shuttle replacement staffing requirements ?

When the shuttle is replaced, are the staffing requirements on the
ground likely to be reduced ?

For comparison, if the shuttle were re-designed today with the same
functionality, would advances in design, materials, etc. allow ground
based staffing requirements to be reduced?

-- David

David Ball wrote:
When the shuttle is replaced, are the staffing requirements on the
ground likely to be reduced ?

Yes, but by what percentage is unclear.

For comparison, if the shuttle were re-designed today with the same
functionality, would advances in design, materials, etc. allow ground
based staffing requirements to be reduced?

It would allow the staffing to be reduced, but by how much depends
strongly on the details of vehicle specification, design, operational
concept, maintenance planning etc...

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"David Ball" wrote ...
When the shuttle is replaced, are the staffing requirements on the
ground likely to be reduced ?

Depends on how good a job NASA does of designing the replacements. If it's
ballistic capsules on top of existing expendable boosters, then many people
at Cape Canaveral will get to keep their jobs. If the next gen shuttles are
as badly designed as the current one, and require just as much maintinance
as a result, they might be able to stay on, with extensive retraining, but
many will get replaced so management doesn't have to pay for 'experience'.
If it's anything like a proper RLV, most will get sacked and it won't have
maintinance requirements for all practical purposes. Of course a proper RTV
would probably be launchable from just about anywhere, and the Cape would
become completely redundant.

So in summary the answer to your question is twice the length to it's
middle.

John

Depends on how good a job NASA does of designing the replacements. If it's
ballistic capsules on top of existing expendable boosters, then many people

Ideally the redesign should make the new vehicle as safe and needing little
maintenance repairs and ground support as possible.

How many doubt nasa is up to the job, and will be unable to do it right?

Please note the design isnt likely to be the least expensive initially.

Trying to save a few bucks at the beginning led to the shuttles troubles today.
Hey this is my opinion

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
It is fairly safe to say that CEV, whatever it turns out to be, will have
lower staffing requirements.

If this mythical CEV isn't going to be a reusable vehicle, isn't it a case of
shifting employees from KSC maintenance facilities to Boeing manufacturing
facilities ?

David Ball wrote in
:

When the shuttle is replaced, are the staffing requirements on the
ground likely to be reduced ?

For comparison, if the shuttle were re-designed today with the same
functionality, would advances in design, materials, etc. allow ground
based staffing requirements to be reduced?

It's a fairly speculative question, because the shuttle is not going to be
replaced by anything with anywhere near the same level of functionality.
When the shuttle fleet is retired, many of its capabilities will simply be
lost.

It is fairly safe to say that CEV, whatever it turns out to be, will have
lower staffing requirements.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

(bob haller) wrote:
Depends on how good a job NASA does of designing the replacements. If it's
ballistic capsules on top of existing expendable boosters, then many people

Ideally the redesign should make the new vehicle as safe and needing little
maintenance repairs and ground support as possible.

Ideally. However reality has an ugly habit of intruding during the
transition from theory to practice.

Also, keep in mind that current commercial aircraft have an *enormous*
maintenance and ground support infrastructure behind/beneath them.
That infrastructure isn't apparent because it's mostly hidden from
public view, and each individual aircraft only interfaces with the
infrastructure briefly.

Even if a shuttle replacement needed 'only' as much support and
maintenance as a 777, it would still be more expensive than a 777 to
operate because the infrastructure is amortized across fewer vehicles.
Overhead only begins to drop when the costs of the infrastructure can
be amortized across multiple vehicles.

How many doubt nasa is up to the job, and will be unable to do it right?

How many have any evidence that *anyone* can do it?

The correct answer is 'zero'. There are many claiming it can be done,
but not one of them has actually operated anything remotely like such
a system.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

If this mythical CEV isn't going to be a reusable vehicle, isn't it a case of
shifting employees from KSC maintenance facilities to Boeing manufacturing
facilities ?


Much depends on the flight rate but if its done properly staffiing numbers will
be slashed dramatically.

They better start planmning on how to retain the shuttle workers till they are
no longer needed.

Otherwise people knowing their jobs are ending will leave for new ones before
the program ends. this can cause staffing and worse safety issues

They need to promise every worker loosing their job a years salary to remain to
the bitter end, or omething like that
Hey this is my opinion

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:22:58 +0100, "John"
wrote:

"David Ball" wrote ...
When the shuttle is replaced, are the staffing requirements on the
ground likely to be reduced ?

Depends on how good a job NASA does of designing the replacements. If it's
ballistic capsules on top of existing expendable boosters, then many people
at Cape Canaveral will get to keep their jobs.

Was this a typo? I would have thought that "ballistic capsules on top
of existing expendable boosters" would reduce ground staffing
requirements because you'd have a much simpler system. Isn't most of
the ground staff related to maintenance ?

If the next gen shuttles are
as badly designed as the current one, and require just as much maintinance
as a result, they might be able to stay on, with extensive retraining, but
many will get replaced so management doesn't have to pay for 'experience'.
If it's anything like a proper RLV, most will get sacked and it won't have
maintinance requirements for all practical purposes. Of course a proper RTV
would probably be launchable from just about anywhere, and the Cape would
become completely redundant.

So in summary the answer to your question is twice the length to it's
middle.

John


-- David

On 31 Mar 2004 22:42:48 GMT, (bob haller) wrote:


Depends on how good a job NASA does of designing the replacements. If it's
ballistic capsules on top of existing expendable boosters, then many people

Ideally the redesign should make the new vehicle as safe and needing little
maintenance repairs and ground support as possible.

How many doubt nasa is up to the job, and will be unable to do it right?

Please note the design isnt likely to be the least expensive initially.

Trying to save a few bucks at the beginning led to the shuttles troubles today.

I was under the impression that many of the problems were the result
of the design having been interfered with by politicians. Aren't there
a lot of features in there that NASA didn't want originally ? Also,
how many corners had to be cut in the design because of funding
limitations due to budget cuts ?

-- David