Slashdot Mirror
Senators Blast NASA For Lacking Vision
An anonymous reader writes "A Senate science subcommittee clashed with NASA's chief on Wednesday, saying the agency and the White House lacked a clear vision and goal for the program. Skeptical senators told the space agency that it should not just talk about plans, but set out to do something specific. Lawmakers expressed a bipartisan opposition to the agency's plans and the initiatives of the Obama White House." Updated 23:13 GMT by timothy: Reader Trent Waddington contributes this video link to the hearing, if you want to come to your own conclusions.
Maybe that senator didn't realize that NASA had lots of plans that it was working towards, up until Obama killed them all with his new budget. The death of the Constellation program nixed everything that NASA had been working on for the last few years.
Realistically though, the senator probably *did* realize this and was just being a jackass and trying to score some political points by "demanding results" and making NASA look bad in the process. Hooray for politics.
Make a declaration that the US will land on Mars before this decade is out, provide the funding, and it can be done.
All we need to do is say that Al Quaida has set up a training camp on Mars and see the money flow after that!
We'll be on mars in no time!
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
Encouraging commercial space exploration is one way of getting the job done. The other is to simply get rid of NASA all together. It's just a shell of it's former self - a great big lumbering cash eating monster that has no vision. All the best work came from an era when NASA had next to nothing. Now NASA has too much and just sits there, bloated, simpering. If someone had had the balls to put it out of it's misery a couple of decades ago then space propulsion and near Earth exploration would be a long way further ahead compared to now. FFS - the shuttle was obsolete before it took it's first flight! I seriously resent this NASA money sponge.
Nuff said
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esCGYkVhhnY&feature=channel
Watch the Senate Hearing yourself, a lot more interesting stuff happened.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Fixed. Dumbshits.
NASA has spread around the work to the maximum number of congressional districts to maximize their political support. But ask those same congressmen what they are willing to give up...ask them how important it is to balance the budget and even ...gasp..to begin paying off some debts..and they go quiet about what they want to give up...except to demand that the budget be balanced (but let someone else's district pay for it).
Obama puts a freeze on some agencies spending and already the constituencies are whining.
Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing?
Its probably a more well thought out overall plan he had in mind. While the many successes achieved by groups like NASA are well worth celebrating, I share the dismay no doubt many people hold at recent and ongoing setbacks in the development of the future goals of space exploration. The central issuing facing Space groups, as I see it, is a lack of a single unified plan, a step by step global strategy to move mankind into space which takes account of commercial, economic, resource based and political realities, which is achievable within a reasonable timeframe. The piecemeal method of pushing progress forward is effective only insofar as there is public and governmental momentum in the area - something which has been falling off of late. In the face of such an environment, piecemeal efforts might not be as effective as otherwise.
What I would propose for the future, therefore, is the formulation of such a strategy, clearly laid out and with recognisable milestones, goals, estimated returns on investment, and timelines. I think that the provision of such a structure will remove the dependence space exploration has on fragmented projects and provide a key benefit that has so far been absent - direction, in cooperation with other national space agencies.
In addition to the points mentioned above, an official strategy group could talk to politicians and businesspeople in a language they can understand. One of the first goals after the strategy would be agreed upon would be to confirm its legitimacy at the international level, in the USA, EU, UN and other international forums. The next step would be to get an international fund set up in order to secure a set percentage of GDP of each nation (possibly only developed nations) to be put towards space exploration. Even if one thosandth of national GDP was set aside by each nation, that would come to some $60 billion annually, or several times the budget of the combined existing space agencies.
This would be similar to foreign aid funds, although probably of a lesser amount, and would instantly multiply the budget available to space exploration groups by a fairly serious amount. Legislation would also be needed in order to provide international tax incentives for corporations and governments to focus their efforts on areas that would be conducive to space exploration and resource realisation, even tangentially. Legislation for the open sharing of relevant information within existing intellectual property laws would also be needed to further coopeation between private and public organisations, plus and this a vital part of the effort, the standardisation of equipment and systems to make them interchangeable.
A few further points:
Why would my nation wish to contribute to this effort?
In addition to the well known issues of potentially life threatening hazards on earth, whether environmental, asteroid strikes, or contagion, and it is not a question of if but when they will recur - they have already happened many times previously - there is the question of the vast resources available in space. By contributing on an annual basis according to its means, each nation and its citizens has a legitimate claim on the unfathomable amount of raw material which can be accessed by a properly run space programme.
What would this Global Space Initiative involve?
This group and strategy would have several purposes.
