The Death March has Begun at NASA.

[MKSheppard]

Information from NASA Spaceflight forums and NASA Engineer

reveals just how bloody this is:

So far we know of Jacobs subcontractors at MSFC. Their last day was Friday, but they were told to pack when they got to work this morning.

Jacobs is having a series of off site all-hands tomorrow.

A bunch of Jacobs guys got let go from Marshall yesterday. Zero warning. They just told them to stop what they were doing and go home. A good friend of mine was one of them. My bet is that there's a group of folks who will never work for NASA again.

Many people spent part of the day checking cubes to see who is left.

My team is going from 23 to 1. One person. We are at 4 right now. And this is flight software that would be in the block 0 vehicle, lifeboat, LEO, or BEO vehicles. And even this is only "good until" end of September at most.

The result is pretty much a one man glorified answering machine and meeting support service. Next to nothing is going to get built with these levels. Domain expertise is gone, and the vehicle is in detailed design phase (at least for software). Not a good time to loose your expertise.

Our group was reduced last week already, and it may get worse. We took about an 80% hit, but it might yet go to nearly 100%. And it happened in a matter of days, not two months. I am pretty much off the program.

I have heard that this may hit other NASA programs, too, like the James Webb Space Telescope. If NASA wants to claim that this interpretation of the ADA is the law, it would be hard for them to exempt other programs. However, that is only a rumor at this point.

The following initials represent real people I work with who lost their jobs today at MSFC, boxed up their stuff and left early:

PL, BW, SH, JW, MA...this is just the beginning, the tip of the iceberg, I will learn more names tomorrow. The parking lots were empty by 4:30 pm as those who remain behind had little motivation to finish out the day either.

Tomorrow it will be even more difficult.

So why is this awesome bloodbath going on?

As Scott Brim over at HPCA has ruminated -- one rationale for it is to destroy NASA's contractor base so fast and so completely -- that there will be no way for Congress to save any of NASA's long term plans unless they act now.

If they act in a few days, then the program can be saved -- but if they take until next month to slap down the Obama administation...then it'll be too late -- these people being laid off have to make house payments etc, and will have moved out of the region or closed out their houses.

But there might be another reason.

RUMINT from NASA Engineer

Last week this website asked the question “why now, and why the rush?” in regards to the NASA admin using ADA to bring CxP work to a near stop. People learned today that even the layoff process is being rushed. Some people were even sent home with no notice at all, without even a chance to close out their work or even speak to their task leads.

A rumor (and it must be emphasized that is all it is at this point) from Washington today may explain it. The rumor is that the admin has plans to divert the nearly $1B saved for FY2010 to commercial space for FY2010, presumably to speed up things for SpaceX-about $940M of it.

It’s disturbing, but it makes sense so it’s worth watching for more details, if this goes forward. If Congress and the admin don’t get around to settling the FY2011 plan by Oct 1, NASA work will be subject to a continuing resolution, maybe for months. This means CxP is still the program of record, and it also means delays for the admin’s plans for commercial space as well. They may have pushed this ADA thing so fast to appropriate the money for something else in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year.

In the comments to last week’s question on why now, and why the rush?, “Spock” in the comments section brought up a good point-when things are going on that don’t seem to make sense- 1) follow the money, and 2) someone has something to hide.

It’s something to think about.

Now you people don’t go spreading rumors or anything….It’s just the internet!

[Coyote]

Meanwhile, it looks like the Shuttle will keep flying for a few extra months.

Is it beginning to sink in that we have fallen on our sword?

Managers of NASA's space shuttle program are seeking a shift in the launch schedule that would delay the fleet's final launch until February 2011 at the earliest.

The schedule shift would have the shuttle Discovery to lift off on Oct. 29 instead of Sept. 16, and schedule Endeavour's flight for no earlier than Feb. 28, 2011, rather than in November as previously scheduled.

Private space launching, ohh, yes. Because corporations driven by profit motive have proven to be so reliable these last couple years.

[Stark]

Shep, I don't think you know what a 'death march' is. It's a project that is obviously incapable of reaching goals (which are generally being moved) that is forced to run to completion anyway by management.

It's not 'we are ending projects and cutting staff due to lack of funding'.

