5 ms·

Nice rebuttal. The Apollo program was also delivered on time (JFK's "before this decade is out" deadline). I'd also add the Manhattan Project to this list. I w

by Shalomm 12y ago

Nice rebuttal. The Apollo program was also delivered on time (JFK's "before this decade is out" deadline). I'd also add the Manhattan Project to this list. I wonder: why can the government execute Apollo and Manhattan projects, but botches such simple projects as the Bradley APC carrier?

venomsnake 12y ago
In both cases it was do or die. Right now is do or ... meh.
- Retra 12y ago
  I wouldn't be wholly surprised if the entire point of the F35 is to make money off of it. Either by selling it to foreign countries, or by exploiting the large influx of tax money. If that was your goal, it is win-win, no matter if the project fails. And that's where I'd peg the fundamental problem.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    In a way, maybe. Defense contractors have figured out that they need to distribute facilities into numerous congressional districts.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    I agree. F-35 seems to be developed to make money and redistribute political power. The atomic bomb was developed to make an atomic bomb. See the subtle difference in these two sentences? And it works with so many companies today as well. That's why I'm a big fan of Tesla and SpaceX - because they build electric cars so that there are electric cars. They build rockets so that humans can go to Mars. Many other companies in these sectors are the toilet-paper type: they develop electric cars to make money on people buying them. They develop rockets to make money on companies buying launch services. It's the difference of having money as an instrumental vs. terminal goal.
- Shalomm 12y ago
  Do or die? I'm not sure. Neither Apollo nor Manhattan were do-or-die situations (for the US). Maybe "First-system" vs "Second-system syndrome" is the difference? Apollo and Manhattan were definitely "First systems". Bradley APC and F-35 are classic "Second systems", suffering from second-system syndrome [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_system_syndrome#The_second-system_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_system_syndrome#The_sec...
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    In the times they were conceived they were. A different european theater would have made nukes absolutely needed at least as deterrent. And US urgently needed to catch up in the space race - space is very efficient way to drop nuke on someone.
    - leoc 12y ago
      IIRC it was increasingly unlikely that the Axis could actually win a conventional war in Europe during the period of the Manhattan Project. The big fear was that Germany could develop its own atomic bomb first.
      - Spooky23 12y ago
        At the start of the project, the Germans were still advancing through the Soviet Union, and the Solomon Islands were still actively contested. U-Boats were doing a number on convoys. Victory over Germany wasn't a sure thing until late 1944. The fact that U.S. leadership had the foresight to make a massive investment in the Manhattan Project at a time where half of the US Navy's carriers were out of action speaks a lot of them.
      - tsotha 12y ago
        Yes, that was the driver. We knew they were trying to build such a device, but we didn't know how far along they were. Given the German lead in other war technology areas (like guided missiles), it would have been foolish to underestimate them. Of course the Germans were lucky to have lost before the bomb was ready. Otherwise instead instead of memorials at Hiroshima and Nagasaki they might be at Munich and Hamburg.
ArkyBeagle 12y ago
My theory is that Manhattan and Apollo both had exceptional, unicorn-frequency leadership. Both had flawed leaders - Tom Lehrer wrote a song about Werner von Braun, and Lesley Groves is a legendary ... figure, but it got done. The software story in "Moon Machines" should be required for anyone who does software. The whole thing should be interesting to anyone; it's a great example of documentary filmmaking.
leoc 12y ago
Apollo wasn't all that different. It ended the successful relationship with McDonnell-Douglas which had produced Mercury and Gemini and brought in a number of different contractors at the same time: this was the result of lobbying and pork-barrel politics IIRC (I am not an expert). Unsurprisingly this transition set back the space program quite badly. IIRC things only really started to shape up again after the Apollo 1 fire which killed three astronauts.
pdonis 12y ago
> why can the government execute Apollo and Manhattan projects, but botches such simple projects as the Bradley APC carrier? Because they were different governments. Yes, they were both labeled "US government", but the brand has changed a lot.
Symmetry 12y ago
Apollo and the Manhattan project were both executed by fairly new bureaucracies that had people in key leadership roles who weren't selected by their ability to get promoted from within large bureaucracies. It is possible to have institutional mechanisms or culture that keeps rot to a manageable level but nobody really knows how to do that deliberately - it's always a matter of luck. That's why it's important to allow organizations to fail. I wish we had some systematic way of allowing that for government departments the way we do for corporations.

by Shalomm 12y ago

venomsnake 12y ago

In both cases it was do or die. Right now is do or ... meh.

