7 ms·

I don't get it. NASA should re-vector as an overseeing space administration for US based space projects, and let the commercial sector do the actual building, t

I don't get it. NASA should re-vector as an overseeing space administration for US based space projects, and let the commercial sector do the actual building, testing, and flying. Think of all that money saved that can be used for a better purpose elsewhere.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
wefarrell 8y ago
The purpose of NASA is to dish out pork to congressional districts.
- losteric 8y ago
  That, and decades of world-leading scientific research.
  - Rooster61 8y ago
    Underfunded, bureaucratically neutered, glacially slow world-leading scientific research.
    - oh_sigh 8y ago
      I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very science that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a gyroscope and stand an experiment. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
      - Rooster61 8y ago
        I may or may not have laughed out loud in my cube. Well played, sir
    - orf 8y ago
      Do you like your microwave?
      - Rooster61 8y ago
        Uhh, sure? Not sure how this is relevant.
        orf 8y ago
        That came out of some NASA research. A lot of stuff did, some mistakenly attributed, some invented before but improved a lot by NASA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies
        Rooster61 8y ago
        I don't think the microwave applies here. Folks were nuking food with radio waves as far back as the 30's, long before NASA was even close to being around.
        philipkglass 8y ago
        That page does not contain any mention of the microwave oven. The use of microwaves for heating food was patented in 1945 and first commercialized in 1947, well before NASA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Spencer#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Spencer#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Commercial_availability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Commercial_avai...
        pfdietz 8y ago
        Next you're going to tell us NASA invented sliced bread, the wheel, and fire.
      - snackbugs 8y ago
        No, I don't.
    - mturmon 8y ago
      This seems to be a dig, but it has no content. I mean, sure, if the funding was greater, the speed of research would quicken in many cases. But you can't criticize from both directions. Do you want cheaper, or faster? Also, "bureaucratically neutered" is an odd phrase. It's the government, so of course there is oversight and politics at an agency level. But OTOH, the agency's record at not interfering with discrete science findings is actually very good. What point are you trying to make? [Disclosure, I have published research while funded by NASA.]
      - Rooster61 8y ago
        > But you can't criticize from both directions. I can't say I understand how that's criticizing from both directions. The research is underfunded, and as you noted more funds generally increases the speed of the research. There are layers of bureaucracy, which naturally slows down the rate of research due to waiting on various aspects of the research to get reviewed and deemed useful to the agency. How is that attacking it from two sides? And your take on what I mean by "bureaucratically neutered" is fairly accurate, but I stand by it. I am referring to having non technical bureaucrats in the agency calling shots about research they may not understand based on non-related pressures (pork funds drying up due to political shifts, undesirable media exposure for research with uncomfortable results, sudden change in leadership that may not think the research is necessary after all, etc). All this said, I have indeed never been involved with the agency so you might have a better perspective on the matter than I.
        mturmon 8y ago
        In my experience your comment has very little grounding. I have an extensive science publication record from research supported by NASA. Aerospace and aerospace technology (as opposed to science) is more sensitive to top-level agency strategy changes.
        Rooster61 8y ago
        A fair distinction I failed to make, and a point well taken. To also be fair though, I think generally when the layperson (me included) considers NASA and things under its purview, it's easy to blindly scope it within the context of aerospace, especially beside the context of this particular article. Also, I'd think at JPL you guys would have a bit easier time getting funding/latitude to do the research you do vs a lower profile lab, given JPL's track record.
  - wolf550e 8y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaNKtIY6JpQ&t=289 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaNKtIY6JpQ&t=289 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJCenuebAa8&t=1089 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJCenuebAa8&t=1089
  - garmaine 8y ago
    The amount spent on world-leading scientific research pales in comparison to the pork.
- walrus01 8y ago
  > The purpose of defense contracting is to dish out pork to congressional districts. Edited to reflect my opinion of reality... If you look at how the individual subsystems and subcontractors for the F-35 program were spread around various states and congressional districts, creating jobs in various places, they intentionally designed it to be unkillable.
londons_explore 8y ago
This is what they do already right? NASA doesn't actually build any rockets anymore - it's all contracted out to various companies.
- Latteland 8y ago
