5 ms·

Because Nasa is renowned to be an efficient organisation which has in recent times made good decisions? The space shuttle springs to mind.

WesleyLivesay 2y ago
Many of those leaving Nasa today are probationary employees in their first years of employment. This isn't making up for past mistakes, it is hurting Nasa's future.
tqi 2y ago
Can it not be simultaneously true that NASA has areas of bloat/inefficiency AND haphazard amateurish cuts will cause more harm than good?
- mcmcmc 2y ago
  Impossible, nuance is dead
  - tqi 2y ago
    Yup, and empathy along with it.
EdwardCoffin 2y ago
I like this description of how the space shuttle got this way [1]. I don't think I'd hold NASA responsible for that. Edit: I understand that The Space Shuttle Decision by T. A. Heppenheimer [2] contains a lot of the information that's in the Metafilter post, but in a more sober tone. The PDF is available direct from NASA [2]. It does at least mention that NASA itself wanted to cancel the shuttle program. [1] https://www.metafilter.com/48654/Jan-28-1986#1189388 https://www.metafilter.com/48654/Jan-28-1986#1189388 [2] https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/sp-4221.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/sp-4221.pdf
mullingitover 2y ago
Wasn’t the space shuttle program dictated by the needs of the military? Something tells me any NASA military pork won’t be touched, it’ll be the scientists.
- hedora 2y ago
  No. It was kept alive by congressional decree for at least a decade after NASA wanted to wind it down. The explicit reason for this was that parts of the space shuttle were built in 50 states, and the “economic stimulus” trumped things like science or national security.
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    Answered my own question. Yes[1]. You're talking about the how of the space shuttle construction but not the why. It was indeed intended for at least some military use, and it was originally intended to be capable of polar orbits and would've launched from Vandenberg. Of course there was major government pork and horse trading to southern states but this was a side effect of the project, not the primary driver. [1] https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1398/did-the-space-shuttle-have-military-uses https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1398/did-the-space...
- cratermoon 2y ago
  The design was dictated in part by military needs, but then the DOD figured out their requirements resulted in such a compromised design that it was cheaper and more reliable to keep launching Titan III and later expendables.
lbarron6868 2y ago
Please tell me what large organization out there doesn't have at least a few inefficiencies. This notion that only the federal government is bloated and inefficient is so untrue. Every try dealing with or working for a big telecom?
throwawaymaths 2y ago
the SLS springs to mind.
- hedora 2y ago
  Boeing’s SLS? I don’t think cutting NASA employees is going to help much. https://www.boeing.com/space/space-launch-system#rocket https://www.boeing.com/space/space-launch-system#rocket
nocoiner 2y ago
Are you referring to space disasters that occurred more than 20 and nearly 40 years ago as “recent”? Or are you talking about the design of the space shuttle, that literally occurred during the Nixon administration?
sightbroke 2y ago
What does "efficient" mean for an organization such as NASA? A: I am not convinced GOOD science and GOOD engineering means a quick turn around. So in my opinion having less quantity for higher quality output is efficient. B: While there are many missions and projects at NASA it seems a bit unfair to judge their workings when they seem to have major changes in direction every 4-8 years mandated upon them.
jjk166 2y ago
Space Shuttle hasn't flown in 14 years, the decision to retire it was made 21 years ago, they stopped making space shuttles 33 years ago, the system was designed over 50 years ago when the current NASA administrator was a child. What are these "recent times" you are referring to?
- jaredmcombs 2y ago
  SLS
  - magicalist 2y ago
    > SLS Mandated by Congress.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
From my reading of the shuttle history, you can blame the USAF for the vehicle we finally got.
angst_ridden 2y ago
Of course, the Space Shuttle (and SLS, for that matter), are bad designs and inefficient not because NASA teams design them that way, but because of the way Congress funds things. They add mandates, and require the contracts to be spread across lots of organizations and states to "budget proof" the projects. For example, NASA's original space plane was a much better design that the shuttle, but they were forced to make it a joint project with the Air Force to get budget. The different requirements added up, and eventually we got the system we've all seen.
callamdelaney 2y ago
I mean the decision to award a contract to Boeing is a much more recent gaff. What a joke!

