The aerospace industry has been dominated by various governments for half a century. We have gone from numerous companies developing practical air travel down to Boeing and Airbus dominating a stagnant market. And, I am told, Boeing doesn't seem to be that healthy.
What's the next thing to stop? Space travel? Possibly. NASA hasn't succeeded in developing a successor to the shuttle. Two attempts (NASP and X-33) have been failures. Young people are starting to avoid the industry -- it has a bad reputation. Dishonesty, abuse and failure seem to be its hallmarks today.
The computer industry has done better. There's still room for innovation and development. Although, one wonders how long that will last with Microsoft dominance.
Change is possible, though. Challenges to Microsoft (think Linux today) aren't going to go away. And these challengers are racking up real successes.
Change is also possible in the more established aerospace industry as well. Three decades ago the U.S. military was in rough shape. People -- both inside and outside the military -- recognized that. Various reforms were implemented -- not the least ending the draft (conscription to Slashdot's readers outside the U.S.). Today the U.S. military, while far from perfect, is a much healthier institution.
We (meaning the U.S., Britain and allies) are in the process of defeating a country that tightly controlled its people. We did the same to the late Soviet Union -- another nation that practiced tight control of its citizens.
Many historians argue that the Roman empire fell because it moved from a laissez faire model -- we don't care what you do as long as you don't try to sack Rome -- to trying to run peoples' lives.
The first group hates NASA because they harbor vague notions about how to do it "right." They believe NASA, with it's big budget programs such as the Space Shuttle, is the reason that progress is slow.
Some of us have more than vague ideas for improvements. Substantive proposals for reform have been made -- frequently by people who have real knowledge of what's going on in the field. One friend who still works at NASA complains about increasingly bureaucratic management getting in the way. Shifting back to a more flexible management style such as was once practiced isn't a vague proposal. Encouraging independence and the free flow of communications aren't vague proposals.
Yes, things revealed by this group can provide ammunition to the people who want to simply destroy NASA. But suppressing bad news isn't healthy for an organization in anything but the shortest term. People once assumed that totalitarian dictatorships would best open democracies because they didn't "waste time" on debate or allow "internal critics" to weaken the state. It turned out that the problems ignored were sufficient to weaken the totalitarian states.
NASA is far from a totalitarian state. But similar principles do apply. You can't solve problems until they are known and widely discussed. The more people who look at a problem, the more likely you'll find a solution.
Cassini is considered an old-fashioned "big budget" mission according to contemporary anti-NASA zealot thinking.
Yes, Cassini looks to be a success. And some of the "better, faster, cheaper" approaches have been notable failures. Goldin made severe mistakes. So did his predecessors. And I agree that the critics make some too. That's why I favor getting as many people involved as possible. Openness and flexibility are what we need -- not dogma of one variety or another.
Yes, physics does argue against things like Star Trek fantasies. That doesn't mean we're not able to do a wide variety of remarkable things in space. Physicists far better than I think things like space colonies and even travel to other stars are possible. Some even think them likely. The Fermi Paradox is still a debated topic. And, given that present day aerospace does have significant management problems, we don't need to invoke ideas that "physics is against it" to explain the failures that we see.
You might consider the U.S. military. The military was a real mess during the Vietnam war. After the war ended, it moved, somewhat successfully to a more professional and competent model. The draft was ended. The quality of personnel improved. Accomplishments increased.
It's true that not everything is rosy today with the military. But to deny that real, effective improvement has happened over the past few decades is, in my opinion, showing ignorance.
You could be right. The human race has shown a weakness for impossible dreams. Consider, for example, ancient mythologies, or the "ideal" of modern communism. Myths about gods residing on Olympus and entering into the affairs of humans are clearly not true. Similarly, the notions of that contemporary mythology known as communism have been similarly discredited.
However, we do know that the NASA-aerospace industrial complex has many dysfunctional features. In some ways it's been getting worse over the years. Can current NASA problems be fixed? Reforms have been successfully made to other institutions.
Before we chuck out our dreams, perhaps we should consider changing the current approach to the problems. This could mean reform of the existing establishment, creating new ways out of whole cloth or some combination.
Goldin's efforts probably worsened the existing situation. It remains to be seen whether the impact of O'Keefe's reforms will be positive or negative.
I'm sure we're going to hear again from the gang that just wants to "protect the children." And we're going to hear from the people who want parents to surf the Net with their children, thus combatting the problem from another approach.
Might I suggest a different approach?
Children are going to be exposed to bad things. They always have. At home I have a book titled "Pioneer Women." It's about the roles of women in settling the western United States. One photograph is particularly memorable. It's of a small child looking at the body of man who's just been killed in a gun fight. I suspect that's more traumatic than seeing a bit of pr0n on the Internet.
