If NASA had a reputation bar, where would it be at?

[longbyte1]

NASA used to be the best, but since the end of the STS program and the rise of SpaceX it's really taken a hit in reputation. Now people are bashing on NASA's lack of budget. Of course though, they haven't had any recent serious accidents (or at least none that the press is willing to cover).

So, a number (in KSP scale)?

[UmbralRaptor]

SpaceX vs NASA makes about as much sense as Boeing vs NASA. (They're not fighting, but occupy different niches and work together)

Number-wise, probably around +500. But they're stuck on some silly-low rewards setting and can't always pick/choose their contracts.

[NASAHireMe]

I worked in the space industry as recently as last year (the politics/legal/budgeting side, not the technical side).

Umbral's kinda right, in that we OUGHT to view NASA vs. SpaceX as apples-and-oranges. But let me tell you, almost everyone, both regular citizens and people in gov't and industry, compare the two. And right now, SpaceX has a huge lead. Actually, you can tell just by asking yourself, "Where do the hotshot young engineers want to work for?". And right now, it's SpaceX, and there's pretty much no other competition (not Lockheed, not Boeing, not NASA). They're helped by a charismatic CEO, an underdog story, good marketing, and a media world that absolutely loves everything Musk or SpaceX does.

But let me provide a counterpoint. When I studied abroad in Ecuador a couple of years ago and talked with Ecuadorians about the US, they all revere NASA. It definitely surprised me. When I wore a cheap NASA shirt (not a real NASA shirt, just a souvenir one) to class, I got peppered with questions. I have to admit that probably this reputation is really just a legacy of the NASA glory days, but still. It was enough to make kids in another continent basically bow down to me when I told them I had some experience 'doing space stuff'. I thought that was funny.

And also, compared to the rest of the federal government, NASA is ALWAYS ranked as the best, most-loved, and most-respected organization. There's no doubt within gov't that NASA is still top-dog. I've sat in meetings with ppl from other big agencies like Defense or FBI or FAA or whatnot, and I haven't ever met someone who doesn't think NASA personnel are excellent.

I think it's that durability of reputation that matters. So on a scale from Kerbol to Eeloo, NASA still ranks as a Jool.

Edited June 3, 2015 by NASAHireMe

[Requia]

I gotta say pretty bad, not because of how people view them or anything, just that I get an 'emergency bailout vibe' from the interim between the shuttle and the SLS, as well as how hard it was to get the funds for a shuttle replacement at all (which is why its taking so long really, they didn't start nearly as soon as they needed to).

[ChrisSpace]

NASA: sways from -900 to -999

SpaceX: around 100

Chinese space agency: around 200-300

Russian space agency: -800

Indian space agency: 0

ESA: -999

[peadar1987]

Ouch, bit harsh on the ESA there, seeing as they've pulled off Cassini-Huygens and Rosetta within a decade of each other!

[YNM]

AFAIK there's no launcher purely under NASA's name now. Mercury, Juno, Gemini was, Saturn was, Shuttle was. But things like Atlas V or Delta II, IV, IV H, Titan, are not. NASA do human spaceflight on Soyuz, which can be considered international service (everything launch on it). So, rep bar is 0, they get no rocket, and still plummeting. That's all for coolness.

Science side (because they DO science) are high, though - rep science (if there's any) should even exceed 1000 !

[Nibb31]

There are only 3 business cases for the space industry:

- Sell stuff to the comsat operators

- Sell stuff to the military

- Sell stuff to NASA

SpaceX doesn't do exploration, colonization, or whatever. It is in those 3 markets. SpaceX is a NASA contractor. Without the government buying stuff from them and subsidizing development SpaceX wouldn't be in business.

NASA is a science organisation, with exploration and R&D as their main goals. How they proceed depends on the nature of each project. When it makes sense to subcontract, they do it. When it makes sense to do stuff in-house, they do it. The important thing is that at the end of the day, they are pretty darn good at doing science.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Nibb31

[Rakaydos]

There are only 3 business cases for the space industry:

- Sell stuff to the comsat operators

- Sell stuff to the military

- Sell stuff to NASA

SpaceX doesn't do exploration, colonization, or whatever. It is in those 3 markets. SpaceX is a NASA contractor. Without the government buying stuff from them and subsidizing development SpaceX wouldn't be in business.

