Slashdot Mirror
Goldin to Retire from NASA
nervesmiffs writes: "Lots of people hated him. I believe he has been one of the truly
great leaders of our time. He has completely turned NASA around
during his 10 year tenure. Here's the retirement story." So if you were NASA's next director, what would you do with the agency? Men on Mars? Probes on Europa? Trans-warp drives?
well never do it on mars..
i've said it before but...
[RANT]
we need a moon base. in the words of hienlein (I think), "once you are on the moon, you are halfway to anywhere"
I was born in 1967, by the time I was in kindergarten, we had been to the moon several times. by the time I was 10, we had driven dune buggies on the moon. now, 23 years later, we have sat around with our thumbs you know where, and we think Skylab++ is an amazing achievement, while we underfund or dont even try to fund the cool stuff which could lead to a truly spacefaring humanity.
look at the launchers that have been cancelled or delayed just in the last 5 years:
delta clipper (dc-x) (cancelled)
x-33 (delayed)
rotary rocket (died for lack of funding)
kistler k-1 (delayed - please don't kill it)
Beal BA-2 (killed by a concerted effort by 2 governments and enviro-weenies)
blackhorse (rocketplane) (lack of funding)
kellyspace (lack of funding)
most of these programs required no more than $100M to survive, but couldn't get even that, at a time when our gov't spends that much every day dropping bombs on empty "terrorist training camps".
are you pissed yet? you should be living on the moon by now.
[/RANT]
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
How is this flamebait? Moderators aren't interested in decreasing the national debt? Great
If I were placed in charge of NASA right now, not only would I likely be rich, but happy as well. I would start newer, more useful projects such as finding some legitimate use for what we already have, air, sea, and land spaces. I would start difficult projects just to push along technology and to spark the industry into a new age of prosperity. As big of an organization NASA is, they still insist on spending billions on finding one microbe on Mars, when we could spend billions to make life better in every way.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
I'm not sure that should necessarily be our next goal. Of course I'd like to see us go to mars but I'm not sure we should aim for that as our next "big thing."
I think what really needs to happen is we need to finish the IIS and start working as planet as oppose to a bunch of competing countries that are always going to war against each other.
I don't want to see the U.S flag on our space ships. Or Russian, Chinese Canadian or anything else. Instead I want to see either a picture of Earth, or a flag that symbolizes all of Earth.
Then we can explore as a unity. Because really, how the hell are we ever going to explore the "final frontier" and seek out new lifeforms and civilizations when we can't even get along with ourselves.
That should be our next big mission. Of course that's just my opinion.
--
Garett
Build a hugh radio telescope on the dark side of the moon, its the only place in the galaxy where you wouldn't pick up noise from us earthlings. Not very sexy, but probably 100x more useful than sending little R\C toys to mars IMHO.
"Get them before they get....
I'm not sure what I should think.
On one hand, Goldin has done some good things. And he did some difficult things that needed to be done.
On the other hand, he's done some crappy things. He cut down NASA expendatures too much.
The problem is, nobody wants to be the NASA administrator. He would have been replaced now, but nobody wants his job. I know that Jerry Pournelle, deizen of Byte Magazine, famed Science Fiction writer, and often advisor to congress, turned the possibility of that position down (rumors were flying he was in the running).
The problem is that NASA, while it enjoys bipartisan support, is always on the chopping block. Most of the expendatures have to go to the different NASA centers that have to remain there for NASA to get congressional support. The infrastructure for the shuttle MUST get funding, and enough of it, or else safety will slip, we'll loose another shuttle, and heads will roll. It's also the only available craft for returning cargo to the earth, construction tasks in orbit, lifting space station parts, etc. It does too many things to have an easy replacement.
Whoever takes his role will have more hard decisions, trouble because of Sept 11-related extra funding, etc.
If I don't live to see men on Mars in my lifetime, I'm going to be pissed. If I'm alive to see a time when space isn't inhabited by humans, I'm going to be pissed.
Gentoo Sucks
I highly recommend the NASA Watch website, which has a highly informed (and often highly critical) view of NASA and especially Goldin.
He wrote an editorial a couple weeks ago saying that he didn't think Goldin would be replaced any time soon. Well obviously that prediction turned out to be wrong, but I am eagerly awaiting his comments on Goldin's departure.
I think Goldin was seen by a lot of people as a bureaucrat, as someone who was holding NASA back, not advocating for them strongly enough in Congress, and not setting his sights high. The ISS has become a monstrosity that has gobbled up dozens of other scientific missions, and now it looks like barely any science will be possible due to massive cost-overruns and then the slashing of key portions of the station.
My personal hope, at this point almost prayer, is that the new director has the vision and balls to put humans on Mars within the next 20 years. Right now it seems almost impossible that that could happen, but it should have happened already, and I for one am sick of waiting.
Two words: Moon Base
It's close, its doable, its cheaper and easier than stepping on Mars for a 2 hours out of twelve months vacation.
It's enourmously less subject to catastrophic failure, its corporately sponsorable (if you want that sort of thing - MTV's "Real Moon"). It can provide millionaire tourism fundage.
Aside from a few dozen tons of metals and chemicals shipped from Earth, the lunar dust can provide enough material for concrete. Plastic sheeting can be used to form air tents in underground excavated tunnels, and caverns. Plus essentially free solar and photovoltaic power for base operations.
Most importanly, it's actually useful. Long term low g experiments, communications, metallurgical and construction material research will be advanced. That means faster computer chips, smaller cel phones, longer lasting batteries for the downloadable movie ewatching on the same, etc.
It's boost the economy a hell of a lot better than a $300 rebate or a capital gains (rish people) tax cut. Plus it's enourmously politically advantageous. "God and Allah may Rule Earth, But Rich Capitolists/Communists Rule the Moon and beyond!"
