• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

23,000 now expected to lose jobs after shuttle retirement

S

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
23,000 now expected to lose jobs after shuttle retirementVIERA — The local economic forecast tied to President Barack Obama's proposed NASA budget keeps growing bleaker.

Revised projections now show that about 23,000 workers at and around Kennedy Space Center will lose their jobs because of the shuttles' retirement and the new proposal to cancel the development of new rockets and spacecraft.

That sum includes 9,000 "direct" space jobs and -- conservatively speaking -- 14,000 "indirect" jobs at hotels, restaurants, retail stores and others that depend on activity at the space center, said Lisa Rice, Brevard Workforce president.

The organization's earlier estimate of 7,000 direct jobs reflected just the retirement of the shuttle program. The updated numbers also include the cancellation of Project Constellation and other initiatives as outlined in the president's 2011 budget, Rice said.

"Our unemployment rate is going to skyrocket," she warned Thursday during a five-hour Brevard County Commission space workshop. Much conversation centered on the future of human space launches from KSC, and attendees heaped criticism on Obama's strategy.

Mark Nappi is vice president of launch and recovery systems for United Space Alliance, NASA's prime contractor for shuttle operations. As things stand today, he predicted that more than 4,500 of the company's 5,500 Florida workers will lose their jobs. Geographically speaking, Nappi said 4,850 USA workers live in Brevard, including 3,250 in the northern half of the county.

Commissioners asked what the county can do to recruit commercial launch companies from California, Virginia, Texas and elsewhere.

"The market will drive where space vehicles are launched from," Nappi said. "And if we believe in Florida that we have the birthright to spaceflight operations, we're going to be the Pittsburgh of the steel industry and the Detroit of the car industry."
Click to expand...

So, the Messiah's message of hope for the future, by actually destroying efforts to build that future, will destroy hope as well.

But it'll make the Chinese and Russians happy.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So, the Messiah's message of hope for the future, by actually destroying efforts to build that future, will destroy hope as well.

But it'll make the Chinese and Russians happy.
Click to expand...

So the government should be protecting those jobs at the expense of private companies that are expanding space launch capabilities?
 
Endeavour first flew in May 1992 on mission STS-49 and is scheduled for decommissioning in 2010 while the other 2 are much older. Endeavour was an upgrade in many ways and should not be sut down.

The shuttle system is a proven one and new even better models could be built and used for a very long time and in the process would not only save real jobs but create many more.

Closing down a successful program is foolish at best.

The B-52 first flew in 1952 and newer upgraded models are still in service.

You don't abandon a good program if you have a brain in your empty head.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
So the government should be protecting those jobs at the expense of private companies that are expanding space launch capabilities?
Click to expand...

So the government has this thing, you see, it's called the "Constitution". Maybe you've heard of it, maybe you haven't. Some people have heard of it, and not read it. Many people have read it and don't understand it.

But there are two relevant duties the Constitution imposes on the federal government.

One of those is national defense. That's not supposed to be subcontracted out. Maintaining US manned access to space is a national defense priority.

The other duty the federal government has is the construction of "post roads". Again, developing the road to the future means taking a turn past Canaveral to get to the moon. No moon equals no future.

The private developers have the resources to shoot a Romin' Candle to the top of the atmosphere, and watch it fall down. Cool, yes. Commericially viable, not. While the kiddies are playing with their bottle rockets the United States is confronted with very serious threats from China and Russia, not to mention other countries subsidizing their space launch infrastructure. The Shuttle's dying, and good riddance to a crappy design. Four of the last five presidents have had no excuse to delay the shuttle's replacement, but they all found excuses.

So, while the US government dithers, while it wastes $500 billion medicare fraud, and who knows how many billion on education fraud, and god alone knows how much on failed "stimulus" pork, the rest of the world is moving forward to secure the next and final high ground. Which will leave the US at a military and economic disadvantage.

The fact you need to face is that rich boys building toys simply do not have the resources to establish a free market presence in orbit, let alone the moon, which must be our national goal.
 
Good. Free up that money for more worthwhile and necessary ventures.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
And what is more worthwile and necessary than national defense?
Click to expand...

First off, that's a terrible argument. National defense isn't an inherent good. At some point you have more defense than you need and in starts to cut into things that people really want unnecessarily.

Secondly, what does the shuttle program have to do with national defense?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So, the Messiah's message of hope for the future, by actually destroying efforts to build that future, will destroy hope as well.

But it'll make the Chinese and Russians happy.
Click to expand...

So, you support socialized Space Exportation.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So the government has this thing, you see, it's called the "Constitution". Maybe you've heard of it, maybe you haven't. Some people have heard of it, and not read it. Many people have read it and don't understand it.

But there are two relevant duties the Constitution imposes on the federal government.

One of those is national defense. That's not supposed to be subcontracted out. Maintaining US manned access to space is a national defense priority.

