It may be unfair to compare SpaceX and NASA, but SpaceX is built to be fast-but-risky whereas NASA is built to be slow-but-reliable. We’re now seeing that the fast-but-risky approach is actually leading to not only faster but more reliable results. Artemis is this giant U.S. government program that leaks money—as the Apollo program was—and that seems antiquated, but lots of members of Congress could get behind its traditional approach, which made use of languishing NASA facilities and had a supply chain stretching into lots of different communities. There are real benefits to NASA doing work across these communities, of course, but this approach can get in the way of doing things quickly, being able to change direction when engineers learn something new, or being free to adopt new technology and machinery. There’s less flexibility. And the Space Launch System isn’t reusable, either, meaning it’s a costly rocket that can only be used once. It would be foolish to stop this program now, but it would be grossly irresponsible to replicate it in the future.
He doesn’t explain why it would be “foolish to stop this program now.” I can only think that it’s the sunk-cost fallacy, but I think that what is foolish is to continue to throw good money after bad.
🧵: I discovered this woman, who I call Loab, in April. The AI reproduced her more easily than most celebrities. Her presence is persistent, and she haunts every image she touches. CW: Take a seat. This is a true horror story, and veers sharply macabre. pic.twitter.com/gmUlf6mZtk
There is a cultural battle within America's space industry, but no, it's not Moon versus Mars. It's redoing Apollo versus space settlement and development, with thousands of people working, living, and playing in space.https://t.co/AEEVp3WVih
Whoever had the brilliant idea of building a rocket out of 1970s technology apparently was unaware, or had amnesia about all the problems caused by hydrogen with the Shuttle.
“I would simply say to you that space is hard,” he said at an August 27 briefing when asked what lessons NASA could take from the extended delays in SLS’s development. “We are developing new systems and new technologies, and it takes money and it takes time.”
Yes, space is hard. It’s even harder when you make terrible design choices in order to provide a jobs program for existing workers and contractors. There is little new about either these systems or technologies.
“We don’t launch until it’s right,” NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said in remarks on NASA TV about half an hour after the scrub. “It’s just illustrative that this is a very complicated machine.”
Ya think?
I was always amused when NASA would say that the Shuttle was “the most complex machine in the world,” as though that was a point of pride. One of the many stupid things about the SLS design is that it uses hydrogen from sea level to orbit. Shuttle was down for weeks once with a pesky hydrogen leak. This concept combines all of the worst features of the Shuttle with none of the best. But, hey, it creates lots of jobs.
I’ve only read the summary so far, but this may be the most forward-looking document on space that I’ve ever seen come from the federal government. It explicitly states that the national goal should be the development and settlement of space (it was edited by Pete Garretson). And note what doesn’t appear in the report: SLS. 😄
I’m cited in the report twice, and I may be doing some consulting for General Butow in the fall. DIU is expected to get a nice budget boost in October (unless there’s a CR), because they impressed the brass in Ukraine.