The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
NASA: It Sucks and Is For Nerds
Malice Aforethought
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Could one of you Obamacans please explain Obama's NASA plan to me? As far as I understand, NASA receives less than 1% of the federal budget every year, so how is cutting that going to help fund anything really? Aren't there better places for cuts, where significant money could be saved?
Malice Aforethought on
0
Posts
NASA has become a bottomless hole for money, with minimal return on investment. And I don't mean in a short sighted, what have you done for me lately way, in a pro blue sky research way. They pretty much without reservation suck.
The amount of gross incompetence and waste there is staggering, and tightening the belt on the worst programs is a good first step to revamping the entire program. Obama favors, I believe, a cabinet level secretary of technology position, under which a lot of the pure research that was formerly languishing in NASA will be put.
That only leaves the actual aerospace exploration part of their function, and while it's certainly debatable, I think you'll see exponentially more boom for your buck funding X Prizes at a fraction of the cost of letting NASA continue stumbling on as it has.
17 billion dollars is still 17 billion dollars.
If we're not getting a reasonable return on our investment in terms of usable new technologies or a real space race advantage, we need to pull back and reassess.
Obama has a shitload of stuff to do just fixing the country after he inherits the big desk from the current asswipes. I'll guarantee you that he'll set things up so that, when it is time for us to look to the sky, we'll have the means to do it properly.
NASA's budget in 2007 was, I believe $17.8 billion. We aren't talking military budget numbers here, but that's a shit ton of money to waste. And by bottomless hole of waste, I meant that no matter how much they get, they waste absolutely obscene amounts of it, either through outright stupidity or just incompetence.
Of all the agencies that can possibly complain at being constrained by budgetary problems NASA isn't anywhere near the top of the list. They, and I mean this literally, are one if not the prime source for case studies in how you fuck up engineering management and waste resources. I am honestly hard pressed to think of a single major project they've run that wasn't over cost by a wide margin and plagued by at least one major screw up.
Honestly, I know the gut instinct is to love NASA. It was supposed to be the best of the best and really carry forward our hopes for space travel. It pains me to see it come to this, not least because I know people working there in research and the space program, people who dream of working in the promised land of science and space.
That place has been dead for decades. At this point it's debatable if it's ever coming back, but taking a few hundred million from their least useful and most costly project (which can and will be done for orders of magnitude less by private companies) to fund what could be an absolutely revolutionary proejct to get every single kid who wants to help getting into college is the right choice.
If you want to put the science and space travel in a better place, your money is infinitely better spent getting more people an education that they can use to help than funding NASA's latest "look at us, we're still relevant" project.
I'm not saying that NASA isn't in need of reform, in fact I agree that the constellation program sounds like a pretty big clusterfuck going forward. But why not reform it and reinvigorate it instead of putting it on what, a 5 year holding period or something Obama has planned? China, Russia, India, Australia, Japan are all putting a greater focus on space exploration and technology suited for that purpose, for the exact same period that we will be taking a 5 year break. We may educate a few more people who are interested in space exploration, but then wouldn't we have to send them to another country to work in their space agency to be on the cutting edge?
I'm sorry, that just sounds like a big step backwards to me. There has got to be better ways to get that money for the education program and better ways to fix NASA than to bury it entirely. Now, as I understand, Obama hasn't said a lot about this subject and maybe he does intend in the grand scheme to reform and improve the space program, and he just hasn't outlined that position yet.
Actually, investing in expanded broadband penetration (plus he's going to redefine broadband to something worthwhile and no more of this >200kbps bullshit) is likely going to produce scads of new innovations that go further and improve more than any other possible use of money could ever hope to produce.
We should have efforts focused on reaching the stars and abloo bloo bloo, I agree, but if the foundational infrastructure isn't there to support and promote it then any advancements are made on shifting sands. As things stand, our infrastructure is degraded to the point that we simply need a 5 year break just to catch up with Japan's potential for advancements in most any field. And don't get me started on Urban centered issues that are completely ignored by Washington. Talk about potential for massive paybacks on your figurative dime.
