Is NASA dying?? If so, whose fault is it?

Terrell Miller ) wrote:
: "Explorer8939" wrote in message
: om...

: The obvious choice is Mr. O'Keefe, arguably the worst NASA
: Administrator ever. If you have any doubts, check out his performance
: in regards to the 3 of NASA's major programs: Shuttle, ISS and Hubble.

: you do realize that O'Keefe was only in office a year before the Columbia
: accident, yes? He's still new at the post.

: Since O'Keefe will likely exit NASA after the election,

: funny how tree-huggers keep lying to themselves about stuff like this. Guess
: that makes their world-view easier to believe if they keep repeating it to
: themselves over and over g

What the hell does tree huggers and this post have to with one another?

: the bigger
: question is the future of NASA. The most likely long term scenario
: for NASA is that Shuttle retires itself, ISS continues to depend on
: the Russians (in minimal mode), and the Moon Mars thing quietly fades
: away as the other crises overwhelm the NASA bureaucracy.

: That's one scenario. Another is that NASA (a federal agency with tens of
: thousands of direct and indirect employees in several key Congressional
: districts) just keeps muddling along the way they've always done.

NASA is still the most favorite place to work in the government.

: All the
: while, private astronauts fly ever higher suborbital missions.

: emphasis on *sub*orbital. That's orders of magnitude away from doing
: anything in LEO, let alone anything productive.

Right, so we are stuck with NASA to pave the way in the short term at
least.

: One could argue that there is indeed a space race - if private
: astronauts get into orbit using totally private systems BEFORE NASA
: can send astronauts beyond orbit, then it would obvious that we don't
: NASA's version of human spaceflight - why spend billions of taxpayer
: dollars to fly NASA astronauts when any idiot can simply buy a ticket
: into space?

: because the gap between what private industry will be able to do on orbit
: (roughly comparable to China's Shenzhou 5 up-and-back mission) adn what NASA
: can do on orbit even in its current state, will not close for at least a
: decade, probably more.

: IOW, it will take much longer for private industry to ramp up its
: spaceflight capability that you think. What we'll see is pretty much what
: the Mercury program amounted to: a stream of ever-more-soundbiteworthy PR
: stunts. Necessary first steps to be sure, but still baby steps.

: For the first time, an end for NASA is in sight.

: yes, thirty or forty years from now.

No, even then it can be out front WRT space. Space travel and exploration
won't go away in 50 years.

: If NASA does not have
: its act together soon, even Congress would be forced to cut the human
: spaceflight program in the wake of private orbital spaceflight,

: the two things are totally unrelated as far as the government in concerned.

: NASA provides jobs and prestige for several congressional districts. That
: kind of political clout isn't easily swayed by the types of argument you are
: making. Government is an entity unto itself and has little or no bearing on
: external (private-industry) reality.

Which is exactly as it should be lest we start heading toward communism.

: and
: Marshall Spaceflight and the other centers would no longer have the
: ability to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on such turkeys as
: Propulsion Module, X-34, X-38 and the like.

: And instead, people like Rutan will spend hundreds of millions on projects,
: most of which will turn out to be redundant or fatally flawed designs (in
: all senses of the term) or insufficiently funded to ever amount to anything.
: Same as in every other start-up industry. Some people will die, there will
: be a few spectacular successes mingled with even-more-spectacular failures
: and lots of quiet going-out-of-business sales...and then at some point
: people like you will come out of the woodwork bitching about all the failed
: promise of commercial manned spaceflight. You will demand that NASA step
: back in to staunch the bleeding and provide a "voice of reason" (and
: regulatory oversight) to what you will then call a loose-cannon industry.

I agree.

: And you will be just as full of **** and ignorant self-importance as you are
: today.

: NASA *must* produce results in the near term to survive. Without the
: Shuttle, no amount of feel good propaganda will help.
:
: The end is near.

: time to learn a little bit about not only aerospace but also government,
: sport. You're clueless about both.

Yes, the "end is near" types have been around for a long time, and that
should tell you something.

Eric

: --
: Terrell Miller
:

: "At one point we were this Progressive edgy group and we can't really equate
: that with Brother Bear so I don't know really."
: -Tony Banks

On Tue, 18 May 2004 04:12:48 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

In article ,
Dick Morris wrote:
Plus, I'm not sure he has the management experience he'd need to ride
herd on the rest of the institution.

Some recent experience herding cats would be helpful.

