11 ms·

NASA has such a tiny budget in comparison to other stuff....so they really have to stretch that money as far as they can, and especially considering spacecraft.

NASA has such a tiny budget in comparison to other stuff....so they really have to stretch that money as far as they can, and especially considering spacecraft....its a very unforgiving production environment. Am I making a joke about deploying in production? Yes, yes I am. But I also know NASA really does the best they can and I am amazed at the insane work and effort that they do to make sure spacecraft they send actually work.

fallingknife 2y ago
There's a billionaire who has offered to do a repair mission. NASA considers this too risky to let some random guy go up there and fix it. If they worked together on a plan I feel like they could get this done in a way that reduces the risk, but it seems like they just don't want to.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  It's worth adding that the proposal was mainly for reboosting the telescope, which can still be done later if needed. Trying to EVA and work on Hubble would be very risky right now with Dragon since you have to vent the entire capsule first, and this creates all sorts of optics contamination risks. They're also balancing this against upcoming technologies, possible cost reductions and the much improved capabilities of ground based telescopes due to advanced adaptive optics.
  - fallingknife 2y ago
    Couldn't they vent the capsule well before docking with Hubble? I assume the contamination comes from venting the capsule nearby the telescope.
    - dotnet00 2y ago
      They could, but it might be considered risky or maybe outright not possible with the current design, since the EVA hoses would be different from the ones normally used within the capsule. It isn't that the problems can't be solved, just that NASA doesn't think it's worth working on just yet. Tbh I wouldn't be surprised if they're hoping to get government funding so that they can be the controlling party (vs a private mission, where, ultimately, they have to compromise with the specific things Isaacman would be willing to fund and within the timeline within which he's willing to keep funding).
tempnow987 2y ago
Except you look at what they are spending on the entire SLS infrastructure vs what they are getting (vs other science options and/or space exploration options) and basically your mind is blown at how wasteful NASA is. SLS is a $2-$3 billion per launch DISPOSABLE rocket. The orion capsule is going to be something like $20 billion(!). I think things like launch abort and service module with all the propulsion etc are also disposable.
- FactolSarin 2y ago
  I don't think NASA would have chosen the SLS platform though. It was basically mandated by Congress.
  - _joel 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - el_toast 2y ago
    Same story with shuttle and that's why it looks the way it is and was as expensive as it was. It would have been a completely different vehicle if Congress weren't meddling.
    - dingnuts 2y ago
      Congress is the owner. Want a different management ideology? Get different management. NASA is wasteful, eh? Maybe that's because they have no incentive not to be wasteful..
      - eggy 2y ago
        NASA is neither a public or private company, but rather a government agency. Congress is an employee of the US taxpayer. I think that makes them more of a manager of NASA and we should hold Congress accountable.
      - margalabargala 2y ago
        The leadership and composition of Congress has changed numerous times over the years without change to management ideology. It does not seem likely that electing mildly different people will change the management ideology. Management acted in accordance with the incentives they were presented with. I can't say NASA seems particularly wasteful outside ways in which they are mandated to be so.
tho23i43244244 2y ago
Imagine the leaps the humanity would see if the US spent a tenth on NASA as it does on "defense" (it'd likely still outspend the next 10 countries, combined, even then on the war-dept.). JFK, come back.
- ajford 2y ago
  Used to do radio astronomy before switching to software, and we would joke that you could fund all of US science grants for a decade by driving to the local airforce base and stealing couple of jets and their loadouts. It wasn't that far off from accurate, sadly.
BurningFrog 2y ago
The NASA budget is $25B, or about $75 per American.
- dahart 2y ago
  That’s an average for the year 2024, but as income taxpayers we only pay around half of that, or around $36.40 per American (using the $24.9B 2024 budget and 342M for the 2024 population), or maybe about one week’s morning Starbucks habit for some of us. :P The rest is paid by businesses and other sources. Of course, compared to the amount the military costs & spends, NASA’s really small.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    The treasury receives 85% of it's income from individual income tax payers, 7% from business taxes, and 7% from excise taxes. Around 50% of your taxes go to social security and medicare, and the other 50% are available for program revenue.
    - dahart 2y ago
      I guess we both need to cite our sources. Mine is this one, which shows the federal budget revenue being comprised of 50% individual income tax in 2023: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59727 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59727 NASA’s budget comes from the the federal budget, managed by congress, not directly from the Treasury. I don’t necessarily think that matters, but I don’t know if the federal budget’s revenue differs from the Treasury’s for any reason, so it seems worth mentioning. That said, I just looked and the Treasury’s own website matches the congressional budget office’s claim, and says that 52% of the 2024 revenue was individual income tax … so where did you get the 85% number?? https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/ https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/gover...
      - akira2501 2y ago
        > so where did you get the 85% number?? From your own link. What's 52% + 34%? 86%. That's where it comes from. The money you pay in income taxes is divided between these two categories. So, 60% of what you pay as an individual in taxes goes to programs. They like to break this up so that it's harder for average people to apprehend that 86% of all government spending comes out of their pockets and very little from businesses. In the 1950s it used to be 50% was from citizens, 25% from business and 25% from excise taxes. This is why I think about the problem this way, but these facts only tangentially intersect with your original point. > comes from the the federal budget, managed by congress, not directly from the Treasury. Yes, but where are those actual accounts held? At the Treasury. Which is why you pay your taxes to the Treasury or receive refunds from the same.
go_elmo 2y ago
Its insane how far quality can push things, even with a tiny budget. And yes, Im also making jokes about burning money.. tech is a strange world!
trentnix 2y ago
NASA looks efficient because you’re comparing it to the rest of government. I love the work they do. I wish they did more with what they have. And then I wish they had more to work with. When they are constrained, like they are with spacecraft already in flight, their ability to problem solve with the tools and systems they have available is absolutely impressive.
- phaedrus 2y ago
  I'm sure at NASA as at all government agencies there are teams who work very efficiently and do more with less, and other teams whose mission does not have that characteristic and constraint.
  - Tostino 2y ago
    The majority of inefficiency seems to leek into NASA via our Congress.
    - sgc 2y ago
      I agree, NASA would be much further along without that bunch of turnips.
      - bloomingeek 2y ago
        Perhaps if they used Raspberry pi, they wouldn't be in such a pickle? (Sorry)
    - nradov 2y ago
      Pork-barrel politics are ugly and make federal programs like NASA less efficient. But in this case it serves a strategic value in preserving a geographically distributed aerospace industrial base. This ensures we won't lose too much capacity from a single disaster or enemy attack. If that "insurance" means fewer space missions then it's a premium worth paying.
    - _mlbt 2y ago

