Here Come The Layoffs

Folks:

America deserves a robust, future oriented human space program.

Hutchinson, Shelby (especially Shelby) and Bishop do not deserve your votes.

History will vilify them... and by then it'll be too late.

tinker

In future prospective contractors may not respond to contracts with Program Termination Liability requirements, given this wonderful experience. Or they'll probably build in the cost somehow. Good luck NASA finding contractors worth their salt who are willing to work under such conditions. No, we are not all desperate slaves.

The Obama destruction of NASA is neither robust, or future oriented. It is no plan, no goal, no nothing but bent on destruction of our leadership in space. It is a dark day in America if Obama/Bolden get their way with this.

roll tide:

I'd say extension and utilization of the space station and development of deep space technology is a good plan. When I heard the term "flexible path" I just knew there were a lot of very closed minded, un flexible folks out there that couldn't wrap their heads around it.

tinker

Ok Keith, I'm waiting for a headline from you that says "Bolden is openly rebelling against Congress".

No manned NASA LEO spacecraft. No manned NASA Moon rocket. Not even a manned beyond LEO rocket for NASA. What Flexible Path are you guys talking about? This is no path!

NASA is one government agency that President Obama clearly does not like!

So I think Obama's waiting to outsource the so called Flexible Path to his buddy Elon Musk. I'm serious!

Marcel F. Williams

No matter what side you are on with respect to this Constellation debate, there is an inexplicable ruthlessness associated with the direction passed down from NASA HQ today. With Congress looking to support continued work until analysis, potential compromise, and orderly decisions can be made, NASA leadership chooses to accelerate layoffs of thousands of talented, hard working people. There are bureaucrats who are carrying grudges to dastardly extremes. The people who will suffer most are those who simply want to follow rational leadership to further the vision of peaceful space exploration.

This is sad...

it is called "shooting the wounded".

There is no point in spending money that is never under any circumstances going to produce anything...there is no real way Constellation survives in any form because there is no more money to give to the project.

Robert G. Oler

Agreed.

As Story Musgrave has said...

“The current policy is to think about things,” he said. “Launch nothing, do nothing and build nothing.”

The obsession with destroying Constellation and sending so many incredibly valuable minds out of the job of serving this nation is Melvillian in scope.

They will find that the enemy is not Constellation. It's themselves.

GOOD

Hutchison, Shelby and others need to pick up the Augustine Commission's report and seriously read it. They've been told time and time and again that Constellation is unsustainable and they continue to choose to proceed in denial. Ignoring this whole termination liability debacle, the funding problems for Constellation are very real and schedules are falling well behind reason. I understand and respect the good people in Congress trying to save jobs but the bottom line is Constellation needs a serious plus-up for the next several years if it is to continue successfully. I could be wrong, but IMHO the problem falls to the fact that, balancing its other scientific research and technology endeavors, goals & priorities (some might argue that wasn't sufficiently done under the previous PoR), there is only enough money for NASA to fully fund and build one vehicle and it seems the best route is to invest in the HLV and use the remaining funds to get other exploration capabilities (robotics, closed-loop life support, etc.) up to snuff. An HLV is a top-priority for NASA - whether you want to go to the moon, Mars, an asteroid, wherever you need an HLV. If you build it man-rated capable, you don't need an Ares I. Historically, NASA has only gotten to fly one workhorse vehicle at a time (Saturn -> Shuttle) and I always found the Ares I + IV concept somewhat risky as headaches with the Ares I would invariably impact the fielding of much needed Ares IV. Nonetheless, the wisdom of this approach (to Mike Griffin's credit) is that even with Ares I cancelled before full fielding, the lessons learned can be applied with great benefit to the development of the HLV.
It's unfortunate that NASA leadership has to pull the ADA card but quite frankly it was probably the only way to get the attention of Congress. A continuing resolution will be disastrous as it simply does not contain enough funding to keep Constellation on track. Congress needs to actively engage the White House on the issue not just play the delay game and hope everything "sorts itself out". Either propose significant additional funds or go with the President's proposed plan. Anything else is just wasting time and energy and will lead to more, not less job losses in the long run.

I've never had a government agency so vehemently bend on ensuring that I lose my job before. There's almost a blood lust aspect to it at this point. An obsession devoid of feeling, logic or compromise. Four more months and the fiscal years is over and with it hopes of Constellation's continuation. But Bolden and Obama can't wait four months. Must fire people now. Must destroy lives today. Why? Why the rush? I understand business is business, but I'm starting to take it a bit personal at this point.

Since I was 6 I wanted to work on the space program. I studied hard, worked my way up and achieved my goal of what I thought was making a difference. Now I see I matter about as much to Bolden as the Iraqi soldiers he dropped bombs on from 5 miles up. But guess what General, I'm an American, a citizen with a heart, a soul, and a family. Not a target, a distant speck or drop coordinate. I have a name and it isn't "Constellation". I, like many, have worked hard for many years to keep NASA's mission alive. At least honor those many who toiled in the name of the American space program and look us in the eye before you pull the trigger rather than "sterilizing" the area from DC.

