Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday July 31 2016, @05:43AM   Printer-friendly

At the request of Congress, the nonpartisan US Government Accountability Office reviews the finances and management of federal programs, and this week it released a study critical of NASA’s crew capsule, Orion. Most worryingly, the 56-page report (PDF) regularly draws parallels between the Orion program and another large NASA project, the James Webb Space Telescope. The successor to the Hubble Space Telescope is notorious for ballooning from a 10-year, $500 million project to a 20-year, $8.8 billion (£6.7 billion) instrument that may finally launch in 2018.

Although Orion has not yet experienced such dramatic increases in costs, the spacecraft is now into its second decade of development. NASA estimates that it will spend a total of $16 billion (£12 billion) to ready Orion for its first crewed flight in April 2023. However, the GAO review, signed by Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management Cristina T. Chaplain, did not find these numbers to be reliable.

The federal auditing agency based this conclusion on the fact that only a handful of NASA’s methods for estimating costs and schedule were consistent with “best practices.” Moreover, the GAO found, in making a number of its estimates, NASA appears to be relying too heavily on data analysis from the primary contractor for Orion, Lockheed Martin. In regard to Orion’s cost and schedule estimates, then, the GAO report concludes, “They do not fully reflect the characteristics of quality cost or schedule estimates and neither estimate can be considered reliable.”

[...] Few blame the NASA engineers themselves for these difficulties, but rather changing requirements and bloated government procurement processes for a program that formally began in 2006. The 5-meter capsule has seen significant modifications during that time, first envisioned as a means to transport astronauts to the space station and now more focused on deep space exploration.

[...] It's nevertheless striking that it will probably take NASA about 17 years to design and develop Orion before finally flying its first crewed mission in 2023. During the same amount of time, from 1964 to 1981, the space program flew the Gemini spacecraft; designed, developed, and flew the Apollo capsule; and designed, developed, and flew the much more complex space shuttle.

Source: ArsTechnica

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 31 2016, @08:34AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 31 2016, @08:34AM (#382212) Journal

    Given the choice, I'd say the real problem is the customer. The contractor may take advantage of an ignorant customer, but the customer is the real culprit here. In both cases, the F-35, and NASA, the customer doesn't really know what he wants or needs, so he's asking for all the bling possible. Somewhat like a kid shopping for a car. His primary concerns are, loud exhaust, big chrome wheels, nice stereo, and, uh, uh, uh, what's that "overhead cam" thing, anyway?

    If the customer, Uncle Sam in this case, approached the contractors with definite goals in mind, and drew the line at those specifications that meet those goals, then the customer could probably haggle for a good price. As long as the customer has little idea what his goals are, he is at the mercy of the contractors. In the case of the F-35, we get an air-jeep, supposedly capable of any mission, but it won't excel at any mission. Note the word "supposedly" in that preceding sentence.

    In the case of NASA, there is no defined mission from congress. If a mission were defined, such as, "We need a base on Mars capable of supporting 25 personnel within ten years", then NASA would have a much better idea what they need to do.

    I ask, "What IS NASA's mission?" I suppose that NASA is little more than a political football. http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/unbelievable-obama-made-nasa-into-muslim-outreach-and-now-bans-this-christian-word/ [thepoliticalinsider.com]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Flamebait=1, Insightful=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Pslytely Psycho on Sunday July 31 2016, @10:36AM

    by Pslytely Psycho (1218) on Sunday July 31 2016, @10:36AM (#382227)

    You do know that this was a single instance, and that the concern at the time was being a government agency, it could be perceived as supporting a specific religion?
    NASA does not ban the word 'Jesus' from internal communications between employees. It was an overreach by their legal department and they clarified their position on it.

    Oh, and contrary to that shit rag you linked too? Obama had NOTHING to do with it.
    Every single article on that page was B.S.

    Conspiracy theories and overblown innuendo.

    Do you even TRY to find out the truth, or are you content in your psychotic echo chamber?

    Gotta admit though, Obama makes NASA into a Muslim outreach gave me a giggle at first, then the realization hit me that people like you actually believe these fairy stories.

