I have some further thoughts on the ISS situation today over at Open Market.
66 thoughts on “NASA’s Costly Risk Aversion”
You would be risk averse too if every time there was a major incident all work stopped for 1-2 years while a Presidential Commission and Congressional Hearings, not to mention the media and armchair space policy analysts, second guess everything little thing done, and you were treated as guilty until proven innocent.
Folks I talked to very familiar with the Shuttle system had a pretty good idea what happened right after Columbia broke-up, and knew the risk of it happening to the Atlantis launch scheduled for the next month was NO greater then in the previous 23 years, and but instead they had to do the “scapegoat theater” for over 2 years before launching another one.
Punish someone harshly every time they mess up after taking a risk and they will never take any. Its that simple.
NASA has several options. The safest solution would be to simply load up a fresh crew module with payload…
You made the same mistake here as in your other article: Soyuz belongs to Russia. Russia will make the decisions whether to 1) launch a Soyuz unmanned, 2) extend the life of the Soyuzes on station, or 3) attempt to land Soyuz at an off-nominal landing zone. (Though of course if the alternative landing site is outside Russia, they’ll have to coordinate permission). NASA would play a part in the discussions, but none of those are NASA’s decisions to make.
That NASA doesn’t seem to be considering any of these things…
On what basis do you make this statement?
Do you assume that if NASA were in discussions with the Russians on these topics, that you’d even know about it?
Until we have a grown-up national discussion about [why we are sending people into space at all with federal money], shed of nostalgia for Apollo and “national greatness,” not to mention the white-collar welfare aspects and myths about technology spin-off, the vast majority of taxpayer funds spent on this endeavor will be wasted.
There won’t be such a discussion. Instead, we’ll keep on the current path as long as space is viewed as an expense rather than an opportunity for economic expansion. It would be like having a national discussion on automobiles prior to Henry Ford showing how to make a profit building cars.
Do you assume that if NASA were in discussions with the Russians on these topics, that you’d even know about it?
It would be in a press conference. NASA is not that secretive. They may or may not listen to others opinions, but they’ll always share their’s.
It would be in a press conference. NASA is not that secretive. They may or may not listen to others opinions, but they’ll always share their’s.
That’s both naive and historically ignorant. NASA had many discussions with the Russians over the Soyuz reentry issue that weren’t revealed until long after the fact.
funds spent on this endeavor will be are being wasted
FIFY
This is pure statism bullshit. The whole nation doesn’t need to be involved in the decision. This is why space needs to be taken over by thousands of private ventures making their own decisions. Some will decide one way, others another. Some will take more risk, some less. Some will die. Some will fail. Many will succeed. Leave the whiners in politics and the winners in liberty to follow their own visions. We are almost there in space… Another decade or so.
You would be risk averse too… Again Thomas has a valid point. It’s beginning to get irritating. 🙂
Punish someone harshly every time they mess up after taking a risk and they will never take any. Its that simple.
There he goes again. 🙂
No one was “punished” for the Challenger or Columbia accidents, Tom. No managers were fired; no budget was cut. Quite the opposite. Every time NASA lost a Shuttle orbiter, it received a significant budget increase.
A budget increase does not constitute a “severe punishment.” Statements like that are why no one takes you seriously.
The only case I know of where someone was punished as the result of a NASA spaceflight accident was Scott Crossfield, after the Apollo 1 fire. But he didn’t cause the accident. He was a whistleblower who tried to warn about the dangers of pure O2 in the cockpit at 14+ psi.
but instead they had to do the “scapegoat theater” for over 2 years before launching another one.
That’s called politics, Tom. You want the US space program to be a socialist government monopoly, then you whine because it behaves like a socialist government monopoly.
Poor baby. 🙂
NASA is not risk averse. If it were, it would never fly human beings until it had safe, reliable reusable vehicles.
Instead, NASA has abandoned the development of cheap, reliable, safe access to space. In its place, NASA is willing to continue putting astronauts on ELVs, although the risk of launch failure is provably greater than the risk of being on orbit without a lifeboat — a risk which NASA says is intolerable!
The problem isn’t that NASA is risk averse. The problem is that NASA and the politicians it works for do not properly evaluate risks (and their associated benefits). They panic about the wrong things and ignore much bigger problems.
That’s both naive and historically ignorant.
So tell us Captain, how long did you work for NASA? I curious to know how much experience you have over this knave.
I am, in fact…
Edward and Leland, why the feud? You’re both good guys with intelligent comments. Disagree without the shotguns (although you can keep the moonshine.) Hatfields and McCoys are taking notes.
NASA is not risk averse.
Their paperwork levels might be contrary evidence.
Ken, I was responding to nemo. I’m trying to figure out why he thinks NASA hides discussions with the Russians. Is it because he thinks they meet first and report later? Or has he read too many Dan Brown books?
Ken, I was responding to nemo. I’m trying to figure out why he thinks NASA hides discussions with the Russians. Is it because he thinks they meet first and report later?
No, it’s because they meet all the time and report only when there’s something to report.
NASA already had a press conference after the 44P failure in which they outlined Russia’s return-to-flight plan:
1) Identify root cause of 44P failure
2) Delay 28S launch until after 45P
3) Delay ISS crew return on 26S and 27S
4) Use Globalstar and 45P launches as unmanned tests prior to 28S manned return-to-flight, scheduled to be prior to 27S return
and since that is still the plan, there is nothing further to report, even though there have been numerous meetings since then to discuss the “what-if” scenarios.
So tell us Captain, how long did you work for NASA?
24 years and counting.
Actually, I agree with Ed and considered asking the same question. Exactly who was punished for Columbia?
And as for: Folks I talked to very familiar with the Shuttle system had a pretty good idea what happened right after Columbia broke-up
Actually, there were many people who predicted the loss during the mission. I’ve worked right along side them.
Nemo,
I’ll give you credit that they don’t always report ongoing discussions. However, here’s Bolden’s comments from Friday. Now that’s from an email, but you and I both know they go out to a very wide distribution. And from those comments, we have:
The Russians will not launch another Soyuz booster until their investigation is complete and the rocket is re-validated. Current planning will allow for at least one unmanned booster to fly before the Soyuz booster is used again for crew launch.
The one unmanned booster flight will likely be 45P. Are you telling us that NASA recommended the Russians to fly an unmanned Soyuz for revalidation?