fallingknife 2y ago

There's a billionaire who has offered to do a repair mission. NASA considers this too risky to let some random guy go up there and fix it. If they worked together on a plan I feel like they could get this done in a way that reduces the risk, but it seems like they just don't want to.

dotnet00 2y ago
It's worth adding that the proposal was mainly for reboosting the telescope, which can still be done later if needed. Trying to EVA and work on Hubble would be very risky right now with Dragon since you have to vent the entire capsule first, and this creates all sorts of optics contamination risks. They're also balancing this against upcoming technologies, possible cost reductions and the much improved capabilities of ground based telescopes due to advanced adaptive optics.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  Couldn't they vent the capsule well before docking with Hubble? I assume the contamination comes from venting the capsule nearby the telescope.
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    They could, but it might be considered risky or maybe outright not possible with the current design, since the EVA hoses would be different from the ones normally used within the capsule. It isn't that the problems can't be solved, just that NASA doesn't think it's worth working on just yet. Tbh I wouldn't be surprised if they're hoping to get government funding so that they can be the controlling party (vs a private mission, where, ultimately, they have to compromise with the specific things Isaacman would be willing to fund and within the timeline within which he's willing to keep funding).

tempnow987 2y ago

Except you look at what they are spending on the entire SLS infrastructure vs what they are getting (vs other science options and/or space exploration options) and basically your mind is blown at how wasteful NASA is. SLS is a $2-$3 billion per launch DISPOSABLE rocket. The orion capsule is going to be something like $20 billion(!). I think things like launch abort and service module with all the propulsion etc are also disposable.

