10 ms·

It’s really sad to think about how well NASA works when you consider how little funding they get and how hard they have to fight for it. It’s honestly quite rid

by s5300 5y ago

It’s really sad to think about how well NASA works when you consider how little funding they get and how hard they have to fight for it. It’s honestly quite ridiculous. I know a lot of military industrial complex boils down to being nationwide jobs programs, e.g. everything to do with the F-35. But NASA? I don’t think they’re anywhere near as close to being a “jobs program” Off the top of my head, I really can’t think of many things NASA as a whole has fucked up. Challenger & Columbia. Challenger wasn’t a NASA problem, it was a Politicians & Bureaucracy problem. As I earlier mentioned… the people responsible for my initial statement of “how well NASA works” knew that disaster was highly likely with Challenger launch. But bureaucracy didn’t care. Haven’t read into Columbia so won’t comment. So why the hell do they get so little funding… it’s depressing to think about. My cynicism doesn’t think James Webb success is going to bring in much more funding. SpaceX, understandably, is likely going to take more & more space related contracts. I still think NASA deserves much, much better treatment.

dmd 5y ago
I saw a study a few years ago where people were asked how much funding various agencies get, and the majority of people thought NASA was more than 10% of the federal budget; some even went as high as 25%. (It's less than half of 1%.)
neatze 5y ago
What are you talking about Webb was build by contracting defense contractors, like for example Northrop Grumman (primary contractor if not mistaken) and Lockheed Martin who also build F-35, there is YouTube video where Lockheed does presentation about Webb telescope project complexity.
- mturmon 5y ago
  It’s true that Northrop Grumman was the prime contractor. You don’t want to keep all the skills to build this, and all the manufacturing steps, in-house. But the project leadership and key pieces of the design were at GSFC and JPL. Full list: https://webb.nasa.gov/content/meetTheTeam/team.html https://webb.nasa.gov/content/meetTheTeam/team.html
- GlenTheMachine 5y ago
  Every large project is built by multiple partners. But in this case, the overall design and systems engineering was done by NASA/Goddard. Claiming otherwise is like saying that Foxconn makes iPads, not Apple.
dev_tty01 5y ago
I agree with your overall sentiment, but I have to disagree with this: >Challenger & Columbia. Challenger wasn’t a NASA problem, it was a Politicians & Bureaucracy problem. NASA managers overrode the recommendations of the engineers. That was absolutely a NASA problem. Sure they were under some political pressure, but they made the wrong call in the face of strong data. Columbia too was a management priorities problem. That being said, NASA is doing great science. NASA is compromised of humans so they are therefore imperfect, but I would also love to see them get more support. Their $23 billion dollar budget is only 3% of the size of the DOD budget. As far as SpaceX, they are a NASA subcontractor, executing goals specified by NASA. I don't understand your concern. (SpaceX also has a thriving private satellite business of course.) The entire Apollo program was executed by NASA paid subcontractors. That is how NASA operates. Their primary role is to spec, subcontract, and manage. SpaceX is doing things for less money than other subcontractors, so they are helping NASA's budget.
- 2457013579 5y ago
  Parent comment: > It’s really sad to think about how well NASA works when you consider how little funding they get and how hard they have to fight for it. It’s honestly quite ridiculous. Sibling comment (dmd): > I saw a study a few years ago where people were asked how much funding various agencies get, and the majority of people thought NASA was more than 10% of the federal budget; some even went as high as 25%. (It's less than half of 1%.) Your comment: > [NASA’s] $23 billion dollar budget is only 3% of the size of the DOD budget. NASA’s budget is about half a percent of total DoD budget, but that doesn’t tell an accurate story. Most people assume NASA is synonymous with the total or almost total US space budget, but its less than half. You can do the math in 2022 if you would like [0], but in 2013 NASA’s budget was $16.8B [1], and the total space budget was $39.3B [2]. According to that article, in 2013 every other nation was supposedly under a $10B space budget [2], but can’t really speak to the validity of that. I think it’s reasonable to say we spend a decent amount on space compared to others. All that said, not opposed to an increased space budget, more space is good in my book. [0] https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2022/FY2022_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudg... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA [2] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/which-countries-spend-the-most-on-space-exploration https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/which-countries-spend...
newaccount2021 5y ago
Rebelgecko 5y ago
This may or may not help your cynicism, but here's 2 fun facts: * NASA doesn't even get the majority of the US government's space spending * NASA's budget is still larger than every other country's civilian space program combined
justin66 5y ago
NASA certainly has their share of "jobs programs." The SLS is a prime example. Not NASA's fault: when congress gives you money and tells you to work on something, you work on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System > I still think NASA deserves much, much better treatment. This is certainly true.
chernevik 5y ago
It seems to me that there are two NASAs: The unmanned exploration programs, which do amazing things, and the manned exploration programs, which look very much like jobs programs. I'm not an expert, but I haven't yet seen a good science rationale for returning to the moon. I'm not aware of what we've learned from the International Space Station. And the Space Shuttle was an expensive and needless boondoggle that killed fourteen people for no good reason. If someone can correct me on the science we gain from these programs I'd welcome it. Because it seems to me that we get precious little science from the treasure and blood dedicated to these programs. The Apollo missions were a different thing, they taught a lot about the Moon and brought back crucial material like the Genesis Rock. On the other hand the unmanned program does amazing things like Hubble, Voyager, Magellan, the Mars probes, and on and on. And soon, Webb. These have told us amazing things about our world, and we should be doing more of them.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  > I'm not aware of what we've learned from the International Space Station If you watch videos of the people on the space station you begin to be reminded of "remote hands" in a data center. The space station is like a colo-facility that houses science experiments instead of racks of computers. The people on board seem to exist as "remote hands" that maintain those science experiments for whatever science team is on the ground running them. This is all conjecture, of course... but I've watched enough of "Hi I'm somebody on the space station, let's walk around" videos to draw this opinion. The ISS is a science lab that orbits the earth. The people on board are there to be remote hands.
  - ativzzz 5y ago
    Have there been any interesting breakthroughs or findings from the science done aboard the ISS?
    - btkramer9 5y ago
      I know you're asking specifically about results from on board the ISS but here's something more broad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies
scrumbledober 5y ago
definitely not as much of a jobs program, considering probably anyone smart enough and hard working enough to get a job at NASA could get a much easier and more high paying job elsewhere.
ur-whale 5y ago
> It’s really sad to think about how well NASA works when you consider how little funding they get and how hard they have to fight for it. I do agree with you, but have you maybe considered that you're looking at it the wrong way? Isn't there a saying that armies that eat bad food win more battles? Could it be that because NASA is not funded at the level they deserve, they have to be more efficient?
- mulmen 5y ago
  By the same logic we could conclude that the US Military is an efficient operation. After all I can find someone who will argue their funding needs to be increased.

