Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Wed Oct 05 23:57:17 2022

Utopia Talk / Politics / government efficiency
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Aug 11 16:33:47
http://www...n-spacesuit-program/ar-AANbzgC

Nasa spends a billion dollars to design a space suit that is 5 years late.

Spacex designs entire superheavy boosters for that price. Faster too.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 11 16:54:52
The sad reality is that every frontier is conquered through attrition and by throwing people at it, not by playing it safe. Safety costs a lot of money, people are for free.

We should lower the requirements for becoming space cowboys. Ship people to the moon by the hundreds, you don't think there are people willing to go to the moon. They will do it for free! It is crazy that to go space you have to either be some kind a navy seal, with an MD* or filthy rich. Fuck that, send prisoners and desperate fortune seekers. Terraform the moon, NOW!


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonny_Kim

Read this guys bio, he is not cut from the same cloth as the rest of us.
Seb
Member
Wed Aug 11 17:41:00
Sam:

The entire project is outsourced. NASA is bound by law to outsource a lot of this stuff by laws the republicans introduced I believe, because obviously the private sector does this much more efficiently than a state agency because of competition.

This is a great example of private sector efficiency!
Y2A
Member
Wed Aug 11 18:05:26
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA

The Economist has called DARPA the agency "that shaped the modern world," and pointed out that "Moderna’s covid-19 vaccine sits alongside weather satellites, GPS, drones, stealth technology, voice interfaces, the personal computer and the internet on the list of innovations for which DARPA can claim at least partial credit."[5] Its track record of success has inspired governments around the world to launch similar research and development agencies.[5]
Dukhat
Member
Thu Aug 12 10:01:02
Corporations are short-sighted and stupid. And lots of industries lead to natural monopolies due to scaling issues. The real issue is concentration of power which happens in the private sector as well as the public sector.

But Repbulicans always gonna cry about how wasteful the government is and ignore how almost every red state is dominated by shitty old-school industries that needs a lot of subsidies.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Aug 12 13:26:17
"The entire project is outsourced."

By incompetent bureaucrats. Like you.

DARPA and NASA were good outfits once(when they were lead by nazis, ironically). Clearly NASA is no longer. DARPA... who knows with them.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Aug 12 13:27:44
"and ignore how almost every red state is dominated by shitty old-school industries"

Ohhh... like every tech company and their mother moving to texas. Right. Dumb.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Aug 12 15:57:46
Also... afganistan. In the most predictable of government failures... the taliban is going to take over about 4 days after we left.
Y2A
Member
Thu Aug 12 17:22:16
sam, texas has been moving more and more democrat in presidential elections. only reason it wasn't closer last yr was due to some "we wuz conquistadors" fools in the border, south houston, etc...
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Aug 12 17:56:58
Sure, but its clearly still a red state. Point is, deep blue states with high crime and high taxes are going to lose businesses to red states.
Habebe
Member
Thu Aug 12 18:22:31
Not to mention that the South justin not as nice naturally compared to the west coast.

No one vacations to a swamp.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Aug 12 18:32:54
"texas has been moving more and more democrat in presidential elections."

Yes, faggots from Californian move to Texas and vote the same way.

What a surprise
Seb
Member
Fri Aug 13 07:03:27
Sam Adams:

"By incompetent bureaucrats. Like you."

Which only demonstrates that the "market" is totally inefficient in this case, as it turns a straightforward engineering problem into a complex legal and financial problem. NASA is an engineering organisation. But you idiots, Sam, decided it would be more efficient if it took the work away from highly competent state employed engineers, laid off most of those engineers, promoted the remaining ones, and then asked them to do the job of a commercial lawyer; and try and project manage lazy and inefficient private companies that are aiming to minimise their costs and maximise their revenue - while employing ex-NASA staff on at best moderately raised salaries but charging 5 times their employment costs back to NASA.

Increased costs, no direct management levers; for niche products and a oligopoly market. A recipe for success - well, for Boeing's shareholders at least.

Personally, I don't outsource key deliverables and outcomes. When I buy in external resources, I buy them in as people with skills, not services, and manage them directly. That way I can own and manage the risk, and flex quality, scope and cost in a way that suits me best.

And as a consultant I sold the reverse. A good fixed price contract with careful caveats is the best way to maximise profit on a contract.

Useful idiots like you who genuinely believe public sector is inherently inefficient and so work is best outsourced are the people my firm rely on to make cash: they get to hire the best public sector workers, pay them more than they would get in the public sector, and sell them back. On my last contract, the taxpayer was paying £2250 for a 7.5 hour day for me, ex VAT. When I was an employee, my total cost of employment (including pension) was about £120k/a. I'd have stayed for a 25% pay raise and a stable budget.

And does the buyer say "hey, this is crazy inefficient and poor value for money!"? No. Because the politicians accountable for public expenditure genuinely believes that the private sector must be more efficient just because.

That's your private sector efficiency Sam.

"DARPA and NASA were good outfits once"
Yes, before you idiots came in, said they were all lazy bureaucrats, fired them all, let them all get hired by Boeing who then incentivised them on contract margin rather than actually building a viable space program.

Because you idiots thought that would be more efficient. LOL. Rube.


Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Aug 13 07:34:49
"And as a consultant I sold the reverse."

Notice the past tense "sold". I Fucking knew it, called it. Seb is working for gubmint again.
Habebe
Member
Fri Aug 13 08:12:40
So, we're all in agreement, we're bringing back the Nazis, right?

I mean I'll look the other way, I'm ok with that.I just want to be clear is all.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Aug 13 12:27:50
"Which only demonstrates that the "market" is"

NASA picking a contractor to satisfy the whims of the 100s of politicians that control NASA's budget is definetly 100% NOT the free market.

Common seb.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Aug 13 12:34:15
In an actual free market, NASA would go out of business and be replaced by spacex.
Seb
Member
Fri Aug 13 12:35:33
Nim:

Nope.
Seb
Member
Fri Aug 13 12:37:40
Sam:

"NASA picking a contractor to satisfy the whims of the 100s of politicians that control NASA's budget is definetly 100% NOT the free market."

Yeah Sam, unfortunately it is. When they kept saying "Outsource, free market is good", they get away with it because of useful idiots like you who buy the idea that "state is bad, mmkay".


Seb
Member
Fri Aug 13 12:40:14
If you hadn't fucked NASA by requiring it to outsource so much of its scope, you'd probably have had re-useable rockets ages ago.

NASA has a mission to go into space and needs launches.

Boeing and Lockheed have a need to sell rockets. They were never going to give your re-usable rockets. It took a billionaire (not the market mind) who decided he wanted to go to Mars to do it. This is what 40 years of market failure and government sitting on its hands look like.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Aug 13 12:47:00
"If you hadn't fucked NASA by requiring it to outsource so much of its scope"

NASA has always outsourced. Boeing built the main stage of the Saturn V. Grumman built the moon lander. ETC. Back then it worked. Now it doesnt.

Seb fail.
Habebe
Member
Fri Aug 13 13:47:43
NASA tried to make.reusable rockets, they gave US the space shuttle.Which was great, sort of, but it was cost prohibitive.

Results speak for themselves, NASA makes a great customer, but they should nlet Spaces and hopefully others soon handle the luanches.
Habebe
Member
Fri Aug 13 13:56:58
Plus plenty of other state sponsored orgs like Europe's.

Who recently abandoned their new rocket design because they just couldn't compete with SpaceX prices.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Aug 13 15:09:08
NASA got fat and complacent. Spacex is lean and new. In 50 years spacex will be fat and complacent and will be replaced by someone else. But government cant be replaced, at least not nearly as easily.
Seb
Member
Fri Aug 13 15:50:07
Sam:

NASA contracted Boeing to build the main stage of Saturn V to NASA's designs, and they were directly involved in the construction.

That isn't outsourcing - or at least not as now required - where NASA essentially says "build me a rocket than can X,Y,Z".

Unsurprisingly, if you outsource your design and engineering functions, you don't understand what you are buying anymore, and you get shit.

"NASA got fat and complacent"
LoL - no, NASA got cut, Boeing and Lockheed got fat and complacent, and Repubican politicians got donations, and Sam got "efficiency".
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Aug 13 16:38:45
Dont forget the dems that take that budget money in order to fund social justice causes, and the persistent hiring based on perceived minority status rather than competence.

But otherwise, please keep trying to explain how NASA is free market. The hoops you jump through to avoid correcting your mistakes are hilarious.
Dukhat
Member
Fri Aug 13 21:29:23
Meh. Trump's cabinet was even more incompetent than any democratic cabinet ever. Bush's cabinet was more incompetent than any cabinet since the Coolidge days before then.

Not the biggest fan of affirmative action, but even so; elevating old white men that have more "qualifications" hasn't worked out very well.
Habebe
Member
Sat Aug 06 23:37:41
Another Gem
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Aug 07 06:19:00
What?
murder
Member
Sun Aug 07 08:12:32

I don't understand why NASA needs to develop new space suits. SpaceX is going to Mars so they must have some space suits laying around somewhere.

Habebe
Member
Sun Aug 07 17:35:10
I turned on an old phone I havn't used in IDK maybe a year and this was open in chrome.

Send hatred of anything market oriented is hilatious to me.
Habebe
Member
Sun Aug 07 17:35:11
I turned on an old phone I havn't used in IDK maybe a year and this was open in chrome.

Send hatred of anything market oriented is hilatious to me.
murder
Member
Sun Aug 07 20:42:16

It is a myth that the "free market" is more efficient. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's not. Nothing is the best solution to everything.

Habebe
Member
Sun Aug 07 22:13:36
The free market is not the silver bullet to all things, agreed.

It is usually more efficient, but some things are preffered yo have some redundancy built in.

The market is clearly better at advancing rocket technology/use , but NASA is a great customer.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Aug 07 23:53:19
"The free market is not the silver bullet to all things, agreed.

It is usually more efficient, but some things are preffered yo have some redundancy built in."

Well said.
earthpig
GTFO HOer
Mon Aug 08 00:20:08
NDT is fairly compelling on the role of gov't in cutting edge R&D.

Early on when there's about a 0% chance of profitability given the R&D needed, you just have gov't throw money at it.

Then later private sector takes over, gov't bows out.
murder
Member
Mon Aug 08 04:10:39

^ correct

patom
Member
Mon Aug 08 07:50:25
Sam Adams, are you saying that Space x made all their designs from scratch without researching or copying any information that NASA has already done?
murder
Member
Mon Aug 08 08:53:41

Everything is instructed by what came before.

show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share