Are you telling us that NASA recommended the Russians to fly an unmanned Soyuz for revalidation?
No, I’m telling you that there is also a Globalstar launch scheduled prior to 28S that uses the same upper stage, and it will also be used for re-validation along with 45P. I don’t know where you’re getting that bit about a NASA recommendation of an unmanned Soyuz. I didn’t say that.
In the article Rand said:
we could throw together a rudimentary life-support system for the Dragon, put in some couches, and send crew up on it in December.
[puts on stupid hat]
The Dragon is roomy enough to have a sofa, even two! ^_^
Would a bricks and boards bookcase be too much?
Nemo, Captain… yes I am bit slow… but I grow on ya… like something out of a bad SF B movie.
Edward,
You need to learn to read. I never said anyone was officially punished for Columbia, merely that it is basic behavioral psychology. Place the penalty for failure high, and I would say putting a program on hold for two years while you spend your time answering dumb questions by Congress critters who couldn’t do algebra let alone understand what happened and want to make YOU look foolish, is a type of punishment. Do that repeatedly, Apollo I, Challenger, Hubble, Columbia, and you will see major steps taken to reduce risk or at least create a massive paperwork trail proving it wasn’t your fault. And that is the basic difference between the NASA of today and the early Apollo days.
Also, once again to make it clear to someone so dense, I am NOT in favor of a socialist space program. Its New Space that is passing up real commercial markets to pursue NASA funding, and groups like the Space Frontier Foundation promoting such NASA subsidy programs like COTS and CCDev that are the ones trying to keep the space program socialist.
Rather then looking for ways to save the ISS the Space Frontier Foundation and folks like you should be using this opportunity to call for its disposal so private firms like Bigelows won’t have to compete with a government funded tourist destination.
If the next Dragon were crewed, it would be NASA’s worst nightmare. SLS is finished if it works. SpaceX participation in ISS may be finished if it doesn’t. Both unaccepable outcomes for the status quo.
You didn’t say that, but Rand said it wasn’t being considered either. I realize Rand can’t prove a negative. But if you are going to suggest he’s wrong, then you might want to consider that the administrator did give an update 5 days later. So far there’s 0 for 3 mentions of using an unmanned Soyuz, so I think it is fair for Rand to make his comment. After all, Bolden kept referring to the Soyuz booster anomaly, and how it is similar to the Progress booster (rather than the other way around). If that’s your leadership, you can cut Rand some slack.
I never said anyone was officially punished for Columbia
Actually you said “Punish someone”, which suggest someone was punished. You also said previously, “they had to do the “scapegoat theater”. If the they is “NASA” rather than a person, then why do you use the term “scapegoat” as if NASA was taking the blame for someone else’s failure. Are you, in your anti-Congress diatribe, suggesting Congress was to blame for ignoring concerns from engineers and technicians and that it was Congress that failed to warn the residents of Texas and Louisiana about a potential disaster literally falling on their heads? It was some Congressmen’s responsibility to warn the crew or at least get some pictures?
I’m trying to figure out your line of reasoning here, Matula. Deflecting to some conversation about new space doesn’t let you off the hook. NASA received more funding after Columbia to keep flying the Space Shuttle for another 5 years (and then some eventually) along with building a new system. Such doesn’t count as punishment in my book. So again, what’s the punishment? Who or what entity was punished?
You didn’t say that, but Rand said it wasn’t being considered either. I realize Rand can’t prove a negative. But if you are going to suggest he’s wrong…
I think you are confusing two different things. You mentioned NASA recommending an unmanned Soyuz as part of the booster re-validation/return-to-flight plan. That’s not what Rand was talking about. What Rand was talking about was launching 28S unmanned as a last-ditch effort (assuming the booster can’t be revalidated before 27S expires) to prevent having to de-man ISS.
then you might want to consider that the administrator did give an update 5 days later. So far there’s 0 for 3 mentions of using an unmanned Soyuz, so I think it is fair for Rand to make his comment. After all, Bolden kept referring to the Soyuz booster anomaly, and how it is similar to the Progress booster (rather than the other way around).
I’m sure it’s going to come as a shock to you, Leland, but NASA administrators don’t always mention everything that is being discussed at lower levels, especially when it pertains to contingency plans.
Their paperwork levels might be contrary evidence.
Ken, do you have evidence that filling out paperwork actually avoids risk? As NASA’s paperwork levels increase, has human spaceflight actually gotten any safer?
I would say the paperwork levels are evidence of government bureaucracy, rather than any sort of valid risk avoidance.
I never said anyone was officially punished for Columbia, merely that it is basic behavioral psychology.
So, now you’re a behavioral psychologist?
Strange that both Leland and I thought you said someone had been punished. Stranger still that you so often write one thing and then immediately claim you “never said” that. Generally accusing other people of lying.
Instead of behavioral psychology, I would apply basic economics. “When you reward a certain behavior, you tend to get more of it.” If you reward accidents with budget increases, what result would an economist predict?
I would say putting a program on hold for two years while you spend your time answering dumb questions by Congress critters who couldn’t do algebra let alone understand what happened and want to make YOU look foolish, is a type of punishment.
Wait a minute. Didn’t you just deny saying anyone was punished?
What you’re describing is not a punishment, it’s an investigation. An investigation might or might not result in punishment. The investigations you’re talking about resulted in increased funding, which seems more like a reward than a punishment.
It’s ironic, by the way, that you say Congressmen can’t do simple arithmetic. Aren’t these the same Congressmen responsible for the Senate Launch System, which you have supported?
Let me guess. You’re now going to claim you never supported the SLS. Until the next time you support the SLS. 🙂
Do that repeatedly, Apollo I, Challenger, Hubble, Columbia, and you will see major steps taken to reduce risk
NASA has taken major steps to make human spaceflight safer? Only in your mind, Tom. Orion will not be appreciably safer than the Shuttle, or Apollo.
Still, if NASA had actually reduced risk, why would that be a bad thing?
I am NOT in favor of a socialist space program.
Right — you’re in favor a government-owned “International Lunar Development Corporation.” There’s nothing socialist about having the means of production owned by a consortium of governments, is there?
Its New Space that is passing up real commercial markets to pursue NASA funding
What “real commercial markets” are those? Do you mean your schemes to use Ares and Orion to mine Helium-3 or Platinum group metals in order to stop global warming? If those are real commercial markets, why aren’t you pursuing them commercially, instead of asking for hundreds of billions of dollars in government handouts? And why aren’t the environmentalists rallying around you, as your polls predicted?
