Anonymous USA Today Critic Disses NASA's Plans>>>

[johns805]

Hi: Over at Yahoo! News is an op ed article from USA Today by some anonymous critic who doesn't think much of NASA's future plans.....It's at:<br /><br />http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20061206/cm_usatoday/nasathecostlyfrontier<br /><br />There's a discussion board link at the bottom of the page for those who may want to comment...Other posters there seem to have pretty much already expressed what I thought of the writer's point of view....I also think the critic is a wuss for not including his or her name or byline to the column....'Just thought you'd like to know....!<br /> Best Regards! JBK<br /><br />Surf City Sounds Plus:<br />http://www.Live365.com/stations/johns805

 

[qso1]

Just the usual anti human spaceflight article except this writer doesn't even bother with showing certain facts. The big one being that NASA budgets were 2 to 4 percent GDP from the mid 1960s to 1973-74 or so when the budget was reduced drastically to 1 percent GDP and has been at that level since.<br /><br />So this is just another tired spaceflight critic who if he/she really wants to help us avoid the big looming Social Security spending or whatever spending crisis comes along...would realize their energies would be best spent writing about government deficits that dwarf NASA budgets or spending on rescuing other countries when people right here need help.<br /><br />But thats too hard for writers who see NASA as a convienient target that doesn't even require any data to back their claims. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[dreada5]

Yeah, crap article (my mistake... opinion) doesn't robustly argue NASA history or new proposals. Suppose its only saving grace is that it IS just an opinion, albeit an uneducated one. <br /><br />Does this mean NASA has failed to sell to the US public what it has achieved to date and why its going to the moon tomorrow and how it'll be funded?

 

[BReif]

I am in a line of work where I regularly receive letters of complaint, and sometimes even letter of praise (though not as often). As a general rule, I will not read any letter, or respond to any letter that is anonymous. Before an anonymous letter, complaint, or in this case, article can be taken seriously, it is my expectation that the writer of such letter, complaint, or article show some level of personal responsibility and maturity and sign his or her name. Otherwise, its not worth my time.

 

[corydog]

Yeah, it's hard to take anyone serious when they ignore the the fact that every dollar spent by NASA on human space exploration is a dollar spent on thousands of industries from engineering to steel mills. <br /><br />But at the same time, he's got a point. NASA is projecting a shortfall of billions before the end of the decade just to return to the Moon. Now they think they can build a lunar base on top of that. But if you remember, they've got a solid history of proposing grand schemes and never getting Congress to pony up. They're going to have to make major policy and architecture changes before they have a chance at a accomplishing what they keep piling on their plate.

 

[qso1]

You have made some excellent points.<br /><br />I doubt seriously that NASA will be able to stay within the budget guidlines proposed as part of the Bush plan. I doubt NASA will even get the VSE approved by the next Presidential Administration because of the false perception that we can spend money spent on NASA, on other programs and benefit Americans less well off.<br /><br />My whole problem with the argument is not that its a bad argument. But its one already proven not to work. NASA budgets had been slashed drastically during the early 1970s. Yet there is no evidence any program or persons benefitted. We had double digit inflation in the late 1970s, new diseases, the homless problem grew after the early 1980s...on and on.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the old "We can spend money right here on earth to take care of earthly problems" argument is a false one when viewed in the context of...NASA annual budgets are approx. $17 B dollars. The deficit has been about $400 B dollars these past few years. Just one year of deficit spending is close to twice all NASA spending since it came into being in 1958.<br /><br />Though the argument has been shown to be deeply flawed, it prevails. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

NASA isn't helping their case any by spending $40B ($15B dev + $2.5B/yr fixed) over the next decade on porkbarrel projects to duplicate existing commercial boosters. If NASA wants to keep their budget instead of having it diverted to social programs then they should show that they can spend it responsibly.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow"><i>" {snip} .... Though the argument has been shown to be deeply flawed, it prevails. "</i></font><br /><br />And it prevails because, as was stated above, NASA hasn't sold the public at large on going back to the Moon. It's not so much that "those $$s" could be better spent on social programs as it is "Why should we be spending $$s to go to the Moon ? What do we get out of it ?". Unless NASA can positively answer those questions it'll have a hard time convincing Congress to fund their projects because the public won't be supporting them. The answer isn't going to be one that perhaps works for us here @ SdC. Ask the general public about the ISS and they'll say "huh ?" but everyone knows about the Hubble. They've formed an emotional attachment to the device and that's what's needed for any expansion into space (Lunar, NEO, or Mars). For myself, aside from any good science that can be done there, I really want to see some commercialization happen. If people are going to the Moon to stay, it can't be like setting up another McMurdo. To the maximum extent practical, people better start learning how to utilize the resources in situ. If this can't be done in some reasonable time period then NASA is not going to get funded for the effort.<br /><br />ps - Maybe NASA needs to run a 10 sec commercial near the end of the nightly news showing some the fantastic, awe inspiring pictures we see here. The public likes pretty pictures and the PR needs to start now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[bushuser]

In general, I loath an entrenched bureaucracy that engages in self-promotion. BUT, in this case I think it makes sense. If the Postal Service and the military can advertise on national TV, maybe NASA should. The public is easily swayed by a few impressive images.

