6 ms·

I'm sure the bureaucracy can stand some serious cutting. However, with voluntary programs like this, you tend to lose the best people.

jart 1y ago
NASA ended their space shuttle program in 2011 and hasn't been able to send things into space since. For the rest of that decade, the only way Americans could access ISS was by purchasing tickets on Russian spacecraft. NASA pivoted to partnering with private government contractors like ULA, which did 4 launches in 2024, probably spy satellites for the military, but their Atlas V rocket only has 14 launches remaining before retirement. That's it. Aside from the greatly maligned SpaceX of course, which did their first manned mission in 2020 and operated 134 launches in 2024. There are still maybe one or two cool jobs left at NASA like controlling the Voyager software. But I imagine everyone else at NASA who respects themselves would have left for SpaceX a long time ago, rather than waiting for Trump to incentivize their retirement. Half of all revenue collected by the US federal government in 2024 (totaling $2565 billion) was given to retirees. Mostly middle class and government retirees. So this policy shift is very aligned with the US status quo, which is paying people to do nothing, rather than having them go through the motions of tilting at bureaucratic windmills trying to do something. Even in this thread you see how pervasive the attitude is. I've seen several comments here so far talking about how the economic system isn't giving them enough money, but I've yet to see anyone here express a willingness to eat ramen, sleep in the trenches, get their hands dirty, and endure whatever pain and peril it takes if it grants the opportunity to help out getting things done with space exploration. Those are the kinds of people who create material abundance.
- verzali 1y ago
  This is a dumb take. NASA has (or had until Trump can back) plenty of interesting things. New Horizons, Europe Clipper, the James Webb, Hubble, Mars missions, ISS operations, human spaceflight, etc, etc are all being done by NASA workers. They do way more than just launch rockets and SpaceX can't even come close to the stuff NASA was doing.
  - Lord-Jobo 1y ago
    James webb is the perfect example of why we absolutely need NASA and what they do. Did the budget balloon and delays rack up? Yup, and if you read about why you will see that it was basically unavoidable. A private business would have canceled it at the first roadblock (depriving us of an INCREDIBLE scientific tool). And for the actual launch and deployment, the cost of the instrument meant that a very high success rate was very very important. Go ahead and look up the success rate of space X launches and tell me you would put a multi billion dollar tool on their rocket. You need someone who can spend more money, even a lot more money, and guarantee success.
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      JWST is a great achievement. No question about that. But we could have easily made good use of a dozen of them. NASA could have built a dozen with only a small incremental cost, because once you have a design and tooling and test rigs and test plans and machine shop setups, the incremental cost is pretty small. For example, when I worked at Boeing, sinking a die for a forging cost $250,000. Stamping out a forging cost a few dollars. When I was putting together a stack of identical electronic circuit boards, the first one took 2 hours. The last one took 15 minutes.
      - OrvalWintermute 1y ago
        What you said is very correct. there are a huge amount of one time costs associated with the design and engineering of a spacecraft or a satellite that could enable fairly cheap constellations compared to singular satellites, and the testing regimen becomes much more cheap when it’s done as part of a campaign. I’m a proponent for the disaggregation of satellites from sensors using specified interfaces. Industry is definitely moving in this direction with their satellite buses you can buy fairly cheaply. Will we want to stick a $3 billion sensor onto a $15 million satellite? I can’t answer that question
- throwawaymaths 1y ago
  > I imagine everyone else at NASA who respects themselves would have left for SpaceX a long time ago not everyone wants to work for a company that is well known for grinding 20-somethings into the dust with an extremely poor work-life balance.
  - brookst 1y ago
    Not to mention the ethical questions about working for a company that is privately owned by a megalomaniac who’s demonstrated an interest in playing king of the world.
    - Tadpole9181 1y ago
      And does Nazi salutes on stagein front of the world.
    - notahacker 1y ago
      And long before Elon took a turn for the political, taking a job with a company focused on launch and then satcomms constellations wasn't necessarily progression for someone wanting to scientific research into the composition of the asteroid belt or distant nebulae or design telescopes or Jupiter flybys or carry out longitudinal studies into astronaut health or climate change.
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        The launch capability is necessary and enabling for people who want to do such scientific research.
        notahacker 1y ago
        Nobody said it wasn't. That doesn't mean there are vacancies for NASA scientists studying other galaxies or asteroid petrology or the effects of orbit on bone health at SpaceX, or that moving to do comms links at SpaceX would necessarily represent career progression for the telescope designer.
- bevr1337 1y ago
  > For the rest of that decade, the only way Americans could access ISS was by purchasing tickets on Russian spacecraft. Perhaps our coolest diplomacy program. I love that RU and USA have managed to cooperate in space through many decades of conflict.
- jeffbee 1y ago
  Man who believes NASA exists to hurl stuff into space. What a sad, narrow existence.
- Lord-Jobo 1y ago
  Hey everyone, consider looking at the Wikipedia page for an agency before posting piss-takes on social media regarding that agency. Sending things to space is a small part of what NASA does. "Aeronautics" is not "space rocketry", and all federal agencies do more than what their name indicates.
  - jart 1y ago
    And what is that?
    - dgoodell 1y ago
      NASA was originally formed as NACA to research aeronautics technology and help advance our uncompetitive nascent aerospace industry. Building spacecraft and space transportation systems like the shuttle came later and is a very different type of task. Unfortunately, the more flamboyant manned space flight and science missions have gradually come to dominate NASA, and much of the fundamental tech research that made it possible in the first place has been deprioritized and defunded.
Balgair 1y ago
Hot Take: Maybe this DOGE approach of sledgehammering the bureaucracies is all there is left to do? Look, I have family that works for the Feds. I have also collected money from federal programs. I know the pain that is coming and is here. It really really sucks, and it will suck for me too, though not as badly. But the 'scalpel' approach where you go in, understand the system, take out the bad parts, leave the good, don't get rid of the best people and programs; yeah, it doesn't work very well either. I've seen it tried in a few organizations, some have had a little success, most have not. What usually happens is that the most politically connected programs and people stay and the least are cut, and only after years of twaddling and overspending anyway. THe people that are there to cut things get swamped in meetings and smoke blown up their ass from every direction; they are made incompetent by design, and so the cuts are incompetent too. I'm not about to say that I have any idea of the history of NASA spending cuts or those of the US gov in general. I know SLS is a dumb program but only because I know people that say that. But, again, Hot Take, maybe the only thing left to try is the sledgehammer?
- magicalist 1y ago
  Sounds less like a hot take than a false dichotomy? The only choice is one of two non-specific analogies?
  - Lord-Jobo 1y ago
    > Sounds less like a hot take than a false dichotomy? The only choice is one of two non-specific analogies? It's several assumptions deep to get to that kind of statement which is even more.... Interesting. First, you have to assume that all federal agencies are the same, so if one needs to be smaller or more efficient, clearly they all need to be. Or if you have experience with one agency, others must be the same. And that your personal experience is representative. This is hilarious for a category so broad that it includes homeland security and NASA. Secondly, you have to get very reductive about the direction of these agencies. Big agencies? "Well we HAVE to do SOMETHING!" When of course "just leave it alone, go after the actually expensive and wasteful things in our economy like health insurance or the military" is ignored. Thirdly you need to assume that anyone involved with actually managing this process gives a single shit about the issue at hand. And they don't. Nobody who gave a shit about efficiency, the size/budget of federal agencies, or the power of the federal government would vote to +265% the budget of ICE. that's year over year, by the way. Nor would they approve the largest deficit increase ever moved through congress. These people are jangling keys in front of your face and taking the money out of your wallet. And by discussing these cuts in good faith at all, we are reaching for the keys.

jart 1y ago

NASA ended their space shuttle program in 2011 and hasn't been able to send things into space since. For the rest of that decade, the only way Americans could access ISS was by purchasing tickets on Russian spacecraft. NASA pivoted to partnering with private government contractors like ULA, which did 4 launches in 2024, probably spy satellites for the military, but their Atlas V rocket only has 14 launches remaining before retirement. That's it. Aside from the greatly maligned SpaceX of course, which did their first manned mission in 2020 and operated 134 launches in 2024. There are still maybe one or two cool jobs left at NASA like controlling the Voyager software. But I imagine everyone else at NASA who respects themselves would have left for SpaceX a long time ago, rather than waiting for Trump to incentivize their retirement. Half of all revenue collected by the US federal government in 2024 (totaling $2565 billion) was given to retirees. Mostly middle class and government retirees. So this policy shift is very aligned with the US status quo, which is paying people to do nothing, rather than having them go through the motions of tilting at bureaucratic windmills trying to do something. Even in this thread you see how pervasive the attitude is. I've seen several comments here so far talking about how the economic system isn't giving them enough money, but I've yet to see anyone here express a willingness to eat ramen, sleep in the trenches, get their hands dirty, and endure whatever pain and peril it takes if it grants the opportunity to help out getting things done with space exploration. Those are the kinds of people who create material abundance.

