3 ms·

> Cutting edge R&D is expensive, difficult, and prone to failure. Just look at all of say Google’s failed green energy etc initiatives. Exactly. I find it igno

> Cutting edge R&D is expensive, difficult, and prone to failure. Just look at all of say Google’s failed green energy etc initiatives. Exactly. I find it ignorant when people claim NASA is some kind of cash-cow that drags its feet to get more money. If NASA played fast and lose (move fast and break things), people would die and shit would explode, and they'd get crucified by congress. Private companies play the risk game because they don't have to meet the same extremely high bar of safety that a government org does. I'm not saying there's some waste, but it is a complex process for a reason. Does it go too far, perhaps: I've fallen into ISO hell before, and it can be mind numbing, but maybe I'm just not smart enough to be the person reading those docs.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> people claim NASA is some kind of cash-cow that drags its feet to get more money The Shuttle and SLS jaded people. Of course, NASA didn't cause those. The military and Congress, respectively, did.
Spooky23 4y ago
One of the issues with NASA is that the centers are a source of alot of political capital for their congressional sponsors. So things get funded on that basis. The big deal made about it is because government is more transparent. Big companies are often far more wasteful of shareholder dollars, but they generally don’t have boards as insane as congress.
hgsgm 4y ago
NASA destroyed a shuttle on more than 1% of all shuttle flights, each time killing everyone aboard.
- ChancyChance 4y ago
  Or to put in another way, NASA only had two shuttle disasters. Two is such a small number, right? Funny now numbers can be used. However I can see the glaringly obvious omission in my post that NASA, in its near 70 years of existence has had numerous casualties and explosions. But that's literally my gist: massive checklists, standards, and regulations are a result of that.
- Retric 4y ago
  Hard to say if that’s a good track record or not. Shuttle had 2 fatal missions out of 135, Soyuz had 2 fatal missions out of 147 manned missions. Nothing else is particularly close to those number of manned flights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soyuz_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soyuz_missions Meanwhile, 17 people worldwide have died in on attempted space flights, while 169 people have died on in space flight related accidents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_ac... (Excluding the original V2 program which had even worse numbers.) Just something to consider.
  - avar 4y ago
    Delta II is from the same era and had only 1 failure that would have killed people aboard out of 155 launches. Those weren't "manned flights", but if anything Delta and the later SpaceX rockets show that "human rating" isn't adding any safety worth caring about. Of course you'd want to certify the life support equipment, but that's not why these rockets have failed.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Retric 4y ago
      Delta II only needed to achieve orbit and only 1 of the 4 fatal missions failed to achieve orbit. Soyuz 11 - was a life support failure (A cabin vent valve construction defect caused it to open at service module separation) Soyuz 1 - Parachute failed so again not something the Delta II had to deal with. STS-107 Damage to tiles resulted in failure on reentry, but again no heat shields on the Delta II. Of the 4 only STS-51-L failed during launch.
      - avar 4y ago
        I don't know about Russia, but the US human-rates the "launch" part of the system, e.g. the "stage 1" of the rocket. What I was pointing out is that given the available data it seems odd that we're engaged in that at all. Especially if we consider SpaceX, whose Falcon 9 should probably have gained automatic human rating based on its record, but the bureaucracy persists. I think saying the SLS only had one launch failure amounts to creative accounting, STS-107 was also a launch failure, just a delayed one. If the orbiter had been boosted to orbit by magic it wouldn't have broken apart on reentry, it's only because of how the launch system works that it did so (tiles damaged during launch). So, getting back to a Delta II (or a successor system), in that case the reentry system would have been a capsule protected by a fairing, and mounted on top of the rocket, and therefore debris falling onto the reentry vehicle during launch wouldn't be a failure mode of the system.
fsckboy 4y ago
>some kind of cash-cow that drags its feet to get more money just for the record, a cash-cow is a business you can just keep milking cash from, not one that you keep feeding cash to. It comes from the BCG (Boston Consulting Group) "growth-share" matrix to describe the lifecycle of startups. https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/ext-www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/cash-cow-matrix.jpg-.jpg https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/ext-www.scienc... the basic idea is, a company with a large market share in a growing market will just keep making cash in the future but requires investment now, as opposed to a company with a low market share in a market that's not growing, or the other variations. "Stars" are essentially potential unicorns, worth investing in.
- ChancyChance 4y ago
  So if I were a contractor, and I was billing ridiculous prices for common items from a government agency that couldn't object due to no bid contracts... basically milking an organization for my own profits... what would you call that government agency? Take your time.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    If you're viewing Nasa as your cash cow, then Nasa "dragging it's feet to get more money" as you said makes it unreliable, not a cash cow.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> people claim NASA is some kind of cash-cow that drags its feet to get more money The Shuttle and SLS jaded people. Of course, NASA didn't cause those. The military and Congress, respectively, did.

Spooky23 4y ago

One of the issues with NASA is that the centers are a source of alot of political capital for their congressional sponsors. So things get funded on that basis. The big deal made about it is because government is more transparent. Big companies are often far more wasteful of shareholder dollars, but they generally don’t have boards as insane as congress.

hgsgm 4y ago

NASA destroyed a shuttle on more than 1% of all shuttle flights, each time killing everyone aboard.

ChancyChance 4y ago
Or to put in another way, NASA only had two shuttle disasters. Two is such a small number, right? Funny now numbers can be used. However I can see the glaringly obvious omission in my post that NASA, in its near 70 years of existence has had numerous casualties and explosions. But that's literally my gist: massive checklists, standards, and regulations are a result of that.
Retric 4y ago
Hard to say if that’s a good track record or not. Shuttle had 2 fatal missions out of 135, Soyuz had 2 fatal missions out of 147 manned missions. Nothing else is particularly close to those number of manned flights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soyuz_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soyuz_missions Meanwhile, 17 people worldwide have died in on attempted space flights, while 169 people have died on in space flight related accidents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_ac... (Excluding the original V2 program which had even worse numbers.) Just something to consider.
- avar 4y ago
  Delta II is from the same era and had only 1 failure that would have killed people aboard out of 155 launches. Those weren't "manned flights", but if anything Delta and the later SpaceX rockets show that "human rating" isn't adding any safety worth caring about. Of course you'd want to certify the life support equipment, but that's not why these rockets have failed.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 4y ago
    Delta II only needed to achieve orbit and only 1 of the 4 fatal missions failed to achieve orbit. Soyuz 11 - was a life support failure (A cabin vent valve construction defect caused it to open at service module separation) Soyuz 1 - Parachute failed so again not something the Delta II had to deal with. STS-107 Damage to tiles resulted in failure on reentry, but again no heat shields on the Delta II. Of the 4 only STS-51-L failed during launch.
    - avar 4y ago
      I don't know about Russia, but the US human-rates the "launch" part of the system, e.g. the "stage 1" of the rocket. What I was pointing out is that given the available data it seems odd that we're engaged in that at all. Especially if we consider SpaceX, whose Falcon 9 should probably have gained automatic human rating based on its record, but the bureaucracy persists. I think saying the SLS only had one launch failure amounts to creative accounting, STS-107 was also a launch failure, just a delayed one. If the orbiter had been boosted to orbit by magic it wouldn't have broken apart on reentry, it's only because of how the launch system works that it did so (tiles damaged during launch). So, getting back to a Delta II (or a successor system), in that case the reentry system would have been a capsule protected by a fairing, and mounted on top of the rocket, and therefore debris falling onto the reentry vehicle during launch wouldn't be a failure mode of the system.

fsckboy 4y ago

>some kind of cash-cow that drags its feet to get more money just for the record, a cash-cow is a business you can just keep milking cash from, not one that you keep feeding cash to. It comes from the BCG (Boston Consulting Group) "growth-share" matrix to describe the lifecycle of startups. https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/ext-www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/cash-cow-matrix.jpg-.jpg https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/ext-www.scienc... the basic idea is, a company with a large market share in a growing market will just keep making cash in the future but requires investment now, as opposed to a company with a low market share in a market that's not growing, or the other variations. "Stars" are essentially potential unicorns, worth investing in.

ChancyChance 4y ago
So if I were a contractor, and I was billing ridiculous prices for common items from a government agency that couldn't object due to no bid contracts... basically milking an organization for my own profits... what would you call that government agency? Take your time.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  If you're viewing Nasa as your cash cow, then Nasa "dragging it's feet to get more money" as you said makes it unreliable, not a cash cow.