It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA to begin layoffs as shuttle retirement nears

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

NASA to begin layoffs as shuttle retirement nears


www.reuters.com

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (Reuters) - The U.S. space agency NASA plans to eliminate 900 manufacturing jobs over the next five months as it prepares to retire its space shuttle fleet in 2010, NASA officials said on Thursday.

"This is the first significant loss of manufacturing capability," shuttle program manager John Shannon told reporters.

The shuttle is the only vehicle that can service orbiting satellites, such as the Hubble telescope, as well as handle massive construction efforts.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Here we go folks the beginning of the end.

The orion project has seemed like a failure from the start. Even the engineers who are building it dont have alot of faith in it. The engineers at NASA have so little faith in the vehicle that as a side project they designed a more efficient, less costly craft and the bigwigs as NASA turned them down.

We have to remember that the orion is backwards engineered apollo craft since NASA apparently forgot how to build multistage rockets. A giant leap backward if you ask me.

So this is supposed to save money now? Buy not being able to service satellites and telescopes? Their space infrastructure is going to fall apart.

Now there is all this talk about how the space junk orbiting out planet is almost to the point where if something is not done about it we will lose the ability to send anything into space.

The dream is over. It looks like humans access to space is slowly being cut off.

Just a thought though, why dont they build vehicles in space, not unlike how they built the ISS, that are not designed to return to Earth? They can equip these vehicles to do repairs and construction and exploration (The moon?) and can be piloted by ISS crew so there is a 24/7 vehicular presence in space.

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Surely NASA must have something in mind to service the Hubble and the space station? If Orion is as bad as some say it is maybe NASA are going to resurect the Delta Clipper to send satellites into orbit! Either way this seems just another example of NASAs shortsightedness when it comes to looking to the future. . . And all this from an agency who is supposedly returning to the moon in the next decade!!! Somehow I doubt it.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Yeah returning to the moon, in robot form i bet. What a failure. Meanwhile countries like India, Japan, and China continue to make leaps and bounds in progress to a manned presence in space, on the moon and possibly even Mars.

Not unlike the voyages in the 1400s to discover a new world, we should be doing the same with space. Nobody had any idea there was a whole other continent out there but that didnt stop them from going, and to their surprize it wasnt as scary, hard or dangerous as they origionally thought.

It is outward expansion that allows us to make giant leaps in technology. Say they discovered a new Earth-like planet tomorrow, it wouldnt even matter because the infrastructure doesnt exist to be able to think of going there, let alone the technology and because of the distance, it would be a nice idea but comepletely forgotten in months.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
NASA should have its funding revoked completely.

JPL and ASU should be kept in charge of their missions until their respective objectives are accomplished, but other than that Private industry would better fill the role currently held by NASA - which should be phased out, or forced to compete in the market and without taxpayer subsidy.

NASA has done more to stifle private space access system development in America than any other entity.

They are a waste of money - If they were privately run, they would be out of business in a year.

The only reason NASA continues to exist is because the people funding their operation (taxpayers) don't have a choice in the matter. If the niche currently occupied by NASA was opened to the free-market, the American taxpayer would benefit tremendously.

For example: If a private space company screws up a contract, you don't have to pay - but if NASA screws it up, you have to pay twice. That is why NASA would never succeed if it were competing on the Free Market.

I am gladdened by budget cuts to NASA.


[edit on 4-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Yes but even though their budget is cut they will still continue the monopoly for years to come. Im still wondering why there is no REAL private space market. Im sure some wealthy billionaire out there has a passion for space travel.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
One area in which NASA should face cut-backs in is in their Public Relations Department.

We should not be paying NASA to justify its continued existence to us.


Their refusal to release ancillary data with regards to the various publicly funded missions should also be grounds for the revoking of funding. They obstinately refuse to release certain data, to the very people who payed for it's collection; the American taxpayer.

What is worse is the sort of abuse that members of the public have faced when confronting NASA personnel about their refusal top release pertinent ancillary data. The posture assumed by NASA spokesmen has in some cases been down downright hostile - especially where NASA's refusal to release data is being addressed as a point of concern.

Examples of this can found right here on ATS:

Check out the STS-63 and STS-114 threads in the aliens and UFO's forum to see a NASA employee in action against your fellow ATS members.

Edit: The NASA man eventually ran away, but only after losing almost every argument to some dedicated ATSers.


[edit on 4-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
Im sure some wealthy billionaire out there has a passion for space travel.


That would be Bob Bigelow (Multibillionaire).

NASA forced him to go overseas to secure access to space.

He stated: "NASA means No Access to Space for Americans"



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


NASA did not "force" Bigelow overseas. Bigelow Aerospace is located in Nevada.

The competition for commercial launch contracts is intense. The lowest, best bidder will get the job. Bigelow has carried out their two launches through a contract with ISC Kosmotras. A demonstration that private enterprise can often (usually) do a better job than government.

The problem with private space ventures is that the capital outlay is tremendous and the return on the investment in research and development will be a very long time coming.

[edit on 5/4/2009 by Phage]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
It is outward expansion that allows us to make giant leaps in technology. Say they discovered a new Earth-like planet tomorrow, it wouldnt even matter because the infrastructure doesnt exist to be able to think of going there, let alone the technology and because of the distance, it would be a nice idea but comepletely forgotten in months.


Don't worry. The military defense establisment is on the problem. Wesley Clark said it's matter of working out the math.

It does seem odd the shuttle is about to die with no successor in place ?

The latest generation satellites are designed to be serviced in space by robots, IMO the classified deep black world already has small fighter sized ground to orbit capable space vehicles, manned and artificially intelligent, operating with power sources and physics unknown to the outside civilian world.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Wasn't it Kennedy that wanted to see America land on the moon first? ; Invigorating our entire space program.

Hmmm... So it's OK to get behind and continue that Presidential challenge.

BUT, revising the Federal Reserve and allowing Congress to issue our own money (also proposed by Kennedy) failed the moment he was gone.

Just thinking aloud.




top topics



 
0

log in

join