6 ms·
Forget orbit, SpaceX has paid for it's ISS contract about 3x in savings over Soyuz. Congress would be dumb to pick a new horse now.
by elif 5y ago
Forget orbit, SpaceX has paid for it's ISS contract about 3x in savings over Soyuz. Congress would be dumb to pick a new horse now.
- meepmorp 5y ago> Congress would be dumb to pick a new horse now. You're not optimizing for the same outcomes as Congress. NASA is a jobs agency.
- Arrath 5y agoA 'jobs agency' that has produced a whole lot of technical advancements, maybe.
- voxic11 5y agoWhat advancements have its current flagship program (SLS) produced? Maybe they do produce some but congress clearly wants them to produce jobs not anything else.
- jvanderbot 5y agoYou know congress funds a lot more for space than SLS, right?
- voxic11 5y agobut sls is the program with the most funding currently right?
- wumpus 5y agoHave you noticed that most critics aren't complaining about all of NASA, but mainly about SLS/Orion? On reddit, what usually happens is that SLS defenders try to misrepresent attacks on SLS as an attack on all of NASA, parenthood, and apple pie. And so the world turns.
- jvanderbot 5y ago"NASA is a jobs agency." is pretty clear.
- wumpus 5y ago... it's pretty clear that the person who said that is unaware of the full scope of NASA's programs. But that's not the person you replied to. You replied to someone specifically criticizing SLS.
- jvanderbot 5y agoWhy do I do this? There's a logical train here, that I think you're attempting to work around. 1. Nasa is a jobs program 2. A jobs program that produces good tech? 3. Yeah, but what did SLS produce? 4. You know that SLS is not NASA (is what I should have said). But I actually said was close enough. 3 makes zero sense unless the poster believes NASA ~= SLS. I find it fun that we're saying the same thing (NASA != SLS), yet here we are arguing.
- wumpus 5y agoGiven that this was all different people, I'm not sure why you chose to interpret #3 as not knowing that NASA != SLS. As I said, critics focus on SLS. I could easily have made statement 3, and I work at an org with plenty of NASA funding for non-jobs-program projects. And if I were to go out on a limb, I suspect if you asked person 1 what they were mad about, it's probably the human spaceflight program, not science.
- jvanderbot 5y agoMy favorite part is when the poster jumped on your case for defending him from me, a person you agree with. This is too much.
- meepmorp 5y agoExcuse me, I am quite aware of the scope of NASA's programs. Perhaps you are unaware of the politicking that's surrounded the space program since its inception and the longstanding history of NASA as a pork funnel. None of that is a disparagement of the scientific research NASA does. But for congress, the value is a way to send money home.
- ren_engineer 5y agomaybe in the 60s, current NASA is living off past accomplishments
- Swenrekcah 5y agoLaunch technology isn't the only thing space research and exploration is about. It's an important one for sure! But it's just not true to say NASA hasn't accomplished amazing stuff in the last decades with the funds and focus they're allocated.
- shakezula 5y agoWhat are you talking about? NASA is the foremost explorer of Mars, no other country is even close. NASA does plenty to keep its name in good scientific standing and accomplishment.
- wumpus 5y agoDoes NASA have mulitiple programs, some of which are more effective than others? Hint: SLS/Orion is not Planetary Sciences is not Earth Sciences is not Aeronautics is not Astronomy.
- meepmorp 5y agoI'm not talking about that; I'm talking about Congress, the guys with the checkbook. For them, it's a jobs program. They're the next stop for Bezos, btw. This ain't over.
- randallsquared 5y agoThey were the previous stop for Bezos, were they not? That was why the GAO was even directed to look into this.
- meepmorp 5y agoYeah, that's what I read. Do you think Congresscritters won't take meetings with BO lobbyists this time around?
- voidfunc 5y agoNASA is a taxpayer boondoggle. The faster we can transition wasting tax dollars on it to the private sector and dismantle the agency the better.
- Jcowell 5y agoHell no. Space exploration and expansion should absolutely NOT be in the hands of corporations but an government funded entity that contracts out work as we have now. If every government program should be profitable.
- systemvoltage 5y agoI'd vote for NASA + private enterprise combo similar to DARPA programs. Leadership in the gov, execution in the private industry.
- voidfunc 5y agoSpace exploration and expansion shouldn’t be in the hands of the government in the first place. Let the private sector figure out how to do it, pay for it, and profit on it.