Or do you mean the viable, near-term suborbital and LEO markets, which you’ve been attacking for the last five years because they weren’t as sexy as the Bush Vision of Space Exploration?
programs like COTS and CCDev that are the ones trying to keep the space program socialist.
I see the problem now. You come from Bizarro World, where “socialism” means private ownership of the means of production and “capitalism” means government ownership.
And you expect the rest of the world to accept your inane definitions just because you keep repeating them constantly.
I guess that’s because Matula am smart.
do you have evidence that filling out paperwork actually avoids risk
There is no need to prove actually avoidance of risk when perceived attempts to avoid risks are sufficient. Plus the fact that I believe all that extra paperwork actually increases risk.
Sorry if that’s not clear.
I would ask you, if they aren’t doing paperwork because they are attempting to lower risk, why do all the paperwork?
Leland,
I will try to make it clear for you. You want to go forward with your project, but instead you have to spend two years defending your past actions, like I am defending what I wrote. That is not a form of punishment? Trying to justify yourself again and again to a Monday morning quarterback looking for a scapegoat. The ‘scapegoat dance”. Or do you only think punishment is some formal process, a fine or penalty?
Ken,
They are doing paperwork to document the decision process so when they have to defend it they have documentation to show they are not responsible for any negative result. No, it doesn’t really add to the safety. but they it protects the decision makers from the consequences of a poor decision 🙂
the paperwork levels are evidence of government bureaucracy
What exactly is bureaucracy that it creates paperwork? It’s just another example of making other people do something you wouldn’t do yourself.
It’s office space.
The point for bureaucrats is to have power over others, but no responsibility. Paperwork is C.Y.A. to do that. Especially if it’s others producing the paperwork (that is never actually read by anybody but could have forensic value.)
That’s the main difference with entrepreneurial business. Power, risk and responsibility are not delinked as they are with bureaucracy.
Frankly, I’d rather get more done with less money distributed to those that work for it.
Edward,
I keep forgetting how literal techies are and how difficult it is for them to recognize a general statement rather then a specific one.
If suppose if I said the Sun rises in the East you would say it was too cloudy to see it today.
Also why do you like to lie so much. Where have I EVER said I support the SLS? Any links?
Also I have never attacked the commercial markets, merely the New Space belief that somehow NASA will enable commercial markets with corporate welfare programs like COTS or CCDev. Really you are the one advocating space socialism not me.
And once again you are spreading the usual lies about an ILDC without having any idea you are talking about. But you never have let facts get in the way of your crazy rants.
Also Boeing, Rockwell, Lockheed are private firms with private production facilities, yet folks like you call them socialist just because the have cost plus contracts. How are they any different then SpaceX? Or are you now admitting you are wrong and Old Space was not socialist? Do you know how much folks from the real business community laugh at space cadets like yourself with your twisted word definitions?
Ken,
But if that money comes from Congress you will have to prove you used it wisely, which means documentation, lots of documentation. If SpaceX had focused on meeting Biglow’s needs instead of fulfilling its NASA contracts the crewed Dragon would probably be flying now, or be a lot closer to doing so.
Also why do you like to lie so much. Where have I EVER said I support the SLS? Any links?
This is getting old, Tom. Anything you say on Monday, you deny on Tuesday. Then you demand I provide a link to your own words. And when I provide the link, you accuse me of “stalking” and “keeping track” of everything you say.
It’s too bad you can’t keep track of your own nonsense. I think it was Will Rogers who said, “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”
To be accused of “lying” by the Troll Matula is a high honor. Like being praised by an honest man. 🙂
I have never attacked the commercial markets,
Do you really expect anyone to believe this, Tom? People do read your nonsense. They know full well what you’ve said in the past, no matter how hard you deny it later.
yet folks like you call them socialist just because the have cost plus contracts. How are they any different then SpaceX?
As you just said, they’re different because they have cost-plus contracts. Can’t you read your own words?
Of course, you will now deny you wrote those words and say “post a link.” What a clown you are.
Do you know how much folks from the real business community laugh at space cadets
You are not “the real business community,” Tom. You are merely an untenured professor who has a PhD in business but never held a job in the real world. All you know about business is what you read in your textbooks, and the only books you read are Keynesian nonsense that no economist takes seriously anymore.
Do you know how much folks in the real business community laugh at Professor Tom Matula?
What exactly is bureaucracy that it creates paperwork? It’s just another example of making other people do something you wouldn’t do yourself.
That same definition could be applied to corporate management, but management and bureaucracy are not the same thing. This was explained in a classic book:
I would ask you, if they aren’t doing paperwork because they are attempting to lower risk, why do all the paperwork?
Because there’s a piece of paper that says they are to do the paperwork. That is sufficient reason in itself.
Let me ask you a question. When the last space policy review was going on, in the Bush Administration, what did Sean O’Keefe recommend?
a) A program to develop safer, more reliable, less expensive access to space?
b) Returning to expendable rockets and capsules which, despite marketing hype, have historically had a fatal accident rate of ~1% ?
Wouldn’t a truly risk-averse agency be doing everything in its power to eliminate risk, rather than perpetuating it?
The point for bureaucrats is to have power over others, but no responsibility. Paperwork is C.Y.A. to do that.
Good point. The goal seems to be avoiding responsibility, rather than eliminating risks. Saying that “capsules have a 100% safety record” doesn’t make it true, but if you can get 100 people to sign a piece of paper saying that, then when the inevitable accident occurs, you can say you aren’t responsible because you simply believed what everyone else was saying.
In defense of paperwork, it’s a way of recording information. Information about the design, construction, maintenance, and testing of complex systems is a good thing. Steps in a construction or inspection process are signed off and initialed, notes are added. I suppose we could use a little clarity between essential paperwork that serves as a guide and verification of steps in a process and CYA paperwork which might as well be diplomatic doublespeak at the court of King Louis XIV.
However, we sometimes get unexpected benefits even from CYA paperwork. Early in US history the Springfield Arsenal kept facing Congressional audits about how they were probably wasting government money (back then building muskets was a significant part of the federal budget).
