|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
I may be kind of skeptical, but I think it will take the extra $1
billion President Bush has pledged for NASA just to keep it going at current levels. Here's why: Everything is classified now. Even technical journal articles have to be vetted before they are published. Especially anything having to do with orbital mechanics, or any other aspect of "rocket science" that applies to missiles or that is somehow related to SDI so that it's classified. The problem with high security operations is that progress is inversely proportional to security level. The higher the security, the less the competition, and the less incentive scientists have to produce high quality work. Anybody who does a very good job is harassed by his or her peers for making them look bad so, if anything, there is negative incentive. Moreover, the whole system is ratcheted so that high performing scientists will be booted out of the system leaving only the low horsepower people left. Consequently, with all the new security operations in place since 9/11 the $1 billion Bush thinks will get us to the moon and Mars will only pay for more security, lazier scientists, and an underperforming space program. Bill Clark http://home.austin.rr.com/whcii/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
I have to agree with Bill Clark's comments, and add further
observations. First, that the "security" thing is not peculiar to NASA but seems to be a basic policy from the people in Washington. It ranges from net-dragging (mild pun here) the public domain to top policy that financially and politically powerful groups are claiming possession of anything they can define. Over the long run, our whole culture is impoverished. I can't feel troubled over such policy with respect to what is called "popular music" but the space program carries the germ of our future and possibly even of our very existence in to the future. So I think the "security" thing is bad trouble. Secondly, there is that oh-so-photogenic Shawn O'Keefe. I've seen very many genuinely working people in industry and universities. These ranged from engineering draftsmen to predoctoral grad students to professors to Nobel prize winners. And to my recall, none of them in their productive years, gave attention to how they looked in front of a camera. My first impression of O'Keefe and ever since, is does he ever think about anything else? I cannot see that man as a working administrator. He only reminds me of whats-his-name who headed up the Postal Service a few years back. As I try to guess what the future will see looking back at us, I think the central question will be: Why all that buzzing around about "man" and "exploration," when we needed to be putting *settlements* Out There? Cheers, sort of -- Martha Adams |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
"Steve" wrote in message
I also share your skepticism. I see this initiative as money for Boeing and LockMart to give to their shareholders while they make noises about producing hardware and then deliver nothing. Remember the X-33. You must be joking. The profit margin on this kind of work is typically very, very low. As far as delivering nothing, you should probably look into that [false] statement a little bit before throwing it out. Jon |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
"Jon Berndt" :
"Steve" wrote in message I also share your skepticism. I see this initiative as money for Boeing and LockMart to give to their shareholders while they make noises about producing hardware and then deliver nothing. Remember the X-33. You must be joking. The profit margin on this kind of work is typically very, very low. As far as delivering nothing, you should probably look into that [false] statement a little bit before throwing it out. Really, then name one useful thing learnt from the non-building of the X-33. And it is non-building when you consider that there is not even an assembled airframe. Earl Colby Pottinger -- I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos, SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
Really, then name one useful thing learnt from the non-building of the X-33. Multi-lobe composite pressure vessels are hard to make. Very hard to make. Cryopumping in composite structures is a serious problem. There. That's two things. -- Scott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
... Earl Colby Pottinger wrote: Really, then name one useful thing learnt from the non-building of the X-33. Multi-lobe composite pressure vessels are hard to make. Very hard to make. And we didn't know that before? Cryopumping in composite structures is a serious problem. Nor that? There. That's two things. Seems to me several people knew this was a problem before we started on X-33. So I think you'd be hardpressed to say we learned anything. -- Scott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Scott Lowther" wrote in message ... Earl Colby Pottinger wrote: Really, then name one useful thing learnt from the non-building of the X-33. Multi-lobe composite pressure vessels are hard to make. Very hard to make. And we didn't know that before? I believe it was suspected. But some thigns you don't *know* until you try. it can be easily argued that lessons learned from the X-33 program were not worth what they cost, but it is a simple lie to suggest that *nothing* was learned. Also learned was that the X-33 aerodynamci shape was badly unstable at Mach 12 or thereabouts. This is definetly new, and the basic X-33 shape is quite old... late sixties at least. Learning what *doesn't* work is a perfectly valid lesson. It's our "must be perfect right out the gate" mentality that does not accept failure that ahs led us to accomplish *nothing.* -- Scott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
(Bill Clark) wrote in : The problem with high security operations is that progress is inversely proportional to security level. Kelly Johnson would be very surprised to hear that. He accomplished a lot of progress with the U-2 and SR-71 in the presence of very high security. And Rutan seems to have done a bang-up job while at the same time leaving Av Leak completely in the dark. -- Scott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA's Culture Of Denial | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 0 | August 26th 03 10:05 PM |