4 ms·

I opened this article thinking someone was getting rid of NASA; and to be clear, no one is. Nothing is happening to the organization or their work, this is just

I opened this article thinking someone was getting rid of NASA; and to be clear, no one is. Nothing is happening to the organization or their work, this is just budget cuts. They will be focusing on human spaceflight and getting rid of green/climate research and general management.

jeremyjh 1y ago
The article is concerned with the fact that NASA is incapable of fulfilling its missions. It says NASA has spent $100B on a moon rocket that cannot go to the moon and will not go to the moon. NASA is worth saving not because someone is talking about cutting it, but because it has already been lost and needs to be recovered.
- dakr 1y ago
  A rocket it was told to spend money on by lawmakers. It's not NASA's own creation.
  - jeremyjh 1y ago
    Yeah I don't get to choose what I work on either. I still try to actually do what I have promised to do.
    - dakr 1y ago
      At your work you're hopefully not held responsible for the business decisions made above you, just your assigned piece.
      - jeremyjh 1y ago
        That's right. NASA's assigned piece was to build a rocket that could fly to the moon. They agreed to do it, and they spent the money. They have not built the rocket and never intended to.
        dakr 1y ago
        I don't think it's as simple as that. Many strings were attached, many changes were made to work that had already started. It's a mess to be sure, and NASA was not the only cook in the kitchen by a long shot. I'll just leave this here, people can make of it what they will: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
        jeremyjh 1y ago
        If NASA can't function in the face of meddling congress critters, it is not fit for purpose. Nothing I said above is incorrect or refuted in that article.
moelf 1y ago
>just budget cuts NSF is getting a 50% budget cut, at some point, you cut enough budget, it doesn't work.
NortySpock 1y ago
> focusing on human spaceflight Which has been lampooned by Robert Zubrin as "the ISS going in circles for decades in order to collect blood and urine samples". Robotic research has gotten more bang for our buck (You can explore an entire world via an orbiter (Cassini, Juno (on the budget chopping block), Osiris-Rex (the extended mission to Apophis is on the budget chopping block), Mars Observer, Messenger, etc to name a few missions) for ~$1B all in , far less than it costs to run the ISS ($3B / year) > getting rid of green/climate research Which is basically just a political attack, silencing research you don't want to hear about. It's about as effective as sticking your head in the sand to avoid the consequences of your life choices. It makes about as much logical sense, too. > getting rid of general management Possibly the only thing I find useful about the proposed budget cuts. Even then, I'd prefer targeted cuts, rather than throwing out entire department because you don't want to hear about how the Earth is changing, or how the Sun works, or learn enough about asteroids to adequately deflect them.
jjulius 1y ago
>Nothing is happening to... their work... >They will be... getting rid of green/climate research and general management. Sing it with me, now! One of these things is not like the other...
- guywithahat 1y ago
  I can also accomplish incredible things with ellipsis One of these things is ... like the other. My original comment could have been clearer but the point stands, nothing is happening to NASA. The organization will continue to exist. They will continue to operate as the US's space program, with a larger emphasis on human space flight, these are just budget cuts.
  - jjulius 1y ago
    >I can also accomplish incredible things with ellipsis Are you insinuating that I was being disingenuous by using them? The ellipsis simply removed a part of the sentence that was irrelevant to the point, but doesn't actually change what you said. You said nothing is happening to their work, and then immediately pointed out work that's going away. Not that complicated. /shrug

jeremyjh 1y ago

The article is concerned with the fact that NASA is incapable of fulfilling its missions. It says NASA has spent $100B on a moon rocket that cannot go to the moon and will not go to the moon. NASA is worth saving not because someone is talking about cutting it, but because it has already been lost and needs to be recovered.

dakr 1y ago
A rocket it was told to spend money on by lawmakers. It's not NASA's own creation.
- jeremyjh 1y ago
  Yeah I don't get to choose what I work on either. I still try to actually do what I have promised to do.
  - dakr 1y ago
    At your work you're hopefully not held responsible for the business decisions made above you, just your assigned piece.
    - jeremyjh 1y ago
      That's right. NASA's assigned piece was to build a rocket that could fly to the moon. They agreed to do it, and they spent the money. They have not built the rocket and never intended to.
      - dakr 1y ago
        I don't think it's as simple as that. Many strings were attached, many changes were made to work that had already started. It's a mess to be sure, and NASA was not the only cook in the kitchen by a long shot. I'll just leave this here, people can make of it what they will: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
        jeremyjh 1y ago
        If NASA can't function in the face of meddling congress critters, it is not fit for purpose. Nothing I said above is incorrect or refuted in that article.

moelf 1y ago

>just budget cuts NSF is getting a 50% budget cut, at some point, you cut enough budget, it doesn't work.

NortySpock 1y ago

> focusing on human spaceflight Which has been lampooned by Robert Zubrin as "the ISS going in circles for decades in order to collect blood and urine samples". Robotic research has gotten more bang for our buck (You can explore an entire world via an orbiter (Cassini, Juno (on the budget chopping block), Osiris-Rex (the extended mission to Apophis is on the budget chopping block), Mars Observer, Messenger, etc to name a few missions) for ~$1B all in , far less than it costs to run the ISS ($3B / year) > getting rid of green/climate research Which is basically just a political attack, silencing research you don't want to hear about. It's about as effective as sticking your head in the sand to avoid the consequences of your life choices. It makes about as much logical sense, too. > getting rid of general management Possibly the only thing I find useful about the proposed budget cuts. Even then, I'd prefer targeted cuts, rather than throwing out entire department because you don't want to hear about how the Earth is changing, or how the Sun works, or learn enough about asteroids to adequately deflect them.

jjulius 1y ago

>Nothing is happening to... their work... >They will be... getting rid of green/climate research and general management. Sing it with me, now! One of these things is not like the other...

guywithahat 1y ago
I can also accomplish incredible things with ellipsis One of these things is ... like the other. My original comment could have been clearer but the point stands, nothing is happening to NASA. The organization will continue to exist. They will continue to operate as the US's space program, with a larger emphasis on human space flight, these are just budget cuts.
- jjulius 1y ago
  >I can also accomplish incredible things with ellipsis Are you insinuating that I was being disingenuous by using them? The ellipsis simply removed a part of the sentence that was irrelevant to the point, but doesn't actually change what you said. You said nothing is happening to their work, and then immediately pointed out work that's going away. Not that complicated. /shrug