8 ms·
Commenters on there think he was forced out for not selecting Boeing as one of the lunar mission providers.
by hackerbabz 6y ago
Commenters on there think he was forced out for not selecting Boeing as one of the lunar mission providers.
- Iolaum 6y agoI was thinking of posting the same thing. Especially since his resignation cites political risks...
- growlist 6y agoThis seems to clearly demonstrate that NASA's reason for existing is pork, with space an afterthought. Sad.
- imglorp 6y agoIn which case, he was in a no-win situation. Choose the economical providers and accomplish the mission on time and budget, or satisfy the porkers and blow the budget and schedule.
- swalsh 6y agoGiven the creation of the new Space Force, it's hard to justify NASA on defense related stuff, and given the build up of the private space industry, it's probably going to be even less important. Deep down, I personally want NASA to still be important, I still think exploration has value. But that has always seemed like a side benefit from working on the "important" stuff.
- ceejayoz 6y ago> Given the creation of the new Space Force, it's hard to justify NASA on defense related stuff... The "new Space Force" is just a renaming of existing assets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command). Hell, it's still under the Department of the Air Force and its Secretary.
- koheripbal 6y agoSpace Force budget is skyrocketing. New assets are on the way. My guess is that it's purpose is ABM.
- ethbro 6y agoSeen through the most charitable glasses, the purpose of Soace Force is that any major-power shooting war is now likely to involve rapid space-based asset degradation. Fighting such a war without a unified command over the theater in which that action unfolds seems destined for failure. And failure to preserve or triumph in space substantially degrades planetary military capabilities. So really, Space Force is an expression of "space is important to all the other military things we do now."
- ceejayoz 6y ago> Space Force budget is skyrocketing. As with the staffing, that's largely just a transfer from the Air Force. https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/first-budget-request-for-space-force-tops-15-billion/ https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/first-budget-request-for-... > Most of the funding for Space Force in the F2021 request simply reflects shuffling funds into the new account structure, but an Air Force official said today there is a $900 million increase compared to FY2020.
- lstodd 6y agoABM is pointless. Too easy to saturate aka ddos it.
- 0xffff2 6y ago>Given the creation of the new Space Force, it's hard to justify NASA on defense related stuff NASA is a civilian agency. It isn't and never has been justified by anything related to military defense.
- vinceguidry 6y agoI mean, one of the reasons the US military is so big is because politicians demand bases to be built in their state. Since the federal gov pays the salary of every uniformed public servant, and those servants use that salary in the local economy, it's basically a year after year windfall for local coffers. It's not just big government agencies that are vehicles for pork, the whole government's been that way for a long, long time.
- bottled_poe 6y agoI learned this in sim city 2000 when I ran the local economy into the dirt. Didn’t realise the simulation was this accurate though.
- bryanlarsen 6y agoEverday Astronaut has a great video "SLS vs Starship"[1] which does a great job of explaining why SLS is designed the way it is. TLDR: NASA realized that they needed "big rocket" capability. But because they get jerked around by the president, Senate and Congress every 4 years or so, the only way to get it was to design a program that was "unkillable", a program that was both ultra-conservative and spread the pork around widely. 1: https://everydayastronaut.com/sls-vs-starship/ https://everydayastronaut.com/sls-vs-starship/
- ethbro 6y agoOptimize for the game you're actually playing, not the ideal game you imagine it to be.
- soperj 6y agoMusk plays those games too. That's why you have a factory in Nevada, and a future factory in Texas.
- NikolaeVarius 6y agoIt could possibly be that there is a East coast launch site and a West coast launch site, and its easier to drive these things shorter distances to the launch pad.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tengbretson 6y agoSpaceX's Falcon Heavy was developed on a budget roughly equal to 10 days worth of NASA's annual funding.
- craftinator 6y agoDo you have a source for that? If true, that's absolutely amazing.
- tengbretson 6y agoThis article quoted Musk as saying the falcon heavy cost "over $500 million" and that it had been awarded contracts worth $500-750 million that recouped its investment. So let's pin it at $600 mil for this comparison. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/13/spacex-falcon-heavy-rocket-one-year-later-business-case.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/13/spacex-falcon-heavy-rocket-o... NASA's 2020 budget of $22.6 billion from here: https://www.planetary.org/get-involved/be-a-space-advocate/become-an-expert/fy2020-nasa-budget.html https://www.planetary.org/get-involved/be-a-space-advocate/b... 22.6 billion * (10/365) = $712 million
- TYPE_FASTER 6y agoNASA's budget also includes astronaut training, educational outreach, and a ton of other programs. There's a categorical breakout of the NASA budget here: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy2021_summary_budget_brief.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy2021_...
- mturmon 6y agoTo mention a few more, the NASA budget includes human operations (ISS), and the entire science enterprise (Earth, Planetary, Astrophysics) - things including Hubble, JWST, Curiosity.
- dimator 6y agoThis seems like a pointless comparison. Why should one SpaceX program be compared to all of what NASA does? It would be like saying "angry birds was developed with 10 days worth of Microsoft's annual budget".
- BurningFrog 6y agoThis is in no way unique to NASA.
- shadowgovt 6y agoThe aerosapace community of "old boy firms" is very tight-knit. So tight-knit that there are people with stars on their shoulders who---even though these processes are ostensibly open-bidding---will start asking questions about someone's national security clearances and loyalty to the country if one of the blessed firms doesn't get a contract. After all, if one of the "old boy firms" goes bankrupt, there goes America's capacity to construct missiles and rockets in wartime, and then where would we be? It would be a funny legacy of this White House administration if it succeeded in breaking up the traditional aerospace cartel by appointing someone so green to a NASA executive position they actually weren't aware of the politics here and ran the contracting process as if every player were on equal footing. It'd be the first I'd ever heard of it happening in aerospace. ;)
- garmaine 6y agoThe person in question ran the National Reconnaissance Office before NASA human space flight, so he is defiantly not “green”.
- ta17711771 6y agoDefiantly, or definitely?
- colinplamondon 6y agoI'm blown away by this administration on spaceflight, in the best way possible. Space Force is a huge step forward for building capabilities in space, on the military side. On the civilian side, Bridenstine is shaping up to be the greatest Administrator in NASA history. Under his watch we're getting multiple, re-usable, private launch architectures and human spaceflight capabilities. Plus, significant infrastructure in lunar orbit, forcing the ISS budget out of LEO. All under complete American control.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoSpace Force is just shuffling the deck chairs and creating new management slots.
- irchans 6y agoIt was my impression the Boeing had tried and failed to create a safe crew capsule. I am not sure if SpaceX succeeded.