Local farmers were employed as gunsmiths and only came in to work when they needed some cash, making it hard to predict cost and output. Long story short, in a flash of CYA ingenuity, the arsenal solved the problem by having the smiths punch in and out on recording timeclocks and bequethed that ingenious solution to America and the world.
the crewed Dragon would probably be flying now
It has flown already, they just haven’t installed the upgrades. I don’t know why you seem to think they can’t chew gum and walk. Like the smart businessman he is, when NASA puts out a requirement Elon hires the people to take care of it. This is not such a major impact on their operations. If fact, NASA is actually paying those salaries and a bit more all without the need of cost plus.
They have 1500+ employees that will be 2000+ next year. They intend to make up to 600 engines for 20 – F9/FH flights per year (they’re going to need more launch facilities for that.)
This is not about NASA contracts. They have much larger ambitions and are in a position to have a better idea about how that will pan out than the rest of us. The next ten years are going to be exciting.
I do believe strongly in good documentation and feel equally as strong about bureaucrats (in the other direction.) Is that bad?
Edward, that looks like a good book. I’ve got another title coming from Amazon in a few days. Sorry I didn’t go through your link Rand. This old fart is a little too stupid to know how to make it work (I’ve tried in the past.) Perhaps I’ll try again with Edwards suggestion next month.
Edward,
You know for over ten years all you have done is spread lies about people and its getting tiring. Don’t you ever get tired of lying? I support my positions with links. You never support yours. Its folks like you that give groups like the Space Frontier Foundation a bad name and drive folks away from space advocacy.
Ken,
The cargo Dragon is not crewed, and probably won’t be until NASA issues a RFP for it and funds. SpaceX has learned how to play the NASA contract game and has tossed Robert Bigelow aside. Why do you think Robert Bigelow in desperation went to Boeing of all firms? Who do you think is pushing them on the CST100?
Robert Bigelow had planned to launch his station this year on a Falcon 9. Instead it’s first elements are sitting in storage while SpaceX is focusing on its COTS flight. And it will probably be launched on an Atlas V in 2015 instead, although with the ISS now extended to 2020 and soaking up spacelift that may have to be pushed back again. Yea, SpaceX is gearing up, but its not for space commerce, its to fulfill its NASA contracts.
SpaceX has learned how to play the NASA contract game and has tossed Robert Bigelow aside.
They have? Who knew?
Why do you think Robert Bigelow in desperation went to Boeing of all firms?
Because he’s not a fool, and doesn’t want to be reliant on a single provider?
Was this a trick question?
cargo Dragon is not crewed
Duh! But cargo Dragons are not all that different from crewed (it’s the window really. No Thomas, that’s just another joke that will go past ya.)
probably won’t be
Considering the money involve, even if Elon goes ahead anyway (which I more than strongly suspect) that’s liable to be a very closely guarded secret.
has tossed Robert Bigelow aside
Last I checked he’s still on the manifest.
Why do you think Robert Bigelow in desperation went to Boeing
Desperation is your term and as I remember, Bob went to Boeing before talking with SpaceX. Boeing is or was actually a pretty well respected company.
Of course Bigelow would like to see the CST100 fly. Don’t you like having a choice of car manufacturers?
had planned to launch
We all have plans. Success means adjusting them to reality. Life is a learn as you go process.
SpaceX is gearing up, but its not for space commerce, its to fulfill its NASA contracts.
You’re usually not so innumerate Thomas. They don’t need the company they are building just to support NASA.
I expect Bigelow and SpaceX will have many lovely dances together in the future. Right now, everybody is a high wire artist. Things will settle a bit in the next few decades… and become even more interesting with many more players.
I always find it funny when an economist writes about management. In competitive markets firms have a strong incentive to eliminate bureaucracy, namely competition with less bureaucratic firms. But in non-competitive markets and the government it always creeps in. Max Weber, who invented the term bureaucracy.
Professor John Kilcullen at Macquarie University has a good summary on Max Weber’s work on bureaucracy.
As an aside I wonder how many of SpaceX new employees will actually be building things and how many will just be shuffling NASA paper work.
One reason NASA got to the Moon in the 1960’s, aside from not being “taught” yet by Congress to be risk averse, was that as a “new” organization the leaders still managed by traveling to the work sites like the Kings of old that Max Weber talks about. It takes time for bureaucracy to build up power, but once it does its almost impossible to root it out.
Like the NASA folks I recently talked to at Ames put it, NASA HQ is like the Borg, slowly assimilating New Space. But then they are speaking out of frustration as they have nearly a dozen commercial biotech customers waiting on SpaceX’s DragonLab to become available and they are getting tired seeing its launch date constantly pushed back by COTS. Pity Elon didn’t put some of their experiments, instead of a cheese wheel, in Dragon’s first COTS flight.
Ken,
Yes, Bigelow kept his launch slot, its doesn’t cost him anything, but it doesn’t mean he is expecting to see SpaceX provide a vehicle. And he was involved with SpaceX before COTS derailed them, his station was designed for the Falcon 9, as he never liked the Russian option.
Ken,
[[[You’re usually not so innumerate Thomas. They don’t need the company they are building just to support NASA.]]]
You probably were not involved in space in the 1980’s when Orbital Sciences was founded, but like SpaceX they started thinking they could take a little government money and not become a government contractor. But the pull of the dark side (easy government money) was strong…
ut the pull of the dark side (easy government money) was strong…
If the money stops being easy (as it will be if they are forced into a conventional FAR procurement), the pull will be less.
Matula,
I have no idea what you were trying to say in your response to me. Each sentence seemed completely disconnected to the one previously. However, I did note another thread the contrast in your arguments there and here.
Here, you start of saying NASA keeps being punished by Congress.
In a previous thread “Will NASA abandon ship?”, you argue that NASA should scrap ISS and get out HSF.
Perhaps you can clarify the positions to be coherent?
his station was designed for the Falcon 9
His BA330 weighs 23k kg. F9 lifts 10k kg. The BA330 is part of all their station designs. The F9 could lift a Sundancer (not sure about fairing.)
Interesting you talk about Russians rather than Boeing. They were talking to Boeing first about launching the stations. They talked to SpaceX about getting people to them. Boeing then offered them another option for people.
the pull of the dark side [is] strong
Agreed, but you like the emperor seem to think it’s inescapable.
Leland,
Yes, you are an Old Space style of engineer, not able to think out of the box or see the links.
NASA is risk averse because they get put on the hot seat by Congress every time they have a major accident. Now maybe you don’t see that as punishment by your narrow, literal definition, but being chewed out repeatably by fools in repeated hearings is not a happy experience.
