NASA criticism from departing employee

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...well_mess.html

Are things really that screwed up down there?

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...well_mess.html

Are things really that screwed up down there?

I guess you missed the ESAS/Ares I thing.

A bit isolated out there in ND, are you?

Pat Flannery wrote in
dakotatelephone:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...well_mess.html

Are things really that screwed up down there?

It sure seems to have gotten very Dibertian (see "Dilbert", the comic
strip, for an acerbic treatment of corporate life).

That seems to be a general problem with big human institutions; the
workings get vague and increasingly incoherant, especially without
clear and rational leadership from the top.

I have a feeling we'll know a trend for sure by next year. I've got to
admit pessimism about NASA and national space policy. There just
doesn't seem to be a rational foundation for manned spaceflight any
more. That's partly internal, and partly forced by limited budgets
and external politics and economic realities.

I'm particularly dismayed by the current and increasingly unworkable
Ares I and V; not that Shuttle was a particularly great system, nor
that a sustained Apollo follow-on program might have been real progress,
either. There's a bigger picture here, but I'm not clearly grasping it
nor do I have much concept to suggest a better course. But I feel like
the retrenchment to smaller and less capable capsules isn't progress.

Unmanned space exploration is doing okay. Research...eh...

Maybe the next Administration will shake up things. If I were the
NASA administator, I'd keep my bags packed against a sudden departure.

--Damon

"kT" wrote in message
...
Pat Flannery wrote:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...well_mess.html

Are things really that screwed up down there?

I guess you missed the ESAS/Ares I thing.


That's just the inevitable result of the Bush
administration habits. My way or the highway.

Bush feels all the important decisions should
come from the top, and everyone should do
as they're told. No discussion.

With NASA, the military has taken over the
manned program. Going back to the Moon is
all about missile defense, which is the number one
military priority of the Bush/Cheney administration.

Since the moon also suits Lockheed just fine also, the
president's favorite corporation, the Vision was
an obvious choice for Bush.

But like all top down or monopolistic systems, in the
end it all fails badly. Few believe this goal has the
public support to succeed. Few really believe it's worth
doing. So low morale and poor products are inevitable.

Folks over at NASA need to start thinking outside
the box. Design a long term goal for NASA as
carefully as they design a spacecraft. A goal
designed to be...as popular...as it is important.

So that not only NASA can get behind the goal.
But the American people and Congress also.

The goal needs to be as grandiose and visionary as
possible. Nothing less than changing the world.

Space Solar Power has ALL THOSE PROPERTIES.
As our global energy future effects EVERYONE
on the planet.

The manned program needs to start over from scratch
and with a worthy goal.


s






A bit isolated out there in ND, are you?

"jonathan" wrote in message
.. .

"kT" wrote in message
...
Pat Flannery wrote:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...well_mess.html

Are things really that screwed up down there?

I guess you missed the ESAS/Ares I thing.

That's just the inevitable result of the Bush
administration habits. My way or the highway.

Bush feels all the important decisions should
come from the top, and everyone should do
as they're told. No discussion.

With NASA, the military has taken over the
manned program. Going back to the Moon is
all about missile defense, which is the number one
military priority of the Bush/Cheney administration.

Since the moon also suits Lockheed just fine also, the
president's favorite corporation, the Vision was
an obvious choice for Bush.

But like all top down or monopolistic systems, in the
end it all fails badly. Few believe this goal has the
public support to succeed. Few really believe it's worth
doing. So low morale and poor products are inevitable.

Folks over at NASA need to start thinking outside
the box. Design a long term goal for NASA as
carefully as they design a spacecraft. A goal
designed to be...as popular...as it is important.

So that not only NASA can get behind the goal.
But the American people and Congress also.

The goal needs to be as grandiose and visionary as
possible. Nothing less than changing the world.

Space Solar Power has ALL THOSE PROPERTIES.
As our global energy future effects EVERYONE
on the planet.

The manned program needs to start over from scratch
and with a worthy goal.

A bit isolated out there in ND, are you?

I notice a survey of the Bush years ...accomplishments,
in the 2008 Sep 4 issue of Rolling Stone, #1060, nice
cover. By Sean Wilentz, who (interestingly) was nearly
killed shortly before he took in his final draft of
the work. The timeline of the Bush/Republican events
or whatever, is very imposing when seen as a whole.

I think something like this is relevant to the topic
here because Bush as President, sets a moral tone in
the whole country and much more so in closely
affiliated organizations. Like NASA.

I notice the appearance, again, of the idea that space
requires public approval. As a counter example, wars
seem not to. But public approval for space seems not
a thing to look for because so large a part of all the
public doesn't know, doesn't care to know, and besides,
is all wound up in survival and all the side issues
and distractions that come with being an American
citizen here.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Aug 25]

Pat Flannery writes:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...well_mess.html

Are things really that screwed up down there?


