The Trump Administration sees more turnover than a gas station hotdog.

Hevach

Polaritie wrote: »

chr1sh4ll3ttb3 wrote: »

Polaritie wrote: »

chr1sh4ll3ttb3 wrote: »

Hevach wrote: »

[Expletive deleted] wrote: »

Hevach wrote: »

Chanus wrote: »

i guess my first question would be

is NASA being run poorly under his administration compared to previous directors?

In some ways, yes. But considering this guy came into the job to kill science almost entirely because Trump's ego demanded flags and footprints, he still did better than the average since around 1980, because exposure to science was some kind of come to Jesus moment for him. If Trump or any other current Republican were appointing his replacement I would worry a lot.

Biden's NASA transition team are all NASA veterans, however, and while he himself hasn't said anything a couple of them have said that killing the SLS would do more to fund exploration than actually increasing the budget.


I'm not going to cheer about this Trump appointee losing his job or dread what it means (since he's making a point to stick around), but at the same time there are better people for the job.

As someone who has no idea at all on the topic, I have to ask: What's wrong with the SLS?

Spoiler for long:

Webguy mentions it being a decade behind schedule, which is roughly true, but it's a decade behind it's third restarted schedule.

So, back in the late 80's, when the STS became a boondoggle, the Reagan administration envisioned Space Station Freedom, with a new Apollo-style capsule and versatile/scalable rocket system to service it. Some parts of the station became the US parts of the ISS, while the rocket system managed to exceed it's design-to-launch budget without leaving the drawing board. Late in the Clinton Administration it died a quiet death, but then during the Bush administration a new system called Constellation was envisioned. This was *the same* system, but started fresh money wise. It also exceeded its design-to-launch budget and its first several years of operational budget without actually existing. It finally died, but was immediately replaced by the Space Launch System... made by the same companies and identical in concept to the Constellation. It has now exceeded its budget several times over, and what we have is:

-A prototype Orion capsule that cannot be human-rated.
-The Starliner capsule that has been delayed after a failed test flight.
-A Delta Heavy rocket painted in the intended colors of the SLS
-Several empty booster shells without tanks or engines (because they don't exist yet)
-A mockup of an Artemis lander design... but not THE Artemis lander design.

This was a system that was supposed to be sending people to Mars when I was in high school, but through a series of name changes it has burned more money than some wars with less to show for it all. Right now it is optimistically looking at a lunar free return flyby by 2030 (having abandoned the 2024 landing).

SpaceX made its first launch of the Falcon 1 after the last name change to SLS. The Falcon system has quite similar plans to the SLS, with the Falcon Heavy, BFR, and boosted BFR configurations that could manage Dragon missions throughout cislunar and even some limited interplanetary space. With the Falcon Heavy flying and the Dragon human rated, it is currently where the SLS predecessor was meant to be in 1995 and which the SLS has been five years away from since Obama was president.


This whole thing eats up a lot of NASA's budget and is enshrined in law to the extent that when Starliner failed, NASA wasn't even sure if they could legally require another test or if they had to give Boeing human rating (they actually did have to, but Boeing graciously agreed to a second test... after they redesign the capsule's electronics system and recode it's programming from the ground up).

SpaceX/Dragon isn't the end-all, but SpaceX has demonstrated an ability to deliver results while Lockheed and Boeing have burned through enough money to fund two ISS-scale space stations, a fleet of rovers on Mars, a dozen Jupiter/Saturn missions, or returns to the outer planets.

Short version: Billions of dollars spent across six presidents for zero returns.

This is why NASA needs to be heavily overhauled and re-booted. Things subcontracted out to private companies need to have their budgets set in stone, with serious consequences if said thing does not meet performance criteria and scheduled dates.

NASA itself needs a HUGE improvement in funding and resources, take as much as they can back in-house to keep profiteering corporations as far the fuck away as they can. The myth of private industry being "more efficient" in any way has been so thoroughly debunked in so many ways across so many continents that anyone still ringing that bell can be safely written off as delusional.

The irony of this statement is that SpaceX has basically put the national space programs of the the entire world to shame at this point.

Although this is primarily because they had to actually deliver I suspect. The essential factor here isn't that they're private, its that they had to compete with their product. And against an unfair playing field.

Also because they were riding off the back of four decades of NASA's own research and development. If they'd truly had to start from scratch they'd be completely boned.

True. But even granting those advantages, it's extremely damning of Boeing et al. There isn't anything SpaceX has that they didn't already have available for years before. Modern computers, budget, etc.

Also, the companies that have been scamming the government with the SLS for so long actually created those decades of prior art that SpaceX is building off of. Even in within in that arena they have every advantage.

This has all been hashed over in the spaceflight thread a dozen times, tons of good links there.

evilmrhenry

There are ways to build contracts for stuff like this. At a minimum, you could leave the R&D inside NASA, which just contracts out specified parts, at a specified price, by a specified date. Contracts like that are a solved problem. The cost-plus contracts are because NASA is contracting out the actual R&D, which doesn't appear to be working except as corporate welfare.

