Unions Are Also Split on Obama's Space Plan

Just more evidence that Obama has started effectively a civil war folks.

It's going to get worse. Much worse.

He will back down eventually, no choice when congress hits him with a dose of reality.

Jobs may be created ... eventually. I have serious trouble seeing how private enterprise is going to provide many jobs at all for years - well after the current workforce is dismantled and off doing other things.

The best statement from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers letter was the following:

"While our military services rely on private contractors to design and build most of their equipment, the military owns the planes, ships, armored vehicles, weapons, information systems, and other key technologies. The armed services also own their domestic bases and operate their own foreign bases. The military, like NASA, uses private contractors, but the military exercises control of its operations and the technology. NASA has owned its manned space vehicles and its launch facilities. Laws and regulations govern NASA and military procurement so that sourcing, security, technology transfers, and a wide range of key decisions promote U.S. security and economic interests"

Exactly!

Marcel F. Williams

Well, not exactly. The COTS program has NASA paying for a large chuck , but not all, of the development costs for "commercial" lauchers, while leaving the developers free to look for other customers. This is essentially the same idea the USAF used to get Boeing and Lockheed to produce new launchers in its EELV program. NASA isn't entirely plowing new ground.

So I'm sort of cynical about the disinterested idealism displayed by the IAMAW and other unions in opposing Obama's plans for future space.

OTOH, I think the Obama folks deserve a little public embarassment for those piss-ant plans, and if the demonstrations are big enough or colorful enough to get some news coverage and stir up more pro-HSF sentiment among the voters, what's there to object to?

I was just wondering what Keith's opinion really is -- you seem like a very interesting guy, with Everest & education and LRO and all!

As a space fan, are you kind of dismayed about President Obama's desire to axe, not simply Ares, but the entire vse. At how the Moon & Mars have been, incredibly & unbelievabley, our legislated national goal.

But now, just as incredibly & unbelievably, the President Obama wants them suddenly UNlegislated!!!! I know Constellation needs a massive shakedown, Keith. But China is rising fast, and probably ready to start moon flights as soon as the shuttle's end will give them the national spotlight, and our students greatly need the inspiration that ONLY a solid national program (not differing small new companies) can carry out for us, via that student recognizable, solid, nationally inspirng emblem of NASA!

That's my 2 cents! But what does Mr Keith think about at least getting the national goal of the Moon & Mars back into the plan? Oh, and about Orion too (after seeing that SpaceRef Orion item!). Thank you.

Sorry, I meant the linked Orion article at Nasaspaceflight.

Engineer in Houston, SpaceX is going to need 1000 jobs once they start launching Falcon 9 every 3-6 months. If COTS reaches out for a SHLLV option, then that's even more jobs. The jobs aren't magically going away, they're being transformed from the private cost-plus contractor sector, to the private milestone based commercial sector. It's riskier for employees, but it also means they won't make tiny mistakes like messing up a parachute deployment procedure (because cost-plus won't be there to pay for their mistakes). The government hand-holding has gone on for far too long.

newpapyrus, as Jeff Greason from XCOR Aerospace said (on the January 18th episodes of The Space Show), the military, and even NASA, has been relying on private space (Delta, Atlas) to launch their rockets for the past decade. Indeed, the military has not used NASA to launch anything since STS-52 almost two decades ago. And NASA hasn't launched a probe in awhile without it being on a private companies rocket.

Those machinists will still have a job somewhere in the industry, it just won't be with contractors who overlook mistakes because mistakes are whitewashed and being paid for by tax payers. As I said before, with cost-plus, failure is an option, just as with the multiple Orion parachute deployment issues. You won't see SpaceX making similar mistakes, because it costs money that they don't have (don't get paid until they succeed).

akear, you and a few other guys are making a lot of noise on the various space related websites, but from what I can see, more and more people are jumping on board. Jeff Greason (from XCOR and a member of the Augustine commission) predicted that NASA would have to change, he hoped sooner, rather than later. He was right on the money. And I'm glad it's sooner, because Cx was destined to fail.

And failure is not an option, at least not anymore, not with the new direction.

"Although for the thousands of dedicated employees who have been working diligently on Constellation"

Perhaps meeting a deadline or three diligently would have helped this program stay afloat I'm just saying.Plain and simple they were given several time line dates and those time lines just kept getting pushed back.Can't imagine why the Augustine commission didn't see it as the path to take. I finally read it it. What a boring read. Cheap to leo cheap to leo just keep saying it to yourself cheap to leo.The single biggest problem of space flight. Damn the gravity

Williams,

That is false logic.
a, NASA is not the military.
B. The military operates its own planes, NASA does not operate the shuttle, it pays for contractors to do it.
c. We are not talking planes
Now read closely
d. The military does not operate its own launch vehicles, it uses commercial space launch.