When I was a child, I was exposed to information about the Holocaust and World War II. As a teenager I lived through the Cuban missile crisis and the Kennedy assassination. Children today have been exposed to the horrors of 9/11. All these things are far more troubling for children than a bit of pr0n on the Internet.
So, short of shutting up children in some sort of tightly controlled, heavily censored environment (hmm, sounds like a jail), they will be exposed to bad stuff. Perhaps, instead of trying to shield our little darlings, we should instead be teaching them that the world is not always a nice place. We should be giving them the tools to deal with nastiness and worse. I think this is a far healthier approach to take -- as well as more practical.
Business in too many companies in the U.S. has become win/lose. The Economist has noted a massive wealth transfer from shareholders to senior executives. We're seeing the same thing with regard to ordinary employee pay as compared to CEO pay.
This can work for awhile. Trouble is, it leads to significant problems. What if, for example, lower salaried Indian employees notice how much wealth is winding up in the bank accounts of senior American executives? Might they not jump ship to start their own company and keep some of that wealth?
Major economic reverses for most people led to the French Revolution in the 18th century. People resent it when a few are getting richer while they are having increasingly difficult lives.
The management at NASA is one of the finest and most frugal in the world. They have performed freaking miracles on a shoestring budget.
That hasn't been true for some time. If it ever was. Yes, NASA has some real accomplishments to its credit. Sadly, laying the foundation for the other things you mention isn't really one of them.
Back in the 70s I was inspired by O'Neill's vision. I became an SSI Senior Associate (donated money). Joined the L5 Society -- actually became a bit of a leader in that group. Organized events. Spoke up for NASA research. Wrote letters to Congress. Kept it up well into the 90s. Even though I was starting to notice flaws in the agency.
You point out a major part of the problem. NASA has become entirely too much about full funding for the existing aerospace establishment.
We need better engineering to actually build this new frontier. We're not getting that with NASA now. What we're getting are "spectaculars" that aren't all that spectacular and don't advance humanity's future in space.
Let's hope O'Keefe can put in reliable accounting. Fudged numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. If we can get good accounting data, we can see just what is working and not working in all of NASA's endeavors. Solid accounting might also promote honesty in the field. One frequent complaint about NASA made by former workers is the amount of lies they were told. Add to that abuse and exploitation and you have the formula for driving people from the field.
We've seen too much throwing good money after bad. It's not only wrong to waste the taxpayers' money, it also diverts people from projects that might work. Too many failures also cause people who might enter space work to choose different careers -- ones where they might actually accomplish something. I mentioned to one friend that young people aren't going into aerospace any more. She commented that's because many people -- especially the technically oriented -- view aerospace as a dead end.
In retrospect, it would have been wiser to spend the money on work to lower the cost of getting things into orbit. The United States could have funded multiple, diverse research projects rather than this centralized, mismanaged failure. Lower cost to orbit would have paid off across the board -- for satellites, probes to distant planets, human work in space and much more.
Instead we got a project that put three people into a station that requires at least 2.5 people to just maintain it. And which might be mothballed any day because of problems with Russian participation.
I was planning to skip "Taken." I'm pretty busy and don't have all that much time for TV.
Then yesterday, the Washington Post's reviewer called it "cable TV's Roots." So I programmed the VCR -- and also caught a few minutes last night. Seems good.
But why are they running this epic miniseries in December? I can understand why not in a sweeps month -- the channel isn't all that popular yet. But December? People already have lots of things to do this month. I've got three parties, a concert and an SF convention to attend in the next two weeks. As a "break out" strategy the scheduling seems plain dumb. Running "Taken" in January would seem a much better idea.
It's heartening to see so much interest in this flight. I mean, I can't get to it -- and I've tried numerous times. Fortunately, I've been following their work for some time. So I will make a few general comments.
OK, the rocket didn't work as hoped for. That's what experiments are for. People do these things to learn things. From this experiment they found problems with software. Problems like that can be fixed. How many times have people here written even a simple program that failed more than once while debugging was going on?
It's good to see someone with some money striking out on their own in aerospace again. We need work like this to advance the field. We need independent work to try out new ideas and drop failed paradigms.
I'm a bit disappointed
on
Redirecting NASA
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The best thing in this plan is stepping back to easier to develop technologies -- e.g., the space plane atop an EELV. It's a vehicle with one purpose, rather than many. The current shuttle violates the Keep It Simple, Stupid rule so strongly it's not funny.