Elldren

Santa Claustrophobia wrote: »

Dracomicron wrote: »

Couscous wrote: »

spool32 wrote: »

SiliconStew wrote: »

At this point, I'm just glad "Do you want to destroy this government agency?" "Yes." will no longer be the main criteria someone needs to get appointed to these positions.

what about the heads of DHS or the DEA or ICE? :rotate:

A qualified person will probably want to destroy those

Love or hate DHS, they are the main people currently preventing diseased agriculture from being imported and distributed in the US, among other things.

DHS is big y'all, and does a lot of important stuff. "Kids in cages" is not the sum and total of their work.

DHS is big only because they started throwing agencies there because everything else that made any sense didn't make it worthwhile. DHS never needed to exist in the first place. They just wanted to make a big patriotic splash.

There's a concept in taxonomy called a "wastebin taxon"

this is a group of organisms organized together mostly out of convenience and because they don't really fit elsewhere, not because they actually belong together.

DHS is a wastebin cabinet department

Hydropolo

While I'm not about to defend the SLS or several other major gov't contracts, there is a HUGE amount of just gross ignorance of how contracting/procurement actually works for the government as well as the pros and cons of it.

Mayabird

Dracomicron wrote: »

Love or hate DHS, they are the main people currently preventing diseased agriculture from being imported and distributed in the US, among other things.

The Department of Agriculture is right there, and has been since 1868. Customs used to be done by the Treasury Department. Immigration and Naturalization was in the Department of Justice, as were most other law enforcement-related duties. All the important roles that needed to be filled were filled by other departments, less evilly, before DHS was formed in 2003. "Homeland Security" was a fascist dogwhistle abomination from its very formation, and it must be destroyed.

shryke

Mayabird wrote: »

Dracomicron wrote: »

Love or hate DHS, they are the main people currently preventing diseased agriculture from being imported and distributed in the US, among other things.

The Department of Agriculture is right there, and has been since 1868. Customs used to be done by the Treasury Department. Immigration and Naturalization was in the Department of Justice, as were most other law enforcement-related duties. All the important roles that needed to be filled were filled by other departments, less evilly, before DHS was formed in 2003. "Homeland Security" was a fascist dogwhistle abomination from its very formation, and it must be destroyed.

Yeah, but all the people who were doing those things in other departments are now under DHS. The biggest problem with DHS is that it's a giant hodgepodge of random shit that were in other places before. But a ton of those things are still vital. It should be destroyed in that it should be reorganized in a more coherent fashion and various duties passed around. And specific parts need a serious housecleaning and reimagining as something very different in implementation and organization, like ICE. That's what Dracomicron is trying to say.

Dracomicron

shryke wrote: »

Mayabird wrote: »

Dracomicron wrote: »

Love or hate DHS, they are the main people currently preventing diseased agriculture from being imported and distributed in the US, among other things.

The Department of Agriculture is right there, and has been since 1868. Customs used to be done by the Treasury Department. Immigration and Naturalization was in the Department of Justice, as were most other law enforcement-related duties. All the important roles that needed to be filled were filled by other departments, less evilly, before DHS was formed in 2003. "Homeland Security" was a fascist dogwhistle abomination from its very formation, and it must be destroyed.

Yeah, but all the people who were doing those things in other departments are now under DHS. The biggest problem with DHS is that it's a giant hodgepodge of random shit that were in other places before. But a ton of those things are still vital. It should be destroyed in that it should be reorganized in a more coherent fashion and various duties passed around. And specific parts need a serious housecleaning and reimagining as something very different in implementation and organization, like ICE. That's what Dracomicron is trying to say.

Yes, thank you.

A ton of great work is being done by DHS employees, regular civil servants who are diligently doing their job, even in the face of a growing pandemic and unprecedented political pressure. You might not like CBP, but someone needs to stand at the border to take passports, even when doing so risks exposure to the disease (and this year has the highest line of duty deaths on record).

So, sure, DHS has a fascist dogwhistle name. I remember; I was around when it happened. If we rename it to the Department of Hugs and Puppies, would your concerns be increased or lowered? Or do we expend a ridiculous amount of political capital undoing it and shifting the constituent agencies back to their old locations?

Yes, I get that all of the agencies were previously elsewhere. They're DHS now. "Destroy DHS" is not productive rhetoric, because we still need the stuff inside it. As abhorrent as ICE is, we do need someone that enforces immigration law; the problem is that they are allowed to be jackbooted thugs, not that they exist at all.

This summer my city almost tore itself apart due to justified racial unrest caused by police malfeasance. Even then, most of us put an asterisk next to Abolish the Police:

* We actually still need cops, but maybe they shouldn't be expected to respond to every call, in favor of emergency services, therapists, etc.

