New NASA Launch Control Software Late, Millions Over Budget (go.com) 205
schwit1 writes: The launch control software NASA is writing from scratch for its Space Launch System (SLS) rocket is way behind schedule and way over budget. According to ABC News, "Development of this new launch control software is now projected to exceed $207 million, 77 percent above 2012 projections. The software won't be ready until fall 2017, instead of this summer as planned, and important capabilities like automatic failure detection, are being deferred, the audit noted. The system is vital, needed to control pumps, motors, valves and other ground equipment during countdowns and launches, and to monitor data before and during liftoff. NASA decided to write its own computer code to "glue together" existing software products a decade ago -- while space shuttles still were flying and commercial shippers had yet to service the space station. Both delivery companies, SpaceX and Orbital ATK, rely on commercial software, the audit noted."
In other words, even though NASA could have simply purchased already available software that other launch companies were using successfully, the agency decided to write its own. And that decision really didn't come before the arrival of these commercial companies, because when it was made a decade ago that was exactly the time that SpaceX was beginning to build its rocket. This is simply more proof that SLS is nothing more than a pork-laden waste of money designed not to explore space but to generate non-productive jobs in congressional districts.
In other words, even though NASA could have simply purchased already available software that other launch companies were using successfully, the agency decided to write its own. And that decision really didn't come before the arrival of these commercial companies, because when it was made a decade ago that was exactly the time that SpaceX was beginning to build its rocket. This is simply more proof that SLS is nothing more than a pork-laden waste of money designed not to explore space but to generate non-productive jobs in congressional districts.
wtf kind of post is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wtf kind of post is this? (Score:4, Funny)
That last few sentences were really inacceptable.
Could someone edit this?
OK.
"Those last few sentences were really unacceptable".
FTFY. There will be no charge.
Re: (Score:2)
That last few sentences were really inacceptable. Could someone edit this?
OK.
"Those last few sentences were really unacceptable".
FTFY. There will be no charge.
You, sir, have been banned for life as a slashdot editor. That's not the kind of quality we have come to expect nor the kind that has made slashdot famous.
Brought to you by Elon Musk (Score:2)
Re: Brought to you by Elon Musk (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GOP is anti nuke? Since when?
I would say rabid environmentalists are anti-nuke, because they think the wind and solar power generation will totally produce enough power to decommission all the nuclear plants.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, a number of the rabid environmentalists along with dems ARE anti-nukes. But, I do not consider them to be scientists or logical about.
These ppl are not much different from the far right wing nut jobs that refuse to look logically at climate change.
And yeah, the idea of our converting to 100% AE, which is mostly wind and solar, has to be one of the stupidest things that I have heard.
BTW, I am hoping that with O being pro-nuke that during the lame-duck session,
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The main risks from nuclear power are all the old plants that should have been decommed long ago. I wish someone would put more effort towards LFTR, as that seems to be the safest possible nuclear power solution.
Re: Brought to you by Elon Musk (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, as if private enterprises have never made the same mistake...
I'm no fan of government-run anything, but this is hardly "proof". The submitter's editorializing is, indeed, offensive
Re: (Score:2)
Re:wtf kind of post is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
> The folks, who wish to see "pure research" continue, can make donations to the non-profit without forcing others (via the IRS' implicit gunpoint) to do the same.
An *excellent* idea. Lets do that right after we fund the military that way. And all the subsidies for agricultural and oil mega-corporations. NASA is such a tiny drop in the federal budget that it's barely worth mentioning. It's far more noteworthy for the visibility of its accomplishments (and failures) than the size of it's budget. And frankly, even at the same price I'd much rather involuntarily fund blue sky research than genocide and empire building.
Re: (Score:2)
So, since you want to get rid of the military, have you called the constitutional convention needed and written up the constitutional amendment?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/co... [cornell.edu]
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Last I checked, NASA wasn't MANDATED by the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
>And we are already doing it that way
I thought we were talking about FUNDING, not production. Why should my tax dollars be available to the military to spend? Let them ask for donations to create warships and pay soldiers.
And I don't see you mentioning the tiny size of NASA anywhere. And yes, that is the core of argument I made (no, not the only one I have) - there is far FAR more waste concentrated far more destructively in many other places in the federal budget. The only reason anyone picks on NASA
Re: (Score:1)
How about "Because the Constitution says so"? Not good enough? Ok, here is another. A country needs military to continue to exist as a sovereign state — hopefully, you agree... Further, that military must be firmly under command of the country's government — expecting no disagreement here either. This means, the military must be run by government — because private enterprises in a reasonably free country are not (and should no
Re: (Score:2)
A country needs military to continue to exist as a sovereign state...