verzali 1y ago
This is a dumb take. NASA has (or had until Trump can back) plenty of interesting things. New Horizons, Europe Clipper, the James Webb, Hubble, Mars missions, ISS operations, human spaceflight, etc, etc are all being done by NASA workers. They do way more than just launch rockets and SpaceX can't even come close to the stuff NASA was doing.
- Lord-Jobo 1y ago
  James webb is the perfect example of why we absolutely need NASA and what they do. Did the budget balloon and delays rack up? Yup, and if you read about why you will see that it was basically unavoidable. A private business would have canceled it at the first roadblock (depriving us of an INCREDIBLE scientific tool). And for the actual launch and deployment, the cost of the instrument meant that a very high success rate was very very important. Go ahead and look up the success rate of space X launches and tell me you would put a multi billion dollar tool on their rocket. You need someone who can spend more money, even a lot more money, and guarantee success.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    JWST is a great achievement. No question about that. But we could have easily made good use of a dozen of them. NASA could have built a dozen with only a small incremental cost, because once you have a design and tooling and test rigs and test plans and machine shop setups, the incremental cost is pretty small. For example, when I worked at Boeing, sinking a die for a forging cost $250,000. Stamping out a forging cost a few dollars. When I was putting together a stack of identical electronic circuit boards, the first one took 2 hours. The last one took 15 minutes.
    - OrvalWintermute 1y ago
      What you said is very correct. there are a huge amount of one time costs associated with the design and engineering of a spacecraft or a satellite that could enable fairly cheap constellations compared to singular satellites, and the testing regimen becomes much more cheap when it’s done as part of a campaign. I’m a proponent for the disaggregation of satellites from sensors using specified interfaces. Industry is definitely moving in this direction with their satellite buses you can buy fairly cheaply. Will we want to stick a $3 billion sensor onto a $15 million satellite? I can’t answer that question
throwawaymaths 1y ago
> I imagine everyone else at NASA who respects themselves would have left for SpaceX a long time ago not everyone wants to work for a company that is well known for grinding 20-somethings into the dust with an extremely poor work-life balance.
- brookst 1y ago
  Not to mention the ethical questions about working for a company that is privately owned by a megalomaniac who’s demonstrated an interest in playing king of the world.
  - Tadpole9181 1y ago
    And does Nazi salutes on stagein front of the world.
  - notahacker 1y ago
    And long before Elon took a turn for the political, taking a job with a company focused on launch and then satcomms constellations wasn't necessarily progression for someone wanting to scientific research into the composition of the asteroid belt or distant nebulae or design telescopes or Jupiter flybys or carry out longitudinal studies into astronaut health or climate change.
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      The launch capability is necessary and enabling for people who want to do such scientific research.
      - notahacker 1y ago
        Nobody said it wasn't. That doesn't mean there are vacancies for NASA scientists studying other galaxies or asteroid petrology or the effects of orbit on bone health at SpaceX, or that moving to do comms links at SpaceX would necessarily represent career progression for the telescope designer.
bevr1337 1y ago
> For the rest of that decade, the only way Americans could access ISS was by purchasing tickets on Russian spacecraft. Perhaps our coolest diplomacy program. I love that RU and USA have managed to cooperate in space through many decades of conflict.
jeffbee 1y ago
Man who believes NASA exists to hurl stuff into space. What a sad, narrow existence.
Lord-Jobo 1y ago
Hey everyone, consider looking at the Wikipedia page for an agency before posting piss-takes on social media regarding that agency. Sending things to space is a small part of what NASA does. "Aeronautics" is not "space rocketry", and all federal agencies do more than what their name indicates.
- jart 1y ago
  And what is that?
  - dgoodell 1y ago
    NASA was originally formed as NACA to research aeronautics technology and help advance our uncompetitive nascent aerospace industry. Building spacecraft and space transportation systems like the shuttle came later and is a very different type of task. Unfortunately, the more flamboyant manned space flight and science missions have gradually come to dominate NASA, and much of the fundamental tech research that made it possible in the first place has been deprioritized and defunded.

Balgair 1y ago

Hot Take: Maybe this DOGE approach of sledgehammering the bureaucracies is all there is left to do? Look, I have family that works for the Feds. I have also collected money from federal programs. I know the pain that is coming and is here. It really really sucks, and it will suck for me too, though not as badly. But the 'scalpel' approach where you go in, understand the system, take out the bad parts, leave the good, don't get rid of the best people and programs; yeah, it doesn't work very well either. I've seen it tried in a few organizations, some have had a little success, most have not. What usually happens is that the most politically connected programs and people stay and the least are cut, and only after years of twaddling and overspending anyway. THe people that are there to cut things get swamped in meetings and smoke blown up their ass from every direction; they are made incompetent by design, and so the cuts are incompetent too. I'm not about to say that I have any idea of the history of NASA spending cuts or those of the US gov in general. I know SLS is a dumb program but only because I know people that say that. But, again, Hot Take, maybe the only thing left to try is the sledgehammer?

magicalist 1y ago
Sounds less like a hot take than a false dichotomy? The only choice is one of two non-specific analogies?
- Lord-Jobo 1y ago
  > Sounds less like a hot take than a false dichotomy? The only choice is one of two non-specific analogies? It's several assumptions deep to get to that kind of statement which is even more.... Interesting. First, you have to assume that all federal agencies are the same, so if one needs to be smaller or more efficient, clearly they all need to be. Or if you have experience with one agency, others must be the same. And that your personal experience is representative. This is hilarious for a category so broad that it includes homeland security and NASA. Secondly, you have to get very reductive about the direction of these agencies. Big agencies? "Well we HAVE to do SOMETHING!" When of course "just leave it alone, go after the actually expensive and wasteful things in our economy like health insurance or the military" is ignored. Thirdly you need to assume that anyone involved with actually managing this process gives a single shit about the issue at hand. And they don't. Nobody who gave a shit about efficiency, the size/budget of federal agencies, or the power of the federal government would vote to +265% the budget of ICE. that's year over year, by the way. Nor would they approve the largest deficit increase ever moved through congress. These people are jangling keys in front of your face and taking the money out of your wallet. And by discussing these cuts in good faith at all, we are reaching for the keys.