In The End Its Only About Jobs, Right?

Of course it is about jobs. Why do you think congress is about to pass a $200B "Job Stimulus" bill. This is not the best time to lay off tens of thousands of space workers - now is it? Just because you increase a budget doesn't mean jobs will be preserved.

Five time shuttle astronaut Ken Rominger works at ATK, but there was a reason he did so.....

http://www.standard.net/topics/atk/2010/02/20/obamas-plans-scrap-constellation-irk-those-connected-atk

...Until he retired from NASA in 2006 Rominger was a NASA astronaut. He's got five shuttle missions, 1,600 hours and 27 million space miles under his belt. He ended as chief of the astronaut office.

"I believe that's (ending Ares) the wrong thing for our country," he said. "We're the absolute leaders in the world, and the Ares system is truly a bargain, and it absolutely guarantees us remaining the leader in space travel."

Rominger admitted he can be accused of a conflict of interest because he works for ATK. He insisted it's the other way around.

He went to ATK, he said, because of his experience on the shuttle with its products.

After the Challenger disaster in 1986, he said, astronauts insisted on safety and reliability.

"We said we need to put into the works a follow-up, and the follow-up has to be extremely reliable. The United States won't put up with losing astronauts."

Ares, he said, is that system.

"There's the amount of payload it can throw and the reliability of the system. Our nation has invested $9 billion in the system, Time magazine gave it the No. 1 invention of the year.

"All of this is in the proposal that is proposed being done away with," he said. "And turn things over to Elon Musk."

Musk is a South African physicist who founded PayPal and now runs Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), a commercial space venture. SpaceX has a NASA contract to deliver cargo to the International Space Station, but has yet to launch people into space.

A special NASA commission last year, which was critical of the Constellation program, said private ventures like SpaceX should take over manned flight.

Rominger said "My fear is if we really did take human space flight away from NASA, which is what the 2011 budget implies, I think we wind up a second-, or even third-tier nation in the space exploration business."

No, Keith, it's not just about jobs. But when you stand to lose your job is does become an important factor.

But this is about more than our jobs. For those of us who went into the space industry because of our love for NASA and the manned space flight program, this change in direction is a slap in the face. No one has stopped the so-called private sector from doing what they do. They have investors that keep them going and that should be good enough. Our nation's space program should not let itself become another government welfare program. People keep calling those working on Constellation "welfare engineers". Why? Because our companies bid and won contracts to work on a NASA program? There are 50+ contractors across the nation slated to design and build Constellation hardware. Why shouldn't our government continue to invest in them? Well, I guess now all of the other people working for companies like SpaceX are the "welfare engineers". After all, now they'll be the ones taking handouts from the government to run their businesses.

With proper funding, Constellation can succeed. It's no different than any other large NASA program. Had people given up on the other big programs, we'd have had no success with Apollo, Shuttle, or ISS. You have to invest in a program if you want it to succeed. The Augustine Commission did not say we should cancel Constellation. It just said it would take more money to complete it (because of the cuts that had taken place previously, NOT because it is overbudget). So why then does our president not ask for the money to complete it? Why go this whole new direction, a direction which isn't going to take us anywhere?

Investors in the private sector are going to want to see profit. Where's the profit? I guess our government investing tax-payers money into all these small companies and then having to turn around and pay for their services is a profit. And of course, there is the profit from the rich people who want to go joy-riding. Is this the new inspiration for our youth that everyone is talking about? Doesn't sounds very inspiring to me.

For Congress it's about being re-elected, which means it's about jobs.

Orion1 - It absolutely is welfare for engineers, the way we practice it. What does the average person get from Constellation? Is it gonna combat global warming? Is it going to capture Osama bin Laden? Is it gonna cure my acne?

No, it doesn't do anything for the average person. It puts 4 people on the moon, and those 4 positions are hardly open to the average person. This is why it is (correctly) considered welfare for engineers. This is a make work program, that doesn't do anything for the people who aren't directly employed.

