Administrator Isaacman?

[darthgently]

8 minutes ago, GuessingEveryDay said:

There'd be some representative from the South asking whether they can trust a limey to take care of NASA.

Or from the north even.  But even more importantly, Scott Manley isn’t a limey, being of Scottish descent, and also a naturalized American citizen.  He’d certainly be a great asset at NASA, as admin or other high level role

[tater]

9 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Or like literally anyone who doesn’t have a glaring and obvious conflict of interest with one of the largest government space contractors?

So no one who has ever worked for, or been a customer with gov contractors? Or gotten political donations from any? Or who has invested in a contractor?

We could do the same for every employee in every agency—it would be awesome because we'd have to fire pretty much all of them. I'm game.

[Pthigrivi]

On 12/13/2024 at 10:09 AM, tater said:

So no one who has ever worked for, or been a customer with gov contractors? Or gotten political donations from any? Or who has invested in a contractor?

We could do the same for every employee in every agency—it would be awesome because we'd have to fire pretty much all of them. I'm game.

I mean a) there’s a pretty big difference between ever having worked or interacted with the aerospace industry and being a direct subordinate of one the most important NASA contractor. More important though if you paid a few hundred million to someone and they then in turn install one of your lackeys to funnel you billions in tax-funded contracts most honest and responsible people would describe that as bribery and corruption. The fact that the US has over the last several decades doubled and tripled down on lack of accountability and the outright purchase of contacts and regulatory favors to the point where this is blatant and commonplace makes matters worse, not better. 

Edited December 16, 2024 by Pthigrivi

[darthgently]

On 12/13/2024 at 10:09 AM, tater said:

  On 12/13/2024 at 12:31 AM, Pthigrivi said:

Or like literally anyone who doesn’t have a glaring and obvious conflict of interest with one of the largest government space contractors?

“Alert: Perimeter sensors on forum boundaries detecting overly-clever prancing and dancing activity.”

[tater]

13 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I mean a) there’s a pretty big difference between ever having worked or interacted with the aerospace industry and being a direct subordinate of one the most important NASA contractor. More important though if you paid a few hundred million to someone and they then in turn install one of your lackeys to funnel you billions in tax-funded contracts most honest and responsible people would describe that as bribery and corruption. The fact that the US has over the last several decades doubled and tripled down on lack of accountability and the outright purchase of contacts and regulatory favors to the point where this is blatant and commonplace makes matters worse, not better. 

Isaacman is a CUSTOMER of SpaceX, not "a subordinate." NASA is a customer, too, are they a subordinate? What about Space Force?

There's a pattern to these interactions—actually, it reminds me of many cocktail parties (maybe because loads of academics in my circle). People on one side (always the same side) pop into a thread/conversation, throw out a mildly political statement (always the obvious thing good people think!) sometimes with a caveat that they don't mean to get political (and how could it be, really, it's the obvious thing that all good people think), then of course any reply that is counter-narrative results what one would expect. The rest of us actually, you know, follow the rules, and don't start such conversations in the first place (like what our parents told us was an acceptable topic for conversation in polite society—actually, they told us what wasn't acceptable, and we actually internalized it).

I realize that some people can apparently read minds, and actually know the inner consciousness of others apparently, but I'll stick to demonstrable things since I can't actually read minds. If you have data that shows Isaacman is somehow compromised as a choice for an Admin— and more so than any other NASA Admin in history—please share it, otherwise it's entirely moot. He has to be confirmed in this position, which he almost certainly will. He's positioned as an outsider to perhaps do things that would be less likely with a more traditional, political choice. I think there's a decent chance he's pretty good, I can't rationally pretend to know what's in his mind (nor can anyone else).

Edited December 16, 2024 by tater

[Pthigrivi]

5 hours ago, tater said:

Isaacman is a CUSTOMER of SpaceX, not "a subordinate." NASA is a customer, too, are they a subordinate? What about Space Force?

