Layoffs at the Kennedy Space Center

[Bak_and_Blue]

Not an April's Fool Joke unfortunately.
Here is an exerpt from the Florida Today newspaper:

04/01/2008 05:48 PM
NASA details shuttle job losses


A day after news broke that up to 6,400 shuttle jobs could be lost at Kennedy Space Center by 2011, NASA today issued its first detailed projections of shuttle retirement job losses nationwide.

Top space agency managers focused on potential silver linings in the numbers, saying retirements could offset some of the losses and that as-yet undefinied moon program work also could fill in gaps.

However, the report still gave job loss estimates higher than previously expected, with the Space Coast taking the hardest hit.


NASA's report states KSC jobs projections may improve as more is known about the Ares 5 rocket, the lunar lander assembly and other work already planned for KSC.

Center director Bill Parsons, in a late afternoon meeting with reporters, said he expects the center's total employment to drop from just under 15,000 to about 10,000 by 2013.

- John Kelly

I admit, this is a little self serving because my husband works at KSC and this may impact our putting food on the table. But the bigger picture is the impact on space exploration.

We need to make a noise to the people in Washington DC if we want the United States to have a continued presence in space. NASA's budget is consistently being cut.

I worked at the space center. The reason I went into that career was because I was inspired by TOS. I know many people who work out there that feel the same way. There was a clique of us that worked in the Orbiter Processing Facility. We would go around quoting Star Trek to each other.

We Trekkers are an awesome force when we want to be. The Shuttle is already out of there (even though it was a great concept and should not have been throw away out of hand) but this impacts the future of the space station, future solar system exploration and "the final frontier". I like to think Gene Roddenbery would have hated for our space program to go down the tubes. What do you say Trekkers?

 

[Meredith]

They really should keep the budget the same but with constellation they should send up far more missions per year.

 

[TerriO]

*puts on mod hat*

Bak_and_Blue, please save the image to a server space that's yours before hotlinking. Thank you.

*takes off mod hat*

Hopefully, the line "the report is more dire than reality" proves to be far more truth than we can imagine right now. Job hunting when your skillset is that specialized, especially in this godawful economy, is just not anything anyone should have to do.

 

[Bak_and_Blue]

*puts on mod hat*

Bak_and_Blue, please save the image to a server space that's yours before hotlinking. Thank you.

*takes off mod hat*

Hopefully, the line "the report is more dire than reality" proves to be far more truth than we can imagine right now. Job hunting when your skillset is that specialized, especially in this godawful economy, is just not anything anyone should have to do.

Okay, hope that is better. I try not to be ignorant of the rules, but I'm not 100% up on the technical side of what is allowed. I appreciate the gentle rebuke.

 

[TerriO]

Okay, hope that is better. I try not to be ignorant of the rules, but I'm not 100% up on the technical side of what is allowed. I appreciate the gentle rebuke.

Not a problem. Thank you for taking care of it.

 

[Mallory]

NASA's budget is consistently being cut.

The only problem with that statement is that it simply isn't true. NASA's budget has gone up in both real and adjusted dollars every year since 2000.

 

[RevDMV]

NASA's budget is consistently being cut.

The only problem with that statement is that it simply isn't true. NASA's budget has gone up in both real and adjusted dollars every year since 2000.

Yea, the tried and true, "We didn't get the increase we asked for, so it's really a cut".

 

[Bak_and_Blue]

NASA's budget is consistently being cut.

The only problem with that statement is that it simply isn't true. NASA's budget has gone up in both real and adjusted dollars every year since 2000.

Yea, the tried and true, "We didn't get the increase we asked for, so it's really a cut".