  There is billions of spending on projects they don't need, forced by congress, like SLS. It's mostly not independent systems - space x is far more separate than boeing and other companies.
  - moreira 8y ago
    "There is billions of spending on projects they don't need" On the list of governemnt expenses... NASA is almost a rounding error ($18.4 billion in 2011, about 0.5% of the $3.4 trillion US budget). Perspective is important.
    - pc86 8y ago
      I think their point may have been (and if it wasn't, mine is) not to cut that funding but to reallocate it to more oversight so the overall pace of space production and research can be expanded.
      - Latteland 8y ago
        Yes my point is not that nasa is a bad thing - I want to increase spending at nasa. But I don't want it to be wasted on basically congressional district earmarks. There's always been some of that going on, unfortunately, but the SLS is a major drain on other things at Nasa. They can't afford to waste money on this. SLS may never fly, it's at least a big rocket looking for a use case.
        ethbro 8y ago
        The problem seems inherent in large engineering projects (> 2 terms worth of work) and the ephemeral nature of politicians. I feel like there's probably a "law" using a constant that states "As a project's ETA approaches T, the actual delivery date approaches infinity." Where T is ~10 years.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
It's politics. The SLS is not about space. It's been referred to as the Senate Launch System for years now and that's very accurate. It started back in 2010 and still isn't going up anytime soon. For comparison the first time we sent anything into orbit (a probe) was 1958. The first time we put a man in orbit was 1961. In 1962 Kennedy would give his famous space speech. In 1968 we sent a man around the moon. In 1969 we put a man on the moon. Compare the timelines and it's simply pathetic. But what the SLS does provide is an immense number of jobs, votes, and support for the congressmen that keep it funded. The last chief of NASA, Charles Bolden, was the person you want on paper. A decorated and high ranking military officer who was an astronaut with a STEM education. What he was not was a political player, and I think NASA has suffered under him. The person that has replaced him is, at a glance, is the exact opposite of who you want. Jim Bridenstine is an MBA, career politician, and has no technical background whatsoever. But he does have a genuine interest in space which he has worked to support for years, and he is, for better or for worse, a political player. And I have hopes and expectations that he will change the direction of NASA into the far more logical direction that you, and just about everybody, sees would be more productive. And I think we're already seeing this. Recently NASA released a scathing report against the SLS which said, without mincing many words, that they're not going anywhere anytime soon if they have to rely on the SLS. The lengthy report is here [1], here [2] is a random media report on it to give some sort of cliff notes. This is the sort of stuff that Bolden, for whatever reason, did not have the capability or will to push through. That report didn't say anything that everybody didn't already know, but actually stating those things was speaking what must not be spoken - and is now something that demands action. [1] - https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-19-001.pdf https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-19-001.pdf [2] - https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/278656-nasa-report-blames-boeing-mismanagement-for-sls-delays https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/278656-nasa-report-blame...
- phkahler 8y ago
  While I agree with you about NASA funding pork projects these days, there is another side. I don't think people realize how important pork might be (I'm speculating this isn't a firm belief for me). Without pork projects, we could have even more wealth disparity in the US. What would happen to Alabama if the NASA funded aerospace programs went away? What would happen to the low cost of living areas dominated by retired persons is social security payments went away? I believe this is why the EU has had problems - they're all on the same currency but countries are not permitted to print their own money and they don't have international money redistribution programs. In such an environment any country with a trade deficit will eventually suffer - see Greece. I'm not advocating such pork distributions but I think they may actually serve a purpose other than getting votes. OTOH some places get pork that really don't need it even for the reasons I outlined above.
snackbugs 8y ago
That is currently how things work, and if you were to topple the current system and try to do the exact same thing over again you will get the same result in a couple of decades: a few entrenched aerospace firms with deep connections to congress on corporate welfare and eye-popping flight cycle costs.
JamesBarney 8y ago
This is exactly what they're doing. Boeing is the commercial sector that's having cost overruns.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  How you make money with government contracting is to bid low and then have huge cost overruns.
inamberclad 8y ago
NASA's job comes from NACA's: to be at the bleeding edge of aerospace research and actually do the things that aren't economical for the corporate world yet.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

wefarrell 8y ago

The purpose of NASA is to dish out pork to congressional districts.

