My emotions on this are complex. On the one hand, it's nice to see legit space exploration being reset after the 40-year space shuttle pause. On the other hand, NASA is now and has always been a beard for the NRO so I gotta wonder what they're really after. There is no aspect of the Orion that lends itself to space reconnaissance as far as I can tell. But at the same time, space exploration is proxy warfare. The ascendancy of the US space program is directly correlated with the Cold War; it was all about achievement and daring-do in the Bay of Pigs era and all about economic attrition during Charlie Wilson's War. Now the Chinese have a space station, Russia is threatening to pull out of the ISS and the ESA is off doing its own thing. Europe is no longer our proxy pawn and with actual "warfare" being carried out via UCAV it kinda makes sense to go "hey, let's go to Mars 'cuz none of you other pikers have the technical knowhow USA USA USA USA!" There's an NRO/DIA angle in there somewhere, though. I'm just not sure where. Doesn't really matter much. A capsule is a capsule. To get it anywhere interesting you need scads of impulse. A Delta IV Heavy is basically a LEO space-tug; you wanna play games with "people" and "moon" and "mars" you need that big bitch on the right. That sucka ain't much more than a glimmer in NASA's eye right now.
I had to look up the National Reconnaissance Office. Man, I'm just not as plugged into paranoia as I was during Bush the Elder's administration. Ah, high school... I'm not saying you're wrong about any of this. Going to Mars with humans means bringing them back as well. That means complex rockets, repeat propulsion, growing food onboard since the trip will take a long time, psychological analysis of people that cannot go outside for four or five years. You need government spooks and a really strong motivation. I'd just rather see us build high-speed train lines instead. We can make those just as sexy: "Park, buy your ticket, get your ass to Oakland in two hours total."
There's paranoia and there's reality. The space shuttle is the size it is because of the NRO. They built a launchpad at Vandenberg for military shuttle missions - IE, polar orbit. Fortunately, they had one roughed in for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory. 14 of 35 launches from Cape Canaveral were military. It would have been substantially more if it weren't for the Challenger; the Delta IV was developed specifically for heavy launch capability in the absence of the space shuttle. I wasn't clear before. I don't think any of this is about going to Mars. I think this is entirely about "give us money so we can pretend to go to mars while developing better methods and payloads for spying on people." That's what it's been since Sputnik first gave Eisenhower an excuse to deprecate U-2 flights in favor of the CORONA program.
I think that's incredibly cynical. There are loads of people in NASA that would absolutely love to go to Mars. Unfortunately, those people has very control over where the money goes. But the idea that NASA is intentionally misleading the public to secure public support for funding spy satellites is just absurd.I wasn't clear before. I don't think any of this is about going to Mars. I think this is entirely about "give us money so we can pretend to go to mars while developing better methods and payloads for spying on people."
Exactly. Meanwhile, the Space Shuttle doesn't happen without the NRO getting on board. Mercury doesn't happen without the Manned Orbiting Laboratory paying for most of its development. I'm not saying NASA is deliberately misleading anybody. I'm saying NASA isn't really relevant to the question of what the USA does in space. Look - NASA's budget is $18b a year. The NRO's, best as anyone has been able to determine, is $10b... but the NRO launches zero NASA payloads while it was originally envisioned for NASA to launch 100% of NRO payloads. Yay NASA. I've known three people who worked at JPL. I was part of the team that did this: ... but to argue that NASA exists solely for scientific benefit of all mankind is "just absurd."Unfortunately, those people has very control over where the money goes
Maybe I'm not clear on what "this" is. Is it the original tweet? NASA itself? Orion? SLS? I'm not arguing that NASA exists solely for the benefit of mankind (does anything?). I would argue that most of the people working on Orion, SLS, and "going to Mars" in general, are doing it primarily because they want to put people on Mars. The fact that it has substantial military/surveillance use cases is incidental to the people actually doing the science and engineering. I guess it comes down to perspective. From a political perspective, you're probably right. But from a NASA perspective, from the top on down it absolutely is about going to Mars.
From a political perspective, NASA is a beard for the NRO and the general militarization of space in general. That makes the "NASA perspective" not particularly relevant as they aren't driving the bus. A press release about Orion and "going to mars" is akin to a press release about a hood ornament and plans to drive to Niagara Falls. Orion is a payload, nothing more. The "science and engineering" in that payload is now and has always been a useful way to daylight the classified stuff ULA and others need public money for.
Obviously we're not going to come to any agreement on this subject, but I'm curious about one thing. Do you really mean "NASA" here, as opposed to say "the space program"? You usually chose your words carefully, so I'm thinking you did. Maybe I'm just hopelessly naive, but I would love to hear your opinion on how my work on integrating unmanned systems into the National Airspace System is actively contributing to the NRO.NASA is a beard for the NRO and the general militarization of space in general.
