You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I don't know all that much about the NASA administration, but from what I can gather it seems to me that the main problem lies the corporate-state partnership which has characterized NASA virtually ever since it was created. Instead of focusing on doing things which actually benefit science, NASA is instead focused on pursuing projects which reward private corporations at the expense of the public. In fact, within the resources of NASA, the more it can spend, the better, because the contracts grow fatter as the money gets larger, and the more profits go into the hands of the corporations. Look, things like SEI didn't just drop out of nowhere--they were created for a reason.
It seems to me that we really ought to just cut corporations out the deal entirely--just get rid of the whole thing, nationalize it. I mean, 80% of DoD contracts are reportedly made without any serious competition between companies, and I don't expect NASA to do be much better. So plainly, even if there should be something to it in the first place, the idea that competition would be eliminated from this is just not true--there really isn't much competition anyway. In fact, if we nationalized the resources that NASA needs to do its missions, we'd cut out a huge amount of waste and needless bureaucracy.
Another thing which is really needed inside NASA is: more autonomy. There should be less interference from Congress and more ability for the organization--especially the people at the bottom of the organization who really understand what is going on at the technical level--to make more decisions. Congress has interfered countless times in the past to make various proposals less workable and with a point. The ISS is a case in point: Al Gore deliberately intervened at one point to scrap a much more efficient design because he wanted it to be an international mission, which incidentally wasn't possible with that design (it was too simple). Remember the part in the Case for Mars when Zubrin says, yeah, we were presenting Mars Direct, and the old engineers in the place who remembered Apollo started saying..."Wow this is something we could actually do". Those are the people who need to be more empowered to make decisions, not government bureaucrats who have an agenda of power.
Well, I don't work at NASA, and I don't claim to know nearly as much about how it works as people who actually do, but these are my thoughts on the matter as of now. If anyone would like to comment, that would be appreciated.
Offline
Like button can go here
Hmm, didn't realize the ISS was initally intended to be more efficient. Makes me less annoyed that it's a piece of crap when I learn that it was done for internationalization (which ultimately is a very noble goal). I mean, had it been more efficient what would we have called it? USSS? Heh.
I think that NASA could be better if it were simply privitized to an extent. I'm not talking to an extent where people can personally make profit, I'm talking about to the extent the USPS is commercialized. It could really kick off fast international travel (space jets that can go from and to anywhere in the world in 90 minutes), if not kickstart a sort of space tourism. As long as NASA stays as open as it is, I see no problem with anything related to commercialization.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
Like button can go here
Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I mean, a lot of the "commercialization" that NASA has done in the past basically works like this--companies make the profit, while NASA takes the risk for them. You hear a lot of stuff about "working with the private sector", in the past that has basically translated into the above. It seems to me that this is the case because private companies are simply not willing to take this kind of risk, because private companies have something really bad which can happen to them if such a risk fails: bankruptcy. From the point of view of just straight profit, it is a lot easier to basically just remain where you are and not worry about things like that. This might also interact with the fact that there are only a few big conglomerates capable of sending a man into space, even if they wanted to.
It seems to me that if our objective is to build societies and colonize new worlds, we should create organizations whose focus is actually doing that--not simply getting the most power for the least effort, as corporations do in our present system.
Offline
Like button can go here
Can you cite an example where NASA takes the risk for a company? I wasn't aware that NASA was involved in the private sector at all. I know that the private sector has been commissioned by NASA to design things, and so on (if it failed, obviously NASA would have to bare the costs, but I think insurance is available in any case), but NASA would ultimately get the technology created by such projects. And I don't think the designers would have any rights to that technology.
So I was under the impression that NASA used the private sector from a resource perspective.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
Like button can go here
Hmm, didn't realize the ISS was initally intended to be more efficient. Makes me less annoyed that it's a piece of crap when I learn that it was done for internationalization (which ultimately is a very noble goal). I mean, had it been more efficient what would we have called it? USSS? Heh.
I think that NASA could be better if it were simply privitized to an extent. I'm not talking to an extent where people can personally make profit, I'm talking about to the extent the USPS is commercialized. It could really kick off fast international travel (space jets that can go from and to anywhere in the world in 90 minutes), if not kickstart a sort of space tourism. As long as NASA stays as open as it is, I see no problem with anything related to commercialization.
First, you have to be able to support more than three persons aboard the ISS with escape capability. The only way now has been via a single Soyuz-TM three-seater spaceraft, and now six, I believe, with two Soyuz-TM's docked...since Congress allowed the 10-plus passenger "lifeboat" project to die for lack of funds, a while back. Private enterprise would be advised, now, to revive this lifeboat project in order to capitalize on the ISS's potential for ten or more persons on board, to include besides operating crew, space scientists and/or cash paying tourists.
Offline
Like button can go here
I'm not an expert on NASA's policy to corporations, and I would like to answer your questions about the structure of exactly what goes on, but I really need to do some research first. It should be pretty useful to know these things. Sort of an interface between between science and politics.
I don't have any particular objection to private enterprise participating where it is useful under the existing system--but generally I think that we should try to create a network of decentralized, voluntary organizations whose purpose is to colonize space (and a vast number of other goals which the people making up the organizations feel is important--as opposed to what the CEO or stockholders or Congress does), and ultimately I think that means getting rid of capitalism entirely. But I mean, you have be flexible, I think--because you get to a certain point where you can't really push any farther without making major changes on a national level.
I suppose I'll just add one more thing, also--I think there was some message that Mark was talking about how NASA's role is create jobs--well, that's true, but I think what is more important is that NASA is creating profits.
Offline
Like button can go here
Well, I think the key to understanding how NASA works is that there are two basic sides to get things done.
The first side is that someone in the upper echelon has an idea; they send out a request for contracts, and people or companies which are applicable can apply.
But then there's the proposal based side of NASA's funding. Where anyone can propose to NASA what they want to work on, and request funds to work on it.
The former is mostly exhausted in military, but some parts exist in it, such as the space shuttle, which are civilian. The latter is arguably decentralized, because there are different parts of NASA which appeal to different functions of space travel.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that probably 95% of all research comes from the grant based side. But probably 95% of funds to go the other side. The Shuttle eats up most of NASA's budget. If NASA were to take that money and invest it in grant based ideas, we would definitely have a better, faster turnaround, cheaper launch system.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
Like button can go here
I suppose I'll just add one more thing, also--I think there was some message that Mark was talking about how NASA's role is create jobs--well, that's true, but I think what is more important is that NASA is creating profits.
I've said many atime that NASA is treated as a federal jobs program. I just wanted to clear up any misconceptions by saying that I believe NASA should NOT be treated this way. NASA's job is to perform scientific research that cannot or will not be performed by the private sector.
Rather than nationalizing the business of exploring space (which is inherently un-American,) space should be largely privatized. NASA will have a role, but it will act as both an oversight body and a user of private space vehicles, rather than the operator of space vehicles.
It's possible to make the case that NASA has created profits for the private sector (by encouraging companies to make dual-use products and space spinoffs,) but exploration has been largely unprofitable for NASA. That's why the shuttle and ISS have exceeded their budgets. If the Shuttle was sold off and ISS operations were given to a private company, NASA's operating budget would be much cheaper. For the same reasons, the armed forces contract a good share of their work, especially maintenance, to the private sector.
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline
Like button can go here
Well, I agree with you that exploration has been unprofitable for NASA--I mean, if NASA was a private corporation, it would go bankrupt almost immediately.
However, what NASA does do is provide a free flow of funds to numerous corporations, in make it a lot easier for them to be profitable and carry out research. If NASA wasn't there to do that, then companies wouldn't carry out nearly as much R&D as they do now--because R&D, although it may benefit society a long ways down the road, is in many cases unprofitable in the short term, especially to one corporation.
But why are we allowing companies to exist simply off of a flow of public funding? I mean, even from a capitalist perspective, that doesn't make any sense.
The objective of such nationalization wouldn't be to bring engineers and other people who want to help develop space under the control of Congress--it would be to free from the unproductive, corrupt, hierarchial system we have right now which is based on corporations. The role of Congress ought to be minimized. The whole point is autonomy.
Offline
Like button can go here
Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and the rest would do just fine without public funding from NASA. I'd even bet they could susrvive without their defense business because the companies are so diversified.
Bringing the industry under NASA's control and saying that you'd minimise the role of Congress is like saying you'd rob a bank but not touch the money. Congress will be at every turn in NASA's decision-making process because NASA is a federal organization which receives federal dollars. Congress is not content falling asleep at the switch and letting their subordinate organizations spend their money.
Mankind will be a spacefaring society one there is a need for space. There is no way that a government organization can accomplish a need on that scale. Only the free-market, capitalist forces can force us to take advantage of space--whether the need arise from space mining, space tourism, or satellite communications and imagery. Space is a place to be taken advantage of, not a program.
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline
Like button can go here
Yeah, I agree. NASA gives us nothing in the way of colonization, or tourism, or just basic space exploitation. NASA is really just a grant program.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
Like button can go here
"Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and the rest would do just fine without public funding from NASA. I'd even bet they could susrvive without their defense business because the companies are so diversified."
Well, the Department of Defense is almost thirty times bigger, dollar for dollar, than NASA. I mean, I suppose it would be possible that the companies themselves could survive if the so-called pentagon system was dissolved, but under a "free market" as it is called, they would pursue a lot less activity that was productive for colonizing space, and doing other things which are related to NASA and the DoD, then they do now.
"Congress will be at every turn in NASA's decision-making process because NASA is a federal organization which receives federal dollars."
This may be--and I agree with you, that's very unfortunate. But the same thing applies to the current corporate system we have now--stockholders will be at every turn in a private company's funding, because the company is controlled by them and recieves their dollars. So who would you rather have--extremely wealthy people dictating what the organization does, or elected officials dictating what the organization does? I mean, ideally, we don't want anybody dictating what the organization does, we want the people who make up the organization to decide how they want to operate themselves--that's the most productive arrangement, as far as I can see.
I guess from the standpoint of colonizing space you can use both. When the goals of short term private profit and sound colonization interfere, I suppose it is better to use government planning. When they don't--when people looking to make a profit find that they can do that easily by going into space--then there isn't any need.
I can't really see any simple answer here--there isn't any sort of organization which currently exists in our society which is clear cut that I think you can just turn to and say "this is the kind of organization we want". There are various organizations which combine some aspects, and others which combine other aspects. I guess it just depends on the situation.
I mean, ideally what I'd like to see is an organization where people can just come and work and talk about what they want to do, rather than having everything dictated by a superior with corrupt goals. Sort of like this society, actually--but unfortunately there are a lot of things in our current system which make it difficult to get very big without serving the useless interests of power.
Offline
Like button can go here
Hi all,
I am also a strong believer that private companies should be more involved in the space exploration and commercialization.
NASA's role is to be more involved in sciences and research in strategic fields.
But one idea today: Mars is not defined in a potential market yet and it is not obvious how companies could make money with Mars, but I am sure that the Mars colonization would stimulate the economy and technology the same way wars do even if it's not their primary purpose.
Offline
Like button can go here
Pages: 1