what's gonna happen to USA when the Shuttle is retired? Lots of peeps gonna lose their jobs? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
- Status
<font color="yellow">"Lots of peeps gonna lose their jobs?"</font><br /><br />That is essentially a <b>requirement</b> if VSE is to be affordable. A huge fraction of the cost of the shuttle program is not hardware but salaries. With shuttle-derived hardware, the h/w costs aren't going down, so the salary figure must. Simply moving people who used to work on the orbiter into a different slot at the same pay won't do a thing to reduce costs.
un less spacecraft were to be mass-produced for some yet unknown customer <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<font color="yellow">"un less spacecraft were to be mass-produced..."</font><br /><br />Nope -- still won't help much. That would simply mean that the contractor would be able to <b>possibly</b> reduce their costs a bit and <b>possibly</b> pass on savings to NASA. However, the standing army of workers is still consuming the same amount of cash whether there's more customers for the spacecraft or not. The workforce <b>must</b> be reduced.
><i> With shuttle-derived hardware, the h/w costs aren't going down, so the salary figure must.</i><p>While I agree that the salary figure must go down, that doesn't necessarily mean that people will lose their jobs. There are a <b>lot</b> of older workers in the Shuttle program - people like shuttle_guy who have been there since the beginning. I forget the figures now, but it was actually quite a big concern a few years ago, as something like (don't quote me here) 30-40% of the shuttle workforce will reach retirement by 2010 or so.<p>While some are like s_g and are in it for life, there are quite a few who won't want to transition to a new program, and so much of the reduction can be achieved simply by natural attrition.</p></p>
<font color="yellow">"...so much of the reduction can be achieved simply by natural attrition. "</font><br /><br />Granted -- I should have specified in my reply that the <i>number of job positions</i> must be reduced. I see too many articles about the retirement of the shuttle, where politicians are angling to try to ensure jobs aren't lost (to a politician, it's the job <b>position</b> that's important, not the necessarily the person filling it). This irks me because it <b>should</b> be taken as a given that a prime goal of the CEV is to require as few support personnel as possible. I have no animosity towards the people in these positions, but the less there are of them, the more money remaining to spend on hardware and missions... which is the whole point.<br /><br />I might add that juggling attrition and the shuttle retirement is going to be dicey. You can't have <b>too</b> many leave before the orbiters are retired, then you need a really big chunk to go all at once. Attrition is normally a steady process and not easily subject to precise timing. If people retire, but the slot is still require (for now), someone must be hired to fill it... only to be let go if the slot goes away later.
><i>I might add that juggling attrition and the shuttle retirement is going to be dicey. You can't have too many leave before the orbiters are retired, then you need a really big chunk to go all at once.</i><p>One solution to that is to reverse the trend in industry. Instead of offering bonuses for early retirement, offer them for staying a few years longer.<p>This is an interesting point, worthy of it's own thread, I believe.</p></p>
Off topic a little, but relevant.<br /><br />In the US, when your retire, who pays those people's pensions? Is there a secure pension fund locked away for these people, does NASA or USA still have a financial burden to pay?<br /><br />I'm sure it's different than in the UK. Just a follow up on the 60 per cent due for retirement in 2010 comment.
><i>Just a follow up on the 60 per cent due for retirement in 2010 comment.</i><p>I hope you noticed the edit - I had the numbers reversed in my head, it's about 40% due to retire, 60% to stay. As for who pays the pension, most US workers have private pension plans, I believe they refer to them as 401K's.</p>
Made this post *just* as najaB split the thread.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"In the US, when your retire, who pays those people's pensions? Is there a secure pension fund locked away for these people, does NASA or USA still have a financial burden to pay? "</font><br /><br />It <b>used</b> to be that U.S. companies in general had pension plans for employees funded and paid out by the companies themselves. That has gone almost entirely by the wayside in the past 20 years or so. In general company 'pensions' are now funded through what's called a 401K plan. This is a tax-deferred personal pension plan that companies and employees can contribute to -- generally as a matching figure (i.e the employee puts aways 6% of his salary towards it and the company will 'match' another 3%). The money is invested in stocks/bonds/etc. of the employee's choice and grows completely tax-free. The person draws on the account after retirement and taxes get assessed at that time as the money is pulled out.<br /><br />Now, the <b>exception</b> to this is government employees. The government still does pensions. Therefore, retiring NASA employees will have government pensions. Most of the employees of USA probably have 401K plans. Someone who has been there a long time, like S_G may have both a legacy company pension from a time that Lockmart/Boeing (whichever he worked for) offered one *and* a 401K plan.