NASA is a science organisation, with exploration and R&D as their main goals. How they proceed depends on the nature of each project. When it makes sense to subcontract, they do it. When it makes sense to do stuff in-house, they do it. The important thing is that at the end of the day, they are pretty darn good at doing science.

That's currently. But if spaceX's goal IS colonization, contracting with nasa makes a better interm solution than the others (or going solo) because exploration faces many of the same challanges colonization and exploitation do. We'll have to see if they give up their lofty goals in the future, but if "Mars Two" ever gets there, SpaceX is the most likely bus service.

[Findthepin1]

IMO they stopped doing cool stuff at the end of the Apollo program. They've still got some pretty cool concepts, but they can't actually do them because their funding is so low. Private companies like SpaceX and Bigelow are overtaking them in terms of productivity.

[Robotengineer]

More important than NASA's reputation bar is it's funds counter. Can't get more reputation without funds to launch cool missions.

[Nibb31]

That's currently. But if spaceX's goal IS colonization, contracting with nasa makes a better interm solution than the others (or going solo) because exploration faces many of the same challanges colonization and exploitation do. We'll have to see if they give up their lofty goals in the future, but if "Mars Two" ever gets there, SpaceX is the most likely bus service.

Colonization is not a viable business model.

[ComradeWolfe]

I think NASA has two problems which both hurt its reputation a lot:

1.) Right now they look like they lack a sense of purpose. Apollo era NASA had a mandate to do whatever it had to in order to put a man on the moon. Now we kinda sorta maybe have a vague plan to put people on Mars at some point in the not so immediate future (we think?)...

2.) NASA is in dire need of some showmanship. Back in the Apollo era, NASA did useful science but didn't use that as their hook for engaging the public -- little boys weren't inspired by lunar geology, they were inspired by men on the moon driving buggies and being awesome. Now look at modern day NASA... They spend most of their time harping on things like climate studies and propulsion systems. Because nothing inspires school kids like higher resolution infrared cloud imaging and improved efficiency for ion thrusters! Yay ions!

It's chicken and the egg -- fixing either of these problems will bring in more funds, but it also takes funds to make either happen.

It's a shame, but most of NASA's glory can only be found by looking through the lens of nostalgia.

[smjjames]

Colonization is not a viable business model.

Not at first and someone has to be the first to colonize. Once the technology behind colonization matures, then things will become profitable.

[Nibb31]

Not at first and someone has to be the first to colonize. Once the technology behind colonization matures, then things will become profitable.

Yes, but the first to colonize must be driven by some sort of business model or incentive. No return on investment, no colonization.

[Dman979]

Hm. Well, since reputation doesn't degrade over time, I would say that "Nasa has a reputation that rivals Jebediah's." They would get a lot of points for Gemini and Apollo, and many for the STS launches.

But they have not done much recently, so it's pretty stagnant.

[xenomorph555]

I would say that their reputation level is un-measurable this point. I would also argue that it is not stagnant or going down, but is just moving slower. As for people who say they don't do anything interesting, what about the probes and projects, they're cool even if their not manned.

[Mr Shifty]

IMO they stopped doing cool stuff at the end of the Apollo program. They've still got some pretty cool concepts, but they can't actually do them because their funding is so low. Private companies like SpaceX and Bigelow are overtaking them in terms of productivity.

NASA's funding is on the order of $18 billion per year. SpaceX spent about $1 billion in its first 10 years of existence (about half of which was NASA investment), and its total launch manifest to date (e.g. the 40 launches that they plan to launch over the next few years) is worth about $4 billion. There is no comparison between the two organizations. NASA is way, way bigger and does much, much more than SpaceX. And Bigelow? Bigelow has done nothing except launch a couple of little test modules 8 years ago.

New Horizons is cool stuff. Dawn is cool stuff. MSL is cool stuff. Cassini-Huygens is really cool stuff. The ISS is cool stuff. The Voyager probes, the Galileo mission, etc etc etc. NASA contracts many launches per year, putting all sorts of interesting experiments into space all over the solar system. The idea that NASA's relevance ended with the Apollo era is ludicrous.

I think NASA has two problems which both hurt its reputation a lot:

1.) Right now they look like they lack a sense of purpose. Apollo era NASA had a mandate to do whatever it had to in order to put a man on the moon. Now we kinda sorta maybe have a vague plan to put people on Mars at some point in the not so immediate future (we think?)...

NASA's strategic vision is pretty clear. They publish a long document every year that details it.

2.) NASA is in dire need of some showmanship. Back in the Apollo era, NASA did useful science but didn't use that as their hook for engaging the public -- little boys weren't inspired by lunar geology, they were inspired by men on the moon driving buggies and being awesome. Now look at modern day NASA... They spend most of their time harping on things like climate studies and propulsion systems. Because nothing inspires school kids like higher resolution infrared cloud imaging and improved efficiency for ion thrusters! Yay ions!

It's chicken and the egg -- fixing either of these problems will bring in more funds, but it also takes funds to make either happen.

It's a shame, but most of NASA's glory can only be found by looking through the lens of nostalgia.

Just no. NASA's glory days were not 40 years ago. There is no space agency in the world doing even remotely as much as NASA. And as I've shown on other threads, NASA's budget is not contingent on the showy success of boots on alien soil. It's contingent on NASA continuing to do useful science.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Mr Shifty

[Robotengineer]

Yes, but the first to colonize must be driven by some sort of business model or incentive. No return on investment, no colonization.

What if the return is simply the fact that we colonized?

- - - Updated - - -

Just no. NASA's glory days were not 40 years ago. There is no space agency in the world doing even remotely as much as NASA. And as I've shown on other threads, NASA's budget is not contingent on the showy success of boots on alien soil. It's contingent on NASA continuing to do useful science.

I beg to differ, the current majority party in congress doesn't give a damn about science. So yes, NASA's budget is contingent on the showy success of boots on alien soil.

[Dkmdlb]

Yes, but the first to colonize must be driven by some sort of business model or incentive.

Don't forget ideological reasons.

[Frida Space]

ESA: -999

Why? In less than a decade we've had Huygens (Cassini too owes a lot to Italy), Mars Express (Beagle 2 was a British thing, not really ESA), Rosetta-Philae, Venus Express and maybe something else I'm forgetting of (such as IXV). Next up we'll have the incredible LISA Pathfinder, Bepi-Colombo, Euclid, Solar Orbiter and especially the massive ExoMars program and the JUICE mission to Jupiter's moons which is a lot ahead of NASA's Europa Clipper or whatever it will be called! It's true that ESA has never been involved in designing manned spacecraft or anything similar, but that's mainly because ESA is just a group of very different members, we aren't a single state or anything like that.

NASA: sways from -900 to -999

Russian space agency: -800

Indian space agency: 0

Moreover, NASA worse than Russia? True, Roscosmos is the only way we can get up to the ISS currently, but it has unbelievable corruption scandals which will be very difficult to cancel out. Also, India is going great in my opinion. Why 0? It has done beautiful things at Mars on its first try, and it tested its new heavy launcher last year. Also, you forgot about Japan. I'd be interested in knowing what you think about it.

[Mr Shifty]

I beg to differ, the current majority party in congress doesn't give a damn about science. So yes, NASA's budget is contingent on the showy success of boots on alien soil.

NASA's budget has been pretty stable for nearly 40 years, through many changes of political winds. This is, in part, because they've made themselves economically valuable to constituencies whose representatives sit on committees that oversee their budget and operations. But it's mostly because science funding at the national level is largely driven by advisory councils staffed by scientist/managers, not by political representatives. I work at a government funded research facility; politics is certainly important to our funding, but not high-level national politics; more like small inter- and intra-agency politics.

[abowl]

What is NASA¨s budget this time around? Do they recieve as much funding as they did during their prime time? What happened to them?

[Mr Shifty]

What is NASA¨s budget this time around? Do they recieve as much funding as they did during their prime time? What happened to them?

The Apollo years were anomalous. There's been nothing like that budget since the early 70's. NASA's budget was stable at about $11 billion* from about 1974-1983, then climbed slowly through the 80's to $20 billion or so, then declined somewhat during the 90's, and has been pretty stable since at $15-18 billion since.

*All dollar values in this post are 2007 inflation adjusted dollars.

[Rakaydos]

Yes, but the first to colonize must be driven by some sort of business model or incentive. No return on investment, no colonization.

Mars One may have been a scam, but it shows that there is a public will to colonize. If the price for colonization drops within the reach of ideological groups like Mars One, SpaceX will have a market in keeping them supplied and staffed.