There's a pattern to these interactions—actually, it reminds me of many cocktail parties (maybe because loads of academics in my circle). People on one side (always the same side) pop into a thread/conversation, throw out a mildly political statement (always the obvious thing good people think!) sometimes with a caveat that they don't mean to get political (and how could it be, really, it's the obvious thing that all good people think), then of course any reply that is counter-narrative results what one would expect. The rest of us actually, you know, follow the rules, and don't start such conversations in the first place (like what our parents told us was an acceptable topic for conversation in polite society—actually, they told us what wasn't acceptable, and we actually internalized it).

I realize that some people can apparently read minds, and actually know the inner consciousness of others apparently, but I'll stick to demonstrable things since I can't actually read minds. If you have data that shows Isaacman is somehow compromised as a choice for an Admin— and more so than any other NASA Admin in history—please share it, otherwise it's entirely moot. He has to be confirmed in this position, which he almost certainly will. He's positioned as an outsider to perhaps do things that would be less likely with a more traditional, political choice. I think there's a decent chance he's pretty good, I can't rationally pretend to know what's in his mind (nor can anyone else).

Im talking about ethics. I don't think ethics are outside the bounds of polite conversation. My parents taught me never to take or pay a bribe, nor to make excuses for those who do. Its not about the law and its not about getting caught, it's about doing the right thing and having integrity. I hear what you guys are implying but I don't think there's anything partisan about that. Certainly the process by which he was selected was incredibly unethical, but sure, whether Isaacman himself will just do exactly what Elon wants him to do remains to be seen. This kind of favor-buying and regulatory capture certainly isn't a new phenomena. Corrupt processes tend to lead to corrupt results, and I don't see any reason we should expect a different result this time. 

Edited December 16, 2024 by Pthigrivi

[tater]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Im talking about ethics. I don't think ethics are outside the bounds of polite conversation. My parents taught me never to take or pay a bribe, nor to make excuses for those who do. Its not about the law and its not about getting caught, it's about doing the right thing and having integrity. I hear what you guys are implying but I don't think there's anything partisan about that. Certainly the process by which he was selected was incredibly unethical, but sure, whether Isaacman himself will just do exactly what Elon wants him to do remains to be seen. This kind of favor-buying and regulatory capture certainly isn't a new phenomena. Corrupt processes tend to lead to corrupt results, and I don't see any reason we should expect a different result this time. 

Isaacman has taken bribes? Someone else has? Presumably you have documentation of that—it's a crime, after all. If you have specific accusations to make, then make them. Being a customer of SpaceX, or even being someone who agrees with their vision, is not an ethical problem any more than being a fan of old space, or cost-plus, etc is an ethical problem (that might actually be easier to argue as an ethical issue).

If ethics was the issue, NASA people moving between industry and NASA (either direction) would be banned. Earmarked funding (SLS/Orion) would be banned, too, right? Because the current ethics of NASA is that it's an equal-opportunity sausage factory—and the sausage ain't vegan TVP, or chicken, it's 100%, grade A pork. The different centers exist as different places the same way military bases do. Jobs in districts. Everyone knows NASA would be more effective with less overhead—many even argue for it—but that means fewer districts, and THIS center, here, this one is critical, that one in the other district? Maybe that should move HERE. The same with their "cost plus" contracts. SLS/Orion brag they have components made in 50 (or nearly 50) states. Who selects what part goes where—by selecting based on location to buy votes... how is that not an ethical concern when it is a less effective use of taxpayer money?

SpaceX is only the powerhouse it is for launch because they are really good at it, and there is ZERO meaningful competition. The lack of competition is not because of ethical concerns (bribery, sweetheart contracts, etc)—it's because everyone else in the launch market space sucks. At this point ULA is only competitive because they have been given contracts because they are "not SpaceX." BO has yet to do literally anything useful, in spite of being founded by the previously richest guy, and having more time to do so (I desperately want to be a BO fan, but they make it virtually impossible). Rocket Lab is cool—but they went after the backwards-looking smallsat market. They are smartly pivoting to Neutron for medium lift, but as I say in most threads about commercial launch—the launch market is chump change, and they will only exist as "not SpaceX" to spread out contracts. The idea that SpaceX will have underpants gnomes "profit" because of Isaacman is goofy. The entire NASA budget is now on the order of 6% of Musk's worth (and yes, those worth numbers are smoke cloud illusions, but still). Until the market provides meaningful competition, SpaceX is literally the only game in town. When there's a choice, the contracts will certainly spread among the available choices (just as BO got the other HLS in spite of zero experience doing anything useful).

 

[Pthigrivi]

35 minutes ago, tater said:

Isaacman has taken bribes?

I know you’re a smart guy. Isaacman did not take bribes. Elon paid up-front for his appointment. I know you know that. 
 

35 minutes ago, tater said:

If ethics was the issue, NASA people moving between industry and NASA (either direction) would be banned. Earmarked funding (SLS/Orion) would be banned, too, right? Because the current ethics of NASA is that it's an equal-opportunity sausage factory—and the sausage ain't vegan TVP, or chicken, it's 100%, grade A pork. The different centers exist as different places the same way military bases do. Jobs in districts. Everyone knows NASA would be more effective with less overhead—many even argue for it—but that means fewer districts, and THIS center, here, this one is critical, that one in the other district? Maybe that should move HERE. The same with their "cost plus" contracts. SLS/Orion brag they have components made in 50 (or nearly 50) states. Who selects what part goes where—by selecting based on location to buy votes... how is that not an ethical concern when it is a less effective use of taxpayer money?

Yes this is bad and has had a terrible cost to NASA and taxpayers. A much more efficient way of milking taxpayer money is for billionaires to simply purchase that pork outright. 
 

35 minutes ago, tater said:

SpaceX is only the powerhouse it is for launch because they are really good at it, and there is ZERO meaningful competition. The lack of competition is not because of ethical concerns (bribery, sweetheart contracts, etc)—it's because everyone else in the launch market space sucks. At this point ULA is only competitive because they have been given contracts because they are "not SpaceX." BO has yet to do literally anything useful, in spite of being founded by the previously richest guy, and having more time to do so (I desperately want to be a BO fan, but they make it virtually impossible). Rocket Lab is cool—but they went after the backwards-looking smallsat market. They are smartly pivoting to Neutron for medium lift, but as I say in most threads about commercial launch—the launch market is chump change, and they will only exist as "not SpaceX" to spread out contracts. The idea that SpaceX will have underpants gnomes "profit" because of Isaacman is goofy. The entire NASA budget is now on the order of 6% of Musk's worth (and yes, those worth numbers are smoke cloud illusions, but still). Until the market provides meaningful competition, SpaceX is literally the only game in town. When there's a choice, the contracts will certainly spread among the available choices (just as BO got the other HLS in spite of zero experience doing anything useful).

 

Perfect then. Lets just enshrine this monopoly with 100% government backing, clear out all competition, provide zero oversight, and let them chose their own regulators. It worked great for Boeing!

Edited December 17, 2024 by Pthigrivi

[darthgently]

26 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Elon paid up-front for his appointment. I know you know that. 

Trump has been talking about draining the bureaucratic swamp since forever.  In a live broadcast, as I recall it, Trump expressed admiration to Musk that he’d kept Twitter going, and improved it, by cutting unnecessary jobs and something to the effect that that is what he wants to do with the federal bureaucracy.  Musk said he’d like to help with that.  Long story short Musk accepted an unpaid advisory role to help make the bureaucracy more efficient which he has a good track record for doing such things. And Trump will once again be giving his presidential salary to charity as he did previously.  Musk just wants to get humanity out there and will pitch in where he can to further that goal.  It isn’t complicated.  Elon supported his candidate of choice just as many other very wealthy people supported Harris (some notables from Europe)

You’ve already capitulated that Isaacman did not accept nor pay any bribes so the fig leaf of being about “ethics” and “NASA administrator” is gone.