by s5300 5y ago

dmd 5y ago

I saw a study a few years ago where people were asked how much funding various agencies get, and the majority of people thought NASA was more than 10% of the federal budget; some even went as high as 25%. (It's less than half of 1%.)

neatze 5y ago

What are you talking about Webb was build by contracting defense contractors, like for example Northrop Grumman (primary contractor if not mistaken) and Lockheed Martin who also build F-35, there is YouTube video where Lockheed does presentation about Webb telescope project complexity.

mturmon 5y ago
It’s true that Northrop Grumman was the prime contractor. You don’t want to keep all the skills to build this, and all the manufacturing steps, in-house. But the project leadership and key pieces of the design were at GSFC and JPL. Full list: https://webb.nasa.gov/content/meetTheTeam/team.html https://webb.nasa.gov/content/meetTheTeam/team.html
GlenTheMachine 5y ago
Every large project is built by multiple partners. But in this case, the overall design and systems engineering was done by NASA/Goddard. Claiming otherwise is like saying that Foxconn makes iPads, not Apple.

dev_tty01 5y ago

I agree with your overall sentiment, but I have to disagree with this: >Challenger & Columbia. Challenger wasn’t a NASA problem, it was a Politicians & Bureaucracy problem. NASA managers overrode the recommendations of the engineers. That was absolutely a NASA problem. Sure they were under some political pressure, but they made the wrong call in the face of strong data. Columbia too was a management priorities problem. That being said, NASA is doing great science. NASA is compromised of humans so they are therefore imperfect, but I would also love to see them get more support. Their $23 billion dollar budget is only 3% of the size of the DOD budget. As far as SpaceX, they are a NASA subcontractor, executing goals specified by NASA. I don't understand your concern. (SpaceX also has a thriving private satellite business of course.) The entire Apollo program was executed by NASA paid subcontractors. That is how NASA operates. Their primary role is to spec, subcontract, and manage. SpaceX is doing things for less money than other subcontractors, so they are helping NASA's budget.

