically not had as many babies so they could properly provide them a reasonably good chance at “The American dream”. So If a president runs on the platform of “Sharing the wealth” those who haven’t done for themselves will out vote those who have. We’ve just seen it.
I had to join the Air force so I could go to the college I wanted to…that same opportunity is available to all Americans…no FREE STUFF for me. Work hard is what my parents taught me…and I have.
Socialism and Capitalism don’t mix well. People who work hard for the things they want in life get aggravated when someone else who hasn't gets the same things for being lazy. Just look at Russia, go to a restaurant and see how attentive the waiters are...there not...no incentive to be good/work hard.

I know I’ve drifted a bit on this space blog, but when you’re going to lose your job and your house when you have done all the right things you were taught as a child, it burns my shorts to hear about all those who were lazy/irresponsible getting bailouts/free stuff at my/our expense.
If you can, go to a launch as there will most likely never be another vehicle like the space shuttle. We better be real nice to Russia or they will just take over the station by not allowing us a ride. HOW PATHETIC !
I have spoken with MANY astronauts and the shuttle is the Cadillac, the Russian Soyuz a Yugo.

 

[JonClarke]

V4: A new program like Orion is exciting, but it's ultimately just a cramped capsule that drops into the ocean on a parachute...

JC:No final decision has been made as to the mode of landing. But regardless, there is nothing "just" about Orion. It will carry more passengers, in greater safey and higher reliability to more destinations than the Shuttle.
V4: Work on land landing has been dropped; although a land impact should be survivable it isn't being seriously considered. As to the internal volume, it is smaller than the Shuttle middeck; it could carry six for a short period but I suspect it will generally be limited to four, and there is virtually no capability for experimental payloads. [/quote]

Evidence please that landings on land have been dropped.

V4: , based on technology older than the Shuttle.
JC: Orion has newer avionics, more advanced materials, and uses a shuttle derived booster. The only thing "old" about Orion is the shape, but since it is a better shape for the missions it is designed to do, it's a rather silly argument.
V4: The shuttles, despite their age, have main wing spars of graphite-epoxy and wing ribs composed of boron composite trusses. The orbiters have been upgraded with glass cockpits and GPS navigation. Many parts of the thermal protection system have been updated, i.e. with FRSI, and thanks to ET improvements there has been very little tile damage post-Challenger; even a flexible carbon-carbon leading-edge material was developed at Ames, though there won't be time to actually use it. The Ares is mostly expendable but the only part derived from the Shuttle is the least cost-effective part, the SRB, which is reused even though it is not cost effective to do so. The SRB requires expensive and hazardous handling and assembly while fully fueled. The Ares requires maintaining the expensive infrastructure of the VAB, crawlers, and MLPs, and will not be significantly cheaper than the Shuttle for ISS access. It is indeed designed for and capable of human lunar flight, but whether it is capable of lunar flight at a sustainable cost remains to be seen. Apollo could also fly to the moon, but its cost was not sustainable. I could be proven wrong, but I've seen several programs stretched to oblivion by cost-cutting, and Constellation already seems to be under severe cost pressure. NASA is committed to Constellation for ISS access, but the lunar mission, for which it was designed, could easily slip. If the public really wants it, one would think they would be willing to pay a little more in taxes and raise the budget.

How is any of this diatribe relevant to the claim that Ares uses older technology than the Shuttle?

V4: Soon it will be gone, and we will not see its like again.
JC: We will see something much better instead.
V4: Hopefully we will. But it won't be soon, and it won't be Constellation.

We will see, won't we. But there is no sign of Constellation being cancelled, despite the ravings of the ideologues (all the way with SpaceX) and the wannabees (I can design a better spaceship on my home computer) cliques.

I respect you views, Jon, and actually I hope you are right. But I have been around this program quite a while, and I am not hopeful.

I have been round a while too, and have no time or respect for most of those who criticise Constellation. No matter what approach was chosen, not matter which contractor built the spacecraft and booster, they would whine.

Jon

 

[tanstaafl76]

So no criticism of Constellation can be valid then? That seems a bit unreasonable.

 

[trailrider]

"I work on the SSME and we were told to stop work last Thursday."

RocksterPWR, I feel your pain. It has been twenty years since I was part of a 3500 person "doorknobbing". Fortunately, I had a hobby that I turned into a business. But it "ain't rocket science" by any stretch of the imagination!

Has anything been said about destroying the tooling for the SSME's? If the tooling goes, that's the ballgame for any alternatives to Constellation, should it prove necessary! I have already e-mailed President Obama, requesting he issue an Executive Order to extend the ban on destruction of both the ET and the SSME tooling pending action by Congress to extend the ban. I suggest everyone who has any interest (whether from employment or simply because we still believe in "The Dream") to do the same!

Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

 

[JonClarke]

So no criticism of Constellation can be valid then? That seems a bit unreasonable.

Of course it can be. But most examples that I have seen aren't.

Typically they are ideological

"Constellation is bad because it is a goverment program and space should be privatised!

Partisan

"Constellation is bad because the contracts went to the wrong company (some alt.space startup with zero track record seem to be generally preferred)!

Wannabes

Constellation is bad because I can come up with a better plan on my Mac!

Time will tell, it usually does. But until then I simply note that most those who hate Constellation generally seem to be the same people to hate the ISS, the Space Shuttle, indeed anything that is done in space that does not fit in with their own little vision of how things should be done.

 

[vulture4]

>>How is any of this diatribe relevant to the claim that Ares uses older technology than the Shuttle?

Sorry, I was answering a different point you made, that Ares is more modern than the Shuttle because it has modern electronics.

The Ares is advertised to be "man-rated" because it uses a booster derived from the SRB, thus technology as old as the technology used in the shuttle, and older than the Shuttle itself. Ares uses an upper stage derived from the Saturn, thus clearly older technology. Of course in reality there are differences, but if these differences are significant then it's difficult to support the claim that the Ares is intrinsically safe because it uses "existing, man-rated" components.

 

[JonClarke]

>>How is any of this diatribe relevant to the claim that Ares uses older technology than the Shuttle?

Sorry, I was answering a different point you made, that Ares is more modern than the Shuttle because it has modern electronics.

Thanks fore the clarification

The Ares is advertised to be "man-rated" because it uses a booster derived from the SRB, thus technology as old as the technology used in the shuttle, and older than the Shuttle itself.

Derived from means later than. The Ares I 1st stage is derived from the Shuttle SRBs, but improved, it is therefore newer technology.

Ares uses an upper stage derived from the Saturn, thus clearly older technology.

What other LOX-LH2 engine would you have suggested for an upper stage?

Of course in reality there are differences, but if these differences are significant then it's difficult to support the claim that the Ares is intrinsically safe because it uses "existing, man-rated" components. [/quote]

And your point here is?

Jon