5 ms·

As NASA increasingly relies on commercial space, there are some troubling signs

25 points by LorenDB 2y ago

whywhywhywhy 2y ago
They did this to themselves though, they essentially had almost lifetime head start on SpaceX and a full lifetime until today to compete and SpaceX is beating them to the point it's embarrassing despite just being out of it's teens. Time to stop saying "It's bad that the commercial sector makes government run things look bad" and start asking "Why are government run organizations so bad at this?"
- rapsey 2y ago
  Government entities can not operate like SpaceX does. Which is why they should stay on the regulation side and be a customer. Much better for all involved.
  - andersa 2y ago
    Why can they not operate like SpaceX does?
    - rapsey 2y ago
      They can not do experiments that might result in the destruction of a launch tower for instance. Or even the failure of a rocket. Because they need to answer to the government on what tax dollars are spent on. SpaceX has receive a ton of bad press due to their experimental approach to development over the years. If they were a government entity they would get shut down immediately. Neither can they pay engineers what they deserve. And probably a ton more reasons. A private company has a ton of flexibility. A government entity very little.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        >They can not do experiments that might result in the destruction of a launch tower for instance. Or even the failure of a rocket. They can, or at least they could once upon a time.[1] NASA's problems are all self-inflicted either by themselves or the Congress of the day. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions
      - class3shock 2y ago
        They can it's just we don't give them the money and the ability to do so, for a whole host of reasons. Which sucks, as NASA is probably the number one engineering org to work for in the eyes of many younger engineers.
        rapsey 2y ago
        > They can it's just we don't give them the money and the ability to do so, for a whole host of reasons. Which means they can't. Speaking in theoretical terms is entirely pointless.
        class3shock 2y ago
        Do you not dream of things that could be? Wouldn't it be cool to see NASA hit new highs? I assume space is more than just a commercial market segment to you?
        rapsey 2y ago
        Absolutely not. NASA can dream big things, then give it to SpaceX to execute. They have proved to be capable of delivering on time and on budget. Private industry can properly motivate their engineers, drive costs down and are motivated to build upon technology for new innovations. Technology is much better utilized in private hands and the entire history of silicon valley is a testament to this. It all started out from government research money. > I assume space is more than just a commercial market segment to you? Capitalism has been the greatest force for technological development in history. Technological development by government bodies is a dead end, just like the NASA apollo program. If government backed technological development worked, the soviet union would have won the cold war. I and anyone from a former communist country is absolutely appalled by the way of thinking of so many in this thread and in general by the left in the US.
        class3shock 2y ago
        It's hard to know what to say to someone I feel like I so fundamentally disagree with. I guess I'll just ask that you have compassion for us silly folks that look at the accomplishments of the past by government organizations (such as NASA) that were amazing, inspiring, and maybe even on time and on budget and maybe mistakenly think we can do that again. I know in your mind we're wrong, I'm not asking you to change your view but we don't think these things because we want the US to become communist, we think these things because we want the US to be the US of the 1960s (in terms of engineering).
    - unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
      Stakeholder consultation and marketing is more highly valued in government and "failing quickly" on a multimillion dollar project is career-limiting. The same can be true in the private sector, but Musk has successfully created a different risk culture, even at existing scale.
- rad_gruchalski 2y ago
  > They did this to themselves though, they essentially had almost lifetime head start on SpaceX and a full lifetime until today to compete and SpaceX is beating them to the point it's embarrassing despite just being out of it's teens. Spacex received $20bn from federal government. There's no competition. Spacex is hired exactly because of the shortcomings of what the government can and cannot. Maybe it's you who doesn't have the whole picture.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
zelon88 2y ago
> Afterward, NASA even calculated how much it would have cost the agency to develop comparable capabilities using its traditional contracting methods. The result? Four to 10 times as much. The result is that instead of the US taxpayer OWNING the exclusive rights to the most advanced knowledge and technology in the world, we now LICENSE it from oligarchs who bought it with our money to hold over our heads forever.
- rapsey 2y ago
