Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

news.discovery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#31

Post by jessriedel »

johrn wrote: post #14

Isn't SpaceX scheduled to make a resupply flight to the ISS this November? I'm not sure how we get from that to "We will have no American access to, and return from, low Earth orbit and the International Space Station for an unpredictable length of time in the future". Is it just because the SpaceX flights are only cargo and not personnel? I can't tell from the SpaceX launch manifest( http://www.spacex.com/launch_man…

It's not looking good:

http://www.universetoday.com/89006/spacex-may-not-be-allowed...

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#33

Post by riverlaw »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #8

The shuttle was never flown the thousands of times it needed to have all the bugs worked out, NASA is an agency lost in middle-management hell, and you can't trust exploration to the politicians. That being said, Armstrong has a point: none of what I've just said is new or is satisfactory as an excuse. The failure to manage these facts and manage our access to space -- perhaps by a privatization push a decade earlier…

I strongly disagree with the notion that NASA is lost in middle management hell. Do you know how many successful missions they have running right now, that are to the benefit of all? Dawn, Chanda, Hubble, Messenger, Cassini, GRAIL, 2 current mars missions, one halfway to pluto, another on its way to jupiter. Not to mention all of the valuable earth research. Manned missions are important for inspiring and our long term survival. But we can afford to take a break. The private sector in the US is doing really well. Nasa is getting ready to send people on a long term mission. Cut them some slack.

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#34

Post by anigbrowl »

nirvana wrote: post #19

This situations represents a failure to understand economics. From the moon race to the period of the XPrize, and even after, NASA and the FCC has stymied private access to space. It is hard to test a launch vehicle if you can't get a launch or even testing (e.g.: static firing) permits. It is hard to start a space tourism business if the person developing your vehicles is barred from showing the CEO of the company t…

government bureaucrats saw space as a competitive advantage

Military strategists saw space as a competitive advantage. Although I agree with you about the problems with NASA and the need for more private participation, overlooking the military heritage of the space program undermines your whole analysis.

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#35

Post by anigbrowl »

FrojoS wrote: post #4

>>[...] Russia's Soyuz capsules are the only taxis for the world's astronauts heading to low-Earth orbit, and each ticket to the ISS costs global space agencies between 50 and 60 million dollars each. I thought, the last shuttle starts we're costing over 1 billion. So with 7 crew members, thats more than twice the price paid to the Russians. Sure, they could raise that price in theory. But the Russians can't afford t…

The ISS is great and all, but the real value of the shuttle was that we could park next to Hubble or one of our spy satellites and do maintenance in place, so milking a lot of value out of orbiting platforms that would otherwise have to be shut down. I don't see what we have that replaces that right now.

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#36

Post by krschultz »

nirvana wrote: post #19

This situations represents a failure to understand economics. From the moon race to the period of the XPrize, and even after, NASA and the FCC has stymied private access to space. It is hard to test a launch vehicle if you can't get a launch or even testing (e.g.: static firing) permits. It is hard to start a space tourism business if the person developing your vehicles is barred from showing the CEO of the company t…

"It is hard to start a space tourism business if the person developing your vehicles is barred from showing the CEO of the company the designs (as happened to Virgin Galactic for a couple years because Richard Branson is not a US citizen"

For the military, that is a feature not a bug.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch#Concerns_and_investi...

Realize anyone with the ability to get to orbit has the ability to drop things on the USA.

Contrary to popular belief, the people in government who make laws and control regulation are not bumbling idiots. Sure, it's easy to make jokes about the DMV or the post office, but the reality is that the person at the counter you interact with doesn't make laws. The guys making laws are generally really sharp and well educated, and in fact a lot of them actually have economics degrees because it is a great background for that position. So they probably understand better than you or I roughly how many jobs are going to be killed by these tight regulations.

That is weighed against the military's desire to keep space less open for security reasons. For a long time the military was winning the argument. It has slowly started changing, but the delay certainly has nothing to do with a mis-understanding of economics.

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#37

Post by krschultz »

anigbrowl wrote: post #35
FrojoS wrote: post #4

>>[...] Russia's Soyuz capsules are the only taxis for the world's astronauts heading to low-Earth orbit, and each ticket to the ISS costs global space agencies between 50 and 60 million dollars each. I thought, the last shuttle starts we're costing over 1 billion. So with 7 crew members, thats more than twice the price paid to the Russians. Sure, they could raise that price in theory. But the Russians can't afford t…

The ISS is great and all, but the real value of the shuttle was that we could park next to Hubble or one of our spy satellites and do maintenance in place, so milking a lot of value out of orbiting platforms that would otherwise have to be shut down. I don't see what we have that replaces that right now.

Satellites are not designed for that - the Hubble sure wasn't. It is not a capability that needs to be replaced.

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#38

Post by melling »

equark wrote: post #30
TechNewb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"First of all, let’s clarify what the NASA budget is. Do you realize that the $850 billion dollar bailout, that sum of money is greater than the entire 50-year running budget of NASA? -Neil deGrasse Tyson" http://wp.me/p1bnM2-qW

This statement is false. TARP cost $19 billion compared to NASA at $18.5 billion per year. http://www.housingwire.com/2011/03/30/cbo-drops-estimate-of-...

Also, aren't companies suppose to be paying the TARP money back?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#39

Post by [deleted] »

eru wrote: post #22
diogenescynic wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just about emotions. It's the next frontier. Don't you want us to get there first? It's also a great investment, it creates jobs and develops technological breakthroughs that benefit everyone.

> it creates jobs and develops technological breakthroughs that benefit everyone. That's a testable statement. Though the more interesting statement would be: It creates more jobs than other things we could do with the many, and develops more beneficial technology. (My guess is that those stronger version aren't true.)

[deleted]

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#40

Post by dhugiaskmak »

equark wrote: post #30
TechNewb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"First of all, let’s clarify what the NASA budget is. Do you realize that the $850 billion dollar bailout, that sum of money is greater than the entire 50-year running budget of NASA? -Neil deGrasse Tyson" http://wp.me/p1bnM2-qW

This statement is false. TARP cost $19 billion compared to NASA at $18.5 billion per year. http://www.housingwire.com/2011/03/30/cbo-drops-estimate-of-...

His number is way too small, if anything. There was an awful lot more to the bailout of the US economy than the TARP program.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristoc...

Post reply on HN