4 ms·

I'm very, very concerned for the astronauts piloting this upcoming trans-lunar flight. Given that Boeing, well, does Boeing things, the current state of NASA in

I'm very, very concerned for the astronauts piloting this upcoming trans-lunar flight. Given that Boeing, well, does Boeing things, the current state of NASA in this political climate, and the fact that problems keep arising with this current stack, it makes me feel that there is a significant chance of issues mid-flight. Godspeed to them, hopefully I'm being overly dour.

unethical_ban 8mo ago
Sadly, the worst thing I'm worried about is the current president pushing for a landing before he leaves office in order to have that feather in his cap. Isaacman seems competent and this article shows they are responding to the concerns of the plan and are "shortening the steps in the staircase" to a landing.
- lukeschlather 8mo ago
  So far, Isaacman's competence has mostly consisted of (rightfully) throwing is predecessors under the bus. The real test will be if there are problems on his watch, but also it seems likely the result of having backbone will not be good for Isaacman and sycophants will end up running the agency again.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - mmooss 7mo ago
    > Isaacman's competence has mostly consisted of (rightfully) throwing is predecessors under the bus. That's irresponsbility and incompentence in any position, especially at that level of management.
    - Miraste 7mo ago
      How? He essentially said that the program would not work as designed and would probably kill people. That is both true and necessary to say in order to fix it--these are exactly the lessons NASA (allegedly) learned from Challenger.
      - mmooss 7mo ago
        The GGP said he threw people under the bus. That's different than making changes to a program. > true I don't believe you can know that. Saying it with assurance - by Internet randos or by the NASA administrator - is more a signal of a lack of analysis. Other people aren't idiots and complex technology issues aren't that certain - those are self-serving fairy tales.
- drstewart 8mo ago
  Wow, in the past no presidents pushed for NASA to launch under deadlines. Imagine telling them they need to get to the moon before the end of the decade. Unprecedented. Good thing we have a large number of CRUD SaaS experts to tell us what's wrong with the space program
  - unethical_ban 8mo ago
    Re: JFK and the 60s, I think the experts were in charge and had the final say on launch decisions with buy-in from all parties. Space exploration is certainly not risk-free. Then you had Challenger, when experts were not listened to, and people died when they shouldn't have. I don't understand the hostility.
    - cosmic_cheese 8mo ago
      NASA was also far better funded back then and didn’t have to fight congresspeople and the aerospace giants lobbying them. Things move a lot more quickly when money isn’t a concern and you’re not having to scatter R&D and manufacturing across the four corners of the earth to get congress on board with you.
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
      - mmooss 7mo ago
        > NASA was also far better funded back then Is that true? The US has far more money to spend now, in real dollars. > didn’t have to fight congresspeople and the aerospace giants lobbying them Is that true? I doubt it. Big budget programs then probably were no different, though with fewer transparency and anti-corruption laws and rules.
    - mikkupikku 8mo ago
      NASA got astronauts killed during Apollo, for some reason people forget about that or think it doesn't count because they weren't flying when it happened. After that they pumped the brakes and reevaluated their approaches, but the whole program remained extremely risky.
kilroy123 8mo ago
Sadly, I feel the same way. Here's a great video of Starliner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L96asfTvJ_A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L96asfTvJ_A
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
russellbeattie 7mo ago
You summarized my concerns almost perfectly. My only addition is that you didn't stress enough how much this anti-science administration has destabilized NASA, both directly and indirectly. The institutional decision making has definitely been compromised. Artemis II is a disaster in progress.

unethical_ban 8mo ago

Sadly, the worst thing I'm worried about is the current president pushing for a landing before he leaves office in order to have that feather in his cap. Isaacman seems competent and this article shows they are responding to the concerns of the plan and are "shortening the steps in the staircase" to a landing.

lukeschlather 8mo ago
So far, Isaacman's competence has mostly consisted of (rightfully) throwing is predecessors under the bus. The real test will be if there are problems on his watch, but also it seems likely the result of having backbone will not be good for Isaacman and sycophants will end up running the agency again.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- mmooss 7mo ago
  > Isaacman's competence has mostly consisted of (rightfully) throwing is predecessors under the bus. That's irresponsbility and incompentence in any position, especially at that level of management.
  - Miraste 7mo ago
    How? He essentially said that the program would not work as designed and would probably kill people. That is both true and necessary to say in order to fix it--these are exactly the lessons NASA (allegedly) learned from Challenger.
    - mmooss 7mo ago
      The GGP said he threw people under the bus. That's different than making changes to a program. > true I don't believe you can know that. Saying it with assurance - by Internet randos or by the NASA administrator - is more a signal of a lack of analysis. Other people aren't idiots and complex technology issues aren't that certain - those are self-serving fairy tales.
drstewart 8mo ago
Wow, in the past no presidents pushed for NASA to launch under deadlines. Imagine telling them they need to get to the moon before the end of the decade. Unprecedented. Good thing we have a large number of CRUD SaaS experts to tell us what's wrong with the space program
- unethical_ban 8mo ago
  Re: JFK and the 60s, I think the experts were in charge and had the final say on launch decisions with buy-in from all parties. Space exploration is certainly not risk-free. Then you had Challenger, when experts were not listened to, and people died when they shouldn't have. I don't understand the hostility.
  - cosmic_cheese 8mo ago
    NASA was also far better funded back then and didn’t have to fight congresspeople and the aerospace giants lobbying them. Things move a lot more quickly when money isn’t a concern and you’re not having to scatter R&D and manufacturing across the four corners of the earth to get congress on board with you.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    - mmooss 7mo ago
      > NASA was also far better funded back then Is that true? The US has far more money to spend now, in real dollars. > didn’t have to fight congresspeople and the aerospace giants lobbying them Is that true? I doubt it. Big budget programs then probably were no different, though with fewer transparency and anti-corruption laws and rules.
  - mikkupikku 8mo ago
    NASA got astronauts killed during Apollo, for some reason people forget about that or think it doesn't count because they weren't flying when it happened. After that they pumped the brakes and reevaluated their approaches, but the whole program remained extremely risky.

kilroy123 8mo ago

Sadly, I feel the same way. Here's a great video of Starliner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L96asfTvJ_A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L96asfTvJ_A

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

russellbeattie 7mo ago

You summarized my concerns almost perfectly. My only addition is that you didn't stress enough how much this anti-science administration has destabilized NASA, both directly and indirectly. The institutional decision making has definitely been compromised. Artemis II is a disaster in progress.