1. To create a master strategy for the human colonisation of space, taking into account the many different social and economic factors that would be involved.
2. To identify key early technologies that would be needed to realise the strategy, provide funding to create these technologies, and pressure governments to provide legislative and taxation benefits to groups developing them. There are a wide array of scientific and engineering feats that must be overcome before the reality of space exploration is commonly available. These would include things like semi autonomous robotics in order to take advantage of
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
If the President of the United States doesn't care about space exploration, as is apparently the case today, then NASA will be unable to fulfill its mission. Obama has had little interest in space from day one; his campaign plan even had a proposal to gut NASA's budget to pay for a nationalized day care system. Later this proposal was deleted, but Obama has really done nothing with the U.S. space program but cut its budget.
Shutting down the only manned space project on the horizon, Obama proposed to offload low orbital manned flights to the private sector. While the libertarian and free marketer in me loves the idea of a competitive market for space travel, I'm not convinced it's time yet for NASA to leave that arena.
Every manned launch is a huge, critical path project requiring hundreds of technicians and engineers to monitor every aspect of the situation. Is it really appropriate to dump all of these people and hope that several privately held companies (one hopes American ones) can step up to the plate and recreate all of that expertise and best practices almost from scratch? Even if they hired all of these soon-to-be-unemployed aerospace experts, they would still need to put in a few years to build up the kind of institutional memory and procedures, not to mention physical infrastructure, that are required for a complex project like this.
NASA was building the next generation Orion manned spacecraft and Obama announced that he may not fund it. Congress, ESPECIALLY one that gets a few more Republican members in the 2012 election cycle, can override him and restore funding, but realistically the President has the power and means to kill a program if he doesn't like it. He can appoint a schmuck to replace the executive director, for example, and he can argue that the money for NASA would be better spent on school lunch for poor kids, or building shelters for the homeless, or any number of similar but meaningless populist mouthings that make great TV sound bites.
We probably will have to wait for a change of government before we can get back to having a NASA with vision AND the backing to make it a reality. Sitting around, waiting for the "right technology" to be developed, and then saying we can finally think about realistically exploring Mars--that's not a bold vision, that's a cop-out.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
I can't believe the grandstanding coming out of the US government nowadays. From berating car company executives for flying in their jets (no, they should buy multi-million dollar jets and just let them rot), to coming down on Toyoda as if he were the embodiment of all evil (yeah, US manufacturers NEVER had recalls. I have yet to see the Toyota equivalent of the Ford Pinto), and now NASA.
Oh we took away all your funding and tied you up in red tape, but now we will complain that you lack vision and have not made any progress! It's NASA's fault for literally not delivering the moon, on a budget that would be barely noticed by an average defense contractor. Because it's ok to pour $65 billion into F-22's, the 140+ million dollar planes that always seem to be in the shop (68% readiness you know if I paid $140 million I want the damned thing to work), but no additional funding is required to move forwards in space exploration (the NASA budget has been fairly constant at all time lows since 1993).
It's the politicians in the US that need fixing. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to more war. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the bailouts. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the stimulus. There's a pattern here. "Voting" isn't going to change anything... real democracy died a long time ago, victim to the two party system set up by special interests.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I guess those congresscritters missed this recent, extremely detailed NASA announcement:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/nasa_scientists_plan_to_approach
If this isn't clear vision, I don't know what is!
Oh the irony... the senate browbeating NASA for not having a clear plan. Perhaps NASA can handle the healthcare overhaul
The vision, though, is likely massive budget cuts and the end of the program. So, it's understandable that they haven't announced it.
The problem here is clearly about the leadership changing priorities and budgets before anything gets finished.
The projects that NASA work on have long timelines, this is not compatible with budgets which change annually and where the govenment who holds the purse strings also often changes (as in this case) before the project is completed.
This is not too different in concept (but is admitedly different in scale) to software development where if priorities are allowed to change before projects are completed, nothing ever will be finished.
Maybe NASA can try and work to smaller achievable goals within a smaller timeline that have a clearly defined benefit?
Sound familiar?
"Let's construct a space elevator."
Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing?
If you find any in D.C., let me know.
Put the senators in the airlock until we decide what to do with them.
Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
Then, of course, there is the pork. Representative Olsen, not of the senate, has voting against the economic stimulus package, which consensus seems to indicate that it has stopped the hemorrhaging of jobs, and now he is complaining that a few thousand government employees are going to lose their jobs. What is it Pete? Do we want to balance the budget or keep support a federal jobs program where the average salary is over 70K a year? Sure the NASA jobs are great, but the budget is the budget. These jobs and ancillary costs could save over a billion a year. I know that Clear Lake is the probably the most federally subsidized place in America, but we really need real jobs based on capitalism, not socialism.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Citizens blast the Senate for lacking vision.
