Slashdot Mirror
Does Obama Have a Problem At NASA?
MarkWhittington writes "Has NASA become a problem for the Obama transition? If one believes a recent story in the Orlando Sentinel, the transition team at NASA, led by former NASA Associate Administrator Lori Garver, is running into some bureaucratic obstruction." Specifically, according to this article NASA Administrator Michael Griffin made calls to aerospace industry executives asking them to stonewall if asked about benefits to be gained by canceling the current US efforts to revisit the moon; we mentioned last month that cutting Aries and Orion is apparently an idea under strong consideration by the Obama transition team.
... but if I were Obama, Michael Griffin would be so fricken canned.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Sounds like a lot of backbiting rumors spread by someone with a bone to pick.
It's pretty easy to tell how much money would be saved by cancelling Aries and Orion outright. Just look at how much money they have outlined in budget projections.
The harder question is whether there is some cheaper alternative, and how much it would cost. But that's not something that can be answered accurately in response to a snap question. And saying so is not stonewalling.
What is with the entitlement mentality within government? I am sure the article blows what actually happened way out of proportion, but if there *was* any sort of conversation asking industry partners to stonewall, resist, camoflage or otherwise derail the effort to understand the risk/reward of future space efforts, everyone involved within the government should be canned. If I did anything of the sort at my place of work, I'd be out on my ass so quickly!
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
That means we need to axe a lot of programs, or (a) face potential bankruptcy of the whole country or (b) face the reality that we have to cut Medicare and SS benefits to a needs-based program rather than an entitlement. We have a huge amount of Baby Boomers about to retire, and don't have the money to support them all unless we start saving immediately.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Obama has nothing against NASA. He has EVERYTHING against Mike (global warming is a myth) Griffin, a known Bush lackey and a incompetent manager. Ask anyone in the know about Orion and Ares and they will tell you while it WILL work, it is horribly designed and way over budget for what it is and its DIRECTLY contributed to Griffin, unlike other unmanned programs that where running before he took over and lost funding due to him and Bush's "lets get a American on Mars without spending any more money" ploy.
Griffins job is canned, he's just drawing out the hanging right now and trying to wrap it in a Obama hates NASA spin, not a Obama hates incompetent Bush republican flunkies spin.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
It is unfortunate that we've come to this point in American history, but the truth is probably that we can't afford a grandiose space program right now.
NASA will still exist, but the bureaucrats running it need to go. NASA will have a chance at manned space flight, but they need to figure out a way to do it cheaper. The rest of the nation has tightened its belt, the rest of the nation is concerned about the ballooning debt, NASA isn't exempt from the changes.
If I had my choice, I'd much rather see the billions spent on a shuttle launch go toward turning children into future aerospace engineers.
what about the billions that will come back to us when we magically pull our troops on 01/21/2009? oh, that's right...
It always amazes me the mistakes people make because they don't study history, or blatantly choose to ignore it.
The USA defeated the communist Soviet Union by outspending them in the specific industry of aerospace technology. It makes absolutely no sense to kill NASA spending. If anything, kill the "Big 3" auto makers since it's apparent that Japan and Germany have the world beat in the automobile manufacturing industry.
I can't stress enough how much the USA stands to lose by cutting NASA funding. Considering that the rest of the world has made it abundantly clear that they hate us, and would like to see an Earth without the USA or "Fat Lazy Americans," I was really hoping that NASA would be the USA's gateway to leaving the Earth behind. It's obvious that citizens of the USA will fight everyone who wishes us ill will to the death, and it's obvious that the rest of the world is trying to push us that far.
I say increase NASA spending, and get us that moon-base/bio-dome we've been dreaming about since the 1960's so we can start lunar immigration ASAP. Space technology is the way of the future, and it's the one thing that the USA has out-achieved every other country in the world.
-Your pro-NASA AC friend.
Using that logic would clearly negate a bailout of GM, Chrysler and possibly Ford. Ford Execs have willingly taken huge (comparatively) pay cuts. But GM is the worst for fat cats that line their own pockets while taking public assistance. Why should the people give money to an industry that has failed... failed itself, it's employees, it's investors. The only people making money off of cars are the guys at the top.
Sucking off the Federal teat and pulling on people's heart strings does not work for a guy in the street with a sign and it sure as hell should not work for a man wearing a $1k suite and having parties in his Michigan ranch for $1million (Yes GM, YOU).
But in 10 years the Auto industry will be dead. Harvesting the moon and moving into the solar system will happen. The US can either be part of the party or ask for public assistance later on from the colonies on the moon.