    --
    Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 31 2016, @11:09AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 31 2016, @11:09AM (#382232) Journal

      The "shitrag" I linked to? Well - I do a Google search, and there are pages of hits. Limbaugh, shoebat, mediamatters, barenakedislam, dailycaller, on and on. What I DO NOT SEE is a "credible" site explaining away the muslim outreach thing. If the "shitrags" are carrying a story, and MSM doesn't cover it at all, then what is a person to believe?

      Do you have links? If the sites I'm reading have it all wrong, then maybe you can make it all right?

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by goody on Sunday July 31 2016, @12:19PM

        by goody (2135) on Sunday July 31 2016, @12:19PM (#382246)

        If credible sites had to debunk everything the conservative shitrags put out, there would be no time for real news. You can tell this site is garbage because they note that OMG "Obama visited a mosque" and "Unfortunately, Americans still voted for this miscreant". Also, Obama said he would "side with Muslims in his book", but no indication of which of his four books or any clue as to what original quote he's referring to. Great journalism there by "Soopermexican". There are pages of hits because after one right wing outrage outlet publishes a story, all the other ones publish articles linking to the original story. This is all part of the conservative methodology: flood the media with crap, make it sound like the world is going to hell, overwhelm anyone who wants to debunk it, have their minions spew it to everyone over and over, and then everyone just thinks it's true and the Republicans are the only ones who can save us from impending doom.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday August 01 2016, @03:29AM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday August 01 2016, @03:29AM (#382461)

          Yeah, Obama sided with all those muslims alright, how many more drone strikes did he approve compared to W?

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @03:21AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @03:21AM (#382979)

          Being conservative doesn't make a site a "shitrag" or "garbage".

          The fact that Obama visited a mosque is certainly suspicious. It suggests affinity with those who are opposed to US values. Let's try this the other way: imagine a republican president who visits a KKK meeting place. He just visits. Is that OK? He's not a member or anything like that, so perfectly fine with you?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday July 31 2016, @01:57PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 31 2016, @01:57PM (#382271) Journal

        What I DO NOT SEE is a "credible" site explaining away the muslim outreach thing.

        Well, what is there to explain away? I don't see anything to this story in the first place because NASA hasn't done anything to warrant concern.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 31 2016, @02:41PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 31 2016, @02:41PM (#382278)

        Welcome to the search bubble, where you only see things which your search engine knows agree with your world view.
        Do not pass go, do not collect USD 200. In fact, look over there... shiny baubles!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 31 2016, @06:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 31 2016, @06:05PM (#382334)

        What I DO NOT SEE is a "credible" site explaining away the muslim outreach thing.

        Fox News and the Christian Science Monitor covered the White House press secretary's statement that "That was not his task, and that's not the task of NASA."

        http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0714/NASA-chief-says-agency-s-goal-is-Muslim-outreach-forgets-to-mention-space [csmonitor.com]
        https://web.archive.org/web/20160517081011/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/white-house-muslim-outreach-task-nasa.html [archive.org]

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by mcgrew on Sunday July 31 2016, @07:51PM

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Sunday July 31 2016, @07:51PM (#382354) Homepage Journal

        I found lots of mainstream sites discussing it. Maybe you should quit searching with Bing and Yahoo?

        I'd say the Christian Post [christianpost.com] has a dog in that fight. They say:

        "NASA has a long history of respecting the religious speech of their employees, including defending, in court, the astronauts who read the biblical account of creation while orbiting the moon. That tradition should continue here," said Liberty Institute Senior Counsel Jeremy Dys to The Christian Post in an interview Tuesday.

        Dys is alluding to the 1969 case O'Hair v. Payne, in which atheist activist Madalyn Murray O'Hair sued NASA for allowing Apollo 8 astronauts to read Genesis 1 while in orbit; NASA defeated the suit.

        Fox [foxnews.com] echoed that. Both reported that they were "allegations" that no one has actually shown any evidence for. This is Trump style politics. No need for proof, trust me!

        The left wing Daily Beast says "A shady legal organization claims that NASA employees were censored when their worship group mentioned Jesus in a newsletter."

        "In a statement to The Hill, [thehill.com] NASA denied censoring religious terms from newsletters or emails."

        It's all right wing bullshit. There are accusations but not a shred of proof. BTW, I'm Christian and not a NASA employee.

