

NASA appears no longer to be shooting for the stars - eplanit
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nasa-future-20100718,0,7365444.story?track=rss

======
Vivtek
I like the fact that we don't have money for $9 million a day to go to the
moon, but we have about $800 million a day to screw up Afghanistan even more
than it already is, and $1.9 billion to soak into the sands of Iraq, also for
nothing obvious.

Fiscal scolds drive me crazy when they overlook mere elephants in the room -
this is like a whole pod of blue whales.

(Note: figures from <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html>)

~~~
Vivtek
Downvote or not, the article is about how America can't afford a space
program, and my comment is about how that really pisses me off given our clear
priorities.

But yeah, in retrospect, it's flamewar material and I probably should keep my
big mouth shut. It's just ...

I'm in Europe for the summer. And I know Europe has its own problems, but
they're actually doing some stuff here that makes the place a better place to
live, instead of taking huge piles of money and burning it. The roads are
better, the cities prettier, the public services more helpful, the health
system more efficient - it just kills me.

I live in Indiana, largely because the real estate market has crashed and it's
so cheap (and yeah, I'm from there, but that's why I went back). Indiana
really can't afford squat now, because all the money is being sucked out and
spent on wars to profit the rich, or just plain being gift-wrapped for them
because they're too big to fail.

And now we can't even go to the moon.

~~~
w00pla
> And I know Europe has its own problems, but they're actually doing some
> stuff here that makes the place a better place to live,

Unfortunately Europe has its own problems. The arms industry in Europe is even
more corrupt than in the USA (the french company Thales/Thompson resorted to
changing its name every 5 years to shake off the bad name).

The European Union is an extremely expensive and failed project and the public
finances in many European countries is a huge mess (e.g. Portugal, Spain,
Greece). They have big immigration problems and social problems (e.g. large
and growing Muslim minorities in most countries). The birth rate has all but
collapsed and they will have serious economic problems in the long term.

~~~
Vivtek
Heh. I don't know whether you're American, and so you don't know how damn cool
Europe is, or European, and so you don't know what a shambles America is, or
you're from somewhere else entirely and just don't know anything at all, but
either way, you're so incredibly wrong.

Without loss of generality, I will assume below that you are European.

The arms industry in Europe can be as corrupt as it wants - it still doesn't
consume the incredible proportion of GDP ours does, and it still doesn't own
your government outright. That corruption is utterly, utterly insignificant in
terms of how European society is run and where the money actually goes. I'll
grant you that arms corruption is a Bad Thing, and making money off killing
people is even worse, but Europe ain't got _nothing_ on America in that
regard. (Note: right now. Clearly, in the past, this was not the case, but
we're discussing current affairs.)

Public finances in many European countries are a mess, yeah. I give you
Indiana. Or even better - I give you California, which has started selling its
historical monuments and state parks in order to stave off bankruptcy.

Europe has nothing like immigration or social problems. They _think_ they do.
But they really, really don't. Large and growing Muslim minorities are, and
let me make this perfectly clear, _not a problem_. They are a good thing.

The birth rate collapsing is a good thing. I don't care about retirement
problems because they don't exist; the fact that they are actually planning
for retirement at all is what makes Europe superior. And I'll draw your
attention to the fact that those large, growing Muslim minorities are in fact
paying into the retirement system. Just because it's not white, Christian
money doesn't mean the system isn't working. And more importantly, Europe
doesn't have (as many) thieves and brigands in power trying to get that social
services lockbox open so their friends can buy more yachts - _and_ the
European media springs on that shit like rapid weasels when they _do_ try it,
because in Europe, they still report actual news, and the people, clearly
remembering times when the government was demonstrably and openly against
them, watch the government like a million hawks, and oddly enough, journalists
there are OK with that.

And I'd like to state, just for the record, that if you think _Europe_ is
facing serious economic problems in the long term, I'd like to draw your
attention back to America. The difference between Europe and America is that
some people in Europe are at least planning management strategies; the
corresponding people in America are mostly trying to figure out which part of
Peru they're going to retreat to when things finally collapse.

But the point in your post that I really feel the most urgent need to address
is this flabbergasting notion that the European Union is a failed project.

The European Union has been expensive, yeah. It's not even a tenth as
expensive as the Iraq War, and here's the key: it isn't a failed project.
There is no, no, no _fucking_ way you can say the European Union has failed
until you see an actual renewal of the centuries of warfare that ravaged this
continent until the advent of the European Union.

I am, right now, sitting in Budapest, which joined the Union in 2005. To get
here, I drove through Switzerland (part of the Union in all but name), Italy,
and Slovenia, and then I drove back through Austria and Germany to return our
rental car before flying back to Vienna (long story; one-way rentals are Not
Cheap here). I've lived in Europe, and come to Europe, a lot over the last
twenty years; my wife is Hungarian. So I know a lot about what I'm saying
here. The advances I've seen this summer (it's been five years since I could
afford to come) have blown my mind. Just the thought of driving across
Slovenia in a single evening on their _freaking new freeway system_ alone...

What I'm saying here, and above, is that Europe is prosperous. Oh, everybody's
complaining about the Union right now - ever since Germans realized that a run
on Greek banks affects them through the Euro zone. But the Union was
inevitable, and the expansion of markets and lowering of trade barriers has
been very profitable to Germany indeed. They're just really panicky about
spreading inflation (something about that explosive inflation in the 30's
really scarred the public psyche there).

But failed? No. The European Union is the greatest thing humanity has ever
achieved - don't get me wrong, I love the American Constitution, and I'm all
for ranking it right up there at the top of greatest innovations ever. But the
history of Europe is one of blood and bombs, for the last couple of millennia,
and now they're at each other's throats only at the rhetorical level.

The Union is a success.

If you've never been here, I encourage you to visit. If you've never left, I
encourage you to examine some other parts of the world before thinking Europe
is a failure.

(tl;dr: nyah, nyah, you're wrong, Europe rocks)