ISS exists. It might be a black hole for money, but it exists. Incremental improvements to make it earn its keep are well worth doing.
Putting existing contractors on notice that future followons will not be automatic is a good thing. Although, like many good things, it could lead to unfortunate results. If all that happens is contractors hunkering down even more, abusing their staff and greater lieing to outsiders in an attempt to hold onto existing revenue streams, this effort will fail. If, on the other hand, new people step up with better ideas (or even old ones finally try reforming themselves), this change will be for the better. The more of us -- currently inside and outside the industry -- who focus on what's happening, the better. A bright light can show what's wrong, what's right and better ways of doing tasks.
Keeping the shuttle going is better than throwing money at ill conceived projects like the X-33. Although putting the money into a variety of efforts to improve space transportation (especially on the cost side) should be the primary focus. We should be thinking "Let's learn as much as we can." That requires many, small, nonbureaucratic efforts, not just one or two bloated empires.
I suspect at this point the real action is going to be with entrepreneurs willing to try new ideas to serve markets that don't exist because the cost of reaching orbit is entirely too high.
While I strongly support looking for close in objects, it's not like it's an either/or situation. The world has lots of astronomers (and other kinds of scientists as well). We also have resources sufficient to do research into a wide variety of astronomical phenomena.
Those of us who have actually done some political work in support of looking for earth approaching asteroids only ask for a few millions of dollars to finance such work. Focusing all of our attention on nearby objects would be foolish and wasteful in the extreme.
I cannot believe the other countries involved in the ISS are tolerating the Russians sending up every Tom, Dick and Harry that can front $20M, indirectly or directly. What about the safety issues presented by an incompetent civilian in an environment where a screw-up could jeopardize the lives of all the people on board ?
NASA has already sent up people who don't really belong. Politicians, for example. OK, they had some training. But, then, so do the people in the $20 million category. It's not like they're selling tickets on a Soyuz like, for example, airlines sell tickets on 747s. A hell of a lot of training goes with that ticket.
When Dennis Tito went up, I and others thought NASA's objections were at best disingenuous, at worst outright lies. The man had been an aerospace engineer and had received months of training before his trip. Yet NASA proclaimed how difficult his trip made things for them. I thought, what if something unexpected went wrong on the station not connected to that little trip? If the system was that fragile, it was a disaster waiting to happen.
NASA needs to develop technologies that are more robust. The country needs space technologies that are able to recover from at least minor problems. The Russians have done that to some extent.
And, of course, with each of these tourists Russia earns some badly needed hard money for their struggling program.
The battles between artists, listeners and the recording industry strike me as just a high profile version of what is happening in the larger society. We are seeing the centralization of power in the hands of the few to the immediate detriment of workers in a field and longer term harm to society as a whole.
What kind of efforts can those of with relatively little power make to reverse this centralization? Or should we just wait for the inevitable collapse and prepare to pick up the pieces?
Perhaps I've been exposed to too many of those "intensive, hands on training" short courses that purport to teach everything about a topic in a few days. Generally, though, I've found such courses to be of little value. Personally, I'd rather learn by reading a book, interacting with peers and trying things out on my own. This style of learning is more incremental -- and I think it leads to better knowledge of the subject.
While I'm aware of the problem of using universities as a model, it's interesting that rather than two (or more) eight hour training sessions over a few days, universities will stretch the same amount of class time over several months, with practice time (homework) and discussion interspersed with the formal lectures.
Practice, to me, is essential to really learning something. And "hands on, intensive" training just doesn't provide enough time for practice.
I have taught a few, very short courses myself. The approach I used was 2 or 3 two hour sessions spread over multiple days. There was plenty of time for practice during the training sessions. Students could also practice on their own between sessions. Some actually did. I also provided students with thoroughly documented examples that they could refer to back at their jobs. Finally, I made myself available for further consultation. My students indicated they found my approach quite helpful.
We need new ideas and bold steps in propulsion if we're ever going to graduate from the rocket age into bonafide space travel.
Perhaps, perhaps not. What we actually need is cheap, reliable transportation to low earth orbit now. This could very well mean taking existing technology and modifying and using it in known ways to reduce costs. The shuttle, for example, is a horridly complex machine designed to meet conflicting goals. The Keep It Simple Stupid rule was grossly violated during the planning stages. The automotive equivalent of the shuttle would be a vehicle that could haul 20 tons across the United States, transport 50 people simultaneously and then be driven to the Indianapolis 500 where it would be the fastest thing on the track during the race.