Many of these politicos could care less about "vision." What they are really upset about is losing high paying jobs and projects in their districts.
"I'm not a quack, I'm a mad scientist! There's a difference." - Dr. Cockroach
This will probably get ignored or moded down coming from an AC, but NASA hasn't really had a mission since the 60s and the "space race". They have shut down many of their wind tunnels and other aerospace experiments (nobody thinks of NASA besides space stuff). Going back to the moon is pointless. Going to Mars while interesting, hence the PR piece; it doesn't do too much for the human race in the short or long term.
I guess its dull, but I would like to see a more dedicated focus on things like getting off of coal, high speed rails, etc. Yes, I realize these things are under way, but they don't have a brand name like NASA behind them, and they are not as awe inspiring as robots on Mars or other space missions.
Here's 10 cents, kid, don't spend it all in one place!
How do you make long term plans when you have no guarantee on the budget? NASA just had their budget cut without warning and there hasn't been any interest in fully funding anything really big for decades. If NASA can reasonably expect projects to die half way in, because Congress has done that to them before, it's just common sense to not plan for anything too big.
This is a completely backwards way of thinking. New propulsion systems are vastly more valuable than any specific space mission. Advanced propulsion systems could take the most difficult mission we might attempt today and turn it into a routine trip.
We need a willingness to develop new technologies that might take more than a few years to pay off, and even try things that might not work at all. We should tie this work to a specific goal in order to provide focus and to justify the price, but the real prize is the technology itself. Reducing fuel mass or cost to orbit by a factor of ten would open up the solar system to us.
"We should develop the technology in pursuit of a goal, not the other way around," said senator Bill Nelson of Florida.
We adapted rocketry from military applications originally so the senator does not have his technology development path quite right. Working on solar system-scale propulsion does have an implicit goal of extending exploration beyond LEO but it is not necessary to name the first asteroid target to further the work since the problem is sufficiently generic. It is my experience that senators like to turn federal agencies into conduits of money for their states. With NASA simply becoming a purchaser of launch capability, the states will have to become more competitive with worldwide space commerce. Good for taxpayers but bad for pork.
"You have paid the price for your lack of vision."
Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing?
That'll happen when the electorate becomes informed on the issues.
...Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....
*wipes tears from his eyes and changes underwear*
You see, the bulk of the electorate is spoon fed information - over simplified information, I might add - about the issues from the electronic media because that's what sells. And the electorate ONLY wants information that fits in their World view. Fox News has this down to a science. Most people like it this way. Most people are ignorant and WANT to be so.
Now I know why Freud said what he said when asked why he always had a scowl on his face - something to the effect of being disgusted with the human race.
Why do so many people think that if there isn't a NASA plan to put a couple NASA astronauts on a NASA rocket and launch them to a specific NASA-picked destination by a specific time that we've somehow abandoned human spaceflight? How short-sighted can people be? We already did that 40 years ago, and where did it get us? The huge expense caused the cancellation of any real followup missions and damaged human spaceflight aspirations to this day. We're still seeing the effects, since apparently no one in congress (or much of the public, apparently) can imagine anyone except NASA putting people into space.
It just pisses me off to no end. We need a space program that opens access to space for EVERYONE. Not just the few lucky NASA picked government employees. Do you want to go into space at some point? I certainly do, and constellation had zero chance of ever letting me do that. Maybe you think constellation would have opened access to space and expanded the possibilities for the rest of us, but I think you are wrong. So, so wrong. The current plan for NASA has the best chance of anything NASA has done since its creation of truly opening access to space. New technologies, reducing cost, encouraging multiple options for access to orbit. That's what NASA's goal should be and needs to be. Not a repeat of Apollo. Not another huge expense for flags, footprints, and some neat video that ends up getting 5 minutes on the evening news. So there's my rant. Take it or leave it.
Sure, it's leading to a place you happen to disagree with going to -- but going up against all the congresscritters getting jobs (and thus votes) off the Constellation program is unquestionably a gutsy move.
Moreover, I think it's the right one. Getting private investment into the business of shuttling things in and out of orbit and freeing up NASA's resources for "leaner, meaner" scientific work is exactly the right place to be going. Look at what kind of ROI we've gotten on the rovers; if NASA is going to be doing science, let them do science rather than being forever in the overpriced transport business.