And the problem is that NASA/etc. focuses so much on inspiring the 3rd graders, yet don't seem to care so much once those kids get to high school and can actually develop that interest into something useful towards their future.
But any investment is a matter of directness of money getting to people. In the case of investment in high engineering salaries at NASA, all that money gets used somehow. It eventually goes to teacher salaries, firemen, roadwork, groceries etc. Because they are engineers, and I will stereotype for a bit, you might also say that some portion of the money you spend goes to fund other high tech development first, from computers to games to fast cars. Eventually the $1 you spend at NASA likely gets spent on the same things that a $1 invested in Detroit does. However the money you spend at NASA moves us further along our technological timeline, whereas any money spent in Detroit keeps us in the automobile age.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
The USA defeated the communist Soviet Union by outspending them in the specific industry of aerospace technology.
Wait, what? Did I miss a piece of history somewhere along the way where the Soviet Union was "beaten", rather than fizzled out?
so your argument for nasa spending is basically that you think that the usa defeated communist russia through it? and you think that the usa would lose a lot by cutting nasa spending _because_ the world hates the usa?
interesting logic.
If Obama really intends to go through the federal budget line by line as he claimed during the campaign, this will be a good test to see whether he has the balls or not. This is a variation of what's going to happen with everything he tries to cut.
I also taught high school, and you are right that high school kids get left out. But I think it's less the fault of NASA and more the fault of high schools. High school is so rigid and change-adverse that any attempts by an outside agency to come in is usually shot down. This is even more evident with the focus on high stakes testing.
The U.S. didn't "defeat" the Soviet Union. It was just an unsustainable system from the get-go. If the U.S. had never developed any sort of space program beyond launching satellites and ICBM technology; the Soviets would have beat their chests, bragged about their great victories in manned flight, rubbed it in with a few more advancements, then eventually realized that it was a waste of money with little potential and abandoned it. It didn't make any real difference in the end. It was all Korolev could do to get funding for the program in the first place, and he would have lost it quickly if the Americans had simply refused to play ball.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I think someone really needs to sit down and say "the unfunded mandate has to go". With the current timeline, manned space flight will account for more or less NASA's entire budget within about ten years, and there are projects being slashed left and right already. A NASA which forgets about landing humans on the moon and Mars for a decade or two would be a cheaper NASA with a much wider variety of science missions. (IMO, of course, and I'm welcome to any new information on their funding situation and where the budget's going).
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
If you spend billions on a shuttle launch you ensure jobs for people who want to go into aerospace. Take the money away from that so you do not have any shuttle launchings and you have pretty much removed it from most people's minds. I remember growing up in the 80's and the shuttle launches were a big thing. Now it hardly receives any coverage. It would be great to have a president with a mind for the future like JFK. Granted he wasn't perfect but it is better than a rehash of FDR ideas that have put us in the place we are in. That's my $.02. Go ahead and mod me down now.
I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
Forcing your enemy to defeat themselves constitutes beating.
Funding is limited. We have to choose one or the other.
Here another article I found on the weather topic. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurricane/2007-06-12-quickscat-satellite_N.htm
If I had my choice, I'd much rather see the billions spent on a shuttle launch go toward turning children into future aerospace engineers.
Why would you want to do that?
When they graduate how are they going to find a job?
...sadly, I think many slashdotters are going to be disappointed as NASA funding under Obama takes a backseat to a number of other programs that are targeted at much larger domestic constituencies.
-Styopa
Griffin's comment on Global Warming was excellent and probably the only thing about him to like. He simply expressed the biggest issue standing, we don't know what the optimal climate is. If anything the comments of the those who didn't like his remark were more akin to the right wing religious nuts. It is a religion now and will always be one because anything which is brought up to disprove it is immediately derided regardless of merit. If anything the whole GW document is nothing more than a new age Bible
Oh, as to his remark in 2007
"I have no doubt that global -- that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.
First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
Perhaps 'beaten' is an inappropriate choice of words for the situation, but in essence it is correct. The US Democracy/capitalism ideology was pitted against the Soviet communistic ideology in multiple ways, indirect military action and direct economic competition. The ability of the US financial system to borrow/lend tremendous amounts of liquid capital to invest in military and civilian infrastructure was the main reason the Soviet Union collapsed in economic ruin. 'Defeat' is a strong word, but that is just what the US economic system accomplished against the Soviet Union.
Neither you or I can even in hindsight say for sure what effect the psychology of the moon race had on everything. It's certainly possible that efforts such as these bolstered US nationalism and hurt Russian nationalism, and contributed in the net to a shortening of the time it took for the soviet union to collapse.