But the aerospace bureacracy likes it that way. They're in the business of selling things to the government, not opening up space.
l0ungeb0y also wrote:
It's sad that the US Gov't, being the only body with enough power to really do something for our future in space keeps things on such a short leash. Perhaps they should just kick back and play the "grant-daddy" and let private companies work hand in hand with them to speed things up a bit and share in the risk.
There's a grain of truth in this. Unfortunately, this might also mean substantial reform of existing aerospace companies. They're not limber, independently acting entitites any more. Reform may be possible. Then again, it might be necessary to fund the handful of fairly new startups decently. There's also the problem that subsidizing the startups might just turn them into sluggish government dependents as well. We might do better to get people with some money to invest in the startups. Hey, didn't people put money into things as dumb as pets.com? The money spent foolishly on dot bombs could have made a major impact on space transportation.
Before you all get excited about the Pixar-class films you're going to be able to make on your PC, I'd like to forecast when you will be able to do that.
For most of you, that time is, unfortunately, NEVER.
Yes, talent is required. But consider this: there are lots of talented people out there in the performing arts -- writers, actors, dancers, directors, etc. Dropping the cost of means of production will allow people with such talents to create productions without going through the current production model. Making it easier to do things with computers will have a similar effect. That's where the real impact will be. Not with geeks with swelled heads.
I never played computer games when I was a kid. The few computers that existed back in the 40s and 50s were reserved for governments and major corporations.:-) The only toys I had were things like Erector Sets (Meccano in Europe), electric trains, chemistry sets, games, toy guns, etc.
Children's play seems much more organized today -- with a concomitant loss of freedom for children. Play dates, T ball, organized sports even for small children. Some time ago in the Washington Post magazine I read an account by a mother who had taken a half time job in order to spend more time with her kids. I felt sorry for everyone -- their schedules basically precluded free time, the chance to explore on one's own, etc.
I don't necessarily blame computer games -- the games in many ways reflect our current society. My recreational computer use reflects my life -- some art, some facilitation of my athletic, social and political endeavors. Others' use of computers I expect reflects their lives. But still, I consider these developments to be less than healthy for our society and for us as individuals.
A fool and his money are soon parted? That's what you sound like. Did you hear Photoshop was "kewl" so you went out and bought it? Did you do no market research at all?
You could have obtained The Gimp for free -- if you had bothered to look. Gimp's quite powerful. Just check what I've done with The Gimp.
Re:OG has been drinking excessively
on
Version Fatigue
·
· Score: 1
I know Glenn Reynolds. He's a great guy, married to a beautiful woman. They have children.
ObviousGuy is spreading lies. Perhaps he'd like to say why he is.
These are good points. But we should ask "How often does "Mom" or "Dad" or "10 year old brother" install software?" Is it a routine weekly or monthly occurrence or not? I'd be willing to bet for Mom or Dad it's just a one time thing. Currently they buy a computer with Windows (browser included) and Office already installed (as well as some other user software). If they do an upgrade, they might take it back to the shop.
Walmart is now selling "naked" PCs. Presumably their new owners will come to a friendly local computer geek for the software to actually use these things. When I bought a "naked" PC in 1997, friends installed Linux on it for me -- even though I'm an accomplished software engineer. (This was done at a Linux installfest.)
Now I can (and sometimes do) install new software on my current PC. But even for me, this is not all that frequent an event. I want to use my home PC -- not engage in software development.
It's possible we can see the future development of the PC field as producing something not that different from today's automotive industry. While I once did change oil, even do tuneups (precomputer era), I don't anymore. I buy a car, drive it but take it to a reputable mechanic for maintenance and repair. There still are automobile enthusiasts (e.g., amateur racers) who do their own work, but they are not the rule.
We could see something similar in the PC field. People buy "naked" PCs and take them to a technician for installation of a user friendly OS and other user software. Gamers who install a new game every week might not like taking a computer in for service for every new game. But, presumably, they would be savvy enough to not need to. The mom or pop who rarely touches software installation might not care how it's done.
Linux is already pretty close to being there for the neophyte user who isn't always installing new software. Give these people a friendly local technician to do the work for them, they might readily skip to Free Software (free as in both beer and speech).
The physicist in me cringes at krystal_blade's message and it's rating.
OK, what problems do we have in communicating with deep space probes? Ones that come to mind include:
The inverse square decline in signal strength. Check out an electricity and magnetism text for a full explanation. Briefly, signal strength decreases at the rate of 1/r**2. It's a long way to Saturn.
Background noise. Space isn't quiet.
Interference from various electromagnetic phenomena between the source and us.
NASA has done some great things in the past. But it has failed at its most important task -- opening up space to anything but a governmental entity. Yes, we do have comsats, but that is a special case. Information has neglible mass and high value. So comsats work. Remote sensing -- another information based industry -- has possibilities.