~~~
w00pla
> I will assume below that you are European.

Neither.

> The arms industry in Europe can be as corrupt as it wants - it still doesn't
> consume the incredible proportion of GDP ours does, and it still doesn't own
> your government outright.

That may be true. But the European arms industry is extremely corrupt in other
countries (with official sanction). The politicians are usually their bitches
(e.g. BAE & Blair).

This is not just true for the arms industry – but for all major European
companies. The best example of this is Siemens. Its whole business model is
based on paying bribes in third world countries to get contracts. Without
that, it is simply not competitive. The bribes that Siemens paid over the
years ran into the billions
(<http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,462954,00.html>).

The same goes for the French arms company Thompson CSF/Thales, that had an
extremely large central slush fund to pay bribes with.

While it is true that it is better if the corruption is exported, the point
that I wanted to make is that without bribery firms such as Siemens is simply
not competitive.

> Europe has nothing like immigration or social problems. They think they do.
> But they really, really don't. Large and growing Muslim minorities are, and
> let me make this perfectly clear, not a problem. They are a good thing.

Large amount of crimes are committed by immigrants and it threatens European
culture. There have been huge riots in countries such as France and Belgium.
This is a serious and growing problem.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Brussels_riots>

I agree with you that the USA also have serious problems (e.g. Mexican
immigration). Yet it seems that European countries (such as Denmark) are more
prepared to do something to solve the problem.

> The birth rate collapsing is a good thing.

No. It is extremely bad (and it is a naïve thing to say). How exactly will a
country function if there are more retirees than people working? Or if non-
integrating minority populations grow faster than the indigenous populations?

> growing Muslim minorities are in fact paying into the retirement system.
> Just because it's not white, Christian money doesn't mean the system isn't
> working.

You ignore the fact that a large percentage of immigrants do not finish
school. In germany it is just for highschool (14% among immigrant
populations).

> The difference between Europe and America is that some people in Europe are
> at least planning management strategies; the corresponding people in America
> are mostly trying to figure out which part of Peru they're going to retreat
> to when things finally collapse.

Many countries in the EU are a lot closer to collapse (e.g. Greece) than the
USA.