Sending shit to Mars has a ton of practical uses that would be spawned in development. I could probably come up with a dozen or so advancements in sustainable/ecologically regenerative designs for the built environment just by looking at the plumbing. However, the intent does not belie the practical reality. And at this point we need to even just spend some money on decades old technology in order to replace half century old technology in order to keep pace with the changing demographics of our civilization and the stressors that it puts on existing systems. Speaking of plumbing, we need more wastewater treatment plants to deal with the shit we have right now. Let alone looking to replace our treatment processes with natural lifecycles and wetlands through trial, error, and experimentation.
Basically, the problem is twofold.
First off, at this point it's more than likely there is no reforming NASA. It's not an exaggeration to say that NASA has the absolutely worst managerial system and culture of any scientific entity in existence. At a bare minimum, all management and decision making at NASA has been irredeemably tainted since the 1980s. The only option for reforming NASA that has any realistic possibility of turning it into a viable space exploration entity (we'll leave aside the general research they were never meant to do and that will be moved elsewhere in an Obama presidency) is to literally fire anyone who's higher than low/mid level management and replace them with brilliant managers and organizers who devote years to intensively removing all traces of the former processes and culture.
It would literally be cheaper, easier, and more effective to simply start a new organization that is set up properly do it's job and grow it by pulling people on a case by case basis from NASA and hiring new people as needed.
Secondly, you assume NASA is the only way to advance space travel, when they are the least effective means at our disposal. The X Prize to put a new shuttle design into space twice in one week was an example of what happens when actually useful organizations work. It was announced on May 2004, and by October 2004 a private company had designed, built, and flown a viable reusable shuttle. And for the cost of $10 million more than $100 million was invested in research to create it. NASA would take longer to submit a budget to start the project in another two years, and we'd be lucky if we got $5 million worth of actual research for our $10 million investment.
THAT is the future of space development, and the reason NASA can finally be put to bed. Harnessing universities and private companies for a cash prize greater than their individual costs gets the most people doing the most work in the best way and is something that will more than keep out edge against the outdated research models all the countries you named. Even if they all adopted our model, we have the most entrepreneurship, the most venture capital, and the best universities.
Throwing money we'll never see again down a hole just because it's named NASA is madness compared to actually doing something useful with it.
I can't really respond personally because I don't know the relative advantages of investing in the development paths of various technologies over others or what potential benefits such investment may produce (I need to go find my Civ 4 tech tree poster!). But, it must not be quite so cut and dry because various important governments around the world have been increasing focus on manned-space exploration.
Man whut? No it won't.
Sparta?
But seriously, you sound knowledgeable about the subject and I was impressed with the x-prize results as well. Did Obama endorse this approach to research? I can't seem to find it, anywhere. I suppose if he set out a program with that prize model at the core and it sounded good then I would agree. But I bring this up because just as I was coming around to Obama I randomly run into some of my old astro/physics profs and they tell me they are voting Hillary because Obama is abandoning space exploration or something. It was disheartening.
There are many fine reasons for continuing space exploration. That is not one of them.
I wrote something roughly like that anyway, and then I realized I'd just had 3 wall of text posts and needed something to lighten it up
I'm pretty sure I've heard something along those lines from him, but I have no idea if I can find a specific source on it. I know that several of the original X Prize companies are still actively working on private space flight from a purely business perspective, and that there's still one space prize outstanding, for putting a rover on the money and then doing various tasks with it.
Maybe someone else has a link.
It is a legitimate point of contention against Obama, but it turned into a lot bigger tangent than I meant it to. Apologies about that.
What exactly is NASA up to these days?
Sometimes you just have to do something that everyone can get behind. Space just happens to be the thing that is really awesome and doesn't hurt anyone. And we get nice ancillary benefits from it.