Other businesses -- ones that require real mass -- are another matter entirely. At $5000/kg to get mass into orbit, there is precious little we can do out there that makes real business sense.
NASA doesn't even think much about democratizing space. This is perhaps because it isn't a democratically oriented institution. A few of us have noted how NASA's authoritarian regime actually frustrates progress in the field. So far we have not yet made much of a dent in the status quo. As more and more failures become apparent, perhaps we will.
Slashdot Mirror
The aerospace industry has been dominated by various governments for half a century. We have gone from numerous companies developing practical air travel down to Boeing and Airbus dominating a stagnant market. And, I am told, Boeing doesn't seem to be that healthy.
What's the next thing to stop? Space travel? Possibly. NASA hasn't succeeded in developing a successor to the shuttle. Two attempts (NASP and X-33) have been failures. Young people are starting to avoid the industry -- it has a bad reputation. Dishonesty, abuse and failure seem to be its hallmarks today.
The computer industry has done better. There's still room for innovation and development. Although, one wonders how long that will last with Microsoft dominance.
Change is possible, though. Challenges to Microsoft (think Linux today) aren't going to go away. And these challengers are racking up real successes.
Change is also possible in the more established aerospace industry as well. Three decades ago the U.S. military was in rough shape. People -- both inside and outside the military -- recognized that. Various reforms were implemented -- not the least ending the draft (conscription to Slashdot's readers outside the U.S.). Today the U.S. military, while far from perfect, is a much healthier institution.
I'll second Keeper.
And make a few observations of my own.
We (meaning the U.S., Britain and allies) are in the process of defeating a country that tightly controlled its people. We did the same to the late Soviet Union -- another nation that practiced tight control of its citizens.
Many historians argue that the Roman empire fell because it moved from a laissez faire model -- we don't care what you do as long as you don't try to sack Rome -- to trying to run peoples' lives.
Tyranny works -- briefly. Then it destroys.
Some of us have more than vague ideas for improvements. Substantive proposals for reform have been made -- frequently by people who have real knowledge of what's going on in the field. One friend who still works at NASA complains about increasingly bureaucratic management getting in the way. Shifting back to a more flexible management style such as was once practiced isn't a vague proposal. Encouraging independence and the free flow of communications aren't vague proposals.
Yes, things revealed by this group can provide ammunition to the people who want to simply destroy NASA. But suppressing bad news isn't healthy for an organization in anything but the shortest term. People once assumed that totalitarian dictatorships would best open democracies because they didn't "waste time" on debate or allow "internal critics" to weaken the state. It turned out that the problems ignored were sufficient to weaken the totalitarian states.
NASA is far from a totalitarian state. But similar principles do apply. You can't solve problems until they are known and widely discussed. The more people who look at a problem, the more likely you'll find a solution.
Yes, Cassini looks to be a success. And some of the "better, faster, cheaper" approaches have been notable failures. Goldin made severe mistakes. So did his predecessors. And I agree that the critics make some too. That's why I favor getting as many people involved as possible. Openness and flexibility are what we need -- not dogma of one variety or another.
Yes, physics does argue against things like Star Trek fantasies. That doesn't mean we're not able to do a wide variety of remarkable things in space. Physicists far better than I think things like space colonies and even travel to other stars are possible. Some even think them likely. The Fermi Paradox is still a debated topic. And, given that present day aerospace does have significant management problems, we don't need to invoke ideas that "physics is against it" to explain the failures that we see.
You might consider the U.S. military. The military was a real mess during the Vietnam war. After the war ended, it moved, somewhat successfully to a more professional and competent model. The draft was ended. The quality of personnel improved. Accomplishments increased.
It's true that not everything is rosy today with the military. But to deny that real, effective improvement has happened over the past few decades is, in my opinion, showing ignorance.
You could be right. The human race has shown a weakness for impossible dreams. Consider, for example, ancient mythologies, or the "ideal" of modern communism. Myths about gods residing on Olympus and entering into the affairs of humans are clearly not true. Similarly, the notions of that contemporary mythology known as communism have been similarly discredited.
However, we do know that the NASA-aerospace industrial complex has many dysfunctional features. In some ways it's been getting worse over the years. Can current NASA problems be fixed? Reforms have been successfully made to other institutions.
Before we chuck out our dreams, perhaps we should consider changing the current approach to the problems. This could mean reform of the existing establishment, creating new ways out of whole cloth or some combination.
Goldin's efforts probably worsened the existing situation. It remains to be seen whether the impact of O'Keefe's reforms will be positive or negative.