"The Moon, minutes from home, but a world away from your problems."
This message brought to you by Lunar Tourism and Economic Development COuncil.
Is the entire moon composed of nothing but moon dust?
"Sorry Mr. Columbus, we'll have to go back to Spain. All there is on the beach where the ship landed is sand, and we can't build shelter with sand."
The same could be said about $1 million cruise missiles being shot at empty terrorist camps. The missile itself isn't $1M. They're just aluminum, explosives, and a couple of microprocessors. But a thousand people in Ratheon's southern California factory have steady jobs assembling them.
I think you're expecting something like a NASA-made machine to go to the moon, mine, and bring back enough gold to pay for itself, but that's not the point. Western civilization has valued knowledge for its own sake since the ancient Greeks came up with the idea of "philosophy". The effort of this pursuit is valuable in itself, for knowledge is added to humanity's stockpile even in failure.
If you still really want to picture a NASA project as a closed economic system unto itself (which it isn't), then consider the Mars Pathfinder mission. Enough merchanising tie-ins were sold that the project paid for itself.
Good riddance Dan. Remember when NASA had successful planetary missions? Remember when NASA did great things? Today NASA does great things in spite of you, not because of you.
You stood by for 7 of 8 years while NASA's budget was reduced. You spend countless hours and money on your insane quest to eliminate the venerable NASA "worm logo". Your "faster better cheaper" was none of the above and cost billions in failed missions and years of setbacks in the evolution of space exploration.
One has to wonder if it was just incompetence or if the above was actually your intended goal. Perhaps you were instructed to keep NASA from exploring too fast or discovering too much at this critical time in our cultural evolution.
NASA has a wonderful opportunity now to turn itself around and once again lead the evolution
of the human civilization by exploring and colonizing space, and all the new technology that derives from that quest.
I am of 2 minds on this
1) I've heard Goldin talk at AAS (American Astronomical Society) meetings and was very disturbed by him. The best part was his comments on how genetic algorthimns should be used to do everything and that all of our current computational methodology was useless. Being someone who does use genetic algorithmns occasionally I couldn't believe how obvious it was that he had no idea idea of what he spoke. And he continued on several topics just spewing ignorance. Even worse was his reply to a questioner that tried to be reasonable. So he, as a person I really dislike
2) Nasa before Goldin was a mess, it still has a long way to go but its has improved. Most engineers don't go to Nasa anymore, a lot fo money and beauractic waste still occurs. But it has gotten better under him. As much as I don't agree with much of his vision he does have far more long term goals then previous adminstrators-and that is good. Also, faster, better, cheaper is mostly a good idea.
SO although I don't like him, his methods, or his goals I do think Nasa is better than it was when he started.
If you want NASA to be special - make it special. Don't make it a civil service career choice where you never get fired and you plod along, engineering paper, while the contractors do all the hands-on work. Fire all the contractors. If you don't want something to be in house, it's not important enough to keep at all - just sell it off.
Make NASA the place that every top engineering and science Brainiac want's to go. Yeah, it might be a training ground for industry - but make people want to stay. Make every project important. Some science areas are like this. It's amazing when you see the fire in the eyes of a scientist in Goddard SFCs earth sciences area working twelve hour days because they absolutly love it. It's also depressing to see engineers - good, creative engineers - reduced to pushing papers so that engineers at a contractor (be it large or small) can do the hands on work.
I'd eliminate the contract system for engineering and science services. If you want it done, do it in house.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Funny thing about NASA. There are thousands upon millions of people, kids, teens, adults, who love Space, who love the idea of space travel. People who look at old footage of Apollo launches and get this tingling in their spine like nothing else. These people are *hungry* for what NASA can provide. These people are the astronauts and engineers of tomorrow, people who want to go forth and explore, as is evidenced by the tenor of many of the postings here.
But, NASA offers them nothing.
Sure, you can go to Kennedy Space Center (KSC), and spend hours and hours waiting in line for exhibits that are insulting to morons. If you find your self at KSC, don't bother asking any hard questions, as the staffers don't know an Atlas booster from a bottle rocket. Don't expect to see anything other than a watered down Disney version of Space; in Boston, we have a better exhibit (albeit smaller) at the local Science Museum.
Sure, you can watch NOVA. Or listen to the occasional astronaut interviews on NPR. Or join local interest groups. Or wait in line at book signings to have 15 seconds near an aged astronaut. This is not enough.
NASA is, and has been historically though the Goldin era, dropping the ball in such a fundamentally stupid way it makes me spit. When they face budgetary cutbacks, crises like the Challenger disaster, competition from ESA, Japan, India, and the like, their best friends would be a supportive public. And yet, they do not recruit the thousands and thousands of space enthusiasts.
A close friend of mine has been applying to become an astronaut for years (and made it to the interview level last cycle). She was an Aero/Astro major at MIT, and works for a company that supports space missions through contracts with NASA. She travels a good deal as part of her job, and tells me time and time again, people she meets are fascinated by the idea of space travel, but there are no resources she can direct them to. Why isn't NASA using this waiting, eager resource to their benefit?
NASA needs the public's help and support. If I were the next administrator, I'd made it a priority (after firing Boeing's incompetent ISS staff) to build positive public sentiment. The "amazing benefits to humanity" horse has been flogged to death. Why not NASA-sponsored rocketry competitions? Why not recruit college students into NASA fellowships? Why not a whole lot more visits to elementary schools? I'd eschew the encroaching commercialization, and re-present the NASA of my childhood (one where corners weren't cut, missions captured the public imagination, and astronauts were heros) to the public. Then, the pro-NASA advocation, at the grass-roots, could start.
-- pz.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.