That's the real problem. Congressmen with zero scientific education think they know more than literal rocket scientists. The arrogance and stupidity is bewildering. I wish congress would just give NASA money, and stop telling them what to do with it altogether. Give brilliant minds freedom and see what happens, instead of putting them in your little box.keep their noses out of it
Well, you're not wrong, but there's two sides to the coin. NASA naturally tends towards bureaucracy, which is by its nature inefficient. James Webb, Hubble, almost every project ends up costing several times what the initial proposal outlines. It's an entire culture of low-balling, the space industry... just like most industries heavily reliant on government contracts (highway construction, education, the military, etc.). Do I personally think it's worth it, despite the elephants in the room? Sure, and so does the average citizen. Space is exciting! But consider this; We have put so much red tape in place that from a taxpayer's perspective, it doesn't make sense anymore. Incredibly stratified layers of Quality Assurance, expense tracking, systems of labor documentation, configuration control, the list goes on forever. What these systems do is push mission success from somewhere around 80% (now I'm low-balling, it would likely be a slightly higher success rate*) to >99%. That sounds great, except the end cost is ~50* times as much to guarantee that last 19.9%. Probability of success vs. costing reveals that from a taxpayer's perspective, NASA is wasting money. I had the above conversation with a grad student whose alma mater was once vested in Cluster, which didn't exactly pan out. He mentioned the faculty's overwhelming feelings of loss and sorrow upon the incineration of several years of dedicated toiling. These sentiments, when combined with the obvious pressure to upkeep organizational reputation, both for NASA and its contractors, are two rarely mentioned factors that have contributed to the current state of things. The most cited factor is the relative lack of competition in comparison to a commercial market. And yep, I'm all for privatization of some elements of the space industry. The only issue is that a commercial entity has no incentive to fund science for the sake of science. When there's no reason (no conceivable product or service that will result from the science) private enterprise should shell out the big $'s (like deciphering magnetic reconnection, discovering extra-terrestrial life, etc.), then that's where the space industry's privatization falls flat on its face. And that's why we should always be willing to set aside government funding for space science. Can I get AdMan707 in here to comment on future interplay of privately and publicly funded space operations, as per the discussion he initiated concerning asteroid mining for metals? *This number is my best guess derived from my experience of working on several instrument prototypes and a sounding rocket mission vs. working on a major orbital mission (Magnetospheric Multiscale). I've tried to take into account all of an orbital mission's extended operating costs (btw CASSINI is still doin' it up!... albeit with some additional funding), attempted to scale for complexity, and then rounded down by a factor of two. Disclaimer: I've spent the last few months cleaning up paperwork for instruments that myself and everyone else knows beyond a shadow of a doubt are working 100% properly, just because it's standard operating procedure. Little bitta angst at work here. I'm also considering doing a #tripreport for the photos I took up at GSFC, I'm just not sure if it will land me in jail or not.
Thanks for the mention am_Unition! The current state of global economics is based on the 20th century mainstay that demand is unlimited and that resources are limited. This is a purely global idea, and the reality that our asteroid belt contains a basically unlimited supply of capital resources (the bulk of the periodic table in one form or another) will eventually shatter it and force us to think in "solar" terms. The company or country who gets the head start on mining the asteroid belt will accrue more wealth than anyone or anything ever has before. Current technology makes this possible, but it is very inefficient and lacking puzzle pieces (like how to get the raw materials back to the surface of our planet). The country or company that finishes the puzzle will be the dominant force in human society for a long, long time. We have conceptualized the answers to these questions, space elevators and 0g mining robots, so really all that needs to happen is the actual manufacturing of them. This is all inevitable. If I, a double minor in Astronomy and Economics a decade ago can put the pieces together then you can bet your ass that someone with a lot more education on the matter and a lot more money is already on top of it. Or will be soon. It won't be NASA because that would require the bulk of the US population and (snicker) government to have this epiphany. My money is on a multi-national corporation that can shoulder the initial investment without a great deal of infighting, knowing that the return will be unprecedented. Poor NASA doesn't stand a chance, at this point their role is applied R&D in the larger picture. They should brace to have their ranks pilfered as corporate space programs build up, and can offer the greatest minds a salary that NASA could never match. Hope that was relevant to the discussion!
