7 ms·
This might be a radical idea, but after reading that article, my thought was, "At this point, the most merciful thing to do might be to put NASA out of its mise
by quanticle 7y ago
This might be a radical idea, but after reading that article, my thought was, "At this point, the most merciful thing to do might be to put NASA out of its misery." Specifically, this would entail:
- The US government getting out of the business of designing launchers: We'd acquire launchers the same way the Air Force gets airplanes: define requirements and solicit bids. This isn't perfect (see: F-35), but it's a darn sight better than the current SLS process. After all, in World War 2, it's not as if the US Army Air Corps (and later, the US Army Air Force) designed every plane that it acquired. It put out requirements and solicited designs from aircraft manufacturers like Boeing, Curtiss, Vought, Douglas, etc. Now that rocketry is no longer an unproven and speculative endeavor, we should do the same, and seek to build up multiple competing rocket manufacturers
- Giving near-Earth science to NOAA: Right now, Earth-focused satellites are split between NASA and NOAA. Giving a single agency responsibility for Earth-focused scientific satellites will ensure that they have a single clear voice advocating on their behalf
- Sending the astronaut program back to the Air Force (or maybe create the much ballyhooed "Space Force")
- Creating a new, smaller, more focused organization for exploration of deep space (i.e. space beyond Earth's gravity well). While this organization could wear NASA's logos, I think it would be better if there were a clean break with the past and the organization got a new name and new branding
- stcredzero 7y agodefine requirements and solicit bids. This isn't perfect (see: F-35) Isn't the F-35 program criticized for short-circuiting a major part of the traditional procurement process? I'm not so sure you can completely compare the traditional procurement process and what happened with the F-35.
- cheeko1234 7y agoThis is a terrible idea. NASA is still the best agency in the world for moving humanity forward, even with bureaucratic inefficiencies. No other agency will have the funds to do what NASA does for non-military reasons. For every tax dollar spent, the U.S. still gets about 7 times the return.
- DataGata 7y agoWhat do you mean by "7 times the return"? In productivity increases via. technology? In just the fiscal multiplier effect? In keeping decrepit, middle-of-nowhere NASA departments up and running?
- unethical_ban 7y agoThe military should be put out of its misery. Less dramatically, I don't like just how much the military is the primary domain of non-military objectives. They shouldn't be the leader in nation-building, establishing rule of law, running propaganda in foreign nations (all state department/CIA) or being one of the only avenues for getting free college unconditionally through the government. NASA has been keen on the idea of shifting their R&D focus to manned deep spaceflight and deep space research, and letting "industry" work more freely i na bid process for LEO. That's basically what is happening.
- cr0sh 7y agoCrazy idea that likely won't ever occur, but imagine if we had a program like the military, but for NASA, where you sign up to "join NASA", and after a stint, you can either stay, or retire out with funding for college (maybe with the option of returning to NASA if the education you receive is relevant for their missions)? In a way, Trump's "Space Force" could kinda lead to that, I'd just rather it not be a military focused effort, but something that advances humanity's best things towards space travel and exploration, rather than its worst (violence).