NASA - Updates Only

That's good, I must say.

Huntsville's ears are burning.

Thing is, we just had an election this week that left the powers that be with a little ringing of the ears and a wringing of hands.

Manufacturing's departure left America a service economy that COVID hurt...and the few folks who had good jobs where--horrors! Uncle Sam happened to be the employer...well...you know the rest.

This is why I always believed the opposite of NewSpacers...I wish there was a NASA center in every state. You have to tie spaceflight to people's lives to make it relevant..and to see it defended, not defunded.

If the bus doesn't run from being axed by zealots and your TESLA breaks down, you are SOL. A centrist is a person who neither vandalizes Teslas NOR kills buses.

The problem when anyone gets sworn in is they often think they have a mandate. Maybe not talk about banning gas stoves this go-around. People are more dangerous when out of power, when every move is watched. You don't cut your way to prosperity, but you don't micromanage the populace on every little thing either.

Hopefully the no labels guys --the only adults in the room-will get things back on track... individuals who have experience in governance and are even-tempered are to be admired.
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Wow, that is an *unusually* coy and tight lipped response for your typically outspoken matter of fact online persona - you even forgot to put a simple period behind your typically carefully controlled and managed online statements... Is there anything you would like to share with the rest of us regarding your emotional state of mind at this point? Don't worry, this is a safe online space - feel free to openly discuss your feelings...
Click to expand...
I was referring to his assumption and not the rot.
 
publiusr said:
This is why I always believed the opposite of NewSpacers...I wish there was a NASA center in every state. You have to tie spaceflight to people's lives to make it relevant..and to see it defended, not defunded.
Click to expand...
Why? You are not the opposite, you are in left field by yourself. You don't align with any common spaceflight line of thought.

Spaceflight is not that special. It doesn't need a government presence in every state or that much government involvement. Nor is there that much work to be done by the government in space.

The government role wrt spaceflight should be limited to:
a. Regulation - much like any other industry. This is the FAA role with the military at some ranges.
b. Technology development - just like any other industry, the government supports this. NSF, FAA, NOAA, etc
c. Use of commercial space launch, crew space craft and space stations. There is no needed for the government to develop and operate launch vehicles.
d. Colonization or base construction is off the table. That is for industry, the marketplace or any NGO.
e. Space science, planetary probes, astronomy, earth science are within the realm of government research
 
I'm sure each individual might have that list look a bit different. An off world base can be looked like as a coaling station.

You don't align with any common spaceflight line of thought.

Well, lets look at that:

a. Regulation - much like any other industry.
A reasonable position. NewSpace hates it...many hate b. I consider c part of b.

The biggie
e. Space science, planetary probes, astronomy, earth science are within the realm of government research
Agreed!---right BlueAbyssal?

Thing is, each NASA center has a little bit of that alphabet.

If b or c gets cut---the Senators there won't vote for e.

As you know, e wants money b+ has...as evidenced by K. Cowing--who wisely stifled himself unlike Casey Handmer--whose calls to cut this or that backfired with Arty still in evidence and e being hurt from the fallout. Ted Cruz isn't going anywhere. Love him or hate him. Lunar Starship is as real as the Cosmostrator.

If d gets cut...no Buck Rogers, no bucks.

It's messy---I get it. But the realpolitik doesn't change, except we now have a mutually assured destruction scenario with the re-nomination of Jared Andropov, and whether he chooses to pull the trigger---if so, it becomes a zero sum game where everyone loses.

The space community needs solidarity--no more of one group trying to cut the other guys' thing.

That's how Mafia wars start---and it just attracts attention of the Feds, with Chief Prosecutor Vought in charge---and you see how that worked out.

You either hang together--or get hung separately.

An example of success are my local libraries. They have each other's backs. Some folks wanted to censor this or that---and got sent packing. This in a Red State mind you. There are some differences here and there---but overall, libraries have prospered. In Pinson, an old Rock School used for a church has now been renovated as a library. Trussville's library expanded. Clay has a new building.

None of them ever tried to get another killed..

BlueAbyssal knows a lot about NewSpace firms. Byeman has forgotten more about launch than I could ever hope to learn.

All I know--is people....what makes them tick...how folks are often more motivated by hostility than hope.

Now, I have given you an example of a success story.

Make of that what you will.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
I'm sure each individual might have that list look a bit different. An off world base can be looked like as a coaling station.

You don't align with any common spaceflight line of thought.

Well, lets look at that:

a. Regulation - much like any other industry.
A reasonable position. NewSpace hates it...many hate b. I consider c part of b.

The biggie
e. Space science, planetary probes, astronomy, earth science are within the realm of government research
Agreed!---right BlueAbyssal?

Thing is, each NASA center has a little bit of that alphabet.

If b or c gets cut---the Senators there won't vote for e.

As you know, e wants money b+ has...as evidenced by K. Cowing--who wisely stifled himself unlike Casey Handmer--whose calls to cut this or that backfired with Arty still in evidence and e being hurt from the fallout. Ted Cruz isn't going anywhere. Love him or hate him. Lunar Starship is as real as the Cosmostrator.

If d gets cut...no Buck Rogers, no bucks.

It's messy---I get it. But the realpolitik doesn't change, except we now have a mutually assured destruction scenario with the re-nomination of Jared Andropov, and whether he chooses to pull the trigger---if so, it becomes a zero sum game where everyone loses.

The space community needs solidarity--no more of one group trying to cut the other guys' thing.
Click to expand...
Nope, you got it wrong again
* designates where You don't align with any common spaceflight line of thought.

"NewSpace hates" regulation.* Proof please.
Many do not hate when NASA or the gov't does technology development*. Industry likes it when the gov't takes the risk.
I consider c part of b.* Technology development is not hardware development. It is research. Building launch vehicles use existing technology is not research. Developing and operating launch vehicles is no different than Boeing or Airbus developing a new airliner with airlines operating them.

b is part of e. the Senators there won't vote for e.*. Wrong. DO away Marshall and then there is no need to horse trade. Science missions get approval from many non NASA states.

If d gets cut.* Nobody is funding colonization

The space community needs solidarity--no more of one group trying to cut the other guys' thing.*. Not true. BO, SpaceX and ULA and USSF keep going and NASA will still have some science missions, if SLS goes away.

Gov't agencies don't exist to do business. They exist to support business or the people. The NSF doesn't do the research, they fund those that do.
 
Last edited:
Byeman said:
Nope, you got it wrong again
* designates where You don't align with any common spaceflight line of thought.

"NewSpace hates" regulation.* Proof please.
Click to expand...
Loper-Bright in general was cheered by NS--

In specific:
https://www.nsiteam.com/sma-publica...ere sympathetic to,business away from the US.
Byeman said:
The space community needs solidarity--no more of one group trying to cut the other guys' thing.*. Not true. BO, SpaceX and ULA and USSF keep going and NASA will still have some science missions, if SLS goes away.
Click to expand...
That's not what I was talking about. MSFC goes away, MSR may not get votes from SLS states.

pork: (noun) A description of any government money spent on the other guy's project.

Yes, Goddard and JPL (which might as well be considered a NASA Center) do have more friends in the beltway---the Coasts want to run things after all. Still, if JPL and Goddard were to reach out to MSFC instead of treating them as a red-headed step-child---just maybe, less things can get killed. "Ok, you build the rockets, I build the probes--and we get along fine. You vote for MSR, I push for Orbilander to go atop SLS instead of Elon's rocket."

I can see both Red and Blue Staters getting behind that---if they would talk to each other. Blue States starve Elon for science missions, if Red Staters like Tubby (yuk) and the Stepford wife vote for JPL getting relief.

We all know as soon as Trump is out of office Space Command will go right back to Colorado--so if the Alabama delegation think they are getting a win by allowing MSFC's head on a platter--then they are even dumber than I imagined.

It sounds nice, to say "if I can get X killed off, I can get that money for my project Y" More likely, all that happens is that X's budget gets x-ed out in a Thanos snap and Y gets the same or less--because politics. And that promotes ill-will...and that turns into more cuts.

Exo-biologists talk about the Dark Forest.