If i was an American i would be much more concerned with military spending than with NASA. The various spy organizations and domestic surveillance programs alone makes the NASA budget look like weekly allowence. Add the military spending and NASAs budget is just silly in comparison.
If there is one area where money is spent for nothing its in the military.
HTTP/1.1 400
Here's the thing. The economy ain't so hot (I gno, rite!) so how does it make sense to employ a relatively small number of people at a relatively high salary when that money (one BILLION dollars!) could go to some other project that could influence thousands more workers?
Yes, in these difficult economic times, the only way for us to lead this great nation into a 21st century economy is to fire all of our highly skilled science and engineering jobs, and instead funnel that money into low-paying government work resurfacing roads and changing light bulbs. Yes we can!
And, oh yeah, we also need to send some more billions of dollars to support the fatcat CEOs in Detroit. I have heard they've cut back so much that they don't even serve champagne on their corporate jets anyone! Que horrible!!!
Hahahaha! Reagan was a simpleton who happened to be president at an extraordinary time in world political history. His words, which the neocons worship as if they were the thigh bone of a major saint, were put into his mouth by others to promote the ideas of still others. That's the way most Presidents do it.
Yes, we outspent the Russians. We also made deals with murderous Mideast kings and potentates to keep oil cheap, depriving Russia of income from the only thing the world wanted to buy from them and which they have in abundance if they could only get it out of the ground cheaply. The cost of those proxy alliances is evident today.
Russia was complicit in its own demise because they chose the worst economic system in human history and enforced it with the same thugs that instituted and ran their government. We couldn't have beat them without their help. Quite a cost extracted from the babushkas when a people defend their murderous past leaders because they themselves survived the purges and had fresh eggs to boot. Those are the people Putin is singing to today.
What would the world look like today if the Soviet Union had been created by the modern Finns? Quite a bit different I'd wager. America might not be calling all the shots.
Soviets would have beat their chests, bragged about their great victories in manned flight, rubbed it in with a few more advancements, then eventually realized that it was a waste of money with little potential and abandoned it.
Controlling the ultimate high ground is not without potential. Now the US is planning the same with full-spectrum dominance and whatnot.
Here's the thing. The economy ain't so hot (I gno, rite!) so how does it make sense to employ a relatively small number of people at a relatively high salary when that money (one BILLION dollars!) could go to some other project that could influence thousands more workers?
Easy, pull troops out of Iraq. Amazing, I just increased NASA's budget by well, well over 100 fold per year.
In other news where is the rival Jupiter delivery system that scientist and engineers were working on after-hours?
Besides, with everyone talking about creating jobs, how does it make sense to cut NASA hard and put tons of people who are working on Ares out of work?
Because those people work directly for the government. Which means you or I indirectly pay for them. Now if they were doing it because a space transport company was paying the bills, it would be much more impressive and more likely to be real long term jobs that don't need political support to survive.
The problem is that 3rd graders don't want to know *how* to get there, but high school kids do, and we don't tell them that. We show them all of these cool jobs that they could do when they grow up, and then we don't tell them what they need to do to get there. Oops.
I got into code because I saw some really, really cool stuff being worked on at a lot of companies, and I had the resources to play with it at home. To get people into aerospace you need to do the same - inspire them to get into the field, and then give them the resources to play with the technology.
Griffin is dead-set on Ares because it is his pet project. He brought it with him from the university think tank that Bush pulled him from. It is not a good architecture, and even now NASA engineers are fighting basic laws of physics to get the thing to fly.
The ESAS committee rubber-stamped Ares because that's what Griffin wanted. It is not the best approach. Especially when they decided to drop the Space Shuttle Main Engine in favor of the RS68 engine due to cost. The RS68 is cheaper, but much less efficient than the SSME. Once they dropped the SSME, they should have convened another committee to re-evaluate all options using the RS68 numbers.
The DIRECT project is where we need to be. Check it out, check the numbers. NASA has been sitting on this for almost three years now. It's ridiculous.
www.directlauncher.com
"The only good windmill is a tilted windmill."
That is the point of the checks-and-balances thing, after all.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Government, by nature, can't be "trusted" - at least in the sense that individuals allow it to decide what's "best" for them.
I view it as more of a "necessary evil" than anything else. A total lack of government is much like a vacuum on a planet with an atmosphere. It's not going to exist permanently or naturally.
(I've always thought "anarchists" often have the wrong idea about things. Anarchy is a "government changing device", not a sustainable way of life.)
