SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the better-faster-cheaper....-pick-two dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Poor NASA: it's got a president who doesn't like its climate research and wants it to pay more attention to putting humans on the Moon and Mars – but its launch vehicle for that kind of mission is costing too much.
That vehicle is the Space Launch System, a rocket hoped to be capable of one day hauling loads up to 130,000kg and reaching Mars.
In a Request For Information (RFI) that hit Federal Business Opportunities late last week, the agency revealed wants to trim the costs to build, operate and maintain the SLS, Orion, and Exploration Ground System (EGS) projects.
As the RFI notes: "Given NASA's assumption of flat funding levels, minimising POM [production, operations and maintenance – The Register] costs for SLS, Orion, and EGS is critical to free resources for re-investment".
The money it hopes to free up would make it easier to fund space walks, docking systems, Mars exploration and safety efforts.
The RFI opens up pretty much the gamut of SLS and Orion activities, including whether or not there's a commercial user base for the lifters.
At the end of last week, NASA announced that the SLS's propulsion system is in the Marshall test stand, ready for the first test of its Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 26 2016, @02:22PM
Certainly, it is possible to take 100 best rocket scientists, 1000 computers and put together a usable rocket. But where will those 100 engineers come from if they had no chance to train in a team of 10,000 that were employed by "dinosaurs" of spaceflight? What will happen to 9,900 engineers that are no longer needed? What group will you select the 100 from? (Not all of them are equally good.) Why would they study rocket science if they know that only 100 will be employed - and the rest will find employment serving fries with that.
Where will those 100 best rocket scientists come from, if NASA or some fat, stagnant contractor is already employing them? The converse problem here is that NASA is employing directly or via contract a lot of top level talent to do rather useless things and that takes talent away from useful endeavors.
I understand, of course, that employment of people and efficient production shall not intersect. But take the situation to the extreme. Extraterrestrials give you a machine that can construct whatever you want from the mere description of it. What will happen to your own science and technology, given that the jump between Earth's tech and the ET's tech is pretty high? (Say, the machine works in 17 dimensions and on sub-quark level.) How will that be different from them sending the troops in and razing all your factories and killing all your scientists?
Who describes what the machine can make? Who uses it? A lot of the people you describe can already apply their talents to the new technology. Most of the world will never be ready to exploit those machines. There's also this massive market creation going on as the world adapts to use of the magic machine.
Similarly, SpaceX doesn't raze factories. It creates a new market where those 9900 engineer/scientists can much more productively apply their talents. Or those engineer/scientists could be applying their talents to other careers on Earth. It's not just a choice between supporting the Space Shuttle supply chain and flipping burgers.