Yeah, why don't I think that your [nationalpriorities.org] level of spending is because if you just reduced it a tiny bit, the very existence of the US would be threatened...
Why, if you spent just a billion [nationalpriorities.org] less on defence, the Canadian hordes would be pouring over the borders within the year.
If its the continued existence of the US against military threat that is the issue, you could probably secure that much cheaper than you currently do. Much cheaper...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Haters gonna hate. And downmod only to then post as cowards.
You mean, the private enterprise, that introduced:
Those "risk averse" enterprises?
The government has no money of its own — it forces citizens to pay for things. Forces as in "gunpoint". To spent the thus-collected monies on things not necessary for the continuing existe
Re: (Score:2)
There's pretty much no limit on what the Federal Government can spend on, according to the Constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And NASA doesn't already do this? Since I went to work for General Electric's Space Division in 1982, the NASA projects I worked on were bid on by and awarded to private contractors. For the most part, NASA provided contract oversight, not hardware or software expertise. (In the case of GE, 3 or 4 years after I started, the defense side of the Space Division was caught doin
Re:wtf kind of post is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Make versus Buy Decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the article seems to be trying to manufacture outrage out of nothing.
It's a make-versus-buy decision. Industry does these decisions all the time. When your applications are unique, the decision tends to go toward "make your own;" when your application is something that many other people also do, the decision tends to go toward "buy the commercial product".
Buying off the shelf comes with hidden costs unless what is available exactly meets your need-- if you need to write a new contract for every change (and since you still haven't designed the system you're launching, there will be a lot of changes needed, as you keep refining requirements) every single change is a chance for the vendor to demand large dollar payments.
And the article's statement "why doesn't NASA just use what Space-X used" is absurd. Ten years ago, Space-X was an unknown company who had just launched their first rocket. Which failed. As did their next launch. And the one after that.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. I call bullshit on the summary's FUD. Criticizing NASA for not using the software of fledgling, unproven companies? Criticizing NASA for using custom software for their completely unique launch system? There are good reasons to criticize some of NASA's recent decisions, but this article is not among them.
Private industry always does better, that's why they don't have anything to do with NASA. That's why they have all their own launch facilities, tracking and all aspects of operations.
All the proof we need.
Oh....... wait.....
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, we have to keep all of those ADA programmers employed!
Re: (Score:1)
It looks like an interesting, useful, marginally informative post with an over the top conclusion.
Let's look at that closer,
SENTENCE N-2 : /. I would have hoped for a bit more details on how the actual 2 projects were done and how they turned out. Probably would have made NAS
"In other words, even though NASA could have simply purchased already available software that other launch companies were using successfully, the agency decided to write its own." That's pretty much what the news article said, but at
Re: (Score:2)
As for adjusting the /. posting, there is a fine line between editorial comment and starting a PC police here, so the article should stand unless the poster wishes to adjust it. Either way seems fine. (I think maybe the cat was already out of the bag that this group likes X better than N.;-)
I'm not so certain the line is all that fine. Let us take an example
Suppose someone wants to post an article using one of the last gasps of denialism, the discrepancies between satellite and radiosonde data. Maybe with links to one of the denialist blogs. People such as myself will squawk long and loud to note the data is outdated, and the discrepancies have long since been correlated.
So in fact, I like the postings of the useful idiots - they are also useful to me.
If some useful idiot like schwit1,
Mod parent down, please. (Score:2)
Bad management. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no software on the planet that is more scrutinised and more meticulously developed than software for spacecraft [fastcompany.com].
Start a Softwareproject like that without having it properly planned or the right people involved and your project will go over budget manifold inmediately.
No surprise here.
Re:Bad management. (Score:5, Funny)
and your project will go over budget manifold
I am familiar with fuel manifolds and oxidizer manifolds, but where exactly is the budget manifold in a rocket?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am familiar with fuel manifolds and oxidizer manifolds, but where exactly is the budget manifold in a rocket?
It starts at the House Appropriations Committee offices, runs in a zigzag path to 330 E Street SW (NASA headquarters). From there it branches out to myriad contractors strategically scattered across a majority of Congressional districts.