I'm just saying to tone down the rhetoric a notch, the same way. DHS isn't going anywhere in the foreseeable future because to do away with it we would need a political unity that matched its creation, and you can't predict another 9/11. Dwelling on it's destruction is a waste of time and energy, energy that could be spent suggesting achievable reforms (many of which could relatively easily be done by Biden with EOs and appointees).

CBP alone has 60,000 employees; given demographics and proximity, consider that many of them share your concerns and would like to fix things, but folks demonizing their agency outright might not help them do it.

moniker

Dracomicron wrote: »

shryke wrote: »

Mayabird wrote: »

Dracomicron wrote: »

Love or hate DHS, they are the main people currently preventing diseased agriculture from being imported and distributed in the US, among other things.

The Department of Agriculture is right there, and has been since 1868. Customs used to be done by the Treasury Department. Immigration and Naturalization was in the Department of Justice, as were most other law enforcement-related duties. All the important roles that needed to be filled were filled by other departments, less evilly, before DHS was formed in 2003. "Homeland Security" was a fascist dogwhistle abomination from its very formation, and it must be destroyed.

Yeah, but all the people who were doing those things in other departments are now under DHS. The biggest problem with DHS is that it's a giant hodgepodge of random shit that were in other places before. But a ton of those things are still vital. It should be destroyed in that it should be reorganized in a more coherent fashion and various duties passed around. And specific parts need a serious housecleaning and reimagining as something very different in implementation and organization, like ICE. That's what Dracomicron is trying to say.

Yes, thank you.

A ton of great work is being done by DHS employees, regular civil servants who are diligently doing their job, even in the face of a growing pandemic and unprecedented political pressure. You might not like CBP, but someone needs to stand at the border to take passports, even when doing so risks exposure to the disease (and this year has the highest line of duty deaths on record).

So, sure, DHS has a fascist dogwhistle name. I remember; I was around when it happened. If we rename it to the Department of Hugs and Puppies, would your concerns be increased or lowered? Or do we expend a ridiculous amount of political capital undoing it and shifting the constituent agencies back to their old locations?

Yes, I get that all of the agencies were previously elsewhere. They're DHS now. "Destroy DHS" is not productive rhetoric, because we still need the stuff inside it. As abhorrent as ICE is, we do need someone that enforces immigration law; the problem is that they are allowed to be jackbooted thugs, not that they exist at all.

This summer my city almost tore itself apart due to justified racial unrest caused by police malfeasance. Even then, most of us put an asterisk next to Abolish the Police:

* We actually still need cops, but maybe they shouldn't be expected to respond to every call, in favor of emergency services, therapists, etc.

I'm just saying to tone down the rhetoric a notch, the same way. DHS isn't going anywhere in the foreseeable future because to do away with it we would need a political unity that matched its creation, and you can't predict another 9/11. Dwelling on it's destruction is a waste of time and energy, energy that could be spent suggesting achievable reforms (many of which could relatively easily be done by Biden with EOs and appointees).

CBP alone has 60,000 employees; given demographics and proximity, consider that many of them share your concerns and would like to fix things, but folks demonizing their agency outright might not help them do it.

DOJ is perfectly capable of enforcing other Federal laws, and their remit and institutional culture has much more of a focus on law and legal protections than ICE. INS was much more of an agency staffed with lawyers than folks looking to bust heads before it got split up and reconstituted in DHS.

Dac

chr1sh4ll3ttb3 wrote: »

Polaritie wrote: »

chr1sh4ll3ttb3 wrote: »

Hevach wrote: »

[Expletive deleted] wrote: »

Hevach wrote: »

Chanus wrote: »

i guess my first question would be

is NASA being run poorly under his administration compared to previous directors?

In some ways, yes. But considering this guy came into the job to kill science almost entirely because Trump's ego demanded flags and footprints, he still did better than the average since around 1980, because exposure to science was some kind of come to Jesus moment for him. If Trump or any other current Republican were appointing his replacement I would worry a lot.

Biden's NASA transition team are all NASA veterans, however, and while he himself hasn't said anything a couple of them have said that killing the SLS would do more to fund exploration than actually increasing the budget.


I'm not going to cheer about this Trump appointee losing his job or dread what it means (since he's making a point to stick around), but at the same time there are better people for the job.

As someone who has no idea at all on the topic, I have to ask: What's wrong with the SLS?

Spoiler for long:

Webguy mentions it being a decade behind schedule, which is roughly true, but it's a decade behind it's third restarted schedule.

So, back in the late 80's, when the STS became a boondoggle, the Reagan administration envisioned Space Station Freedom, with a new Apollo-style capsule and versatile/scalable rocket system to service it. Some parts of the station became the US parts of the ISS, while the rocket system managed to exceed it's design-to-launch budget without leaving the drawing board. Late in the Clinton Administration it died a quiet death, but then during the Bush administration a new system called Constellation was envisioned. This was *the same* system, but started fresh money wise. It also exceeded its design-to-launch budget and its first several years of operational budget without actually existing. It finally died, but was immediately replaced by the Space Launch System... made by the same companies and identical in concept to the Constellation. It has now exceeded its budget several times over, and what we have is:

-A prototype Orion capsule that cannot be human-rated.
-The Starliner capsule that has been delayed after a failed test flight.
-A Delta Heavy rocket painted in the intended colors of the SLS
-Several empty booster shells without tanks or engines (because they don't exist yet)
-A mockup of an Artemis lander design... but not THE Artemis lander design.

