Does NASA support dissenting opinions in the ranks?

rubicondsrv · Nov 25, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I always wondered why we have not made more progress on space programs over the years.  Now I have an idea why. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>please watch what you say</p><p>that post was very close to the limit of acceptability.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BrianSlee · Nov 25, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wayne Hale was head honcho on the Shuttle PRogram until recently, when he was transferred to a different project more oriented towards the future.  He's got an awesome blog.  If you haven't read it, I highly recommend doing so.Wayne Hale's Blog <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />Calli,</p><p>  I have visited his blog which I discovered thanks to JonClarkes post.  It is very interesting reading.  BTW thanks to Jon for bringing it to our attention <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

BrianSlee · Nov 25, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>please watch what you saythat post was very close to the limit of acceptability. <br />Posted by rubicondsrv</DIV><br /><br />Ok I am confused.  Dr. Rocket stomps around on these boards calling people names and berating them from every angle concievable and I have yet to see him admonished by a mod.  Yet when I try to give him credit for being part of the problem at NASA (and yes I truly believe that based on his posts here) I get admonished.  No name calling, no sophistry just straight up criticism.  It is my perception that we have more than one standard being practiced here.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

frodo1008 · Nov 25, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I always wondered why we have not made more progress on space programs over the years.  Now I have an idea why. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>That was indeed an unkind remark.  I thought you stated that you were going to try an not do this sort of thing here.  Such remarks are better left for the more political forums!</p><p>DrRocket has proven to be a very knowledgeable source of general information here on this forum.</p><p>As for NASA they are doing a terrific job when you consider that they are now operating with a budget that is in actual dollar far smaller that it was some 35 years ago!  THAT is why there has been so relatively little progress, not the people of NASA or its contractors either!</p><p>Congress is far more the problem than NASA itself is!  </p><p>You do realize that NASA's budget was some 2% per on average per year of the total federal budget during the 1960'S, and hit an all time high of 4% in 1965. do you not?  And now they are even proposing to go back to the moon when their budget is only some 0.5% of the federal budget (and even that is in the face of some 400 to 500 percent inflation since the 1960's! </p><p>I may not agree with exactly how NASA is going about doing this, but I sure can admire their even trying it under the circumstances.  Also, you do realize that NASA has a whole lot of bosses, sometimes with very different agendas.  And yet NASA is supposed to keep them ALL happy on a budget that should actual only be going to just one boss at a time!</p><p>If NASA's budget could all go towards manned space, we would be back on the moon in some five years or less, as the budget would then approach the same budget for this particular activity that we had back in the 1960's.  Heck, we might even be on Mars in a decade!</p><p>Then, if NASA's entire budget could go towards space science we would have literally dozens of robotic probes not only going back to the moon and on to Mars, but going throughout the entire solar system, thus gaining more data for the space science teams in the next decade than in all the prior history of the space program.</p><p>Further, if NASA could spend its entire budget on just the aero part of aerospace our aircraft would be so far and away the most advanced in the world that the rest of the world might as well just give up even trying to compete in this vital area!</p><p>So over all if NASA's budget even approached what it was back then, we would now have an economy that would employ literally millions of more Americans at good middle class wage and benefits jobs, and be the absolute leader in the entire aerospace industry of the world!</p><p>How would that be for a program to help get the US out of its current economic mess?</p><p> </p>

BrianSlee · Nov 25, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That was indeed an unkind remark.  I thought you stated that you were going to try an not do this sort of thing here.  Such remarks are better left for the more political forums!DrRocket has proven to be a very knowledgeable source of general information here on this forum.Posted by frodo1008</DIV><br /><br />It may not be kind, but it is based on how he represents himself in this environment.  I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that he is knowledgable, as a matter of fact he is probably the smartest most educated person on this board and believe it or not I have a good deal of respect for him and the things he has accomplished. BUT....  that should not give him a license to abuse others, which IMHO he is guilty of on a regular basis <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

rubicondsrv · Nov 25, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok I am confused.  Dr. Rocket stomps around on these boards calling people names and berating them from every angle concievable and I have yet to see him admonished by a mod.  Yet when I try to give him credit for being part of the problem at NASA (and yes I truly believe that based on his posts here) I get admonished.  No name calling, no sophistry just straight up criticism.  It is my perception that we have more than one standard being practiced here.  <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />you point out a TOS violation by DR rocket and we will deal with it.</p><p>we do not have some sort of double standard.</p><p>if we did jimfromnsf would not have been banned.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BrianSlee · Nov 25, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>you point out a TOS violation by DR rocket and we will deal with it.we do not have some sort of double standard.if we did jimfromnsf would not have been banned. <br />Posted by rubicondsrv</DIV></p><p>I did not accuse anyone of TOS violations What I said was he is abusive in his language and responses.  I offer the following as evidence.<br /><br />Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Forum Post: <strong><font color="#003366">Re: Dark Matter...WTH?</font></strong> <span class="UserComments_DateTime"><font size="1" color="#999999">at 11/24/2008 5:47 PM EST <span class="Comments_SiteAttribution">on Space.com</span> </font></span></p><div class="UserComments_Comment"> Now that Mozina has entered and polluted the thread this needs to be moved back to The Unexplained.</DIV></div><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Forum Post: <strong><font color="#003366">Re: Ares 1: Lift Off Drift - TVC</font></strong> <span class="UserComments_DateTime"><font size="1" color="#999999">at 11/17/2008 8:26 PM EST <span class="Comments_SiteAttribution">on Space.com</span> </font></span></p><div class="UserComments_Comment">No Kyle the people who designed the rocket and the launch pad were not dumb.  And the flame bucket and acoustic supression system were quite a bit larger than what you suggest.  It is a matter of complex gas dynamics.  You really do need to learn some physics.  The people involved in addressing this problem had much more education and were one hell of a lot smarter than you.  On a bad day.  With a headache.  And no sleep.  With one hand tied behind their back. </DIV></div><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Forum Post: <strong><font color="#003366">Re: Electromass</font></strong> <span class="UserComments_DateTime"><font size="1" color="#999999">at 11/17/2008 4:19 PM EST <span class="Comments_SiteAttribution">on Space.com</span> </font></span></p><div class="UserComments_Comment">No, he is continuing to babble.... Thankfully the thread has been moved to "The Unexplained" which is the correct place for babble.   </DIV></div><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Forum Post: <strong><font color="#003366">Re: Electromass</font></strong> <span class="UserComments_DateTime"><font size="1" color="#999999">at 11/17/2008 11:14 AM EST <span class="Comments_SiteAttribution">on Space.com</span> </font></span></p><div class="UserComments_Comment">  There is difference between vision and hallucination, between open-mindedness and empty-headedness. The fundamental problem is the KicklaBucka simply does not understand basic physics (BS or no BS) and he is all wet.    </DIV></div><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Forum Post: <strong><font color="#003366">Re: Combustion Instability Thread</font></strong> <span class="UserComments_DateTime"><font size="1" color="#999999">at 11/15/2008 11:09 PM EST <span class="Comments_SiteAttribution">on Space.com</span> </font></span></p><div class="UserComments_Comment">Your guys have apparently broken the code that the OP is utter nonsense.  Completely out to lunch.  </DIV></div> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

rubicondsrv · Nov 25, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I did not accuse anyone of TOS violations What I said was he is abusive in his language and responses.  I offer the following as evidence. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />being abrasive is not aganst the rules.</p><p>there is nothing we can do about that.</p><p> </p><p>your post on the other hand was very close to being a personal attack.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BrianSlee · Nov 25, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>being abrasive is not aganst the rules.there is nothing we can do about that. your post on the other hand was very close to being a personal attack.  <br />Posted by rubicondsrv</DIV><br /><br />So saying that a thread is polluted because someone made a post in it is not personal?</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

kyle_baron · Nov 25, 2008

<br />Replying to:<br /><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">I always wondered why we have not made more progress on space programs over the years.  Now I have an idea why. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</div><p> </p><p>please watch what you say</p><p>that post was very close to the limit of acceptability.</p><strong>That's about as indirect of an attack as I've ever seen.  I'm shocked that he even got a warning.  IMO, it was mild, compared to some of the abuse I've taken (I do have experience here).</strong> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

frodo1008 · Nov 26, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Replying to:I always wondered why we have not made more progress on space programs over the years.  Now I have an idea why. Posted by BrianSlee please watch what you saythat post was very close to the limit of acceptability.That's about as indirect of an attack as I've ever seen.  I'm shocked that he even got a warning.  IMO, it was mild, compared to some of the abuse I've taken (I do have experience here). <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>What bothers me is the actual statement.  There IS very great progress in the space field going on at NASA!</p><p>One simple example is the recent testing, and now use of a urine to potable water device that is not only going to now be used on the ISS, but is going to a be very useful tool for future use on other space stations, and even the moon and beyond.  This is simply because it allows human beings in space to have less water brought up from the Earth than before, thus greatly reducing the cost of maintaining human beings in space.  In fact it is one of the key elements in being able to bring the ISS crews up to a much more useful compliment of six or seven people instead of the three now being used.  This in turn will allow far more scientific, and even some , manufacturing in space experiments to be done aboard the ISS!  </p><p>This IS why the ISS is truly a vital link in the human exploration of space, and the ISS is NOT just a black hole for the American taxpayer as some of its more ignorant critics have said.  You can bet your rear end that Bigelow and company are paying very close attention to such activities on board the ISS.  Heck, it was NASA that even did the initial experimentation that is even allowing Bigelow to build his inflatable habitats in the first place!</p><p>This kind of space progress is certainly not glamorous, but is absolutely essential for the future of humanity in space, and is indeed great progress!</p><p>So the basic assumption that there has been no progress in space is totally false! </p>

