Layoffs Begin, Ames Offers Buyouts

Before anyone starts panicing.....the layoffs were part of the plan that NASA accepted back when we decided to retire the shuttle, build Orion, go back to the Moon and plan for Mars.

It is all in the plan and we are marching to it.

So, please no whining.

The balance of the agency will be doing the same offering Buyouts and laying off the contract workforce.

This was expected is correct.

Stop already! This WAS THE PLAN!

We knew this was going to happen. We, NASA, signed up for it.

But what we didnt plan for was the cost. When OKeefe was asked at a Science Committee meeting "How much will it cost to go to the moon?" he refused to answer. Thats because at the time we could not justify a huge increase in the budget to build Orion, go to the moon, and go to Mars.

We never had the funding to adequately address the plan.

BUT........THAT WAS THE PLAN! And we all agreed to it.

So, again, lets stop whining about our plan.

Yeah buddy…change we can believe in.

Let me add to those who say this was "the plan" and infer "no surprise" or "no whining" should be the response -

It was also part of the "plan" that the RECURRING costs for the Orion Ares I vs. Shuttle be over $1B a year LESS to provide transport to the ISS as compared to the current Shuttle. That number is now running over $1B a year MORE for an equivalent number of crew to ISS. The only reason the number on the books shows as only slightly more than Shuttle is because the number of launches budgeted for Orion Ares I is just 2 a year, which now would be just 8 people a year. Even so, for 8 people a year, the number is tracking as slightly MORE than Shuttle RECURRING per year using a Shuttle number of 5 launches per year meaning apx. 5 X 7 people = 35 people a year to ISS.

Kieth, perhaps you can post those old ESAS reports you had posted once and then removed, section 12 "Cost", page 704?

It was also part of the "plan" (and here I'm embarrassed to say, having been a part of this, that there was such provincial, optimistic and narrow-minded thinking) that NASA would maintain purchase power going forward from 2009 to 2020. That is whatever the purchase power would be in 2009 we would preserve it through 2020. This was not a specific value of inflation assumption, such as saying "we assumed 3% a year". It was a CONSTANT PURCHASE POWER ASSUMPTION. So IF inflation were to run 5% NASA would get 5% increase at proper times to allow us to keep up.

The prior "plan" lacks margin and robustness to real world events. Events such as deficits, health-care, etc.

Lastly, and I'm also embarrassed to admit this was done, the "plan" only went out as far as 2020. Even at the constant purchase power level, and even with the lower RECURRING Orion Ares I costs that were then estimated, and even at the then lower RECURRING costs of Landers, Ares V (a smaller one back then), the lack of perspective beyond 2020 was a strategic "blinders-on" flaw. At the projected RECURRING operations and production levels there is no real money left over for future development. One must de-orbit the ISS to have any latitude to do anything in the human spaceflight portion of the budget beyond the aforementioned RECURRING production and operations expenses on a yearly basis for Orion, Ares I, Ares V and the Altair Lander.

At that point a "gap" occurs in our human presence in space. One can imagine how long it would take $2B in available ISS funding (post-de-orbit) to accumulate enough effort to build up a Lunar base (even with smaller volume and power levels than the current ISS, as currently projected). Needless to say a small rise in the projected RECURRING production and operations costs of Orion, Ares I, Ares V and the Lander will eat into that $2B available post-ISS de-orbit.

This STRATEGIC flaw was somewhat hinted at in ESAS. The administrator was told of this DURING ESAS and the hint at this problem was ignored. If anything the Griffin "50 year" vision writeup (google "griffin" "50 year" "vision") saw that human space flight at constant purchase power would have "available" $8B in the future. Griffin INCORRECTLY states (having been informed otherwise) that the transport would be a fixed $1B a year, the variable would be $3B a year and the "remainder" could be used for other "development". The current values would place the distribution of the human space flight $8B a year at (1) $3B a year for transport, Shuttle, (2) $2B a year for a presence, an outpost, today ISS, leaving apx. (3) $3B a year for R&D and development, today Constellation.

The future projection shows NEARLY ALL $8B a year will be required, as cost estimates show, by JUST the RECURRING annual space transport production and operations.

In short - "Plans" include expectations of return.

Expectations of long term outcomes. When those outcomes are bleak, looking worse as new information arises, and especially when they are looking FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED, it is time to reassess "plans".