So let's talk about a continuing resolution for a moment. Given that this could happen as it appears to be the norm for Nasa.... Wouldn't the programs and associated funding from 2010 be continued in 2011, at least until the real budget is passed?
If so, does that mean come Oct1 that the Constellation funding levels will be restored for all those contractors and they could hire the people back? Especially if Congress reinstates all or significant parts of Constellation?

I love waking up to great news about our space program. I'm sure today as well as the many days to come will be really productive.

I am being sarcastic.

A word of warning to our new graduates - stay away from human space flight programs.

"bent on destruction of our leadership in space" no less, says roll-tide above.

Obama ran for office since he hates the US. Bolden became the administrator since he could be his inside man.

At night they both meet up at a dark underground lair, stroke evil looking cats and conspire on how to bring down our beloved country.

Is that it?

"
The obsession with destroying Constellation and sending so many incredibly valuable minds out of the job of serving this nation is Melvillian in scope."

not really. as a general group although there are some very talented people in the Orion/Ares work force...the reality is that as a group it is the kind of workforce that is almost valuless in today's economy.

The Constellation workforce is Braniff competing with SWA when SWA started.

Some bright people some good hard working folks but doomed to mediocrity by a management structure that does not have a clue. The management (which is picked from the workforce and is a "mentor" to it) is doomed by its two dimensional thinking, its inability to motivate people toward a actual goal...

There really is no fixing this. Airline after airline (and a lot of other corporations) have tried to replace senior level management but they always pick junior people (no outsiders) who just dont have a clue about anything outside their narrow field of vision...and the results are always the same.

it is to bad, but that is how it is.

Until the entire effort is disbanded and new projects put in lead by outside people who are goal not project oriented...the agency is doomed

Robert G. Oler

Nothing is destroyed. It is business as usual for the freshman Senator turned President. Perhaps we can develop green energy, the final frontier...

Is it better to mention I worked in the Human Space Flight industry or not, when I fill out my Walmart application?... LOL

When exactly would this robust, future oriented human space program manifest itself. Certainly not in your or my lifetime.

faithfull:

We have to admit to a lot of lost opportunities when considering the situation we are in. The Shuttle program could have (should have) been used as a springboard to exploration. Imagine if we had used the Shuttle to launch a 60 foot long spacecraft that could be fueled and crewed in orbit. One that could be re-fueled and re-crewed multiple times. Just one idea of many. Three flight ready Saturn Vs ended up as lawn ornaments. We spent a generation in low earth orbit and didn't utilize it to the fullest (if fullest means the continuation of human space exploration post Apollo). If you're looking for someone to blame, blame the nation as a whole for having a dream, winning the prize and then resting on their laurels.

NASA was born on the premise of "success at any cost" so it didn't matter that all but a 12 foot cone was left after a 365 foot rocket headed for the moon, that a 150 foot long external tank was thrown away every shuttle flight. Constellation was more of the same; big, expensive, over-complicated, grandiose, wasteful and ,ultimately doomed to failure.

Suck up. Face it. America squandered it's lead in space living the illusion that the Space Shuttle was the be all, end all and then not using it to move forward in human space exploration. Nothing is going to get you what you want in the time frame you desire... especially the constellation program.

We've all gotten used to having manned space flights almost every year for the past three decades (except when people die ) but don't forget that there was six year between the Apollo program and the Shuttle program when there was no American human space flight at all. That gap was the result of mistakes made back then too. The last Saturns were not utilized and the Shuttle took longer to build then they thought.

The "gap" will be longer this time. So be it.

tinker

I understand that these people cant just drop everything and walk away. I also understand alot of people are losing thier jobs ( living in florida I know this to well). Florida UNEMPLOYMENT % 12.5 after the Cx layoffs that will jump %15 which I don't think those imaginary 2500 jobs is gonna help which I have yet to see happen anyway.. Mr. President with your little press conference you lost florida in the next election, With your little press conference you set back HSF for another 10 years . Mr.President I hope your happy. Listen I know Cx was over budget and behind schedule and it wasn't working but you retool you don't throw out the baby with the bath water ( oh bTW Thanks buzz you helped him dump out the bathtub) I do have to admit a PAD abort for any STS and it would have not launched that day.. kudos space x .. NASA's fault is it refused to look beyond STS and when it came time to they dropped the ball and thats why we are here.. Every administration since they have canceled Apollo 18 and 19 look at NASA as a place to cut the fat off the budget so I don't blame this administration on all our current problems. A fundamental lack of leadership and vision for the future beyond LEO is what put us here paired with budget cuts we might as well feel lucky can still make it to LEO, Oh that's right after STS is over we don't have a ride to LEO. LEO to boldly go where hundreds of people have gone before.. BEO to boldly go where only 15 have gone before.. NEO wont happen in my lifetime .. Mars will not happen in lifetime either.. The MOON COULD HAVE! When I was a kid it was a possibility I could goto the moon one day. Unfortunately OBAMA says oh we have been there done that! I guess by "we" he means all 12 people :|. No LEO is been there done that not the moon!

