Live data from Hacker News

4k NASA employees opt to leave agency through deferred resignation program

kcrw.com

541–550 of 774 posts

Re: 4k NASA employees opt to leave agency through deferred resignation program

#541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hesitated posting this because my very moderate east coast American perspective seems to be appreciated less and less here. I posted this on a lazy Sunday morning and it got a lot of positive initial comments and discussion. Then a few hours later it turned negative. Science is great but launch vehicle innovation is where the problem is so that’s why I focused on SLS. We could easily have 100 JWSTs today if somethi…

I’m afraid I don’t understand how Starship could help proliferate JWST. It was launched with Ariana 5 which is a mature launch system. The bottleneck is actual manufacturing of JWST - the folding mirror was especially fraught; I think the sunshield as well.

So many ways. The current paradigm is that it gets one chance and it has to be perfect. Starship (which I'm only referencing as the bleeding-edge launch vehicle) compared to Ariane 5 could be a fraction of half the cost, with double the volume and 4x the mass. With those constraints removed the science missions had a lot more flexibility in their design.

Re: 4k NASA employees opt to leave agency through deferred resignation program

#542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The cuts to [...] are not really saving that much money, but are destroying literally trillions of dollars of future economic value I think everyone (or at least the parent) understands that. I mean there's a part that's deeply connected to what I said in another comment[0] The real issue is essentially: which would you rather have, $1 now or $10 tomorrow?[1] People see it as savings because they have that money no…

I'm pretty sure that neither money saved today or tomorrow are factors in these cuts. This administration is out to grief science and scientists--it doesn't matter if it saves money or costs money. The whole point is hostility to science. It's not an economic decision.

Grievance politics amplified by an assembly of the most astoundingly dumb people you’ve ever seen behind a podium

That’s it! That’s the strategy!

Re: 4k NASA employees opt to leave agency through deferred resignation program

#543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a way of hitting back at "the elites" who have the temerity to call GOP politicians and donors out for their lies and bad behavior True for academic institutions. No evidence this is the motivation at NASA. Simpler: science costs money and leadership believes that money is better spent giving folks like me a tax cut than paying for poor folks' healthcare or basic research. Fortunately, it looks like Beijing is read…

>that money is better spent giving folks like me a tax cut The federal government now accepts donations if you don't want the money.

The federal government has, pretty much always, accepted donations, but recently the time and effort were spent to make those contributions available via digital instead of the old check and mail method of yesteryear.

Re: 4k NASA employees opt to leave agency through deferred resignation program

#544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m afraid I don’t understand how Starship could help proliferate JWST. It was launched with Ariana 5 which is a mature launch system. The bottleneck is actual manufacturing of JWST - the folding mirror was especially fraught; I think the sunshield as well.

So many ways. The current paradigm is that it gets one chance and it has to be perfect. Starship (which I'm only referencing as the bleeding-edge launch vehicle) compared to Ariane 5 could be a fraction of half the cost, with double the volume and 4x the mass. With those constraints removed the science missions had a lot more flexibility in their design.

JWST cost $10B. The launch was expensive at $1.5B; but getting that down to $750M won’t really change the availability.

Re: 4k NASA employees opt to leave agency through deferred resignation program

#545

Comments about SLS miss what’s happening. SLS is inefficient and wasteful, but human spaceflight is not what’s getting cut at NASA. Instead, very productive current and future science missions are getting killed, in defiance of Congress [1]. Until this year, NASA was the world leader in space science. We’re pushing out the experts who build and operate astrophysics missions like Hubble, Chandra, JWST, Kepler, TESS, S…

> the world leader in space science. I also want to add that science is a critical investment area for anyone interested in engineering. There is this common belief of "I just want to make things work" and that science is really unimportant here and are concerned with things that don't matter. The truth is that science builds the foundation for that other stuff. It is the very ground you stand on. Engineering without…

> The truth is that science builds the foundation for that other stuff. It is the very ground you stand on. Engineering without science is like trying to run without ground.

That doesn't mean that government investment in science is necessarily a good idea.

> I'd be willing to wager that the economic impact of Newton and Leibniz's invention of Calculus[0] is larger than the economic impact of any engineering product, ever.

Where they financed by the government? Btw, I can also look at winning lottery tickets and say that their return-on-investment was awesome, but that doesn't mean buying lottery tickets is a good idea.