frodo1008 · Nov 26, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What bothers me is the actual statement.  There IS very great progress in the space field going on at NASA!One simple example is the recent testing, and now use of a urine to potable water device that is not only going to now be used on the ISS, but is going to a be very useful tool for future use on other space stations, and even the moon and beyond.  This is simply because it allows human beings in space to have less water brought up from the Earth than before, thus greatly reducing the cost of maintaining human beings in space.  In fact it is one of the key elements in being able to bring the ISS crews up to a much more useful compliment of six or seven people instead of the three now being used.  This in turn will allow far more scientific, and even some , manufacturing in space experiments to be done aboard the ISS!  This IS why the ISS is truly a vital link in the human exploration of space, and the ISS is NOT just a black hole for the American taxpayer as some of its more ignorant critics have said.  You can bet your rear end that Bigelow and company are paying very close attention to such activities on board the ISS.  Heck, it was NASA that even did the initial experimentation that is even allowing Bigelow to build his inflatable habitats in the first place!This kind of space progress is certainly not glamorous, but is absolutely essential for the future of humanity in space, and is indeed great progress!So the basic assumption that there has been no progress in space is totally false! <br /> Posted by frodo1008</DIV></p><p>By the way, I have always been pleased with the conduct here of debate.  Having tried for years now to be a moderate influence over on the so called open forum (which used to be free space) and only getting back hatred and out and out vitriol in return, I really appreciate being on a forum with knowledgeable and intelligent people.</p><p>If we do get into debates (and I am certain we will) please feel free to call me if I get out of hand in any way at all!</p><p>No honestly, I do mean it.  I have to work the more political Open Forum out of my system!</p><p>I do get a kick out of the continued pleading on that particular forum by the MODS for a more polite and civilized approach there.  I feel somewhat sorry for the MODS in even making an attempt at provoking civility with the likes of many of the posters over there, it just isn't ever going to happen.</p><p>I am now through with it and will not post on there ever again!  Heck, I don't even want the temptation of going over there and even browsing the threads and posts, and would be perfectly happy if the management here were to eliminate that particular forum entirely!  Although, that might be a mistake as it might bring some of those people over here,  Shudder!</p><p>So I would appreciate it if we stopped any bickering among us, and just stuck to the issues, even if we do sometimes differ in our opinions of the slants on those issues!</p><p>Thank you all for your reasonableness and cooperation.  We are ALL space cadets of one form or another here, and should defiantly stick together! </p><p> </p>

erioladastra · Nov 27, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think NASA is just too political, and you know how politics works: whoever is on top doesn't accept ANYTHING coming from the other side of the aisle.  But then, people at the top change often.  <br /> Posted by Slava33</DIV></p><p> </p><p>It really depends on where you are in NASA.  For example, speaking for manned mission ops, dissent is definitely encouraged in the ranks.  We routinely seek it out and listen to it carefully.  However, not agreeing with a dissenting opinion for many reasons does not mean the same as ignoring it.  The point is to put the input and make sure the leadership carefully considers it.  I see from ranks to very high levels this does occur.  Now, there are times when I don't always agree with a decision but I see it being considered.  Of course there are always politics and there are political constraints frequently levied on NASA. </p>

propforce · Nov 27, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One of the problems facing any large organization is institutional thinking.  My question to all you NASA folks out there is... Has NASA as an organization really applied the lessons learned from past failures and tragedies by giving the rank and file an opportunity to openly disagree with current program plans, policies, and procedures without fear of reprisial or is there an atmosphere of intimidation and fear preventing people from speaking their true mind? <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p> Interesting thread... </p><p>First, any large organizations often fail to apply lessons learned from the past.  On this, I think NASA does it as good as any large organizations.  IMO, the lessons learned often reside in the experience of individuals and not necessary the "institutional knowledge".  Capturing any lessons learned to an institutional knowledge is often difficult as people scatter and found new jobs/assignments.  What is "captured" often do not reflect the true sentiment & circumstances at the time.</p><p>Second, I think NASA tolerates dissents and open disagreements MUCH BETTER than say, private companies such as Boeing or Lockheed Martin.  We don't get much exposure of other nations space agency issues here (e.g., ESA & JAXA, etc), not that they are doing anything the scale of what NASA does, but I'd imagine they don't tolerate open dissention to the extend that NASA does.</p><p>Finally, and I'll elaborate on this point in another post, speaking of Program Management.  NASA is a PUBLIC agency, hence it's program management practice is different from that of a private company.  You can not use the same metrics to make judgement on its effectiveness. </p><p> </p><p>ps-  It's good to be back at SDC, btw</p><p> </p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