This was a system that was supposed to be sending people to Mars when I was in high school, but through a series of name changes it has burned more money than some wars with less to show for it all. Right now it is optimistically looking at a lunar free return flyby by 2030 (having abandoned the 2024 landing).

SpaceX made its first launch of the Falcon 1 after the last name change to SLS. The Falcon system has quite similar plans to the SLS, with the Falcon Heavy, BFR, and boosted BFR configurations that could manage Dragon missions throughout cislunar and even some limited interplanetary space. With the Falcon Heavy flying and the Dragon human rated, it is currently where the SLS predecessor was meant to be in 1995 and which the SLS has been five years away from since Obama was president.


This whole thing eats up a lot of NASA's budget and is enshrined in law to the extent that when Starliner failed, NASA wasn't even sure if they could legally require another test or if they had to give Boeing human rating (they actually did have to, but Boeing graciously agreed to a second test... after they redesign the capsule's electronics system and recode it's programming from the ground up).

SpaceX/Dragon isn't the end-all, but SpaceX has demonstrated an ability to deliver results while Lockheed and Boeing have burned through enough money to fund two ISS-scale space stations, a fleet of rovers on Mars, a dozen Jupiter/Saturn missions, or returns to the outer planets.

Short version: Billions of dollars spent across six presidents for zero returns.

This is why NASA needs to be heavily overhauled and re-booted. Things subcontracted out to private companies need to have their budgets set in stone, with serious consequences if said thing does not meet performance criteria and scheduled dates.

NASA itself needs a HUGE improvement in funding and resources, take as much as they can back in-house to keep profiteering corporations as far the fuck away as they can. The myth of private industry being "more efficient" in any way has been so thoroughly debunked in so many ways across so many continents that anyone still ringing that bell can be safely written off as delusional.

The irony of this statement is that SpaceX has basically put the national space programs of the the entire world to shame at this point.

Although this is primarily because they had to actually deliver I suspect. The essential factor here isn't that they're private, its that they had to compete with their product. And against an unfair playing field.

Also because they were riding off the back of four decades of NASA's own research and development. If they'd truly had to start from scratch they'd be completely boned.

yes if everyone had to reset to zero on the tech tree every time they wanted to innovate something, spacex would be boned.

not that we would even know what a spacex is, because we would have never made it past the wheel.

what.

BlackDragon480

Dac wrote: »

chr1sh4ll3ttb3 wrote: »

Polaritie wrote: »

chr1sh4ll3ttb3 wrote: »

Hevach wrote: »

[Expletive deleted] wrote: »

Hevach wrote: »

Chanus wrote: »

i guess my first question would be

is NASA being run poorly under his administration compared to previous directors?

In some ways, yes. But considering this guy came into the job to kill science almost entirely because Trump's ego demanded flags and footprints, he still did better than the average since around 1980, because exposure to science was some kind of come to Jesus moment for him. If Trump or any other current Republican were appointing his replacement I would worry a lot.

Biden's NASA transition team are all NASA veterans, however, and while he himself hasn't said anything a couple of them have said that killing the SLS would do more to fund exploration than actually increasing the budget.


I'm not going to cheer about this Trump appointee losing his job or dread what it means (since he's making a point to stick around), but at the same time there are better people for the job.

As someone who has no idea at all on the topic, I have to ask: What's wrong with the SLS?

Spoiler for long:

Webguy mentions it being a decade behind schedule, which is roughly true, but it's a decade behind it's third restarted schedule.

So, back in the late 80's, when the STS became a boondoggle, the Reagan administration envisioned Space Station Freedom, with a new Apollo-style capsule and versatile/scalable rocket system to service it. Some parts of the station became the US parts of the ISS, while the rocket system managed to exceed it's design-to-launch budget without leaving the drawing board. Late in the Clinton Administration it died a quiet death, but then during the Bush administration a new system called Constellation was envisioned. This was *the same* system, but started fresh money wise. It also exceeded its design-to-launch budget and its first several years of operational budget without actually existing. It finally died, but was immediately replaced by the Space Launch System... made by the same companies and identical in concept to the Constellation. It has now exceeded its budget several times over, and what we have is:

-A prototype Orion capsule that cannot be human-rated.
-The Starliner capsule that has been delayed after a failed test flight.
-A Delta Heavy rocket painted in the intended colors of the SLS
-Several empty booster shells without tanks or engines (because they don't exist yet)
-A mockup of an Artemis lander design... but not THE Artemis lander design.

