Slashdot Mirror
NASA Releases Report on Mars Exploration Program
latcarf writes, "The lead article on NASA today is about the report on the Mars exploration program - a program that hasn't gotten much exploring done recently. It concludes that the loss of the Mars Polar Lander is most likely due to premature engine shutdown and that the cure to such problems is less "faster and cheaper" and more time spent testing systems at greater cost. The article about this report on CNN includes an interview with Tom Young, formerly with NASA, who relates problems with tests on the Polar Lander."
I love it how CNN says that the two spacecraft cost a combined $320 million. Let's put that into perspective with numbers from the sister site, CNNFN:
Red Hat - market capitalization of $7,465 million
VA Linux - market cap of $2,905 million
Cobalt - market cap of $1,292 million
I could go on and on. Why isn't Nasa seen as a tech company instead of just another gubbermint agency? Maybe if we privatized it and put it on the Nasdaq, it would get more respect from the press - and some better mission success rates.
What's your damage, Heather?
I don't think it would be a good idea to privatize NASA. There are some advantages as (you noted and as noted before); better funding, better salaries to entice better workers...
The disadvantages to a private NASA are few but are very important. I would think that this private agency would be one motivated by profit and less by pursuit of knowledge. This would probably affect certain decisions made by project managers. While NASA does work under tight budget constraints, its goal in conducting exploration missions is the collection of data for public distribution. I can forsee a private company claiming ownership of, lets say...rock samples collected by a lander.
If NASA was privatized but still retained some government control, I think it would be better off. I think the government still should regulate who has rights to building massive rockets carrying tons of highly explosive materials. The government should also claim public ownership of any scientific discoveries made by these exploration missions. Heck, I'd hate to finally make it to the red planet someday just to see flags with the microsoft logo on them planted in the dust.
To say all government is evil and detrimental is silly
It's probably been implied many times already, but one of the reasons NASA projects continue to fail is that they are going with the budget mission idea where they can send lots of small/cheap/disposable missions instead of the expensive but more calculated(read: successfull missions)
Here's some stats on some of the recent NASA missions:
August 12, 1998: A Titan IVA rocket loses control because testing failed to catch frayed wires in the power supply.
August 27, 1998: Delta III Rocket loses control due to flaw in control system.
October 24, 1998: Successfull launch of Deep Space 1.
December 5, 1998: Submillimeter Wave Astronomy satellite successfully launched on a Pegasus-XL.
March 4, 1999: Wide-Field Infrared explorer loses coolant first day in orbit.
April 9, 1999: Titan IVB fails because of improperly placed electrical tape...
April 27, 1999: Payload shroud on Athena II fails to release. Ikonos satellite lost.
April 30, 1999: Titan IVB fails to reach proper orbit because of incorrect manual data entry.
The list goes on, this is from Popular Science (April 2000). I left some out because of lack of time but I woudl suggest reading the article.
I mean, they did hit the planet.
"mmmmm.... Minty Fresh!"