Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday March 21 2020, @07:35AM   Printer-friendly
from the But-it's-only-$2-milllion-per-week! dept.

NASA spent a decade and nearly $1 billion for a single launch tower:

"NASA exacerbated these issues by accepting unproven and untested designs."

A new report published Tuesday by NASA's inspector general looks into the development of a mobile launch tower for the agency's Space Launch System rocket.

The analysis finds that the total cost of constructing and modifying the structure, known as Mobile Launcher-1, is "at least" $927 million. This includes the original $234 million development cost to build the tower to support the Ares I rocket.

After this rocket was canceled in 2010, NASA then spent an additional $693 million to redesign and modify the structure for the SLS rocket. Notably, NASA's original estimate for modifying the launch tower was just $54 million, according to the report by Inspector General Paul Martin.

<no-sarcasm>
Does NASA understand what a sunk cost is?
</no-sarcasm>

Related: NASA to Launch 247 Petabytes of Data Into AWS - but Forgot About Egress Costs


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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Informative) by canopic jug on Saturday March 21 2020, @10:18AM (12 children)

    by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 21 2020, @10:18AM (#973774) Journal

    ... began with the idea "we're all equal" which really got pushed on us a couple decades *before* Reagan.

    I read what you are saying and disagree. Not only was your fossil, St. Reagan, not as old as you imply he is, unless he really was the shell he appeared to be, but the idea "we're all equal" got pushed on use a couple of millenia before Reagan:

    Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

    What Reagan did was different. In the single area where he led the way, he led the way in disparraging science and, through cutting funding, began to dismantle US world lead in science and education. That is well documented in both the budget cuts and the resulting declines in education and capabilities.

    --
    Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Interesting=1, Informative=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by NateMich on Saturday March 21 2020, @11:01AM (7 children)

    by NateMich (6662) on Saturday March 21 2020, @11:01AM (#973776)

    Why does everything have to end in a liberal vs. conservative argument?

    Look, NASA wasted tons on money on this program going through entire Republican and Democratic administrations. I'm convinced that as soon as a Democrat is in office again, they will be changing course again and wasting even more billions (maybe trillions) just trying to complete the SLS, or maybe just cancelling it altogether, who knows.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Saturday March 21 2020, @11:25AM (6 children)

      by Arik (4543) on Saturday March 21 2020, @11:25AM (#973779) Journal
      "Why does everything have to end in a liberal vs. conservative argument?"

      Because you've swallowed some ideological poison, that makes you see things that way.

      What's liberal or conservative about criticising Reagan? Why would you assume there's a connection?

      He was neither liberal nor conservative, he was an empty vessel for Madison Avenue and Hollywood and Boeing.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2) by NateMich on Saturday March 21 2020, @12:14PM (5 children)

        by NateMich (6662) on Saturday March 21 2020, @12:14PM (#973794)

        "Why does everything have to end in a liberal vs. conservative argument?"

        Because you've swallowed some ideological poison, that makes you see things that way.

        Well, when I see an argument about cost overruns during the Obama and now Trump administrations, and then it's somehow being blamed on long dead Reagan for being anti-science, which I don't remember being one of the many things he was accused of at the time. But that was 30+ years ago and a very different time. Which is my point.

        Yeah, it's looking like a typical political blame game to me.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by canopic jug on Saturday March 21 2020, @12:36PM (3 children)

          by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 21 2020, @12:36PM (#973799) Journal

          Read some history then. Reagan's administration was the watershed. Before Reagan, the US funded education and science quite generously as befitting the need. Up untill him, both were a high priority, and the US position in the world rose with the increased knowledge and capabilities. During Reagan's administration the cuts and ridicule started. They have continued since and increased, up to and including present day.

          If you want to drag this into a "blame game" then I will blame him for having blown up the space shuttle through his policies. Yes. I am still angry that Reagan's policies destroyed the Challenger and took the US out of the space race [globalresearch.ca]. That pretty much single handedly ended the planet's chance at space for at least two or three generations. No serious attempts at regaining those capabilities have been allowed [brainyquote.com] to be made, what with all the outsourcing and games of pork barrel politics.

          --
          Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
          • (Score: 2) by Captival on Saturday March 21 2020, @06:01PM (2 children)

            by Captival (6866) on Saturday March 21 2020, @06:01PM (#973882)

            So then why the fuck didn't the enlightened metropolitan forward-thinking Democrat geniuses who came after him restore NASA to their previous science-loving glory? Oh yeah, because they were much too busy doing more important things [realclearpolitics.com] with it.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by canopic jug on Saturday March 21 2020, @06:44PM

              by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 21 2020, @06:44PM (#973895) Journal

              Don't pull that game about playing opposites. They aren't. While neither group has the best interests of their nation at heart, one of the groups causes far more damage than the other. The one group is in it for themselves and their lobbyists, the other appears to just be out to stir up shit, tear things down, and otherwise engage in sedition. I find that the seditionists are far more harmful and observe that over the years they have been able to block any forward progress regardless of who sits in the White House.