This was a system that was supposed to be sending people to Mars when I was in high school, but through a series of name changes it has burned more money than some wars with less to show for it all. Right now it is optimistically looking at a lunar free return flyby by 2030 (having abandoned the 2024 landing).

SpaceX made its first launch of the Falcon 1 after the last name change to SLS. The Falcon system has quite similar plans to the SLS, with the Falcon Heavy, BFR, and boosted BFR configurations that could manage Dragon missions throughout cislunar and even some limited interplanetary space. With the Falcon Heavy flying and the Dragon human rated, it is currently where the SLS predecessor was meant to be in 1995 and which the SLS has been five years away from since Obama was president.


This whole thing eats up a lot of NASA's budget and is enshrined in law to the extent that when Starliner failed, NASA wasn't even sure if they could legally require another test or if they had to give Boeing human rating (they actually did have to, but Boeing graciously agreed to a second test... after they redesign the capsule's electronics system and recode it's programming from the ground up).

SpaceX/Dragon isn't the end-all, but SpaceX has demonstrated an ability to deliver results while Lockheed and Boeing have burned through enough money to fund two ISS-scale space stations, a fleet of rovers on Mars, a dozen Jupiter/Saturn missions, or returns to the outer planets.

Short version: Billions of dollars spent across six presidents for zero returns.

This is why NASA needs to be heavily overhauled and re-booted. Things subcontracted out to private companies need to have their budgets set in stone, with serious consequences if said thing does not meet performance criteria and scheduled dates.

NASA itself needs a HUGE improvement in funding and resources, take as much as they can back in-house to keep profiteering corporations as far the fuck away as they can. The myth of private industry being "more efficient" in any way has been so thoroughly debunked in so many ways across so many continents that anyone still ringing that bell can be safely written off as delusional.

The irony of this statement is that SpaceX has basically put the national space programs of the the entire world to shame at this point.

Although this is primarily because they had to actually deliver I suspect. The essential factor here isn't that they're private, its that they had to compete with their product. And against an unfair playing field.

Also because they were riding off the back of four decades of NASA's own research and development. If they'd truly had to start from scratch they'd be completely boned.

yes if everyone had to reset to zero on the tech tree every time they wanted to innovate something, spacex would be boned.

not that we would even know what a spacex is, because we would have never made it past the wheel.

what.

In SpaceX's case I think even set back to zero they could've made it past the wheel.

Now, with Musk being in charge they would've gone from the wheel straight to flamethrower and then never invent anything else.

Dac

BlackDragon480 wrote: »

Dac wrote: »

chr1sh4ll3ttb3 wrote: »

Polaritie wrote: »

chr1sh4ll3ttb3 wrote: »

Hevach wrote: »

[Expletive deleted] wrote: »

Hevach wrote: »

Chanus wrote: »

i guess my first question would be

is NASA being run poorly under his administration compared to previous directors?

In some ways, yes. But considering this guy came into the job to kill science almost entirely because Trump's ego demanded flags and footprints, he still did better than the average since around 1980, because exposure to science was some kind of come to Jesus moment for him. If Trump or any other current Republican were appointing his replacement I would worry a lot.

Biden's NASA transition team are all NASA veterans, however, and while he himself hasn't said anything a couple of them have said that killing the SLS would do more to fund exploration than actually increasing the budget.


I'm not going to cheer about this Trump appointee losing his job or dread what it means (since he's making a point to stick around), but at the same time there are better people for the job.

As someone who has no idea at all on the topic, I have to ask: What's wrong with the SLS?

Spoiler for long:

Webguy mentions it being a decade behind schedule, which is roughly true, but it's a decade behind it's third restarted schedule.

So, back in the late 80's, when the STS became a boondoggle, the Reagan administration envisioned Space Station Freedom, with a new Apollo-style capsule and versatile/scalable rocket system to service it. Some parts of the station became the US parts of the ISS, while the rocket system managed to exceed it's design-to-launch budget without leaving the drawing board. Late in the Clinton Administration it died a quiet death, but then during the Bush administration a new system called Constellation was envisioned. This was *the same* system, but started fresh money wise. It also exceeded its design-to-launch budget and its first several years of operational budget without actually existing. It finally died, but was immediately replaced by the Space Launch System... made by the same companies and identical in concept to the Constellation. It has now exceeded its budget several times over, and what we have is:

-A prototype Orion capsule that cannot be human-rated.
-The Starliner capsule that has been delayed after a failed test flight.
-A Delta Heavy rocket painted in the intended colors of the SLS
-Several empty booster shells without tanks or engines (because they don't exist yet)
-A mockup of an Artemis lander design... but not THE Artemis lander design.

This was a system that was supposed to be sending people to Mars when I was in high school, but through a series of name changes it has burned more money than some wars with less to show for it all. Right now it is optimistically looking at a lunar free return flyby by 2030 (having abandoned the 2024 landing).