The other duty the federal government has is the construction of "post roads". Again, developing the road to the future means taking a turn past Canaveral to get to the moon. No moon equals no future.

The private developers have the resources to shoot a Romin' Candle to the top of the atmosphere, and watch it fall down. Cool, yes. Commericially viable, not. While the kiddies are playing with their bottle rockets the United States is confronted with very serious threats from China and Russia, not to mention other countries subsidizing their space launch infrastructure. The Shuttle's dying, and good riddance to a crappy design. Four of the last five presidents have had no excuse to delay the shuttle's replacement, but they all found excuses.

So, while the US government dithers, while it wastes $500 billion medicare fraud, and who knows how many billion on education fraud, and god alone knows how much on failed "stimulus" pork, the rest of the world is moving forward to secure the next and final high ground. Which will leave the US at a military and economic disadvantage.

The fact you need to face is that rich boys building toys simply do not have the resources to establish a free market presence in orbit, let alone the moon, which must be our national goal.
Click to expand...

The US is slowly building private commercial space launching companies. United Launch Alliance for instance can not be expected to be able to compete with a government operated program

Boeing and Lockheed are not rich boys building toy, but among the biggest defense contractors
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The US is slowly building private commercial space launching companies. United Launch Alliance for instance can not be expected to be able to compete with a government operated program

Boeing and Lockheed are not rich boys building toy, but among the biggest defense contractors
Click to expand...

So when do you expect ULA to be able to put 150,000 lbs into orbit?


You are aware that when "NASA" or "the government" decides to build a rocket or a black helicopter, what they really do is ask Boing or Lockheed or Northrop or some other relevant contractor to do the engineering and testing and developing, right? So you can't cbm about "private industry" and then tell us that if the government "interferes" that Boing is going to be losing out. Boing et al bid on all those big ticket "government" contracts, it's where most of their money is.

If the government isn't building Ares and the Constellation or something similar, Boing et al aren't going to be working those projects. You have a serious case of cognitive dissonance going on here.
 
phattonez said:
First off, that's a terrible argument. National defense isn't an inherent good.
Click to expand...

No?

Tell that to the guys still manning the USS Arizona.

phattonez said:
At some point you have more defense than you need and in starts to cut into things that people really want unnecessarily.
Click to expand...

True.

Good thing space isn't one of those things. But we should quit with the US Strategic Helium Reserve, ya think?

And it's not a matter of wants, it's a matter of what the Constitution both requires and allows. When almot 70% of the US budget is dedicated to clear violations of the Constitution, it's clear where the damage to what people "want" is coming from. The current state of space exploration makes government involvement a Constitutional requirement.

phattonez said:
Secondly, what does the shuttle program have to do with national defense?
Click to expand...

Hello? Shuttle launches often contain Airforce and NSA secret payloads that aren't talked about. Welcome to the real world, buddy.
 
phattonez said:
Good. Free up that money for more worthwhile and necessary ventures.
Click to expand...
Like paying for you Rx benefits. If that's your picture I guess you'll be needing them soon. ;) Maybe there some other social programs we could get going again, like midnight basketball. We could buy more condoms for high schools kids, since they won't need to study math and science anymore they can just **** around all day. What do we need math and science for if we reducing the military and eliminating the space program. It's high time we dumped JFK's legacy anyway, now that Teddy is dead and buried.
 
How soon they forget. Here's a flashback to 2008 when the final decision was made. Who was the incumbent President then?

"The Shuttle program is scheduled for mandatory retirement in 2010. The program has been criticized for failing to achieve its promised cost and utility goals, as well as design, cost, management, and safety issues.

The total cost of the Shuttle program has been $145 billion as of early 2005 , and is estimated to be $174 billion when the Shuttle retires in 2010. NASA’s budget for 2005 allocated 30%, or $5 billion, to Space Shuttle operations; this was decreased in 2006 to a request of $4.3 billion. ... "

Space Shuttle will be retired in 2010 | Kevin Colby: News and Political blog
 
I like how President Bush's administration canceling the shuttle is somehow President Obama's fault.

Besides, the shuttle ended up costing way more than it was supposed to. The re-usable launch vehicle turned out to be outrageously expensive to maintain. The inspection and replacement of all the heat-shielding after reentry costs a fortune. The Ares rockets were supposed to eventually replace the shuttle, but I think those are being shelved for now due to budgetary constraints.

We still have regular rockets to launch all those mind-reading satellites, though, so conspiracy theorists have nothing to fear... err... well, you know what I mean.
 
Good point, I always hate it when politicians cancel inefficient government programs and cut a couple billion in wasteful federal spending.

(let's ignore the fact that it was Bush who canceled the Shuttle and play along with Scarecrow's theory)
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So, the Messiah's message of hope for the future, by actually destroying efforts to build that future, will destroy hope as well.

