View Single Post
Old November 10 2012, 04:08 PM   #300
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

Byeman wrote: View Post
1. And new companies have the same type jobs. Just not as many of them...
Not NEARLY as many of them. Companies like SpaceX and Sierra Nevada can use departments of 10 or 20 people to do what, in an organization like NASA, might have involved hundreds of people. This is especially a problem with bureaucratic positions, which are highly specialized in specific types of legal/administrative processes that not everyone even uses outside the government sector. The Boeing operations do have some of these positions, but in those cases the KSC workers are in competition with people who have direct experience with aviation processes and that's a tough market even outside of a recession.

2. No, not really. Mechanics are mechanics and techs are techs. They can work on any aerospace systems.
Aerospace systems aren't the problem. Aerospace manufacturers use different types of CNC machines and manufacturing equipment to manipulate workpieces, structural components and electronics systems and have different standards for how they need to be used. The end products may be similar -- which is good news for some of them -- but the equipment used to assemble and manipulate it can be VERY different.


As "specialized machinery", like the crawlers and transporters, that is just diesel and generator mechanics, the same you will find on railroads and ship yards.
Right. And aerospace companies aren't exactly scrambling to hire people from railroads and shipyards either, for the same reason.

3. Huh? The processes were taken from aviation in the beginning more than 50 years ago and satellite contractors learned from the rocket contractors. There isn't any new processes going the other way.
Actually there are some glaring differences in the integration processes from different companies. The most obvious one, of course, is horizontal vs. vertical integration; the Russians have been using horizontal integration pretty much forever, but SpaceX is the first to use it in America as far as I know. There's also the different assembly processes for vehicles themselves; SNC is spending a lot of time and effort to develop the Dreamchaser and is borrowing a lot from experimental aircraft paradigms to get through the prototype phase. SpaceX's internal operations also have a fundamentally different decision-making processes from NASA and involve a lot more cross-department collaboration than even Boeing would find feasible. There isn't a huge number of KSC workers who would thrive in that environment.

Totally wrong. The point is that they don't have "specialized" skills.
Correction: they DIDN'T have specialized skills when they started working for NASA. For those who have been there for several years, that is no longer the case.

Wrong again. It isn't "new" technology. It is the same technology. Metal working, composite layup, avionic integration, etc.
That's like saying space ships and satellites aren't new technology because rockets have been around for 1000 years.

So what if Spacex designed from scratch, it doesn't require any different skills that don't already exist
Neither does running a cash register or mopping the floor at Walmart. Why can't the KSC workers do that?

6. Wrong again. An automated machine does the friction stir welding. It is just needs an operator, who likely has operated other welding machines and would just need OJT just like he would for any new machine.
Spoken like someone who has never operated a CNC machine before.

Been in spaceflight for 30 years working on multiple systems, both spacecraft and launch vehicle across all the companies and very intimate with launch ops
Considering how shallow your objections are, I find this VERY hard to believe.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote