- Stated reasons for doing things are clearly not the real reasons.
- Providing honest negative feedback seems to be the the key to success.
- Artemis engineers might fear talking honestly.
---
Personal comment: The timeline was fubar from the beginning. Remember when VP Mike Pence made a surprise announcement that NASA goes to the Moon 2024 surprising NASA director. Then NASA committed to it and scrambled to adjust everything.
I wonder if he mentioned the reason for Apollo: a muscle-flexing exercise to show the Soviet Union (and the rest of the world) who the boss is. Once the point was made, there was no need for further Moon or outer space exploration, and predictably the program ended.
We don't have that rationale now. Various presidents come with different ideas for space exploration, but the fundamental need is just not there, and without that, the budget and the focus is not there.
The only way for us to get back to the Moon is if we can do it on the cheap. So cheap that it doesn't cost a lot of political capital to do it. And for for that SpaceX seems like the best bet. Maybe not in 2 years, but at some point.
In the time that it took you to ask several people for the TL;DR, you could've watched the video.
I guess I summarize things different than others, but at the 32:00 minute mark, he talks about what he was actually scared about:
NASA is essentially, a business (my addition) -- that does not know how to communicate. The left hand very much does not know what the right hand is doing. He brings up a fantastic example of how many rockets are required for a particular phase of a mission and showed how multiple people gave different answers without even realizing their launch date is set in stone.
> He brings up a fantastic example of how many rockets are required for a particular phase of a mission and showed how multiple people gave different answers without even realizing their launch date is set in stone.
Careful here - multiple Starship refueling launches shown in the video (I've counted 24 tanker launches) are not set in stone and might be not that important for the mission itself, it's just an example of a valid question with added concern that we've yet to have this uncertainty resolved. It may look like an Exhibit A of mismanagement, but could be a very different thing.
I think the most important think he's saying is that NASA is not enough focused on the success of moving forward.
nabla9|2 years ago
- Apollo simple, Apollo success.
- Artemis very complex, many unknowns.
- Stated reasons for doing things are clearly not the real reasons.
- Providing honest negative feedback seems to be the the key to success.
- Artemis engineers might fear talking honestly.
---
Personal comment: The timeline was fubar from the beginning. Remember when VP Mike Pence made a surprise announcement that NASA goes to the Moon 2024 surprising NASA director. Then NASA committed to it and scrambled to adjust everything.
protastus|2 years ago
- Apollo simple with many redundancies, design for failure, culture of risk management (after Apollo 1)
- Artemis very complex, many unknowns, unanswered questions, poor communication
credit_guy|2 years ago
We don't have that rationale now. Various presidents come with different ideas for space exploration, but the fundamental need is just not there, and without that, the budget and the focus is not there.
The only way for us to get back to the Moon is if we can do it on the cheap. So cheap that it doesn't cost a lot of political capital to do it. And for for that SpaceX seems like the best bet. Maybe not in 2 years, but at some point.
darksim905|2 years ago
I guess I summarize things different than others, but at the 32:00 minute mark, he talks about what he was actually scared about:
NASA is essentially, a business (my addition) -- that does not know how to communicate. The left hand very much does not know what the right hand is doing. He brings up a fantastic example of how many rockets are required for a particular phase of a mission and showed how multiple people gave different answers without even realizing their launch date is set in stone.
In essence, issues abound.
avmich|2 years ago
Careful here - multiple Starship refueling launches shown in the video (I've counted 24 tanker launches) are not set in stone and might be not that important for the mission itself, it's just an example of a valid question with added concern that we've yet to have this uncertainty resolved. It may look like an Exhibit A of mismanagement, but could be a very different thing.
I think the most important think he's saying is that NASA is not enough focused on the success of moving forward.
SushiHippie|2 years ago
Click on see more, to see 5 minute wise summaries.
postalrat|2 years ago