Re: (Score:3)
Typical engineer. Should have spent at least some of that college time in Liberal Arts classes, then you'd know that "Manifold" can mean 'many or multiple' as well.
It's short for many-fold, ie multiple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and your project will go over budget manifold
I am familiar with fuel manifolds and oxidizer manifolds, but where exactly is the budget manifold in a rocket?
It's usually referred to as "accounts payable." It's an adapter that allows numerous tubes going to government contractors to connect to a single government teat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See also 'Flight Manifold'. Multiple curves.
Damn CPAs trying to glamorize their jobs. Projects have max burn, planned burn and min burn curves. Not entirely unlike a plane has max speed, best cruise speed, best climb speed and stall speed curves.
Re: (Score:2)
Envelope damnit, duh.
Manifold is also a mathematical surface.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no software on the planet that is more scrutinised and more meticulously developed than software for spacecraft [fastcompany.com].
You write software to fit the need. Nasa invented the "Agile" approach with Gemini and Mercury, but I doubt any of those guys would have to argue with their management about the need for descope in the middle of an iteration. Software is a malleable form of engineering and a number of approaches can be bought to bare to make it fit for purpose. Your appetite for risk and the impact of that risk is part of the process that decides what that is. After all how many software projects even have risk and issue lo
Re: (Score:2)
No, Gemini and Mercury were the programs that taught NASA that they needed a requirements based approach instead of agile.
Yes it was, in conjunction with IBM under Bill Tindall according to NASA history Howard W. "Bill" Tindall started with Mercury and Gemini ground software and later made a significant contribution to the quality of the Apollo on-board software. [nasa.gov] It wasn't called "Agile" back then however the contribution of quality were Agile components like iterations and time boxes. [ca.com] That's why I referred to "Agile" with it's collective name - capital "A" instead of "agile".
We learned from killing a few people and blowing up a bunch of rockets that we needed a better design approach.
So point to the specific incidents where a softwar
Re: (Score:2)
"There is no software on the planet that is more scrutinised and more meticulously developed than software for spacecraft"
There's at least one. Software for US nuclear weapons systems. I once watched a USAF nuclear safety audit over the course of a few years. I was thoroughly impressed with the quality of the work. (Not that I thought that particular nuclear weapons system made a damn bit of tactical sense. Thankfully, it's long gone).
BTW, I think that any software involving digital communications dese
Re: (Score:2)
There is no software on the planet that is more scrutinised and more meticulously developed than software for spacecraft
There's at least one. Software for US nuclear weapons systems. I once watched a USAF nuclear safety audit over the course of a few years. I was thoroughly impressed with the quality of the work.
...and then, as an added assurance to make sure that nothing would slow down the ability to launch missiles, the code to launch missiles was set to all zeros, and never changed.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]
http://www.theguardian.com/wor... [theguardian.com]
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/... [foreignpolicy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The code was a post-hoc white-house mandated change, which provided no added security.
That's right-- if you set the code to all-zero's, and then prominently post instructions saying "the code is all zeros, do not change", it provides no added security.
Yep.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet during the shuttle years the mostly used software was a linux PC that translated all the older systems data streams into something easier to parse by the staff.
Not everything is heavily tested before deployment. They even allow Microsoft OS up there for the mission report laptops and the experimentation control laptops that have to run labview.
I wonder if the ISS laptops running windows 7 are bugging them to upgrade to 10?
One would hope nuclear control systems are (Score:2)
Because if this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Happened at a nuclear power station or a nuclear missles launch system a lot of people would be in deep radioactive shit.
Where are the technical details? (Score:2)
Re:Where are the technical details? (Score:4, Insightful)
The summary is happy to draw a conclusion for us though, it seems. No need to think for ourselves.
Re:Where are the technical details? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Where are the technical details? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm wondering where you buy commercial software to control the hardware support systems for a space launch system that doesn't even exist yet.
Same here. A search on the Google Play store came up empty.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, missing information about the technical side of the project but also missing any details about why the project is so delayed. Is it a specific system integration causing the problem, or quality issues showing up in testing or feature creep.
No useful information included in the summary or the original article.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY16/IG-16-015.pdf
Note that NASA is _not_ reinventing the wheel, and they _are_ using COTS, but since Commercial Software just simply isn't up to snuff off the shelf, they have to write "Glueware". Would _anybody_ trust Microsoft with this task?
