7 thoughts on “Good NASA Versus Bad NASA”

  1. It’s a good article. I used “view source” in Chrome, found the embedded text, (it contains this bit: “can’t…?”) cut and pasted it into Wordpad, did a bunch of html replacements. Here’s the relevant quote:

    *******

    Fortunately, Good NASA still coexists. Even while the agency was doubling down on SLS, NASA leaders were simultaneously reaching out to SpaceX and other private space companies. As I wrote in a 2020 column, NASA forged a private-public partnership with SpaceX in which it pays the company a fee to launch cargo and astronauts to the International Space Station. (The concept is a bit like chartering a fishing boat rather than trying to build and sail your own.) The SpaceX relationship is saving NASA billions. It also allows the agency to fly more missions than it could have flown with either the shuttle or SLS.

    “What NASA does best is planetary science,” says aerospace consultant Rand Simberg, author of Safe Is Not an Option, a critique of the agency’s overly conservative approach to manned spaceflight. “What it does worst is develop and operate systems for human spaceflight, as exemplified by SLS/Orion.” Simberg and other “new space” advocates hope to see SpaceX – and other emerging private space ventures – continue giving NASA new and more efficient ways to accomplish missions. “I think the advent of Starship is going to allow NASA to do a lot more planetary science,” he says. In fact, the agency has already announced that it has selected Musk’s Starship as a potential lunar landing vehicle for future moon missions.

    While NASA astronauts haven’t ventured beyond low Earth orbit in decades, the agency has achieved spectacular successes in unmanned exploration. Dozens of NASA space probes and telescopes are exploring the solar system and the universe right now. That’s Good NASA at its best. The Perseverance rover landed on Mars in 2020 and is conducting ambitious geological research. After many delays and cost overruns, the James Webb Space Telescope launched late last year and successfully deployed its enormous gold-plated mirror. It might turn out to be one of the biggest advances in space imaging since Galileo first pointed his telescope at the night sky in 1609.

    NASA also reinvigorate its flagging human-spaceflight program? I think so. The key will be letting the agency focus on what it does best and leaving the rest to private industry. As Simberg and other experts advise, NASA should stop trying to build hardware and simply buy the services it needs from more nimble enterprises. It’s time to break up the NASA Industrial Complex. And while we’re at it, can we retire the idea that every national problem can be solved with a huge Apollo-style government program?

    Exploring space remains vital, both as part of America’s cultural progress and for national defense. (Don’t look now, but China is trying to seize the high ground over our heads.) No doubt, entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos will be launching more of their own private space missions. And that competition will be good for U.S.-based innovation. But NASA still needs to play a leading role in space exploration. Let’s just make sure we put Good NASA in charge. And let’s stop saying “If we can put a man on the moon…”

    ****

    Before those mentions it’s mostly some relevant background on the SLS, and why it’s not going to fly very often.

  2. I just temporarily disable Javascript, reload, and about half the time I can read the article. And I see someone beat me to cut/paste of your quote.

    And let’s stop saying “If we can put a man on the moon…”

    My response to that has been, “but we can’t put a man on the moon anymore. Why do you want to repeat that?”

  3. I didn’t pull any fancy computer tricks. I just clicked on the link, and read the entire article. Maybe they decided it wasn’t going to pull in any revenue [?].

  4. You’re also quoted in this story. On the discussion forum I participate on, someone was whining about who this Simberg character was (apparently, turned off by the covid and conservatism entries). I was happy to enlighten him.

    1. Rand is so mild in his COVID stances that I am surprised anyone would take offense and as for the other, leftists always get bent when people don’t want to do what they are told.

Comments are closed.