Re: 4k NASA employees opt to leave agency through deferred resignation program

#546
post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s going to kill institutional knowledge and be so expensive to repair after regime change.

Ever org I've worked for slowly became unable to innovate because of "institutional knowledge". I think it's important to forget, to some extent, every once in a while. It forces a new traversal of the problem space, but in a modern context, with modern tools, fresh eyes, and a better understanding of what's needed. Thus we have Space X. There are some great interviews with Jim Keller, who has a similar perspective:…

== if you want to stamp out a young engineers creativity, start them working in a big org.==

Jim Keller’s own biography kind of dispels this notion. He worked at DEC for 16 years when he was a young engineer (24-40 years old).

Re: 4k NASA employees opt to leave agency through deferred resignation program

#547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The cuts to [...] are not really saving that much money, but are destroying literally trillions of dollars of future economic value I think everyone (or at least the parent) understands that. I mean there's a part that's deeply connected to what I said in another comment[0] The real issue is essentially: which would you rather have, $1 now or $10 tomorrow?[1] People see it as savings because they have that money no…

This apologia for the cuts would be more persuasive if they didn’t come in concert with record-breaking increases to the pentagon budget and historic deficits. There’s no calculation happening here with present or future value, they’re lavishly funding things they like and decimating things they don’t. You don’t place a reality TV ‘star’ as the director of any agency you care about.

  > This apologia for the cut
What gave you the impression I was in favor of the cuts?

Re: 4k NASA employees opt to leave agency through deferred resignation program

#548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The cuts to [...] are not really saving that much money, but are destroying literally trillions of dollars of future economic value I think everyone (or at least the parent) understands that. I mean there's a part that's deeply connected to what I said in another comment[0] The real issue is essentially: which would you rather have, $1 now or $10 tomorrow?[1] People see it as savings because they have that money no…

I'm pretty sure that neither money saved today or tomorrow are factors in these cuts. This administration is out to grief science and scientists--it doesn't matter if it saves money or costs money. The whole point is hostility to science. It's not an economic decision.

  > This administration
I'd like to draw your attention to the last line of [1]

  >> The people that want to just take the money are well aware of this tendency...
Do you think I'm talking about "the administration" or "the people who support the administration"?

If you can't differentiate then we'll only be able to talk past one another

Re: 4k NASA employees opt to leave agency through deferred resignation program

#549
post #339

The Federal Reserve is an example of a well run and focused organization, because they have a very short, very simple mandate: maximize employment and ensure price stability. Everything they do is in service to those two goals and every employee can hold themselves and their bosses accountable for those goals. Elected representatives and the American public can hold them accountable. If we want a more efficient and i…

This is a ridiculous statement. The Fed is a profoundly undemocratic institution that harnesses the power of the state to serve the interests of capital, and its current form is a recent development that coincides with the financialization of our economy and the decimation of manufacturing and the middle class. If you want the full argument it’s here: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/federal-reserve-independe...

It's good that the Fed can set monetary policy without pandering to whatever short-term goals politicians have at the time, as they've thoroughly proven their incapability to tackle long-term challenges like the deficit.

I also don't think that bailing out SVB is a sign that Dodd-Frank was just symbolic, since not doing so would have pretty significantly hurt the USA's tech sector, which is is strategic nationally for the economy.

But I can see an argument for limiting the Fed's purview to mostly be about monetary policy and less about enforcement of legislation, as it's done in other countries.

Re: 4k NASA employees opt to leave agency through deferred resignation program

#550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The cuts to [...] are not really saving that much money, but are destroying literally trillions of dollars of future economic value I think everyone (or at least the parent) understands that. I mean there's a part that's deeply connected to what I said in another comment[0] The real issue is essentially: which would you rather have, $1 now or $10 tomorrow?[1] People see it as savings because they have that money no…

This is nonsense. Of course we want to be richer tomorrow than we are today, but we're plenty rich today. We -- the United States -- do not have a cashflow issue. We can meet all of our current obligations -- or could if there were any effort at efficient redistribution at all. The US federal government is maybe the least cashflow-constrained organization in human history. We want the $10 tomorrow, without any questi…

I'm failing to see what you're arguing against from my comment. What did you think I was arguing?
Post reply on HN