Rocket Scientists...

[Zeb_Carter]

Where do they go for a job when they get laid off?

NASA will now be in the downsizing mode due to our wonderful president, who instead of creating jobs is trying his damnedest to reduce the working to the fewest he can and still support his utopian dreams.

Oh the other hand, he is most likely to reduce government workers in the process.

 

[Austin8]

Where do they go for a job when they get laid off?

NASA will now be in the downsizing mode due to our wonderful president, who instead of creating jobs is trying his damnedest to reduce the working to the fewest he can and still support his utopian dreams.

Oh the other hand, he is most likely to reduce government workers in the process.

I suspect they will come post here, Zeb!

 

[sr71plt]

NASA is hiring, not firing. They are just trading out programs. I guess you've been listening to the Tea Baggers again.

The issue isn't employment; it's program choice.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

NASA is hiring, not firing. They are just trading out programs. I guess you've been listening to the Tea Baggers again.

The issue isn't employment; it's program choice.

No I live in Houston and the word on the local news is there are a lot of people here worried about their jobs.

So where does a Rocket Scientist go when laid off? Russia?

 

[stephen55]

http://www.offthemarkcartoons.com/cartoons/1994-03-22.gif

Why NASA is laying off rocket scientists.

 

[stephen55]

No I live in Houston and the word on the local news is there are a lot of people here worried about their jobs.

So where does a Rocket Scientist go when laid off? Russia?

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/epl0018l.jpg

Not the local JOBS, INC.

 

[TE999]

Where do they go for a job when they get laid off?

NASA will now be in the downsizing mode due to our wonderful president, who instead of creating jobs is trying his damnedest to reduce the working to the fewest he can and still support his utopian dreams.

On the other hand, he is most likely to reduce government workers in the process.

Ummm...Iran, Syria, China, Argentina...lots of folks want to play with rockets...especially the ones that go BOOM!

Au contraire Zeb. They may be laying off scientists, engineers and technicians at NASA, but the rest of the government departments are poised for an immense growth spurt. The health care juggernaut alone will employ untold thousands of bureaucrats and pencil jockeys...maybe even a few doctors.

 

[sr71plt]

No I live in Houston and the word on the local news is there are a lot of people here worried about their jobs.

So where does a Rocket Scientist go when laid off? Russia?

Let me explain government to you, Zeb. Federal employees can't be fired or laid off once they are vetted (after an average of three years on the job)--except for criminal acts or a long, drawn-out process of documenting that they can't hack the work.

The husband of my niece is a top manager on the Challenger program (at Langley AFB, Hampton, Virginia). He's just being transferred to another project.

If any of these folks lose their NASA jobs, it's by their choice--unwillingness to move to another project/location.

The contractors in danger of losing their jobs are ones in the same situation--unwilling to move to another project/location--or not skilled in the jobs of the new projects (not likely in most cases), or their companies lose the bids on the new projects (their tough luck--changes in contractors happen constantly).

NASA's budget is increasing, not increasing. NASA is hiring, not firing. If individuals are out of jobs, it's either because they won't move, they are contractors whose companies don't win the bids on the new projects, or they have become so specialized in jobs no longer needed they can't compete for the increased job openings.

NASA is going for cheaper equipment/technology projects, not cheaper staff overhead projects. It is increasing its staff budgets by going with more human-power projects.

Those bellyaching are ones who don't like the change in projects (which is something that can be legitimately debated) or weren't job-secure federal employees to begin with or can't go with the flow of change or have obsoleted their job skills and can't compete for the changed requirements (or their company can win the bids over other companies--in which case, the actual people usually just swap companies anyway).

Life isn't as simple (or as threatening) as you Chicken Little Tea Baggers want it to be (mainly because you can't get your brains around complex issues--and you don't understand what government covers and how it operates worth spit).

 

[sr71plt]

And besides, Zeb, why wasn't laying off government workers part of the goal of your ilk in the first place? Were you coming or going on this "big government" issue?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Let me explain government to you, Zeb. Federal employees can't be fired or laid off once they are vetted (after an average of three years on the job)--except for criminal acts or a long, drawn-out process of documenting that they can't hack the work.

The husband of my niece is a top manager on the Challenger program (at Langley AFB, Hampton, Virginia). He's just being transferred to another project.

If any of these folks lose their NASA jobs, it's by their choice--unwillingness to move to another project/location.

The contractors in danger of losing their jobs are ones in the same situation--unwilling to move to another project/location--or not skilled in the jobs of the new projects (not likely in most cases), or their companies lose the bids on the new projects (their tough luck--changes in contractors happen constantly).

NASA's budget is increasing, not increasing. NASA is hiring, not firing. If individuals are out of jobs, it's either because they won't move, they are contractors whose companies don't win the bids on the new projects, or they have become so specialized in jobs no longer needed they can't compete for the increased job openings.

