Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackuser | Hacker News Reader

> NASA moves very slowly these days

This is a narrative I've heard, but is there anything to back it up? NASA has operations on multiple planets and now outside the Solar System. They seem to develop multiple major, pioneering projects, from space telescopes to probes of other planets to earth observatories to Martian rovers, all at the same time. I'm impressed.

Sure, they don't move with the agility of a startup, but any SV company would be ecstatic to have that portfolio of operations and development. These aren't self-driving cars.

> President Obama cancelled it, because he had little incentive to keep spending money on his predecessor's legacy

Any evidence of that? Due to the Great Recession, the GOP's refusal to increase revenue (and their work to shrink government), and the current radical budget caps, many programs in many departments - even essential military programs - have had to be cut.

View on HN

The idea to scrap it came from the Obama administration, not congress:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasa-budget-const...

The plan to cancel it actually included an increase in NASA's budget, so it was not about general budget cuts.

That's useful to know. I still think there's a lot of uncertainty which can't be cleared up easily; it's difficult to know what's really going on inside such negotiations:

All parties to the budget negotiations have an idea what the limits are. If party A believes that party B's bottom line is $X, party A will adjust their proposals accordingly. Also, what we see is just a glimpse into the process; party C might want to cancel a project and strike a deal with party D, and then the proposal announced by D includes that deal. Also, we don't know if NASA's budget would have been without the budget cuts; maybe this project would have been included.

>"This is a narrative I've heard, but is there anything to back it up? NASA has operations on multiple planets and now outside the Solar System. They seem to develop multiple major, pioneering projects, from space telescopes to probes to other planets to earth observatories to Martian rovers, all at the same time. I'm impressed."

SLS will end up taking more than 3 times as long and be many times as expensive as even the Saturn V program was, and that is after decades of technological advancement. The current math is that SpaceX does everything three times as fast at a tenth the cost of NASA; this is not a contentious view. Both ULA and Blue Origin are faster and cheaper than NASA too.

>"Any evidence of that? Due to the Great Recession, the GOP's refusal to increase revenue (and aim to shrink government), and the current radical budget caps, many programs in many departments - even essential military programs - have had to be cut."

NASA's budget was not cut significantly, and the current program (SLS) is incredibly expensive. There is an argument for a single launch vehicle being less expensive to develop and maintain than two, but this is somewhat counter-veiled by only having to man-rate a medium-lift vehicle, and not having to start again (almost from scratch).

All large institutions suffer criticism from people who say it could be done better, but I'd like to read something absent hyperbole. SpaceX and the other new players can't reliably reach low orbit yet, so while I hope they work out, they aren't good example of alternatives for flying to the Moon and Mars.

SpaceX is hardly any less reliable than the Shuttle program.

Yes, but I don't think that's a good standard. The Shuttle program was shut down, largely over unreliability.

I worked with NASA for a few years. It made me a cynic about a lot of things. You have some people there who are brilliant and very excited about space. You also have people there who are completely incompetent but will be able to retire in their position in 30 years as long as they don't commit a HR violation.

NIH is a serious problem in all of the NASA centers.

Thanks; it's great to have an inside view.

> You have some people there who are brilliant and very excited about space. You also have people there who are completely incompetent but will be able to retire in their position in 30 years as long as they don't commit a HR violation.

That's true of all large institutions; how is NASA different? Is it worse that other large institutions? Nobody can hire and motivate brilliant, excited people on that scale.

> That's true of all large institutions; how is NASA different? Is it worse that other large institutions? Nobody can hire and motivate brilliant, excited people on that scale.

I agree, it is difficult. But I'd say it is different than at big companies because there it seems more likely for them to eventually cut loose chronic under-performers.

Another issue they run is if there is a budget cut, NASA won't buy as many spacecraft, but they also don't let people go. So some missions will have way more personnel than needed. This can easily lead to a cost/schedule overruns by the contractors, because now the contractor is getting swarmed by requests from the extra NASA people. I've been in meetings where it is a 10:1 ratio of NASA versus contractor. A meeting that should take an hour takes a day because so many people want to get a word in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com