4 ms·

I want to believe there are very smart people studying these "strategic" issues, with mathematical models and stuff. That is : beyond the technical aspects, th

I want to believe there are very smart people studying these "strategic" issues, with mathematical models and stuff. That is : beyond the technical aspects, the implementation strategies, science return/cost ratios and whatnot. NASA used to be good at implementing incremental approaches to projects, weren't they? I mean isn't the Apollo program a perfect example of it? If they seem less incremental in their approach to space observatories, I assume they have good reasons. Am I being naive?

lutorm 9y ago
Am I being naive? I think so. The Space Shuttle was not incremental at all, it was supposed to be a great leap forward. I think calling Apollo incremental is also a stretch. They build a rocket that's still the largest the world has ever seen and flew it twice before putting people on it a year later.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  I'd say Apollo was pretty incremental. Hell, it was very much "move fast and break things", given how many things they designed and tested in the 12 years between Sputnik and the first Moon landing.
  - provost 9y ago
    Yes, it was very incremental. They even sent the orbiter around the moon on a mission before even attempting to land. And there were a number of other tests (manned and unmanned), and even ones without an official Apollo designation. More info: https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html
    - LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
      Sorry, but Apollo was a clash of german waterfall with american move fast and breaking things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#NASA_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#NASA_career I assume to have those two directions as two camps in your company, fighting each other generates the most optimal result. If you fail, the cautious camp wins and carefull analysis and slow methodic itteration become stronger. If you win, the move fast team takes over and pushes towards new exploration data and scaling up towards new problem areas.
      - mannykannot 9y ago
        Pre-sputnik and pre-Gagarin, the US approach to space exploration was conservative, and my understanding is that Braun was pushing for a less cautious approach [1]. One issue was apparently a reluctance to lean too heavily on 'Nazi' technology. This caution contrasted with the US' approach to airplane development, which had a lot of moving fast and breaking things (and people.) Ironically, if von Braun had got what he wanted then, there may have been no Moon race and no Apollo program. [1] Angle of Attack: Harrison Storms and the Race to the Moon, Mike Gray, ISBN 978-0393325133
        acqq 9y ago
        Before I get the chance to read the book, can you please explain in short what von Braun wanted that wouldn’t be a Moon race?
        mannykannot 9y ago
        Von Braun wanted to send people to the Moon (and he really wanted to get them to Mars), but I am guessing that if the US had adopted his plan to orbit a satellite with a modified Redstone rocket, and done so before Sputnik, followed by the first human orbital flight, there might not have been the impetus for a Moon race, no Apollo, and no Moon landing in 1969 or any time soon after. This speculation, of course, depends partly on how the USSR would have responded to these developments.
        LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
        Von Brauns push for additional testing prevented the first human in space from beeing american. "After the flight of Mercury-Redstone 2 in January 1961 experienced a string of problems, von Braun insisted on one more test before the Redstone could be deemed man-rated. His overly cautious nature brought about clashes with other people involved in the program, who argued that MR-2's technical issues were simple and had been resolved shortly after the flight. He overruled them, so a test mission involving a Redstone on a boilerplate capsule was flown successfully in March. Von Braun's stubbornness was blamed for the inability of the U.S. to launch a manned space mission before the Soviet Union, which ended up putting the first man in space the following month.[citation needed]"
bzbarsky 9y ago
The Apollo program cost, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program , $25 billion in 1973 dollars, over 11 years. According to https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm that's about $146 billion in 2018 dollars. That's an annual cost averaging more than the entire program cost of the JWST. Of course Apollo spending wasn't very even over those 11 years; for example in 196 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Costs it cost about $23 billion in 2018 dollars. So triple the entire JWST program cost in that one year. If we were willing to throw this much money at the problem, sure NASA could build multiple iterations of things quickly, destructively test them to get lots of data, etc, etc.

lutorm 9y ago

Am I being naive? I think so. The Space Shuttle was not incremental at all, it was supposed to be a great leap forward. I think calling Apollo incremental is also a stretch. They build a rocket that's still the largest the world has ever seen and flew it twice before putting people on it a year later.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
I'd say Apollo was pretty incremental. Hell, it was very much "move fast and break things", given how many things they designed and tested in the 12 years between Sputnik and the first Moon landing.
- provost 9y ago
  Yes, it was very incremental. They even sent the orbiter around the moon on a mission before even attempting to land. And there were a number of other tests (manned and unmanned), and even ones without an official Apollo designation. More info: https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html
  - LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
    Sorry, but Apollo was a clash of german waterfall with american move fast and breaking things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#NASA_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#NASA_career I assume to have those two directions as two camps in your company, fighting each other generates the most optimal result. If you fail, the cautious camp wins and carefull analysis and slow methodic itteration become stronger. If you win, the move fast team takes over and pushes towards new exploration data and scaling up towards new problem areas.
    - mannykannot 9y ago
      Pre-sputnik and pre-Gagarin, the US approach to space exploration was conservative, and my understanding is that Braun was pushing for a less cautious approach [1]. One issue was apparently a reluctance to lean too heavily on 'Nazi' technology. This caution contrasted with the US' approach to airplane development, which had a lot of moving fast and breaking things (and people.) Ironically, if von Braun had got what he wanted then, there may have been no Moon race and no Apollo program. [1] Angle of Attack: Harrison Storms and the Race to the Moon, Mike Gray, ISBN 978-0393325133
      - acqq 9y ago
        Before I get the chance to read the book, can you please explain in short what von Braun wanted that wouldn’t be a Moon race?
        mannykannot 9y ago
        Von Braun wanted to send people to the Moon (and he really wanted to get them to Mars), but I am guessing that if the US had adopted his plan to orbit a satellite with a modified Redstone rocket, and done so before Sputnik, followed by the first human orbital flight, there might not have been the impetus for a Moon race, no Apollo, and no Moon landing in 1969 or any time soon after. This speculation, of course, depends partly on how the USSR would have responded to these developments.
        LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
        Von Brauns push for additional testing prevented the first human in space from beeing american. "After the flight of Mercury-Redstone 2 in January 1961 experienced a string of problems, von Braun insisted on one more test before the Redstone could be deemed man-rated. His overly cautious nature brought about clashes with other people involved in the program, who argued that MR-2's technical issues were simple and had been resolved shortly after the flight. He overruled them, so a test mission involving a Redstone on a boilerplate capsule was flown successfully in March. Von Braun's stubbornness was blamed for the inability of the U.S. to launch a manned space mission before the Soviet Union, which ended up putting the first man in space the following month.[citation needed]"

bzbarsky 9y ago

The Apollo program cost, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program , $25 billion in 1973 dollars, over 11 years. According to https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm that's about $146 billion in 2018 dollars. That's an annual cost averaging more than the entire program cost of the JWST. Of course Apollo spending wasn't very even over those 11 years; for example in 196 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Costs it cost about $23 billion in 2018 dollars. So triple the entire JWST program cost in that one year. If we were willing to throw this much money at the problem, sure NASA could build multiple iterations of things quickly, destructively test them to get lots of data, etc, etc.