I thought NASA's mission was to explore space? The goal would then be furthering our knowledge about the universe. Sure, they may be lacking in short term goals, but they most definitely have a long term one...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
NASA notes senators lack any redeeming attributes
This isn't a teenage drag race to the finish. It doesn't matter who gets on the moon again, or to Mars first. That stuff is trivial showboating.
.
How about "Put people in sustainable near earth artificial environments?" or "Build space based solar power generators?" or "Mine asteroids for rare earth metals" or "Build satellite based universally available internet" or *anything* else that doesn't involve us dropping to the bottom of yet *another* barren gravity well, grabbing our genitalia and shouting "First! Uh, Uh, Uh!"
Kennedy is dead. The sixties are gone. Get over it. Do something in space that makes sense for a change.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
NASA does lots of cool stuff - research and science on both earth and the rest of the universe. I happen to think manned space flight is very cool, but I'm getting more and more frustrated that NASA is seen as only manned space flight*, or that space research has to include manned space flight to be worthwhile.
If a congressman doesn't think NASA has any goals or program direction, it means he or she hasn't looked beyond putting people on a ship to [insert non-earth destination].
* this problem has plagued NASA for decades - manned spaceflight sucks up the bulk of funds, despite having a relatively low science per dollar quotient. It's good for marketing, though.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Yell at NASA for not doing anything worthwhile and badger them to get things into motion, while simultaneously cutting their budget. Ridiculous government much?
Pot. Stop trash-talking Kettle. Seriously. If any group should simply STFU and actually *do* something productive, it's the Senate - both Democrats and Republicans (withholding my personal political commentary on each party). This would be funnier excepting reality.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Disclaimer: I work for the space program, but I'm not high enough to make these decisions.
Some people will never be happy. All the dreams of the last 50 years are about to come true, and all people can do is bitch!
Look, chemical powered rockets have not changed much since the development of the SSME. So why are we only now getting private space launch? Because there was nowhere reasonable to go! ISS cargo is an easy enough mission for non-cutting edge rocketry, and since it is manned there is a long term need for supply flights that won't go away.
The future looks like this:
1. NASA guarantees it be buy x flights at y price from now until 2020.
2. Multiple vendors (currently SpaceX, Orbital, Lockheed, Boeing, and others) use this promise to secure capital to develop launchers.
3. Several years of regular supply flights gives ample qualification of the new boosters.
4. Once confidence is gained, NASA transitions from buying human flights from Russians to buying flights from Americans. Lots of politicians get reelected.
5. All the tech for better than chemical rocket launch now has a concrete mission to design for. Someone perfects laser ablative launch of cargo to ISS and does it much cheaper. Someone else gets an even cheaper launch option going.
6. NASA works on designs for solar system manned exploration craft. Design is steady and largely free from political pressure.
7. Private cargo launch matures, and one day both it and the NASA designs are ready.
8. ISS, which is now a largely private operation, is sold off or deorbited at its end of life.
9. NASA (and hell, maybe even private spacecraft) launch on commercial boosters and usher in a new era.
Look, promises smomishes. Unfunded mandates scmuded fandates. This is the ONLY way to get beyond LEO in a sustained manner by the 2050s ( when I will retire). You all should be overjoyed.
It is difficult to make long term plans given that your budget changes (usually in a downward spiral) each year.
NASA has a number of mandates that they have to use their funding for. And then they have the proposals that they are told to work on ("Go to mars", "privatize everything", "minimize risk because it is bad publicity"..) These cost lots of $$. Given no budget they mainly turn into paper exercises.
This should be a dilbert cartoon.
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
Senators won't give any more money they don't have to Nasa, because they don't like Nasa's vision, but they will give trillions they don't have to bankers, whose only vision is 'Me First, Screw the Public'
We're full of anti-intellectual skeptics now. You really think the endeavors of a scientific arm of the government is going to get the funding it needs for whiz bang cutting edge programs? American Idol is on.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
That's what all of this grandstanding is about. Vision? Bullshit! It's about jobs and votes back home. I'm sick of this fucking hypocrisy. Building an industry based on government handouts is stupid to begin with. They should consider themselves lucky to have made any money at all. The new plan for NASA is realistic and reasonable and these senators should go fuck themselves.
First, why should I read past the first paragraph of the article, when it's clearly written and edited by folks with no clue or interest in actual news.
NASA IS NOT A "FIRM", IT IS AN AGENCY OF THE US GOVERNMENT. Government IS NOT A BUSINESS.