so what about the USA employees who are NOT about to retire...what are Boeing and Lockheed going to do with them? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
Hey you guys that are pushing for job cuts... do you work in the aerospace industry? Stop and think about it... would you want somebody to be pushing to eliminate your job? People need to be employed. <br /><br />Anyway, I'm not worried. Between natural attrition due to retirement, the fact that out country is pumping out less engineers every year, the fact that we want to do more than just orbit, and the fact that we plan to use shuttle derived hardware and infrastructure, I think there will be a job for anybody that wants one. <br /><br />Special note: Yes I realize that "fact" should probably be replaced with one of the following:<br /> 1. Likelihood<br /> 2. Possiblity<br /> 3. Speculation
On that note - I'd be interested in knowing what the general opinion is of todays rocket scientists/engineers etc....<br /><br />I have an immense amount of respect for the people who developed the software, hardware and systems of the Apollo era - it was a different era, and somehow, I think they knew how to do it RIGHT. I don't have the same confidence in todays new generation (I should clarify - this would be my generation, people born after the lunar landings). It just seems like space flight is already a complex undertaking - <br /><br />I have NO valid reason for believing that a new Lunar effort will fail - but I have this suspicion that the KISS philosophy is going to be ignored in favour of buggy software and complex systems that only increase the danger. <br /><br />Feel free to set me straight on this - I'm interested in what the more informed people think.
I would hardly consider the Apollo program to be KISS. Maybe in today's standards it is, but it certainly wasnt for the 60s. And I think today's engineers are just as good as yesterday's. Just look at all of the wonderful technology we have now. Your cell phone, your desktop computer, your car, modern airliners, the internet. It's all great! <br /><br />I dont think the difference is really the engineers at all. It's the engineering industry that is different. It's now a land controled by ISO/ASO 9100. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.
No, I was just asking how retirment works in the US - given we have State and Company pensions...and are just getting into the requirement of private pensions.. Mr Morris kindly informed me on how it works US style.
Actually, I dont think I really meant to reply specifically to you... I just hit the closest link that would allow me to create a new post 
ERAUSkydiver - agreed that Apollo wasn't all that Kiss. I was just thinking back to the other day when astronauts aboard the orbiter were swapping NICs on a laptop - trying to connect to the network, and it just occured to me that there is too much modern day crap being carried up into space - I would hate for a space emergency to be complicated by dribver updates, and service packs, if that makes any sense. It seems these things can be done without a lot of imperfect modern technology cluttering it up. <br /><br />Thanks for your thoughts on this. <br /><br />
Apollo era technology had its share of problems too. Of course I cant say for sure if we have more problems now vs. then, but I would guess that the quantity is the same... I'd just say that they are different types of problems.
...continuing from the convo that restarted in the STS-114 thread.<br /><br />For the record, I'd like to state that I am very passionate about aerospace. My whole existence and being revolves around it. It puts food on my table and keeps the lights on. <br /><br />However, I know that people and family are more important than rockets and and space. I agree that the shuttle needs to be replaced. But I am also a strong advocate of replacing it in a smart way the maintains as many jobs as possible while also creating an efficient space program. I think the VSE is going to have a staffing footprint as large as STS. It might be a simpler and reliable spacecraft, but the mission is more complex. Skilled employees need to be maintained. A smart phased approach can be made. Dumping the shuttle before there is a good replacement in the works is just not a viable way to go.
I really hope they go to an Apollo/soyuz style capsule. All this hand wringing about re-entry is going to get old if it happens on every single sts flight.
<font color="yellow">However, I know that people and family are more important than rockets and and space.</font><br /><br />I think space exploration-for future colonization and expansion-is vital for the survival of the human species.<br />That being the case, getting the technology to allow many people to leave the planet and settle somewhere else -and doing it as rapidly as possible- is far more important than keeping a large workforce in a subsidized environment if such workforce is not needed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
Spacefire, I totally agree with you. However, waiting 5 years to retire the shuttle and wait for CEV to come online will most likely not result in the destruction of all mankind. Now, who knows, a comet could hit the earth as soon as I post this. However, it most likely will not. Look, development will take a couple of years. Keep 'em flying until we're cutting metal.<br /><br />
<font color="yellow">"However, I know that people and family are more important than rockets and and space. "</font><br /><br />The world is going to need the resources from space a <b>lot</b> more than it needs those workers to be employed by NASA. There are other jobs that can be done by a skilled aerospace worker.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"I think the VSE is going to have a staffing footprint as large as STS."</font><br /><br />If this is the case -- it will fail. You are obviously neither an economist or an accountant. <br /><br />- As an economist, you'd realize that NASA has limited resources and those resources must be stretched to cover more hardware in the VSE than is the case in the STS program. That being the case, something else in the budget must give, and most of the STS budget is people.<br /><br />- As an accountant, you'd have been able to realize from a passing glance at the numbers just how much of the STS budget is people and would realize that the only way the budget will stretch for the development of a new system if by cutting the number of jobs.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star- Started by Admin
- Replies: 6
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
Aurora alert: Geomagnetic storm could spark northern lights in upper Midwest skies this Christmas
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram