Future MDA, NASA, and military job loss (Huntsville, Auburn: tenant, post office)

[nasaengineerdotcom]

Greetings space humans..

I got a pingback and thought it was spam, then I checked it to make sure-and here you are... I started the nasaengineer.com blog last month.

The level 2 comment referred to Program level (CxP, or Constellation).
Level 3 referred to Project level, as in Upper Stage.

As far as the facts dispute.. I was being conservative, and using overall percentages, not specifics. The specifics are not out yet. I hear ya on the CxP level 2. I heard 90% yesterday, but was going to wait to see.

[Bamachic80]

Alot of this stuff is going way over my head, but regardless.. I am the wife of a Contractor involved with Jacobs/All Points logistics/ESTS. I'm stressed beyond belief and ticked at the fact that my hubby could lose his job. Not sure how many of you is affected by all of us, but dealing with it firsthand is not fun. Also, makes me wonder if all this crapola could have been avoided if we had someone else in office in the big house?

[HB2HSV]

Originally Posted by jkratze1

Thanks for posting this. Can someone in the business explain to me what Level 2, Level 3, and CxP stand for?

CxP = Constellation Program
Level 2 = Program, e.g., CxP level (mostly at JSC)
Level 3 = Project, e.g., Ares vehicle (MSFC), ground system (KSC), Orion (JSC & prime @Denver), level
Level 4 = Element level (First Stage + prime ATK @ Utah, Upper Stage + prime Boeing @ HSV, J-2X + prime @ Canoga Park, CA)
Level 5 = Subsystem level
Level 6 = Component level

[HB2HSV]

Originally Posted by Bamachic80

Alot of this stuff is going way over my head, but regardless.. I am the wife of a Contractor involved with Jacobs/All Points logistics/ESTS. I'm stressed beyond belief and ticked at the fact that my hubby could lose his job. Not sure how many of you is affected by all of us, but dealing with it firsthand is not fun. Also, makes me wonder if all this crapola could have been avoided if we had someone else in office in the big house?

I understand your frustration. Believe me, it is not a easy time for over 2,000+ support contractors and their families at Marshall.

The shame of it is that this does not need to happen except for someone want to show who's in charge. The money taken away is not being used for a greater good. There's no reason to take the money away. In fact, it is a direct violation of the law (that says NASA can not cancel the constellation in 2010 without congressional approval). There's already budget set aside in the 2011 budget for terminating the constellation program. So why rob the what's left in 3~4 months budget to set aside a termination liability for a program that's not going to be canceled in 2010 anyway? EVERYBODY KNOWS that the congress & the white house will be dead-lock in this issue and we will going into a Continuing Resolution (CR) in Oct 2010 as FY11.

So while the white house plays politics, honest intelligent hard working professional engineers and their families suffer, face losing job & income, maybe losing their homes.

[nasaengineerdotcom]

This just in: Will congress take quick action to block the NASA layoffs before it is too late? I don't know, but it was discussed.

nasaengineer.com » Blog Archive » Layoff Week #2: Congress May Block It

I don't know if anything will come of it. Congress would have to work fast.

[macwell]

Huntsville bracing for 'serious and significant' space program job loss | al.com

[Maya Blue]

Originally Posted by HB2HSV

I understand your frustration. Believe me, it is not a easy time for over 2,000+ support contractors and their families at Marshall.

The shame of it is that this does not need to happen except for someone want to show who's in charge. The money taken away is not being used for a greater good. There's no reason to take the money away. In fact, it is a direct violation of the law (that says NASA can not cancel the constellation in 2010 without congressional approval). There's already budget set aside in the 2011 budget for terminating the constellation program. So why rob the what's left in 3~4 months budget to set aside a termination liability for a program that's not going to be canceled in 2010 anyway? EVERYBODY KNOWS that the congress & the white house will be dead-lock in this issue and we will going into a Continuing Resolution (CR) in Oct 2010 as FY11.

So while the white house plays politics, honest intelligent hard working professional engineers and their families suffer, face losing job & income, maybe losing their homes.

Indeed. Those who voted for this administration should be the first to lose their jobs IMO.

[jkratze1]

Originally Posted by stewdog1

Indeed. Those who voted for this administration should be the first to lose their jobs IMO.

Drudge Report is reporting today that this Administration is secretly working a missile defense deal with Russia to further limit our missile defenses. Stay tuned for more layoffs.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by jkratze1

Drudge Report is reporting today that this Administration is secretly working a missile defense deal with Russia to further limit our missile defenses. Stay tuned for more layoffs.

That's not what Pat is saying:

"“There are no limitations in the treaty on our plans for missile defense,” Lt. Gen. Patrick J. O’Reilly, director of the Missile Defense Agency, said in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

from

CQ Politics | New START Won (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000003684341 - broken link)

No back-room deals with Russia on arms cuts, missile defense - Gottemoeller | World | RIA Novosti

[jkratze1]

Originally Posted by Charles

That's not what Pat is saying:

"“There are no limitations in the treaty on our plans for missile defense,” Lt. Gen. Patrick J. O’Reilly, director of the Missile Defense Agency, said in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

from

CQ Politics | New START Won (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000003684341 - broken link)

No back-room deals with Russia on arms cuts, missile defense - Gottemoeller | World | RIA Novosti

"The Obama administration is secretly working with Russia to conclude an agreement that many officials fear will limit U.S. missile defenses..."

...Despite administration claims that the treaty contains no limits on missile defenses within the treaty text, the third paragraph of Article 5 contains an explicit limitation on the use of ICBM launchers for "missile defense interceptors."

Inside the Ring - Washington Times