I'm sure we're going to hear again from the gang that just wants to "protect the children." And we're going to hear from the people who want parents to surf the Net with their children, thus combatting the problem from another approach.
Might I suggest a different approach?
Children are going to be exposed to bad things. They always have. At home I have a book titled "Pioneer Women." It's about the roles of women in settling the western United States. One photograph is particularly memorable. It's of a small child looking at the body of man who's just been killed in a gun fight. I suspect that's more traumatic than seeing a bit of pr0n on the Internet.
When I was a child, I was exposed to information about the Holocaust and World War II. As a teenager I lived through the Cuban missile crisis and the Kennedy assassination. Children today have been exposed to the horrors of 9/11. All these things are far more troubling for children than a bit of pr0n on the Internet.
So, short of shutting up children in some sort of tightly controlled, heavily censored environment (hmm, sounds like a jail), they will be exposed to bad stuff. Perhaps, instead of trying to shield our little darlings, we should instead be teaching them that the world is not always a nice place. We should be giving them the tools to deal with nastiness and worse. I think this is a far healthier approach to take -- as well as more practical.
Business in too many companies in the U.S. has become win/lose. The Economist has noted a massive wealth transfer from shareholders to senior executives. We're seeing the same thing with regard to ordinary employee pay as compared to CEO pay.
This can work for awhile. Trouble is, it leads to significant problems. What if, for example, lower salaried Indian employees notice how much wealth is winding up in the bank accounts of senior American executives? Might they not jump ship to start their own company and keep some of that wealth?
Major economic reverses for most people led to the French Revolution in the 18th century. People resent it when a few are getting richer while they are having increasingly difficult lives.
That hasn't been true for some time. If it ever was. Yes, NASA has some real accomplishments to its credit. Sadly, laying the foundation for the other things you mention isn't really one of them.
Back in the 70s I was inspired by O'Neill's vision. I became an SSI Senior Associate (donated money). Joined the L5 Society -- actually became a bit of a leader in that group. Organized events. Spoke up for NASA research. Wrote letters to Congress. Kept it up well into the 90s. Even though I was starting to notice flaws in the agency.
You point out a major part of the problem. NASA has become entirely too much about full funding for the existing aerospace establishment.
We need better engineering to actually build this new frontier. We're not getting that with NASA now. What we're getting are "spectaculars" that aren't all that spectacular and don't advance humanity's future in space.
Let's hope O'Keefe can put in reliable accounting. Fudged numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. If we can get good accounting data, we can see just what is working and not working in all of NASA's endeavors. Solid accounting might also promote honesty in the field. One frequent complaint about NASA made by former workers is the amount of lies they were told. Add to that abuse and exploitation and you have the formula for driving people from the field.
We've seen too much throwing good money after bad. It's not only wrong to waste the taxpayers' money, it also diverts people from projects that might work. Too many failures also cause people who might enter space work to choose different careers -- ones where they might actually accomplish something. I mentioned to one friend that young people aren't going into aerospace any more. She commented that's because many people -- especially the technically oriented -- view aerospace as a dead end.
In retrospect, it would have been wiser to spend the money on work to lower the cost of getting things into orbit. The United States could have funded multiple, diverse research projects rather than this centralized, mismanaged failure. Lower cost to orbit would have paid off across the board -- for satellites, probes to distant planets, human work in space and much more.
Instead we got a project that put three people into a station that requires at least 2.5 people to just maintain it. And which might be mothballed any day because of problems with Russian participation.
I was planning to skip "Taken." I'm pretty busy and don't have all that much time for TV.
Then yesterday, the Washington Post's reviewer called it "cable TV's Roots." So I programmed the VCR -- and also caught a few minutes last night. Seems good.
But why are they running this epic miniseries in December? I can understand why not in a sweeps month -- the channel isn't all that popular yet. But December? People already have lots of things to do this month. I've got three parties, a concert and an SF convention to attend in the next two weeks. As a "break out" strategy the scheduling seems plain dumb. Running "Taken" in January would seem a much better idea.
It's heartening to see so much interest in this flight. I mean, I can't get to it -- and I've tried numerous times. Fortunately, I've been following their work for some time. So I will make a few general comments.
OK, the rocket didn't work as hoped for. That's what experiments are for. People do these things to learn things. From this experiment they found problems with software. Problems like that can be fixed. How many times have people here written even a simple program that failed more than once while debugging was going on?
It's good to see someone with some money striking out on their own in aerospace again. We need work like this to advance the field. We need independent work to try out new ideas and drop failed paradigms.