Second, NASA's management structure should be flattened, preferably with a sledge hammer. Get rid of everyone there who does *not* have a scientific or engineering degree (I know, from someone who worked at KSC for 17 years, that there are some fairly high-up managers who have *neither*).
Third, fill *all* the tech slots - many are empty, and many of the experienced folks are retiring, or have left in disgust. We've had two Republican presidents who claimed to want to move on..., and supplied neither funding nor direction. Expect NASA to provide that? Really? How many of you reading this provide direction for your company?
mark, still waiting for his ticket on PanAm to the Wheel....
We need a space program that opens access to space for EVERYONE
It depends on what your definition of "space" is. If you're including sub-orbital hops, then yes, by all means have at it.
But the technology for a sub-orbital hop and a trip to the moon or Mars is vastly different. I don't see private enterprise making a big enough investment to do that, even with a push from NASA.
This is one of the few areas where the long-term big-budget spending that the government is famous for is actually a good thing.
"Advanced Automation for Space Missions"
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
"""
What follows is a portion of the final report of a NASA summer study, conducted in 1980 by request of newly-elected President Jimmy Carter at a cost of 11.7 million dollars. The result of the study was a realistic proposal for a self-replicating automated lunar factory system, capable of exponentially increasing productive capacity and, in the long run, exploration of the entire galaxy within a reasonable timeframe. Unfortunately, the proposal was quietly declined with barely a ripple in the press. What was once concievable with 1980's technology is now even more practical today. Even if you're just skimming through this document, the potential of this proposed system is undeniable. Please enjoy.
"""
Some individuals are still working towards that vision; one example:
http://www.openvirgle.net/
Ultimately, we will ideally end up with self-replicating space habitats that can duplicate themselves from sunlight and materials from the moons or asteroids of the solar system. There is enough relatively easily accessible materials to make habitats for trillions of people, probably quadrillions of people, and their associate biospheres. After we do that, then we can get back to talking about "Peak Oil" and limits to growth. :-)
The ultimate resource is the human imagination:
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/
Why not shift 90% of the US defense budget to NASA? We're just making more enemies with most of it, anyway. :-(
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
There aren't any. Not when Congress critters make more than the average American household (legally, who knows about back room/under the table dealings), get to vote on their own pay raises, and have no term limits. Where is the incentive to do anything besides make sure they get re-elected so they can keep getting paid and living in luxury? Especially when we as Americans keep people in office for decades and start to believe in family dynasties. (the Kennedy family for instance. When did political positions become something to hand down through generations? Doesn't anyone remember stuff like that in England was part of the reason we broke free?)
Just my $0.02...
NASA: "Hey, look what we can do!"
Senate: "F*@$! Look how much money that costs! Stop that!"
NASA: "Um, well, we can do this too..."
Congress: "That's too &%$*!#@ dangerous! Shut it down! Shut it down!"
NASA: "Well, maybe we could try this... it doesn't cost quite so much, and it's safer. Is that okay?"
Senate: "I guess so. And take your sister with you."
NASA: "All right. Here goes..."
Congress: "That's TOO LOUD! Knock it off, and go to your room!"
NASA: *SULK*
Senate: "Why doesn't NASA DO anything? They have no ambition, and lack vision. Where did they go wrong?"
I came here to say something along those lines, but you nailed it so much better than I could have.
Red tape, government pussy making machine. It's hard to walk around the space center with any testosterone in your system at all because it gets instantly quashed by incredibly over the top safety regulations and over the top red tape requirements. The thing that really amazes me isn't the fact that some of the safety regulations are obviously meant only for the stupid it's that they consistently hire enough people of that particular caliber of stupid to prove they need the regulations.
Mediocrity is rewarded above all things. Laziness and unproductivity is tolerated in a way that mirrors what the teachers union tosses out there. An actual positive productive attitude is rewarded with reminders of red tape, threats of regulation enforcement, and actual behind the scenes manipulations by coworkers who will attempt to get you fired over it.
In other words all the negatives of being both a government and union shop at the same time.
I nearly posted this under my real user name, but I decided I didn't want to risk my job.
An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
Do YOU know the pledge of Allegiance?
interesting history that you may like - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
but in all versions we are (supposed to be) a republic
WHY?
It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.
A Democracy
The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
A Republic
A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual's God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
Read the full article at: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
much more GOOD reading to understand the 'founding fathers' intent can be gained by investigating further: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/index.html
and a quote from another that seems to be appropriate to show what forgetting 'REPUBLIC' has gotten us
You never were taught early democratic history have you? The Greeks were the first ones to identify the weaknesses inherent in democracy.