              --
              Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
            • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday March 22 2020, @07:29AM

              by bzipitidoo (4388) on Sunday March 22 2020, @07:29AM (#974051) Journal

              Do you know why the US ran a surplus during Clinton's 2nd term? Neither really gave a damn about fiscal responsibility. The Republicans sought to cut government services in a lose-lose game in which they hurt themselves, and knew it, but they're okay with that as long as their perceived enemies are hurt worse. Also, it was dog whistling. By running a surplus, Clinton made their arguments hollow.

              It's a big world with thousands of agendas. Lot more going on than science funding.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Saturday March 21 2020, @12:43PM

          by Arik (4543) on Saturday March 21 2020, @12:43PM (#973803) Journal
          I don't think the comment laid all the blame on Reagan. The blame for what's happening now lays on those who are doing it now.

          But momentum is a thing, and Reagan was a likeable face to distract us from some major changes in momentum that occurred while he was in office.
          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2020, @12:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2020, @12:45PM (#973804)

    He's not my fossil. I didn't like him then and I don't like his legacy now.

    Also, pause for a moment and consider why you thought a religious quote was pertinent to the death of competency and knowledge. Or why it would carry any weight here, of all places.

    Behold the death of competence and knowledge, I call it...

    "Late-Stage Equality":

    https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/paradox-meritocracy-organizations [harvard.edu]

    https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_mantra_of_meritocracy [ssir.org]

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/12/meritocracy/418074/ [theatlantic.com]

    TLDR: Various reasons why these people believe meritocracy is a sexist/racist sham.

    When you replace merit-based policies with diversity nonsense, it's not just the death of, but the deliberate murder of competence and knowledge.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 22 2020, @12:32AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 22 2020, @12:32AM (#973976) Journal

    he led the way in disparraging science and, through cutting funding, began to dismantle US world lead in science and education.

    Have you actually looked at US funding of science and education? For example, the Department of Education increased spending from $3 billion a year at the end of 1980 (Reagan's chopping of that budget came after) to $20 billion at the end of 2017. That's not keeping up with GDP, but it is growing significantly faster than inflation over the same period. I don't have exact numbers for the 1980s, but public funding is moderately higher in 2017 than it was in 1980, even adjusted for inflation (looks like $10 billion a year in 1980 growing to $38 billion a year in 2015, with huge growth in private side research).

    The money is there. We should instead look at why the money isn't delivering the expected result. My take is that the whole public side system in the US is slowly growing more parasitic and less effective (and less interested) in delivering education and research. I'm not going to blame that on Reagan since it was decaying even before he came to power, and continued to decay after he left.

    • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Monday March 23 2020, @06:03PM (1 child)

      by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 23 2020, @06:03PM (#974505) Journal

      Again, history countradicts that assertion. Here are some stats on the budget cuts to general education in the recent decade [neatoday.org]. These go back through Obama and Bush II and somewhat with Clinton and the GOP fighting about cutting further than Reagan had. Back in the day, Reagan aimed for a 30% cut out of educational capabilities for the US which was mitigated to only 10% damage as a "compromise". His real target was to just plain abolish the Department of Education.

      Nowadays, further proposed cuts are on the agenda [go.com] of the current administration.

      That is all intentional damage to the US and its future: it is shown again and again that education is an investment that returns many times over and, conversely, cost society more than is saved when it is cut back.

      --
      Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 23 2020, @06:36PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 23 2020, @06:36PM (#974518) Journal
        I notice a couple of interesting phrases in your linked article: "currently 17 states divert more than $1 billion per year to private schools" and "Vouchers exist in many forms, sucking untold billions of dollars from our public schools." So in other words, considerable educational spending is ignored because it doesn't go to the right recipients. And, of course, the story obsesses over Arizona, the only state in the United States. A quick glance shows that spending per pupil [ed.gov] in the US has gone up massively, contrary again to narrative.

        Back in the day, Reagan aimed for a 30% cut out of educational capabilities for the US which was mitigated to only 10% damage as a "compromise". His real target was to just plain abolish the Department of Education.

        Ignoring that eliminating the Department of Education was probably a really good idea, we see that there was no long term decline in spending for the Department of Education contrary to narrative.

        Once again, we're ignoring that we're spending more on education and getting progressively worse results. I would look at the people demanding more funding without demanding more accountability as the starting point for why this happened.