Since NASA is risk averse now, and you don’t push frontiers without taking risks, its clearly time for them to get out of HSF. Go back to just testing technology like in the NACA days and doing robot missions. Before they burden New Space with their risk averse regulations. And NASA now has the opportunity to do so gracefully by eliminating the government funded ISS that is in competition with private commercial ones.
Ken,
Think Falcon 9H.
And Elon, like Anakin, seems to be spending more and more time with the dark side folk.
You would be risk averse too if every time there was a major incident all work stopped for 1-2 years while a Presidential Commission and Congressional Hearings, not to mention the media and armchair space policy analysts, second guess everything little thing done, and you were treated as guilty until proven innocent.
Folks I talked to very familiar with the Shuttle system had a pretty good idea what happened right after Columbia broke-up, and knew the risk of it happening to the Atlantis launch scheduled for the next month was NO greater then in the previous 23 years, and but instead they had to do the “scapegoat theater” for over 2 years before launching another one.
Punish someone harshly every time they mess up after taking a risk and they will never take any. Its that simple.
You made the same mistake here as in your other article: Soyuz belongs to Russia. Russia will make the decisions whether to 1) launch a Soyuz unmanned, 2) extend the life of the Soyuzes on station, or 3) attempt to land Soyuz at an off-nominal landing zone. (Though of course if the alternative landing site is outside Russia, they’ll have to coordinate permission). NASA would play a part in the discussions, but none of those are NASA’s decisions to make.
On what basis do you make this statement?
Do you assume that if NASA were in discussions with the Russians on these topics, that you’d even know about it?
Until we have a grown-up national discussion about [why we are sending people into space at all with federal money], shed of nostalgia for Apollo and “national greatness,” not to mention the white-collar welfare aspects and myths about technology spin-off, the vast majority of taxpayer funds spent on this endeavor will be wasted.
There won’t be such a discussion. Instead, we’ll keep on the current path as long as space is viewed as an expense rather than an opportunity for economic expansion. It would be like having a national discussion on automobiles prior to Henry Ford showing how to make a profit building cars.
Do you assume that if NASA were in discussions with the Russians on these topics, that you’d even know about it?
It would be in a press conference. NASA is not that secretive. They may or may not listen to others opinions, but they’ll always share their’s.
That’s both naive and historically ignorant. NASA had many discussions with the Russians over the Soyuz reentry issue that weren’t revealed until long after the fact.
funds spent on this endeavor
will beare being wastedFIFY
This is pure statism bullshit. The whole nation doesn’t need to be involved in the decision. This is why space needs to be taken over by thousands of private ventures making their own decisions. Some will decide one way, others another. Some will take more risk, some less. Some will die. Some will fail. Many will succeed. Leave the whiners in politics and the winners in liberty to follow their own visions. We are almost there in space… Another decade or so.
You would be risk averse too… Again Thomas has a valid point. It’s beginning to get irritating. 🙂
Punish someone harshly every time they mess up after taking a risk and they will never take any. Its that simple.
There he goes again. 🙂
No one was “punished” for the Challenger or Columbia accidents, Tom. No managers were fired; no budget was cut. Quite the opposite. Every time NASA lost a Shuttle orbiter, it received a significant budget increase.
A budget increase does not constitute a “severe punishment.” Statements like that are why no one takes you seriously.
The only case I know of where someone was punished as the result of a NASA spaceflight accident was Scott Crossfield, after the Apollo 1 fire. But he didn’t cause the accident. He was a whistleblower who tried to warn about the dangers of pure O2 in the cockpit at 14+ psi.
but instead they had to do the “scapegoat theater” for over 2 years before launching another one.
That’s called politics, Tom. You want the US space program to be a socialist government monopoly, then you whine because it behaves like a socialist government monopoly.
Poor baby. 🙂
NASA is not risk averse. If it were, it would never fly human beings until it had safe, reliable reusable vehicles.
Instead, NASA has abandoned the development of cheap, reliable, safe access to space. In its place, NASA is willing to continue putting astronauts on ELVs, although the risk of launch failure is provably greater than the risk of being on orbit without a lifeboat — a risk which NASA says is intolerable!
The problem isn’t that NASA is risk averse. The problem is that NASA and the politicians it works for do not properly evaluate risks (and their associated benefits). They panic about the wrong things and ignore much bigger problems.
That’s both naive and historically ignorant.
So tell us Captain, how long did you work for NASA? I curious to know how much experience you have over this knave.
I am, in fact…
Edward and Leland, why the feud? You’re both good guys with intelligent comments. Disagree without the shotguns (although you can keep the moonshine.) Hatfields and McCoys are taking notes.
NASA is not risk averse.
Their paperwork levels might be contrary evidence.
Ken, I was responding to nemo. I’m trying to figure out why he thinks NASA hides discussions with the Russians. Is it because he thinks they meet first and report later? Or has he read too many Dan Brown books?
No, it’s because they meet all the time and report only when there’s something to report.
NASA already had a press conference after the 44P failure in which they outlined Russia’s return-to-flight plan:
1) Identify root cause of 44P failure
2) Delay 28S launch until after 45P
3) Delay ISS crew return on 26S and 27S
4) Use Globalstar and 45P launches as unmanned tests prior to 28S manned return-to-flight, scheduled to be prior to 27S return
and since that is still the plan, there is nothing further to report, even though there have been numerous meetings since then to discuss the “what-if” scenarios.
24 years and counting.
Actually, I agree with Ed and considered asking the same question. Exactly who was punished for Columbia?
And as for: Folks I talked to very familiar with the Shuttle system had a pretty good idea what happened right after Columbia broke-up
Actually, there were many people who predicted the loss during the mission. I’ve worked right along side them.
Nemo,
I’ll give you credit that they don’t always report ongoing discussions. However, here’s Bolden’s comments from Friday. Now that’s from an email, but you and I both know they go out to a very wide distribution. And from those comments, we have:
The Russians will not launch another Soyuz booster until their investigation is complete and the rocket is re-validated. Current planning will allow for at least one unmanned booster to fly before the Soyuz booster is used again for crew launch.
The one unmanned booster flight will likely be 45P. Are you telling us that NASA recommended the Russians to fly an unmanned Soyuz for revalidation?