Further, Augustine Committee members have largely back the president's budget. Further, most of the options they considered offered drastic changes. In fact, if you look at Option 2, ISS focused, you see something very similar to what Obama is doing.

So why then does our president not ask for the money to complete it? Why go this whole new direction, a direction which isn't going to take us anywhere?

Because it would've been another shuttle/station situation, where it would've been quite expensive to operate. Or worse, it would've repeated Apollo's mistakes, and be unsustainable to finance.

And this new direction is going to take us places - its going to put us on a path towards a spacefaring society.

As for where the profits are coming from - there are multiple possible streams, from tourism, to zero-g production, to satellite repair, and so on.

Oh, and that youth, that you are asking about inspiring - most of my friends, who are college students or just out of college - they think this plan is great.

It's also about having the national capability of sending humans into space, sometimes called assured access to space.

It is the jobs that we know (i.e., NASA and supported contractors) versus jobs that we don't (those who will win future contracts). The amount of money being spent on HSF isn't going down. In fact, it looks to be going up.

So the question isn't about cutting jobs (the total number of jobs may well go up) but who will be getting those jobs.

spacenerd99

We definitely need assured access. Of course, since we haven't really had this in the past, this would be a new thing. And, of course, we wouldn't have had this with Constellation

Florida Resident here.

Crist and Rubio on Sunday, March 28 on FOX news

The fight for the votes of Floridians.

Will the NASA 2011 budget and the jobs lost in the state come into play during the debate? If it doesn't that will mean neither man actually knows whats happening in his state.

I will be watching.

CadetOne, +1, absolutely correct.

The total number of jobs affected by the Obama proposal in FY 2010 is very small, because the funds are already committed -- by Congress. The Obama proposal can't affect spending much before 2011 -- by which time I certainly expect to see a turnaround in the national economy.

The loss of jobs on the Space Coast will continue, as set in motion by the Bush and Griffin administrations and their decision to stop flying Shuttle after 2010. I understand the financial and personal disruption this will cause -- I've felt it myself once. I don't take that lightly.

One of Obama's mistakes was making a dramatic change that can be mistaken for the cause of this misery; but it's actually a problem that's been cooking almost 6 years. It came from the original VSE. And it's not factually correct to say that CxP was somehow going to prevent it.

And the fact that NASA and contractor jobs are in turmoil now doesn't change one important thing: Florida is still geographically a great place to launch from.

The time my life was turned upside down by a NASA decision, I managed to land on my feet. In fact, my wife and I consider it our little miracles -- getting a chance to move to such a great place and a great company. I hope many of you will find similar good luck in this "disaster".

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
- Upton Sinclair

I love how some people assert that a CxP engineer is on welfare, but any other contractor being paid by NASA is not. You never addressed whether a SpaceX engineer (just an example) is on welfare if its capsule is funded by NASA. CCDev is still funded by taxpayers.

I don't feel like this new program helps the average Joe either. At least not anymore than Shuttle and CxP did. Is the new direction going to help capture Osama bin Laden or rid of acne? Why should NASA be combating global warming (or capturing terrorists...)? NOAA can use commercial sats to get their needed data. Military uses their own stuff too.

I keep seeing posts (not from you) saying that the average person will be able to go into space with this program. I just don't buy it, the average person can do things like go get a drivers license, hop on a plane, etc - not go into space. This won't change anytime soon. There may be an increase in non-NASA space travelers (I'm all for it), but its hardly open to the average folk now that we have a handful a CCDev companies.

Slightly off topic: I also don't see why it has to be either NASA or commercial. We have government fighter pilots, and also commercial airline pilots. I see the same thing needed for space (well not fighters hopefully, but you get my point).

And for the youth, it varies from person to person, in both directions. I also know plenty of young people either in school or fresh out of school (including myself) who feel anything but inspiration from this new direction - they hate it.

In fact, I also know plenty of engineers fresh out of school who inspired to work for NASA, and who worked hard to get a job at NASA (or a contractor) who are now being shown the front door under this new plan (CxP or not). Hardly inspiring.

