4 ms·

NASA is great, but the author's primary motivation seems to be "China is going to the moon and China is bad." I'm also not sure that NASA needs "saving." It ne

by fwip 1y ago

NASA is great, but the author's primary motivation seems to be "China is going to the moon and China is bad." I'm also not sure that NASA needs "saving." It needs continued funding, and it would be nice if they were jerked around less by the whims of politicians, but I don't think it is in crisis. NASA has continued to produce valuable science, even given those difficult headwinds.

jvanderbot 1y ago
A good administrator and cutting SLS would check all the boxes. It'd even bring about that budget cut they're proposing.
BurningFrog 1y ago
NASA does produce valuable science, like the Webb telescope. But it took them 30 years. I know these things are hard, but there has to be a better way to organize this.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  Maybe hard things just take time and effort? The Webb space telescope is a scientific instrument, not a product. Science instruments are always absurdly expensive and difficult to build. This magic idea that things just get cheaper or easier over time without fail is just an overly reductive idea of how things progress. "Careful" is expensive and space will always require "careful" because it is insanely difficult to engineer around. It's also wildly unforgiving. People also thought landing on the moon shouldn't be so difficult, yet lots of independent agencies and organizations are finding out that, no, small and minor mistakes or oversights will just destroy all your planning. That attention to detail will always be expensive.
apical_dendrite 1y ago
NASA is facing budget cuts that will put them at 1961 levels, inflation adjusted, meaning pre-Apollo. That's a 25% cut in one year, including layoffs of 33% of the workforce. That includes a 50% cut to the NASA science programs. 19 active missions will be terminated. They are planning to cut NASA's educational mission 100%. The loss of institutional knowledge and capability is staggering. Yes, it needs saving.

by fwip 1y ago

jvanderbot 1y ago

A good administrator and cutting SLS would check all the boxes. It'd even bring about that budget cut they're proposing.

BurningFrog 1y ago

NASA does produce valuable science, like the Webb telescope. But it took them 30 years. I know these things are hard, but there has to be a better way to organize this.

mrguyorama 1y ago
Maybe hard things just take time and effort? The Webb space telescope is a scientific instrument, not a product. Science instruments are always absurdly expensive and difficult to build. This magic idea that things just get cheaper or easier over time without fail is just an overly reductive idea of how things progress. "Careful" is expensive and space will always require "careful" because it is insanely difficult to engineer around. It's also wildly unforgiving. People also thought landing on the moon shouldn't be so difficult, yet lots of independent agencies and organizations are finding out that, no, small and minor mistakes or oversights will just destroy all your planning. That attention to detail will always be expensive.

apical_dendrite 1y ago

NASA is facing budget cuts that will put them at 1961 levels, inflation adjusted, meaning pre-Apollo. That's a 25% cut in one year, including layoffs of 33% of the workforce. That includes a 50% cut to the NASA science programs. 19 active missions will be terminated. They are planning to cut NASA's educational mission 100%. The loss of institutional knowledge and capability is staggering. Yes, it needs saving.