LOOKING FORWARD - ANY FUTURE STUDY ON NASA'S DIRECTION MUST - (1) Look at the levels of the NASA functions, a portfolio of items, and (2) assure that levels near and far allow for items today and tomorrow that can be funded at desirable levels. Otherwise any item today can consume, cannibalize and decimate future "plans" laying long term goals to waste, goals which are more important than "plans".

Goals are what must be envisioned and held dear, such as safer, more routine, more accessible human travel to and from space. Plans must change, except for those blind to new information, too hard headed to admit a mistake, or with agenda's near but not far.

That was YOUR plan, I, as a taxpayer, never signed up to gut the science program, gut and then toss a fully operational space station into the ocean, and quit flying the most advanced, most capable, most flexible, and increasingly safe space access system ever fielded by mankind. All in order to try to reprise a 50 year old program that lost public support 37 years ago. A program that switched to the questionable results of the clearly flawed ESAS and who's costs have spiraled out of control since day 1.

No doubt in the next couple of weeks NASA will present us with another Pie In the Sky mega-program that purports to stay within budget while re-targeting manned space to utilize the ISS through 2020 and will be unable to due to lack of sufficient logistical support and replacement parts. The new program will also offer NEO targets, Mars targets and possibly some lunar sorties while using commercial programs for LEO access and the building another, possibly STS derived, HLV. The HLV program will promptly go over budget and in will, any case, cost so much to operate that there will be little cash for any operations.

I can hardly wait.

Buyouts at LaRC also seem to be planned

"Tomorrow, we have a layoff of about 160 people on the team," shuttle Program Manager John Shannon told reporters. "Between tomorrow and the end of September, we will reduce the program by about 900 people. They are primarily manufacturing team members. We have delivered the last pieces of hardware that those team members produce and we don't keep them on the roles

Does that mean when a NASA Program is over ( eg shuttle) the Program managers won’t be kept on the roles? Maybe that is something to be considered

Yes, this was planned. If Constellation is ever going to get the budget they need the money needs to start coming from shuttle funds. As they lay off shuttle workers then Constellation will have budget they need to get it going.

As they lay off shuttle workers then Constellation will have budget they need to get it going.

The company needs to keep rallying the workers with these kinds of delusions in order to keep the pork waste flowing to the pork farming operations. So just ignore those smells and that cloud of flies, it's just the cost of doing business.

(Note to the Editor : I'm going to keep posting these because I know you'll have to read them.)

Gosh, some of you guys sound like government employees who think you are entitled to government funding.

You ever heard that we are in a recession?

There was an op-ed that said NASA should extend the shuttle for 3 years, put missions to the Moon and Mars on the back burner, and focus on building Orion and getting back to Station.

We can afford this. Personally, I cant believe we thought we could maintain station, build orion, plan for the moon, plan for Mars, all without any more money.

It was the plan, and a faulty one at that.

NASA should focus.

Yes, this was planned. If Constellation is ever going to get the budget they need the money needs to start coming from shuttle funds. As they lay off shuttle workers then Constellation will have budget they need to get it going.

You must be a NASA manager who is, well, I won't write it, but less then smart.

Laughing, The funding from the layoff is nothing compared to what CxP need to do anything. Stop BS's the NASA workforce with all this we can now get moving because the workforce has freed up funding.
900x$200K = $180mil hardly the 16billion Mike ripped off from science and aeronautics for the out years which is now vapor.

If Constellation does not need machining it appears it does not know what it is doing. This BS presented over the past 5 years that the workforce would be transitioned to CxP is nothing but horsepucky. Everyone now knows this as FACT.

This was expected, however it was not presented honestly until John Shannon stated it. At the very least CxP is not honest and does not have the correct skill mix technically.
Thank you John for being Honest.

I suspect CxP will never get going any place but CHANGE you can believe in.

Fix Your Headline:

None of these layoffs will be at Kennedy Space Center.

NASA pretty much has built all the hardware -- external tanks, main engines, solid rocket boosters -- that it will need to fly out the remaining nine missions, so the jobs that are being cut are at manufacturing facilities like Michoud Assembly Facility -- the external tank factory in New Orleans.

NONE of the jobs are at KSC. NASA needs about every belly-button they have down here to fly out the remaining missions -- and then we'll get whacked with at least 3,500 layoffs in 2011.

Todd Halvorson
Private Citizen
Titusville, Florida

Editor's note: I did indeed make a mistake on the headline, now corrected.

Buyouts have been going on for years. Its no secret that NASA is top heavy and this is one method to try and even out the demographic.