But thanks for sharing HPCA paranoia with everyone; not everyone goes there to see for themselves.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The global economy is on the brink with the First World entirely insolvent, and we're worried about what shiny rockets we'll not be getting to go to the Moon on now? Somehow, I'm not that bothered, all things considered. And I'm a scientist first and foremost.

[tim31]

Bugger. I'd planned a trip with the hope of seeing the September 16th Discovery launch.

[Samuel]

The global economy is on the brink with the First World entirely insolvent, and we're worried about what shiny rockets we'll not be getting to go to the Moon on now? Somehow, I'm not that bothered, all things considered. And I'm a scientist first and foremost.

Because it will cost even more money and time in the future to get this restarted.

[Stark]

If I have zero money and it costs $5 to do something I don't consider important, but it'll cost $1000 later, when I have a job, is it a good idea to do it right now?

[Admiral Valdemar]

It's not even as if NASA is being torn down, much as Shep's hyperbole might suggest otherwise. So we won't (read: the US won't) be having their own rocket programmes to rival that of the Space Race for when the up and coming powers of today decide to venture further. Oh no. At least you're not cutting down on stuff people really care about, like healthcare, public works, manufacturing and... never mind.

[Temujin]

When it comes to this hypothetical future space race, I think a lot of people forget that China's, India's, and other countries programs will only go forward if they continue to have plenty of money to spare. It could end up that their economies hit a speed bump and their plans for the Moon go down in flames as well.

[MKSheppard]

Shep, I don't think you know what a 'death march' is.

It also can refer to massive Reductions In Force (RIF) at large corporations; where the number of empty cubicles grow daily, and the shell shocked survivors of the RIF wander the hallways, hoping that they're not in the next wave of RIFs.

But thanks for sharing HPCA paranoia with everyone; not everyone goes there to see for themselves.

Actually, Scott's comment was in the context of the Nuclear Industry -- his area of expertise and employment.

This is the same strategy that was used for the Yucca Mountain shutdown last year -- get rid of the contractor staff and the contractor support infrastructure so quickly and so thoroughly that the project can't be revived any time soon regardless of what Congress might decide in the near-term future.

When you think about it in that context; it does explain the rather abrupt and swift job terminations at MSFC and elsewhere; because if you give at least two weeks warning; the workers can close out their work, make sure everything is logged and archived for whoever comes next, so the program can be restarted later with as much institutional knowledge preserved as possible.

But with these rather abrupt terminations, institutional knowledge is pretty much lost forever as people have just enough time to clean out their desks of personal items before going out the door.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That sound you hear is the guillotine of our age in action. Cuts, there'll be lots of them. Take a look at the UK Treasury's budget out the last few hours. We won't be making many rockets either, so you're safe in that respect.

[Coyote]

Sure, I guess we're going to keep our robot programs, near as I can tell, everything being slash-and-burned was the infrastructure for US manned spaceflight, yes?

Our robots kick a lot of ass; they're cheap and bring back tons of photos, etc, and can stay on-target far longer, and when they slingshot they get "extra" peeks at other targets along the way.

But the US is voluntarily ending it's crewed spaceflight era. Now in the long run, really, what is important to me is humans in space; language and color aren't important. But we had a commanding lead and it just seems criminal to just "give up" like that.

And as for NASA being a money drain, jeezus, they aren't even a drop in the budget bucket. Ending just a handful of bullshit corporate subsidies, like the fucking corn subsidy, would pay for it. No need to raise taxes or fuck up health care, etc... just stop some corporate welfare. Not like they need it.

[Gil Hamilton]

In addition, our space probes have considerably more reach. A manned mission to anywhere we can actually reach would be to prove we could do it, get out, take pictures, et cetera. Not something like colonization. Robots are perfectly capable of achieving that kind of mission and in places we can't reach and don't know about. We can't really afford glory missions where we do things just to prove how bad ass we are.

[Lonestar]

In addition, our space probes have considerably more reach. A manned mission to anywhere we can actually reach would be to prove we could do it, get out, take pictures, et cetera. Not something like colonization. Robots are perfectly capable of achieving that kind of mission and in places we can't reach and don't know about. We can't really afford glory missions where we do things just to prove how bad ass we are.

Why not?

Seriously, you could take the cash out of the DoD budget.

[Skylon]

In addition, our space probes have considerably more reach. A manned mission to anywhere we can actually reach would be to prove we could do it, get out, take pictures, et cetera. Not something like colonization. Robots are perfectly capable of achieving that kind of mission and in places we can't reach and don't know about. We can't really afford glory missions where we do things just to prove how bad ass we are.

What is more effective? A robot, operated from Earth, or a human being with a trained set of eyes?

For that matter, compare what a robot could scoop up and return from the Moon, to the hundreds of pounds of samples returned by the Apollo astronauts, who were able to observe and determine if a rock was interesting enough to warrant getting scooped up for return to Earth.

I'm Not knocking the unmanned programs...most of the Solar System is beyond our reach. Until we can go there, a rover on Mars will have to do. But a human would probably be a lot more productive in terms of science return.

[Dave]

What is more effective? A robot, operated from Earth, or a human being with a trained set of eyes?

Excuse me? What's more effective? A robot with telescopic vision that extends from the UV to the infrared, with trained scientists of the relevant field, perhaps from all over the world, back on earth examining all the photos to tell it what to look at next; or a couple of scientists from all backgrounds using their mark-one eyeballs to look at everything?

If you want the rock back, make a sample return mission.

For that matter, compare what a robot could scoop up and return from the Moon, to the hundreds of pounds of samples returned by the Apollo astronauts, who were able to observe and determine if a rock was interesting enough to warrant getting scooped up for return to Earth.

How much of those rocks have we actually used? I mean, my understanding is that they've looked at all of them, but they've really only destructively tested, what, a couple of pounds? And if you want a couple hundred pounds of sample return, make a bulldozer robot.

I'm Not knocking the unmanned programs...most of the Solar System is beyond our reach. Until we can go there, a rover on Mars will have to do. But a human would probably be a lot more productive in terms of science return.

And how much does it cost to get them up there? Robots don't need food, they don't need water, they don't need air, they don't need reading material or people to talk to, they don't need complicated waste removal mechanisms, or any other life-support systems. All that costs weight and thus money. If you can skip all that crap, you can save big on missions. And if things go pear-shaped, nobody dies on a robot mission. The PR cost is minimal relative to a human mission going down with all hands.

[eion]

This is the Genesis Rock. It is a piece of anorthosite, found in a crater miles away from the landing site. It is 4.5 Billion years old and is in all likelihood a piece of the original crust of the moon. It is only 100 million years younger than the entire solar system. Its discovery arguably justified the entire Apollo program.

It was found by two humans named James Irwin and David Scott, who received training as geologists, and had the best support staff on the planet behind them.

Don't tell me humans aren't better at some things than robots. No robot of the 1960s or even now could have found that rock, even under the direction of the best geologists.

Probes and rovers are incredibly useful tools to map and perform initial & long term study, but ultimately true exploration requires a human, at least for now. We are faster, more adaptable, more curious, more discriminating, and on top of that, we’re poets.

[Gil Hamilton]

What is more effective? A robot, operated from Earth, or a human being with a trained set of eyes?

For that matter, compare what a robot could scoop up and return from the Moon, to the hundreds of pounds of samples returned by the Apollo astronauts, who were able to observe and determine if a rock was interesting enough to warrant getting scooped up for return to Earth.

I'm Not knocking the unmanned programs...most of the Solar System is beyond our reach. Until we can go there, a rover on Mars will have to do. But a human would probably be a lot more productive in terms of science return.

What's more effective? For most locations in the solar system, the robot is. The amount of flight capable instruments that we are currently designing (including many at my own university) are dramatically increasing in number and effectiveness.

That's the thing, you can't just look at about of productive work. You have to look at the amount of productive work per cost. The robots that we will be producing in the next ten years will practically be full analytical labs in terms of chemistry equipment and VASTLY cheaper than sending astronauts on the same trip. The major reason to send men to the moon or Mars is to send men, not because it gives a huge advantage over robots. What most of the Apollo astronauts accomplished on the Moon could have been easily accomplished by modern robots at a fraction of the cost. And if you want to get information on anything further than the Moon, they are currently the only game in town.