NASA is fucked up, we know this. It is a money pit. It is in serious need of reorganization and (especially) oversight. But I can't see scrapping the entire system.
Take a trip to Kennedy Space Center and take a look at the Saturn V they have hanging up there and you aren't going to be able to walk away unamazed. And just that sense of awe that can be inspired makes the program indispensable, in my view.
Nevermind the fact that we have some huge, outstanding obligations in space. We owe a ton of work and money on the ISS. So, it's either fund NASA, or pay Russia to do the job for us. Likewise, what do we do if the Hubble breaks down. The thing is absolutely necessary to continue to expand our understanding of the universe.
You can't say something like Space Ship One is in any way a replacement for NASA. The thing was suborbital, basically useless. It was just enough to technically win the prize without being all that impressive independent of that.
Basically the plan is to go back to the moon and build a base there. Which is all well and good except they are going about it the wrong way.
It's less and less heartening when we keep comparing 2008 with 1968. Let's stop, please.
Justifying keeping NASA around because of its crown achievement 40 years ago is the same past-looking ideology that's fucked up most of this decade. What would the pioneers of the Space Race say, if they were as new and vital as they were then? Probably, "Gee whillikers, you'll never get anywhere if you can't make space advancement a priority. Shut the thing down and get your ducks in a row, then start over when you can prioritize it! Golly, it's not rocket science!"
Personally, I can get behind dismantling an organization that allowed the Columbia to lift off despite serious concerns from the engineering staff over numerous safety issues. I suggest you ask the families of the seven crewmembers of the Columbia (as the latest casualties) that space exploration doesn't hurt anyone.
The spirit of what originated NASA is a key component of the American spirit of exploration and innovation. Even if NASA goes away and is eventually replaced with a new agency, what made NASA special to us will still be there. We are the ones we have been waiting for, after all.
Oi.
Point is, we ought to have a (well funded) space program (with appropriate and effective oversight). Reorganization is fine and good. Just don't kill the entire program outright.
It's the 'eventually' that scares me. If we tear down NASA right now, given our current budget, it'll be eons before congress gets around to a new program. By that time, I'll be too old to become a flight doctor.
With NASA's current funding level and "hutzpah", they're not really going to accomplish anything notable in manned space flight anytime soon. -_-
Personally, I'm of the strong belief that NASA is pretty much dead and now is the time for privately funded space flight initiatives like SpaceShipOne if we ever want to see spaceflight develop into anything more than "Yay, we got to the moon".
Maybe what they want to do is use a big chunk of NASA's yearly budget to fun a series of x prizes. If ten million gets us in sub-orbit, then one years NASA budget (17 Billion?) would be good incentive to get to Mars surely? (Set a criteria that the team must get X members to Mars, stay on the surface for X months and return safely. Bonus money if they set up a permanent orbital station for future return journeys).
All the interviews with Burt Rutan in recent years shows that he's keen to go beyond sub orbital, including a concept space plane and a commercial space station. Seems to me that there is now a growing feasibility to commercial interests in space.
My other sig sucks as well...
So, funny story. We stopped funding Hubble. It was a big to-do a while back. So when the Hubble breaks down again, NASA has no plans to repair it.
But you are correct about Space Ship One. It's pretty useless. You can't even film movies in it. While the new fuel type is interesting and useful for launching satellites, it's not powerful enough to lift anything useful.
Sorry to possibly take you out of context here, but to me, that's like saying the Farman Goliath was pretty useless because it could only carry 14 high paying customers over 400km. It's 'useless' in itself (especially when compared to say a 737) but it paved the way for commercial airlines.
In a similar manner, Spaceship One should be viewed very much as stepping stone. It gets commercial space travel into the public's mind (space ports and a fleet of ships) and paves the way for better engineering and wider access later.
And before anyone mentions Soyuz you can equate that to the Sikorsky Muromet.
My other sig sucks as well...