  > we now LICENSE it from oligarchs who bought it with our money to hold over our heads forever. Oligarchs who went all in and risked their entire net worth to make it work you mean.
  - kingkawn 2y ago
    oligarchs who knew that with their monopolies they could always extract more cash from their market-capture on demand
  - wat10000 2y ago
    [dead]
  - rad_gruchalski 2y ago
    Take spacex as an example: spacex received $20bn in funding from federal government. That's 10% of the pre-Trump-election net worth of the oligarch owner.
    - ethagknight 2y ago
      And SpaceX has done exactly what they were asked to do with that money. Great value for the taxpayer.
      - rad_gruchalski 2y ago
        Indeed. Because they whole deal of them getting that money was to do the job for NASA the way NASA cannot due to public scrutiny.
class3shock 2y ago
This article concludes with a quote stating NASA needs to remove unnecessary ("gold plated") requirements and that they can't afford Artemis without commercial support. I don't know if I agree with either totally but both are a symptom of decades long cutting to NASA. Both in terms of overall money and in terms of missions. Engineering organizations (I'm speaking towards mechanical engineering oriented ones) thrive when then are consistently trying to do bigger and better things. When they are constantly taking on new technical problems, new missions, and being asked to do more and funded to do more. In this situation they draw many of the best people because they are doing many of the most challenging things, they keep these people around as they keep throwing new problems at them, and ultimately create an organization of experienced mentors and enthusiastic mentees. As soon as you start to cut doing new and cool things you loose the young enthusiastic people coming in. As soon as you start cutting capability you loose experienced mentors. As you loose both of those populations your ability to take on challenges declines, your understanding of why you do things declines, and your ability to advance your processes declines. Overall you move from an organization that is advancing to one that is struggling just to do things the way it did before.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ethagknight 2y ago
Before relying on the US commercial space industry, we were relying on Europe and Russia. Now we’ve leap frogged the whole industry by a decade or more. Is that mentioned in the article? No mention of Russia.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  The author of this article has done lots about Russia. So much so that the former head of the Russian space agency has tagged him a "war criminal".
mass_and_energy 2y ago
Not to throw cold water on Artemis, because I'm enthralled by the mission, but... With all the things awry in our countries and the world at large, is going to the moon the best use of government money? There's an opioid epidemic, a housing crisis, a mental health crisis, food is getting more and more expensive, and climate change is exacerbating the pre-existing environmental racism not to mention resulting in an influx of climate refugees. Is putting people on the moon for scientific exploration and human pride really a priority, budget-wise? That's not a rhetorical question, it's an invitation for discussion.
- kcplate 2y ago
  My opinion is yes, because in reality the alternative is none of the things you mentioned will get a single dollar more than they would if we don’t do it. Call me cynical but if the alternative is the same, I would rather have human knowledge increase through space and scientific exploration.
- exe34 2y ago
  At a time when predators are hunting down our brethren, when entire crops of fruit have been lost to changing climate and our youth are starving, is it really time to send our bravest and most adventurous people out into the plains of Africa? We should solve the problems we have up here in the trees first!
- Jeremy1026 2y ago
  Science spending attributed to .54% of the 2024 Federal budget. While the government isn't spending $0 on NASA, it's budget is barely a drop in the bucket.
- hackeraccount 2y ago
  10 seconds of Googling says Artemis is 10 billion a year. Throw that money at any other item - is it improved to the degree that's it's worth giving up Artemis? If the US Federal government spent 77 billion instead of 67 billion on housing assistance how much better off would people be? This is all stuff that's hard to put a dollar figure on, which is to say they're political choices.
readthenotes1 2y ago
I'm a little confused and need some help. My understanding is that NASA relied on external contractors for space launches forever (e.g., Douglas Aircraft, Morton thiokol). Is it a question of who does the design (currently outsourced to Lockheedless and SpaceX?),. construction, maintenance, etc.? Or is a question of who owns the IP?
Melisa086 2y ago
Dr Hope love spell, you just fixed my relationship. We have been fighting every day and you’ve just fixed it and I cannot thank you enough. Thank you Dr Hope for saving my broken relationship and my boyfriend is back to me. If you have any problem in marriage/relationship. contact him and i guarantee you that he will help you. Here’s his contact: Email him at: marriagehelper91@gmail.com /WhatsApp him: +2349137446738 Thank you Dr you're the most wonderful spiritual Dr I have ever seen.