I don't know about all that---but it is more likely that a married couple having a spat will attract more orange haired grizzly attacks than campers who allow their partners a few baubles and quietly fall asleep instead.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
Loper-Bright in general was cheered by NS--
Click to expand...
Wrong again
a. Read second line, that says all companies. Not just New Space
b. The title is "Between Private and Gov't Space Sectors". It is about procurement between the govt and companies. That isn't regulation, which is FAA, EPA & OSHA do.
publiusr said:
Still, if JPL and Goddard were to reach out to MSFC instead of treating them as a red-headed step-child---just maybe, less things can get killed.
Click to expand...
Not true. NASA centers can't deal congress. NASA Hq is the point of contact with Congress. They also can't make deals for money. NASA Hq determines the budget.
publiusr said:
pork: (noun) A description of any government money spent on the other guy's project.
Click to expand...
No, it is is a project designed to bring money into specific congressional districts. That is why it is called the Senate Launch System.
 
Launch vehicle expertise no longer resides at Marshall. It is at BO, SpaceX, ULA, Relativity, Rocketlab, Firefly, and Stoke Space. More development and operations are done by them. Also, the NASA Launch Services Program has more expertise due to working with all these companies and that many LSP employees have prior experience outside of NASA.
 
I'm not arguing against any of that--the more the merrier.

But DC exists...it even now is still making its presence felt...with yet more attacks on air-traffic controllers too..
Now, is it better to reach out to former rivals to stop cuts like were imposed upon your very office--or see your friends suffer?

It was good you got out when you did.

The folks who couldn't retire? They need all the help they can get.

One person doesn't make for a good protest. When people fall to in-fighting, we all lose.
Even Cowing is beginning to see that now...his eyes opened.

My Dad bought an old Dodge Dart. He thought it was just fine.

My Mom hated it. He then took her to a dealership and told her to get any car she wanted. I heard him mumble a bit--but he wisely stopped once he got "the look."

Long before the phrase was coined--when I was only six--I saw evidence of "Happy Wife--Happy Life."

Same here. JPL want's that new necklace? don't fuss at me over my orange ATV.

Some rumblings:
Cruz and Cantwell and the rest of the authorizers are behind the Cruz amendment to the Big Beautiful bill which extends SLS and Orion funding until Artemis V (it had bipartisan support according to Bridenstine and others). They didn't really care about Isaacman's testimony when they drafted that amendment.

--from:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=62717.msg2732440#msg2732440
It is what it is. Take yes for an answer.

A recent appeasement…I mean appearance
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-t...peaker-at-turning-point-usa-event-in-alabama/
 
Last edited:
Not that I can recall--from NASA.
Rosie Hidalgo the last individual batted about.

Now this is a bit odd:
https://nasawatch.com/activism/planetary-society-advocacy-fades-away/
I know it feels like giving Trump a win, but if Jared really is pro-science…maybe they know he is just a figurehead…Daddy Warbucks, without the bucks.

This silence might signal the end of infighting with some solidarity behind space advocates across the nation.

Like Mike Griffin or no—his vision was starved by President Cheney and his waterhead lackey invading the wrong country.

Jared, the FTD florist the Don sent to the battered spouse as a butter-up.

No one is being fooled.

Quit being a tool, Jared.

Want to convince me you are pro-science? Be Senator Kelly’s running mate.

—but I have to get back to the lot….what we have here is a dish for sale…low light years
https://www.space.com/space-explora...e-spied-on-soviet-satellites-now-its-for-sale
Now we have two other dishes down--one in Canberra.

Used by a little old cosmologist from Pasadena now under a bridge….everything (and everyone) must go.

Step right up there…Goddard’s Thor display makes for a wonderful propane tank Mr. Hill.

Not you Jared—your credit is no good here.
 
Last edited:
NASA has lost thousands of workers. Here’s what that means for science.

Staffers told The Post about months of turmoil and sweeping changes that, if fully implemented, could transform NASA and American science beyond the Trump years.


For 13 consecutive years, NASA has been named the “Best Place to Work in the Federal Government” among large agencies. But since the Trump administration took over and proposed deep budget cuts, there has been an exodus from the agency — with many of those who remain feeling demoralized and unsure about the future of their work.