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn10956-budget-bungle-costs-nasa-half-a-billion-dollars.htm

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11112-budget-cuts-may-delay-shuttle-replacement.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/science/space/02nasa.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/nasa-m20.shtml


and

(CNN) --

The proposed 2003 budget for NASA would scale back spending on the international space station and space shuttle but promote the development of nuclear technology in space.
Unveiled Monday, the Bush administration proposal offers $15 billion to the space agency, $500 million more than 2002. Most NASA missions would receive slightly larger budgets in the new fiscal year, with two major exceptions.
Space station Alpha, the subject of intense criticism for billions in cost overruns, would lose roughly $230 million over its 2002 allotment of $1.7 billion.
The space shuttle program, which Bush administration budget documents scold for inefficient safety upgrades, would receive about $65 million less than its $3.3 billion last year.
In fact, the White House plan would consider outsourcing many shuttle jobs to private contractors, and even sell off some of the shuttle hardware.
"Competitive sourcing will enable the full transfer of shuttle operations and possibly some portion of infrastructure ownership to a private entity," read the proposal for fiscal year 2003, which begins October 1.
Sean O'Keefe, the new NASA chief, declined to speculate on the number of federal jobs that might be lost due to competitive outsourcing.

So although the overall budget may be higher, the money may not be going toward the actual programs that put vehicles into space. Some programs get more funding while others get cuts. I am specifically referring to the Shuttle into Orion> the MANNED space program. NASA plans to rely on the Russian space program to fly Americans to the space station in the near future.

AND as a side effect of this, some pure research/science objectives of NASA are bled dry of money to keep Shuttle/space station/Orion at an even funding level.


And on a purely subjective note:

It sure seems like a cut to me when I am facing the prospect of not paying my mortgage or losing health insurance, retirement, my daughter's college fund when my husband gets laid off. And it's not just me, my family and the other 6000 plus people who will be jobless at the Kennedy Space Center alone who will be affected.
Everyone loses when these programs are cut.

http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/space_program_spinoffs.htm

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

 

[Mallory]

I feel your pain Bak_and_Blue but I would think that layoffs are to be expected with the termination of any major program like the shuttle. That sure doesn't make it any easier though when it's your life that's impacted.

I'm not disputing that any layoffs aren't going to be painful for those involved and I'm certainly not arguing that the US should reduce it's space presence. What I do dispute is your contention that NASA's budget is constantly being cut.

The proposed 2003 budget for NASA would scale back spending on the international space station and space shuttle but promote the development of nuclear technology in space.

Have you looked at any of the actual budgets since 2003? That was five years ago. You can review all of the actual budgets by program by visiting NASA's own website. The numbers there and in the federal budget simply don't agree what you're trying to get people to believe. For FY2008 the budget is somewhat less for shuttle operations, but ISS funding is up significantly as is funding for Space and Flight Support. Even the FY2003 budget shows an increase over FY2002 for the ISS and shuttle programs, just less than what was originally requested.

When the shuttle program does reach its end I would fully expect that anyone still associated with it that doesn't have a commitment from another program is going to be looking for employment. That's simply the way things work. I'll be hoping that your husband has either already transferred or will transfer to another program when that day comes.

 

[Bak_and_Blue]

I feel your pain Bak_and_Blue but I would think that layoffs are to be expected with the termination of any major program like the shuttle. That sure doesn't make it any easier though when it's your life that's impacted.

I appreciate your kind words Mallory. What you post makes a lot of sense. I don't have the energy or the business acumen to wade through all of NASAs budgets on their site. <McCoy> I'm a biologist Jim, not a budget analyst </McCoy> I do know that they paint a much rosier picture than what gets trickled down to the nuts and bolts people. A personal friend of mine is part of a research group whose satellite (which cost millions of dollars) will not be launched because of cut-backs within his program. Also, I read articles on contractor websites and many of them are struggling. Our local congressman, Dave Weldon and Senator Bill Nelson have told us that they are having a difficult time getting funding to go through. I read dire stories in our local newspaper and have to listen to the sensationalist local media day in and day out telling tales of woe.

I hope you are right and the program is just fine and on track. But I look at the economy and wonder. The war in Iraq is bleeding it dry. I can't help but think that the space program is going to be put on the back burner at some point if it has not been already. That is certainly the feeling that we have here on the inside. Nothing is guaranteed. It's like a TV series that might be cancelled at any minute. And like Star Trek, people can use their voice and their pens and make a noise and remind their representatives in government about what is important to them (if it is at all).

That was the point I was trying (perhaps clumsily) to make with my original post. I do hope I am wrong.

 

[Mallory]

Well, FWIW your husband is part of a talent pool that it would be a shame to lose. Sooner or later things will ramp up again and all those people are going to be needed. I hope someone makes the case for keeping them employed in some form or fashion.