From their web site: "CompuMentor is a San Francisco-based nonprofit organization whose mission is to act as a bridge to the information age for schools and organizations serving low-income communities."
I retract my mindless characterization of Miles O'Brien. I should have simply said that there are any number of rumor-mongers out there who will publish anything. Does this fact compel real journalists like Oberg to publish rumor?
I'm not sure what Oberg is trying to accomplish other than elevate his self-importance as a space journalist. He used to be in the space program, and did some good work in it, so he has the qualifications to write about it. I think he does it well and I also agree with much of what he says. He also has good sources, particularly in the Russian space program.
But, he does seem to take perverse pleasure in the failures that occur. Like me, he may simply wish that the shoddiness which occasionally creeps in would go away. But the fact that I rarely see a word of credit for the things NASA has done well makes it seem that he has an animus.
My questions: What does Oberg accomplish by releasing this news/rumor, given that the failure reports will be out in a couple of weeks? Did he have a choice, or would the anonymous source have blabbed to a brainless twit like Miles O'Brien to ensure the story got out? What does the anonymous source get out of this?
The ages of space explo{r,it}ation: 1. Cold War Toys -- will the world survive? 2. Mercury/Gemini/Apollo -- will the crew survive? 3. Shuttle -- will the mission succeed? 4. Iridium -- will it make money? 5. Space Station -- why?
Low Earth Orbit is getting easier. This is the result of learning all of the hard lessons the hard way, and not taking the risks for granted.
Mars exploration is still very difficult. Partly this is because Mars is a more difficult environment than LEO. But the constraints of BFC are leading teams to make some of the same mistakes that were made before. The MCO interim failure report seems to indicate a certain... well, lack of rigor in the development and operations.
I, too, would like to see a radical change in the NASA Mars Exploration Program / MEP. The current program seems to combine aspects of Iridium technology (commercial practices, comparatively low unit reliability) and NASA program design (one-off design, albeit with component re-use) -- but combines them in a bad way. The addition of political pressure does not help, as opined by Donna Shirley, program manager of the successful Mars Pathfinder project.
So, what's wrong with MEP? Simple: There Is Only One MEP. Apollo succeeded because the guys working on it were convinced that the Soviets could get to the Moon. They had real competition. Likewise with Iridium -- until the finances fell apart, everyone thought there would be several competitors snapping at their heels.
The competition for Mars ended when the contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin Astronautics. There was competition at the contract level, but none at the program level.
Look, I don't care if you call it 'Red' and 'Blue' but there have to be at least two competitors. Cycles of competitive innovation, followed by cooperative synthesis, will produce the best results.
OK so JPL has one team already. Hmmm... who else could do this kind of thing? CMU, JHU/APL, MIT, USU, maybe even some Big 10 schools. Start with some GFE hardware -- flight computer, telecom equipment, pyros, motors etc. Hand out $50M to each team and stand back.
Neither team could afford a flagship probe a la Mars Observer ($1B). Perhaps one team would build a single lander with lots of high-tech instruments. The other team might bang out 5 small landers at $10M a pop. In any case there would not be any single team with a 'royal warrant' to probe Mars.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.compumentor.org/
From their web site:
"CompuMentor is a San Francisco-based nonprofit organization whose mission is to act as a bridge to the information age for schools and organizations serving low-income communities."
I retract my mindless characterization of Miles O'Brien. I should have simply said that there are any number of rumor-mongers out there who will publish anything. Does this fact compel real journalists like Oberg to publish rumor?
But, he does seem to take perverse pleasure in the failures that occur. Like me, he may simply wish that the shoddiness which occasionally creeps in would go away. But the fact that I rarely see a word of credit for the things NASA has done well makes it seem that he has an animus.
My questions: What does Oberg accomplish by releasing this news/rumor, given that the failure reports will be out in a couple of weeks? Did he have a choice, or would the anonymous source have blabbed to a brainless twit like Miles O'Brien to ensure the story got out? What does the anonymous source get out of this?
The ages of space explo{r,it}ation:
1. Cold War Toys -- will the world survive?
2. Mercury/Gemini/Apollo -- will the crew survive?
3. Shuttle -- will the mission succeed?
4. Iridium -- will it make money?
5. Space Station -- why?
Low Earth Orbit is getting easier. This is the result of learning all of the hard lessons the hard way, and not taking the risks for granted.
Mars exploration is still very difficult. Partly this is because Mars is a more difficult environment than LEO. But the constraints of BFC are leading teams to make some of the same mistakes that were made before. The MCO interim failure report seems to indicate a certain... well, lack of rigor in the development and operations.
I, too, would like to see a radical change in the NASA Mars Exploration Program / MEP. The current program seems to combine aspects of Iridium technology (commercial practices, comparatively low unit reliability) and NASA program design (one-off design, albeit with component re-use) -- but combines them in a bad way. The addition of political pressure does not help, as opined by Donna Shirley, program manager of the successful Mars Pathfinder project.
So, what's wrong with MEP? Simple: There Is Only One MEP. Apollo succeeded because the guys working on it were convinced that the Soviets could get to the Moon. They had real competition. Likewise with Iridium -- until the finances fell apart, everyone thought there would be several competitors snapping at their heels.
The competition for Mars ended when the contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin Astronautics. There was competition at the contract level, but none at the program level.
Look, I don't care if you call it 'Red' and 'Blue' but there have to be at least two competitors. Cycles of competitive innovation, followed by cooperative synthesis, will produce the best results.
OK so JPL has one team already. Hmmm... who else could do this kind of thing? CMU, JHU/APL, MIT, USU, maybe even some Big 10 schools. Start with some GFE hardware -- flight computer, telecom equipment, pyros, motors etc. Hand out $50M to each team and stand back.
Neither team could afford a flagship probe a la Mars Observer ($1B). Perhaps one team would build a single lander with lots of high-tech instruments. The other team might bang out 5 small landers at $10M a pop. In any case there would not be any single team with a 'royal warrant' to probe Mars.