4 ms·

> "An alternative is giving NASA independence in the model of the Federal Reserve, FDA, or NIH." This would almost certainly be the best way forward.

by bfe 13y ago

JumpCrisscross 13y ago
The politics would be arduous. If NASA can choose which projects it pursues it can also choose where to base operations. NASA has facilities in states and Congressional districts which make no sense beyond politics. Those who stand to lose from a de-politicisation of NASA would bring a hard fight. That is the political reality.
- bennyg 13y ago
  Then write workarounds in there. NASA must remain an American company, headquartered in America, with (SOME_NUMBER)% of its workforce living and working in America. The highest authority at NASA is its version of CEO, and something like a board of directors. Their decisions outweigh political decisions. The board of directors may not be more than 20% (some arbitrary percentage) made up of people with a non-technical background. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
- bfe 13y ago
  Yes. It would take a president and/or members of Congress who cared enough about having an effective space program instead of using NASA as a pork delivery truck, to make the change. It would also be resisted at least as much by members of Congress who represent NASA's contractors, besides just its facilities (like Dana Rohrabacher, the congressman from Boeing). On the other hand, it would also naturally be supported by members of Congress representing at least some NASA centers and contractors who would clearly gain from the move. A reform like this will also be boosted though by SpaceX as it keeps accomplishing more and more on a comparatively low budget, making forward-looking technologies readily available of its own volition (Grasshopper, Falcon Heavy, methane rocket engines that can use Mars in situ manufactured fuel, etc.), and creating more and more embarrassment for the traditional space program and its contractors (like the Senate Launch System (SLS)), and forcing everyone to ask, why can't NASA do that? Hopefully they will eventually shame Congress and the President into reforming NASA into a professionally-managed organization, i.e. reforming away their own control over it and making it more like a Federal Reserve for space exploration.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  > The politics would be arduous. Not necessarily. Any constitutional amendment should be vague enough to survive for long periods. It should not even mention NASA, but make the exploration of Earth and other worlds something legislators cannot easily cut in favor of more convenient short-term gains and remove politics from technical decisions (which is what made the shuttle the sad thing it ended up being). The amendment idea was actually a very clever hack.

> "An alternative is giving NASA independence in the model of the Federal Reserve, FDA, or NIH." This would almost certainly be the best way forward.

by bfe 13y ago

> "An alternative is giving NASA independence in the model of the Federal Reserve, FDA, or NIH." This would almost certainly be the best way forward.

JumpCrisscross 13y ago

The politics would be arduous. If NASA can choose which projects it pursues it can also choose where to base operations. NASA has facilities in states and Congressional districts which make no sense beyond politics. Those who stand to lose from a de-politicisation of NASA would bring a hard fight. That is the political reality.

bennyg 13y ago
Then write workarounds in there. NASA must remain an American company, headquartered in America, with (SOME_NUMBER)% of its workforce living and working in America. The highest authority at NASA is its version of CEO, and something like a board of directors. Their decisions outweigh political decisions. The board of directors may not be more than 20% (some arbitrary percentage) made up of people with a non-technical background. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
bfe 13y ago
Yes. It would take a president and/or members of Congress who cared enough about having an effective space program instead of using NASA as a pork delivery truck, to make the change. It would also be resisted at least as much by members of Congress who represent NASA's contractors, besides just its facilities (like Dana Rohrabacher, the congressman from Boeing). On the other hand, it would also naturally be supported by members of Congress representing at least some NASA centers and contractors who would clearly gain from the move. A reform like this will also be boosted though by SpaceX as it keeps accomplishing more and more on a comparatively low budget, making forward-looking technologies readily available of its own volition (Grasshopper, Falcon Heavy, methane rocket engines that can use Mars in situ manufactured fuel, etc.), and creating more and more embarrassment for the traditional space program and its contractors (like the Senate Launch System (SLS)), and forcing everyone to ask, why can't NASA do that? Hopefully they will eventually shame Congress and the President into reforming NASA into a professionally-managed organization, i.e. reforming away their own control over it and making it more like a Federal Reserve for space exploration.
rbanffy 13y ago
> The politics would be arduous. Not necessarily. Any constitutional amendment should be vague enough to survive for long periods. It should not even mention NASA, but make the exploration of Earth and other worlds something legislators cannot easily cut in favor of more convenient short-term gains and remove politics from technical decisions (which is what made the shuttle the sad thing it ended up being). The amendment idea was actually a very clever hack.