Damn the Gravity!

Hear, hear, Elas3. Exactly right. One has to wonder how many of those opposed to the Bolden/Obama plan have actually read the Augustine Commission's report and any of NASA's 2011 Budget documents. How can anyone who *has* read them not see at least some logic in the plans??

This is obviously a move to get folks to quit NASA and it seems to be working. Based on media reports - people will be laid off on 9/1 then rehired on 10/1 (next fiscal year) under the CR. It punishes the young engineers with families the most but they can come back in 30 days and work on something else other than Constellation or maybe even Constellation again depending on how Congress responds to this latest chess move. Some will find other jobs and never return which is what this current plan is designed to do. For those who hate NASA and want it to fold it appears that more people will be hired next year and NASA will survive just as it did after Apollo and Challenger. This is not about killing NASA but more about punishing certain groups for political reasons. Sad part is the young families are the ones that will be hurt. This has nothing to do with killing Constellation and everything to do with WDC politics. The B-1 bomber was totally killed several times driving the price up 3x but it survived as will NASA and maybe even Constellation. If you are a Constellation hater that's fine but I wouldn't have your celebration party just yet.

> A word of warning to our new graduates - stay away from human space flight programs.

Good thing nobody is taking advice from this guy

In hard times jobs programs are fine, but they at least need to produce a useful product. Ares and Orion are not useful: they are ill-conceived and grossly too expensive. Let's not have aerospace execs and workers whining like welfare queens.

Obama's space policy reforms are exactly correct. NASA must focus on space research and exploration; space transportation and exploitation belong to the private sector.

jobs: http://www.spacex.com/careers.php

Numerous administrations have canceled major programs. On occasion, an Administration will come out with a big idea, big program that is supposed to motivate the American public to want to pay up (larger versions of the Space Station, spaceplanes). We, the individuals who read websites like these, are certainly in the group that feels that it is worth it. But I'm beginning to understand just how big the other group is. They could care less about much of this. So it depresses me to read some comments in here that are mostly about needing more money for some vision, such as missions beyond LEO. I don't think we get that our visions simply won't transfer to the rest of the country. It is just not happening yet. Too expensive and not enough people, besides us and certain vested interests, care.

I really like what SpaceX is doing. While hundreds have been to LEO before, I am not one of them. I think opening LEO access to thousands by making it less expensive and more routine is a great frontier that is worthy. Sadly, LEO has remained to be a Giant Leap in and of itself. So I see the wisdom in giving some of these private rocket companies some seed money and Musk has shown that he can really stretch the dollar. We must give him credit for that.

Meanwhile, NASA still has a ton of great stuff going on besides Constellation. Personally, I think the prospect of Kepler discovering an Earth-like planet is a far greater human accomplishment than returning humanity to the Moon. It is the type of thing that might re-ignite a mainstream interest in HSF too and open up some $$$ again. Of course, it might just be something like Justin Timberlake riding a Virgin Galactic flight that might excite people as well.

Today is Bring Your Kids To Work day at Nasa. Oh the irony... When I was their age, Apollo was canceled. My dad worked in the space program. The Apollo missions inspired me to become an engineer so that one day I could work on missions such as those. Because certainly by then we would be sending explorers to the planets. Well my dreams came true when we were actually working towards going to the moon again. (Not a planet, but it was a stepping stone towards Mars). Now a generation after Apollo I have my kids here, showing them the final days of America's latest attempt to do something bold. Now they will watch it wither and die.

Am I supposed to tell them that if they study hard perhaps they can work in the space program? Maybe even be an astronaut going to Mars? I'm starting to think the Apollo program was a fluke. No wonder so many people think the moon landings were faked. Certainly THIS America couldn't pull something like that off.

Spacewriter,
I hope you are correct about coming back under a CR on October 1st.
I can only imagine that Congress will now push that much harder for Constellation now that Bolden has pulled this stunt.
Where as Congress might have been willing to compromise or work with Bolden to only keep certain parts of Constellation around, I think he has now really torqued them and if I was them I would now just reinstate Constellation in full.
But that's just me...