And the biggest weakness is, indeed, it all starts falling apart when the regular folk realize that they can vote themselves raises and are swayed by skillful politicians who promise to fulfill those desires.
The other major weakness, is of course, a fully democratic nation is easily directed by mass hysteria.. that is a country will typically go huge, rather temporary, swings in political opinion that has more to do with emotion then reason. For example: 9/11 or the stock market crash. Then again, skillful politicians can leverage this temporary lack of reason to rush through laws and garner more power in a short time.
That's why the USA (with the longest lasting democracy so far) was originally designed with a very weak and ineffect
If bars don't serve drunk people, then McDonald's shouldn't serve fat people...
When NASA knows they have set budgets for 15 yrs, then they can plan. Without committed budgets that are truly committed, NASA plans mean nothing.
In the past, they would come up with a grand mission, get everyone excited about it, then go off and start estimating the real cost and time lines. When the budget numbers came in 18 months later, the costs were 2-3x the initial estimates. Congress says "no way" and all the people working on the project disappear and wait for the next budget exercise so they can earn another paycheck.
The other part of the problem is well known. Almost every congressional district gets something they can claim is part of the space program. It doesn't matter how much more expensive that makes it. Sometimes spreading things out doesn't allow collaboration. I was amazed at how much cross thought my team had over lunches with others working on the shuttle and ISS programs. When 80% of the parts are designed and built 200+ miles away from the center, it is hard to get that mixing of thought.
SciFi and documentary producers seem to have a more concrete vision for space than does NASA. And they don't have to build reality, they only need to create the illusion for the screen. Instead of focusing on space exploration, why not divert their _talented_ engineering minds to more earthbound issues such as more efficient and cleaner energy sources, solving hunger and waste disposal.... the list goes on.
I was in at a function yesterday where there were some NASA contractors. They said this option is on the table. Until the US has it own manned space vehicle, now estimated earliest 2017 due to Aries confusion, the demand for US astronaut launches is about four per year at best. NASA has contracted for Soyuz seats at $50M a pop through 2012.
Exactement. Ennui of Henri
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Every time I read into the Ares program problems, I am left with the same impression; the Ares proponents desperately want to get it close enough to production that it can't be stopped. At that point, they will get the funding to fix the problems, since there is no turning back. Does this sound familiar to any /.ers? Many a bogus IT project is run like this.
Instead, there is a contrary group that wants to use some 'existing' technology and build Jupiter vehicles, faster and with less risk. Another familiar sceneario, I bet, since this is nearly the equivalent of a COTS-based project.
NASA's greatest values to the U.S. are the spin-off technologies and pure research. Certainly one of NASA's past contributions to the U.S. was spin-off in ICBMs and various other launch vehicles, including even cruise missles I bet. Having an active and robust missle industry sure makes it easier for the military to design and build what they want. As the need for ICBMs is waning, NASA is losing some covert support. Even the ISS is not enough to keep them in front of Congress and get enough funding to at least 'do something'.
Another Moon landing seems pointless to many, but even just leaving science on the Moon has potential. A Hubble replacement out there could be interesting - modular construction, stable platform, you could build Hubble x5 and really see something. Yes, it is a long trip to fix, but not insurmountable. And much easer to service when you get there. Something to be said for being able to stand up and fit a panel back in place, instead of an EVA ballet.
And a trip to Mars will teach us a lot about contained environments, ecology, new power sources, and even communications. It is the logical step to getting to Europa or Enceladus, and you know you want to go there.
The spin-offs could be incredible, and are unknown now. We owe a lot to the Apollo program, and any future manned exploration program will deliver as much or more.
Now, mind you, if NASA has to give up on manned exploration, they could always get the Mars rover teams to build a new set and turn them loose on Enceladus, for instance. Bigger solar panels or a nuclear power source, maybe different wheels, etc, but the design concepts and decisions should be largely the same. Not outrageously expensive, and hopefully they would hit another home run. Worth a try. But manned exploration is simply the highest goal, and worthy. And getting a relatively safe, functional vehicle running is critical.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the manned exploration question was answered in the late 60s. The Shuttle is not a manned exploration program, and never was. It's an ISS support program, with some near-Earth orbit delivery and repair functions possible. We always needed a heavy lift vehicle, and the Shuttle soaked up that money for 30-40 years. Kinda sad.
I don't see any commercial/private programs capable of replacing Ares. ESA might be able to do it, but they have their own priorities.