Come now, we're talking about NASA Centers here. Herding weasels would be
more like it. :-) :-)

Oh, no, not the honest, pure, and true field centers that do flight
research almost exclusively, all one of them. The other field centers
are definitely lairs of mustiliids, though.

Having spent almost all of my career at NASA, I'd only take the job of
Administrator if both the White House and Congress promised, in
unclassified, written, signed, and notarized documents, to keep their
hands completely off. Particularly female members of Congress from
Maryland.

Then they'd have to pass a law exempting NASA from some of the more
recent encrustations of the laws, rules, and regulations on
procurement, travel, work conditions, contracting, resource
utilization, and paperwork.

And finally, they'd have to agree that only people who understand risk
levels and accepted risk be allowed to assess NASA decisions and
review mishaps and accidents. Furthermore, safety would have to be
downgraded from the most important factor to just an important factor
and real risk acceptance would have to be allowed. And the complement
would have to be raised.

Then I'd appoint a multi-national advisory committee and draft Henry,
right after I required the lawyers to justify every decision to
prohibit doing something with actual numbers and facts (their job is
to figure out how to do things, not why not to).

Then you'd see a much different NASA indeed. Research, research,
research. Publication in the open literature. Openness. Less
groveling. Less pandering to risk aversion.

Unfortunately, no one's going to make me the Empress of NASA.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer wrote:

Oh, no, not the honest, pure, and true field centers that do flight
research almost exclusively, all one of them. The other field centers
are definitely lairs of mustiliids, though.

This is a terrible slur on mustelids. Some are very cute!

ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/graphics/book_...0596001967.jpg

Paul

Mary Shafer ) wrote:
: On Tue, 18 May 2004 04:12:48 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
: wrote:

: In article ,
: Dick Morris wrote:
: Plus, I'm not sure he has the management experience he'd need to ride
: herd on the rest of the institution.
:
: Some recent experience herding cats would be helpful.
:
: Come now, we're talking about NASA Centers here. Herding weasels would be
: more like it. :-) :-)

: Oh, no, not the honest, pure, and true field centers that do flight
: research almost exclusively, all one of them. The other field centers
: are definitely lairs of mustiliids, though.

: Having spent almost all of my career at NASA, I'd only take the job of
: Administrator if both the White House and Congress promised, in
: unclassified, written, signed, and notarized documents, to keep their
: hands completely off. Particularly female members of Congress from
: Maryland.

What do you have against Goddard?

: Then they'd have to pass a law exempting NASA from some of the more
: recent encrustations of the laws, rules, and regulations on
: procurement, travel, work conditions, contracting, resource
: utilization, and paperwork.

: And finally, they'd have to agree that only people who understand risk
: levels and accepted risk be allowed to assess NASA decisions and
: review mishaps and accidents. Furthermore, safety would have to be
: downgraded from the most important factor to just an important factor
: and real risk acceptance would have to be allowed. And the complement
: would have to be raised.

: Then I'd appoint a multi-national advisory committee and draft Henry,
: right after I required the lawyers to justify every decision to
: prohibit doing something with actual numbers and facts (their job is
: to figure out how to do things, not why not to).

: Then you'd see a much different NASA indeed. Research, research,
: research. Publication in the open literature. Openness. Less
: groveling. Less pandering to risk aversion.

: Unfortunately, no one's going to make me the Empress of NASA.

Right, I was going to say that you want to run NASA like Castro runs Cuba.

Like W said, "I'm not against a dicatorship, just as long as I'm the
dictator." (in effect)

Eric

: Mary

: --
: Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
:

On Thu, 20 May 2004 16:36:17 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Chomko) wrote:

Mary Shafer ) wrote:

: Having spent almost all of my career at NASA, I'd only take the job of
: Administrator if both the White House and Congress promised, in
: unclassified, written, signed, and notarized documents, to keep their
: hands completely off. Particularly female members of Congress from
: Maryland.

What do you have against Goddard?


: Then they'd have to pass a law exempting NASA from some of the more
: recent encrustations of the laws, rules, and regulations on
: procurement, travel, work conditions, contracting, resource
: utilization, and paperwork.

: And finally, they'd have to agree that only people who understand risk
: levels and accepted risk be allowed to assess NASA decisions and
: review mishaps and accidents. Furthermore, safety would have to be
: downgraded from the most important factor to just an important factor
: and real risk acceptance would have to be allowed. And the complement
: would have to be raised.