Also note that references to cost overruns includes all the work that NASA put into the Constellation Program... which was cancelled, (Well, no longer funded, after 2011.)
if it ain't broke... (Score:5, Insightful)
even though NASA could have simply purchased already available software that other launch companies were using successfully, the agency decided to write its own.
NASA decided to use existing software that was known to work and was fully understood rather than rely on commercial software which could be total shit. besides, they wouldn't be purchasing the software, they would be licensing it which means they would likely have to pay $X for Y computers for Z years. also, what happens when they want to add feature XYZ and they are unable to? freedom isn't free... it's 207 million dollars.
Re: (Score:1)
Freedom _would_ be free if there were a GNU/Launch. Let's show them how it's done! Who is with me?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking about "Space Launch System/d" ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Just need to make sure that those O-Poetterings can withstand the cold.
Re: (Score:3)
Commercial software is available now. Not so much 10 years ago.
From the report:
NASA made its decision regarding the architecture of the SCCS software nearly a decade ago and has continued on that path. In our view, this may no longer be the most prudent course of action given the significant advances in commercial command and control software over the last 10 years. Specifically, command and control software technology has matured to the point where COTS products may provide much of the functionality needed to launch the SLS and Orion with relatively little modification. Indeed, the two companies under contract with NASA to deliver supplies to the International Space Station - Orbital Sciences Corporation and Space Exploration Technologies - both use COTS products to accomplish their missions.
Re: (Score:2)
But according to TFA "even though NASA could have simply purchased already available software that other launch companies were using successfully, the agency decided to write its own."
Are you suggesting that the submitter is confused, or perhaps being economical with the truth?
Our education system has failed (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the submitter has 3rd grade reading comprehension skills and an agenda. And it's in the summary which suggests that software was available, TFA quote is actually "Commercial software products would be a better option for NASA as well, according to the audit, especially given recent advances in the area." Note the use of future tense, not past unreal conditional. IOW, it still might be more economical at this point, but it wasn't an option when the project was started.
The commercial firms which are servicing the space program had never delivered a payload to orbit at the time of the original design specification and plan, and had no tested software at the time. NASA, otoh, had subroutines already written which had been tested and vetted for decades, over hundreds, if not thousands, of successful launches and NASA wanted to use those [tested] routines in their new launch control system. The contract was to put them all together into a cohesive whole. Not a trivial task, but also not writing from scratch.
More importantly there is no COTS software in this arena. This is not Word with a custom skin. This is piece by piece built based on the unique hardware and control systems which are part of the critical safety path of the launch sequence. Even if SpaceX or another space transport company has software they use, it would have to be stripped, rebuilt, and re-tested for the configuration at the KSC launch complex to be used for these flights.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Launch control software is NOT commercially available for STS! Each launcher has it's own LCS because even more so that with PCs the software needs to be adapted to the launch Hardware. Ponder the hardware differences between homogeneous Falcon-9 and STS's heterogeneous mix of solid boosters and cryogenic engines. Yes, one could adapt one LCS from one launcher to another but the undertaking is more a general rewrite due to differing hardware than it is a simple recompile.
I'm not even sure that if Nasa were
Re: (Score:2)
"not Joe's Space junkyard and spare parts."
If that place existed, I would SO spend a lot of money there.....
"Yes I DO need a orbital insertion motor for a satellite... stop arguing and help me load it in the minivan."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Extensible and re-configurable Launch Control Software for launchers as diverse as Falcon-9 and SLS does not exist no matter what any Anonymous Coward claims to think or say. Space-X / Boeing / ... will certainly have families of LCS for similar families of Launchers but the infrastructure to just grab a .deb and apt-get or configure/make/... to port components for launchers as dissimilar as STS & Falcon is nonexistent at present.
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of software out there that's crappy just because it's so extensible and reconfigurable. There's tradeoffs involved.
This sounds all too familiar. . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . .and when the FBI started to develop its' own case manager, the "Virtual Case File [ieee.org]", which was one of the more spectacular failures in Government IT Development [cnn.com].
When the post-mortem finally comes in, I'd be more than willing to bet that it was due to (1) lack of formalized baseline requirements to hang an initial design on, and the real program-killer, (2) constant requirements creep. Because contractors are unwilling to tell a Federal Customer "no" (because it usually results in decreases in funding in the next task order, or re-allocation of slots to another contractor. . .), there's a constant "just add this one little thing". Over and over again, until you have an unworkable mess and a design that looks nothing like the initial requirement.
The same kind of pressures destroyed the Navy A-12 "Avenger" attack jet [wikipedia.org] in 1991: constant scope creep, until the aircraft was too heavy to fly off an aircraft carrier. The resulting legal fight lasted 13 years [reuters.com]. . .
Re: (Score:3)
. . . .and when the FBI started to develop its' own case manager, the "Virtual Case File [ieee.org]", which was one of the more spectacular failures in Government IT Development [cnn.com].
When the post-mortem finally comes in, I'd be more than willing to bet that it was due to (1) lack of formalized baseline requirements to hang an initial design on, and the real program-killer, (2) constant requirements creep. Because contractors are unwilling to tell a Federal Customer "no" (because it usually results in decreases in funding in the next task order, or re-allocation of slots to another contractor. . .), there's a constant "just add this one little thing". Over and over again, until you have an unworkable mess and a design that looks nothing like the initial requirement.
The same kind of pressures destroyed the Navy A-12 "Avenger" attack jet [wikipedia.org] in 1991: constant scope creep, until the aircraft was too heavy to fly off an aircraft carrier. The resulting legal fight lasted 13 years [reuters.com]. . .
Then they aren't handling their customer properly. I used to do contracting with the Department of Defense. I also helped with business development (including some pretty huge dollar value contracts) by writing technical approaches to these RFPs. When we got these contracts I was the lead engineer and often handled some of the project management aspects as they related to the engineering efforts. I went to every meeting with the customer, from cradle to grave. And you're right, I never did tell the cus
Link to the report (Score:5, Informative)
28-page PDF [nasa.gov]
More SLS yellow journalism by /. (Score:1)
After 8 dreary years of the Obama space program; the broken promises, spectacular failures and cronyism of commercial space; tedious and trivial grind of the ISS mission; the side show spectacle of billionaires increasingly absurd attempts to recover rocket stages, you'd think people would finally be ready for the successor to Apollo. Give me SLS and a real goal, to return to the moon, any day.
Tell congress its for bombing children (Score:2, Insightful)
That is the whole problem with NASA, they don't kill anyone. If they at least blew up some brown children now and again this would have gotten so much funding it would have been operational already.
Re: (Score:2)
If they had planted some drugs in her locker and claimed the whole thing was her fault because she was high; I guarantee you there would be men on their way to put footprints on mars right now.
Government waste? SHOCKING! (Score:1)
A government program, years late and millions over budget and still isn't as good as what the private sector already had? SHOCKED! Shocked I am!
Clearly these same type of people need to be placed in charge of our healthcare!
Thank you President Reagan (Score:4, Insightful)
The "outsource everything" mantra of the 80s is still with us. It doesn't say in the article, but most of the work done by NASA is actually performed by outside contractors, and wI would bet a dollar that this is the work of USA (United Space Alliance - aka Lockheed and Martin Marietta) or one of the other giant government contractors like CSC or Booz. It may be NASAs project, but congress pretty much has gutted the real workforce so everything merely has project managers rather than actual engineers.
As for the submitter's (and, to some extent, the article writer's) take, I think they got it backwards. This project was started BEFORE there was any commercial launches of significance and so the code simply didn't exist for a robust launch control system as envisioned. The article does point out that there is more software available today, and that it could be an option. OTOH, we're talking about proprietary code from one of two competing firms with no outside review of the codebase. That's fine for putting up a couple of tons of food and electronics, but a private company has yet to successfully, reliably put humans into earth orbit. And that kind of responsibility is an order of magnitude higher than supplies.
Wondering the language... (Score:2)
Way off the mark (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
important capabilities like automatic failure detection, are being deferred, the audit noted
career prospects (Score:1)
And that's a surprise - how? (Score:1)
The vast majority of software development projects are late and well over budget. There is a lot of competitive pressure that forces bidders to give false expectations on both fronts, over and over and over again. If your offer is projected to take x million and y months, and your competitors' is 4x/5 million and 4y/5 months, who is going to win the bid? Of course, the winner will probably end up requiring 2x million and 2y months to get the job completed (if at all) so next time your bid will be 3x/5 milli
May I perhaps suggest... (Score:2)
May I perhaps suggest... a 2230 E Rocket Launch Controller?
"In other words... (Score:2)
...even though NASA could have simply purchased already available software that other launch companies were using successfully, the agency decided to write its own."
Yeah, other, incorrect words. "...when it was made a decade ago that was exactly the time that SpaceX was beginning to build its rocket." Because when a commercial rocket is being built is the time to decide it's software is ironclad? And that the software you have available from NASA that was tried and true was definitely defunct? NASA has a lo
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, captain hindsight would have been correct about this project, and I just now realized that after making my post. Thanks captain hindsight!
What COTS Launch Software? (Score:1)
The crap of the crap (Score:2)
SLS may be really The Crap. However, the original post is surely the proof Space is too sweet for the flies to leave the pie in peace...
Whoever thinks "private" soft is more effective than any government funded project is dumber the dumbest ass on the road. He does not know nothing about space travel, specially the fact that there are still lots of unknowns behind the "simplicity" of celestial mechanics. These problems are hard enough to turn a well-planned trajectory into the nightmare of a very fluid situ
How they choose contractors (Score:1)
It starts with the fact that they have all kinds of preferential treatment involved. Is your company run by veterans? How about a disabled veteran? How about a disabled veteran woman? Best yet, a disabled veteran native American woman! Now you get the contract for sure!
I interviewed at a few of these kinds of shops. The heads were all FIGURE heads
Pathetic Click-Bait. (Score:1)
Technical details,please (Score:2)
I'd like to know what programming languages, operating systems, development methodologies, quality assurance, etc. are being used. COTS software is usually not designed to be used in the critical operations which NASA performs. Lots of software even says that it is not for such things in the license agreement.
We have to keep the typical moron programmer far away from NASA projects. It is customary for programmers to criticize MBAs and other managers for having no coding knowledge. Well, too often coders hav
Sheesh (Score:2)
Slashdot posts have had their ups and downs over the years, but this kind of information-free, foaming-at-the-mouth crap is really beyond the pale. The article submissions should include at least some informative content - if any dead strawmen need further beatings, why, that's what the readers are here for.
As to the topic at hand. Love the SLS or hate it, whoever thought NASA should have used off-the-shelf software for SLS launch control should be punished by 5 years working SAP ERP's support desk. Well, m
Re:Money not well spent (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I'm sure you're going hungry because an average of $0.20 per year over ten years was sent on learning about a whole new class of planet that may represent the dominant form of equilibrium celestial body in the universe.
Things like NH are exactly what NASA should be doing.
Don't get me wrong, I strongly oppose SLS. But you know, it's perfectly understandable that they keep ending up going down these roads. They have too much infrastructure and too much personnel focused on building large rockets. The infrastructure especially, as you can't just "lay off" (or phase out) it like you do with people, and it costs you money to maintain. And the people making the decisions - congressional representatives - aren't experts, they're just ordinary people, and thus easily swayed by arguments made by advocates of these jobs (direct and indirect) in their districts.
It's understandable. But it needs to be fixed.
There's long been resistance to the privatization of rocketry. We remember the first privatization battles back in the Shuttle era, and how much resistance there was to letting Atlas and Delta go private rather than just disappear altogether. Indeed, the new battle in much of the launch market isn't so much over privatization as it is over "old school" vs. "new school" private companies, with the former offering evolved expendable launch vehicles with generally good track records but high price tags, and the latter offering ground-up vehicles with short launch histories but very low price tags.
Regardless of how this battle goes, there really isn't a place for NASA in it, any more than there would be a place for a government car maker to compete with giants like GM, Ford, etc and upstarts like Tesla in terms of making passenger cars. There certainly could be grounds for a government agency to conduct basic research that can advance automotive technology, things that private companies wouldn't pay for because it doesn't provide a short-term fiscal payoff or would help their competitors as much as it would help them - public health and safety, advanced concepts for the future, etc. But they shouldn't be making cars.
The same applies to NASA, only moreso. There's a *lot* of basic research in the aerospace industry that's either too expensive for its risk level or only associated with long-term payoff for them to conduct. And this is where NASA should be: planetary science and advanced concepts. But getting there is difficult, as it means having both an administration and congress who recognize the need to reorient NASA and are willing to accept the economic pain involved in doing so. It doesn't necessarily mean budget cuts - but it means closing facilities, selling off hardware for well less than you paid for it, and jobs leaving certain areas, even while new facilities open, new people are hired elsewhere, etc.
SpaceX wants to take over the private launch industry and use the money to go to Mars? The reaction shouldn't be "Oh noes! That's our goal, back off!", it should be "Awesome, that will save us a ton of money! How can we help?" And then let them spend their money on the glamorous stuff while NASA works on the less glamorous stuff behind the scenes. "That's a nice looking gigantic methane-fueled engine you've got there - we could hear it for miles when it fired up! So anyway, what do you think of this long-lifespan dirt scoop we made to dig up mucky ice for the habitat? And this water nanofiltration system to maintain electrolyte concentrations in the necessary levels in the electrolysis unit - want to see it? Oh, you're too busy playing with engines? Oh okay..."
Re: Money not well spent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> There certainly could be grounds for a government agency to conduct basic research...
I would say basic research, AND tactical purchasing contracts to motivate hardware manufacturers to develop to broadly useful standards and capabilities.
For example, they could order the first batch of "orbital tugboats" designed for permanent orbital service, including maintenance and refueling. Vehicles which could be broadly useful platforms for a wide variety of services, but would involve some very different desi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. I'm a fan of COTS-style programs as well. NASA can ensure a market for something in the beginning while giving the actual market time to develop.
What I wrote isn't to mean that NASA should "get out of rocketry" entirely. The key issue is, if they're doing rocketry, it should be to innovate - as mentioned, advanced concepts. To develop fully functional technology demonstrators rather than workhorse deliverables. To build on as small of a scale as possible for a given new technology, with full acc
Re: Money not well spent (Score:5, Informative)
Ahem....no. That's the per capita cost. Total cost for the mission is about $720 million, or about $2 per person.
Comparatively, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program cost is $1.3 trillion, the Boston Big Dig cost $24 billion ($7 billion was federal money), the new Vikings stadium is expect to cost just over $1 billion (and will probably run way over). New Horizons was a bargain and exactly what NASA should be doing, not SLS.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
To be fair, Alan Stern called the four years he spent leading the development of New Horizons a blur. That was half the length of the typical development cycle for comparable probe/satellite projects, and put an enormous personal and professional strain on all the people working on it. It is not reasonable to expect people to perpetually work at that pace. The New Horizons program was a bargain largely because it put undue and unsustainable strain on the employees and contractors involved. Yes, it was a wel
Re: (Score:2)
The real number is between 52 and 53% are taxpayers so it's more like 162 million tax payers.
Re: (Score:2)
Which taxes are you counting here?
Re: (Score:2)
Federal income taxes, I just did a bit of googling and found I was off a smidgen, in 2013 the 50th percentile paid 2.8% of the Federal Income taxes and 45% [forbes.com] are estimated to pay no income taxes, therefore 55% are tax payers.
Re: (Score:2)
There's more taxes than Federal income taxes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
using the same argument, we should certainly be privatizing the military.
Re: Money not well spent (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
> It's a frequent refrain that government agencies are overspending and missing deadlines.
The implication being that private companies don't ever have budget and schedule problems. Which is -- of course -- quite untrue. They have the same problems as the government. All the time. Read up on the Trans Alaska oil pipeline some time.
I'd suggest the big projects will always tend to have problems. The reason is simple. Scheduling is done using the most probable time for each task. But some tasks take m
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest the big projects will always tend to have problems. The reason is simple.
Really simple. The big projects aren't easy, and often have never been done before. And that's not how private industry works. Their idea of a big risk is New Coke or Pepsi free. Maybe an app for our smartphones. Going to the moon, or Going to Mars, or a freaky awesome new jet fighter isn't even on their radar, unless they can mitigate the risk.
Or a nuclear power generation plant either. I wonder, have there been any built without Government help?
Re: (Score:2)
The big difference between private companies and government is that a private company who screws up with budget and schedule problems (like Rocketplane Kistler.... a private space launch company started well before even SpaceX and even won a similar COTS launch award to bring cargo to the ISS like SpaceX), they simply go bankrupt and go out of existence providing a niche for a new company to take its place. Managers and employees in that old company going bankrupt don't hold the same positions in any new c
Re: (Score:2)
Last count Mexico gets $500 million/year in US foreign aid. Given how corrupt Mexico is, I'm confident that money is now 'the property' of someone important. He has likely made financial commitments...
It's not like there isn't a money stream to divert. The political will isn't there.
If they wanted the illegal immigration to stop they would enforce the laws in the workplace. They don't, hence it's approved. Everybody has noticed too, hence they are working just about all the construction jobs these days