OMB Deputy Director Will Head NASA 17
Baldrson writes: "UPI reports "President George W. Bush has selected Sean O'Keefe, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to head NASA." In his prior position, Dr. O'Keefe reviewed and gave testimony before Congress, critical of the budgetary overruns of NASA's International Space Station." (Of course, the ISS isn't all NASA's.)
Well, not ALL of it... (Score:2)
Re:Well, not ALL of it... (Score:2)
I've always been critical of "percentage of work" figures - is that percentage of mass of final product? Percentage of budget (in that case, do you count the R&D by countries that haven't had an active space program)? Percentage by number of modules?
Especially in a figure that uses number of modules, something like the above makes sense. Even Canada has ISS units installed (IIRC, a very slick docking and manipulation arm). Sure, the bulk is done by NASA and Russia (note I didn't say America and Russia... I'd love to see everyone from Boeing and large pharmacuticals to TLC and McDonalds kicking in modules), but there are other countries participating, even several who have yet to add a module. And if *I* know that (who isn't really interested in the ISS), someone quoting figures like you could have spent five minutes doing the research.
--
Evan
Re:Well, not ALL of it... (Score:3, Informative)
Check out the following PDF:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/assembly/co
You will note that there are on the order of 35 modules. All but 8 of them are US or Russian (78%). The 8 remaining are among the smallest physical modules in the station -- two arms, two labs, two "logistics modules" and some miscellaney.
I would be willing to guess that my numbers are largely correct by most any measurement you care to name: percent of work, percent of modules, percent of budget (which is what the article was talking about -- remember, it's only us and the Russians actually sticking that stuff up there).
It's worth noting that the other nations taking part in the ISS are Japan, Brazil, Canada, and the EU and Italy. Since Italy is part of the EU, I'm not sure why the distinction here, but there you go. Japan is the 3rd biggest contributor, at 4 modules.
Re:Well, not ALL of it... (Score:2)
Except political measurements. Sure, it's easy for you to pick numbers that make sense, but when you're trying to make minor contributors feel important, you can be (and are probably paid to be)... creative with the numbers. That was my point: the "percentages" are vague, and are picked for political reasons. Canada might have only contributed a tiny bit of the total, but you don't come out and say that when you want them to keep contributing... you also don't want Americans to wonder "Why is it the ISS if we're building it all?". Quite frankly, look into Russian source of funding and especially completion funding - the US has shoveled more money into Russia than may be reflected in those numbers.
My whole point is that those numbers are probably influenced by politics than logic. Which doesn't mean that they are any less important - if you don't think so, put ten coders togther on a projectl two teams of five. Make one team five people who like each other and get paid decently, and make the other five people who despite each other and are paid crap. That's micropolitics, and countries like having their egos fluffed just as much as people.
--
Evan
At last, someone with financial knowledge (Score:1, Flamebait)
Maybe now we can put disasters like the Hubble distorted lens, and the Mars lander crash behind us, and let NASA get back to what it does best: world class astrological research.
I know some people will disapprove of this guy's bean-counter mentality, but as a taxpayer fed up with seeing my dollars flushed down NASAs ever increasing budget black hole, I am stoked about this appointment.
Re:At last, someone with financial knowledge (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, I'm tired of hearing this same BS every time
NASA's "budget black hole" is less than one percent of the amount your government spends. We taxpayers spend more money on farm subsidies than space exploration.
I swear that link looked OK in Preview.... (Score:1)
Re:At last, someone with financial knowledge (Score:1)
While O'Keefe may be good at finance, I hope that he keeps the astrologers out of NASA.
Especially that irritating west indian psychic from cable tv advertisements.
Over and Out.
D
Re:At last, someone with financial knowledge (Score:1)
Ummm, I hope you meant astronautical, astronomical, and/or aeronautical.
I'd like to leave astrology to the TV psychics, please...
Re:At last, someone with financial knowledge (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, I think what you refer to as "NASAs ever increasing budget black hole" is a good place for him to make a difference. Every time someone posts a NASA related story on /. there are hordes of replies about the horridly expensive monkey-wrenches and toilet plungers that NASA spends its money on. I don't know how much of that is true, but there's bound to be some grain of truth to it. So it might not necessarily be this guy's financial knowledge that makes a difference, but simply a commonsense money-saving mindset. Perhaps he can learn from team that built the budget satellite that was posted here a few days ago.
Still, don't forget he is a government official.
Re:At last, someone with financial knowledge (Score:1, Interesting)
It's one thing to build a satellite for $50K. It's another thing entirely to build one that will last for 3 (or more years) and do something useful. Reliability costs $$$. Interesting instruments for scientific investigations cost $$$.
If the $50K satellite stops working tomorrow it will still be remembered as a success. Since it doesn't do anything useful, no one will miss it. If it were a NASA project and it were to fail, it would make headlines regardless of the price tag.
If there's one thing "Smaller, Faster, Cheaper" taught us, it's that 100 successes don't make up for a single failure in the eyes of the media. Failure is front page news. Success is consigned to the lower left corner of page 23.
What NASA doesn't need now is a penny pincher. What NASA does need is someone who will put science above politics when setting priorities. I guess we'll see which of those we're getting in due time.
Re:At last, someone with financial knowledge (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's not forget that your first "disaster" was eventually fixed. The loss of the Mars probes was regrettable, but I wouldn't classify them as disasters, either. The thing is, it's extremely hard to send a probe to Mars. Goldin's "Better, Faster, Cheaper" initiative was implemented in direct recognition of the probability that deep space missions will occassionally be lost, so by having many smaller missions instead of few large missions, the loss of individual missions, when (not if) they occur, will not be disasters to the overall program.
O'Keefe doesn't understand the importance of NASA (Score:1)
He's a bean-counter, not a geek. I see no evidence that he "gets" the importance of becoming a spacefaring species. We need someone who passionately believes in a grand vision for the future.
WTF I posted this on Tuesday and it was rejected!! (Score:1)