|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Gabrielle Giffords - Ignorant Bitch
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 09:36:26PM -0400, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"OM" wrote in message ... ...NASA needs only three *breakthroughs*: 1) A blank check that Congress can never touch unless it's to give NASA more money. Oh bull. Sorry, but there's better things I want my tax dollars spent on than a blank check for NASA. I'm a huge fan of space, I'd love to see more done, but a blank check, hardly. NASA needs a blank check like America needs bigger government. Apart from the obvious problem of the military being in such close proximity, NASA lacks the diversity of the capitalist free market system. For that reason alone there is surely no sense in throwing trillions of dollars at the existing bureaucracy. 2) An official mandate to expand Space Exploration and the Exploitation of Space combined with working closely with private industry to produce their own advanced technologies. This one I can probably buy into. This, at least is reasonable. It might be better if it were worded differently: An official mandate to marshall space exploration efforts in concert with private industry. The trickle-down theory of government spending at work. 3) An officially mandated return to the management style that allowed Mercury, Gemini and Apollo to succeed, which will include the elimination of all the middle-management self-preservation elements of red tape. Anyone caught trying to play bureacracy bull**** games that interfere with progress is sent to jail. This is sort of ironic because despite the idea that NASA had minimal bureaucracy, it built up a huge one simply to accomplish the Moon landings. It wasn't a bunch of guys going around just building stuff. When you can track a part from when it was built, who built it, where it was placed in storage, what testing it went under, you have to have a bureaucracy. When you are managing dozens of projects, you need a bureaucracy. Yeah, well we have computers now to manage all that stuff so there's really going to be no need to hire all of the worlds middle-managers to get meaningful space operations off the ground. Hence, no need for an unlimited budget. I think when you look at the record of large projects at the scale of the Apollo program, the control of excess spending is something government doesn't do very well, even with all the meticulous record- keeping. ...Those are the kind of breakthroughs NASA needs to get us into serious space exploration above and beyond what we're doing now. Sorry OM, to me, this is mostly just fanboy talk. These discussions are never meant to be representative of actual scientific undertakings. Presumably at least some of us are here are interested in sharing ideas and discussing their merits. Robert Collins |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Gabrielle Giffords - Ignorant Bitch
On Sep 19, 9:47*pm, Robert Collins wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 09:36:26PM -0400, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: "OM" wrote in message .. . ...NASA needs only three *breakthroughs*: 1) A blank check that Congress can never touch unless it's to give NASA more money. Oh bull. *Sorry, but there's better things I want my tax dollars spent on than a blank check for NASA. *I'm a huge fan of space, I'd love to see more done, but a blank check, hardly. NASA needs a blank check like America needs bigger government. *Apart from the obvious problem of the military being in such close proximity, NASA lacks the diversity of the capitalist free market system. *For that reason alone there is surely no sense in throwing trillions of dollars at the existing bureaucracy. Look how the capitalist free market system influences the military. DOD lobbyists/contractors allowed to run amok, gets their officials elected in order to start wars (i.e. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.) They also empower their cousins in Big Oil as well. That said, I do not agree with the blank check idea for NASA, but I also don't believe in the myth of a laissez-faire capitalist utopia either. 2) An official mandate to expand Space Exploration and the Exploitation of Space combined with working closely with private industry to produce their own advanced technologies. * * This one I can probably buy into. This, at least is reasonable. *It might be better if it were worded differently: *An official mandate to marshall space exploration efforts in concert with private industry. *The trickle-down theory of government spending at work. Commercial spaceflight is needed but it isn't going to happen until there is profit it in it. 3) An officially mandated return to the management style that allowed Mercury, Gemini and Apollo to succeed, which will include the elimination of all the middle-management self-preservation elements of red tape. Anyone caught trying to play bureacracy bull**** games that interfere with progress is sent to jail. This is sort of ironic because despite the idea that NASA had minimal bureaucracy, it built up a huge one simply to accomplish the Moon landings. It wasn't a bunch of guys going around just building stuff. *When you can track a part from when it was built, who built it, where it was placed in storage, what testing it went under, you have to have a bureaucracy. When you are managing dozens of projects, you need a bureaucracy. Yeah, well we have computers now to manage all that stuff so there's really going to be no need to hire all of the worlds middle-managers to get meaningful space operations off the ground. *Hence, no need for an unlimited budget. I think when you look at the record of large projects at the scale of the Apollo program, the control of excess spending is something government doesn't do very well, even with all the meticulous record- keeping. Do you want to start with the DOD budget? ...Those are the kind of breakthroughs NASA needs to get us into serious space exploration above and beyond what we're doing now. Sorry OM, to me, this is mostly just fanboy talk. These discussions are never meant to be representative of actual scientific undertakings. *Presumably at least some of us are here are interested in sharing ideas and discussing their merits. Agreed |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Gabrielle Giffords - Ignorant Bitch
"Robert Collins" wrote in message
... This is sort of ironic because despite the idea that NASA had minimal bureaucracy, it built up a huge one simply to accomplish the Moon landings. It wasn't a bunch of guys going around just building stuff. When you can track a part from when it was built, who built it, where it was placed in storage, what testing it went under, you have to have a bureaucracy. When you are managing dozens of projects, you need a bureaucracy. Yeah, well we have computers now to manage all that stuff so there's really going to be no need to hire all of the worlds middle-managers to get meaningful space operations off the ground. Hence, no need for an unlimited budget. Really? So you think we really just use computers to do all the stuff that middle management does? If you think the sole purpose of middle management is inventory tracking then yes, you'd be right. My point wasn't the inventory tracking itself, it was designing, building, implementing the tracking and everything else. You still need managers at all levels. Wht you really want to avoid is the downside of a bureaucracy, ossification, territory holding etc. But you still need something to all hold it together. You're not going to do any real space exploration without it. I think when you look at the record of large projects at the scale of the Apollo program, the control of excess spending is something government doesn't do very well, even with all the meticulous record- keeping. That's not necessarily true. Though I'll admit examples are far and few and I can't think of any. On the other hand, civilian programs can fare as badly often times. 787, A380 anyone? ...Those are the kind of breakthroughs NASA needs to get us into serious space exploration above and beyond what we're doing now. Sorry OM, to me, this is mostly just fanboy talk. These discussions are never meant to be representative of actual scientific undertakings. Presumably at least some of us are here are interested in sharing ideas and discussing their merits. Never? Funny, I thought these were the sci. groups. Not just the talk.* hierarchy. But yes, let's share ideas and discuss their merits. I think OM's plan isn't much of one and is wishful thinking. Robert Collins -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gabrielle Giffords - Ignorant Bitch | kT | Space Station | 18 | September 22nd 09 09:27 PM |
Gabrielle Giffords - Ignorant Bitch | Robert Collins | Space Shuttle | 2 | September 22nd 09 08:47 PM |