So let's light this candle, ok?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Really? Blast? Did the senate blow up a NASA building?
I hoped /. was better than that.
This just in!
"NASA's chief clashed with a Senate science subcommittee on Wednesday, saying the senate and the government in general lacked a clear goal for the program's purse strings. A skeptical chief told the senate that it should not just talk about plans, but set out to do something specific. NASA administrator expressed a unified opposition to the senates plans and the initiatives of the a government lacking vision"
--- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
For those of you who've watched the Senate hearing video that QuantumG linked to, there's this rather bizarre part where Sen. Vitter (R-La) made some insinuations that Bolden wasn't actually involved in the planning, but it was all supposedly done by his deputy Lori Garver. The Orlando Sentinel has some follow-up on this, with sources reporting that ATK (one of the primary contractors on the Ares I rocket) had put up the Senator to make those attacks:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/02/senators-attack-on-nasa-deputy-chief-lori-garver-backfires.html
The attacks on NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver spearheaded by Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter during a hearing on Wednesday on the 2011 NASA budget have badly backfired, according to a range of sources.
Vitter accused Garver -- who was not present at the hearing -- of orchestrating the cancellation of Constellation. He also seemed to suggest that Garver was running the agency, and not Administrator Charlie Bolden. Bolden later called Vitter's comment "unfair."
Not only were administration outraged by Vitter's remarks but several female civil servants and women executives in aerospace companies who have known Garver for years felt compelled to send their complaints to senate staff Wednesday afternoon.
Several sources on the Hill, in industry and inside the Obama administration blame rocket maker ATK, the developer of the Ares I rocket first stage, for putting Vitter up to the attack. Sources say that complaints have been sent to ATK and so far there has been no response.
In the meantime, members of the Senate and the House said they were going to refrain from any further personal attacks as they move against the White House's proposed 2011 budget for the space agency.
Debt went down under Clinton. It went up under Bush. How do people like you even tie your shoes?
Open Source designs, intellectual property...
What exactly are you going to do with open source designs? Build it? Don't make me laugh.
I for one would really like to see the DC-X pursued, rather than shelved. Preferably with a linear aerospike engine so it's not carrying around a heavy rocket bell, and a number of other improvements, which will remain encumbered and unobtainable because of patents and because of trade secret non-disclsure by areospace companies for information resulting from public funding.
And you can bet your ass we would build it, because if we didn't, or even if we did, China and India would build it, and probably Russia, and possibly Brazil, and Hugo Chávez might have Venezuela do it just to piss the U.S. off.
-- Terry
OH, forgot the elephant in the room...
The U.S., from a national security perspective, does NOT want people to have cheap and easy access to space.
If every nation or nut-job movie star who liked flying toys (John Travolta, I'm talking about you, sorry...) or tin-pot dictator in a country that can currently afford to buy a Boeing 727 had easy access to orbit for about the same price, it would only be a matter of time before someone loaded up one of those ships with as much ceramic coated rebar as the thing could carry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rods_from_God (the idea has been around since the 1950's).
-- Terry
I really think we ought to look into constructing robotic and remote controlled means of hooking an asteroid with the aim of creating von Neumann machines, or self-reproducing robots. I think sending people to Mars is still too dangerous with regard to long term exposure to cosmic radiation, and we have done insufficient research into how to cope with it. The ability to construct machines in space would be a great goal to have, and robots would be a way of starting that project off.
That about wraps it up.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
possibly wasting money with primitive space expeditions. But you simply cannot say they do not have vision.
There aren't any. Not when Congress critters make more than the average American household (legally, who knows about back room/under the table dealings), get to vote on their own pay raises, and have no term limits. Where is the incentive to do anything besides make sure they get re-elected so they can keep getting paid and living in luxury? Especially when we as Americans keep people in office for decades and start to believe in family dynasties. (the Kennedy family for instance. When did political positions become something to hand down through generations? Doesn't anyone remember stuff like that in England was part of the reason we broke free?)
Your proposed solution to the issue of political dynasties would be what? The only thing that would completely prevent the descendants of anyone elected to Federal government office from trying to get elected would be making it illegal for them to do so. The problem with that is you would be creating a population that while they could vote; would never be able become candidates themselves, not because of anything they did but because of their ancestry! It would morally analogous to a law limiting which ethnic groups could run for office and would do little, if anything to, dissuade the larger phenomenon of career politicians.