Shuttle retirement means the loss of thousands of jobs at KSC (and possibly JSC) and the ugly truth that certain politicians want cover from is there will not be a smooth transition of thousands of jobs from Shuttle to Constellation even if it were continued given the current funding profiles. Others (mostly Republicans) are simply playing party politics against another Bush era initiative being cut. The reality is despite the admirable technical work of NASA and its contractor work force, Constellation unfortunately bears the characteristics of too many other prominent Bush era initiatives (like the wars, the tax cuts, NCLB, etc.) - it sounded great (go USA!) and was sold cheap but in reality was far more expensive and thus underfunded, and as a consequence has under-performed and not achieved promised goals in the originally advertised time-frame.
Congress needs to make a decision IMMEDIATELY - either add $4+ billion to the President's proposed NASA budget to continue Constellation or go with the new proposed space plan. Dragging Constellation out via a continuing resolution only serves to put NASA on an embarrassing development schedule and make Bolden more of a convenient whipping boy for Congress. There are likely job losses happening now expressively because NASA can not do any workforce planning to transition folks to the new proposed space plan as a result of Congressional language against terminating Constellation.
My solution - if the heartache is truly about having a NASA LEO manned capability a la Ares I, Congress should plus-up NASA to build at least a demonstrator of the ISS variety of this vehicle and then adopt the rest of Obama space plan. This reduces some of the transition job losses & headaches, mitigates the risk of relying on commercial. Yes, the Obama space plan needs more definition but this will come when NASA is released to work on it in earnest. If you're angry about NASA not getting to do manned Moon landings, etc. under Constellation, again, please pick up the Augustine Commission report and read what it has to say. Also, let's consider the following - if you've spent $10 billion and over 5 years in development (recall NASA did work on the designs before contracts were let out) so far on a "faster/cheaper Shuttle-heritage-based" architecture and you've yet to demonstrate 2nd Stage flight with 4 seats to LEO, at that rate, what kind of money/schedule do you think you'd spend to get a lunar landing? There's a whole lot more valuable/critical science and tech development that can be done for that kind of money _in our current time-frame_ IMHO - I'm not opposed to manned lunar landings, just the cost, schedule & science/tech dev penalties of focusing on them first (now) as opposed to other things).
I sincerely hope NASA learns from the mistakes of Ares I development and gets it right in the future. Stop the bureaucratic management empire building, fix, restore & lean your R&D processes & organizations and focus on engineering and scientific excellence.

I'm in the Constellation Program Office. They have cut off our head and administered the lethal injection. Congressional reinstatement of this program will take a proverbial act of Congress (by two thirds majority unless the WH blinks.) I am not holding my breath.

Well as long as Obama is giving the money to everyone other than NASA you are correct.

"Am I supposed to tell them that if they study hard perhaps they can work in the space program? Maybe even be an astronaut going to Mars?"

did your child ever have more then a really insignificant chance of becoming one?

If the current (or even the best year and no I cant recall what it is) flight rate (which I think is 7 or so in a year) is the BEST that the US can do...and Constellation does far worse...then if one does any sort of "odds" work...the numbers are depressingly thin of becoming an astronaut, much less "going to Mars".

I have a daughter who is two months old. I think that if the Constellation program dies, NASA gets into R&D and out of being the sole agency that decides which American citizens fly on US vehicles...and private industry cranks up the uses of human spaceflight...I think in her 20's she stands a "far better" chance of going to orbit.

If we can get the cost down to something affordable, find new technologies, and think outside the "Apollo" mentality I think she has a decent chance, if she wants of doing exploration.

I am sorry your job is in jeopardy and most of the people who post with that background I sort of just chalk it up to well their job is in jeopardy.

But the reality of it is that Constellation did nothing but keep for another 20-40 years the same mentality that we have had since Apollo..that has got to change or we are going no where besides a few NASA astronauts doing not a lot of value in LEO.

Robert G. Oler

Elas3,

I am a long time "soldier" Engineer (PadRat) and watching carefully all this drama unfold. It is just ashamed that the programs that held Constellation had to be so large and with duplicity. I had three User I.D.'s and three passwords to gain acces to meeting notices, presentations, release documents etc... and this does not count on my own network permissions of other programs I support such as Int'l Space Station.

If the Augustine Commission has it correct that there is a better way then, I am all for it and I hope the accelerated manner in which the end finally has come might shead Light at the end of the tunnel.

I am in the thinking that for those that have not yet downloaded those documents from the various ICE portals, Windshield etc... then, you all might consider doing it now before most of these systems get secured and eventially off-line.

I pray to those with families and hope that dispair don't rule their judgement. : )

Blessings to all who have worked very hard on CxP!

PadRat

More detail on the layoffs and CxP re-plan here:

http://nasaengineer.com/?p=239

If anyone has any corrections, say something..

In the event of no congressional agreement on CxP by the end of the FY, and the CR kicks in, I'm not sure what kind of test flights there are to work on, considering that Boeing is laying off already as well, and all those people doing Orion that were re-assigned...