Griffin specifically chose Orian, Ares I, and Arev V to keep the Space Shuttle workforce in place. Specifically. It went against the VSE wholesale, as the VSE was supposed to privatize space. So yes, it's always been about jobs.

Waste

Ok, I'll address it right now

The key thing is that it engages in market & wealth creation. And the fact that it is market creation means that there are private people willing to spend their money on this industry. In that sense, its no different than spending money to develop the green energy market, the internet industries, and various new examples (like aviation). Because there are people, who are willing to spend their own money on this (and I don't just mean for tourism purposes).

And, because its developing said market, it puts us on an organic path towards becoming spacefaring, so that one day, the average person can take part in spaceflight. I saw no chance of that happening for Constellation.

Slightly off topic: I also don't see why it has to be either NASA or commercial. We have government fighter pilots, and also commercial airline pilots. I see the same thing needed for space (well not fighters hopefully, but you get my point).

I don't believe it has to be commercial vs NASA. In fact, I believe there is a place for both commercial astronauts, & NASA astronauts.

The problem is the vehicles. Yes, we do have government airplanes, in the form of fighters & bombers, but thats because there is no market for fighter & bombers outside of the government market. The same cannot be said about civilian transport - there are many examples of air transport, and they have all been developed & built by commercial entities.

Now, that said, there are areas where there is no market, where NASA should be doing work - specifically, true deep spacecrafts, that fly permanently in space. this is what NASA should start working on, and then ride up purely on commercial rockets.

Finally, with regards to youth inspiration - if we agree that it varies person to person, then its time for both sides to stop suggesting that only their way will inspire youth. I am sick and tired of the "well, we are not going to the moon, and we are just putting rich people in space4 - hardly inspiring." There are more than a few of the youth who see us creating a spacefaring society, with this. Therefore, its time for Constellation supporters to stop using this argument.

NOAA can use commercial sats to get their needed data.
False. Commercial sats do not have the necessary instrumentation. The satellites that DO have the needed instruments only have them because a NOAA or NASA customer put it in the requirements and then paid the money.

DigitalGlobe and GeoEye make very nice 4-color imaging systems in LEO, but they don't meet the needs of operational weather, much less earth science related to climate change, weather prediction, space weather or anything else.

The commercial suppliers of any service or equipment will only carry out that work if there's some customer for it. Those companies wouldn't fly an atmospheric sounder without a known customer like the US government; they know there isn't a commercial market for ozone or CO2 data, as there is with 4-color imaging.

When NOAA or NASA procures a satellite bus and instrument, they become that customer. When Google or CNN buys satellite imagery from DG or GeoEye, they are a customer. When NASA buys rides from Russia, and begins buying rides from SpaceX or other suppliers, they are a customer. The new NASA initiative in commercial HSF is primarily that step -- declaring itself a customer for launch services -- but also includes a new effort in setting safety standards and supporting technology investment with contract R&D.

NASA through the CxP program was also a customer for HSF on a much bigger scale -- oriented toward lunar HSF in 1-2 launches. That has nothing in common with the birth of a commercial HSF industry. There's no way to spin off Ares 1 or Orion to a system that can attract corporate or individual customers with an affordable price. That was like a big waterbed weighing down the industry, like if the only investment in aviation were in 747s and A380s, and none in light jets and Cirruses. Part of the new direction is fostering that NASA+commercial synergy.

To me that sounds like a commitment to the future of HSF, and a departure from the old model.

"We definitely need assured access. Of course, since we haven't really had this in the past, this would be a new thing"

If you consider stopping for launch problems not assured access, then it'll be a long time before you're satisfied.

I do not consider waiting 8 to 10 years for access to space acceptable.

So, is it in your view that it is not the funding source that defines a welfare engineer, but the program he\she works on?