FactolSarin 2y ago
I don't think NASA would have chosen the SLS platform though. It was basically mandated by Congress.
- _joel 2y ago
  [flagged]
- el_toast 2y ago
  Same story with shuttle and that's why it looks the way it is and was as expensive as it was. It would have been a completely different vehicle if Congress weren't meddling.
  - dingnuts 2y ago
    Congress is the owner. Want a different management ideology? Get different management. NASA is wasteful, eh? Maybe that's because they have no incentive not to be wasteful..
    - eggy 2y ago
      NASA is neither a public or private company, but rather a government agency. Congress is an employee of the US taxpayer. I think that makes them more of a manager of NASA and we should hold Congress accountable.
    - margalabargala 2y ago
      The leadership and composition of Congress has changed numerous times over the years without change to management ideology. It does not seem likely that electing mildly different people will change the management ideology. Management acted in accordance with the incentives they were presented with. I can't say NASA seems particularly wasteful outside ways in which they are mandated to be so.

tho23i43244244 2y ago

Imagine the leaps the humanity would see if the US spent a tenth on NASA as it does on "defense" (it'd likely still outspend the next 10 countries, combined, even then on the war-dept.). JFK, come back.

ajford 2y ago
Used to do radio astronomy before switching to software, and we would joke that you could fund all of US science grants for a decade by driving to the local airforce base and stealing couple of jets and their loadouts. It wasn't that far off from accurate, sadly.

BurningFrog 2y ago

The NASA budget is $25B, or about $75 per American.

dahart 2y ago
That’s an average for the year 2024, but as income taxpayers we only pay around half of that, or around $36.40 per American (using the $24.9B 2024 budget and 342M for the 2024 population), or maybe about one week’s morning Starbucks habit for some of us. :P The rest is paid by businesses and other sources. Of course, compared to the amount the military costs & spends, NASA’s really small.
- akira2501 2y ago
  The treasury receives 85% of it's income from individual income tax payers, 7% from business taxes, and 7% from excise taxes. Around 50% of your taxes go to social security and medicare, and the other 50% are available for program revenue.
  - dahart 2y ago
    I guess we both need to cite our sources. Mine is this one, which shows the federal budget revenue being comprised of 50% individual income tax in 2023: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59727 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59727 NASA’s budget comes from the the federal budget, managed by congress, not directly from the Treasury. I don’t necessarily think that matters, but I don’t know if the federal budget’s revenue differs from the Treasury’s for any reason, so it seems worth mentioning. That said, I just looked and the Treasury’s own website matches the congressional budget office’s claim, and says that 52% of the 2024 revenue was individual income tax … so where did you get the 85% number?? https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/ https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/gover...
    - akira2501 2y ago
      > so where did you get the 85% number?? From your own link. What's 52% + 34%? 86%. That's where it comes from. The money you pay in income taxes is divided between these two categories. So, 60% of what you pay as an individual in taxes goes to programs. They like to break this up so that it's harder for average people to apprehend that 86% of all government spending comes out of their pockets and very little from businesses. In the 1950s it used to be 50% was from citizens, 25% from business and 25% from excise taxes. This is why I think about the problem this way, but these facts only tangentially intersect with your original point. > comes from the the federal budget, managed by congress, not directly from the Treasury. Yes, but where are those actual accounts held? At the Treasury. Which is why you pay your taxes to the Treasury or receive refunds from the same.

go_elmo 2y ago

Its insane how far quality can push things, even with a tiny budget. And yes, Im also making jokes about burning money.. tech is a strange world!

trentnix 2y ago

NASA looks efficient because you’re comparing it to the rest of government. I love the work they do. I wish they did more with what they have. And then I wish they had more to work with. When they are constrained, like they are with spacecraft already in flight, their ability to problem solve with the tools and systems they have available is absolutely impressive.

phaedrus 2y ago
I'm sure at NASA as at all government agencies there are teams who work very efficiently and do more with less, and other teams whose mission does not have that characteristic and constraint.
- Tostino 2y ago
  The majority of inefficiency seems to leek into NASA via our Congress.
  - sgc 2y ago
    I agree, NASA would be much further along without that bunch of turnips.
    - bloomingeek 2y ago
      Perhaps if they used Raspberry pi, they wouldn't be in such a pickle? (Sorry)
  - nradov 2y ago
    Pork-barrel politics are ugly and make federal programs like NASA less efficient. But in this case it serves a strategic value in preserving a geographically distributed aerospace industrial base. This ensures we won't lose too much capacity from a single disaster or enemy attack. If that "insurance" means fewer space missions then it's a premium worth paying.
  - _mlbt 2y ago