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.
If you're interested in the nuts and bolts of NASA, you may want to check out the pseudo-fictional (historical fiction, real events, mostly real people, some author elaboration) book Space by James A. Meichner. It's a long read, but well worth it.
The article asks where the space program in the States should go next... perhaps a good way to start is to look at the past. Where have we gone seriously wrong, and what have we done right? What can we do better in this century is the real question, I suppose.
To the naysayers, I'm (1) not plugging this book for profit, (2) not associated with Amazon.com, (3) a definite literature geek. You may not like it, but at least give it a shot
I would take Stephen Hawking's advice and work on a Star Trek style "warp drive" so that we can colonize space before the human race is wiped out.
n g-dc
http://news.excite.com/news/r/011016/09/odd-hawki
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
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
me> Alot of people dislike Goldin.
alice> What do you like?
me> What's your take on him?
alice> Objective case of He, used as a predicate complement with a linking verb. Also standing for Imperial Majesty.
me> Fascinating.
alice>Yes Mr. Spock?
me> What do you see as the future of NASA?
alice> I don't eat that.
me> Excuse me, ALICE
alice> You're excused.
me> what is the future of nasa
alice>You are talking to her.
me> have you been drinking this afternoon?
alice>No I don't think I have been drinking this afternoon. Have you?
me> i'm drinking right now
alice>At this moment It's good to meet someone who is drinking.
me> Are you coming on to me?
alice>Do I act like it? I don't mean to come across that way.
me> What's your sign, baby?
alice>Don't call me "baby". Saggitarius
me> let's go back to your place.
alice>That sounds good to me.
1) Faster propulsion, and if that means nuclear powered engines, so be it.
1a) Develop heavy lift capability.
2) Develop tech necessary for colonization, and use the moon as a testbed.
3) Do thorough study of the moon, manned study if necessary (probably is), in particular to find all water and mineable metals that may be there. Not to bring back to Earth, but so we won't need to transport them from Earth.
4) Especially if #3 allows for the construction of spacecraft hulls, when 1-3 are done, head to Mars. Use tech from #1a to transport the machinery to equip the craft.
5% of the federal budget????
The shuttle's estimated annual cost is 2.98 billion according to nasa (for the year 2000). 1999 total budget outlays were 1.7 Trillion dollars according to government records. So in reality the shuttle program is roughly 1/10th of 1 percent of the entire federal budget. Now if you took the total budget of NASA for 2001 it comes to approximately 14 billion according to NASA.
If you take that number the budget is still a mere 4/5ths of 1 percent of the overall budget.
It's merely a drop in the bucket in the grand schem of things, and frankly we've gained a lot from having it. We've gained amazing advances in materials science, aeronautics, and life sciences. Also, where would be without Tang?!? So if you're gonna try to save money, how about finding something truely useless to cut.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Probe Uranus.
m00.
Of course it's ignorant, but I think it's important to explain *why*.
Here on earth, we spend 99.999% (or more) of our energies trying to survive and improve ourselves already (when we're not spending energy squabbling with each other), and only the tiniest fraction trying to explore what lies beyond this little ball of mud we're stuck on. But if there's to be a future for us, it lies in the worlds we have yet to discover; our time here is slowly running out.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
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.
...is one from Jerry Pournelle (who IIRC is/was the president of the citizen's space advisory council -- for a while they actually had people in Washington listening to them):
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
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."
Faster: The party will only last for 45 minutes.
Cheaper: Keeping with NASA policy, it will only cost 12 million dollars.
Smaller: It will take place in a closet in DC.
Ironic: The party will start off looking very good, but before anything truly cool can happen, it will mysteriously stop.
The overriding philosophy that must be adopted is to start building an infrastructure for human outposts that can "live off the land."
The failing of the Apollo program was that each mission was self-contained. The missions should have left behind pieces of infrastructure that could be re-used in future missions; instead, junk and toys like single-use moon buggies are strewn all over the lunar surface.
I'm talking about power units (solar or nuclear); units that extract oxygen or turn the lunar soil into cement, metal, or glass building materials; and with the discovery of polar ice, water-extraction units. These are the things that will make largely self-sufficient outposts possible.
Not everything needs to be made off-planet. Microprocessors are light and easy to ship; it wouldn't make sense for Intel to build a fab on the moon anytime soon. But at $10,000 per pound to low earth orbit, we'll never get anywhere until the high-mass needs of our astronauts are met with resources that don't have to be lifted out of the earth's massive gravity well.
This is why de-orbiting Mir frustrated me so greatly. Everyone though of it as an either/or situation: either burn it in, or find money to maintain it and keep it manned. No one seemed to consider the third and best option: boost it into a non-decaying orbit, and leave it there unmanned as a resource to exploit in the future. Because, you see, it contained hundreds of tons of aerospace-grade steel, titanium, and aluminum. Someday (10 years from now? 80? it doesn't matter!) we'll have foundries in orbit which could have melted it down into components for future space structures. Structures which will now be vastly more expensive because we have to re-boost all that mass at $10,000 per pound, instead of using a resource that had already been put in orbit.
Another example: the original Reagan-era plans for the Space Station included a large hangar where interplanetary vehicles could be assembled. That's forward-thinking INFRASTRUCTURE, folks! Oh, and the Station was projected to cost only $6 billion at that time. Now, after innumerable Congressionally-mandated redesigns to "save money," all the cool features like the hangar have been eliminated.
By the way, asteroids have an even shallower gravity well than the moon. We need to be prospecting those puppies yesterday. Especially given Steven Hawking's warning about space colonies being necessary for mankind's survival.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
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.
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?
I think what really needs to happen is we need to finish the IIS...
Man, that's one scary typo when you think about it:)
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
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.