I largely agree with these recommendations. I doubt if there’s been any serious discussion with OMB about NASA.
12 thoughts on “Reforming NASA”
I’m in general agreement too – at least with much of the piece. But leading off with all the pearl-clutchery about the size of proposed cuts and then following that by, in essence, making a case for cuts of exactly such a magnitude seems a bit – odd. It certainly doesn’t suggest any cohesive co-authorship. What it does suggest is three parts written in isolation and pasted together at the last minute before publication. It further suggests that whoever wrote the first part is not on the same page as the authors of the rest.
The article proposes 12 new or expanded programs and calls for the termination of none.
The 12 new/expanded programs include: next gen space telescopes, robotic assembly of larger telescopes, human biology research of partial gravity, space weather, network of infrared planetary defense telescopes, expanded commercial science, expanded CLPS to other planets, colonize the Moon, first mission to Mars, and dark energy, dark matter, life discovery missions.
Block buy of commercial telescopes, for hunting for Earth crossing asteroids, would be a huge boon to that industry. A real shot in the arm they desperately need. If NASA wigs can put their PhDs back in the drawer long enough to work with them and not assume nobody in the commercial world knows how to build telescopes. Mate them to standard GEO comsat busses and one is a good way to being there with off-the-shelf components. What we need from NASA is co-ordination not design-from-scratch.
Dark Energy, Dark Matter discovery missions? I’ll pass until I believe either is real vs a figment of quantum gravity not yet understood.
Yeah this article is schizoid. Like the three authors were spliced together. I suspect Newt wasn’t the last contributor.
We need to save money! So we can continue business as usual! WTF?
People like to compare NASA’s budget to the total budget and say it is such a small % but it should be compared to a balanced budget, not an inflated one. It is unrealistic to think that in an effort to lower spending, that NASA, or whatever your favored agency is, would escape responsibility.
It is a little disappointing that cream of the crop of high IQ Americans don’t comprehend this. Of course when you think you are better than everyone else, why wouldn’t your desires take precedence over everyone else and reality itself?
Perhaps the easiest thing to do is come up with good reasons to spend money.
It could be beneficial for NASA to get big cuts and then regain funding as they find the right priorities and have maximized what they can do under a different funding level. The op-ed has some good suggestions and current funding levels should be thought of as what congress is willing to do, should NASA earn the responsibility.
Think of it as pruning a rose bush. A rose bush will make flowers but to reach its maximum potential, it must be pruned.
Creativity comes from in the box thinking, operating within confines leads to innovative solutions. Let’s see if the smartest people in the country can do better than a hobo on the side of the street.
from the article:
“We need to dramatically expand research on how human biology adapts to lunar and martian gravity. We are planning to send humans to the Moon, and on to Mars, and we have no idea if the human body will adapt to lunar or martian gravity. Industry should be challenged to provide partial gravity space stations to vastly accelerate this scientific research.”
We know from decades of work on the ISS the effects of that level gravity on the human body. I believe it would be pretty safe to assume the increased gravity level on luna would only help the human body maintain itself more efficiently because “up” and “down” would now be defined again and body functions could return to more “normal” state of operation.
Possible but it seems the question will be answered before we research it, which is a symptom of the state of NASA. We do need variable gravity stations but not to see how humans will do on Lunar and Martian surfaces but to see if they will work for living away from harbor. Are we really going to let AI and robots have all the fun, and glory?
A lot of these debates made sense ten years ago but reality has over taken talking.
A lot of these debates made sense ten years ago but reality has over taken talking.
I agree. Potential colonizers or base employees will find out while it’s being done. You’d better pay close attention to the fine print in your departure contract.
I’m in general agreement too – at least with much of the piece. But leading off with all the pearl-clutchery about the size of proposed cuts and then following that by, in essence, making a case for cuts of exactly such a magnitude seems a bit – odd. It certainly doesn’t suggest any cohesive co-authorship. What it does suggest is three parts written in isolation and pasted together at the last minute before publication. It further suggests that whoever wrote the first part is not on the same page as the authors of the rest.
What we need is an article called “Terraforming NASA.”
Oh please. Enough of NASA and climate change! lol.
You win the thread.
Is NASA GISS aka “The Climate Alarm Shop” on the chopping block?
The article proposes 12 new or expanded programs and calls for the termination of none.
The 12 new/expanded programs include: next gen space telescopes, robotic assembly of larger telescopes, human biology research of partial gravity, space weather, network of infrared planetary defense telescopes, expanded commercial science, expanded CLPS to other planets, colonize the Moon, first mission to Mars, and dark energy, dark matter, life discovery missions.
Block buy of commercial telescopes, for hunting for Earth crossing asteroids, would be a huge boon to that industry. A real shot in the arm they desperately need. If NASA wigs can put their PhDs back in the drawer long enough to work with them and not assume nobody in the commercial world knows how to build telescopes. Mate them to standard GEO comsat busses and one is a good way to being there with off-the-shelf components. What we need from NASA is co-ordination not design-from-scratch.
Dark Energy, Dark Matter discovery missions? I’ll pass until I believe either is real vs a figment of quantum gravity not yet understood.
Yeah this article is schizoid. Like the three authors were spliced together. I suspect Newt wasn’t the last contributor.
We need to save money! So we can continue business as usual! WTF?
People like to compare NASA’s budget to the total budget and say it is such a small % but it should be compared to a balanced budget, not an inflated one. It is unrealistic to think that in an effort to lower spending, that NASA, or whatever your favored agency is, would escape responsibility.
It is a little disappointing that cream of the crop of high IQ Americans don’t comprehend this. Of course when you think you are better than everyone else, why wouldn’t your desires take precedence over everyone else and reality itself?
Perhaps the easiest thing to do is come up with good reasons to spend money.
It could be beneficial for NASA to get big cuts and then regain funding as they find the right priorities and have maximized what they can do under a different funding level. The op-ed has some good suggestions and current funding levels should be thought of as what congress is willing to do, should NASA earn the responsibility.
Think of it as pruning a rose bush. A rose bush will make flowers but to reach its maximum potential, it must be pruned.
Creativity comes from in the box thinking, operating within confines leads to innovative solutions. Let’s see if the smartest people in the country can do better than a hobo on the side of the street.
Excellent analogy, wodun…
from the article:
“We need to dramatically expand research on how human biology adapts to lunar and martian gravity. We are planning to send humans to the Moon, and on to Mars, and we have no idea if the human body will adapt to lunar or martian gravity. Industry should be challenged to provide partial gravity space stations to vastly accelerate this scientific research.”
We know from decades of work on the ISS the effects of that level gravity on the human body. I believe it would be pretty safe to assume the increased gravity level on luna would only help the human body maintain itself more efficiently because “up” and “down” would now be defined again and body functions could return to more “normal” state of operation.
Possible but it seems the question will be answered before we research it, which is a symptom of the state of NASA. We do need variable gravity stations but not to see how humans will do on Lunar and Martian surfaces but to see if they will work for living away from harbor. Are we really going to let AI and robots have all the fun, and glory?
A lot of these debates made sense ten years ago but reality has over taken talking.
A lot of these debates made sense ten years ago but reality has over taken talking.
I agree. Potential colonizers or base employees will find out while it’s being done. You’d better pay close attention to the fine print in your departure contract.