[MKSheppard]

It's not even as if NASA is being torn down, much as Shep's hyperbole might suggest otherwise.

Actually, it pretty much is. This is coming on top of a supposed 6 billion increase in NASA's budget by Obama -- and his so-called committment to pick a heavy launch vehicle architecture by 2015.

Who designs HLV architectures?

That's right! Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). Who is bearing the basic brunt of these cuts?

MSFC.

How is Obama's vision going to achieve it's objective if the people who are going to design a core component of it are being fired in such a way as to run the risk of permanently souring them on working with/in NASA?

[Dave]

<snip image>
This is the Genesis Rock. It is a piece of anorthosite, found in a crater miles away from the landing site. It is 4.5 Billion years old and is in all likelihood a piece of the original crust of the moon. It is only 100 million years younger than the entire solar system. Its discovery arguably justified the entire Apollo program.

It was found by two humans named James Irwin and David Scott, who received training as geologists, and had the best support staff on the planet behind them.

Don't tell me humans aren't better at some things than robots. No robot of the 1960s or even now could have found that rock, even under the direction of the best geologists.

Probes and rovers are incredibly useful tools to map and perform initial & long term study, but ultimately true exploration requires a human, at least for now. We are faster, more adaptable, more curious, more discriminating, and on top of that, we’re poets.

It's a rock the size of your fist, and it was simply lying on the ground. I think you could set up a rover to survey the area and pick up interesting rocks fairly easily. I fail to see how it could not have been done with 1960s technology.

[Coyote]

"Effective" probably has to be quantified-- "effective" for what? Seriously, for reasons listed above it is a no-brainer that building for a manned mission is much more demanding and rigorous an exercise, from an engineering standpoint, than robot probes.

What is the ultimate goal of spaceflight? Admittedly, I am merely assuming that the ultimate goal of spaceflight is "humans in space" in some capacity.

[tim31]

I always felt that it was the fieldwork equivalent to astronomy?

[PeZook]

It's a rock the size of your fist, and it was simply lying on the ground. I think you could set up a rover to survey the area and pick up interesting rocks fairly easily. I fail to see how it could not have been done with 1960s technology.

So the Russians were just idiots, then, what with their extensive unmanned lander program only bringing back 300 grams or so of loose dust?

Today is a different matter, since telepresence and instruments have improved by such a massive margin, but to claim one could get similar results to the Apollo missions with unmanned missions using 1960s technology is absurd. Neither telepresence, remote sensors or photo return technology wasn't advanced enough. How do you think the robot would make and return thousands of high-quality frames of surface photography? Even today bandwith on probes is limited ; In the 1960s, there was simply no photograph transmission technology capable of replicating those pictures.

We are still analyzing the Apollo materials to this day, we wouldn't have it if all that was done back then were unmanned missions.

[Dave]

So the Russians were just idiots, then, what with their extensive unmanned lander program only bringing back 300 grams or so of loose dust?

Today is a different matter, since telepresence and instruments have improved by such a massive margin, but to claim one could get similar results to the Apollo missions with unmanned missions using 1960s technology is absurd. Neither telepresence, remote sensors or photo return technology wasn't advanced enough. How do you think the robot would make and return thousands of high-quality frames of surface photography? Even today bandwith on probes is limited ; In the 1960s, there was simply no photograph transmission technology capable of replicating those pictures.

We are still analyzing the Apollo materials to this day, we wouldn't have it if all that was done back then were unmanned missions.

Well, that's how the Russians came across to me, but of course I got an American-centric education and an American-centric view of the moon missions, ~30 years after it happened.

Ok, you have made your point; you couldn't have done a robotic sample return mission of that scale back in the 1960s, but I still don't see why you couldn't come close with robots of today.

And yes, I'm moving my goalposts back, from basically "you can do anything humans could do with robots" to "you can get pretty close with robots of today".

[Kanastrous]

If I have zero money and it costs $5 to do something I don't consider important, but it'll cost $1000 later, when I have a job, is it a good idea to do it right now?

My automatic conditioned response was just borrow the $5 now, and pay it back when you can, then.

Every so often you get a raw flash of your own cultural conditioning. That's scary. Particularly considering that I never do business that way, with my own finances.