Of course, what you describe is what we'd like, to see happen. Unfortunately for many who are working shuttle launch processing at KSC, now, there won't be nearly enough jobs to go around. As for the "1000 jobs" SpaceX will need: if they will need that many, it won't be soon enough. Despite what the launch manifest at Spacex.com suggests, Elon Musk has stated that he expects that Falcon 9 will have been successfully flown twice this year before Thanksgiving. Who is processing this first flight? How many additional people will he need to process launch vehicles at this rate, and even faster? The SpaceX web site now lists 77 job openings - mostly in LA. There is only one job opening listed for Cape Canaveral now.
NASA doesn't exist to serve as a jobs program, and the space industry consensus (as well as stated policy) has for years called for more participation from private enterprise. But, let's not be naive about how many jobs are going to be created soon.
On your statement that "you won't see SpaceX making mistakes ...", I have to laugh. The first three flights that SpaceX made - particularly the one involving the thrust tailoff "rear-ending" of the second stage by the first - were caused by painfully simple and obvious flaws. I want to see them succeed, and believe they will, but - again - let's not be naive about who is or is not going to make mistakes, and the reasons why they do or don't.

"SpaceX is going to need 1000 jobs once they start launching Falcon 9 every 3-6 months"

Currently SpaceX employs I think about 500 (as of 2008). To go to to 1500 employees will take a while and strain their company. It might be quick to get things done now, but with a large company it takes longer and longer. If their management isn't experienced with that, other problems will show up.

The real point is that these newer, alt.space firms won't won't use much union labor and won't be hiring too many former GS-1n civil servant engineers, who will be free to enjoy their early retirements.

Maybe the O. will insist that the newer space firms be unionized. That sure would fix everything. Surprising that the Prince's regime hasn't thought of that angle yet.

I.A.M. better increase its campaign contributions.

NASA does operate the Shuttle. It uses contractors to help it operate the vehicle but all the processes and all the final decisions are made by NASA, not USA. In fact all Flight Directors are civil servants and so are the chairs of the MMT and IMMT.

As noted above, the military doesnt launch it's own rockets, they pay ULA (Boeing, LM) to handle it. By sharing costs through ULA and SpaceX, the flight rate will increase and costs may come down.

Some of this should make those on the right very happy. They don't like unions and want them all destroyed. Their unhappiness should be worthy of praise from the right.

Odd, also, to see so much venom from people, on this blog, who sound like they are on the other end of the political spectrum from the President. After months of hearing socialism warnings, this guy tries to go the private/commercial route and people cry out even more. Some people complain even when they get what they seem to want.

Interesting... what world do you hail from where Obama does anything for labor without extorting an arm and a leg beforehand (health benefits tax) and forgetting his promises afterward? (too many to list here, EFCA for starters)

Is that the famed "lefty socialist Obama" world that so many people swear they've visited but can never present any proof of its existence?

"Odd, also, to see so much venom from people"

While some are against the cancellation of Constellation, a lot of the "venom" is directed at the cancellation of the US human space flight program, specifically Orion. To cancel the program and place your hopes on new commercial company's promises is foolish.

"That is false logic. NASA is not the military"

It is the same. NASA is a government manned space pioneering program-- not a commercial spaceline company. There's no logical reason why NASA needs to higher an unnecessary corporate middle man in order for government pioneers to access the New Frontier.

NASA needs its own manned space vehicles, the military needs their own manned space vehicles, and private industry needs their own manned space vehicles.

Plus there's no way a NASA ISS contract can support more than one manned spaceflight company.

Private manned spaceflight companies need to thank NASA for giving them money to develop their own manned spaceflight capability. But they should avoid trying to depend on NASA contracts and focus on space tourism and commercial satellite launches which will eventually dwarf anything that NASA is doing.

Marcel F. Williams

> To cancel the program and place your hopes on new commercial company's promises is foolish.

The only foolish thing here is believing all your hopes are on one new company.

Actually there is another foolish thing. Believing Orion is gone just because NASA wants to buy capsules differently.

@ spacenerd99

Exactly!

At a minimum..
Obama should have perserved Orion, left BEO for NASA, and let commercial have the ISS LEO stuff.

But NO! Obama foolishly is trying.. again.. to cram something down the throats of Americans they do not want.

Cancelling what NASA is famous for is not good public policy!

He really doesn't get how getting things through congress works. He will end up with an embarrassment and getting far less then he wanted.

He will talk to the Endeavour astronauts today.
Bet that goes like we expect. So proud of you, great international cooperation, bold days are ahead for NASA with my support for it. BLAH BLAH BLAH. The astronauts left with nothing to say but.. thank you Mr. President. Uh we really appreciate your "support".

"The only foolish thing here is believing all your hopes are on one new company"

Well the problem is there is no plan, just a lot of talk. So right now, the fact is that the only thing we know is Obama is proposing to cancel both HSF booster and spacecraft and has no firm plans on how it will be replaced.

So we have no idea whether it will be one company, five companies or no companies.

What is all this rubbish about SpaceX? We have Atlas V and Delta IV flying right now, built by a unionised workforce.