NASA is going for cheaper equipment/technology projects, not cheaper staff overhead projects. It is increasing its staff budgets by going with more human-power projects.

Those bellyaching are ones who don't like the change in projects (which is something that can be legitimately debated) or weren't job-secure federal employees to begin with or can't go with the flow of change or have obsoleted their job skills and can't compete for the changed requirements (or their company can win the bids over other companies--in which case, the actual people usually just swap companies anyway).

Life isn't as simple (or as threatening) as you Chicken Little Tea Baggers want it to be (mainly because you can't get your brains around complex issues--and you don't understand what government covers and how it operates worth spit).

Right up until the end you were explaining things as gentleman...then you started the name calling...typical Democrat response to news they don't like.

And I do know how government works and doesn't work. I know how it operates and what conditions it likes to operate in. I know a foul mouthed politician when I hear one. I know a government shill when I see them. I especially know a blustering buffoon when he opens his mouth.

When I hear someone say they will do one thing, but then do another I know without a doubt, he's a politician (liar).

 

[Zeb_Carter]

And besides, Zeb, why wasn't laying off government workers part of the goal of your ilk in the first place? Were you coming or going on this "big government" issue?

My ilk? Who am I? Do you know?

If it were up to me, 4 out of 5 government workers would be laid off. As all I ever see is one working while four stand around watching. Keep the one that's working, get rid of the deadwood.

 

[Guest]

My husband will lose his teaching job this year, Zeb. As will many other colleagues. He has Masters plus 30, twenty some years teaching chemistry and physics, he's highly qualified. But that's irrelevant, of course. Inner city schools can't make gains fast enough to appease the No Child Left Behind nonsense.

They're going to fire every teacher in his high school and reorganize. He's looking elsewhere, but people aren't hiring because so many school districts are having serious financial issues.

Thank you, Bush.

Jesus. It would be nice if we could at least get his medical bills paid before he gets fired.

It isn't Nasa. But it's happening everywhere.

 

[sr71plt]

My ilk? Who am I? Do you know?

If it were up to me, 4 out of 5 government workers would be laid off. As all I ever see is one working while four stand around watching. Keep the one that's working, get rid of the deadwood.

Then why are you bitching about what is happening at NASA? (Even though it isn't what you claim it is)

What is really amusing with this is that the free-enterprise Tea Baggers who are bitching about this are bitching about the free-enterprise effect of the free-enterprise segment of the NASA programs. As usual, they don't have the foggiest notion what is going on.

And you're just full of shit on what you say you see government workers doing. Most of them are doing work you won't do but demand to have done--while bitiching about what you have to pay for services you couldn't possibly afford to have without government at work.

 

[sr71plt]

Right up until the end you were explaining things as gentleman...then you started the name calling...typical Democrat response to news they don't like.

And I do know how government works and doesn't work. I know how it operates and what conditions it likes to operate in. I know a foul mouthed politician when I hear one. I know a government shill when I see them. I especially know a blustering buffoon when he opens his mouth.

When I hear someone say they will do one thing, but then do another I know without a doubt, he's a politician (liar).

Zeb: You were given the opportunity to back off of your ignorant political crap on this writer's site, and you didn't take it.

And, no, you obviously don't know spit about how government works.

 

[YoursSINSerely]

Not quite on topic, but I actually know a rocket scientist. He hates to tell people what he does for a living. They make faces at him.

 

[sr71plt]

Not quite on topic, but I actually know a rocket scientist. He hates to tell people what he does for a living. They make faces at him.

So, when he says, "I ain't no rocket scientist," they don't make a face at him?

 

[amicus]

There is an inherent fallacy in the Obama announcement that anyone familiar with the Space program knows full well.

First off, the cancellation of the Constellation Project and the heavy lift rocket Aries, is an ouright waste of over three billion dollars in research, development and testing.

Secondly, as the Space Shuttle program is due to end after three more missions, the United States has to depend on the Russian Space Program to transport our Astronauts to the Space Station and the Russians just doubled the price per trip.

Thirdly, the so called, private enterprise options simply don't exist. It will be years before Virgin Atlantic will even offer sub orbital flights for tourists and never be able to achieve orbit with sufficient payload to resupply the Space Shuttle.

So..it is not just the Planned Moon Base, upon which additional billions have been spent, including a recent impact in a Lunar Polar Region that detected ice, which can be used for fuel and water, all of that research is now useless to the United States, but may benefit the Chinese.

This is Obama contemplating his navel at best. Possibly one of the worst decisions ever made by anyone, anywhere for any reason.

Amicus Veritas...

 

[TE999]

There is an inherent fallacy in the Obama announcement that anyone familiar with the Space program knows full well.

First off, the cancellation of the Constellation Project and the heavy lift rocket Aries, is an ouright waste of over three billion dollars in research, development and testing.