I hope you still keep your job JayEssCeeEr. No one enjoys being laid off. If not and if history repeats itself based on my 30 years of watching this industry - a new government rocket program will emerge once the political enemies have been paid back and a rush will be on to hire more people. I predict by October or November under the CR most of those laid off will be hired back to support a new program - what ever that might be. (It will upset the Cx haters who hated Cx for being a large government rocket program but this is the way it is done.) Right now in time we are right where at the end of Apollo. The next new "program" is just around the corner. We will have a new president and administrator in two years (or maybe six years) and things will different in some ways yet the same overall. Granted it may be three smaller programs with a different color and flavor but don't forget what Lori and Bolden have said "NASA has received a large budget increase going forward." That money has to be spent and it will be spent by hiring people. I'll put money on it.

For the millionth time - there will be no re-hiring in October because it will take a minimum of 1 year for NASA to grant new Contracts, what are people to do for 15+ months? Second of all, once they do grant new contracts, they will be slowly ramping up a new program - like they were with constellation/Orion/Ares for several years. They will not be ready to hire several thousand people overnight. Third of all because of what happened you now have the people dumped from Constellation/Orion/Ares all vying for jobs with the people dumped off of jobs from Shuttle at the same time. This would not have happened under the old plan.

Also for the millionth time - THEY DID NOT RAISE THE BUDGET!!!!! They raised the overall budget by a small bit over the 2010 budget, but first of all none of it went to Exploration and second of all, in 2010, they cut over $20 BILLION from Constellation's budget, which is why they Augustine commission then said it was unexecutable. Why cant you people see this simple fact - look at the budgets, see how they slashed and burned it between 2009 and 2010 and then claimed to "raise" it in 2011. Bush underfunded Constellation for years, but Obama's 2010 budget laid waste to Constellation long before his 2011 budget officially cancelled it. What a sad pathetic joke.

Also, for the person who posted the SpaceX jobs link. Really? You posted a link to 124 jobs (mostly for college graduates), mostly in southern california to 20,000 experienced aerospace workers about to lose their jobs in Texas, Florida, Alabama, Utah, Louisiana and Colorado? Really?

Has anyone seen a plan when the USA will resume work on BEO exploration efforts? Has anyone seen an acquisition plan to start working on heavy lift launcher technology? BAA's for study would put off any such work for at least a year which would mean pretty lean times ahead for any real progress. Since we're back to square one we'd better start debating a new plan with new dates.

@flyboy

Don't mind Mr. Oler, he's never seen a government worker he didn't like:-)

He's part of the extremist mentality that believes that government is always bad and the corporations are always good. And now even typically anti-government Republicans are seeing what kind of damage such an extremist philosophy can do to our country.

Marcel F. Williams

The "Augustine Report" is by no means the ultimate truth. Yes, it makes recommendations but it also has little substantive analysis to back them.

What you folks do not understand is that the Augustine report is meaningless. The Obama administration was just given a report on the gulf oil spill by "experts". The Obama administration added language to meet their political agenda requiring a halt to puumping oil out of the gulf. This is nothing but Obama pushing his agenda and his agenda has nothing to do with American Exceptionalism.

And our government wonders why NASA has trouble attracting young people to science/engineering. It is exactly this kind of politically driven job insecurity that eliminates science/engineer from consideration. I hear what you say but I see what you do.

@PadRat - great observations and I too believe "there's a better way" and just hope it gets followed in the future.

@Spaceboy -on the budget issue, you might want to review the NASA budgets and budget requests. As previously planned (see FY2010 Budget request), Constellation relied on a huge budget increase in FY2011 by transfer of $2 billion from Shuttle due to retirement and later dunking ISS into the ocean in 2015. That meant that NASA spent most of that $2 billion just trying to get Ares I, and later Ares V airborne and meanwhile could not do any additional investment in Advanced Capabilities for Exploration. So you'd spend a whole lot of money building rockets but you would not have money to expand other Exploration related work - ISS research (after a $100 billion investment there), do robotic capabilities development (lunar, asteroids, etc.), In-Situ Resource Utilization, fission surface power research, etc., basically capabilities that you'd want to be mature by the time your rockets are ready to take astronauts to the lunar surface. So you'd build the rockets and then have to wait like 5 years to get your lunar research and surface habitation capabilities up to snuff to get the real benefits out of them. That's simply not smart nor realistic. Additionally it requires the rest of NASA's portfolio/budgetary needs to remain flat over the same time period - not realistic at all.
The finding of the Augustine Commission was that NASA with a long-term overall budget at FY2010 levels simply would not produce a viable human exploration program via Constellation. Need something like an extra $3-4 billion more to do that. That's precisely why I'm saying if Congress is serious, they need to be asking for more money for NASA.
As far as I can tell based on the budget data I've seen out there, there were no cuts/decreases to the Constellation budget in FY2010 (over FY2009) by the Obama Administration - would gladly accept correction on this if there is firm evidence to the contrary. Of course Constellation is zeroed out in the new proposed FY2011 plan.

