 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Space History / August 2008How about Splitting Up NASA?
Today: NASA is spending billions re-building yesterday's systems to fulfill a mission apparently designed to keep NASA people employed. I.e., rather than making use of EELVs and commercial providers as much as possible, NASA is building the Ares launch vehicles, which only it will use and which will be very expensive to operate. Meanwhile, Mike Griffin has stated that the VSE is to be accomplished without the development of new technology, so we'll be stuck with an expensive Apollo-like architecture for years to come. Alternative: NASA is split into three components: The National Aerospace-Technology Agency (NATech, "nay-tek"), the National Space- Science Agency (NSSci, "en-sigh") and the National Space-Exploration Agency (NSEA, "en-see"), "space exploration" being a euphemism for "people in space." NATech' s mission is the development of technologies, By having an agency responsible specifically for this, we guarantee that at least a bit of money will always go toward technology development. Technology development will be less likely to be curtailed by cost overruns in human spaceflight programs, as these are handled by another agency. NATech's long-range objectives are determined by the needs of NSEA and NSSci, as well as by those of other users of space, both governmental and commercial. NSEA probably gets the bulk of the funding, because it's responsible for the things that make the best TV: people in space. In fulfilling a mission like the VSE, it chooses to what extent it's going to use commercial services and to what extent it's going to rely on new technology developed by NATA. NSSci has the weakest constituency (the scientific community) and no doubt gets the smallest budget, but it generates most of the scientific return and, from the PR angle, some of the good pictures. It handles unmanned scientific missions. None of the three agencies owns and earth-to-LEO transportation system; that is purchased commercially. Transportation beyond LEO may or may not be commercially sourced, although in the future it would be. >Alternative: NASA is split into three components Japan tried this (two components) and it was an unmitigated failure. Now its back as one (JAXA). Brian >>Alternative: NASA is split into three components > >Japan tried this (two components) and it was an unmitigated failure. >Now its back as one (JAXA). ...And the Russians had separate design bureaus for decades, which is one of the main reasons they couldn't get their sh.t together enough to keep their lead and beat us to the Moon. OM  Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:42:03 GMT, Brian Thorn > > ...And the Russians had separate design bureaus for decades, which is > one of the main reasons they couldn't get their sh.t together enough > to keep their lead and beat us to the Moon. The Soviets had separate bureaucracies competing to develop hardware manned lunar missions. What I've suggested is separate bureaucracies, but for the most part they would not be in competition with one another. >What I've suggested is separate bureaucracies, >but for the most part they would not be in competition with one >another. ...Won't make any difference. Ask anyone who works for a corporation. Different departments = different bureacracies = departmental rivalries = marketing f.cks everything up no matter who's doing their job right. What needs to happen at NASA is *less* bureacracy - read: fire 50% of the mid-level managers who aren't engineers - and make it clear that at the first sign of disagreement due to personal reasons, *both* sides get the boot. You make it clear that playing political bullshit games will get *nobody* anywhere in the agency, and that'll put an end to that mess once and for all. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >>What I've suggested is separate bureaucracies, >>but for the most part they would not be in competition with one [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > OM I have no real comment on this discursion, but I'm wondering which of the suggested NASA fragments would have to wear the ISS albatross? As another example, I note that the US has competing nuclear weapons R&D labs. Alan > I have no real comment on this discursion, but I'm wondering which of > the suggested NASA fragments would have to wear the ISS albatross? To the extent that it remains an albatross, it belongs to the "exploration" people (NSEA); they're in charge of PR spectaculars involving people in space. If, on the other hand, it became a productive scientific laboratory and routine commercial access to it were available, then it would make sense to remove it completely from the NASA family and treat it as a national laboratory (as has been proposed). If the scientific community felt it wasn't worth the cost, then it would by definition remain an albatross and either be supported by NSEA or not at all. > As another example, I note that the US has competing nuclear weapons > R&D labs. True. That would be another aspect that could be considered: should there be competition among government-sponsored space organizations (and there certainly has been such competition in the past, between the various armed services and between the Air Force and NASA). But what I have proposed does not involve much competition. To the extent that the government decides it's important to impress the world, to get cool TV pictures of astronauts floating around in space, to place flags and footprints on the moon, etc., it turns to the space "exploration" agency. To the extent that it