SpaceX made its first launch of the Falcon 1 after the last name change to SLS. The Falcon system has quite similar plans to the SLS, with the Falcon Heavy, BFR, and boosted BFR configurations that could manage Dragon missions throughout cislunar and even some limited interplanetary space. With the Falcon Heavy flying and the Dragon human rated, it is currently where the SLS predecessor was meant to be in 1995 and which the SLS has been five years away from since Obama was president.


This whole thing eats up a lot of NASA's budget and is enshrined in law to the extent that when Starliner failed, NASA wasn't even sure if they could legally require another test or if they had to give Boeing human rating (they actually did have to, but Boeing graciously agreed to a second test... after they redesign the capsule's electronics system and recode it's programming from the ground up).

SpaceX/Dragon isn't the end-all, but SpaceX has demonstrated an ability to deliver results while Lockheed and Boeing have burned through enough money to fund two ISS-scale space stations, a fleet of rovers on Mars, a dozen Jupiter/Saturn missions, or returns to the outer planets.

Short version: Billions of dollars spent across six presidents for zero returns.

This is why NASA needs to be heavily overhauled and re-booted. Things subcontracted out to private companies need to have their budgets set in stone, with serious consequences if said thing does not meet performance criteria and scheduled dates.

NASA itself needs a HUGE improvement in funding and resources, take as much as they can back in-house to keep profiteering corporations as far the fuck away as they can. The myth of private industry being "more efficient" in any way has been so thoroughly debunked in so many ways across so many continents that anyone still ringing that bell can be safely written off as delusional.

The irony of this statement is that SpaceX has basically put the national space programs of the the entire world to shame at this point.

Although this is primarily because they had to actually deliver I suspect. The essential factor here isn't that they're private, its that they had to compete with their product. And against an unfair playing field.

Also because they were riding off the back of four decades of NASA's own research and development. If they'd truly had to start from scratch they'd be completely boned.

yes if everyone had to reset to zero on the tech tree every time they wanted to innovate something, spacex would be boned.

not that we would even know what a spacex is, because we would have never made it past the wheel.

what.

In SpaceX's case I think even set back to zero they could've made it past the wheel.

Now, with Musk being in charge they would've gone from the wheel straight to flamethrower and then never invent anything else.

Like, I get that people like to dog on SpaceX because the founder is a six foot tall toolbag, but trying to downplay the company's genuine achievements because NASA laid the groundwork is silly. Human progress and advancement is built on the shoulders of those that came before.

Commander Zoom

(much as I'm down with this stuff, I think it has more to do with the spaceflight thread than the Trump Admin at this point)

Dac

Fair enough.

Donovan Puppyfucker

Dac wrote: »

chr1sh4ll3ttb3 wrote: »

Polaritie wrote: »

chr1sh4ll3ttb3 wrote: »

Hevach wrote: »

[Expletive deleted] wrote: »

Hevach wrote: »

Chanus wrote: »

i guess my first question would be

is NASA being run poorly under his administration compared to previous directors?

In some ways, yes. But considering this guy came into the job to kill science almost entirely because Trump's ego demanded flags and footprints, he still did better than the average since around 1980, because exposure to science was some kind of come to Jesus moment for him. If Trump or any other current Republican were appointing his replacement I would worry a lot.

Biden's NASA transition team are all NASA veterans, however, and while he himself hasn't said anything a couple of them have said that killing the SLS would do more to fund exploration than actually increasing the budget.


I'm not going to cheer about this Trump appointee losing his job or dread what it means (since he's making a point to stick around), but at the same time there are better people for the job.

As someone who has no idea at all on the topic, I have to ask: What's wrong with the SLS?

Spoiler for long:

Webguy mentions it being a decade behind schedule, which is roughly true, but it's a decade behind it's third restarted schedule.

So, back in the late 80's, when the STS became a boondoggle, the Reagan administration envisioned Space Station Freedom, with a new Apollo-style capsule and versatile/scalable rocket system to service it. Some parts of the station became the US parts of the ISS, while the rocket system managed to exceed it's design-to-launch budget without leaving the drawing board. Late in the Clinton Administration it died a quiet death, but then during the Bush administration a new system called Constellation was envisioned. This was *the same* system, but started fresh money wise. It also exceeded its design-to-launch budget and its first several years of operational budget without actually existing. It finally died, but was immediately replaced by the Space Launch System... made by the same companies and identical in concept to the Constellation. It has now exceeded its budget several times over, and what we have is:

-A prototype Orion capsule that cannot be human-rated.
-The Starliner capsule that has been delayed after a failed test flight.
-A Delta Heavy rocket painted in the intended colors of the SLS
-Several empty booster shells without tanks or engines (because they don't exist yet)
-A mockup of an Artemis lander design... but not THE Artemis lander design.

This was a system that was supposed to be sending people to Mars when I was in high school, but through a series of name changes it has burned more money than some wars with less to show for it all. Right now it is optimistically looking at a lunar free return flyby by 2030 (having abandoned the 2024 landing).