Many nations put together "Constitutions" specifically to outline the duties of their governments (and to ensure they govern in a fair and limited way). Even the USSR had a Constitution (that echos quite a few similar "values" to the U.S. Constitution). Look it up online sometime! The problem is, the lazy and the power-hungry, and sometimes just the misguided, work to ever expand government's "sphere of influence". Given enough time, most "good and just" governments wind up only paying lip-service to their Constitutions, and violate much of it in practice.
Easy, pull troops out of Iraq. Amazing, I just increased NASA's budget by well, well over 100 fold per year.
No kidding. Every two months spent in Iraq is equal to a year of NASA's budget. You wanna cut costs, get the hell out of the war that's costing a fortune and making us look like asses.
A student I knew did a story on Obama and NASA. I can't remember all the specifics, or his resources, but some of the report was that Obama favors social programs over space exploration. Here[LINK] is a link to the first report I could find on Google given back in 2007. It basically says that Obama wants to delay the space program for 5 years and put the money into education.
I too believe that general education here in America has a lot to be desired, but there are so many life saving and other useful technologies that have come from the program. For a simple example, NASA came up with the first prototype of creating Velcro. Who would have thought.
I don't believe that Obama has some affinity to keep the program around, and he never mentioned prior to the speech given last month that he grew up on Star Trek, or loves what they do at NASA. My worry is more then changing management, it's that he will try and take this out of the budget completely.
Griffin may be, as you say, 100% correct here but telling contractors and others to "support Constellation and not discuss alternatives" as well as demanding "mid-level executives from not meeting with the transition team" is INTOLERABLE (from TFA). Considering this comes from an accredited journalist from a reputable news organization (at least I've heard of them previously), their claims of having witnesses, documents and e-mails to back them up should be taken seriously.
Perhaps Griffin is one of the few Bush appointees who isn't corrupt, incompetent or so politically/religiously biased as to commit criminal acts (justice department I'm looking at you). On the other hand considering the absolute disasters this administration has led us into regarding war, international relations, energy policies, the economy, the environment, civil/human rights, politicization of science, corruption of the judiciary, (oh and did I remember the war on terror?) I think anyone with half a brain would look upon anyone Bush would pick with extreme skepticism.
The shuttle HAS been a disaster for the last 25 years. If his plan has decent merit hopefully it will be allowed to continue. Hopefully Obama's team will consider not just the plan itself but the costs of any delay/change to a new one and will make the best choice accordingly. Of course there is a risk that they may not but we did not elect the president of NASA, we elected the PRESIDENT OF THE USA to make these decisions for us. Even as an avid space buff I have to respect that there ARE things more important than NASA. Considering Obama's top level appointments so far I have confidence that they'll do a good job.
If Griffin's plan is good, he will always be known as the one who got the ball rolling and pushed it through difficult and uncertain times. (Maybe he feels so entitled at NASA because under Bush everyone around him WAS an idiot). IF THE ALLEGATIONS from the newspaper ARE TRUE though, he, with his resorting to tactics reminiscent of his other Bushies, has proven that he does not have the character to lead NASA. Let Ares go without him.
The same can be said of Bush. When the world economy collapses it's Bush's fault, but if Reagan did something right, he can't take credit for it? That's something to laugh about.
When the incoming administration sends their representative over to see if your programs should continue, stonewalling is a really bad idea. Pissing them off isn't too smart, either.
In the first case, funding will get cut due to ignorance. In the second, out of spite. Either way you are out of a job in a bad economy. More likely, Obama's people wil just figure that NASA management is full of blow hard morons, replace them and put someone else in their place that they can work with.
Have gnu, will travel.
That is my argument also. 700 billion to prop up failing banks who screwed themselves? Or 700 billion for NASA and other science agencies to develop research programs fuel marketable ideas that would create jobs? Billions for the broken, decrepit auto industry (which, thankfully, does not appear to be happening any time soon) that has failed to provide valuable products for consumers (other than mechanics who repair them). Or billions spent to develop new technologies with companies that are trying new things (like Tesla).
No sig for you!!
No, they do not. They were originally supposed to be run like airliners, with a cost much lower than expendable rockets. They utterly and completely failed at that goal.
Such stories as Post-its demonstrate that though something may, at the outset, have an intended goal, it's actual best use may be far off that mark.
I hear this argument a lot; "x sucks because it was supposed to be y and it's not". The question is really; is there any utility to x? For what it did, the shuttle program was successful. What it did didn't happen to be what it set out to do, but only a very narrowly defined vision will see that as a failure.