If a CxP engineer works for the same company, but switches to a new government funded contract, is he\she is no longer a welfare engineer? Just as long as the new contract is deemed good for the public? That seems like a nebulous definition that is based on any person's opinion of any particular program to me.

Agreed on the youth inspiration. I also don't think the moon is the only destination inspiration worthy either, it was also not my intent to suggest that sending (wealthy) tourists won't reach to anyone either. I do feel that a ISS\LEO focused program will inspire much less than an BEO focused program though.

What really motivates people to work for NASA is a good, sturdy, fun job IMO. Yet it seems to be a rare thing to have all three of those.

"False. Commercial sats do not have the necessary instrumentation."

Well no, they don't. Not right now at least. CCDev cannot currently send people into orbit either, but they will be able to for the reasons you stated above - a government kickstart to the market.

I'm not sure we are talking about the same things. I am asking: Why is NASA a customer for global warming products?

I am also asking why NASA needs to build\design anything global warming related. This seems like it belongs in NOAA's charter, not NASA's. If NASA can levy requirements to have special instruments, then so can NOAA, right?

Spacenerd99

If you consider stopping for launch problems not assured access, then it'll be a long time before you're satisfied.

I don't believe it has to be that way, particularly if we have MULTIPLE US launchers. And I believe we've learned enough to do that cost effectively

I do not consider waiting 8 to 10 years for access to space acceptable.

Well, if you found that unacceptable, why were you supporting Constellation? It was going to be that long before we saw a manned Orion, going to LEO. Now, we'll only be looking at a 3-5 year delay

So, is it in your view that it is not the funding source that defines a welfare engineer, but the program he\she works on?

If a CxP engineer works for the same company, but switches to a new government funded contract, is he\she is no longer a welfare engineer? Just as long as the new contract is deemed good for the public? That seems like a nebulous definition that is based on any person's opinion of any particular program to me.

You may find that nebulous, and I wouldn't totally disagree. However, I would submit that this is a fundamental point of our nation - its the main reason we spend money & collect taxes - does this money we collect better serve our nation's interest if we spend it for project A or project B? To put it more concretely, we have deemed it in the national interest to find out scientific data about Pluto. But why do we consider it important? Because we believe that science is part of our national character, and we consider the attempt to gather & collect more scientific knowledge as vital to our nation's growth (provided that knowledge isn't too expensive)

At the end of the day, it may be nebulous, but thats the way our society is built. Which brings me back to the main point - if there is a real national need served by Constellation, I'll support it. But I've never seen an overriding national need it serves.

Agreed on the youth inspiration. I also don't think the moon is the only destination inspiration worthy either, it was also not my intent to suggest that sending (wealthy) tourists won't reach to anyone either. I do feel that a ISS\LEO focused program will inspire much less than an BEO focused program though.

And I submit that what inspires youth is the chance to work on a program that actually has a chance of delivering real value, and that working on a project that will put us on a path to being spacefaring is even more likely to be inspiring. Finally, I don't believe this program is only a LEO/ISS based program. For the next few years, yes, it is. But that was true of Constellation as well.

Read NASA's charter.

d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:

(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;

"At the end of the day, it may be nebulous, but thats the way our society is built. Which brings me back to the main point - if there is a real national need served by Constellation, I'll support it. But I've never seen an overriding national need it serves. "

So am I to take it that you were against the Apollo, Shuttle and ISS programs? Many argued the need for them, but I believe they were vital to our space program and have given back to society. Constellation will provide a moonbase where we can do necessary research to enable us to continue on to Mars. It's not about making a monetary profit. It's about science and exploration.

Yes, that statement (which is pretty open for interpretations) is in NASA's charter. I was asking more of why is it there.

I feel combating global warming (a phenomena in the atmosphere I suppose) suits the nation’s oceanic and atmospheric agency more than NASA. I guess they don't want to handle the launches & sat development?

So am I to take it that you were against the Apollo, Shuttle and ISS programs? Many argued the need for them, but I believe they were vital to our space program and have given back to society. Constellation will provide a moonbase where we can do necessary research to enable us to continue on to Mars. It's not about making a monetary profit. It's about science and exploration.