SpaceX made its first launch of the Falcon 1 after the last name change to SLS. The Falcon system has quite similar plans to the SLS, with the Falcon Heavy, BFR, and boosted BFR configurations that could manage Dragon missions throughout cislunar and even some limited interplanetary space. With the Falcon Heavy flying and the Dragon human rated, it is currently where the SLS predecessor was meant to be in 1995 and which the SLS has been five years away from since Obama was president.


This whole thing eats up a lot of NASA's budget and is enshrined in law to the extent that when Starliner failed, NASA wasn't even sure if they could legally require another test or if they had to give Boeing human rating (they actually did have to, but Boeing graciously agreed to a second test... after they redesign the capsule's electronics system and recode it's programming from the ground up).

SpaceX/Dragon isn't the end-all, but SpaceX has demonstrated an ability to deliver results while Lockheed and Boeing have burned through enough money to fund two ISS-scale space stations, a fleet of rovers on Mars, a dozen Jupiter/Saturn missions, or returns to the outer planets.

Short version: Billions of dollars spent across six presidents for zero returns.

This is why NASA needs to be heavily overhauled and re-booted. Things subcontracted out to private companies need to have their budgets set in stone, with serious consequences if said thing does not meet performance criteria and scheduled dates.

NASA itself needs a HUGE improvement in funding and resources, take as much as they can back in-house to keep profiteering corporations as far the fuck away as they can. The myth of private industry being "more efficient" in any way has been so thoroughly debunked in so many ways across so many continents that anyone still ringing that bell can be safely written off as delusional.

The irony of this statement is that SpaceX has basically put the national space programs of the the entire world to shame at this point.

Although this is primarily because they had to actually deliver I suspect. The essential factor here isn't that they're private, its that they had to compete with their product. And against an unfair playing field.

Also because they were riding off the back of four decades of NASA's own research and development. If they'd truly had to start from scratch they'd be completely boned.

yes if everyone had to reset to zero on the tech tree every time they wanted to innovate something, spacex would be boned.

not that we would even know what a spacex is, because we would have never made it past the wheel.

what.

Lol no, my point was that private SpaceX has been capable of the achievements it has because it has half a century of research, data, and engineering nous from NASA for free. And billions and billions of dollars of public subsidisation. Feel free to go off though, obviously I want every person to have to reinvent the concepts of language and mathematics, that's definitely a thing I would ever say.

Hevach

They did not get billions and billions of public subsidies. They got less than $50 million, which is less than Lockheed and Boeing each get every month currently (they're splitting almost $40 million per week), and they had to share some of it with Blue Origin. They also didn't get access to nearly as much free engineering information as you think, since the vast majority of modern NASA rockets are proprietary to contractors and not freely available, what's available "for free" is nearly all obsolete rockets and the Falcon line is a radical departure from any NASA or Roscosmos rocket before it, but it's earliest roots (and the first design of its engine) were Soviet in origin, not NASA.

The rest of the money they get from NASA is under contracts for which they only get paid on successful delivery of product or service, which is the opposite of subsidization. SpaceX is almost entirely funded by private sector investment.

AngelHedgie

In former Trump Administration staff news, the latest news regarding Kellyanne Conway is just...

Kellyanne Conway, ex-counselor to disgraced former President Trump, allegedly posted a topless picture of her daughter Claudia, 16, on Twitter on Monday.

Reached for comment, a Twitter rep told Variety the company’s teams are investigating the incident. Kellyanne Conway could not be reached for comment.

According to screen captures posted by users on social media, Kellyanne Conway’s account (@KellyannePolls) shared an image of her topless teenage daughter using Twitter’s recently launched Fleets feature, which deletes posts after a 24-hour period (similar to Instagram and Snapchat’s stories). The account deleted the Fleet but not before Twitter users documented it.

On TikTok, Claudia Conway on Monday posted videos confirming that the picture was authentic; those have since been deleted from her TikTok account but Twitter users reposted copies of the videos. In the videos, a visibly upset Claudia Conway speculated that her mother may have accidentally posted the image. “I’m assuming my mom took a picture of it to use against me one day and then somebody hacked her or something,” she said. “I’m literally at a loss for words. If you see it, report it.”

Yup.

This is just a whole new level of fucked up.

Ilpala

What the FUCK

Xaquin

Did she ever get legally separated from her parents like she wanted?

I hope so

Butters

Xaquin wrote: »

Did she ever get legally separated from her parents like she wanted?

I hope so

Obviously not but looks like she's got a new case for emancipation.

JFC what a fucking household...

CelestialBadger

Xaquin wrote: »

Did she ever get legally separated from her parents like she wanted?

I hope so

I think she might be about to succeed. That’s undeniable child abuse.

Xaquin

CelestialBadger wrote: »

Xaquin wrote: »

Did she ever get legally separated from her parents like she wanted?

I hope so

I think she might be about to succeed. That’s undeniable child abuse.

also, pretty sure kellyanne conway is now a sex offender

Gnizmo

CelestialBadger wrote: »

Xaquin wrote: »

Did she ever get legally separated from her parents like she wanted?

