5 ms·
From the article itself: "Are cuts needed? It is also clear that, as within other federal agencies, there is significant "bloat" in NASA's budget. In some are
by ctrlp 2y ago
From the article itself:
"Are cuts needed?
It is also clear that, as within other federal agencies, there is significant "bloat" in NASA's budget. In some areas, this is plain to see, with the space agency having spent in excess of $3 billion a year over the last decade "developing" a heavy lift rocket, the Space Launch System, which used components from the Space Shuttle and costs an extraordinary amount of money to fly. In the meantime, the private launch industry has been running circles around NASA. Similarly, consider the Orion spacecraft. This program is now two decades old, at a cost of $1 billion a year, and the vehicle has never flown humans into space.
One could go on. Much of the space community has been puzzled as to why NASA has been spending on the order of half a billion dollars to develop a Lunar Gateway in an odd orbit around the Moon. It remains years away from launching, and if it ever does fly, it would increase the energy needed to reach the surface of the Moon. The reason, according to multiple sources at the agency when the Gateway was conceived, is that the lunar space station would offer jobs to the current flight controllers operating the International Space Station, which is due to retire in 2030."
- mempko 2y agoSLS flew around the moon. SpaceX Starship sent a banana to the Indian ocean. I mean come on, let's stop kidding ourselves.
- itishappy 2y agoSLS program has currently flown once to the tune of a cool $26.4 billion. The cost per launch of the final system is expected to be roughly $2 billion. Starship has flown 7 times for roughly $5 billion. The expected cost per launch of the final system is expected to be roughly $10 million. I don't agree this is as cut and dry as you're laying out.
- mempko 2y agoStarship hasn't even reached orbit yet even after 7 launches. When you pay bargain basement prices, you get bargain basement performance. Both have been in development for roughly the same time (12-13 years). SLS already went around the moon, while Starship hasn't reached orbit. Starship is WAY behind schedule.
- itishappy 2y agoTo date neither system has flown a real mission, and SLS was originally scheduled to be operational by 2016. Was there a particular schedule for Starship you had in mind? https://www.planetary.org/articles/20170515-anatomy-of-delay-sls-orion https://www.planetary.org/articles/20170515-anatomy-of-delay... I'm also surprised you're willing and able to wave a 50x difference in cost. Sure, SpaceX is still in a bit of a riskier position, having developed all new hardware. But with what we've seen today, are you really claiming that companies are going to be lining up to pay $2 billion for the privilege of riding Boing? Or are you just betting that Starship won't fly?
- fzeroracer 2y agoI wonder why this article didn't point out that SpaceX has received somewhere in the realm of 20 billion in federal dollars from government contracts over the past decade. Shame no one is going to consider cutting those wasteful contracts.
- ctrlp 2y agoJust goes to show you can actually get into space for that kind of money in the private sector.
- matwood 2y agoMaybe? SpaceX has done some amazing things, but they've also been given more freedom than anyone as NASA has. Does NASA routinely break FAA flight rules or environmental laws? Can NASA talk about rocket explosions as a success?
- aerostable_slug 2y agoLiving close to Vandenberg, I can assure you that the taxpayer actually gets something for that money. I see and hear the product of the dollars spent lifting cargo into orbit quite regularly. OTOH, I have never seen a tiny bit of tangible benefit from consultancies getting paychecks from NASA to make presentations about equity and environmental justice, which was a big push from our national space agency until very recently.
- salamanderman 2y agoWell, the answers are simple. Congressmen and senators, and sometimes presidents (Orion was George W's baby), demand that NASA spend money on stupid shit that NASA doesn't actually want to spend money on, and also demands that NASA spend that money in specific districts around the country to maximize the dollars they claim they brought to their district while minimizing NASA's efficiency.
- yndoendo 2y agoIt is not just that. [0] New Horizons was almost scrapped by Gorge W because of JPL lobbyist that where trying to bloat the project. Where APL was dramatically below and checked all the boxes. It is also the lobbyist that push bloat to make more money. [0] https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/chasing-new-horizons-alan-stern/1127329941 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/chasing-new-horizons-alan-s...
- soperj 2y ago> Much of the space community has been puzzled No one is puzzled. Everyone knows why, Congress mandated it.
- derstander 2y agoThis is a particularly bizarre part of the article to me. Certainly Eric Berger, the article's author who's written more than one book on space at this point knows this. The President appoints NASA's administrator (subject to Senate approval, of course) and Congress controls NASA's budget. How anyone is puzzled by NASA's focus is beyond me. If I'm being pessimistic, I would assume such people are woefully ignorant of how NASA (and maybe the government as a whole) works. I try to be pessimistic instead of cynical because if I were cynical then I would assume a bunch of negative ulterior motives.
