How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle • Hacker News Board

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#31

Post by true_religion » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 4:18 AM UTC

saturn wrote: post #14

econgeeker wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, am I to understand that your position is that NASA is efficient in its spending, and that this who think governments are inefficient (cost wise) at achieving goals are caught up in a "media-hype" that is "antigovernment"? If that is correct, how were SpaceX and Scaled Composites able to do so much with such limited resources?

Indeed, how were SpaceX and Scaled Composites able to do so much with such limited resources, 30 years later and having benefited immensely from NASA's pioneering work? NASA could definitely be run better but let's compare apples to apples. I'm sure any given engineer at SpaceX has a computer on his desk superior to the entire world's computational capacity at the time the shuttle was designed.

I think its disingenuous to say that.

People are not comparing SpaceX of today to NASA of 30 years ago.

They're comparing contemporary NASA to contemporary SpaceX and finding NASA is lacking.

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#32

Post by pjscott » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 4:21 AM UTC

VladRussian wrote: post #16

econgeeker wrote: post #8

This article makes a lot of good points, but I felt it failed to really break the surface and address the core problem that led to the failure of the Space Shuttle program. That core problem is misalignment of incentives. Or in short, politics. When you've got a public budget and your goals are political ones, you're going to pursue a specific set of capabilities and policies that help your political career. This is…

>The solution to this problem is very simple: No government agency with control over space. Outsource everything. Blackwater.

You could use that as a fully-general counterargument against government outsourcing of anything. Does it apply here?

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#33

Post by cfgvjkljhgfb » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 4:39 AM UTC

gus_massa wrote: post #29

cfgvjkljhgfb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is that it's accuracy hasn't changed - which tells you all you need to know about Nasa

I hadn't read this article before, and I couldn't find the publication date in the page. The first time it appears in the Wayback Machine is in December 2002. http://web.archive.org/web/20021217044832/http://www.spacefu...

It circulated inside Nasa (and STSci) for a long time before it surfaced on the internet

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#34

Post by kinship » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 4:56 AM UTC

The shuttle succeeded for years. Trying to rewrite history now? Pathetic.

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#35

Post by xxpor » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 5:02 AM UTC

pjscott wrote: post #32

VladRussian wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The solution to this problem is very simple: No government agency with control over space. Outsource everything. Blackwater.

You could use that as a fully-general counterargument against government outsourcing of anything. Does it apply here?

Well, yes. I am against the government outsourcing almost anything that requires new design. All it does is lead to corruption, without any guarantee that it leads to lower costs.

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#36

Post by Vivtek » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 5:02 AM UTC

pjscott wrote: post #32

VladRussian wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The solution to this problem is very simple: No government agency with control over space. Outsource everything. Blackwater.

You could use that as a fully-general counterargument against government outsourcing of anything. Does it apply here?

It's a good general counterargument against the kneejerk fully-general argument of "outsourcing everything" that one sees so much. And concise.

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#37

Post by Vivtek » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 5:04 AM UTC

jkic47 wrote: post #18

econgeeker wrote: post #8

This article makes a lot of good points, but I felt it failed to really break the surface and address the core problem that led to the failure of the Space Shuttle program. That core problem is misalignment of incentives. Or in short, politics. When you've got a public budget and your goals are political ones, you're going to pursue a specific set of capabilities and policies that help your political career. This is…

Government funded programs in the US and Russia took care of a lot of the basic science companies like SpaceX rely upon. It is unlikely that a commercial venture would have been able to attract or afford the depth of engineering talent that got the Russians the MIR Space Station or the Americans the moon landing. They are treading the path blazed by government funded research. That said, there is no reason a hybrid m…

Most basic research is government funded - and private companies using that basic research is exactly the way things are intended to be. Open-source the lot of it!

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#38

Post by WalterBright » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 5:37 AM UTC

marze wrote: post #22

econgeeker wrote: post #8

This article makes a lot of good points, but I felt it failed to really break the surface and address the core problem that led to the failure of the Space Shuttle program. That core problem is misalignment of incentives. Or in short, politics. When you've got a public budget and your goals are political ones, you're going to pursue a specific set of capabilities and policies that help your political career. This is…

Since NASA has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to develop a new rocket (something like $21B wasted in failed attempts over the last 20 years), it certainly makes sense to outsource launch services to the free market instead of trying to relive the Apollo era. However, since there is a lot of interesting exploration and science that NASA could continue to do that no profit incentive exists for (deep space probes…

>there is a lot of interesting exploration and science that NASA could continue to do that no profit incentive exists for (deep space probes, space telescopes, etc.),

A lot of the historical "voyages of discovery" were financed by rich people looking for glory, newspapers looking for exclusive stories, and companies looking for good PR.

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#39

Post by Retric » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 6:22 AM UTC

wisty wrote: post #27

econgeeker wrote: post #8

This article makes a lot of good points, but I felt it failed to really break the surface and address the core problem that led to the failure of the Space Shuttle program. That core problem is misalignment of incentives. Or in short, politics. When you've got a public budget and your goals are political ones, you're going to pursue a specific set of capabilities and policies that help your political career. This is…

The problem wasn't NASA. The problem was, NASA was told to build something impossible - a cheap and reliable spaceplane. It was many times more complex than anything else ever made (including the Saturn V). It was never going to be cheap and reliable. (Well, it might be possible today, with decades more experience and technology). Only the "yes men" said it was possible, and they got promoted. The rest of the enginee…

They could have built a cheap and reusable space plane. The problem was they built it do far more than was necessary. You can build a "cheap" space-plane that get's 7 people to orbit at around 100-1000$/lb. (by cheap somewhere under 10 million a flight.) You can't build a cheap space plane that hauls up 7 people and 50,000LB of junk into space at back at the same time. If they just focused on people they could have avoided an external fuel tank and all those fragile tiles. Focus on a reasonable amount of structural redundancy and ended up with something that could get back from space without needing a new paint job let alone a full engine rebuild.

PS: Feathers don't burn up on rentry but bricks do. The shuttle was far to close to a brick to get back without a lot of trauma.

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#40

Post by stretchwithme » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 7:14 AM UTC

true_religion wrote: post #31

saturn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, how were SpaceX and Scaled Composites able to do so much with such limited resources, 30 years later and having benefited immensely from NASA's pioneering work? NASA could definitely be run better but let's compare apples to apples. I'm sure any given engineer at SpaceX has a computer on his desk superior to the entire world's computational capacity at the time the shuttle was designed.

I think its disingenuous to say that. People are not comparing SpaceX of today to NASA of 30 years ago. They're comparing contemporary NASA to contemporary SpaceX and finding NASA is lacking.

NASA could also be compared to the Russian program and found lacking. And the Russians still have an ability to put things into space, while the US now doesn't.