2457013579 5y ago
Parent comment: > It’s really sad to think about how well NASA works when you consider how little funding they get and how hard they have to fight for it. It’s honestly quite ridiculous. Sibling comment (dmd): > I saw a study a few years ago where people were asked how much funding various agencies get, and the majority of people thought NASA was more than 10% of the federal budget; some even went as high as 25%. (It's less than half of 1%.) Your comment: > [NASA’s] $23 billion dollar budget is only 3% of the size of the DOD budget. NASA’s budget is about half a percent of total DoD budget, but that doesn’t tell an accurate story. Most people assume NASA is synonymous with the total or almost total US space budget, but its less than half. You can do the math in 2022 if you would like [0], but in 2013 NASA’s budget was $16.8B [1], and the total space budget was $39.3B [2]. According to that article, in 2013 every other nation was supposedly under a $10B space budget [2], but can’t really speak to the validity of that. I think it’s reasonable to say we spend a decent amount on space compared to others. All that said, not opposed to an increased space budget, more space is good in my book. [0] https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2022/FY2022_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudg... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA [2] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/which-countries-spend-the-most-on-space-exploration https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/which-countries-spend...

newaccount2021 5y ago

Rebelgecko 5y ago

This may or may not help your cynicism, but here's 2 fun facts: * NASA doesn't even get the majority of the US government's space spending * NASA's budget is still larger than every other country's civilian space program combined

justin66 5y ago

NASA certainly has their share of "jobs programs." The SLS is a prime example. Not NASA's fault: when congress gives you money and tells you to work on something, you work on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System > I still think NASA deserves much, much better treatment. This is certainly true.

chernevik 5y ago

It seems to me that there are two NASAs: The unmanned exploration programs, which do amazing things, and the manned exploration programs, which look very much like jobs programs. I'm not an expert, but I haven't yet seen a good science rationale for returning to the moon. I'm not aware of what we've learned from the International Space Station. And the Space Shuttle was an expensive and needless boondoggle that killed fourteen people for no good reason. If someone can correct me on the science we gain from these programs I'd welcome it. Because it seems to me that we get precious little science from the treasure and blood dedicated to these programs. The Apollo missions were a different thing, they taught a lot about the Moon and brought back crucial material like the Genesis Rock. On the other hand the unmanned program does amazing things like Hubble, Voyager, Magellan, the Mars probes, and on and on. And soon, Webb. These have told us amazing things about our world, and we should be doing more of them.

spookthesunset 5y ago
> I'm not aware of what we've learned from the International Space Station If you watch videos of the people on the space station you begin to be reminded of "remote hands" in a data center. The space station is like a colo-facility that houses science experiments instead of racks of computers. The people on board seem to exist as "remote hands" that maintain those science experiments for whatever science team is on the ground running them. This is all conjecture, of course... but I've watched enough of "Hi I'm somebody on the space station, let's walk around" videos to draw this opinion. The ISS is a science lab that orbits the earth. The people on board are there to be remote hands.
- ativzzz 5y ago
  Have there been any interesting breakthroughs or findings from the science done aboard the ISS?
  - btkramer9 5y ago
    I know you're asking specifically about results from on board the ISS but here's something more broad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies

scrumbledober 5y ago

definitely not as much of a jobs program, considering probably anyone smart enough and hard working enough to get a job at NASA could get a much easier and more high paying job elsewhere.

ur-whale 5y ago

> It’s really sad to think about how well NASA works when you consider how little funding they get and how hard they have to fight for it. I do agree with you, but have you maybe considered that you're looking at it the wrong way? Isn't there a saying that armies that eat bad food win more battles? Could it be that because NASA is not funded at the level they deserve, they have to be more efficient?

mulmen 5y ago
By the same logic we could conclude that the US Military is an efficient operation. After all I can find someone who will argue their funding needs to be increased.