4 ms·

The real missing part of this article is that NASA's budget is dominated by building launchers. If all NASA did was build payloads and buy launch services, it w

The real missing part of this article is that NASA's budget is dominated by building launchers. If all NASA did was build payloads and buy launch services, it would get a lot more done for its dollar. In the short term this is not feasible, but we are on track for it happening in the next 10-20 years. I think we'll have many years of SLS/Orion, but that is probably the last NASA launch system. Once NASA gets out of the launcher building business, the entire enterprise because much more viable. The cost of any particular mission is not terrible, and if any single mission fails it's not the end of the organization. If the launch program fails, NASA gets off track for a decade. Effectively the Space Shuttle was a slowly unfolding 30 year failure that pushed NASA off course for decades.

nickff 12y ago
I think you are right that building launch vehicles consumes much of NASA's time, money, and focus, and that private launch systems will relieve NASA of this burden (if they accept the relief). I do not think this is NASA's main problem, as they were able to create launch systems while performing exploration in the 1960s. It seems that they lost their way after Apollo, when NASA no longer had a clear priority. NASA is now dominated by internal politics, where each center tries to run its own projects, and there is no overarching goal. If NASA had one main program, it would be more visible to the public, and have a greater chance of success on a realistic timeline (5-10 years), though NASA would risk complete defunding if there were problems with the project. Mars in the short term (5-10 years) is a realistic goal (under their current funding levels) which could get NASA started again, but it would require them to sacrifice a variety of smaller projects which have strong internal lobbies.
- fapjacks 12y ago
  They didn't lose their way. In the Apollo years you're talking about, NASA enjoyed as much as FIVE PERCENT of the federal budget.[0] You can build all the Saturn V launch vehicles you want when the government is throwing bags of money at your particular problem. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    Their budget during the Apollo program was 50% higher than it is today. I don't think funding is the primary problem.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      Is that adjusted for inflation?
      - seanflyon 12y ago
        Yes
    - fapjacks 12y ago
      Technology is more expensive. The projects themselves are more complex and machinery more expensive. You can build an antenna with pocket change that will let you talk to someone on the moon, but you need some serious hardware to talk to something on Mars, let alone further out. Plus the bureaucracy -- the oft-referenced bureaucracy -- is grinding more and more to a halt. It's more expensive from a bureaucratic standpoint, with more layers of management slapped on layers of management. The NASA of the 60s was an entirely different creature. We would do well to try to get that back, but honestly, really I think it's too late for that. I think honestly it's out of the American government's hands what happens in space over the next 50 years, barring another space race with China (fingers crossed). American commercial interests? Maybe. But our government just grinds to a halt when it needs to get anything done.
      - seanflyon 12y ago
        It seems that you agree with me that funding is not NASA's primary problem (I think I am actually more optimistic about NASA's competence). The point I disagree with is "Technology is more expensive". Technology has gotten dramatically cheaper (though I agree that current projects are more difficult). We have better materials, better manufacturing techniques, better computers and all of it more affordable than it was in the 1960's. Look at what SpaceX was able to do; in their first 10 years their total expenditures was only $1 billion, a small fraction of what it would have cost half a century ago.
sehugg 12y ago
ISS too. Its budget is more than double that of planetary exploration. EDIT: Just the budget for getting crew and equipment to/from the ISS is roughly the same as the entire planetary science program. And ISS is also a program that just buys launchers.[1] [1] http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FY_2016_Budget_Estimates.pdf http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FY_2016_B...
stcredzero 12y ago
The real missing part of this article is that NASA's budget is dominated by building launchers. If all NASA did was build payloads and buy launch services, it would get a lot more done for its dollar. It's a sign of corruption in the governance. As Shakespeare noted through Polonius, you can distinguish true craziness from the put-on by watching what people do with their money. Boondoggles, even partial ones, whose main purpose is to broker power through the distribution of fat contracts are a clear sign of failed governance.
Crito 12y ago
> "The real missing part of this article is that NASA's budget is dominated by building launchers." This is one of the reasons I am so excited for Russia's OPSEK, which is to be their successor to ISS and used for orbital assembly of interplanetary spacecraft. I think it is a much more straightforward plan than building ever-larger launchers to hoist interplanetary spacecraft all in one go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Piloted_Assembly_and_Experiment_Complex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Piloted_Assembly_and_Ex... Don't get me wrong, I like SLS and the BFR/MCT concept (what little we have actually seen of it anyway...) and think/hope NASA and SpaceX can pull those off, but if I were in charge of allocating funding, I'd throw my money at OPSEK.