IMHO, we should be trying to think of ways to expand the pool of US citizens who are realistically electable candidates to federal office, not shrink it! This means lowering the barriers to entry for any would be candidate; including those currently imposed by our first-to-post election system, party affiliation, and the costs of running a modern political campaign. If you give the voters a larger and more diverse set of candidates with a realistic chance of winning an election, it becomes harder for incumbents rely on false campaign promises and lip-service for re-election as well as making political dynasties less of an issue.
Unfortunately the morally repugnant legislators are correct as far as it goes. Nasa indeed needs gee wizz flashy programs to achieve funding as this article shows. Nasa has to impress the powers that be, President, advisors, legislators, defense contractors, and even lobbyists, to get decent upper management and funding. They have to be even more impressive to maintain the needed funding over multiple years and administrations.
Because...
Most ventures having to do with space require a lot of time as well as consistent funding. Congress, who holds the purse strings, is motivated by short term goals and is easily swayed by other vested interests (see above).
The only way I can see to fix this would require a law or constitutional amendment, if necessary, to enable congress to assign budgetary funds, ideally multi-year, that are paid in advance and very difficult to change. At least a 2/3 or even a 3/4 vote should be necessary to remove or repeal. This sort of protection will have to include the top management at Nasa as well.
Not a lot else you can do unless you can make all three branches of government reasonable, honorable, and able to think and plan on a long range basis.
Ward
. Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
Before Obama I was a critic of Direct. It is too large and expensive for crew transport and too small for the heavy lift mission. But compared to the 'non-plan' that emerged a month ago I'll take any concrete plan. You can't say Direct isn't well thought out. The Augustine report is an excuse for doing nothing.
an ill wind that blows no good
A few years ago NASA wanted to develop some form of on-line community similar to Second Life. So it sent out requests for ideas. I even submitted a few, figuring that if they did this right it could provide a serious environment for education and entertainment. NASA eventually announced a public hearing where potential developers could go. Well, what basically happened was, NASA had no funding for this, the proponents were expected to develop this at their own expense.
I saw the point here: you'd basically have to set up something which provided an environment for developing content, you'd have to figure out how to monetize your system to cover its costs. Consider that, since, unlike games like World of Warcraft, you can get into the existing virtual worlds for free, and NASA wanted at least a minimum area you could enter for free, a monetization through admission (game kit sales charges, or monthly fees) were basically out. You'd either have to sell space or find some way to sell add-ons, and very likely NASA would have a veto on what content or user actions were there. All you'd get for your trouble was the privilege of using NASA's "meatball" logo as part of your project. As this wasn't much of an incentive - anyone who wanted to be in the Virtual World business was already there - it died on the vine.
I seriously believe a few thousand dollars could have allowed NASA to create a programmable on-line virtual-reality based system which could have started small and been built up as those who used it figured out what to do with it, sort of the way Wikipedia bloomed from its small and humble beginnings. But they wanted an unrealistic system without a means to finance it. And their unrealistic expectations got them exactly what could be expected. A nothing that went nowhere.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing?
If you find any in D.C., let me know.
Two problems with this:
There are some "politicians" like Colin Powell who simply don't give a damn about elections and partisan politics, but then again a guy like General Powell is as often as not telling people off when his name is even suggested as a potential candidate for public office. I'm using this as an example of a leader very capable of doing the job and making a difference... in either Congress or in the White House, but somebody who doesn't want to go through the meat grinder to get there in the first place. He has the name recognition and even the general political philosophies that could even get him elected, but it is unlikely he would ever get there to do it.
A politician cannot get elected to the highest offices unless they prioritize getting (re-)elected over achieving meaningful progress... But we put them there... if they weren't drunken whoring bastards (never mind the fact that many of those we elect ARE drunken whoring bastards -- they just don't look like it because they have an army of PR staff).
Your quote reminds me of the story of the late Charlie Wilson, who, in essence, was a "drunken whoring bastard" but figured out how to get the funds - plus matching funds from other countries - to allow the Afghans to have the means to force the Soviets out of their country, To mis-quote from Schlock Mercenary, "Charlie Wilson was a drunken whoring bastard, but he was our drunken whoring bastard!" And despite all his faults, he won the war, and turned Afganistan into the Russians' Vietnam.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
The international space station was supposed to save nasa from a post-cold war grave but hasn't.
Under Johnney Walker (George Bush) nasa was supposed to drink their way to moon and mars.
Guess that there just isn't enough Jim Bean to go 'round for all the engineers and accountants and managers.
That's the trouble with nasa, no brains, just accountants jerking-off in their cubicles on the goober-ment time and drawing salery.