No, I’m telling you that there is also a Globalstar launch scheduled prior to 28S that uses the same upper stage, and it will also be used for re-validation along with 45P. I don’t know where you’re getting that bit about a NASA recommendation of an unmanned Soyuz. I didn’t say that.
In the article Rand said:
[puts on stupid hat]
The Dragon is roomy enough to have a sofa, even two! ^_^
Would a bricks and boards bookcase be too much?
Nemo, Captain… yes I am bit slow… but I grow on ya… like something out of a bad SF B movie.
Edward,
You need to learn to read. I never said anyone was officially punished for Columbia, merely that it is basic behavioral psychology. Place the penalty for failure high, and I would say putting a program on hold for two years while you spend your time answering dumb questions by Congress critters who couldn’t do algebra let alone understand what happened and want to make YOU look foolish, is a type of punishment. Do that repeatedly, Apollo I, Challenger, Hubble, Columbia, and you will see major steps taken to reduce risk or at least create a massive paperwork trail proving it wasn’t your fault. And that is the basic difference between the NASA of today and the early Apollo days.
Also, once again to make it clear to someone so dense, I am NOT in favor of a socialist space program. Its New Space that is passing up real commercial markets to pursue NASA funding, and groups like the Space Frontier Foundation promoting such NASA subsidy programs like COTS and CCDev that are the ones trying to keep the space program socialist.
Rather then looking for ways to save the ISS the Space Frontier Foundation and folks like you should be using this opportunity to call for its disposal so private firms like Bigelows won’t have to compete with a government funded tourist destination.
If the next Dragon were crewed, it would be NASA’s worst nightmare. SLS is finished if it works. SpaceX participation in ISS may be finished if it doesn’t. Both unaccepable outcomes for the status quo.
You didn’t say that, but Rand said it wasn’t being considered either. I realize Rand can’t prove a negative. But if you are going to suggest he’s wrong, then you might want to consider that the administrator did give an update 5 days later. So far there’s 0 for 3 mentions of using an unmanned Soyuz, so I think it is fair for Rand to make his comment. After all, Bolden kept referring to the Soyuz booster anomaly, and how it is similar to the Progress booster (rather than the other way around). If that’s your leadership, you can cut Rand some slack.
I never said anyone was officially punished for Columbia
Actually you said “Punish someone”, which suggest someone was punished. You also said previously, “they had to do the “scapegoat theater”. If the they is “NASA” rather than a person, then why do you use the term “scapegoat” as if NASA was taking the blame for someone else’s failure. Are you, in your anti-Congress diatribe, suggesting Congress was to blame for ignoring concerns from engineers and technicians and that it was Congress that failed to warn the residents of Texas and Louisiana about a potential disaster literally falling on their heads? It was some Congressmen’s responsibility to warn the crew or at least get some pictures?
I’m trying to figure out your line of reasoning here, Matula. Deflecting to some conversation about new space doesn’t let you off the hook. NASA received more funding after Columbia to keep flying the Space Shuttle for another 5 years (and then some eventually) along with building a new system. Such doesn’t count as punishment in my book. So again, what’s the punishment? Who or what entity was punished?
I think you are confusing two different things. You mentioned NASA recommending an unmanned Soyuz as part of the booster re-validation/return-to-flight plan. That’s not what Rand was talking about. What Rand was talking about was launching 28S unmanned as a last-ditch effort (assuming the booster can’t be revalidated before 27S expires) to prevent having to de-man ISS.
I’m sure it’s going to come as a shock to you, Leland, but NASA administrators don’t always mention everything that is being discussed at lower levels, especially when it pertains to contingency plans.
Their paperwork levels might be contrary evidence.
Ken, do you have evidence that filling out paperwork actually avoids risk? As NASA’s paperwork levels increase, has human spaceflight actually gotten any safer?
I would say the paperwork levels are evidence of government bureaucracy, rather than any sort of valid risk avoidance.
I never said anyone was officially punished for Columbia, merely that it is basic behavioral psychology.
So, now you’re a behavioral psychologist?
Strange that both Leland and I thought you said someone had been punished. Stranger still that you so often write one thing and then immediately claim you “never said” that. Generally accusing other people of lying.
Instead of behavioral psychology, I would apply basic economics. “When you reward a certain behavior, you tend to get more of it.” If you reward accidents with budget increases, what result would an economist predict?
I would say putting a program on hold for two years while you spend your time answering dumb questions by Congress critters who couldn’t do algebra let alone understand what happened and want to make YOU look foolish, is a type of punishment.
Wait a minute. Didn’t you just deny saying anyone was punished?
What you’re describing is not a punishment, it’s an investigation. An investigation might or might not result in punishment. The investigations you’re talking about resulted in increased funding, which seems more like a reward than a punishment.
It’s ironic, by the way, that you say Congressmen can’t do simple arithmetic. Aren’t these the same Congressmen responsible for the Senate Launch System, which you have supported?
Let me guess. You’re now going to claim you never supported the SLS. Until the next time you support the SLS. 🙂
Do that repeatedly, Apollo I, Challenger, Hubble, Columbia, and you will see major steps taken to reduce risk
NASA has taken major steps to make human spaceflight safer? Only in your mind, Tom. Orion will not be appreciably safer than the Shuttle, or Apollo.
Still, if NASA had actually reduced risk, why would that be a bad thing?
I am NOT in favor of a socialist space program.
Right — you’re in favor a government-owned “International Lunar Development Corporation.” There’s nothing socialist about having the means of production owned by a consortium of governments, is there?
Its New Space that is passing up real commercial markets to pursue NASA funding
What “real commercial markets” are those? Do you mean your schemes to use Ares and Orion to mine Helium-3 or Platinum group metals in order to stop global warming? If those are real commercial markets, why aren’t you pursuing them commercially, instead of asking for hundreds of billions of dollars in government handouts? And why aren’t the environmentalists rallying around you, as your polls predicted?
Or do you mean the viable, near-term suborbital and LEO markets, which you’ve been attacking for the last five years because they weren’t as sexy as the Bush Vision of Space Exploration?
programs like COTS and CCDev that are the ones trying to keep the space program socialist.
I see the problem now. You come from Bizarro World, where “socialism” means private ownership of the means of production and “capitalism” means government ownership.
And you expect the rest of the world to accept your inane definitions just because you keep repeating them constantly.
I guess that’s because Matula am smart.
do you have evidence that filling out paperwork actually avoids risk
There is no need to prove actually avoidance of risk when perceived attempts to avoid risks are sufficient. Plus the fact that I believe all that extra paperwork actually increases risk.
Sorry if that’s not clear.
I would ask you, if they aren’t doing paperwork because they are attempting to lower risk, why do all the paperwork?
Leland,
I will try to make it clear for you. You want to go forward with your project, but instead you have to spend two years defending your past actions, like I am defending what I wrote. That is not a form of punishment? Trying to justify yourself again and again to a Monday morning quarterback looking for a scapegoat. The ‘scapegoat dance”. Or do you only think punishment is some formal process, a fine or penalty?
Ken,
They are doing paperwork to document the decision process so when they have to defend it they have documentation to show they are not responsible for any negative result. No, it doesn’t really add to the safety. but they it protects the decision makers from the consequences of a poor decision 🙂
the paperwork levels are evidence of government bureaucracy
What exactly is bureaucracy that it creates paperwork? It’s just another example of making other people do something you wouldn’t do yourself.
It’s office space.
The point for bureaucrats is to have power over others, but no responsibility. Paperwork is C.Y.A. to do that. Especially if it’s others producing the paperwork (that is never actually read by anybody but could have forensic value.)
That’s the main difference with entrepreneurial business. Power, risk and responsibility are not delinked as they are with bureaucracy.
Frankly, I’d rather get more done with less money distributed to those that work for it.
Edward,
I keep forgetting how literal techies are and how difficult it is for them to recognize a general statement rather then a specific one.
If suppose if I said the Sun rises in the East you would say it was too cloudy to see it today.
Also why do you like to lie so much. Where have I EVER said I support the SLS? Any links?
Also I have never attacked the commercial markets, merely the New Space belief that somehow NASA will enable commercial markets with corporate welfare programs like COTS or CCDev. Really you are the one advocating space socialism not me.
And once again you are spreading the usual lies about an ILDC without having any idea you are talking about. But you never have let facts get in the way of your crazy rants.
Also Boeing, Rockwell, Lockheed are private firms with private production facilities, yet folks like you call them socialist just because the have cost plus contracts. How are they any different then SpaceX? Or are you now admitting you are wrong and Old Space was not socialist? Do you know how much folks from the real business community laugh at space cadets like yourself with your twisted word definitions?
Ken,
But if that money comes from Congress you will have to prove you used it wisely, which means documentation, lots of documentation. If SpaceX had focused on meeting Biglow’s needs instead of fulfilling its NASA contracts the crewed Dragon would probably be flying now, or be a lot closer to doing so.
Also why do you like to lie so much. Where have I EVER said I support the SLS? Any links?
This is getting old, Tom. Anything you say on Monday, you deny on Tuesday. Then you demand I provide a link to your own words. And when I provide the link, you accuse me of “stalking” and “keeping track” of everything you say.
It’s too bad you can’t keep track of your own nonsense. I think it was Will Rogers who said, “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”
To be accused of “lying” by the Troll Matula is a high honor. Like being praised by an honest man. 🙂
I have never attacked the commercial markets,
Do you really expect anyone to believe this, Tom? People do read your nonsense. They know full well what you’ve said in the past, no matter how hard you deny it later.
yet folks like you call them socialist just because the have cost plus contracts. How are they any different then SpaceX?
As you just said, they’re different because they have cost-plus contracts. Can’t you read your own words?
Of course, you will now deny you wrote those words and say “post a link.” What a clown you are.
Do you know how much folks from the real business community laugh at space cadets
You are not “the real business community,” Tom. You are merely an untenured professor who has a PhD in business but never held a job in the real world. All you know about business is what you read in your textbooks, and the only books you read are Keynesian nonsense that no economist takes seriously anymore.
Do you know how much folks in the real business community laugh at Professor Tom Matula?
What exactly is bureaucracy that it creates paperwork? It’s just another example of making other people do something you wouldn’t do yourself.
That same definition could be applied to corporate management, but management and bureaucracy are not the same thing. This was explained in a classic book:
http://www.amazon.com/Bureaucracy-Lib-Works-Ludwig-Mises/dp/0865976643/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315448392&sr=8-1
I would ask you, if they aren’t doing paperwork because they are attempting to lower risk, why do all the paperwork?
Because there’s a piece of paper that says they are to do the paperwork. That is sufficient reason in itself.
Let me ask you a question. When the last space policy review was going on, in the Bush Administration, what did Sean O’Keefe recommend?
a) A program to develop safer, more reliable, less expensive access to space?
b) Returning to expendable rockets and capsules which, despite marketing hype, have historically had a fatal accident rate of ~1% ?
Wouldn’t a truly risk-averse agency be doing everything in its power to eliminate risk, rather than perpetuating it?
The point for bureaucrats is to have power over others, but no responsibility. Paperwork is C.Y.A. to do that.
Good point. The goal seems to be avoiding responsibility, rather than eliminating risks. Saying that “capsules have a 100% safety record” doesn’t make it true, but if you can get 100 people to sign a piece of paper saying that, then when the inevitable accident occurs, you can say you aren’t responsible because you simply believed what everyone else was saying.
In defense of paperwork, it’s a way of recording information. Information about the design, construction, maintenance, and testing of complex systems is a good thing. Steps in a construction or inspection process are signed off and initialed, notes are added. I suppose we could use a little clarity between essential paperwork that serves as a guide and verification of steps in a process and CYA paperwork which might as well be diplomatic doublespeak at the court of King Louis XIV.
However, we sometimes get unexpected benefits even from CYA paperwork. Early in US history the Springfield Arsenal kept facing Congressional audits about how they were probably wasting government money (back then building muskets was a significant part of the federal budget).
Local farmers were employed as gunsmiths and only came in to work when they needed some cash, making it hard to predict cost and output. Long story short, in a flash of CYA ingenuity, the arsenal solved the problem by having the smiths punch in and out on recording timeclocks and bequethed that ingenious solution to America and the world.
the crewed Dragon would probably be flying now
It has flown already, they just haven’t installed the upgrades. I don’t know why you seem to think they can’t chew gum and walk. Like the smart businessman he is, when NASA puts out a requirement Elon hires the people to take care of it. This is not such a major impact on their operations. If fact, NASA is actually paying those salaries and a bit more all without the need of cost plus.
They have 1500+ employees that will be 2000+ next year. They intend to make up to 600 engines for 20 – F9/FH flights per year (they’re going to need more launch facilities for that.)