The best thing in this plan is stepping back to easier to develop technologies -- e.g., the space plane atop an EELV. It's a vehicle with one purpose, rather than many. The current shuttle violates the Keep It Simple, Stupid rule so strongly it's not funny.
ISS exists. It might be a black hole for money, but it exists. Incremental improvements to make it earn its keep are well worth doing.
Putting existing contractors on notice that future followons will not be automatic is a good thing. Although, like many good things, it could lead to unfortunate results. If all that happens is contractors hunkering down even more, abusing their staff and greater lieing to outsiders in an attempt to hold onto existing revenue streams, this effort will fail. If, on the other hand, new people step up with better ideas (or even old ones finally try reforming themselves), this change will be for the better. The more of us -- currently inside and outside the industry -- who focus on what's happening, the better. A bright light can show what's wrong, what's right and better ways of doing tasks.
Keeping the shuttle going is better than throwing money at ill conceived projects like the X-33. Although putting the money into a variety of efforts to improve space transportation (especially on the cost side) should be the primary focus. We should be thinking "Let's learn as much as we can." That requires many, small, nonbureaucratic efforts, not just one or two bloated empires.
I suspect at this point the real action is going to be with entrepreneurs willing to try new ideas to serve markets that don't exist because the cost of reaching orbit is entirely too high.
While I strongly support looking for close in objects, it's not like it's an either/or situation. The world has lots of astronomers (and other kinds of scientists as well). We also have resources sufficient to do research into a wide variety of astronomical phenomena.
Those of us who have actually done some political work in support of looking for earth approaching asteroids only ask for a few millions of dollars to finance such work. Focusing all of our attention on nearby objects would be foolish and wasteful in the extreme.
NASA has already sent up people who don't really belong. Politicians, for example. OK, they had some training. But, then, so do the people in the $20 million category. It's not like they're selling tickets on a Soyuz like, for example, airlines sell tickets on 747s. A hell of a lot of training goes with that ticket.
When Dennis Tito went up, I and others thought NASA's objections were at best disingenuous, at worst outright lies. The man had been an aerospace engineer and had received months of training before his trip. Yet NASA proclaimed how difficult his trip made things for them. I thought, what if something unexpected went wrong on the station not connected to that little trip? If the system was that fragile, it was a disaster waiting to happen.
NASA needs to develop technologies that are more robust. The country needs space technologies that are able to recover from at least minor problems. The Russians have done that to some extent.
And, of course, with each of these tourists Russia earns some badly needed hard money for their struggling program.
The battles between artists, listeners and the recording industry strike me as just a high profile version of what is happening in the larger society. We are seeing the centralization of power in the hands of the few to the immediate detriment of workers in a field and longer term harm to society as a whole.
What kind of efforts can those of with relatively little power make to reverse this centralization? Or should we just wait for the inevitable collapse and prepare to pick up the pieces?
Perhaps I've been exposed to too many of those "intensive, hands on training" short courses that purport to teach everything about a topic in a few days. Generally, though, I've found such courses to be of little value. Personally, I'd rather learn by reading a book, interacting with peers and trying things out on my own. This style of learning is more incremental -- and I think it leads to better knowledge of the subject.
While I'm aware of the problem of using universities as a model, it's interesting that rather than two (or more) eight hour training sessions over a few days, universities will stretch the same amount of class time over several months, with practice time (homework) and discussion interspersed with the formal lectures. Practice, to me, is essential to really learning something. And "hands on, intensive" training just doesn't provide enough time for practice.
I have taught a few, very short courses myself. The approach I used was 2 or 3 two hour sessions spread over multiple days. There was plenty of time for practice during the training sessions. Students could also practice on their own between sessions. Some actually did. I also provided students with thoroughly documented examples that they could refer to back at their jobs. Finally, I made myself available for further consultation. My students indicated they found my approach quite helpful.
l0ungeb0y wrote:
Perhaps, perhaps not. What we actually need is cheap, reliable transportation to low earth orbit now. This could very well mean taking existing technology and modifying and using it in known ways to reduce costs. The shuttle, for example, is a horridly complex machine designed to meet conflicting goals. The Keep It Simple Stupid rule was grossly violated during the planning stages. The automotive equivalent of the shuttle would be a vehicle that could haul 20 tons across the United States, transport 50 people simultaneously and then be driven to the Indianapolis 500 where it would be the fastest thing on the track during the race.
But the aerospace bureacracy likes it that way. They're in the business of selling things to the government, not opening up space.
l0ungeb0y also wrote:
There's a grain of truth in this. Unfortunately, this might also mean substantial reform of existing aerospace companies. They're not limber, independently acting entitites any more. Reform may be possible. Then again, it might be necessary to fund the handful of fairly new startups decently. There's also the problem that subsidizing the startups might just turn them into sluggish government dependents as well. We might do better to get people with some money to invest in the startups. Hey, didn't people put money into things as dumb as pets.com? The money spent foolishly on dot bombs could have made a major impact on space transportation.