The low morale may be an unanticipated challenge for billionaire entrepreneur Jared Isaacman, should he be confirmed as NASA administrator. President Donald Trump nominated Isaacman — again — on Tuesday, five months after abruptly withdrawing his nomination. A lot has shifted in that time.

A dozen current and former employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, described months of turmoil and sweeping changes that, if fully implemented, could transform NASA and American science beyond the Trump years.

“You have people questioning their future with the agency, with their contractor, with their company,” said Jack Kiraly, director of government relations at the Planetary Society, a nonprofit.

Kiraly also expressed concern for the tens of thousands of students who may turn away from scientific fields and be discouraged “over the sort of the upheaval that’s happened at NASA and other science agencies.”

More than 360 former and current employees have signed an open letter voicing concern that the cuts and mass departures are increasing safety risks for space missions.

“I think NASA has always been an exceptional agency, filled with exceptional people doing exceptional things. And yet we are just getting decimated,” one NASA employee said. “What was so fundamentally broken that we needed to get to this point?”

NASA spokesperson Bethany Stevens said that the changes and cuts at the agency have been mischaracterized and that no one is deprioritizing safety.

“NASA remains committed to our mission as we work within a more prioritized budget,” she said in a statement.

In May, Trump proposed a budget of $18.8 billion for NASA, a 25 percent decrease from the previous year — and the smallest NASA budget since the start of human spaceflight in 1961, according to the Planetary Society.

Trump’s budget proposed cutting NASA’s science funding by about half and reducing its staff to one-third of its workforce.

Although no budget has been approved by Congress, and the Senate and House versions don’t make such drastic cuts to the broadly popular agency, many former and current employees say NASA’s leadership has appeared to be operating as if the president’s proposal were in effect.

That has meant a hyperfocus on work for getting astronauts back to the moon, the employees said. Meanwhile, the president’s budget puts more than 40 current and planned space missions — largely related to climate and Earth science work — on the chopping block.

“Basically, anything that supports human life on Earth is deprioritized,” one worker said.

NASA officials rebutted the idea that the president’s budget proposal has been enacted before authorization.

“NASA’s leadership has been clear that depending on the action taken by Congress, the agency should prepare for different scenarios, including a continuing resolution,” Stevens said, adding that there has been “no guidance stating that the [president’s budget request] will become the operating plan for NASA prior to Congressional authorization of a budget.”

Amid shifting priorities and uncertain funding, NASA reported at the end of July that at least 4,000 civil servants — about a fifth of the civil staff — were leaving. More people have left since then, and the numbers are even higher if counting departures of contractors, who make up a large portion of the NASA workforce.

The agency hasn’t seen such a small civilian staff since 1960, according to the Planetary Society.

Some of the departures have been in response to separation and early retirement offers. While the packages were “voluntary,” employees were told they may be reassigned, transferred involuntarily or denied severance benefits if they didn’t take the package, according to an anonymous memo submitted to several inspector general offices.

Workers have left from nearly every corner of NASA — scientists with missions related to the moon, Mars, astrobiology and Earth sciences, as well as in engineering, finance and communications. Many departed workers were very senior, staffers said, holding important institutional knowledge.

“No one feels confident that anything planned further than a few months will be executed; no one feels confident that more job cuts aren’t coming; no one feels confident that today’s priorities and next year’s or even next week’s will align,” an employee said.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/11/06/nasa-cuts-departures-isaacman/
 
Russell Vought has a lot to answer for and when the time comes he needs to be held to account.
 
NMaude said:
Russell Vought has a lot to answer for and when the time comes he needs to be held to account.
Click to expand...
NASA is not special, and no matter how people slice it, government waste is exorbitant. Everyone can make an argument for why ‘their’ agency shouldn’t see any budget cuts, but all agencies are going to face cuts, and have to learn to make do with smaller workforces and less funding.Yes, there are other worthy targets inside of NASA - the SLS being the biggest one - but there are people who hate the idea of that being cut as much as you dislike the idea of cutting some science programs.