propforce · Nov 27, 2008

<p>Posted by BrianSlee <BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  Direct 2.0 definitely hints at some diversity of opinion within the ranks of the engineers and probably at least some of the managers who would be needed to organize and drive such an effort.  So why are they hiding and doing the work anonymously?  If they are not using NASA paid time to do the work, what do they have to fear? Where are the NASA folks who believe that we should be using the EELVs already designed and ready?  Are there none to be had?  I don't think so.  So why won't they come forward and say I am so & so and I disagree and heres why? <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p> If you have ever worked for an organization then you should be able to answer your own question here.  You can express your dissent opinion <em><font color="#000080">internally,</font></em> but can not publically represent your organization without authorization.  </p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

propforce · Nov 27, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes.  It's called leadership.  Programs are supposed to use the metrics of 1. Cost 2. Schedule 3. PerformanceIn determining program structure and implementation.  Any PM worth his weight in salt should balance program objectives against these criteria before the first dollar is spent.  When developing a program plan the first consideration is always cost (except in areas of real national security threats e.g. war) second is schedule and believe it or no the last one to be considered is performance.  There are always tradeoffs during the initial phases of any acquisition program for major systems,  you simply can't have everything you wan't whenever you want it.  If management can't manage the expectations of the people writing the requirements and develop program schedules and specifications that can be implemented within the given budget then they should be fired and replaced by people who can.  <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p> DrRocket gave an excellent response to your post so I won't repeat much of what he has to say, but...</p><p> </p><p>What you posted is a very simplistic, textbook, view of Program Management...  </p><p>That's like saying the secret to make money in running a multi-billion dollar coporation is to buy-low and sell-high...</p><p>Program Management is never so straightforward cut & dry.  </p><p> </p><p>PM for a technology development program is very different from PM for, say, a shopping mall construction...</p><p>PM for a <em><font color="#0000ff">manned </font></em>launch vehicle development program is very different from a ground communication network development program...</p><p>Large scale development/ systems integration PM is very different from small scale R&D programs....</p><p>Public angency PM has additional constraints than priviate organizations...</p><p>Finally, as life cycle of a project change, so does its Program Managers & team...<br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BrianSlee · Dec 5, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What bothers me is the actual statement.  There IS very great progress in the space field going on at NASA!....So the basic assumption that there has been no progress in space is totally false! <br />Posted by frodo1008</DIV><br /><br />You are correct.  NASA does a great job in a lot of areas with a limited budget.  I should really be more specific and not use blanket statements.  I am being critical of the ARES launch systems specifically and our continuation of it. I personally think that we are better served by using the currently available EELVs for LEO access.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

BrianSlee · Dec 5, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Interesting thread... First, any large organizations often fail to apply lessons learned from the past.  On this, I think NASA does it as good as any large organizations.  IMO, the lessons learned often reside in the experience of individuals and not necessary the "institutional knowledge".  Capturing any lessons learned to an institutional knowledge is often difficult as people scatter and found new jobs/assignments.  What is "captured" often do not reflect the true sentiment & circumstances at the time.Second, I think NASA tolerates dissents and open disagreements MUCH BETTER than say, private companies such as Boeing or Lockheed Martin.  We don't get much exposure of other nations space agency issues here (e.g., ESA & JAXA, etc), not that they are doing anything the scale of what NASA does, but I'd imagine they don't tolerate open dissention to the extend that NASA does.Finally, and I'll elaborate on this point in another post, speaking of Program Management.  NASA is a PUBLIC agency, hence it's program management practice is different from that of a private company.  You can not use the same metrics to make judgement on its effectiveness.  ps-  It's good to be back at SDC, btw   <br />Posted by propforce</DIV><br /><br />Thank you for participating.  and welcome back :O).</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

BrianSlee · Dec 5, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> DrRocket gave an excellent response to your post so I won't repeat much of what he has to say, but... What you posted is a very simplistic, textbook, view of Program Management...  That's like saying the secret to make money in running a multi-billion dollar coporation is to buy-low and sell-high...Program Management is never so straightforward cut & dry.   PM for a technology development program is very different from PM for, say, a shopping mall construction...PM for a manned launch vehicle development program is very different from a ground communication network development program...Large scale development/ systems integration PM is very different from small scale R&D programs....Public angency PM has additional constraints than priviate organizations...Finally, as life cycle of a project change, so does its Program Managers & team...  <br />Posted by propforce</DIV><br /><br />It wasn't my intent to discuss detailed program structure and management I was merely trying to point out that the PM is ultimately responsible for managing the program budget, and the expectations of the requirements generators.  He is supposesd to be accountable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

Does NASA support dissenting opinions in the ranks?

rubicondsrv

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

rubicondsrv

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

rubicondsrv

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

propforce

Guest

propforce

Guest

propforce

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page