@LowlyContractor- I can agree with you on that assertion but quite frankly, until someone can generate a more exhaustive, impartial and authoritative report that convincingly and conclusively proves the Augustine findings wrong, it is "the gospel".

I don't think I would characterize Oler in that fashion. A policy wanna-be maybe.

I have to admit that NASA HSF is a complete waste even though I have many friends and co-workers who are involved. Where I diverge from Oler is that the current replacement for Constellation is an even bigger joke. The Obama "vision" was hatched within the White House and OMB with absolutely no coordination with NASA, Congress, or the aerospace community at large. When aerospace went to their congressional reps and said WTF, Congress went to NASA and said WTF, and NASA HQ and Bolden were nothing more than deer in the headlights. The past several months NASA HQ has had to scramble to find anything that can be held up as an example of a worthy vision program. Hence the current season of RFI's. NASA is fishing for a lifeline to save N'Obama's credibility.

"The "Augustine Report" is by no means the ultimate truth. Yes, it makes recommendations but it also has little substantive analysis to back them."

Funny thing though, I have yet to find anyone that can actually refute the facts presented in Augustine Report, especially regarding the Program of Record.

"And our government wonders why NASA has trouble attracting young people to science/engineering. It is exactly this kind of politically driven job insecurity that eliminates science/engineer from consideration."

I guess what basically amounted to a 30 year Shuttle operations contract isn't considered "job security" nowadays ? How long has ISS operations been going on for now ? I know several NASA contractors going on 35 years, working the same job but just changing badges. Try and find contractor work outside the aerospace/defense industry that comes even close to that kind of job security.

"The Obama "vision" was hatched within the White House and OMB with absolutely no coordination with NASA, Congress, or the aerospace community at large."

that is the beauty of it. All the people/organizations you mention are part of the overall larger problem...meaning that space politics are, like war, to important to be left to the folks who have a financial stake in it.

This does what should have been done after Apollo...dismantle the exploration focus of NASA.

Robert G. Oler

"Don't mind Mr. Oler, he's never seen a government worker he didn't like:-)

He's part of the extremist mentality that believes that government is always bad and the corporations are always good"

that is of course a complete contradiction. and it is a misstatement of my position.

But its OK...finally my views in space policy are winning. I am just enjoying it

Robert G. Oler

"What you folks do not understand is that the Augustine report is meaningless. "

And you say this based on what?!? Seriously.

"The Obama administration was just given a report on the gulf oil spill by "experts". The Obama administration added language to meet their political agenda requiring a halt to puumping oil out of the gulf."

A bit off-topic but after you have one serious major oil spill that you have not yet contained, you're suggesting just keep things business as usual without rigorously checking to see if another rig could experience a similar failure and what precautions may need to be put in place? This is employing basic engineering judgement here IMHO.

"This is nothing but Obama pushing his agenda and his agenda has nothing to do with American Exceptionalism."

So the President would get an independent commission to state that NASA's current Constellation plans with current budget levels are unsustainable. Fine. Here's my question, why can't Constellation proponents produce a similar reputable study that shows the opposite? Clearly, there HAVE to be knowledgeable folks out there who can adequately demonstrate that the Augustine commission has it all wrong and show (with realistic budget numbers/forward planning) that Constellation can achieve its originally stated milestones under current budget levels. Until that happens, the insinuations of nefarious intents by the President are absolutely meaningless.
Now if you want to argue that the President should to spend significantly more on NASA to continue Constellation (+20%), that's a whole 'nother argument, a very valid one and Congress is the proper body to consider that proposal mindful of the fiscal realities our nation currently faces.