: Then I'd appoint a multi-national advisory committee and draft Henry,
: right after I required the lawyers to justify every decision to
: prohibit doing something with actual numbers and facts (their job is
: to figure out how to do things, not why not to).

: Then you'd see a much different NASA indeed. Research, research,
: research. Publication in the open literature. Openness. Less
: groveling. Less pandering to risk aversion.

: Unfortunately, no one's going to make me the Empress of NASA.

Right, I was going to say that you want to run NASA like Castro runs Cuba.

Like W said, "I'm not against a dicatorship, just as long as I'm the
dictator." (in effect)

Eric

: Mary

: --
: Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
:

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On Thu, 20 May 2004 16:36:17 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Chomko) wrote:

Mary Shafer ) wrote:

: Having spent almost all of my career at NASA, I'd only take the job of
: Administrator if both the White House and Congress promised, in
: unclassified, written, signed, and notarized documents, to keep their
: hands completely off. Particularly female members of Congress from
: Maryland.

What do you have against Goddard?

Absolutely nothing. It's just that the playing field needs to be
leveled. Happening to be in the district (before) or state (now) of
someone who sits on important Congressional committees is not a valid
criterion for judging a field center.

Goddard should be judged for itself, not for the prominence of one of
its outside defenders.

: Unfortunately, no one's going to make me the Empress of NASA.

Right, I was going to say that you want to run NASA like Castro runs Cuba.

No, I want to turn NASA back into the agency I worked at in the late
'60s. It's not power, it's nostalgia.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2004 16:36:17 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Chomko) wrote:

Mary Shafer ) wrote:

: Having spent almost all of my career at NASA, I'd only take the job of
: Administrator if both the White House and Congress promised, in
: unclassified, written, signed, and notarized documents, to keep their
: hands completely off. Particularly female members of Congress from
: Maryland.

What do you have against Goddard?

Absolutely nothing. It's just that the playing field needs to be
leveled. Happening to be in the district (before) or state (now) of
someone who sits on important Congressional committees is not a valid
criterion for judging a field center.

Goddard should be judged for itself, not for the prominence of one of
its outside defenders.

: Unfortunately, no one's going to make me the Empress of NASA.

Right, I was going to say that you want to run NASA like Castro runs Cuba.

No, I want to turn NASA back into the agency I worked at in the late
'60s. It's not power, it's nostalgia.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer



It's not nostalgia, Mary.

It was 'doing it'. For real.

That's what you really want.


Me too.

Richard Lamb
http://home.earthlink.net/~n6228l/

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Phil Fraering pgf@AUTO wrote:
Goldin survived much more because of the difficulty of finding vaguely
qualified candidates who actually wanted the job. It wasn't that
Clinton
wasn't *interested* in replacing him...

Out of curiosity... did they ask you at the time?

Nope. I was disappointed. :-)

Well Henry, if I'm elected ("Ought to be Moore in 04") you'll get a call.

I expect new and fresh ideas. Such as breaking up NASA into a pure research
wing and a pure operations wing.

Perhaps even coax a certain retired Californian out of retirement to head up
the aeronautics division.

Breaking things WILL be required. Failure in test programs is an option.
(Of course this will mean adequate funding for multiple test vehicles.)

(Failure on the operations side though is a different issue.)


--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

Well Henry, if I'm elected ("Ought to be Moore in 04") you'll get a call.

Breaking things WILL be required. Failure in test programs is an option.

Why is space so different that failures during testing are to be
expected? Doesn't happen anywhere else, and hasn't really happened on
a routine basis in space endeavors for years.

(Failure on the operations side though is a different issue.)

Believing that there will be no failures during operations is the sign
of a mind in need of immediate professional help.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

Well Henry, if I'm elected ("Ought to be Moore in 04") you'll get a call.

Breaking things WILL be required. Failure in test programs is an option.

Why is space so different that failures during testing are to be
expected? Doesn't happen anywhere else, and hasn't really happened on
a routine basis in space endeavors for years.

Sure it does. It's called test to destruction. Heck, we even do it in
software. Building a website for example, I would predict its capacity
based on known metrics and equations. I'd then actually put that load on
the server and test it to see if I "broke" it or not. If it breaks earlier
than predicted, I know that there's something wrong with my metrics and
equations. If it breaks later than expected, same thing. So space is no
different.



(Failure on the operations side though is a different issue.)

Believing that there will be no failures during operations is the sign
of a mind in need of immediate professional help.


Nice strawman and ad hominem Derek. I never said I believed that there
would be no failures.


D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.