I mean "NASA." "The space program" is geopolitical and teeny-weeny by any real standard. As I recall, the Mars 2020 rover is slated to cost $130 million. An F-35 costs three times that. Rosetta cost a billion euros. A KH-11 Block 4 costs ten billion dollars. The world watches with bated breath as that rover does its thing; I was one of two dozen people who gathered to watch the last KH-11 go up out of Vandenberg. Note that I didn't say "ruse." Note that I didn't say "cover." I said "beard." NASA does a lot of cool shit and I love all of it. But it does what it does largely as a public, benevolent front for a private, militarized mission by the rest of the space industry. Do I think everyone that works at NASA (and remember - I've known a few) wake up every morning looking forward to a day of subterfuge? No. But I don't think NASA happens without defense purposes driving all major allocations, either. Besides which, integrating unmanned systems into NAS has a lot more to do with the CIA. (ducks)
What do you think of the top comment on Hacker News about this? So unless they convince me that they managed to get their internal structural problems under control, I don't think they get anytime to Mars within this century. And certainly not before the private sector does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program p.s.: There is a free movie on YouTube telling the tale: I wasn't aware at all of these in-house problems.Sometime in the past fifty years NASA became paralyzed not by budget cuts, but by political in-fighting, fractured organizational structure and lots and lots of red tape. And then there is all that pork that goes around with the entrenched contractors. The tale of the last Mars program that NASA put together is a great example of this. They got handed a technically sound plan to get there in reasonable time with reasonable resources. Then every org-unit in NASA wanted to add their own part to stay relevant and it got so bloated both technically and financially that it had to be put to rest.
I'd say that's a little bit blown out of proportion... but only a little bit. I'm on a project right now, we're in our engineering model build. My organization was brought into the contract to quell political tension between the existing branches, two NASA branches and another organization. Between the four of us, it's pathetic how inefficient things progress. We're far behind schedule, and everyone knows that by the time it's time to build the flight model, we'll need additional funding. The project will be so far mature by that point that we can absolutely count on a budget extension. When someone completes a project on time and on budget, well, that's a miracle. The red tape? Oh FUCK that shit. They want me to track spare, unused mechanical parts that are built-to-spec Swiss cheese with no potential usability in any future project, yet no one has the money to fund this level of traceability. Am I going to apply power to an instrument? I better check that the continuity and isolation of every single prong matches what's expected. Did I execute a line of code? Better fill a 50 page procedure, burn a CD, and submit to QA for approval. Also, every single entity involved with NASA is so top-heavy because they can't afford to hire bright new minds, but the culture has a tendency to promote people like clockwork. You've got too many queens, and far too few worker bees. Know what's pretty tight though? Sounding rockets. No QA, the small budgets can't afford such a luxury, and they have a >80% success rate. Anyway, I have to work (swamped at the moment), but I'll answer anyone curious about specifics... eventually. Source: entrenched contractor
When you say "between branches" do you mean between two NASA centers, or between branches inside one center? I don't suppose you'd care to name and shame the center(s) involved... My organization was brought into the contract to quell political tension between the existing branches, two NASA branches and another organization
Yes, "center" is the correct terminology, my bad. I've already given away too much information, hahah, sorry!When you say "between branches" do you mean between two NASA centers, or between branches inside one center?
I don't suppose you'd care to name and shame the center(s) involved...
Not feasible. To quote a post I made previously: Right now, to me, Mars looks like a Foxhole with some antennae sticking out of it, lasting one or two human generations. Getting the supplies there to construct any kind of permanent establishment will take a far longer timescale than what anyone's projecting.Everyone is Mars crazy right now. Sending anyone there without some Caterpillar-esque heavy machinery to burrow deep under the surface is a death sentence. Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere, and the atmosphere is ~300 times less dense than Earth's, so it has no mechanism to shield us from galactic cosmic rays or solar radiation. Talk of a Mars mission in the 2030's is still ridiculous to me, unless we're ordaining it the new Australia and upholding capitol punishment. We will have to send HUGE payloads to Mars to conduct some serious terraforming, and the odds are that even if we do all of our homework right, the process will take centuries before it's habitable in any sustainable way.
Word. Yeah, I read your experiences in a recent thread. Welcome! :)
I am inclined to believe it. I've read about their organizational issues, and internal politics. It seems to me that they might benefit from reorganization. I am not familiar with the structure of NASA, but it seems to me that one project director should have ultimate power in seeing a project to completion, and that he/she should alone determine who is going to be assigned to each individual component. Like any massive undertaking, you need someone with executive power over all those that are part of the endeavor.
"We're sending astronauts to Mars!"* *sometime, possibly
Yet another tale of how government/single organized entities will eventually be outdone and overtaken by competition between businesses. Government is good for doing things where nobody else wants to do them, setting standards in an economy, and giving taxes. Not much else.
I disagree with this line of thinking. Government is an organization that represents a collective of people. It is not fundamentally flawed, but can be poorly organized or misapplied. Good governance is essential to a civil society, and to distrust 'government' in general is to limit the possibility of better governance.
Government is a single entity guided by taxpayer dollars rather than incentive to further itself. Taxpayer dollars will only be decreased by the economy doing badly. The government has little incentive to push endlessly to innovate more. When there is competition with another government, it will fund and push nasa forward, but when there isn't, it won't. Companies, when prevented from forming monopolies through either government intervention breaking up large companies or lack of government intervention stopping them from forming, will more consistently have more competition and reason to push forward. Government is good as a tool to push for a goal when you don't want the search for profit getting in the way. Funding otherwise unprofitable research, healthcare for the poor, etc. It is not good as a tool to replace systems that can work fine while chasing a profit.
I agree with that. However, I don't see that the private sector has the incentive to cover all of our needs when it comes to space exploration. They will likely play a part, but I think that some goals will only be achieved by a government funded body. Much of what NASA does is akin to unprofitable research.It is not good as a tool to replace systems that can work fine while chasing a profit.