losteric 8y ago
That, and decades of world-leading scientific research.
- Rooster61 8y ago
  Underfunded, bureaucratically neutered, glacially slow world-leading scientific research.
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very science that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a gyroscope and stand an experiment. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
    - Rooster61 8y ago
      I may or may not have laughed out loud in my cube. Well played, sir
  - orf 8y ago
    Do you like your microwave?
    - Rooster61 8y ago
      Uhh, sure? Not sure how this is relevant.
      - orf 8y ago
        That came out of some NASA research. A lot of stuff did, some mistakenly attributed, some invented before but improved a lot by NASA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies
        Rooster61 8y ago
        I don't think the microwave applies here. Folks were nuking food with radio waves as far back as the 30's, long before NASA was even close to being around.
        philipkglass 8y ago
        That page does not contain any mention of the microwave oven. The use of microwaves for heating food was patented in 1945 and first commercialized in 1947, well before NASA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Spencer#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Spencer#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Commercial_availability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Commercial_avai...
        pfdietz 8y ago
        Next you're going to tell us NASA invented sliced bread, the wheel, and fire.
    - snackbugs 8y ago
      No, I don't.
  - mturmon 8y ago
    This seems to be a dig, but it has no content. I mean, sure, if the funding was greater, the speed of research would quicken in many cases. But you can't criticize from both directions. Do you want cheaper, or faster? Also, "bureaucratically neutered" is an odd phrase. It's the government, so of course there is oversight and politics at an agency level. But OTOH, the agency's record at not interfering with discrete science findings is actually very good. What point are you trying to make? [Disclosure, I have published research while funded by NASA.]
    - Rooster61 8y ago
      > But you can't criticize from both directions. I can't say I understand how that's criticizing from both directions. The research is underfunded, and as you noted more funds generally increases the speed of the research. There are layers of bureaucracy, which naturally slows down the rate of research due to waiting on various aspects of the research to get reviewed and deemed useful to the agency. How is that attacking it from two sides? And your take on what I mean by "bureaucratically neutered" is fairly accurate, but I stand by it. I am referring to having non technical bureaucrats in the agency calling shots about research they may not understand based on non-related pressures (pork funds drying up due to political shifts, undesirable media exposure for research with uncomfortable results, sudden change in leadership that may not think the research is necessary after all, etc). All this said, I have indeed never been involved with the agency so you might have a better perspective on the matter than I.
      - mturmon 8y ago
        In my experience your comment has very little grounding. I have an extensive science publication record from research supported by NASA. Aerospace and aerospace technology (as opposed to science) is more sensitive to top-level agency strategy changes.
        Rooster61 8y ago
        A fair distinction I failed to make, and a point well taken. To also be fair though, I think generally when the layperson (me included) considers NASA and things under its purview, it's easy to blindly scope it within the context of aerospace, especially beside the context of this particular article. Also, I'd think at JPL you guys would have a bit easier time getting funding/latitude to do the research you do vs a lower profile lab, given JPL's track record.
- wolf550e 8y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaNKtIY6JpQ&t=289 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaNKtIY6JpQ&t=289 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJCenuebAa8&t=1089 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJCenuebAa8&t=1089
- garmaine 8y ago
  The amount spent on world-leading scientific research pales in comparison to the pork.
walrus01 8y ago
> The purpose of defense contracting is to dish out pork to congressional districts. Edited to reflect my opinion of reality... If you look at how the individual subsystems and subcontractors for the F-35 program were spread around various states and congressional districts, creating jobs in various places, they intentionally designed it to be unkillable.

londons_explore 8y ago

This is what they do already right? NASA doesn't actually build any rockets anymore - it's all contracted out to various companies.