With regard to Apollo & Shuttle, I wasn't around when those decisions were made. In terms of Apollo, I can see a clear need for it - Apollo acted as part of a surrogate for Nuclear war.
With regard to shuttle - I personally think that the program was a mistake, and it was a detour. I would've much preferred NASA try and do a similar development program with reusable space vehicles, built around the Saturn Ib, since that was a pre-existing vehicle. But, not having been here....
With regard to Station - I think there was a need for a station, one the size of ISS? And managed like ISS was? I think it would've made much more sense to try and refurbish Skylab, or else do the Industrial Space Facility, which could've been launched in only 1 or 2 flights.

As for Constellation - it will NEVER provide a moonbase. Constellation is 2 rockets, 1 capsule, 1 LM, and an EDS - there was no moonbase, no follow-on to mars, nothing that would lead to a spacefaring society. Merely have 1 or 2 pieces of the required technology does not make a spacefaring society - you need the social structure, you need people investing their own personal time, money, and energy into such an endeavor. Not merely through taxes, or cheer leading, but something that allows them to have direct access. You have to find some way to allow everyone to take part in, using their own resources, and not dependent upon watching on tv or on a computer.

With regards to it not being about monetary profit, but for science and exploration
1. Why can't it be about monetary profit?
2. I don't actually agree that human spaceflight produces a lot of usable science.
3. Exactly WHAT is exploration? Define it so that it has relevance to the average person

"Well, if you found that unacceptable, why were you supporting Constellation? It was going to be that long before we saw a manned Orion, going to LEO. Now, we'll only be looking at a 3-5 year delay"

Now I've never said I supported Constellation. I haven't attacked it either. I do feel that if it were funded correctly, it would have performed well.

I do support Orion as it is likely the only way we'll be flying with only a 3-5 year delay. If you think one of these new commercial companies will be flying a newly designed spacecraft in that time frame, you're taking their comments at face value and not being very objective.

Commercial: 1 a (1) : occupied with or engaged in commerce or work intended for commerce (2) : of or relating to commerce (3) : characteristic of commerce (4) : suitable, adequate, or prepared for commerce b (1) : being of an average or inferior quality (2) : producing artistic work of low standards for quick market success
2 a : viewed with regard to profit b : designed for a large market
3 : emphasizing skills and subjects useful in business
4 : supported by advertisers

looking at that definition hey are

So they plan is to make a profit and I guess the next few US space mission with have walmart or cosco on the side of the rocket.Which surprisingly Im not totally against if it cant let us escape LEO and get on with exploring.

Now I've never said I supported Constellation. I haven't attacked it either. I do feel that if it were funded correctly, it would have performed well.

Guess what? Constellation was never going to be "funded correctly." It never was going to get the huge budget increase it needed to make it work. That money was never there for us. Its time to face facts that we aren't going to get extra funding, and that we have to build a program around this budget, not build a budget around the program we want

I do support Orion as it is likely the only way we'll be flying with only a 3-5 year delay. If you think one of these new commercial companies will be flying a newly designed spacecraft in that time frame, you're taking their comments at face value and not being very objective

1. Orion has got to be put on some sort of rocket. What rocket would you have put it on?
2. You really consider Boeing & ULA as some "new company"?
3. The Augustine Committee agrees with me that Commercial Crew can be ready by 2016, which is not a 8-10 year gap.

Correction then – it provides the infrastructure and the path by which a base would be built. It’s always been in the plan that the next step would be to build a base on the moon. Constellation wasn’t created to go to the moon merely for the sake of recreating Apollo; it was created to facilitate the next step.

No, it wouldn't. Because we can't afford it. Its far to expensive to use as viable infrastructure, for developing a lunar base.

Yes, it was suppose to facilitate the next step, but it never would've succeeded

"Yes, it was suppose to facilitate the next step, but it never would've succeeded"

Only because of people like you.