Secondly, as the Space Shuttle program is due to end after three more missions, the United States has to depend on the Russian Space Program to transport our Astronauts to the Space Station and the Russians just doubled the price per trip.

Thirdly, the so called, private enterprise options simply don't exist. It will be years before Virgin Atlantic will even offer sub orbital flights for tourists and never be able to achieve orbit with sufficient payload to resupply the Space Shuttle.

So..it is not just the Planned Moon Base, upon which additional billions have been spent, including a recent impact in a Lunar Polar Region that detected ice, which can be used for fuel and water, all of that research is now useless to the United States, but may benefit the Chinese.

This is Obama contemplating his navel at best. Possibly one of the worst decisions ever made by anyone, anywhere for any reason.

Amicus Veritas...

But Ami, what are a bunch of rockets and space stations compared to creating a utopia here on Earth right here in the US...full employment, affordable health care, no one hungry, thirsty, tired or without a cell phone, no need to think just obey and no taxes unless you're one of those greedy rich people. It's gonna be a paradise.

 

[Katyusha]

No I live in Houston and the word on the local news is there are a lot of people here worried about their jobs.

So where does a Rocket Scientist go when laid off? Russia?

They go work at places like ATK Launch Systems Group.

 

[DesertPirate]

To another defence contractor.
My father in law worked on the lunar lander with Boeing in the 60's and early 70's. When the moon missions ended he was laid off and went to Hughes Aircraft. This HAS happened before.

 

[sr71plt]

But Ami, what are a bunch of rockets and space stations compared to creating a utopia here on Earth right here in the US...full employment, affordable health care, no one hungry, thirsty, tired or without a cell phone, no need to think just obey and no taxes unless you're one of those greedy rich people. It's gonna be a paradise.

Ummm. Is this a trick question? Not that it will happen, but, yes, this would be a great tradeoff.

Again, some people are getting tied into knots by arguing both continuing of big-cost government programs and the uselessness of and need to trim down government.

(This is sounding a lot like the Republican "Just say no to everything" program.)

 

[amicus]

But Ami, what are a bunch of rockets and space stations compared to creating a utopia here on Earth right here in the US...full employment, affordable health care, no one hungry, thirsty, tired or without a cell phone, no need to think just obey and no taxes unless you're one of those greedy rich people. It's gonna be a paradise.

~~~

I understand, completely, as I compare Progressive Liberals to nesting females who care only about their offspring and could care less about anything else.

I don't see a practical means to turn Cape Canaveral and Houston Facilities, along with world wide tracking stations to private enterprise; I wish I did.

To the best that I can learn, asteroid mining is an iffy situation in terms of cost effectiveness and if it can't pay for itself, it doesn't get done. I think it is Helium Three, could be in error, on the surface of the Moon, that has been tagged as a possible solution of Earth's energy problems and that may be doable by private enterprise, but not without the infrastructure that NASA has created over the past half century.

Because the 'space race' began with Sputnik and intercontinental ballistic missiles, space exploration has been the function of government and the military. The ideal scenario would be a Corporate Space Enterprise that could find a way to make a profit from space travel and exploration.

One can make the case, as was done on several news programs, that the discoveries in near space, on the space station, have spilled over into the civilian populace with many gadgets and some vital medical knowledge. Just how Industry might view this is a question I cannot answer.

It is somewhat like the worlds best distance runner looking back over his shoulder, in sight of the finish line, and then slowing down so the second handers could win.

Someone please explain the psychology of that for me?

Amicus

 

[sr71plt]

ON TE999's quote of ami, I can agree that the question of which NASA program(s) to fund and pursue is a legitimate one (but even here it is a "whose ox is being gored?" issue)--this is a separate issue from the employment one, though. It's two-faced to tout free-enterprise mechanisms and then to bitch when the free-enterprise system is put into play.

 

[TE999]

Ummm. Is this a trick question? Not that it will happen, but, yes, this would be a great tradeoff.

Again, some people are getting tied into knots by arguing both continuing of big-cost government programs and the uselessness of and need to trim down government.

Like living in a second rate country do you? You could move to Europe or Africa, they have a bunch of them.

Space programs are part and parcel of national defense...I'm for spending taxes on things like that.

Wasting billions on useless departments like Energy, Education, Health and Welfare is what I object to...for instance the Dept. of Energy was initially set up by the Carter administration to reduce our dependence on foreign oil...they've done a great job.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Like living in a second rate country do you? You could move to Europe or Africa, they have a bunch of them.

Space programs are part and parcel of national defense...I'm for spending taxes on things like that.

Wasting billions on useless departments like Energy, Education, Health and Welfare is what I object to...for instance the Dept. of Energy was initially set up by the Carter administration to reduce our dependence on foreign oil...they've done a great job.

That's amazing, you sound like just an Onion satire.