> has failed until you see an actual renewal of the centuries of warfare that
> ravaged this continent until the advent of the European Union.

To claim that the main aim of the EU is the prevention of warfare is wrong.
There are good reasons why there hasn’t been another world war (some of it to
do with the fact that there was an external enemy and that, with nuclear
weapons, no one wants to wage war).

Just because there hasn’t been war doesn’t mean that the EU is a success. And
using such a yardstick is actually a big insult to the original aspirations of
the EU. And just because the EU is cheaper than a big war, doesn’t mean that
it is a bargain.

------
avar
I recommend these videos by Dr. Robert Zubrin and Jeff Greason for some
context:
[http://www.youtube.com/user/spacevidcast#p/search/7/d9J7Hgnx...](http://www.youtube.com/user/spacevidcast#p/search/7/d9J7HgnxK10)
<http://www.xcor.com/video/isdc.html>

Essentially, NASA has lacked any concrete direction since the 70s, and
projects like Constellation are stupid because they waste a lot of NASA money
on developing NASA's own launch capacity. When NASA should just buy (or pay to
upgrade) existing capacity such as the Delta IV Heavy or Falcon 9 to fit its
needs.

Most importantly, with development of launch capacity moved out of NASA, NASA
will have to specify the ends, not the means. Being the party that sets the
budget, makes the design, and implements the design is a very bad position to
be in.

------
TGJ
The Space program may be best served by moving to the private sector. I
believe the private sector will be able to do it faster, cheaper, and just as
safe as Nasa. The only thing that worries me is once control is conceded from
Nasa to the private sector, the government will regulate the new industry
harshly.

It is sad to see the American Dream squashed because of politics but I think a
new chapter is around the corner written by the citizens and not bureaucrats.

~~~
sprout
>The only thing that worries me is once control is conceded from Nasa to the
private sector, the government will regulate the new industry harshly.

Thinking like that is what led the EPA to allow BP to neglect to install an
acoustic trigger that could have prevented this whole debacle in the gulf.
Harsh regulation is essential if you want safety.

The problem, and it's one that won't go away by the magic of capitalism, is
that no one wants to put real money into space just for the sake of
spaceflight.

~~~
hugh3
_The problem, and it's one that won't go away by the magic of capitalism, is
that no one wants to put real money into space just for the sake of
spaceflight._

There's only a few things that people are willing to pay $1000 a pound to send
into space. One of them is communications relays. Another is cameras. The
third is themselves.

I'm hopeful that space tourism will be the killer app for human spaceflight,
because the current model of "let's fucken just send people up to see what
happens" has pretty much reached its endpoint: we know what happens.

------
c1sc0
What NASA (and society as a whole) needs is _less_ focus on safety. Go do some
wild things & if volunteers die in the process, accept that risk.

------
sliverstorm
Can anyone comment on what role the obsessive safety culture mentioned in the
article may have played in NASA's current declining trajectory?