        --
        mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday July 31 2016, @11:52PM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday July 31 2016, @11:52PM (#382409) Journal

          Liberty Institute Senior Counsel Jeremy Dys

          "Liberty Institute"? Any doubt his law degree is from Liberty University? Any doubt as well that it is not really a law degree so much as a twisted fundamentalist propaganda degree?

          Since the Bush administration's US Attorneys scandal, I have been thinking that the legal profession really needs to enforce some professional standards, and no allow these right-wing wackos to pretend to practice law. Gives all lawyers a bad name, something they do not need any more of.

      • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday August 01 2016, @11:04PM

        by urza9814 (3954) on Monday August 01 2016, @11:04PM (#382875) Journal

        The "shitrag" I linked to? Well - I do a Google search, and there are pages of hits. Limbaugh, shoebat, mediamatters, barenakedislam, dailycaller, on and on.

        Is one of those supposed to be a legitimate news site? Because I sure as hell don't see any in that list...maybe mediamatters...and oh look, mediamatters seems to describe this story as a "Limbaugh Conspiracy":
        https://mediamatters.org/video/2015/09/29/limbaugh-doubles-down-on-nasa-climate-change-co/205848 [mediamatters.org]

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday July 31 2016, @01:45PM

      by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Sunday July 31 2016, @01:45PM (#382269) Journal

      We're completely off topic…, but I find it endlessly amusing. The lizard people are getting everyone stoked to tear each other apart. I love it. The lizard people feed on it. Or something.

      I always wonder what these secret Muslim conspiracies to murder Jesus and turn us all into gay Muslim atheists look like in the viewer's imagination. I know the devil's involved one way or another. It's just the way these things work. Most won't own up to it, but it has to be a fantasy as childish as a Chick Tract [chick.com] (author's name is Jack Chick), perhaps involving guns.

      There were maybe 2–3 people depending on where one did trick or treating when I was growing up that would hand those out. I had a small collection of 'em going. That was before the local churches realized that Halloween is a Pagan holiday and banned their flock from participating outright. (Instead, they'd get together at church for an evening of Jesus, family, costumes, games, and candy prizes.)

      One of the most interesting conspiracy theories I read was while we had that AC regularly posting about the virtues of national socialism. According to this one website, Christianity and Islam were both created by The Joos!™ for the express purpose of turning half the world against the other half. Whether or not one believes in some vast conspiracy by The Joos!™ for world domination, it seems to be playing out. Were the geopolitical situations reversed, I have absolutely no doubt we'd see Christian suicide bombers. Maybe they'd yell “Jesus is LORD!” instead of “God is great!”

      Here's part of the programming that underlies this insanity. It's also the basis by which many Protestants regard Catholics as devil worshipers. I think they did actually fight a couple of wars over this issue before agreeing to disagree. Revelation 22:18–19 MSG [biblegateway.com]:

      I give fair warning to all who hear the words of the prophecy of this book: If you add to the words of this prophecy, God will add to your life the disasters written in this book; if you subtract from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will subtract your part from the Tree of Life and the Holy City that are written in this book.

      Now, at first this would appear to apply only to Revelation (and probably does, given that the Bible is an anthology of works), but it's popular among Protestants to extend this rule to every other book in the Bible. That sounds like, in our geopolitical bizarro world, a basis for Christian terrorism against the filthy West who worships false profits like Mohammed that weren't authorized by Revelation.

      In fact, if you find high enough concentrations of crazy, you get people insisting that anything more recent than the King James Version, despite the fact it was a politically motivated translation meant to check the power of the Church, is the word of the devil, meant to deceive. Some people will allow the New International Version. I'm certain that the Message is heresy. If you want blasphemy, there's also a version at Bible Gateway called the Voice that's written as a screenplay.

      The hatred seethes and swells like a Lovecraftian ichor, the crazy grows and grows, and if there is a devil, I'm certain he's licking his chops at the hatred and jealousy in Christians' hearts towards Muslims. I imagine endless columns of shackled souls in hell, screaming and screeching and howling their hatred of the gays and the Muslims and the atheists, roaring with their desire to be set free so they can drag the true sinners to hell, unaware that the shackles themselves are made of their own hatred.

      • (Score: 2) by rondon on Monday August 01 2016, @03:09PM

        by rondon (5167) on Monday August 01 2016, @03:09PM (#382637)

        That last paragraph was poetic. Very evocative imagery. I rather enjoyed it. Thank you.