Human space flight has always suffered from schizophrenia, especially in the U.S. NASA's glory days were fueled by the Cold War; when Nixon pulled the plug on Apollo, he not only disrupted the momentum of the space program, he brought it into the mainstream of politics. Thus, Shuttle could advance only when linked to the needs of the military, which influenced the design and forced a production schedule on an experimental vehicle. Even as it evolved, the two defining tragedies prompted a new "Vision for Space Exploration." Unfortunately, it soon became evident that the design was less Apollo on steroids and more like Apollo on acid. The initial concept was shaky enough, and as system safety engineer, I shared the concerns with the Astronaut Office about the survivability of an SRB launch failure. The failure of the Orbital vehicle to separate properly added to that. When I learned that the Orion capsule could not handle the SRB acceleration, and to be enclosed in another fairing, I thought that the designers had collectively lost their minds. All of these problems resulted in the need to modify the single piece of human rated flight hardware in the design, and by doing so, created more problems. With the POR turning into a POS, cancellation was the only logical outcome. The original VSE, driven by the CAIB report, was not all bad. A Shuttle-C would have kept a lot of the configuration intact, not only in flight hardware, but at the pad too, and would have enabled continued use of the MPLM's and the efficient system for load them at the Space Station Processing Facility, and met the CAIB requirement of having a cargo-only vehicle. A lifting body, along the lines of Dream Chaser, launched on a Delta IV or Atlas V would have been sufficient to maintain the Space Station, and we would have unencumbered time to work on the heavy lift rocket to get enough stuff to the Moon to get a start on colonization. Some comments on this site have discounted the notion that the space program is about jobs, that it isn't welfare for engineers. It isn't welfare, and neither is it an attempt to get taxpayers to support a really cool hobby. It is about jobs, because people need to earn a living. The choice to work in the space program is, in my case, based on a belief that this is the most important human endeavor possible, for the simple reason that it necessary for humans as a race, as well as for individuals, to grow and to learn. The schizophrenia arises because this effort is bigger than NASA, and bigger than any single contractor, yet the existing program(s) have all devolved into a mixed bag of support, collaboration and competition. The bottom line is that as long as NASA is the only customer, there will never be enough money to colonize space. Yet, without government help, no single corporate entity can establish enough infrastructure to justify a business case. Ideally, NASA would do exploration, and industry would do exploitation. Space has many industrial assets: vacuum, zero-gravity, abundant energy from the Sun and a vast amount of loose minerals and metals which could be transformed from potential threats into beneficial products using processes not possible on Earth. There is enough that all the companies currently working on some aspect of human spaceflight can profit, and I can envision a time in the future when just the corporate taxes for all these businesses will be enough to pay for NASA's budget. Instead of the provincial political games being played now, why can't we put our collective heads together and find a way to move all of us ahead together?

I don't know what you mean by winning. The Obama plan is politically unsustainable even in a Democratically dominated Congress.

This is just a continuation of what's been going on for decades with NASA: one administration canceling the previous administration's program while wasting billions of tax payer dollars.

Marcel F. Williams

"This is just a continuation of what's been going on for decades with NASA: one administration canceling the previous administration's program while wasting billions of tax payer dollars."

actually no

Bush the last kept the space station program that Clinton before him had put on track. Clinton could (should...in my view) have canceled the space station program that Bush the first had maintained from Reagan who started it, but Clinton didn't in fact he (Clinton) put it on track to be deployed.

Both Reagan, Bush the first, Clinton, and Bush the last kept the space shuttle..... that James Earl Carter did most of the heavy lifting for...flying

Obama has merely kept going in the direction (for the shuttle) that Bush the last initiated.

OK Obama has canceled Constellation. But there really is no flying hardware for that...and Obama kept the space station flying that Bush the last almost finished much longer then NASA wanted to keep it flying.

What programs were you thinking of?

Robert G. Oler

Here's the counter argument -- The Augustine report was right, CxP is unsustainable at the current funding projections. NASA was having to scrape up funds from all over the map to make milestones. But Cx was significantly less costly than Apollo. It also represented a vision for real, practical advancement of space exploration, with the potential for cheaper access to LEO, sustained presence on the Moon, exploitation of Lunar natural resources, and a platform for accessible human exploration of the solar system.

The hope was that the Obama administration would see this reality from a sympathetic and collaborative perspective. Since he has been throwing stimulus money out like candy on short term, politically motivated objectives, was it too much to hope that he would provide some of this funding to shore up Cx??? Few if anyone would argue that it would be money well spent.... Apparently it is exactly that few who have the upper hand at the moment. It is now obvious that there are very dubious objectives to gut the human space program in as destructive a manner as possible.

I can understand the philosophical disagreement, even if I don't agree with the space science nerds who consider human exploration an obscene waste of money. The nerds have always wanted to fill the textbooks with scientific discoveries with little if any care about whether students learned or cared about any of it. Kids (and the public in general) don't want to just read about or look at space pictures.... They WANT TO GO INTO SPACE!!! They want to embody the vision and personal aspiration!!! Even though this is a space-age-old conundrum with merits on both sides of the argument, what I can not fathom is why NASA leadership would not want to transition its human capital in a caring, collaborative manner. Too much to expect...

I will say it again.... This is sad...

Marcel. I would add this in terms of "winning".

In the end Obama's plan is going to pass. We can argue if it is a good thing, we can even I guess argue if it will pass. But in the end I think it will and I suspect you and others are going to be surprised when it does, you should not be.

Obama's plan will pass if for no other reason then the fact that the POR is unsustainable and 2) there is no coherent alternative plan to what Obama has proposed. This amazes me actually, but in no small measure it shows how weak the support for the por is. Unless an alternative plan can keep all the "pork" pieces in place then support for any alternate plan crumbles to whatever measure it doesnt keep all the pork in place.