And note the major Airbus FUBAR over different CAD versions that cost
them REALLY BIG BUC ^H^H^H Euros....


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"Martha Adams" wrote in message
news:jAJsk.800$w51.143@trnddc01...
"jonathan" wrote in message
.. .



I think something like this is relevant to the topic
here because Bush as President, sets a moral tone in
the whole country and much more so in closely
affiliated organizations. Like NASA.

I notice the appearance, again, of the idea that space
requires public approval. As a counter example, wars
seem not to. But public approval for space seems not
a thing to look for because so large a part of all the
public doesn't know, doesn't care to know,


It wasn't all the long ago when the general public
cared quite a bit about what NASA was doing.
From keeping us out of a nuclear war to the agency
most likely to fulfill the promise of technology.
From our worst fears to our greatest hopes, NASA
was very relevant.

How can we get back to that?
How can we make people care again?

Let's simply find a goal for NASA that directly
solves the greatest fears of the planet, while
also inspiring the greatest dreams for a
brighter future.

What kind of goal can do that????

The elephants in the room are the energy future
and climate change. Two of the biggest problems
facing the planet which also should have a single
common solution. Plus a solution to those problems
would cascade everywhere, from wars over oil
to national security to our future prosperity.
And not just for us, but for the world.

So where does NASA and those elephants intersect?

Where can ....NASA.... find a clean and unlimited
supply of energy for the future?

Let's see, NASA deals with things in space.
AND The sun is the obvious long term answer
to our energy future.

Space Solar Power!

Even a third grader would immediately grasp the idea
see it's potential, and become inspired by the
possibilities.

Space Solar Power, before the oil runs out or global
warming becomes irreversible.

A very demanding goal, and an equally demanding timeline
that could solve our greatest problems...while inspiring
our greatest dreams.

J u s t l i k e A p o l l o




Jonathan


s










and besides,
is all wound up in survival and all the side issues
and distractions that come with being an American
citizen here.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Aug 25]

Martha Adams wrote:
"jonathan" wrote in message
.. .

"kT" wrote in message
...
Pat Flannery wrote:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...well_mess.html

Are things really that screwed up down there?

I guess you missed the ESAS/Ares I thing.

That's just the inevitable result of the Bush
administration habits. My way or the highway.

Bush feels all the important decisions should
come from the top, and everyone should do
as they're told. No discussion.

With NASA, the military has taken over the
manned program. Going back to the Moon is
all about missile defense, which is the number one
military priority of the Bush/Cheney administration.

Since the moon also suits Lockheed just fine also, the
president's favorite corporation, the Vision was
an obvious choice for Bush.

But like all top down or monopolistic systems, in the
end it all fails badly. Few believe this goal has the
public support to succeed. Few really believe it's worth
doing. So low morale and poor products are inevitable.

Folks over at NASA need to start thinking outside
the box. Design a long term goal for NASA as
carefully as they design a spacecraft. A goal
designed to be...as popular...as it is important.

So that not only NASA can get behind the goal.
But the American people and Congress also.

The goal needs to be as grandiose and visionary as
possible. Nothing less than changing the world.

Space Solar Power has ALL THOSE PROPERTIES.
As our global energy future effects EVERYONE
on the planet.

The manned program needs to start over from scratch
and with a worthy goal.

A bit isolated out there in ND, are you?

I notice a survey of the Bush years ...accomplishments,
in the 2008 Sep 4 issue of Rolling Stone, #1060, nice
cover. By Sean Wilentz, who (interestingly) was nearly
killed shortly before he took in his final draft of
the work.

Here's that cover BTW: http://www.rollingstone.com/issue1060

Pat

jonathan wrote:

Bush feels all the important decisions should
come from the top, and everyone should do
as they're told. No discussion.


Oh, if it only worked like that... it doesn't; no one is in charge at
the top so a group of top rankers heads off in ten directions at once,
most of them at odds with each other.
We just found out our ambassador to the UN was helping set up a new
Pakistani government without telling anyone in the State Department:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/wa...6diplo.html?hp

Pat

Hmm, well, sounds like in the middle are people who do not want to tell
those above that the new stuff is crap, in cast the whole house of cards
comes down, so when someone actually jumps over them to say what they
passionately feel they themselves feel betrayed. Sadly, if he is right, then
a big problem is coming when, basically, nothing will work, so maybe it will
all end in tears, who knows. At the end of the day, this is one persons
frustrated view.

Have Nasa been away from new hardware design for so long they have forgotten
how to do it, or is it the politics of the employment contracts that is
driving the ngineering decisions.

We have seen this sort of thing here, when to support a dying computer
industry, Govenment commissioned them to do some huge contract, In the end,
it never worked as the engineers who left said it would not, and it was
scrapped after lots of wasted money. Also who remembers the TSR2 aircraft...

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...well_mess.html

Are things really that screwed up down there?

Pat