Retra 12y ago
I wouldn't be wholly surprised if the entire point of the F35 is to make money off of it. Either by selling it to foreign countries, or by exploiting the large influx of tax money. If that was your goal, it is win-win, no matter if the project fails. And that's where I'd peg the fundamental problem.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  In a way, maybe. Defense contractors have figured out that they need to distribute facilities into numerous congressional districts.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  I agree. F-35 seems to be developed to make money and redistribute political power. The atomic bomb was developed to make an atomic bomb. See the subtle difference in these two sentences? And it works with so many companies today as well. That's why I'm a big fan of Tesla and SpaceX - because they build electric cars so that there are electric cars. They build rockets so that humans can go to Mars. Many other companies in these sectors are the toilet-paper type: they develop electric cars to make money on people buying them. They develop rockets to make money on companies buying launch services. It's the difference of having money as an instrumental vs. terminal goal.
Shalomm 12y ago
Do or die? I'm not sure. Neither Apollo nor Manhattan were do-or-die situations (for the US). Maybe "First-system" vs "Second-system syndrome" is the difference? Apollo and Manhattan were definitely "First systems". Bradley APC and F-35 are classic "Second systems", suffering from second-system syndrome [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_system_syndrome#The_second-system_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_system_syndrome#The_sec...
- venomsnake 12y ago
  In the times they were conceived they were. A different european theater would have made nukes absolutely needed at least as deterrent. And US urgently needed to catch up in the space race - space is very efficient way to drop nuke on someone.
  - leoc 12y ago
    IIRC it was increasingly unlikely that the Axis could actually win a conventional war in Europe during the period of the Manhattan Project. The big fear was that Germany could develop its own atomic bomb first.
    - Spooky23 12y ago
      At the start of the project, the Germans were still advancing through the Soviet Union, and the Solomon Islands were still actively contested. U-Boats were doing a number on convoys. Victory over Germany wasn't a sure thing until late 1944. The fact that U.S. leadership had the foresight to make a massive investment in the Manhattan Project at a time where half of the US Navy's carriers were out of action speaks a lot of them.
    - tsotha 12y ago
      Yes, that was the driver. We knew they were trying to build such a device, but we didn't know how far along they were. Given the German lead in other war technology areas (like guided missiles), it would have been foolish to underestimate them. Of course the Germans were lucky to have lost before the bomb was ready. Otherwise instead instead of memorials at Hiroshima and Nagasaki they might be at Munich and Hamburg.

ArkyBeagle 12y ago

My theory is that Manhattan and Apollo both had exceptional, unicorn-frequency leadership. Both had flawed leaders - Tom Lehrer wrote a song about Werner von Braun, and Lesley Groves is a legendary ... figure, but it got done. The software story in "Moon Machines" should be required for anyone who does software. The whole thing should be interesting to anyone; it's a great example of documentary filmmaking.

leoc 12y ago

Apollo wasn't all that different. It ended the successful relationship with McDonnell-Douglas which had produced Mercury and Gemini and brought in a number of different contractors at the same time: this was the result of lobbying and pork-barrel politics IIRC (I am not an expert). Unsurprisingly this transition set back the space program quite badly. IIRC things only really started to shape up again after the Apollo 1 fire which killed three astronauts.

pdonis 12y ago

> why can the government execute Apollo and Manhattan projects, but botches such simple projects as the Bradley APC carrier? Because they were different governments. Yes, they were both labeled "US government", but the brand has changed a lot.

Symmetry 12y ago

Apollo and the Manhattan project were both executed by fairly new bureaucracies that had people in key leadership roles who weren't selected by their ability to get promoted from within large bureaucracies. It is possible to have institutional mechanisms or culture that keeps rot to a manageable level but nobody really knows how to do that deliberately - it's always a matter of luck. That's why it's important to allow organizations to fail. I wish we had some systematic way of allowing that for government departments the way we do for corporations.