- kiba 5y agoThe problem isn't NASA. It's congresscritters.
- yellowapple 5y agoNASA is one of the biggest bangs (literally) for the taxpayer buck in the entire US federal budget. There are countless other agencies I'd be scrapping long before even thinking about scrapping NASA.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoThat's the point. Specifically, the point is to pay for aerospace jobs if we want to compete in the aerospace market. Nasa launch contracts are the carrot for companies like spacex and others to get in the market. Various contracts keep a larger pool of engineers in the market
- avmich 5y agoThe idea of paying for aerospace jobs lead to steady losses in the aerospace market, until deeply capitalistic (in a sense) SpaceX came and lowered costs. Once again: the idea that USA would keep competing on international aerospace market of launch services wasn't working before SpaceX started launching Falcon-9. Maybe the market losses are because of paying for aerospace jobs, or maybe it's just a coincidence, but USA was practically pushed out from the market, until - heavily vertically integrated - SpaceX put the launch price on their website. I think the idea of paying for aerospace jobs in this way doesn't work.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoI'm not sure that we understand each other. I'm not talking about NASA headcount, I am talking about NASA contracts which support private sector companies and aerospace engineers. The USA wants to maintain the domestic capability to for launches, and this means funding technology and expertise. If you don't award contracts domestically, in 10-20 years the capability is gone. No domestic contracts => no jobs => no grads => no rocket engineers. NASA's model has always been to award contracts to the private sector companies. This is why you have SpaceX, Boeing, Northrup, Lockheed launch capabilities. >I think the idea of paying for aerospace jobs in this way doesn't work. I'm not sure what you mean by paying for aerospace jobs. NASA funded private sector manufacturers before and continues to fund it now. I agree the the US manufacturers were ripe for disruption, and SpaceX did a great job of doing just that. However, the entire market and jobs exist to chase these government contracts. Do you think that SpaceX would exist if it wasn't for NASA and DOD launch contracts? I don't.
- avmich 5y ago
- unishark 5y agoSure compared to those same scientists and engineers doing subsistence farming or something as an alternative. But compared to working elsewhere in society as scientists and engineers it's not so obvious what an alternative world would look like. There's always a hidden cost.
- aaronbrethorst 5y agoFrom 2011: Robert Siegel: "As NPR's Peter Overby reports, Capitol Hill has always been deeply involved in NASA's activities, and sometimes seem to regard NASA as a jobs program, as well as a space program." Overby: "This year [2011], according to federal contract data, NASA will buy goods and services in 396 of the 435 congressional districts." https://www.npr.org/2011/07/20/138555781/congressional-support-impacts-how-nasa-spends-money https://www.npr.org/2011/07/20/138555781/congressional-suppo... From 2019: "NASA will often highlight the fact that its SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft support aerospace suppliers. For example, this agency website details the number of suppliers in every US state and says, 'Men and women in all 50 states are hard at work building NASA's Deep Space Exploration Systems to support missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.' There are 106 suppliers in Alabama, alone, according to NASA's site." https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/an-alabama-representative-just-let-the-cat-out-of-the-bag-with-the-sls-rocket/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/an-alabama-represent...
- jve 5y ago> Congress would be dumb to pick a new horse now I don't think SpaceX would be as strong if not that early NASA funding. "SpaceX contracted with the US government for a portion of the development funding for the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, which uses a modified version of the Merlin rocket engine." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_SpaceX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_SpaceX So by your thinking, they could have only invested in old-school-reliable-expensive rocket companies, because less risk is involved... So funding a space company that doesn't yet have required capability but can be helped to get there - is not dumb.
- cycrutchfield 5y agoOr maybe they (correctly) assessed that SpaceX was actually able to deliver on its promises and Blue Origin is not.
- usehackernews 5y agoBO didn’t want to replace SpaceX. That’s not what this is about. BO said historically NASA gives contracts to multiple companies, and BO wanted funding too (in addition to SpaceX. BO “argued that the agency was required to make multiple awards" because it had previously stated a preference for multiple awards”
- irrational 5y ago> Congress would be dumb to You must be new here.
- philwelch 5y agoIf you’re a member of Congress running for re-election, what’s a better sales pitch? “I voted for a slightly more cost-effective space program, which saved taxpayer dollars in a way that is almost completely disconnected from how much tax you have to pay”? Or, “I created jobs in this district by voting to award a federal contract to <LOCAL_SUBCONTRACTOR>“?