Also, ‘holding to account’ implies moral superiority which you do not have, nor does anyone else. Want to see fewer cuts? Fix the waste in the government first. Don’t support special interests whose real interest is lining their own pockets. To people like Vought, those are bigger issues by far.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
NASA is not special, and no matter how people slice it, government waste is exorbitant. Everyone can make an argument for why ‘their’ agency shouldn’t see any budget cuts, but all agencies are going to face cuts, and have to learn to make do with smaller workforces and less funding.Yes, there are other worthy targets inside of NASA - the SLS being the biggest one - but there are people who hate the idea of that being cut as much as you dislike the idea of cutting some science programs.

Also, ‘holding to account’ implies moral superiority which you do not have, nor does anyone else. Want to see fewer cuts? Fix the waste in the government first. Don’t support special interests whose real interest is lining their own pockets. To people like Vought, those are bigger issues by far.
Click to expand...
Again, you talk like it is the whole organization.
 
publiusr said:
Like Mike Griffin or no—his vision was starved by President Cheney and his waterhead lackey invading the wrong country.
Click to expand...
Wrong. It got plenty of money. And wasted it on multiple projects like Ares I-X and MLAS.

publiusr said:
Want to convince me you are pro-science? Be Senator Kelly’s running mate.
Click to expand...
Why would he make a good president? Just like astronauts don't make good NASA administrators, they wouldn't make good presidents. And he wouldn't be able to change NASA anyways.


More proof " You don't align with any common spaceflight line of thought."
 
publiusr said:
Jared, the FTD florist the Don sent to the battered spouse as a butter-up.

No one is being fooled.

Quit being a tool, Jared.

Want to convince me you are pro-science? Be Senator Kelly’s running mate.

—but I have to get back to the lot….what we have here is a dish for sale…low light years
https://www.space.com/space-explora...e-spied-on-soviet-satellites-now-its-for-sale
Used by a little old cosmologist from Pasadena now under a bridge….everything (and everyone) must go.

Step right up there…Goddard’s Thor display makes for a wonderful propane tank Mr. Hill.

Not you Jared—your credit is no good here.
Click to expand...
What the heck does any of this rambling stream of gibberish mean?
I would like people to comment if they understand this.
 
publiusr said:
Like Mike Griffin or no—his vision was starved by President Cheney and his waterhead lackey invading the wrong country.
Click to expand...
Wrong. It got plenty of money. And wasted it on multiple projects like Ares I-X and MLAS.

publiusr said:
Want to convince me you are pro-science? Be Senator Kelly’s running mate.
Click to expand...
Why would he make a good president? Just like astronauts don't make good NASA administrators, they wouldn't make good presidents. And he wouldn't be able to change NASA anyways.
 
Byeman said:
Again, you talk like it is the whole organization.
Click to expand...
No, I’m writing that way because of how the top-level budget is discussed, which is also why I mentioned the cuts to science, and that the SLS wasn’t facing the same headwinds.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
Also, ‘holding to account’ implies moral superiority which you do not have, nor does anyone else. Want to see fewer cuts? Fix the waste in the government first. Don’t support special interests whose real interest is lining their own pockets. To people like Vought, those are bigger issues by far.
Click to expand...

And you seem to ignore the fact that Russell Vought is a conservative right-wing ideologue and self-described christian nationalist with some rather out there ideas (He's also been involved in Project 2025), this man has NO business being in any position of influence in the US federal government.
 
You’re stuck dealing with the reality that part of politics is compromise, and you won’t get your way all the time. And being as hardline as you are is a great way to ensure that people who might otherwise support you (I would love to see NASA have a bigger budget and be primarily focused on R&D) won’t because of your extremism.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
NASA is not special, and no matter how people slice it, government waste is exorbitant.
Click to expand...

Which is why it is foolish to stoop over to collect pennies when you have C-notes spilling out your back pocket going to every damn thing BUT NASA.

NASA cutters are the hard-liners
NASA cutters are the extremists.

We have another dish down.