WesleyLivesay 2y ago

Many of those leaving Nasa today are probationary employees in their first years of employment. This isn't making up for past mistakes, it is hurting Nasa's future.

tqi 2y ago

Can it not be simultaneously true that NASA has areas of bloat/inefficiency AND haphazard amateurish cuts will cause more harm than good?

mcmcmc 2y ago
Impossible, nuance is dead
- tqi 2y ago
  Yup, and empathy along with it.

EdwardCoffin 2y ago

I like this description of how the space shuttle got this way [1]. I don't think I'd hold NASA responsible for that. Edit: I understand that The Space Shuttle Decision by T. A. Heppenheimer [2] contains a lot of the information that's in the Metafilter post, but in a more sober tone. The PDF is available direct from NASA [2]. It does at least mention that NASA itself wanted to cancel the shuttle program. [1] https://www.metafilter.com/48654/Jan-28-1986#1189388 https://www.metafilter.com/48654/Jan-28-1986#1189388 [2] https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/sp-4221.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/sp-4221.pdf

mullingitover 2y ago

Wasn’t the space shuttle program dictated by the needs of the military? Something tells me any NASA military pork won’t be touched, it’ll be the scientists.

hedora 2y ago
No. It was kept alive by congressional decree for at least a decade after NASA wanted to wind it down. The explicit reason for this was that parts of the space shuttle were built in 50 states, and the “economic stimulus” trumped things like science or national security.
- mullingitover 2y ago
  Answered my own question. Yes[1]. You're talking about the how of the space shuttle construction but not the why. It was indeed intended for at least some military use, and it was originally intended to be capable of polar orbits and would've launched from Vandenberg. Of course there was major government pork and horse trading to southern states but this was a side effect of the project, not the primary driver. [1] https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1398/did-the-space-shuttle-have-military-uses https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1398/did-the-space...
cratermoon 2y ago
The design was dictated in part by military needs, but then the DOD figured out their requirements resulted in such a compromised design that it was cheaper and more reliable to keep launching Titan III and later expendables.

lbarron6868 2y ago

Please tell me what large organization out there doesn't have at least a few inefficiencies. This notion that only the federal government is bloated and inefficient is so untrue. Every try dealing with or working for a big telecom?

throwawaymaths 2y ago

the SLS springs to mind.

hedora 2y ago
Boeing’s SLS? I don’t think cutting NASA employees is going to help much. https://www.boeing.com/space/space-launch-system#rocket https://www.boeing.com/space/space-launch-system#rocket

nocoiner 2y ago

Are you referring to space disasters that occurred more than 20 and nearly 40 years ago as “recent”? Or are you talking about the design of the space shuttle, that literally occurred during the Nixon administration?

sightbroke 2y ago

What does "efficient" mean for an organization such as NASA? A: I am not convinced GOOD science and GOOD engineering means a quick turn around. So in my opinion having less quantity for higher quality output is efficient. B: While there are many missions and projects at NASA it seems a bit unfair to judge their workings when they seem to have major changes in direction every 4-8 years mandated upon them.

jjk166 2y ago

Space Shuttle hasn't flown in 14 years, the decision to retire it was made 21 years ago, they stopped making space shuttles 33 years ago, the system was designed over 50 years ago when the current NASA administrator was a child. What are these "recent times" you are referring to?

jaredmcombs 2y ago
SLS
- magicalist 2y ago
  > SLS Mandated by Congress.

JKCalhoun 2y ago

From my reading of the shuttle history, you can blame the USAF for the vehicle we finally got.

angst_ridden 2y ago

Of course, the Space Shuttle (and SLS, for that matter), are bad designs and inefficient not because NASA teams design them that way, but because of the way Congress funds things. They add mandates, and require the contracts to be spread across lots of organizations and states to "budget proof" the projects. For example, NASA's original space plane was a much better design that the shuttle, but they were forced to make it a joint project with the Air Force to get budget. The different requirements added up, and eventually we got the system we've all seen.

callamdelaney 2y ago

I mean the decision to award a contract to Boeing is a much more recent gaff. What a joke!