Latteland 8y ago
There is billions of spending on projects they don't need, forced by congress, like SLS. It's mostly not independent systems - space x is far more separate than boeing and other companies.
- moreira 8y ago
  "There is billions of spending on projects they don't need" On the list of governemnt expenses... NASA is almost a rounding error ($18.4 billion in 2011, about 0.5% of the $3.4 trillion US budget). Perspective is important.
  - pc86 8y ago
    I think their point may have been (and if it wasn't, mine is) not to cut that funding but to reallocate it to more oversight so the overall pace of space production and research can be expanded.
    - Latteland 8y ago
      Yes my point is not that nasa is a bad thing - I want to increase spending at nasa. But I don't want it to be wasted on basically congressional district earmarks. There's always been some of that going on, unfortunately, but the SLS is a major drain on other things at Nasa. They can't afford to waste money on this. SLS may never fly, it's at least a big rocket looking for a use case.
      - ethbro 8y ago
        The problem seems inherent in large engineering projects (> 2 terms worth of work) and the ephemeral nature of politicians. I feel like there's probably a "law" using a constant that states "As a project's ETA approaches T, the actual delivery date approaches infinity." Where T is ~10 years.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

It's politics. The SLS is not about space. It's been referred to as the Senate Launch System for years now and that's very accurate. It started back in 2010 and still isn't going up anytime soon. For comparison the first time we sent anything into orbit (a probe) was 1958. The first time we put a man in orbit was 1961. In 1962 Kennedy would give his famous space speech. In 1968 we sent a man around the moon. In 1969 we put a man on the moon. Compare the timelines and it's simply pathetic. But what the SLS does provide is an immense number of jobs, votes, and support for the congressmen that keep it funded. The last chief of NASA, Charles Bolden, was the person you want on paper. A decorated and high ranking military officer who was an astronaut with a STEM education. What he was not was a political player, and I think NASA has suffered under him. The person that has replaced him is, at a glance, is the exact opposite of who you want. Jim Bridenstine is an MBA, career politician, and has no technical background whatsoever. But he does have a genuine interest in space which he has worked to support for years, and he is, for better or for worse, a political player. And I have hopes and expectations that he will change the direction of NASA into the far more logical direction that you, and just about everybody, sees would be more productive. And I think we're already seeing this. Recently NASA released a scathing report against the SLS which said, without mincing many words, that they're not going anywhere anytime soon if they have to rely on the SLS. The lengthy report is here [1], here [2] is a random media report on it to give some sort of cliff notes. This is the sort of stuff that Bolden, for whatever reason, did not have the capability or will to push through. That report didn't say anything that everybody didn't already know, but actually stating those things was speaking what must not be spoken - and is now something that demands action. [1] - https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-19-001.pdf https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-19-001.pdf [2] - https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/278656-nasa-report-blames-boeing-mismanagement-for-sls-delays https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/278656-nasa-report-blame...

phkahler 8y ago
While I agree with you about NASA funding pork projects these days, there is another side. I don't think people realize how important pork might be (I'm speculating this isn't a firm belief for me). Without pork projects, we could have even more wealth disparity in the US. What would happen to Alabama if the NASA funded aerospace programs went away? What would happen to the low cost of living areas dominated by retired persons is social security payments went away? I believe this is why the EU has had problems - they're all on the same currency but countries are not permitted to print their own money and they don't have international money redistribution programs. In such an environment any country with a trade deficit will eventually suffer - see Greece. I'm not advocating such pork distributions but I think they may actually serve a purpose other than getting votes. OTOH some places get pork that really don't need it even for the reasons I outlined above.

snackbugs 8y ago

That is currently how things work, and if you were to topple the current system and try to do the exact same thing over again you will get the same result in a couple of decades: a few entrenched aerospace firms with deep connections to congress on corporate welfare and eye-popping flight cycle costs.

JamesBarney 8y ago

This is exactly what they're doing. Boeing is the commercial sector that's having cost overruns.

skookumchuck 8y ago
How you make money with government contracting is to bid low and then have huge cost overruns.

inamberclad 8y ago

NASA's job comes from NACA's: to be at the bleeding edge of aerospace research and actually do the things that aren't economical for the corporate world yet.