25 points by LorenDB 2y ago

They did this to themselves though, they essentially had almost lifetime head start on SpaceX and a full lifetime until today to compete and SpaceX is beating them to the point it's embarrassing despite just being out of it's teens. Time to stop saying "It's bad that the commercial sector makes government run things look bad" and start asking "Why are government run organizations so bad at this?"

rapsey 2y ago
Government entities can not operate like SpaceX does. Which is why they should stay on the regulation side and be a customer. Much better for all involved.
- andersa 2y ago
  Why can they not operate like SpaceX does?
  - rapsey 2y ago
    They can not do experiments that might result in the destruction of a launch tower for instance. Or even the failure of a rocket. Because they need to answer to the government on what tax dollars are spent on. SpaceX has receive a ton of bad press due to their experimental approach to development over the years. If they were a government entity they would get shut down immediately. Neither can they pay engineers what they deserve. And probably a ton more reasons. A private company has a ton of flexibility. A government entity very little.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >They can not do experiments that might result in the destruction of a launch tower for instance. Or even the failure of a rocket. They can, or at least they could once upon a time.[1] NASA's problems are all self-inflicted either by themselves or the Congress of the day. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions
    - class3shock 2y ago
      They can it's just we don't give them the money and the ability to do so, for a whole host of reasons. Which sucks, as NASA is probably the number one engineering org to work for in the eyes of many younger engineers.
      - rapsey 2y ago
        > They can it's just we don't give them the money and the ability to do so, for a whole host of reasons. Which means they can't. Speaking in theoretical terms is entirely pointless.
        class3shock 2y ago
        Do you not dream of things that could be? Wouldn't it be cool to see NASA hit new highs? I assume space is more than just a commercial market segment to you?
        rapsey 2y ago
        Absolutely not. NASA can dream big things, then give it to SpaceX to execute. They have proved to be capable of delivering on time and on budget. Private industry can properly motivate their engineers, drive costs down and are motivated to build upon technology for new innovations. Technology is much better utilized in private hands and the entire history of silicon valley is a testament to this. It all started out from government research money. > I assume space is more than just a commercial market segment to you? Capitalism has been the greatest force for technological development in history. Technological development by government bodies is a dead end, just like the NASA apollo program. If government backed technological development worked, the soviet union would have won the cold war. I and anyone from a former communist country is absolutely appalled by the way of thinking of so many in this thread and in general by the left in the US.
        class3shock 2y ago
        It's hard to know what to say to someone I feel like I so fundamentally disagree with. I guess I'll just ask that you have compassion for us silly folks that look at the accomplishments of the past by government organizations (such as NASA) that were amazing, inspiring, and maybe even on time and on budget and maybe mistakenly think we can do that again. I know in your mind we're wrong, I'm not asking you to change your view but we don't think these things because we want the US to become communist, we think these things because we want the US to be the US of the 1960s (in terms of engineering).
  - unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
    Stakeholder consultation and marketing is more highly valued in government and "failing quickly" on a multimillion dollar project is career-limiting. The same can be true in the private sector, but Musk has successfully created a different risk culture, even at existing scale.
rad_gruchalski 2y ago
> They did this to themselves though, they essentially had almost lifetime head start on SpaceX and a full lifetime until today to compete and SpaceX is beating them to the point it's embarrassing despite just being out of it's teens. Spacex received $20bn from federal government. There's no competition. Spacex is hired exactly because of the shortcomings of what the government can and cannot. Maybe it's you who doesn't have the whole picture.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

zelon88 2y ago

> Afterward, NASA even calculated how much it would have cost the agency to develop comparable capabilities using its traditional contracting methods. The result? Four to 10 times as much. The result is that instead of the US taxpayer OWNING the exclusive rights to the most advanced knowledge and technology in the world, we now LICENSE it from oligarchs who bought it with our money to hold over our heads forever.

