3 ms·

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 bu

by 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.

by nickff 12y ago

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.