This could once have been said of cowry shells. It would be unfortunate if a nation made severe sacrifices to get at this spectacular source of material wealth, only to find itself with a huge supply of unwanted magnesium in the Information Age. If the global population stabilizes at around 12 billion humans, there may be adequate material resources at hand to meet most peoples' needs, perhaps only slightly out of the way. Energy might be a more critical resource, and thinking in a different kind of "solar" terms might be a better idea than burning lots of fuel to go rock hunting in space.The company or country who gets the head start on mining the asteroid belt will accrue more wealth than anyone or anything ever has before.
Yep, that was just what I was looking for. :) This scares the shit out of me, no lie, even the Comcast/Time-Warner merger makes me nauseous.The company or country who gets the head start on mining the asteroid belt will accrue more wealth than anyone or anything ever has before.
Right, the Pareto Principle. But is 80% good enough? If a rocket costs 100 gigadollars to construct, and 20% of launches fail, then your rocket really costs 120 gigadollars. That's a pretty big difference. Is the work to get it up to 99% really costing 20 gigadollars? If your craft is reusable, it's even worse. Because then you spent all that money on a craft that's only good for 5 launches, on average. What about manned craft? If the average rocket has a crew of 5, you now have a death toll of one human per launch. I agree NASA needs more efficiency and less bureaucracy. But I don't think sacrificing reliability is going to save costs. Marketable products will always result from science. NASA and Bell Labs are the best examples of this. Most private companies are just too short-sighted to realize it.What these systems do is push mission success from somewhere around 80% (now I'm low-balling, it would likely be a slightly higher success rate*) to >99%
a commercial entity has no incentive to fund science for the sake of science. When there's no reason (no conceivable product or service that will result from the science)
I would say most companies are not rich enough to realize it. Bell had a monopoly in its day, and it therefore didn't need to worry about competition. Nor did it have to worry about maximizing shareholder profit. Both have their relative virtues, but neither promotes research. It's another reason why basic science, in our day and age, has to be almost exclusively the purview of federal funding agencies.Marketable products will always result from science. NASA and Bell Labs are the best examples of this. Most private companies are just too short-sighted to realize it.
No, and I'm asserting that it's costing >1,000 gigadollars to get it up to 99%. I analyzed it like so: If 1 out of 5 attempts fail, and I launch 'x' number of rockets, my odds of every launch being failures are (1/5)^x, which is less than 1% after just 3 rocket launches. So introducing a quality assurance program that costs 10 times as much to guarantee a 99% success rate doesn't make sense when you could launch 10 rockets without the QA program to get an effective success rate of 99.99%+. I would say 4 launches, on average. So if it costs more than 4 times as much money to implement a reusable craft, it's not worth it. Nooo, you do not skimp on costs when human life is involved. Not arguing that one, you institute the best QA program possible.If a rocket costs 100 gigadollars to construct, and 20% of launches fail, then your rocket really costs 120 gigadollars. That's a pretty big difference. Is the work to get it up to 99% really costing 20 gigadollars?
If your craft is reusable, it's even worse. Because then you spent all that money on a craft that's only good for 5 launches, on average.
What about manned craft? If the average rocket has a crew of 5, you now have a death toll of one human per launch.
That is the easy answer. The best safety policy is to ground all vehicles and require all personnel to remain home at all times, preferably cowering under heavy furniture. Any useful work entails some amount of risk, and even if the value of human life is not expressly valued, it is effectively valued by the amount of resources dedicated to safety versus getting the job done.Nooo, you do not skimp on costs when human life is involved.