rapsey 2y ago
> we now LICENSE it from oligarchs who bought it with our money to hold over our heads forever. Oligarchs who went all in and risked their entire net worth to make it work you mean.
- kingkawn 2y ago
  oligarchs who knew that with their monopolies they could always extract more cash from their market-capture on demand
- wat10000 2y ago
  [dead]
- rad_gruchalski 2y ago
  Take spacex as an example: spacex received $20bn in funding from federal government. That's 10% of the pre-Trump-election net worth of the oligarch owner.
  - ethagknight 2y ago
    And SpaceX has done exactly what they were asked to do with that money. Great value for the taxpayer.
    - rad_gruchalski 2y ago
      Indeed. Because they whole deal of them getting that money was to do the job for NASA the way NASA cannot due to public scrutiny.

class3shock 2y ago

This article concludes with a quote stating NASA needs to remove unnecessary ("gold plated") requirements and that they can't afford Artemis without commercial support. I don't know if I agree with either totally but both are a symptom of decades long cutting to NASA. Both in terms of overall money and in terms of missions. Engineering organizations (I'm speaking towards mechanical engineering oriented ones) thrive when then are consistently trying to do bigger and better things. When they are constantly taking on new technical problems, new missions, and being asked to do more and funded to do more. In this situation they draw many of the best people because they are doing many of the most challenging things, they keep these people around as they keep throwing new problems at them, and ultimately create an organization of experienced mentors and enthusiastic mentees. As soon as you start to cut doing new and cool things you loose the young enthusiastic people coming in. As soon as you start cutting capability you loose experienced mentors. As you loose both of those populations your ability to take on challenges declines, your understanding of why you do things declines, and your ability to advance your processes declines. Overall you move from an organization that is advancing to one that is struggling just to do things the way it did before.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ethagknight 2y ago

Before relying on the US commercial space industry, we were relying on Europe and Russia. Now we’ve leap frogged the whole industry by a decade or more. Is that mentioned in the article? No mention of Russia.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
The author of this article has done lots about Russia. So much so that the former head of the Russian space agency has tagged him a "war criminal".

mass_and_energy 2y ago

Not to throw cold water on Artemis, because I'm enthralled by the mission, but... With all the things awry in our countries and the world at large, is going to the moon the best use of government money? There's an opioid epidemic, a housing crisis, a mental health crisis, food is getting more and more expensive, and climate change is exacerbating the pre-existing environmental racism not to mention resulting in an influx of climate refugees. Is putting people on the moon for scientific exploration and human pride really a priority, budget-wise? That's not a rhetorical question, it's an invitation for discussion.

kcplate 2y ago
My opinion is yes, because in reality the alternative is none of the things you mentioned will get a single dollar more than they would if we don’t do it. Call me cynical but if the alternative is the same, I would rather have human knowledge increase through space and scientific exploration.
exe34 2y ago
At a time when predators are hunting down our brethren, when entire crops of fruit have been lost to changing climate and our youth are starving, is it really time to send our bravest and most adventurous people out into the plains of Africa? We should solve the problems we have up here in the trees first!
Jeremy1026 2y ago
Science spending attributed to .54% of the 2024 Federal budget. While the government isn't spending $0 on NASA, it's budget is barely a drop in the bucket.
hackeraccount 2y ago
10 seconds of Googling says Artemis is 10 billion a year. Throw that money at any other item - is it improved to the degree that's it's worth giving up Artemis? If the US Federal government spent 77 billion instead of 67 billion on housing assistance how much better off would people be? This is all stuff that's hard to put a dollar figure on, which is to say they're political choices.

readthenotes1 2y ago

I'm a little confused and need some help. My understanding is that NASA relied on external contractors for space launches forever (e.g., Douglas Aircraft, Morton thiokol). Is it a question of who does the design (currently outsourced to Lockheedless and SpaceX?),. construction, maintenance, etc.? Or is a question of who owns the IP?

Melisa086 2y ago

Dr Hope love spell, you just fixed my relationship. We have been fighting every day and you’ve just fixed it and I cannot thank you enough. Thank you Dr Hope for saving my broken relationship and my boyfriend is back to me. If you have any problem in marriage/relationship. contact him and i guarantee you that he will help you. Here’s his contact: Email him at: marriagehelper91@gmail.com /WhatsApp him: +2349137446738 Thank you Dr you're the most wonderful spiritual Dr I have ever seen.