5 ms·

Or is the problem that each incoming administration wants to rejigger the programs? If each president (thinking about Bush and Obama) would just hand the scient

Or is the problem that each incoming administration wants to rejigger the programs? If each president (thinking about Bush and Obama) would just hand the scientists and engineers a few billion dollars and tell them "go do something that'll make America proud," we'd have something to be proud of by now.

brianberns 10y ago
We'd still need someone to provide a singular vision and focus. Human nature says you can't just throw money at a group of people and expect that to happen on its own.
- endymi0n 10y ago
  100 times this. Providing "stupid money" but no vision and no accountability leads to the "but 4 billion of the budget needs to be spent in MY state - but then we'll have to transport the boosters by train - but then we'll have to cut them apart - but then we have to use complex o-ring seals instead of simply welding them together -> Challenger blows up" bikeshedding of the shuttle era.
- dnautics 10y ago
  Actually it's scientifically been shown that you can just throw money at people. However, that study was not conducted on scientists, whom I am certain will squander it as they do now.
- justin66 10y ago
  I wonder if you think the vision needed to advance science is stronger among NASA scientists or US politicians.
- haikuginger 10y ago
  Yeah, Bell Labs never did anything really important.
akiselev 10y ago
The Presidents don't have the final say in how much money each agency gets and how many Congressmen get a shiny new NASA facility or contract in their district. The slice of the budget that the executive branch has the authority to allocate is miniscule compared to debt payments, entitlements, and military spending. NASA's problem isn't really the money, it's the ridiculous bureaucracy and systemic inneficies that inevitably occur when you are forced by opportunists to fragment your supply chain and distribute your engineering infrastructure across the entire country. The constant change in executive policy is a consequence of NASA's inability to achieve its potential in the face of a functionaly hostile legislature.
- robryk 10y ago
  The same systemic problems caused the loss of Challenger: the reason why SRBs were segmented was that they had to be transported over rail from another state, instead of over barge from a nearby factory. Arguably the loss of Columbia was also partially caused by the same systemic problems: shuttle had wings (instead of a lifting body shape) due to Air Force's wishes. IIRC this necessitated the existence of the ET.

brianberns 10y ago

We'd still need someone to provide a singular vision and focus. Human nature says you can't just throw money at a group of people and expect that to happen on its own.

endymi0n 10y ago
100 times this. Providing "stupid money" but no vision and no accountability leads to the "but 4 billion of the budget needs to be spent in MY state - but then we'll have to transport the boosters by train - but then we'll have to cut them apart - but then we have to use complex o-ring seals instead of simply welding them together -> Challenger blows up" bikeshedding of the shuttle era.
dnautics 10y ago
Actually it's scientifically been shown that you can just throw money at people. However, that study was not conducted on scientists, whom I am certain will squander it as they do now.
justin66 10y ago
I wonder if you think the vision needed to advance science is stronger among NASA scientists or US politicians.
haikuginger 10y ago
Yeah, Bell Labs never did anything really important.

akiselev 10y ago

The Presidents don't have the final say in how much money each agency gets and how many Congressmen get a shiny new NASA facility or contract in their district. The slice of the budget that the executive branch has the authority to allocate is miniscule compared to debt payments, entitlements, and military spending. NASA's problem isn't really the money, it's the ridiculous bureaucracy and systemic inneficies that inevitably occur when you are forced by opportunists to fragment your supply chain and distribute your engineering infrastructure across the entire country. The constant change in executive policy is a consequence of NASA's inability to achieve its potential in the face of a functionaly hostile legislature.

robryk 10y ago
The same systemic problems caused the loss of Challenger: the reason why SRBs were segmented was that they had to be transported over rail from another state, instead of over barge from a nearby factory. Arguably the loss of Columbia was also partially caused by the same systemic problems: shuttle had wings (instead of a lifting body shape) due to Air Force's wishes. IIRC this necessitated the existence of the ET.