Bruce Perens wisely said:
Yes, talent is required. But consider this: there are lots of talented people out there in the performing arts -- writers, actors, dancers, directors, etc. Dropping the cost of means of production will allow people with such talents to create productions without going through the current production model. Making it easier to do things with computers will have a similar effect. That's where the real impact will be. Not with geeks with swelled heads.
I never played computer games when I was a kid. The few computers that existed back in the 40s and 50s were reserved for governments and major corporations. :-) The only toys I had were things like Erector Sets (Meccano in Europe), electric trains, chemistry sets, games, toy guns, etc.
Children's play seems much more organized today -- with a concomitant loss of freedom for children. Play dates, T ball, organized sports even for small children. Some time ago in the Washington Post magazine I read an account by a mother who had taken a half time job in order to spend more time with her kids. I felt sorry for everyone -- their schedules basically precluded free time, the chance to explore on one's own, etc.
I don't necessarily blame computer games -- the games in many ways reflect our current society. My recreational computer use reflects my life -- some art, some facilitation of my athletic, social and political endeavors. Others' use of computers I expect reflects their lives. But still, I consider these developments to be less than healthy for our society and for us as individuals.
A fool and his money are soon parted? That's what you sound like. Did you hear Photoshop was "kewl" so you went out and bought it? Did you do no market research at all?
You could have obtained The Gimp for free -- if you had bothered to look. Gimp's quite powerful. Just check what I've done with The Gimp.
I know Glenn Reynolds. He's a great guy, married to a beautiful woman. They have children.
ObviousGuy is spreading lies. Perhaps he'd like to say why he is.
These are good points. But we should ask "How often does "Mom" or "Dad" or "10 year old brother" install software?" Is it a routine weekly or monthly occurrence or not? I'd be willing to bet for Mom or Dad it's just a one time thing. Currently they buy a computer with Windows (browser included) and Office already installed (as well as some other user software). If they do an upgrade, they might take it back to the shop.
Walmart is now selling "naked" PCs. Presumably their new owners will come to a friendly local computer geek for the software to actually use these things. When I bought a "naked" PC in 1997, friends installed Linux on it for me -- even though I'm an accomplished software engineer. (This was done at a Linux installfest.)
Now I can (and sometimes do) install new software on my current PC. But even for me, this is not all that frequent an event. I want to use my home PC -- not engage in software development.
It's possible we can see the future development of the PC field as producing something not that different from today's automotive industry. While I once did change oil, even do tuneups (precomputer era), I don't anymore. I buy a car, drive it but take it to a reputable mechanic for maintenance and repair. There still are automobile enthusiasts (e.g., amateur racers) who do their own work, but they are not the rule.
We could see something similar in the PC field. People buy "naked" PCs and take them to a technician for installation of a user friendly OS and other user software. Gamers who install a new game every week might not like taking a computer in for service for every new game. But, presumably, they would be savvy enough to not need to. The mom or pop who rarely touches software installation might not care how it's done.
Linux is already pretty close to being there for the neophyte user who isn't always installing new software. Give these people a friendly local technician to do the work for them, they might readily skip to Free Software (free as in both beer and speech).
Gulp. Air loss?
The physicist in me cringes at krystal_blade's message and it's rating.
OK, what problems do we have in communicating with deep space probes? Ones that come to mind include:
Air loss? Please.
You don't know much about NASA, do you?
NASA has done some great things in the past. But it has failed at its most important task -- opening up space to anything but a governmental entity. Yes, we do have comsats, but that is a special case. Information has neglible mass and high value. So comsats work. Remote sensing -- another information based industry -- has possibilities.
Other businesses -- ones that require real mass -- are another matter entirely. At $5000/kg to get mass into orbit, there is precious little we can do out there that makes real business sense.
NASA doesn't even think much about democratizing space. This is perhaps because it isn't a democratically oriented institution. A few of us have noted how NASA's authoritarian regime actually frustrates progress in the field. So far we have not yet made much of a dent in the status quo. As more and more failures become apparent, perhaps we will.
And I've written a fairly angry analysis of what I saw there. A Few Thoughts on NASA's Problems describes some of the management (or is it manglement) problems I saw there. While I've toned it down a bit, NASA people might want to put on their asbestos underwear. Then again, independent thinkers who still manage to work in aerospace might see reflections of their own disorganizations.