It's interesting to see that they have ramped up _testing_ ; IIRC, all the
problems they've had were tied to manufacturing mistakes, not design flaws.
This makes me think safety would be best served by more rigorous Q&A to
prevent flaws, rather than testing runs to find them.

~~~
mkn
So, I have a BS in Aero/Astro Engineering. This doesn't exactly qualify me,
because when you graduate you're not an engineer, merely ready to become an
engineer.

That said, it seems to me that the safety culture is a symptom, not an
underlying cause, of the troubles that NASA is facing. Fundamentally, the
political nature of NASA planning and acquisition drive NASA-designed systems
toward complexity and high-performance. It is the complexity and performance
of (especially) launch vehicles, combined with their stringent requirements
and catastrophic failure modes that drives the safety culture. If they didn't
obsess over safety, these monstrosities would fail _every_ time.

Take a typical aerospace quality part that has $700 worth of material and
labor in it. Because it is engineered with a factor of safety of, 1.05-1.2,
for example, there is a $25-30,000 paper trail that documents the mine where
the ore was extracted, who did the refining, what the heat treatment process
was, where it was performed, and so on and so on ad infinitum ad nauseam.

Take the (awful) STS, for example. Congress was promised "airline-style"
operations for this "space pickup truck." Well, an airliner has 0 mission-
critical parts. A wing spar can fail and the skin should hold the wing
together. The STS has over 700 mission-critical parts. For example, if an
O-ring fails on a booster, everybody dies. If some foam hits the leading edge
of the wing, everybody dies. _High-perf mission-critical parts seem to be a
result of the political need for the appearance of technology leadership._

I can almost guarantee you that the O-rings and leading edge pieces were
manufactured in different states. _High part-count is an artifact of the
procurement process._

Elon Musk has talked about what makes SpaceX's pricing possible. (Note that
they're offering launch services at 1/5 the cost of the shuttle.) He has a
vertically integrated rocket factory. In one state. _NASA could not build the
Falcon 9 if it wanted to simply because they could not vertically integrate in
one state. Every state would get a piece of the pie._

Algorithmically, because that's the crowd, here, you pay an exponential
administrative cost for each of the factors: performance, lateral integration,
and complexity. We've done all three.

NASA treats the fact that the Space Shuttle is the most complex machine ever
built as a point of pride, for political reasons. It's actually our national
shame and folly, and has set space access back 30 years.

~~~
sliverstorm
To clarify, you are arguing that the problems are just because we want the
Space Shuttle to look complex and sound dangerous so that it seems like we are
on the cutting edge. That NASA, even after the tragedies, feels a cutting edge
appearance is more important than preventing the negative PR from the
accidents.

Do I understand you right?

Do you have any sources? I am not an aerospace engineer, and I hate to pull
that card after your long and thoughtful comment, but that seems like a pretty
sensationalist claim, it'd be nice to have a little supporting evidence. Among
other things, you'd figure if a spacecraft could be made as simple as a plane,
it'd already have been done.

Also, does an airplane really have no single point of failure? I could swear
everything does have at least one. I can't imagine how you could solve all of
the single points of failure even on something as simple as a bicycle or a
motorcycle. And with the problem with the O-ring failing- wasn't that the
failsafe O-ring? I seem to remember hearing something about how there were two
seals, and the first one was never supposed to go, but there was a second seal
just in case. The first seal did go, but the operators just said 'hey, it's
ok, we have a second seal'.

~~~
mkn
Not exactly right. A part of my point was more that the complexity and
finickiness of the STS seem to be largely, though not completely, due to the
procurement process and some peculiarities of the U.S. political structure.
Parts for the STS are made everywhere by subcontractors, in order that
politicians can bring jobs to their constituents, and then integrated. I think
that's to what you were referring but misunderstood.

As to _mission-critical_ parts, there is some leeway in the definition of the
term that may explain the confusion. "Mission-critical" means, necessary for
the survival of the crew and passengers. The "mission" is, get to the desired
location if you can, but abort safely if you can't. For passenger planes, this
means that if one engine goes out, the plan can land on the other one (or two
or three). If the ailerons go out, the pilot can achieve roll control with
rudder and throttle. If the INS goes out, the GPS can get you to a visual on a
landing strip. In each of these cases, there is a single failure and _nobody
dies_. Hence, these systems are not "mission-critical" where the "mission" is
transporting crew and passengers without loss of life. That the plane goes
somewhere specific is a fringe benefit, so to speak.

IIRC, the O-ring disaster had to do with the poor design and decision-making
regarding temperature limits of the inadequate O-rings. Once hot combustion
products get past an O-ring, there will be a failure. On a system where those
hot gases can impinge on a fuel tank, there will be a catastrophic failure. On
the STS, that makes those O-rings mission-critical.

Interestingly, some have said that the choice of Thiokol is the ultimate cause
of that disaster, for precisely the reasons I talked about in my original
comment. The SRBs reportedly had to be able to be shipped over the road from
Thiokol's plant. In order to do so (instead of building a plant near the
launch site), the boosters had to be segmented. Segments -> O-rings. That's
pure rumor, afaik.