The real tragedy here is how much of the taxpayers' money has been wasted on this lobbyist-driven boondoggle over the decades, and what we could have achieved in space, had we spent that money wisely.
This is also a common refrain, "Think of what we could have done if we spent the money wisely!" What is never included is what else is needed. Money may be a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient - unless you spend orders of magnitude more. Does that seem like a familiar pattern?
NASA has a $17B 2008 budget. Ten times that was dropped by Congress in a tax rebate early this year. More than forty times that was given to the Administration as discretionary bailout spending. Neither of these expenditures is guaranteed to achieve the goal they set out to do, and even if they succeed have no direct permanent benefit to society; forestalling economic collapse is all well and good, but only if you also go in and fix underlying issues.
On the other hand, NASA provides tangible benefits to science, and science has always, in the long run, improved society both culturally and economically. Knowledge gleaned is not lost. As a tax payer, I will far more readily spend $17B a year, even if it's vastly inefficient, for small, tangible scientific advances, than spend ten times that much to cover up major problems in the economy. Nothing is gained by axing NASA, and even less is gained by claiming that NASA is totally and irrevocably useless and has always been.
Long story short: our resource investment in NASA is low, and the claims of it's inefficiency are entirely out of proportion to it's actual inefficiency, meaning that such claims are inherently deceptive.
[Ego]out
That is crux of the issue. What about when grapes were grown in Great Britain? Was that an optimal climate? Who decides? Those with the most money or the loudest voices? It obviously was warmer then for a good part of the world, so when was it right?
Plus nature has always been a harsh mistress. It has wiped out more species than we will ever know about. We find examples all the time of species that existed but are gone now. We can have one volcano explode and affect the environment more than man can in a year yet who do we think has the power to change the environment? Ourselves, boy do we kid ourselves or what!
We don't know and anyone suggesting that twenty years ago was more right than one hundred is nothing but a religious nutcase. Yes religious because this has taken on every facet of a radical religion.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
That has always been a "hands-on" way to interest kids in spaceflight technology. And in the past, NASA used to have a lot of model rocket stuff available on their kids/educational webpages.
Unfortunately, the US government is now in the process of regulating model rocketry out of existence in the name of fighting terrorism...
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
The Soviets did have an unsustainable system; but it wasn't pre-ordained how long they would last. There is little doubt America's actions hastened their decline by decades. That could reasonably be described as 'beating'.
How this gets modded insightful is beyond me. Going in to Iraq was not the correct move, but that isn't a point worth debating at this point because we are there. An exit strategy needs to be created, and quickly but to just pick and leave would just create an environment ripe for the next Saddam. We've made a terrible bed, and now have to sleep in it.
The Soviet Union's collapse actually began in 1953, when Stalin died. Krushchev (1953-1964) had neither the personal charisma nor the cold blooded ruthlessness, nor (in retrospect) the egomania that was needed to hold together the empire that Stalin had built. K inherited an incredibly powerful imperial structure, that Stalin had built with what history will deem as the largest and possibly the bloodiest slave labor state the world has ever seen. Ghengis Khan's hordes pale in comparison. It was such a well crafted totalitarian state that it survived despite Kruhschev's failing to be the pure bastard that was needed to run such an organization, and it continued to wilt only slowly under Brezhnev.
Gorbachov recognized that it was no longer possible to maintain the tight controls on communications a totalitarian state requires, and began making it easier to get licenses for things like typewriters, copiers, and fax machines. For the Soviet economy to survive, it had to start trading on an equal footing with the rest of the world, and for that to happen, lateral communication had to be allowed to augment the star-only channels of totalitarianism. But Glasnost could not happen fast enough; the center could not hold.
Glasnost could possibly have worked, if the rest of the world had stayed with 1970s communications technology. But in the 1980s, cheap personal computers gave even small businesses in Europe and the Americas trading and manufacturing advantages that Russia could not compete with. For the Soviet Union to have met that challenge would have required it to acquire and install the entire annual worldwide production of PCs for several years in row. It just couldn't happen.
Every other condition that obtained during the 1980s is something that the Soviet Union could have managed. The reason why it failed during the USA Alzheimer President's watch rather stumbling along for a few more decades was the introduction of the personal computer into every economy the Soviet Union was involved with, except its own.
It really did all have to do with Lotus 1.2.3, PeachTree Accounting, and Word Star, which enabled western institutions and businesses to do things like 'Just In Time' inventory systems and effective cost accounting management practices. This had nothing at all to do with capitalism versus communism; this was entirely about pragmatic computer usage versus totalitarian strictures on communications.