 

[corydog]

It might help, but at the same time I think NASA would benefit better from the public putting their foot down. There is that old saying that nothing breeds innovation like a limited budget. <br /><br />We are finding out now that "shuttle derived" has misled us. If the shuttle, as Griffin acknowledged was a "mistake", then why keep paying all the involved contractors more money to build biggers SRBs, more and EXPENDABLE SSME's and so fourth (though I think they are finally dumping that hubris)? And realy, with all the mods to the SRB's, we are seeing none of those cost savings we were sold on.<br /><br />And further, why give Lockheed the contract for Orion when Lockheed failed them on the X-33 a decade ago? I know people will say that the X-33 was still-born or even technically impossible, but Lockheed stood up to NASA, looked them in the eye, and said "give us money and we will deliver." That's what you have to do to get a contract. Now this same company has scored another huge contract.<br /><br />NASA has some bad spending habits, but to be fair they are not entirely their own fault. NASA is governed by (ufortunately) the government. And congressmen who have thousands Lockheed, USA, and Rocketdyne employees in their district want to see them to keep getting payed, regardless of if using the same technology was the best way forward or not. <br /><br />If you give NASA all the money it wants, it will just give us another flawed system that isn't optomized, we all see detrimental effects of sticking with a poor system for decades( really, it's why they are in the current budget mess). My opinion is that they need to overcome these challenges the way any company that does real world business: rethink your approach because it's not going to work.

 

[publiusr]

I don't agree with that. You do give NASA the money it requires--otherwise you have the shuttle. The space-libertarians only give us useless toys.<br /><br />Nice article.<br /><br />http://www.thespacereview.com/article/743/1

 

[corydog]

I agree with you there, publiusr, and I was incorrect to desribe the space shuttle as a product of giving NASA too much money. The space shuttle had alot of design compromises to achieve short term budget limitations such as solid SRB's instead of liquid. <br /><br />I think it's more appropriate to say that at this time giving NASA all the money it wants will give us a flawed vehicle like the space shuttle.<br /><br />The shuttle is flawed, Griffin said it, none of us were surprised. But now NASA wants to take "shuttle-derived hardware" and force-fit it to a new vehicle when it didn't allow the previous one to perform safely and efficiently. Greenlight extra funding now and they proceed with this solution and pay for it in the long run. Force them to rethink their design now before they start building prototypes and you might get some innovation. <br /><br />I suppose this really hinges on your opinion of whether or not NASA has a good architecture for the return right now (Ares I/V). My opinion is that they won't be able to afford it in the long run because congress will never give them that 4% again. I think a good plan isn't based only on technical merits (otherwise seperating crew and cargo launches and using non-winged vehicles for re-entry are good bets), but it also has to take into reality the pollitical situation that it's going to have to fight for the duration of that plan. And I think we all know they can't hold off the polliticians and all the different administrations for the next foureen years, and certainly not while getting a raise at the same time.

 

[rocketman5000]

Please read up on the history of the shuttle. The reason it ended up with both systems that lead to vehicle loses was because of budget cuts. Originally NASA wanted a horizontal takeoff, flyback booster. This would have eliminated the SRB's that brought down challenger. It would have also kept the foam from flying back and punching holes in the insulation.

 

[corydog]

I have and that's what I was correcting myself on; design compromises happend due to budget constraints.<br /><br />My concern is that these systems are being carried forward for pollitical reasons and they going to cost NASA again.<br /><br />I know people say that can't cause the same failures again; SRBs and foam mounted below the crew vehicle and not parallel to it and all. But when I say cost them in the long run, I mean by old systems being used more to feed contractors than to put people on the moon. I don't think NASA will be able to afford this architecture in the long run, if we allow them to build it they way they want to now.

 

[asj2006]

More criticisms:<br /><br />http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/12/6/6189<br /><br />NASA is basically gutting more relevant projects to fund this vaporware..... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>------------------------------------------- </p><p>"Breathe. This is like most of the choices you have in life. <br />You know inside whether it's right. <br />Whether you do it is up to you." </p><p>From the Tao of Willie Nelson</p> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

So.....

 

[qso1]

Mee_n_Mac:<br />And it prevails because, as was stated above, NASA hasn't sold the public at large on going back to the Moon.<br /><br />Me:<br />And NASA won't be able to sell the public on going back to the moon. I don't think the VSE will survive beyond the 2008 election, especially if Dems win and if the economy is worse, that is...deficits are higher. I'm with you on the desire to see commercialization occuring. Thats the only way I think we can really open up the space frontier these days. NASA will still have a role if private industry/enterprise decides its economical to develop lunar/mars resources. It will probably still take NASA to get us to Mars but eventually P.E. will hopefully do it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[anoolios]

Dismissing an argument on the basis of an author being anonymous is a form of ad hominem logical fallacy or reverse appeal to authority logical fallacy. There are many possible good reasons in this internet age for authors to wish to maintain anonymity.<br /><br />Personally, I'm on board with Steven Hawking when he says it is imperative that humans colonize other planets and solar systems. The question is, what is the best way of getting there considering a limited NASA budget (roughly .6% of GDP)? The VSE is blatantly not the answer. Besides being a gross misallocation of resources considering the ultimate goal, the political pork barreling, posturing, and greed is disgusting. <br /><br />I'm all for human spaceflight, its just that at this point of technological development and human history, all those dollars should be spent on research into better propulsion, support systems, and earth based plus unmanned space science. NASA needs to take a longer term view of the situation, cut the contractors and astronaut corps loose, and embark on a bold new strategy. The VSE is a colossal waste of resources. Basic research isn't sexy like moon bases and solid rocket boosters, but it's what we need at this point in history.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[qso1]

If conducted in the right fashion...as a continuation of lunar exploration that leads to lunar bases, and eventual mars missions and beyond...and involves private enterprise/industry, the VSE will not be a collosal waste of money IMO. And considering NASA themselves recently suggested they may attempt human exploration of near earth asteroids, something quite imaginative for an agency accused of not being very imaginative. I'd say there on the only track really available to them.<br /><br />Nobody including NASA has demonstrated they can get economical access to LEO going. Of course, its still early yet to judge whether private industry/enterprise is up to the task.<br /><br />Now VSE as an Apollo II, I would be tempted to agree its a waste. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>