4 ms·

Seems like the issue is that Washington changes the mission directive every voting cycle. Hardly sustainable. Is there a reason why we can't let NASA be NASA an

Seems like the issue is that Washington changes the mission directive every voting cycle. Hardly sustainable. Is there a reason why we can't let NASA be NASA and pursue objectives they want without a butting President or Congress?

TaylorAlexander 9y ago
My more cynical belief is that the issue is intent - specifically that these moves are not intended to create functioning space programs, but to move money to interested parties and look good in the news.
dmode 9y ago
I am curious how other countries operate their space programs that gives them some autonomy from voting cycles. You cannot run a space program with budgets and priorities changes every 4 years.
- garmaine 9y ago
  The Russian space agency is semi-commercial at this point. The Chinese space agency is run by the military. Not that election cycles would be a problem in either case regardless. But he real answer as pointed out by the sibling is to use a more academic model like NSF and NIH does, rather than flagship missions. Look at how the Discovery program authorizes planetary probes, for example. That approach could be done for flagship and human missions too.
- wil421 9y ago
  Yes you can and NASA does this today. Otherwise we wouldn’t have any of the mars rovers or the late Cassini Saturn probe.
  - Rooster61 9y ago
    Cassini-Huygens wasn't purely NASA. The ESA and ISA were heavily involved. The Huygens probe was purely European in origin. Doesn't really take away from your argument, but it's worth mentioning.
  - Bluestrike2 9y ago
    Certainly. Despite those successes however, the political and budget process still has a significant effect on NASA operations. A number of past programs--including unmanned ones--have been cancelled or altered due to those pressures. Others have been killed during budget battles while still in the early planning stages. Even during the Apollo era, NASA has had to very carefully pick its battles. And it's not always successful. But it's not a zero sum game: NASA can achieve major successes, while still being tied down by politics. Speaking in very broad terms, unmanned missions tend to have a significantly lower public profile up until the moment they reach their destination. Unmanned missions can die during budget battles, but that's usually the extent of things. Manned missions, on the other hand, have a much higher profile throughout the entire process. They can take longer, are more expensive, and require additional political support from politicians who will in all likelihood not be in office to take credit for the mission's eventual success. There are also far greater PR incentives for an incoming administration to dabble with NASA policy in order to differentiate itself from the previous administration. It's relatively high profile, makes a new POTUS appear "presidential" and forward-thinking, and comes with very little political risk compared to other federal programs they could touch. Explaining that manned spaceflight missions are developed over the course of years, and that bold new policy proclamations are counterproductive is a tricky political argument to make. If someone attacks them for the policy changes, they get to just argue that NASA is still getting money and "working towards the future." Whether the changed goals ever come to fruition is largely secondary. Which sucks, but it's the nature of long-term programs. JFK pushed NASA to the moon, but even if he hadn't been assassinated, he still wouldn't have been in office to for the moon landing. Nixon never once publicly acknowledged JFK's role. When there was a push to name the Apollo 11 craft after JFK, Nixon's congressional relations assistant Bryce Harlow quipped "we have gone far enough in ‘Kennedyizing’ the mission" while another senior advisor, John Ehrlichman noted "such an action would win us neither friends in Congress nor votes in 1972,” suggesting “fall prey to this and the next step will be renaming the moon because NBC thinks it would be a good idea." H.R. Haldeman killed the proposal, literally double underlining the point (Logsdon 14). Despite everything that's been thrown in their way, and how election-oriented thinking can impact its missions, NASA has managed to continue pushing scientific boundaries since the beginning. That's damned impressive. - Logsdon, John. After Apollo? Richard Nixon and the American Space Program.
hux_ 9y ago
NASA isn't a high priority budget item. China is due to do a few interesting things in space over the next couple years. After that priorities are likely to change.
vkou 9y ago
Because without a butting President or Congress creating pork for their constituents, NASA would not exist.
- natch 9y ago
  You’re referring to the pork barrel politics analogy. Are you saying NASA programs are the pork in that analogy?
  - vkou 9y ago
    Yes. NASA was created to fight communists. Now that there are no more communists, NASA continues to exist only as a form of corporate welfare. Congress cares far more about where NASA sources from, then it does about what NASA does. The science (Which half of Congress doesn't believe in) is just an accidental side effect of keeping aerospace jobs in Georgia, Indiana, Arkansas, etc.
    - natch 9y ago
      So in your opinion there are no benefits or insufficient benefits to justify the government taking an active interest and investing money in ensuring that the US has good continuing access to space that is at least somewhat under our own control? (As opposed to potentially under the control of governments of other, possibly enemy, countries)?
      - vkou 9y ago
        This is a loaded question. 1. I believe that the Department of State's obsession with maintaining the American empire through globe-spanning military dominance is insane. 2. If I did not believe that #1 is insane, yes, I would say that NASA is playing an important role in the US offense industry. (Maybe? Who knows, it's all classified.) 3. Most of the people on HN who strongly support more funding for NASA do so out of either their scientific work, Star Trek romanticism, or both. Military applications rank a distant third.
    - Bluestrike2 9y ago
rbanffy 9y ago
> Seems like the issue is that Washington changes the mission directive every voting cycle. With adequate funding, it's not that bad. Just build modular ships, probes and landers. You can get more done by custom building, but a generic backbone can resist political changes. If the focus goes back to robotic exploration, your lander can, at least, carry the robot. The same propulsion system that would take a crew to Mars could take a small probe to Pluto and slow it down so it can enter orbit. Or drop a couple smaller probes on its way out. The design of the ISS changed as it was being built. We can certainly do the same with a craft that can leave Earth orbit.