If the goal of the folks who oppose Obama's plan was "to go back to the Moon" then they would have been figuring out a way (certainly there have been enough alternatives proposed) to go back to the moon for the dollars that exist ... but then there are no jobs at ATK, and to make the dollars work the actual numbers of jobs have to come down and then support starts going under.

As for my "winning". I came to the conclusion a long time ago (about 1992) that all the explanations for exploration were just that...explanations and not much of a real reason to do it. Even if NASA HSF worked coherently the reality is that the only way (at least in my mind) is to spend tax dollars to do in space what was done in aviation...create industry capability, infrastructure and if necessary spur civilian use of the infrastructure.

To make a future different then the past, we have to make different choices TODAY...I dont think that the past choices have served us well. YOu seem to and that is fine.

But as I say, Obama's plan is the closest thing to the goals I have long believed in. So I am supporting it

Robert G. Oler

About when in the timeline did CxP simply become "a jobs program?"

That seems to be a key talking point with critics, but were they saying that in the beginning, or are they just saying that because of how things turned out?

NASA people do what they are directed and funded to do. If you don't like the result, go back to the beginning and think about the direction and funding.

Wasn't the plan in the beginning to design something new, but maximize the use of "legacy" hardware to save money? That sounds a bit like "keep current suppliers in business to minimize the impact on them." How did we get from that to "it's just a jobs program?"

About when in the timeline did CxP simply become "a jobs program?"

When Griffin took over and 10 healthy centers was one of CxP requirements.

Here is some info to consider, particularly in answer to "nasaengineer".

There is a nominal cost of Ares-1 of about $173M per launch assuming a minimum launch rate of 6 per year. SpaceX Falcon-9 is estimated to cost about $120M per launch. Ares-1 is slated to launch about 23000 lbs into LEO, while F-9 can launch about 10000 lbs into LEO. Looks like about a wash between the two until you consider that Ares-1 is much more reliable and will have a launch abort system. But then F-9 is just about ready to go now for cargo launch.

Looks to me like NASA has been doing its job developing a robust and reliable launch system, while the commercial sector is gallantly coming along. Neither one is a "jobs program", but a continuing evolution of space transportation.

Oh, by the way, SpaceX has received a $1.6B augmentation from NASA. Sounds like NASA has been doing a good job on both fronts. But given limited funding, there has to be a "bad guy", so blame the wasteful bureaucrats. Seems to me that NASA is one of the few agencies you can count on to provide a pretty good return on the dollar no matter how you slice it.

But then I am one of the wasteful bureaucrats....

I will say it again... This is sad...

Let's see if we can get the facts straight. Mikey (Griffin) imposed a detailed design instead of ops concepts. He hand-picked a team to "independently" agree with him. He put an ops manager in charge of a major development program (Jeff Hanley), when Hanley had zero program management experience. He (Mikey) tolerated zero dissent, which didn't help Hanley's job. Level 2 was staffed by folks with no real systems engineering and integration experience, like Hardcastle - and who were doing level 3 and level 4 work, without ever nailing down their requirements. The program was ill-funded, but Mikey ignored those "tiny details". The architecture of the first booster (Ares 1) had anemic performance, so Orion had to be scaled back again and again, including crew size cuts and fights to eliminate some redundant systems. (Another cut in Ares performance and we'd have restricted the crew to 2 midgets!) Level 2 was enamored with tools (Ice, Windchill, Wikis) and NOT with actual products.

Not to take anything from Mr. Hanley - he was a hell of a flight director. But an operations mentality is far different from a development mentality. Level 2 was trying to force tech readiness level 2 and 3 (scale is 10) ideas onto a program that didn't need them and couldn't afford the time or money to mature them.

And some people wonder how programs like Cx get cancelled? Hello, McFly? Isn't it obvious? The whole damned thing was so mismanaged from the get-go that it was inevitable.

The Obama plan, as it currently exist, will not pass. Congress will never support a plan that spends nearly $20 billion a year of US tax payer money to build nothing and to go nowhere.

Supporting such a policy would also be political suicide for most members of Congress-- especially during these hard economic times and especially with Obama's rapid decline in public approval.

The Constellation program, as it currently exist, is dead. But there really is no Obama plan except for giving a tiny amount of NASA funds ($1.2 billion a year) to private industry to develop their own manned spaceflight capabilities.

So the real question is what will Congress do with the other $18 billion in NASA funding or even if they'll keep funding NASA at such a high level if there really is no program.

Marcel F. Williams

You thought it more than a career, it was a calling to space flight. When NASA needed you, you were recognized at "the most capable and dedicated" employees on the planet. Now that NASA has changed you are just "yesterdays news..."

Isn't it enlightening to learn that it was just a job after all, and not a higher calling...

Now get on with your life.