- lazide 2y agoHas Congress actually mandated any of this? Near as I can tell, they definitely haven’t
- derstander 2y agoHere is a link [0] to the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. And here's a relevant snippet: "The Administrator shall ensure that NASA carries out a balanced set of programs that shall include, at a minimum, programs in— ... (A) human space flight, in accordance with subsection (b); ... The Administrator shall establish a pro- gram to develop a sustained human presence on the Moon, including a robust precursor program, to promote exploration, science, commerce, and United States preeminence in space, and as a stepping-stone to future exploration of Mars and other destinations. The Administrator is further authorized to develop and conduct appropriate international collaborations in pursuit of these goals." Artemis grew out of these efforts and enjoyed fairly bipartisan support over the years (including by President Trump in his first term, see [1]). [0] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-109publ155/pdf/PLAW-109publ155.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-109publ155/pdf/PLAW... [1] https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/new-space-policy-directive-calls-for-human-expansion-across-solar-system/ https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/new-space-policy-directive...
- apical_dendrite 2y agoYou're quoting selectively. Berger's point is not just that there's significant "bloat" within NASA, it's that Musk isn't addressing that bloat in a sensible way. Cutting people because they are recent hires and happen to be easier to fire means keeping the programs that Berger thinks are misguided (at least for the time being) but making basically random cuts everywhere else, without any regard for impact.
- justin66 2y agoYou're getting downvoted, which maybe isn't great since there's an important point here that you missed, and it might be worth mentioning. The SLS is an incredibly expensive boondoggle, a result of pork barrel politics, and so on, but it hasn't caused a massive spike in headcount at NASA proportional to its cost. There are some managers at NASA dealing with it, and if it goes away, they'll deal with something else. The big headcount with SLS is in the private sector, at the contractors. NASA has pushed back on some of this stupid shit to the fullest extent it can, given the political reality that it has to make whatever congress funds. Maybe you regard DOGE as a potential remedy to that, but firing a bunch of people is orthogonal to that effort.
- ctrlp 2y agoI'm not saying DOGE is or isn't a solution. More that NASA may be past its sell-by date and unfixable in terms of efficiency. It's like watching an old man still try to dance like when he was young. Maybe there are echoes of his youth but all the gracefulness is gone. But maybe its function these days is more of a jobs program.
- justin66 2y ago> More that NASA may be past its sell-by date and unfixable in terms of efficiency. I don't see it that way, but again, to a large extent they're hamstrung by the stupid shit they are required to do by congress. The same agency that has to somehow shepherd the SLS or keep the ISS running alongside the Russians, all just ridiculous political stuff, also ought to get credit for making incredible probes and landers and running the missions that let them do real exploration and scientific study. When NASA gets to do what it's really meant to do, it excels.
- Flashtoo 2y agoRight after that quote: "The key is ensuring that any future cuts at NASA are not indiscriminate. If and when Jared Isaacman is confirmed by the US Senate as the next NASA administrator, it will be up to him and his team to make the programmatic decisions about which parts of the agency are carrying their weight and which are being carried, which investments carry NASA into the future, and which ones drag it into the past. If these future cuts are smart and position NASA for the future, this could all be worth it. If not, then the beloved agency that dares to explore may never recover."
- insane_dreamer 2y agoIf there is "bloat" in NASA's budget, then the first thing to do is to identify those projects which don't make sense, then Congress decides to cut the money for those projects, then you let go of the personnel working on them if they're not needed for other projects. That is definitely _not_ what is happening here. Also, if NASA were forced to drop SLS, that would make it reliant on Falcon Heavy, which coincidentally is made by the person in charge of cutting NASA's budget.
- ctrlp 2y agoCertainly you jest.
- hedora 2y agoYears away from launching = 14 months for the fly around, and about 24 for the moon landing. The gateway’s odd orbit makes complete sense. It lets you move cargo to and from the moon’s gravity well without paying to move the rocket fuel and propellant out of the gravity well. This should be obvious to anyone that understood introductory physics and calculus. Have those been lumped in with “controversial theories” like global warming now? Also, let’s look at how realistic the alternative plan is: Trump and Elon plan to have a person on mars by the end of this administration. The transit time is 2 years, so they need to launch in the next 21 months.
- matwood 2y ago> so they need to launch in the next 21 months. So right after FSD and Tesla robo-taxis?
- itishappy 2y ago> The gateway’s odd orbit makes complete sense. It lets you move cargo to and from the moon’s gravity well without paying to move the rocket fuel and propellant out of the gravity well. Explain.