This is not about NASA contracts. They have much larger ambitions and are in a position to have a better idea about how that will pan out than the rest of us. The next ten years are going to be exciting.
I do believe strongly in good documentation and feel equally as strong about bureaucrats (in the other direction.) Is that bad?
Edward, that looks like a good book. I’ve got another title coming from Amazon in a few days. Sorry I didn’t go through your link Rand. This old fart is a little too stupid to know how to make it work (I’ve tried in the past.) Perhaps I’ll try again with Edwards suggestion next month.
Edward,
You know for over ten years all you have done is spread lies about people and its getting tiring. Don’t you ever get tired of lying? I support my positions with links. You never support yours. Its folks like you that give groups like the Space Frontier Foundation a bad name and drive folks away from space advocacy.
Ken,
The cargo Dragon is not crewed, and probably won’t be until NASA issues a RFP for it and funds. SpaceX has learned how to play the NASA contract game and has tossed Robert Bigelow aside. Why do you think Robert Bigelow in desperation went to Boeing of all firms? Who do you think is pushing them on the CST100?
Robert Bigelow had planned to launch his station this year on a Falcon 9. Instead it’s first elements are sitting in storage while SpaceX is focusing on its COTS flight. And it will probably be launched on an Atlas V in 2015 instead, although with the ISS now extended to 2020 and soaking up spacelift that may have to be pushed back again. Yea, SpaceX is gearing up, but its not for space commerce, its to fulfill its NASA contracts.
SpaceX has learned how to play the NASA contract game and has tossed Robert Bigelow aside.
They have? Who knew?
Why do you think Robert Bigelow in desperation went to Boeing of all firms?
Because he’s not a fool, and doesn’t want to be reliant on a single provider?
Was this a trick question?
cargo Dragon is not crewed
Duh! But cargo Dragons are not all that different from crewed (it’s the window really. No Thomas, that’s just another joke that will go past ya.)
probably won’t be
Considering the money involve, even if Elon goes ahead anyway (which I more than strongly suspect) that’s liable to be a very closely guarded secret.
has tossed Robert Bigelow aside
Last I checked he’s still on the manifest.
Why do you think Robert Bigelow in desperation went to Boeing
Desperation is your term and as I remember, Bob went to Boeing before talking with SpaceX. Boeing is or was actually a pretty well respected company.
Of course Bigelow would like to see the CST100 fly. Don’t you like having a choice of car manufacturers?
had planned to launch
We all have plans. Success means adjusting them to reality. Life is a learn as you go process.
SpaceX is gearing up, but its not for space commerce, its to fulfill its NASA contracts.
You’re usually not so innumerate Thomas. They don’t need the company they are building just to support NASA.
I expect Bigelow and SpaceX will have many lovely dances together in the future. Right now, everybody is a high wire artist. Things will settle a bit in the next few decades… and become even more interesting with many more players.
I always find it funny when an economist writes about management. In competitive markets firms have a strong incentive to eliminate bureaucracy, namely competition with less bureaucratic firms. But in non-competitive markets and the government it always creeps in. Max Weber, who invented the term bureaucracy.
Professor John Kilcullen at Macquarie University has a good summary on Max Weber’s work on bureaucracy.
http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l09.html
As an aside I wonder how many of SpaceX new employees will actually be building things and how many will just be shuffling NASA paper work.
One reason NASA got to the Moon in the 1960’s, aside from not being “taught” yet by Congress to be risk averse, was that as a “new” organization the leaders still managed by traveling to the work sites like the Kings of old that Max Weber talks about. It takes time for bureaucracy to build up power, but once it does its almost impossible to root it out.
Like the NASA folks I recently talked to at Ames put it, NASA HQ is like the Borg, slowly assimilating New Space. But then they are speaking out of frustration as they have nearly a dozen commercial biotech customers waiting on SpaceX’s DragonLab to become available and they are getting tired seeing its launch date constantly pushed back by COTS. Pity Elon didn’t put some of their experiments, instead of a cheese wheel, in Dragon’s first COTS flight.
Ken,
Yes, Bigelow kept his launch slot, its doesn’t cost him anything, but it doesn’t mean he is expecting to see SpaceX provide a vehicle. And he was involved with SpaceX before COTS derailed them, his station was designed for the Falcon 9, as he never liked the Russian option.
Ken,
[[[You’re usually not so innumerate Thomas. They don’t need the company they are building just to support NASA.]]]
You probably were not involved in space in the 1980’s when Orbital Sciences was founded, but like SpaceX they started thinking they could take a little government money and not become a government contractor. But the pull of the dark side (easy government money) was strong…
ut the pull of the dark side (easy government money) was strong…
If the money stops being easy (as it will be if they are forced into a conventional FAR procurement), the pull will be less.
Matula,
I have no idea what you were trying to say in your response to me. Each sentence seemed completely disconnected to the one previously. However, I did note another thread the contrast in your arguments there and here.
Here, you start of saying NASA keeps being punished by Congress.
In a previous thread “Will NASA abandon ship?”, you argue that NASA should scrap ISS and get out HSF.
Perhaps you can clarify the positions to be coherent?
his station was designed for the Falcon 9
His BA330 weighs 23k kg. F9 lifts 10k kg. The BA330 is part of all their station designs. The F9 could lift a Sundancer (not sure about fairing.)
Interesting you talk about Russians rather than Boeing. They were talking to Boeing first about launching the stations. They talked to SpaceX about getting people to them. Boeing then offered them another option for people.
the pull of the dark side [is] strong
Agreed, but you like the emperor seem to think it’s inescapable.
Leland,
Yes, you are an Old Space style of engineer, not able to think out of the box or see the links.
NASA is risk averse because they get put on the hot seat by Congress every time they have a major accident. Now maybe you don’t see that as punishment by your narrow, literal definition, but being chewed out repeatably by fools in repeated hearings is not a happy experience.
Since NASA is risk averse now, and you don’t push frontiers without taking risks, its clearly time for them to get out of HSF. Go back to just testing technology like in the NACA days and doing robot missions. Before they burden New Space with their risk averse regulations. And NASA now has the opportunity to do so gracefully by eliminating the government funded ISS that is in competition with private commercial ones.
Ken,
Think Falcon 9H.
And Elon, like Anakin, seems to be spending more and more time with the dark side folk.