thinks learning about the Universe is important, it turns to the space-science agency. The is of course some overlap, but really not very much. Astronauts do perform science, but it's only a small part of what they do. > As another example, I note that the US has competing nuclear weapons > R&D labs. Of course, the US Air Force, Navy and Army don't want to share warheads since they too are often in competition :) rick jones SignatureThe computing industry isn't as much a game of "Follow The Leader" as it is one of "Ring Around the Rosy" or perhaps "Duck Duck Goose." - Rick Jones these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... >I have no real comment on this discursion, but I'm wondering which of >the suggested NASA fragments would have to wear the ISS albatross? Transfer it to the State Department, where it belongs. Brian >>I have no real comment on this discursion, but I'm wondering which of >>the suggested NASA fragments would have to wear the ISS albatross? > >Transfer it to the State Department, where it belongs. > >Brian Ah, so perhaps then the State Department could sell it to China, to ease our foreign debt. They could even sell a long term maintenance contract... Alan > ...And the Russians had separate design bureaus for decades, which is > one of the main reasons they couldn't get their sh.t together enough > to keep their lead and beat us to the Moon. > > That was fallout from the Stalin era; Stalin thought that a single design bureau doing something would have too much power, so the idea was to have at least two design bureaus working on any project in fierce competition to each other. Unfortunately, that meant that all resources were also split up. Our Saturn V approach of having various companies work on various parts of the rocket made a lot more sense, particularly in regards to getting it built in a hurry - although one remembers the square and circular CO2 scrubbers on the CM and LM in Apollo 13; that probably wouldn't have happened with a single company designing both spacecraft. Scuttlebutt has it that MiG and Sukhoi are about to merge into one united company that will make all Russian fighter planes. Pat > Scuttlebutt has it that MiG and Sukhoi are about to merge into one > united company that will make all Russian fighter planes. I'm sure that if they aren't already sufficiently under the thumb of the Kremlin in short order some sort of tax scandal will emerge at the newly merged company and they'll end-up being part of Gazprom or something... rick jones Signaturedenial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth... where do you want to be today? these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... >> Scuttlebutt has it that MiG and Sukhoi are about to merge into one >> united company that will make all Russian fighter planes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >newly merged company and they'll end-up being part of Gazprom or >something... ...MiGSuk? OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ > ...MiGSuk? In that vein how about Sooie Mig in one's finest hog calling voice? rick jones Signaturea wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only" these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... > >Alternative: NASA is split into three components > > Japan tried this (two components) and it was an unmitigated failure. > Now its back as one (JAXA). > > Brian In what sense was it an unmitigated failure? If I remember correctly, for a long time there was an academic group (ISAS) that did reasonably well with very small solid-propellant vehicles. And then there was NASDA, which, well, produced the H-2, which was not such a good idea. But ISAS never would have had anything to do with a vehicle as large as the H-2. But I'm curious, what's the full story on the Japanese experience? >Today: NASA is spending billions re-building yesterday's systems to >fulfill a mission apparently designed to keep NASA people employed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Alternative: NASA is split into three components: What a wonderful way to increase pork and decrease actual accomplishments. >Transportation beyond LEO may or may not be commercially sourced, >although in the future it would be. Someone who doesn't understand that transportation beyond LEO has been commercially sourced practically since Day One shouldn't be making pronouncements about how to reorganize NASA. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >Someone who doesn't understand that transportation beyond LEO has been >commercially sourced practically since Day One shouldn't be making >pronouncements about how to reorganize NASA. ...Didn't everyone killfile this troll a long time ago? First time I've seen someone quote him in ages. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ > >Alternative: NASA is split into three components: > > What a wonderful way to increase pork and decrease actual > accomplishments. Much of the program now is pork. The idea would be to hive of the bulk of the pork business to the "exploration" people, so that the scientists and engineers might actually be able to get something done. > >Transportation beyond LEO may or may not be commercially sourced, > >although in the future it would be. > > Someone who doesn't understand that transportation beyond LEO has been > commercially sourced practically since Day One shouldn't be making > pronouncements about how to reorganize NASA. Most payloads sent beyond LEO have been boosted by commercially- sourced vehicles, Delta IIs and Atlas Vs, for example. If the VSE goes ahead, however, most of the *money* spent sending payloads beyond LEO will be accounted for by the Ares V. >> >Alternative: NASA is split into three components: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >bulk of the pork business to the "exploration" people, so that the >scientists and engineers might actually be able to get something done. Of course, there won't be any scientists or engineers in the "exploration" division. >> >Transportation beyond LEO may or may not be commercially sourced, >> >although in the future it would be. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >goes ahead, however, most of the *money* spent sending payloads beyond >LEO will be accounted for by the Ares V. The Ares V is commercially sourced you'll note. It doesn't appear by magic. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:04:30 GMT, in a place far, far away, fairwater@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >>> >Transportation beyond LEO may or may not be commercially sourced, >>> >although in the future it would be. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >The Ares V is commercially sourced you'll note. It doesn't appear by >magic. Only for some mistaken values of "commercially." > The Ares V is commercially sourced you'll note. It doesn't appear by > magic. True, although magic may be required if it is ever to fly. :-) I wasn't clear about what I meant by "commercial." The sense in which Ares is not commercial is that it is a NASA design that is likely only to ever be used by NASA. A commercial approach to VSE would be to use multiple launches of an EELV, for example. >I wasn't clear about what I meant by "commercial." The sense in which >Ares is not commercial is that it is a NASA design that is likely only >to ever be used by NASA. A commercial approach to VSE would be to use >multiple launches of an EELV, for example. Accepting of course the headaches and problems that come with using multiple smaller launches - not mention that you might not actually save any money at the end, but still end up worse off. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > Accepting of course the headaches and problems that come with using > multiple smaller launches - not mention that you might not actually > save any money at the end, but still end up worse off. Quite possibly true, but I'm not proposing EELVs for manned lunar missions. My proposal is that the "exploration" agency might conceivably have its own launch vehicle for missions beyond LEO. In other words, Ares V or something like it is not ruled out. >> Accepting of course the headaches and problems that come with using >> multiple smaller launches - not mention that you might not actually [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >conceivably have its own launch vehicle for missions beyond LEO. In >other words, Ares V or something like it is not ruled out. In other words, here comes the pork as each agency tries to grab it's own launcher. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > In other words, here comes the pork as each agency tries to grab it's > own launcher. I don't think so: the problem of bureaucracies pushing their own launchers has not been much of a problem in the US since the Air Force bested NASA in the Titan IIIC-Saturn IB duel in the 60s. We do, of course, have the Delta IV and Atlas V in "competition" with each other, but that is by design, and both are sponsored by the same agency, namely the Air Force. On top of that, only the "exploration" agency is ever likely to have sufficient budget for building a new launch system. >On top of that, only the "exploration" agency is ever likely to have >sufficient budget for building a new launch system. I see - it's a dessert topping *and* a floor wax. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>On top of that, only the "exploration" agency is ever likely to have >>sufficient budget for building a new launch system. > >I see - it's a dessert topping *and* a floor wax. ...And if you order in the next ten minutes, you'll get this complimentary set of six Ginsu knives. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ > >On top of that, only the "exploration" agency is ever likely to have > >sufficient budget for building a new launch system. > > I see - it's a dessert topping *and* a floor wax. C'mon, you can do better than that--you've used that put-down before! :) The science agency would be run by people like James van Allen, who are routinely opposed to manned programs. They just would not be interested in developing a launcher for the sake of it. And as to my point about budget, look at the fraction of the NASA budget that goes to science: it's not large. There are shortcomings of the proposed three-way split of NASA, but competition between science and "exploration" for ownership of launch vehicles is not one of them. As a related example, consider the fact that the National Science Foundation (NSF) ran the internet for a while, after the old Arpanet was split into civilian and military components. NSF did not want to be in that business and got out of it, despite that fact that it initially had trouble even giving the net away. >> >On top of that, only the "exploration" agency is ever likely to have >> >sufficient budget for building a new launch system. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >are routinely opposed to manned programs. They just would not be >interested in developing a launcher for the sake of it. I never claimed anyone would be interested in developing a launcher for the sake of it. But if the primary qualification of the 'science' directorate is "hates manned spaceflight"... Then the proposed idea is even loonier than it appeared at first blush. >And as to my point about budget, look at the fraction of the NASA budget >that goes to science: it's not large. Unsurprising since NASA does much more than just 'science'. >There are shortcomings of the proposed >three-way split of NASA, but competition between science and >"exploration" for ownership of launch vehicles is not one of them. Only because you have made an ignorant split between 'science' and 'manned exploration'. The split is a fantasy designed to reinforce your biases, not to reform NASA. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > >> >On top of that, only the "exploration" agency is ever likely to have > >> >sufficient budget for building a new launch system. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "hates manned spaceflight"... Then the proposed idea is even loonier > than it appeared at first blush. Aren't the NASA centers themselves more or less dedicated to specific functions already? For example: JSC - deep space - unmanned MSFC - mission planning - manned JSC - mission operations - manned KSC - launch facilities - manned mostly Wallops - launch facilities - unmanned GSFC - near earth, solar and space science - unmanned GSC - reserach and development - all Stennis - spacecraft engines - manned > >And as to my point about budget, look at the fraction of the NASA budget > >that goes to science: it's not large. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 'manned exploration'. The split is a fantasy designed to reinforce > your biases, not to reform NASA. His idea is not new. Others have considered it as well. Eric > Today: NASA is spending billions re-building yesterday's systems to > fulfill a mission apparently designed to keep NASA people employed. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > system; that is purchased commercially. Transportation beyond LEO may > or may not be commercially sourced, although in the future it would be. The USAF has always been better and more reliable about accomplishing orbitals and off-world missions. There is no further need of NASA, especially after their latest two fiascos. Perhaps we'll need a UNASA (United Nations ASA). ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth Splitting NASA into 3 components just triples the mess. The operative failure with NASA lies in the last noun of the acronym. We don't need a goverment run space administration, we need a government sponsored space advisory council, to provide laboratory and technical expertise to the private sector, which actually gets the work done but cannot affoard to pay all costs out-of-pocket to set up the costly research infrastructure. Ideally NACAS would self-fund from the contracts negotiated with the private sector, but that's probably too idealistic in the current environment. Um, gee wasn't that once tried before? Try Googling NACA.... Dave >Splitting NASA into 3 components just triples the mess. ...Actually, it's already got *four* components: 1) Bureacracy, who gum up the works. 2) Engineers, who try to keep things working. 3) Astronauts, who'd love to let 2) do their job and keep 1) to a minimum. 4) The PAO, who screw up more than they should be allowed. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ > >Splitting NASA into 3 components just triples the mess. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > OM Running a tight cabal is tough these days, especially when it's public funded. ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth >deally NACAS would self-fund from the contracts >negotiated with the private sector, but that's probably too idealistic in >the current environment. > >Um, gee wasn't that once tried before? Try Googling NACA.... ...The problem in the process is that it went like this: 1) NACA came up with some innovation and turned it over to the private sector. 2) The private sector decided whether or not to implement the innovation. 3) Regardless of what the private sector did, the only reason the NACA would revisit the innovation is if the private sector found a problem/shortcoming with it and/or the NACA found a better way. Either way, go back to Step 1. ...Nowhere in this process is there an option for something along the lines of a "crash program" where something needs to be done quickly with someone keeping the private sector steered properly towards the desired goal. Hence the dissolution of the NACA and the birth of NASA. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >...Nowhere in this process is there an option for something along the >lines of a "crash program" where something needs to be done quickly >with someone keeping the private sector steered properly towards the >desired goal. Hence the dissolution of the NACA and the birth of NASA. Yep. The goal of the NACA was technology and operations research and development. Very different from NASA in many ways. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > >deally NACAS would self-fund from the contracts > >negotiated with the private sector, but that's probably too idealistic in [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > OM Our Zionist/Nazi DARPA was and still is NACA and NASA. Unfortunately, most of the smart Zionists/Nazis that supposedly got us safely to.from our physically dark Selene/moon are nowhere to be found, just like the missing 700 large boxed of our Apollo mission data, and apparently all of the original rad-hard and anti-UV of secondary black-light Kodak film is most likely MIA to boot. Too bad we don't even have the R&D documentation pertaining to those Apollo fly-by-rocket landers. ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.