Re: Back to the moon? When?
- From: John Schilling <schillin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:53:47 -0800
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 04:22:37 GMT, "Erich Kohl" <ekohl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi everyone,
First and foremost, let me just say that I do believe that the United
States was actually on the moon.
However, I am in a debate with someone who wants to know why it's
taking us (or anyone else for that matter) so long to go back there.
After all, if it was done once before with 1960's technology and
know-how, what's causing the delay in the expedition this time?
My theory is that it must have something to do with politics and
budget, combined with the fact that it might not be as high of a
priority as it once was when the U.S. was in an overt space race with
the Soviet Union.
Any enlightenment that can be offered will help, because I'm not sure
how else to steer my argument.
Mostly fear of failure. The surest way to never fail, is to never try,
and while I expect NASA will eventually get around to trying to put a
few more men on the Moon, they are going to delay as long as possible
before starting each new step.
In the 1960s, if you were tasked with putting a man on the moon within
a decade, and for whatever reason you couldn't quite pull it off, just
having made a decent try at it would probably have made your reputation.
After all, it was an impossible task, and nobody ever really expected
you to succeed.
In the 2000s, if you are tasked with putting a man on the moon and for
whatever reason you don't actually pull it off, there is no excuse that
will save your reputation, or your career. After all, we know it's a
possible task; it's been done before. OTOH, nobody in the government
ever loses their job just for being behind schedule and over budget...
The type of people being given the job, also makes a huge difference.
In the 1960s, there was no such thing as a veteran NASA engineer, much
less a veteran NASA manager. So the work was done by people selected
on the basis of, whatever it was they had done at places that weren't
NASA, suggested they might be able to pull off the impossible.
In the 2000s, we've got plenty of veteran NASA engineers and managers,
all of whom are by process of elimination selected for their ability
to tenaciously hold onto their jobs through a generation of layoffs
and budget cuts, in a climate intolerant of failure. And they're not
going to let anyone else intrude on their turf.
This isn't unique to NASA; most government agencies that outlive their
original mission (or last a generation regardless) wind up with the same
problem. The only way to avoid this is to penalize Not Trying at least
as severely as you do failure, preferably more so, and the rules of the
US Civil Service more or less prohibit anyone from being punished for
Not Trying. The most you can do is not promote them, which leaves them
stuck right there in the job they are not getting done.
There's actually sort of a good reason for that; it was the best solution
anyone at the time (late 19th century) could come up with for an even
worse problem - google "spoils system" for the ugly details.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schillin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Back to the moon? When?
- From: Jeff Findley
- Re: Back to the moon? When?
- References:
- Back to the moon? When?
- From: Erich Kohl
- Back to the moon? When?
- Prev by Date: Re: Did tonight's PBS NOVA Sputnik show have a glaring tech error?
- Next by Date: Re: Back to the moon? When?
- Previous by thread: Re: Back to the moon? When?
- Next by thread: Re: Back to the moon? When?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