nickff 12y ago

I think you are right that building launch vehicles consumes much of NASA's time, money, and focus, and that private launch systems will relieve NASA of this burden (if they accept the relief). I do not think this is NASA's main problem, as they were able to create launch systems while performing exploration in the 1960s. It seems that they lost their way after Apollo, when NASA no longer had a clear priority. NASA is now dominated by internal politics, where each center tries to run its own projects, and there is no overarching goal. If NASA had one main program, it would be more visible to the public, and have a greater chance of success on a realistic timeline (5-10 years), though NASA would risk complete defunding if there were problems with the project. Mars in the short term (5-10 years) is a realistic goal (under their current funding levels) which could get NASA started again, but it would require them to sacrifice a variety of smaller projects which have strong internal lobbies.

fapjacks 12y ago
They didn't lose their way. In the Apollo years you're talking about, NASA enjoyed as much as FIVE PERCENT of the federal budget.[0] You can build all the Saturn V launch vehicles you want when the government is throwing bags of money at your particular problem. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Their budget during the Apollo program was 50% higher than it is today. I don't think funding is the primary problem.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    Is that adjusted for inflation?
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      Yes
  - fapjacks 12y ago
    Technology is more expensive. The projects themselves are more complex and machinery more expensive. You can build an antenna with pocket change that will let you talk to someone on the moon, but you need some serious hardware to talk to something on Mars, let alone further out. Plus the bureaucracy -- the oft-referenced bureaucracy -- is grinding more and more to a halt. It's more expensive from a bureaucratic standpoint, with more layers of management slapped on layers of management. The NASA of the 60s was an entirely different creature. We would do well to try to get that back, but honestly, really I think it's too late for that. I think honestly it's out of the American government's hands what happens in space over the next 50 years, barring another space race with China (fingers crossed). American commercial interests? Maybe. But our government just grinds to a halt when it needs to get anything done.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      It seems that you agree with me that funding is not NASA's primary problem (I think I am actually more optimistic about NASA's competence). The point I disagree with is "Technology is more expensive". Technology has gotten dramatically cheaper (though I agree that current projects are more difficult). We have better materials, better manufacturing techniques, better computers and all of it more affordable than it was in the 1960's. Look at what SpaceX was able to do; in their first 10 years their total expenditures was only $1 billion, a small fraction of what it would have cost half a century ago.

sehugg 12y ago

ISS too. Its budget is more than double that of planetary exploration. EDIT: Just the budget for getting crew and equipment to/from the ISS is roughly the same as the entire planetary science program. And ISS is also a program that just buys launchers.[1] [1] http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FY_2016_Budget_Estimates.pdf http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FY_2016_B...

stcredzero 12y ago

The real missing part of this article is that NASA's budget is dominated by building launchers. If all NASA did was build payloads and buy launch services, it would get a lot more done for its dollar. It's a sign of corruption in the governance. As Shakespeare noted through Polonius, you can distinguish true craziness from the put-on by watching what people do with their money. Boondoggles, even partial ones, whose main purpose is to broker power through the distribution of fat contracts are a clear sign of failed governance.

Crito 12y ago

> "The real missing part of this article is that NASA's budget is dominated by building launchers." This is one of the reasons I am so excited for Russia's OPSEK, which is to be their successor to ISS and used for orbital assembly of interplanetary spacecraft. I think it is a much more straightforward plan than building ever-larger launchers to hoist interplanetary spacecraft all in one go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Piloted_Assembly_and_Experiment_Complex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Piloted_Assembly_and_Ex... Don't get me wrong, I like SLS and the BFR/MCT concept (what little we have actually seen of it anyway...) and think/hope NASA and SpaceX can pull those off, but if I were in charge of allocating funding, I'd throw my money at OPSEK.