I hope so

I think she might be about to succeed. That’s undeniable child abuse.

Distribution of child pornography might mean she doesn't even have to take up the case against her mother.

Jealous Deva

WTF.

I would guess someone hacked her accounts or something, as someone with daughters I can’t imagine anyone thinking “I’m really mad at my teenage daughter let me post a picture of her tits on the internet for revenge”.

Although who knows, people do some fucked up things.

DoctorArch

Jealous Deva wrote: »

WTF.

I would guess someone hacked her accounts or something, as someone with daughters I can’t imagine anyone thinking “I’m really mad at my teenage daughter let me post a picture of her tits on the internet for revenge”.

Although who knows, people do some fucked up things.

I'm comfortable saying that anyone who lies as shamelessly as KellyAnne Conway does is probably not a good person and would easily do something like this as a form of petty revenge.

Captain Inertia

I absolutely do not trust the Conways and can’t help but think there’s a chance KellyAnne is trying to replicate the Kardashian move with her (underage and non-willing-even-if-she-could-consent) daughter

The elder Conways are absolute abominations, KellyAnne is an abuser and George an enabler, and Claudia needs an actual responsible set of adults to help free her of that cesspit

webguy20

Yea, she purposely was around her family when she was covid positive without telling them. Its pretty fucked.

Anybody else I would immediately assume an account hack. With her though it gives me pause.

Gyral

“I’m assuming my mom took a picture of it to use against me one day..."

Fucking full stop right here. If your mother is taking nude pictures of you at all, much less to use against you, you have cause to be emancipated.

Butters

DoctorArch wrote: »

Jealous Deva wrote: »

WTF.

I would guess someone hacked her accounts or something, as someone with daughters I can’t imagine anyone thinking “I’m really mad at my teenage daughter let me post a picture of her tits on the internet for revenge”.

Although who knows, people do some fucked up things.

I'm comfortable saying that anyone who lies as shamelessly as KellyAnne Conway does is probably not a good person and would easily do something like this as a form of petty revenge.

Claudia posted a ton of recordings of her mother verbally assaulting her to instagram just last week. This isn't "revenge" so much as it is a step from pattern child abuse to child sex abuse.

Jealous Deva

webguy20 wrote: »

Yea, she purposely was around her family when she was covid positive without telling them. Its pretty fucked.

Anybody else I would immediately assume an account hack. With her though it gives me pause.

Even if it was a hack that doesn’t get rid of the question of why the hell you would have topless pictures of your 16 year old daughter lying around to get hacked in the first place.

enlightenedbum

Gyral wrote: »

“I’m assuming my mom took a picture of it to use against me one day..."

Fucking full stop right here. If your mother is taking nude pictures of you at all, much less to use against you, you have cause to be emancipated.

I think it's that she took pics of herself and mom is copying those photos for later blackmail. Which: still cause for emancipation.

RMS Oceanic

I'm a little unsure of which thread to bring this up, but since it involves people linked to the Trump Administration, this seems like the best bet. Apologies to mods.

Legal Eagle notes something interesting about the pardons that Paul Manafort and Steve Bannon got:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCWxknzIg0o

Specifically, they were only pardoned for the crimes they were actually convicted of. But that wasn't all the crimes they could have been charged with, as prosecutors don't usually throw the entire book at you because it may confuse juries. So potentially they're still on the hook for stuff.

Kamar

Wasn't really sure where to toss this, or whether to make a new thread, but I suppose this old one makes as much sense as any.

Trump administration apparently had the DoJ going way out of bounds, including spying on certain Democrats and their families, to 'find leaks'. Heads are starting to roll now.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/john-demers-resign-justice-chief-b1865587.html?utm_source=reddit.com

Unknown

This content has been removed.

CelestialBadger

Kavanaugh will be in the Supreme Court when Trump is in the grave, so he’s unlikely to do Trump any favors if he keeps talking like this.

Mild Confusion

Kavanaugh couldn’t give any less of a fuck about what Trump says. There’s no higher judicial position aside from Chief Justice for him to achieve, SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment, and there’s no fucking way the GOP is organized enough to even attempt to impeach him.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

rahkeesh2000

The Trump admin is dead and Kavanaugh was never a part of it.

Also Kennedy was the one who picked his successor so Trump's thoughts on the matter are pretty irrelevant.

Santa Claustrophobia

'Sir'.

Madican

rahkeesh2000 wrote: »

The Trump admin is dead and Kavanaugh was never a part of it.

Also Kennedy was the one who picked his successor so Trump's thoughts on the matter are pretty irrelevant.

Trump admin isn't dead until its members are and they're still making trouble

Doodmann

Madican wrote: »

rahkeesh2000 wrote: »

The Trump admin is dead and Kavanaugh was never a part of it.

Also Kennedy was the one who picked his successor so Trump's thoughts on the matter are pretty irrelevant.

Trump admin isn't dead until its members are and they're still making trouble

*looks at how old Stephen Miller is*