Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

Sam Dinkin · 2004-06-29 08:00:55

He lays out timelines of 150 years to 500 years. Leaders are thinking 6 months out to the next election cycle. This is all DOA.

If Bush took the entire NASA budget for the next 15 years and gave it to the private sector as visionary irrevocable prizes, he would not be remembered as the one who killed NASA. That is no less revolutionary than his tax, terrorism and medicare drug policies.

His suggestions have some value, but most of them simply are not wedded to anything resembling reality. Sell our investment in ISS, then give the money to placate our partners? No amount of money is going to make them happy. No amount of money given to our foriegn partners is going to make the American people happy.

The oil for food program did not cost much and our allies seemed happy as clams to get their meager portion of the take.

Subsidize space? Sure, sounds good. Until we realize that we pretty much have the same thing now, with cost-plus contracts and the like. United Space Alliance? That's what the end result is for all of space with some of his proposals.

Yes, except they are doing what NASA wants instead of what they want.

He just shrugs and says, "change the terms of our treaty." As if it were that simple. [smack my forehead]. Buy Soyuz? If only it were that simple. Take government out of advanced research with the hope and prayer (that might get Bush's attention) that the invisible hand of free market takes over...

It is that simple. Just withdraw from the treaty. If Soyuz is too hard, take a hiatus while the prizes percolate.

While a few good ideas are presented, most of them are lost to the really bad ideas that make hime sound belligerent.

Take the good ones and run with them.

Sam Dinkin

clark · 2004-06-29 10:08:51

Greetings and saluations Dr.

Stopping in for a stroll or a midnight troll? It's all the same to me, but lets see how your Commission stacks up.

Not end of NASA--just end of NASA as we know it.

Your suggestions are very progressive, and while I applaud that, it would have the cumulative effect of stripping any capability from NASA to do anything. In essence, you would sacrifice NASA on the altar of the privatization gods with the faith that, "if you have the money, they will service you."

But I fail to see how that is so. I fail to have the same faith. I realize, it's my own failing, yet the onus is on you to demonstrate that sacrificing the capabilities that NASA brings to the table, and to the nation at large, will be replaced by legitimate private entities.

While we can sit here and both agree that NASA could do manned exploration of space in a more efficient manner, a more daring style, we should also agree that manned exploration is, and has never been, the primary goal or rationale of NASA. Ever since Apollo, when NASA got co-opted by a flailing President for quick PR points against the communist giant, people have suffered under the misconception that NASA existed to put feet on the stars.

And you know what, like a faithful servant, a loyal friend, NASA has tried to be what the American people misunderstood it to be. There was no sense in trying to reason with the American people, they don't want to hear it. Just as your suggestions point out. You don't want NASA, or what NASA was intended for. You want Moon colonies and Warp Factor 6- engage. Oh where is my Romulan Ale!

Yet, for all of it's failures, NASA was, and is, the agency that gave us Hubble. Chandra. Voyager. Viking. And a dozen other probes that have given us a greater understanding of our solar system, our universe, and Earth itself. NASA is the agency, the organization, responsible for our weather sattelites that improve crop yields, monitor and give warning to hurricane's, pollution effects, and a myriad of other remote sensing information that improves the lives of people in the unites states, and the world. It was this NASA, when tasked by a President to go to the Moon in ten years, when they knew almost nothing, said, "we can. we will."

They were able to do this because they had the capability themselves, and they were not reliant upon an incorporeal private sector capability. They knew what they could do themselves, and could commit to the challenge.

You propose to commit them to a challenge whereby they have no influence, no ability, to actually achieve the desired results. It would in effect bind NASA's hands, an executive branch of the government- one tasked with taking orders and carrying them out, to being a middle man between the legislators wishes and the private sectors bean counters.

NASA is about more than Moon colonies and Warp Factors. Earth sciences, astronomy, material sciences, aerodynamics, bio-medical sciences, astro-physics, physics, geology, history, national security- all of these things, and more, have been improved by the NASA we know. By the NASA that is.

Why should we change that so a few Buck Rogers can rocket to the Moon and Mars to set up a ranch? It seems we lose more than we gain.

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-30 13:04:16

It's a pretty good report, but I think it's ultimately unrealistic (the bigger the vision they harder it will fall). One thing I wonder, though, is whether or not we're talking about abolishing the science that NASA spits out. Historically, the science part of NASA has costed far far less than the manned exploration part. If we're not, then absolutely fantastic. Throw out prizes, they would definitely work. Just don't sacrifice that little bit of science (which is arguably priceless) in the name of profit.

BWhite · 2004-06-30 14:10:11

It's a pretty good report, but I think it's ultimately unrealistic (the bigger the vision they harder it will fall). One thing I wonder, though, is whether or not we're talking about abolishing the science that NASA spits out. Historically, the science part of NASA has costed far far less than the manned exploration part. If we're not, then absolutely fantastic. Throw out prizes, they would definitely work. Just don't sacrifice that little bit of science (which is arguably priceless) in the name of profit.

I agree with you, Josh.

clark · 2004-06-30 14:22:18

I agree with myself. Imagine that.

jadeheart · 2004-06-30 14:36:51

I liked some of Mr. Dinkin's ideas, but I feel compelled to echo Clark's criticism of the 'privatize everything for more people in space' mentality. Maybe we could try the Dinkin approach to MANNED space exploration... maybe. But don't privatize 90% of NASA. The manned space program is only one facet of NASA's raison d'etre. It sounds like Mr. Dinkin wants to hijack NASA for the sole purpose of putting humans into space and giving private space enterprise a shot in the arm-- at the expense of scientific gains via non-manned programs.

While manned exploration is a worthwhile goal, it should, IMO, only be a subset of our overall space effort. As such it should not eclipse the other facets of NASA, and privatizing 90% of NASA per the 'Dinkin report' would almost certainly do this. (By the way, how much of NASA is privatized now? Much of our hardware and much of our services are provided by contractors. The number of actual Federal employees in NASA has been shrinking for some time. Just how much privatization do we need? Could the burgeoning privatization over the past couple of decades be in part responsible for some of NASA's current ills?)

To put Clark's remarks into something of a nutshell, what it boils down to is what you want to be in space for: Money, or discovery. I personally favor the latter, but have no problem with mixing in SOME of the former (not 90%). While I like some of Dinkin's points such as incentivizing private industry to be a bigger player in space, I have a problem with the expressed contempt for 'big science.' (The Hubble provides much, much more value beyond the pictures, and I would hardly classify ISS as science. Apples and oranges!) No one does science, especially big science, like the US, and no one does space science like the US. The MERs and Cassini are just two recent, monumental reminders of this. The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake always pays handsomely down the road, but the benefits are generally beyond the horizon available to the interests of our current capitalism. Therefore this pursuit must be undertaken by non-commercial entities such as NASA. Rampant privatization runs the risk of causing a paralyzing myopia on the discovery front.

Furthermore, the article calls for a semi-militarization of space to protect yet-to-exist future space assets against yet-to-exist threats to said assets. Where would these threats originate? On Earth. This is DoD's domain; I say let them deal with it--they have a bigger budget and more freedom to operate anyway-- and leave NASA to science.

So sure, try some new ideas along the lines of privatization (prizes for instance). But do it gradually and see how it works over at least 10 years. The radical restructuring of NASA that Dinkin proposes seems to me like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

ps. Thanks for turning me on to The Space Review. No sooner do I mention the prizes here than I see http://www.thespacereview.com/article/172/1]this article on "prize fatigue."

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-06-29 08:00:55

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#27 2004-06-29 10:08:51

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#28 2004-06-30 13:04:16

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#29 2004-06-30 14:10:11

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#30 2004-06-30 14:22:18

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#31 2004-06-30 14:36:51

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

Board footer