But it'll make the Chinese and Russians happy.
Click to expand...



Thanks Obama you jerk.........
 
RightinNYC said:
Good point, I always hate it when politicians cancel inefficient government programs and cut a couple billion in wasteful federal spending.

(let's ignore the fact that it was Bush who canceled the Shuttle and play along with Scarecrow's theory)
Click to expand...

I think you lefties will be blaming President Bush for everything that happens for the next 50 years........

Now Obama is taking credit for winning the war in Iraq and he was dead set against the surge and funding the war.......
 
Navy Pride said:
I think you lefties will be blaming President Bush for everything that happens for the next 50 years........

Now Obama is taking credit for winning the war in Iraq and he was dead set against the surge and funding the war.......
Click to expand...

Maybe it was the bush administration that decided to retire the shuttle progam but it was Obama that decided to pull the funding for the new program.

Obama will go down in history as the President that killed the US space program.

Kennedy would not be happy about this.
 
Navy Pride said:
I think you lefties will be blaming President Bush for everything that happens for the next 50 years........

Now Obama is taking credit for winning the war in Iraq and he was dead set against the surge and funding the war.......
Click to expand...

cat-wut.jpg


Navy, take a step back for a second. I don't think I really qualify as a lefty, and I'm not "blaming Bush," I'm giving him credit for this because he was the one who ordered it.

Shuttle retirement still on for 2010 - Sun Sentinel

President Barack Obama dashed the hopes of thousands of Kennedy Space Center workers Thursday when he agreed to continue a Bush administration plan to retire the space shuttle in 2010.
Click to expand...

Your reference to the Iraq war situation is particularly apt. Just like it's ridiculous to act like Obama is responsible for the orderly winding down and decreased fatalities in Iraq when all he's doing is following Bush's plan, it's equally ridiculous to act like Obama is responsible for the retirement of the space shuttle when all he's doing is following Bush's plan.
 
phattonez said:
Good. Free up that money for more worthwhile and necessary ventures.
Click to expand...

I am prohibited by the rules from characterizing this post in the manner which it deserves, but suffice to say the benefits to not only this country but mankind from the technology developed to make possible space travel is almost beyond the scope of imagination.

The farther man reaches the more we all benefit from it not only in terms of items like calculators, better and faster computers, but travel in general, and medical advances.

Yes it costs a lot but it has positive returns, and opens up the creation of new industries, creating jobs that require better education and a cycle of good things come from it.

It does have a human cost, as about five percent of the people that have been launched have died doing so (because astronauts often launch more than once). As of now about 500 individuals have flown on space flights from Russia/Soviet Union, the USA, and others. Twenty-two have died while in a spacecraft in the Russian program and in the Shuttle program, and that ain't bad for such a dangerous thing to be doing.

So please do some research before you condemn what you clearly have no knowledge of.
 
RightinNYC said:
Your reference to the Iraq war situation is particularly apt. Just like it's ridiculous to act like Obama is responsible for the orderly winding down and decreased fatalities in Iraq when all he's doing is following Bush's plan, it's equally ridiculous to act like Obama is responsible for the retirement of the space shuttle when all he's doing is following Bush's plan.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to follow Bush's plan; ultimately, it is his decision.

Personally, I think this is a bad idea. Space exploration is absolutely critical to the advancement of our society. The technological and strategic advantages it has created over the years are prolific, and leaving space to the Chinese and Russians is not a wise longterm decision for America or humanity.
 
This is going to make it considerably more difficult for me to find a new job. And regardless of my personal stake in the situation, I think Obama is making a huge mistake by cancelling the shuttle program.
 
Manc Skipper said:
How soon they forget. Here's a flashback to 2008 when the final decision was made. Who was the incumbent President then?

"The Shuttle program is scheduled for mandatory retirement in 2010. The program has been criticized for failing to achieve its promised cost and utility goals, as well as design, cost, management, and safety issues.

The total cost of the Shuttle program has been $145 billion as of early 2005 , and is estimated to be $174 billion when the Shuttle retires in 2010. NASA’s budget for 2005 allocated 30%, or $5 billion, to Space Shuttle operations; this was decreased in 2006 to a request of $4.3 billion. ... "

Space Shuttle will be retired in 2010 | Kevin Colby: News and Political blog
Click to expand...
No one is talking only of the Shuttle program, nice try but EPIC FAIL. We talking about the manned space program. Obama wants to use NASA for his personal environmental agenda to place the world under the thumb of global warming.
 
American said:
No one is talking only of the Shuttle program, nice try but EPIC FAIL. We talking about the manned space program. Obama wants to use NASA for his personal environmental agenda to place the world under the thumb of global warming.
Click to expand...

Clearly he is working in cahoots with the lizard people. THE LIZARD PEOPLE I TELL YA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom