3 ms·

Its a little harder than simply setting a loftier goal and telling NASA to accomplish it in a shorter timeframe. I assume there was a certain amount of enginee

by arscan 14y ago

Its a little harder than simply setting a loftier goal and telling NASA to accomplish it in a shorter timeframe. I assume there was a certain amount of engineering due diligence done to come up with those dates. Have you ever had a manager (who doesn't understand the engineering issues) tell you to deliver 2x the product in 1/2 the time because that's what the customer wants? How does that typically turn out? Now, you could argue that the current acquisition system that supports NASA is completely broken, and it could be possible to do this in a much better way (truly faster-better-cheaper). I think SpaceX is starting to prove that. And you could also argue that NASA needs to take more risks when it comes to manned missions, which would make things a lot cheaper and easier. But simply thinking that cutting the timeline in half will fix the problem is naive. I'm with you on the ISS though. I love the thing, but can't help but think the money could have been better spent... especially since its so unclear exactly what we are learning up there.

apendleton 14y ago
Risk aversion seems to be the killer in terms of timeframe. Burt Rutan famously remarked a few years ago that if we're not killing people, we're not pushing hard enough; the test pilots that made up the early core of NASA astronauts knew it was high-risk and were okay with it, which is why we got to the moon in less than a decade (and yes, people died along the way). Modern-era NASA is just so terrified of bad PR that they won't decide on a strategy for tying their own shoes without spending a decade ensuring that nobody will inadvertently strangle themselves with the laces.
- arscan 14y ago
  It makes sense for NASA to avoid anything that would significantly decrease the public's opinion of them (as that would eventually lead to funding cuts). But I don't think their assumption that the death of astronauts/pilots would negatively affect their image. Lets say Curiosity crashed into mars... that would be a HUGE problem for NASA (3 billion dollars wasted, people would say). But if a couple of astronauts died on the way to Mars... I think that would only strengthen the resolve of the American public. No politician would go on record saying their life was wasted. Instead, their death would be framed as heroic (rightfully so), and I think there would be a push to try again, and to try harder. Given that logic, what NASA views as risk mitigation (send a robot to mars instead of a person, so we can get better at it before risking lives), is really is a very risky strategy from their organization's perspective. There is probably data out there that backs/disproves my general logic here (sentiment of nasa after astronaut's deaths, vs after loss of robots). I'd love to see it.

by arscan 14y ago

apendleton 14y ago

Risk aversion seems to be the killer in terms of timeframe. Burt Rutan famously remarked a few years ago that if we're not killing people, we're not pushing hard enough; the test pilots that made up the early core of NASA astronauts knew it was high-risk and were okay with it, which is why we got to the moon in less than a decade (and yes, people died along the way). Modern-era NASA is just so terrified of bad PR that they won't decide on a strategy for tying their own shoes without spending a decade ensuring that nobody will inadvertently strangle themselves with the laces.

arscan 14y ago
It makes sense for NASA to avoid anything that would significantly decrease the public's opinion of them (as that would eventually lead to funding cuts). But I don't think their assumption that the death of astronauts/pilots would negatively affect their image. Lets say Curiosity crashed into mars... that would be a HUGE problem for NASA (3 billion dollars wasted, people would say). But if a couple of astronauts died on the way to Mars... I think that would only strengthen the resolve of the American public. No politician would go on record saying their life was wasted. Instead, their death would be framed as heroic (rightfully so), and I think there would be a push to try again, and to try harder. Given that logic, what NASA views as risk mitigation (send a robot to mars instead of a person, so we can get better at it before risking lives), is really is a very risky strategy from their organization's perspective. There is probably data out there that backs/disproves my general logic here (sentiment of nasa after astronaut's deaths, vs after loss of robots). I'd love to see it.