TaylorAlexander 9y ago

My more cynical belief is that the issue is intent - specifically that these moves are not intended to create functioning space programs, but to move money to interested parties and look good in the news.

dmode 9y ago

I am curious how other countries operate their space programs that gives them some autonomy from voting cycles. You cannot run a space program with budgets and priorities changes every 4 years.

garmaine 9y ago
The Russian space agency is semi-commercial at this point. The Chinese space agency is run by the military. Not that election cycles would be a problem in either case regardless. But he real answer as pointed out by the sibling is to use a more academic model like NSF and NIH does, rather than flagship missions. Look at how the Discovery program authorizes planetary probes, for example. That approach could be done for flagship and human missions too.
wil421 9y ago
Yes you can and NASA does this today. Otherwise we wouldn’t have any of the mars rovers or the late Cassini Saturn probe.
- Rooster61 9y ago
  Cassini-Huygens wasn't purely NASA. The ESA and ISA were heavily involved. The Huygens probe was purely European in origin. Doesn't really take away from your argument, but it's worth mentioning.
- Bluestrike2 9y ago
  Certainly. Despite those successes however, the political and budget process still has a significant effect on NASA operations. A number of past programs--including unmanned ones--have been cancelled or altered due to those pressures. Others have been killed during budget battles while still in the early planning stages. Even during the Apollo era, NASA has had to very carefully pick its battles. And it's not always successful. But it's not a zero sum game: NASA can achieve major successes, while still being tied down by politics. Speaking in very broad terms, unmanned missions tend to have a significantly lower public profile up until the moment they reach their destination. Unmanned missions can die during budget battles, but that's usually the extent of things. Manned missions, on the other hand, have a much higher profile throughout the entire process. They can take longer, are more expensive, and require additional political support from politicians who will in all likelihood not be in office to take credit for the mission's eventual success. There are also far greater PR incentives for an incoming administration to dabble with NASA policy in order to differentiate itself from the previous administration. It's relatively high profile, makes a new POTUS appear "presidential" and forward-thinking, and comes with very little political risk compared to other federal programs they could touch. Explaining that manned spaceflight missions are developed over the course of years, and that bold new policy proclamations are counterproductive is a tricky political argument to make. If someone attacks them for the policy changes, they get to just argue that NASA is still getting money and "working towards the future." Whether the changed goals ever come to fruition is largely secondary. Which sucks, but it's the nature of long-term programs. JFK pushed NASA to the moon, but even if he hadn't been assassinated, he still wouldn't have been in office to for the moon landing. Nixon never once publicly acknowledged JFK's role. When there was a push to name the Apollo 11 craft after JFK, Nixon's congressional relations assistant Bryce Harlow quipped "we have gone far enough in ‘Kennedyizing’ the mission" while another senior advisor, John Ehrlichman noted "such an action would win us neither friends in Congress nor votes in 1972,” suggesting “fall prey to this and the next step will be renaming the moon because NBC thinks it would be a good idea." H.R. Haldeman killed the proposal, literally double underlining the point (Logsdon 14). Despite everything that's been thrown in their way, and how election-oriented thinking can impact its missions, NASA has managed to continue pushing scientific boundaries since the beginning. That's damned impressive. - Logsdon, John. After Apollo? Richard Nixon and the American Space Program.

hux_ 9y ago

NASA isn't a high priority budget item. China is due to do a few interesting things in space over the next couple years. After that priorities are likely to change.

vkou 9y ago

Because without a butting President or Congress creating pork for their constituents, NASA would not exist.

natch 9y ago
You’re referring to the pork barrel politics analogy. Are you saying NASA programs are the pork in that analogy?
- vkou 9y ago
  Yes. NASA was created to fight communists. Now that there are no more communists, NASA continues to exist only as a form of corporate welfare. Congress cares far more about where NASA sources from, then it does about what NASA does. The science (Which half of Congress doesn't believe in) is just an accidental side effect of keeping aerospace jobs in Georgia, Indiana, Arkansas, etc.
  - natch 9y ago
    So in your opinion there are no benefits or insufficient benefits to justify the government taking an active interest and investing money in ensuring that the US has good continuing access to space that is at least somewhat under our own control? (As opposed to potentially under the control of governments of other, possibly enemy, countries)?
    - vkou 9y ago
      This is a loaded question. 1. I believe that the Department of State's obsession with maintaining the American empire through globe-spanning military dominance is insane. 2. If I did not believe that #1 is insane, yes, I would say that NASA is playing an important role in the US offense industry. (Maybe? Who knows, it's all classified.) 3. Most of the people on HN who strongly support more funding for NASA do so out of either their scientific work, Star Trek romanticism, or both. Military applications rank a distant third.
  - Bluestrike2 9y ago

rbanffy 9y ago

> Seems like the issue is that Washington changes the mission directive every voting cycle. With adequate funding, it's not that bad. Just build modular ships, probes and landers. You can get more done by custom building, but a generic backbone can resist political changes. If the focus goes back to robotic exploration, your lander can, at least, carry the robot. The same propulsion system that would take a crew to Mars could take a small probe to Pluto and slow it down so it can enter orbit. Or drop a couple smaller probes on its way out. The design of the ISS changed as it was being built. We can certainly do the same with a craft that can leave Earth orbit.