6 ms·

> NASA needs an overhaul. This isn’t how I would do it, but that’s not how things work in the real world. SLS is the elephant in the room and is a complete disa

> NASA needs an overhaul. This isn’t how I would do it, but that’s not how things work in the real world. SLS is the elephant in the room and is a complete disaster. It’s a jobs program limping along decades old technology when the commercial options are better. It’s more accurate to say that Congress needs an overhaul. Over the years NASA administrators have pushed back on SLS to the fullest extent you’d expect, but it’s not their call how Congress allocates money. Losing career managers, scientists and engineers isn’t going to fix any of the things you want to see fixed.

toomuchtodo 1y ago
It’s going to kill institutional knowledge and be so expensive to repair after regime change.
- jajko 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    I'm confident in high volatility forward looking, but not confident democracy is dead (yet).
  - segmondy 1y ago
    You are not wrong. I hold the exact same sentiment. The world is way more optimistic than us.
  - biggc 1y ago
    2021, not 2020
  - BoxFour 1y ago
    That point might hold more weight if we were talking about someone decades younger, but he’s 80 and hasn’t exactly lived a healthful life. As far as I know, no one’s managed to beat father time yet. Transitions of power in movements built around a cult of personality rarely keep the same momentum. There are a few exceptions, but in most of those the clear successor had their own charisma. That doesn’t appear to be the case here.
  - parineum 1y ago
    > Precedent was set 6.1.2020 When he lost and left?
    - daveguy 1y ago
      6.1.2021* is when Trump tried to launch a coup after he lost the election. And he lost the coup too. Then he got his ass bounced under the worst approval he has ever had. Stop trying to rewrite history for your cult leader. * If the comment was about the mistyped 6.1.2020, that's just lame.
    - lukas099 1y ago
      Yeah, that’s all that happened -_-
- monkeyelite 1y ago
  I think the institutional knowledge from the golden age is already gone.
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    Hopefully some of the NASA folks make their way to https://www.oah.org/2025/03/04/federal-employees-oral-history-project/ https://www.oah.org/2025/03/04/federal-employees-oral-histor...
- Aurornis 1y ago
  In the case of NASA, they could stand to shed a lot of the institutional structure they’ve built up. When institutional knowledge becomes more about navigating bureaucracy than doing engineering, something needs to break. My dream outcome would be that they shrink down the bureaucracy massively, retire a lot of the career middle managers who make sure nothing ever moves too fast and no project is allowed to run lean, and then raise pay for the remaining people to attract some of the private sector talent that could infuse some new knowledge. The few people I know with SpaceX experience are not at all happy with the work environment there, but the pay and pace of a place like NASA aren’t an option for them.
- lostlogin 1y ago
  > regime change. And the normalisation of the language of totalitarianism continues. I don’t disagree, but it’s grim.
- nomel 1y ago
  Ever org I've worked for slowly became unable to innovate because of "institutional knowledge". I think it's important to forget, to some extent, every once in a while. It forces a new traversal of the problem space, but in a modern context, with modern tools, fresh eyes, and a better understanding of what's needed. Thus we have Space X. There are some great interviews with Jim Keller, who has a similar perspective: you need to restart every some years, to not stagnate. From what I've seen, if you want to stamp out a young engineers creativity, start them working in a big org.
  - scoreandmore 1y ago
    And did you stick around to see what happens after they go full tabula rasa? I have: they fall so far behind they close up shop. The proper response is to move slowly and intentionally and use indicators. Like ‘design thinking’, with prototyping and feedback and incremental feedback, not burn shit to the ground because planning is too hard mentality. But I realize that’s what shareholders demand. And now that gov’t is being run like a business, prepare to see bankruptcies. Fortunately other, more rational countries, will fill the gaps. They’ve just been complacent because the US was on its game for so long. Especially the ESA.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - supplied_demand 1y ago
    == What you end up with will always be better than what you started with.== That is quite the absolute statement. Could you share some data to back this up?
    - nomel 1y ago
      Sorry it wasn't clear enough, but I was paraphrasing Jim Keller. See the several Lex Fridman episodes with him, where he talks about it. The success with his projects would probably be the data you're looking for.
eagerpace 1y ago
That’s a great point. I think it’s just trying to boil the ocean.
SJC_Hacker 1y ago
> It’s more accurate to say that Congress needs an overhaul. Over the years NASA administrators have pushed back on SLS to the fullest extent you’d expect, but it’s not their call how Congress allocates money. They don't call it the Senate Launch System for nothing
vkou 1y ago
I think it's more accurate to say that our oligarchs need an overhaul. Some of the worst people who are actively working against the public are consistently ending up in positions of incredible, unchecked power.
godelski 1y ago
> It’s more accurate to say that Congress needs an overhaul. It's also worth mentioning that this is a big reason NASA is so expensive. There's a lot of contracts and so NASA actually has contractors in every single state. They even brag about it[0], which should be a good hint to you that it is political. This makes is a bit of a wealth distribution system. That's either good or bad depending on your perspective and what you think the main goals are... But there's a few programs that have these types of problems, not just NASA. IMO, there's probably more efficient ways to meet each goal, by decoupling the problem. But either way, we can't solve "the problem" unless we actually recognize what it is (and there's a lot more than what I've just mentioned) [0] https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/nasainthe50states/ https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/nasainthe50states/

toomuchtodo 1y ago

It’s going to kill institutional knowledge and be so expensive to repair after regime change.

jajko 1y ago
[flagged]
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  I'm confident in high volatility forward looking, but not confident democracy is dead (yet).
- segmondy 1y ago
  You are not wrong. I hold the exact same sentiment. The world is way more optimistic than us.
- biggc 1y ago
  2021, not 2020
- BoxFour 1y ago
  That point might hold more weight if we were talking about someone decades younger, but he’s 80 and hasn’t exactly lived a healthful life. As far as I know, no one’s managed to beat father time yet. Transitions of power in movements built around a cult of personality rarely keep the same momentum. There are a few exceptions, but in most of those the clear successor had their own charisma. That doesn’t appear to be the case here.
- parineum 1y ago
  > Precedent was set 6.1.2020 When he lost and left?
  - daveguy 1y ago
    6.1.2021* is when Trump tried to launch a coup after he lost the election. And he lost the coup too. Then he got his ass bounced under the worst approval he has ever had. Stop trying to rewrite history for your cult leader. * If the comment was about the mistyped 6.1.2020, that's just lame.
  - lukas099 1y ago
    Yeah, that’s all that happened -_-
monkeyelite 1y ago
I think the institutional knowledge from the golden age is already gone.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  Hopefully some of the NASA folks make their way to https://www.oah.org/2025/03/04/federal-employees-oral-history-project/ https://www.oah.org/2025/03/04/federal-employees-oral-histor...
Aurornis 1y ago
In the case of NASA, they could stand to shed a lot of the institutional structure they’ve built up. When institutional knowledge becomes more about navigating bureaucracy than doing engineering, something needs to break. My dream outcome would be that they shrink down the bureaucracy massively, retire a lot of the career middle managers who make sure nothing ever moves too fast and no project is allowed to run lean, and then raise pay for the remaining people to attract some of the private sector talent that could infuse some new knowledge. The few people I know with SpaceX experience are not at all happy with the work environment there, but the pay and pace of a place like NASA aren’t an option for them.
lostlogin 1y ago
> regime change. And the normalisation of the language of totalitarianism continues. I don’t disagree, but it’s grim.
nomel 1y ago
Ever org I've worked for slowly became unable to innovate because of "institutional knowledge". I think it's important to forget, to some extent, every once in a while. It forces a new traversal of the problem space, but in a modern context, with modern tools, fresh eyes, and a better understanding of what's needed. Thus we have Space X. There are some great interviews with Jim Keller, who has a similar perspective: you need to restart every some years, to not stagnate. From what I've seen, if you want to stamp out a young engineers creativity, start them working in a big org.
- scoreandmore 1y ago
  And did you stick around to see what happens after they go full tabula rasa? I have: they fall so far behind they close up shop. The proper response is to move slowly and intentionally and use indicators. Like ‘design thinking’, with prototyping and feedback and incremental feedback, not burn shit to the ground because planning is too hard mentality. But I realize that’s what shareholders demand. And now that gov’t is being run like a business, prepare to see bankruptcies. Fortunately other, more rational countries, will fill the gaps. They’ve just been complacent because the US was on its game for so long. Especially the ESA.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- supplied_demand 1y ago
  == What you end up with will always be better than what you started with.== That is quite the absolute statement. Could you share some data to back this up?
  - nomel 1y ago
    Sorry it wasn't clear enough, but I was paraphrasing Jim Keller. See the several Lex Fridman episodes with him, where he talks about it. The success with his projects would probably be the data you're looking for.

eagerpace 1y ago

That’s a great point. I think it’s just trying to boil the ocean.

SJC_Hacker 1y ago

> It’s more accurate to say that Congress needs an overhaul. Over the years NASA administrators have pushed back on SLS to the fullest extent you’d expect, but it’s not their call how Congress allocates money. They don't call it the Senate Launch System for nothing

vkou 1y ago

I think it's more accurate to say that our oligarchs need an overhaul. Some of the worst people who are actively working against the public are consistently ending up in positions of incredible, unchecked power.

godelski 1y ago

> It’s more accurate to say that Congress needs an overhaul. It's also worth mentioning that this is a big reason NASA is so expensive. There's a lot of contracts and so NASA actually has contractors in every single state. They even brag about it[0], which should be a good hint to you that it is political. This makes is a bit of a wealth distribution system. That's either good or bad depending on your perspective and what you think the main goals are... But there's a few programs that have these types of problems, not just NASA. IMO, there's probably more efficient ways to meet each goal, by decoupling the problem. But either way, we can't solve "the problem" unless we actually recognize what it is (and there's a lot more than what I've just mentioned) [0] https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/nasainthe50states/ https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/nasainthe50states/