Maybe the one in Canberra could use a little money the current occupant of the White House sends to Argentina. American citizens at NASA centers can be cut--but not a peep about their tax dollars going overseas. You can do right by R&D without taking it from another NASA worker...you do know that don't you?

Get your priorities straight.

And when the hell did you EVER compromise with anyone? Your way or the highway?
 
Last edited:
How one Montana senator managed to move the Trump White House — twice
https://www.sheehy.senate.gov/press...-managed-to-move-the-trump-white-house-twice/
In order to get outgoing personnel chief Sergio Gor quickly approved as US ambassador to India, the president needed all 53 GOP senators to go along. But Sheehy suggested he wouldn’t view Gore’s job of staffing the administration as complete as long as the NASA role was vacant.

So Sheehy put a hold on Gor’s nomination in September, a move that has not been previously reported. It didn’t take long to get a response from the White House. [...]

Sheehy kept his hold private in September, and his strategy worked. Vice President JD Vance quickly called him to defuse the situation; he told Vance that the lack of a permanent NASA chief was a “huge problem.” The two came to a deal: Sheehy would release his hold in exchange for the administration redoubling its efforts to fill the position.

Then, in an almost unheard-of reversal, Trump renominated Isaacman last week.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1989726842471821339
View: https://twitter.com/semafor/status/1989726842471821339
 
Chairman Cruz Announces Nominations Hearing for NASA and Commerce Nominees

December 3, 2025
10:00 AM
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, will convene a hearing to consider the nominations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Commerce at 10:00 AM EST on Wednesday, December 3, 2025.



Nominees:



Mr. Jared Isaacman, of Pennsylvania, to be Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Mr. Steven Haines, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Analysis


Hearing Details:

WHAT: Full Committee Nominations Hearing

DATE: Wednesday, December 3, 2025

TIME: 10:00 AM EST

LOCATION: Committee Hearing Room, Russell 253

LIVESTREAM: The hearing will stream live on the Committee web site and YouTube.

MEDIA INFO: Reporters wanting to attend the committee should contact their respective media gallery to RSVP.

Senate Daily Press: 202-224-0241 or [email protected]
Senate Periodical Press: 202-224-0265 or [email protected]
Senate Photographers: 202-224-6548 or [email protected]
Senate Radio/TV: 202-224-6421
Click to expand...
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1990836629926293611
View: https://twitter.com/NASAKennedy/status/1990836629926293611


NASA's Kennedy Space Center

@NASAKennedy
The U.S. Senate recently passed a resolution “Commemorating the 40th anniversary of the inaugural flight of Space Shuttle Atlantis and recognizing Kennedy Space Center for its economic, educational, and cultural contributions to the State of Florida and the United States.”

The first mission of Atlantis, STS-51-J, lifted off from NASA Kennedy’s Launch Pad 39A on Oct. 3, 1985. Atlantis flew 33 missions over the next 26 years, including the final mission of the shuttle program in July 2011. In total, Atlantis spent 307 days in space, orbited Earth 4,848 times, and traveled 125,935,769 miles.

Atlantis has been on public display at NASA Kennedy’s Visitor Center since 2013.
Click to expand...
 
Rather than start a new thread I’ll put Scott Manley’s new video in this one.

The NASA Advanced Supercomputing Facility has hosted NASA's most powerful computers since the 1970's, not only do they work with the hardware, but they have teams developing software that can efficiently run on these systems to solve problems which would be impossible elsewhere.

We visited this facility earlier in the year with a number of other creators as a follow up to Open Sauce, this was the final stop of the tour and not only did we see the big computers, but we saw a video wall visualization system showing off some work using pressure sensitive paint in wind tunnels.
Click to expand...

View: https://youtu.be/vDWQHZ4Fy6I
 
Astrum has put out a new video concerning a recent NASA discovery about Charon:


Join us as we journey to the solar system's frozen edge to explore Pluto’s mysterious companion, Charon. Forming half of the solar system’s most intriguing binary, Charon’s dark surface bears the scars of a violent past, and a bizarre red stain on its pole. Join us to explore everything we know about Charon, the moon that helped to redefine what it means to be a planet.​
▀▀▀▀▀▀
0:00 Pluto’s Shadow
1:18 Accidental Discovery
5:15 The Pluto-Charon System
8:42 The Kiss and Capture Theory
13:48 Charon’s Surface
16:31 Cryovolcanoes on Charon
18:50 Mordor Macula: Charon’s Red Spot
21:52 What Charon Has Taught Us

▀▀▀▀▀▀
References:
“Charon: Pluto’s Largest Moon”, via nasa.gov https://astrumspace.info/charonoverview
“The Accidental Discovery of Charon”, via nasa.gov https://astrumspace.info/charondiscovery
“The Dynamics of Pluto’s Satellites”, via iop.org https://astrumspace.info/plutosatellites
“The Pluto-Charon System (NASA Lithograph)”, via nasa.gov https://astrumspace.info/plutocharon
“The ‘Kiss-and-Capture’ Origin of Pluto’s Moon Charon”, via nature.com https://astrumspace.info/kisscapture
“Cracks in Charon Could Indicate an Extinct Underground Ocean”, via nasa.gov https://astrumspace.info/charoncracks
“Charon’s Surface Geology”, via usra.edu https://astrumspace.info/charongeology
“Differentiation and Cryovolcanism in the Pluto–Charon System”, via usra.edu https://astrumspace.info/charoncryovolchttps://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...astrumspace.info/charoncryovolc&v=FTx2O7Zm4Jc
“The Origin of Mordor Macula on Charon”, via ui.adsabs.harvard.edu https://astrumspace.info/mordormacula
“Source of Volatiles on Charon”, via nature.com https://astrumspace.info/charonvolatiles


▀▀▀▀▀▀
Credits:
Writers: Jess Jordan, Alex McColgan
Video Editor: Nick Shishkin
Researcher: Shourya Shrivastava
Script Editor: Damaris McColgan
Thumbnail Designer: Peter Sheppard
Publishing Lead: Georgina Brenner
Production Manager: Raquel Taylor
Edit Producer: Poppy Pinnock
Head of Astrum: Jess Jordan
Creator of Astrum: Alex McColgan


With special thanks to:NASA/ESO/ESA
#Astrum #Space #Charon
Click to expand...
 
Blackstar recently posted this on NSF and I thought people might find it informative.

I've read the Athena document and find it puzzling. It has a series of "workforce directives" like a programmatic review, critical finance and infrastructure review, "invest in the Future" (their capitalization), "Igniting the Space Economy & Accelerating Scientific Discovery," and "Aero Consolidation." It also includes things like "internal war room creations" and "finance strike team" and engineering tiger team that seem hyperbolic.

It contains a lot of prescriptions for "fixing" NASA that are based upon misunderstanding of what NASA actually does, how it does it, and how it works with other actors. For instance, it seems to confuse NASA aeronautics (which is research-focused) with operating NASA aircraft. NASA actually has a lot of aircraft like the T-38s, Gulfstreams, U-2s, WB-57s, etc. that are not performing aeronautics research (as in improving aeronautics), but performing training, transportation, and non-aeronautics research.

It also makes statements about the field centers without really understanding what happens at different centers. Some of the shorthand descriptions about the centers don't indicate understanding of them. For instance, it mentions state management of Stennis. I don't think the authors realize that there are a bunch of other government activities at Stennis (like the Navy) and they might object. Centers are not just buildings and people, but facilities and knowledge. If you are going to "consolidate" the activities of different centers, how do you do that when facilities like wind tunnels and pressure chambers are located at specific centers? Either you shut them down completely, or you rebuild that capability at a new center location, which will be expensive. Similarly, if you centralize activity at a specific location, how many employees at the other centers are going to move to work there? An example is that a lot of aeronautics research is done at Langley in Virginia, and the document says it should be moved to Armstrong in the Mojave Desert. How many people at Langley are going to want to move to the other side of the country and live in a desert? A lot of the document is devoted to nuclear electric propulsion and suggests giving this mission to Marshall Space Flight Center, which does not have any expertise in the subject, or the facilities, to conduct nuclear-related research (that's up at Glenn in Ohio). The people at Marshall cannot do that work, but will the people at Glenn have to/want to move there? And what about all their equipment, much of which cannot be packed into the back of a U-Haul truck?

One of the strangest assertions in the document is that a goal is to "energize academic institutions to fund their own flagship missions." It also states that a goal is to "attract academic institution funding." Where do they think academic institutions get their money? Those kinds of statements indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work in the science field. The few mentions of science in the document are really superficial. Earth science is mentioned separately because mainly the document seeks to eliminate it, and everything else--planetary, astrophysics, and heliophysics--is lumped into "other science." There's mention of speeding up the rate of scientific discovery, as if it's just a dial that can be turned to make the treadmill go faster, without recognition that it takes years for a spacecraft to reach a planet, years to analyze data, and years to design and build new instruments and spacecraft that have not been built before. There's mention of "bulk acquisition of launches, busses, operations, etc." which indicates a lack of understanding of how science missions work. For example, you cannot "bulk buy" busses or operations for spacecraft that do fundamentally different things. Software for science spacecraft is specifically written for those spacecraft. A bus that works in LEO may not be suitable to work at Jupiter, or for hosting a large optical system.

Whoever wrote this (and there are a few authors listed, although I've never heard of them) doesn't have a good grasp of NASA's organizational chart (it barely mentions directorates or divisions and there's no current NASA org chart in the document), or infrastructure. As a result, a number of the prescriptions don't make sense--"do this to fix that" when NASA already does the thing it recommends NASA do. While a lot of this is aspirational, it does not seem to recognize that many of the prescriptions in this document may not be within the power of the NASA administrator. Also, it is pretty clear that the new missions are going to go to centers in red states and centers in blue states are going to lose missions and people.

A lot of it seems to come from business management guidelines which may not really apply to a civil service workforce. There is discussion about changing the performance metrics for employees, and providing awards and rewards for them. NASA already does that. I'm not sure that the ideas in this document are consistent with how the government works. Can NASA have its own set of employee performance metrics that are different than those established for the entire civil service workforce? There are also goals, like having 5% of the workforce obtain the top rating, and then percentage goals for each of the other ratings, and only 5% at the bottom rating. There's calls for creating a "Starfleet Academy" and also establishing "tiger teams" and eliminating review panels unless they are for safety. (Again, this doesn't reflect reality. NASA runs a lot of review panels to select science grants. If those are eliminated, how will the agency perform that function?) There's a call for an agency-wide report on all agency expenditures, and also an agency-wide report on all agency infrastructure. The way it is written implies that the author(s) do not realize that NASA already has these things. They have, for instance, assessments of their infrastructure issues and maintenance deficiencies. It's not that they don't know what they are, the problem is that they don't have the money to address them. And there are plans in the document that seem to contradict each other. For instance, re-starting the voluntary retirement program while maintaining a hiring freeze. What happens if the people who choose to leave contain vital skills? How does the agency retain those skills if there is a hiring freeze?

Turning NASA into a nuclear mission agency is a major thrust, although there's no real mention of the involvement of the Department of Energy, which would have to buy into this (NASA cannot do it alone). The nuclear electric propulsion stuff is also confusing. I don't think the authors understand that electric propulsion doesn't get a spacecraft someplace fast. It only gets it there efficiently. (Also, for all that velocity you put in, you have to slow down when you get to your objective.) And adding nuclear power to electric propulsion may negate the efficiency because a nuclear system is heavy. There's a brief mention of hooking up an NEP spacecraft to a human spacecraft. What would that accomplish? I think there is confusion between NEP and NTP.

There is a 5-page (single space) "all hands speech" that the new administrator would give to the agency's employees that outlines all the goals and reads like there's a new sheriff in town. The gist of it is that he doesn't want NASA employees to rate the agency as the "best place to work" anymore, but the "hardest place to work." While the intention might be inspirational, saying that to a workforce that has lost 20% of its personnel and much of which has been under existential threat for 10 months seems like another way of saying that the beatings will continue until morale improves.

It's surprising that they didn't hire some people to write this who actually worked for NASA in the past and know what it does and how it is organized. That's the first step to fixing things.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom