3 ms·

I'm just a passive outside observer currently in the US aerospace field but the defining characteristics of the ESA seem to be: 1. Plowing ahead with an obviou

I'm just a passive outside observer currently in the US aerospace field but the defining characteristics of the ESA seem to be: 1. Plowing ahead with an obvious bad idea no matter what because of bureaucratic inertia, and 2. Formulating plans based on requirements that have been defined poorly if at all with the primary goal being to keep the industry alive at all costs This is also a problem with the Japanese space industry which I, some time ago (although it seems that little has changed), was sent over to work with. Describing the nightmare of bureaucratic inertia over there without understating it by orders of magnitude requires a level of skill with the English language I am incapable of reaching and barely comprehend exists. One firm had an entire building the size of my employer's corporate headquarters devoted solely to housing workers who gathered and analyzed metrics on the people who gather and analyze metrics. Without exaggeration no engineer could make a decision or perform any task that requires spending money without approval or consultation going up multiple levels and no design, even a simple block diagram, could be created or changed without panels of panels of people chiming in. I've made a dozen decisions today alone, with no oversight or consultation.

lainga 3y ago
We have seen the EU, Japan and (as sibling comment says) almost the US space industries have these problems. Can you think of any national space industries which do not? Maybe NZ due to the presence of Rocketlab and nobody else?
xenadu02 3y ago
FWIW we barely avoided that here in the USA. I half believe that Congress didn't think anyone would meet the COTS milestones or they'd have never approved it. SpaceX delivered a product so much cheaper with excellent reliability and on-schedule that even the worst of the worst pork-barrel lobbyist-friendly sycophants in Congress couldn't justify cutting them out. But they still tried to keep them out of military contracts. It took some political grease (eg spreading facilities across multiple states to make jobs) and a lawsuit to be allowed to even bid on those contracts. Even so... we are still wasting money on SLS which is comically behind schedule and over budget. If it ever flies expect NASA to pay 10x what an equivalent SpaceX Starship launch costs. Defense and space procurement is the least efficient research, jobs, and welfare program ever devised.
- mulmen 3y ago
  > If it ever flies SLS has already been around the Moon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_1
- adventured 3y ago
  While I agree that SLS is a potential boondoggle, in one big respect I like that it exists: I like keeping as many of those people employed as possible, even if it's a de facto subsidy program. I like keeping those skillsets domestically available and primed, spread across several entities (SpaceX, NASA, Blue Origin, ULA and so on). I want us to be able to do it, or other similar big things (a space station, whatever), should the situation warrant building something big. I want those people to be ready to build for early colonies on the Moon or Mars in the next few decades and SpaceX can't provide all the employment. SLS will cost way too much (already does). It is fairly absurd. I'm still glad that it exists. Build it. Write the check. I don't want SpaceX to be our only path to the Moon and or Mars. I don't agree with the cost or the bureaucracy. I don't agree with lots of things the US Government spends a lot of money on though. If NASA needs $5 billion extra per year to subsidize SLS, as a taxpayer I'm fine with it. Their budget has gone from $26b to $33b over the past five years. Let's get that to $38 billion in a few more years.
pmontra 3y ago
If big rockets are a strategical industry then throwing money at them to keep the industry alive is a good choice. The only issue with it is that SpaceX made evident that traditional rockets are becoming the steam locomotives of aerospace. It's time to build something else. When the EU sees a rocket that lands and launches again it must say me too and start building one.

lainga 3y ago

We have seen the EU, Japan and (as sibling comment says) almost the US space industries have these problems. Can you think of any national space industries which do not? Maybe NZ due to the presence of Rocketlab and nobody else?

xenadu02 3y ago

FWIW we barely avoided that here in the USA. I half believe that Congress didn't think anyone would meet the COTS milestones or they'd have never approved it. SpaceX delivered a product so much cheaper with excellent reliability and on-schedule that even the worst of the worst pork-barrel lobbyist-friendly sycophants in Congress couldn't justify cutting them out. But they still tried to keep them out of military contracts. It took some political grease (eg spreading facilities across multiple states to make jobs) and a lawsuit to be allowed to even bid on those contracts. Even so... we are still wasting money on SLS which is comically behind schedule and over budget. If it ever flies expect NASA to pay 10x what an equivalent SpaceX Starship launch costs. Defense and space procurement is the least efficient research, jobs, and welfare program ever devised.

mulmen 3y ago
> If it ever flies SLS has already been around the Moon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_1
adventured 3y ago
While I agree that SLS is a potential boondoggle, in one big respect I like that it exists: I like keeping as many of those people employed as possible, even if it's a de facto subsidy program. I like keeping those skillsets domestically available and primed, spread across several entities (SpaceX, NASA, Blue Origin, ULA and so on). I want us to be able to do it, or other similar big things (a space station, whatever), should the situation warrant building something big. I want those people to be ready to build for early colonies on the Moon or Mars in the next few decades and SpaceX can't provide all the employment. SLS will cost way too much (already does). It is fairly absurd. I'm still glad that it exists. Build it. Write the check. I don't want SpaceX to be our only path to the Moon and or Mars. I don't agree with the cost or the bureaucracy. I don't agree with lots of things the US Government spends a lot of money on though. If NASA needs $5 billion extra per year to subsidize SLS, as a taxpayer I'm fine with it. Their budget has gone from $26b to $33b over the past five years. Let's get that to $38 billion in a few more years.

pmontra 3y ago

If big rockets are a strategical industry then throwing money at them to keep the industry alive is a good choice. The only issue with it is that SpaceX made evident that traditional rockets are becoming the steam locomotives of aerospace. It's time to build something else. When the EU sees a rocket that lands and launches again it must say me too and start building one.