Now that you’ve managed to get responses that are surely over the forum line, by dancing on the forum line, can we move the frak on now?

[tater]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

I know you’re a smart guy. Isaacman did not take bribes. Elon paid up-front for his appointment. I know you know that. 

So all the tech people on the other side in multiple other elctions "paid up front" for FCC, FTC, and all manner of regulatory appointments (all of which have grossly more impact than NASA). Whatever. X man bad. Got it.

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Yes this is bad and has had a terrible cost to NASA and taxpayers. A much more efficient way of milking taxpayer money is for billionaires to simply purchase that pork outright. 

Purchase what pork, exactly? The recent alternative had billionaires pay MORE money (to lose), so she;d have also been bought?

NASA has no serious money. Their entire budget is chump change to Musk or Bezos (the 2 relevant billionaires in the space space)—and only a small fraction of that is actually available to capture. Most is spent on the centers for NOT launch. More importantly, there's no reason for SpaceX to "purchase" NASA contracts, they literally win most of them by being better and cheaper than any alternative—and they ones they don't win are because the MORE expensive alternatives get a hand out as charity to maintain multiple contractors. The government will continue to source from multiple contractors for redundancy, even when one is in effect getting a handout since they stink at it.

Remember Boeing was to get paid more than SpaceX (and will, assuming they ever deliver 6 crew missions to ISS).
 

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Perfect then. Lets just enshrine this monopoly with 100% government backing, clear out all competition, provide zero oversight, and let them chose their own regulators. It worked great for Boeing!

The government provides little money, and would not spend on what they are spending on at all. There is no competition because no one has yet stepped up to compete. All are suffering from idiotic regulations, BO is waiting right now. As the launch cadence increases, including the only chance for actual competition near term, BO, regulatory problems will get worse, not better. Streamlining this is the only way there can be another provider that can drive costs down. BTW, is is a simple fact that large, established players are usually the one pushing MORE regulations, not fewer, as they are big enough to easily deal with regulatory delays which can kill startups constantly keeping an eye on burn rate, and when they have to pack up shop and quit.

Edited December 17, 2024 by tater

[Pthigrivi]

52 minutes ago, tater said:

So all the tech people on the other side in multiple other elctions "paid up front" for FCC, FTC, and all manner of regulatory appointments

Yes.

52 minutes ago, tater said:

More importantly, there's no reason for SpaceX to "purchase" NASA contracts, they literally win most of them by being better and cheaper than any alternative—and they ones they don't win are because the MORE expensive alternatives get a hand out as charity to maintain multiple contractors. The government will continue to source from multiple contractors for redundancy, even when one is in effect getting a handout since they stink at it.

Yes, and the minute SpaceX goes from scrappy upstart to government sponsored monopoly with no accountability the rot will set in because that’s literally what happens every single time for completely obvious reasons. You haven’t solved the problem. You’ve just traded one corrupt money suck for another. 
 

52 minutes ago, tater said:

BTW, is is a simple fact that large, established players are usually the one pushing MORE regulations, not fewer, as they are big enough to easily deal with regulatory delays which can kill startups constantly keeping an eye on burn rate, and when they have to pack up shop and quit.

And now that Elon has purchased his own regulators it’ll be real interesting to see if those regs don’t just serve to protect his own interests. I mean when has that ever happened. 

Edited December 17, 2024 by Pthigrivi

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

and the minute SpaceX goes from scrappy upstart to government sponsored monopoly

will be the moment of the abbreviation EMS for Elon Musk Ship, as I had said before, lol.

[tater]

12 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Yes.

Cool, so I assume you posted about the new FTC/FAA/NASA appointments in later 2020, early 2021 then? That they might pick winners/losers based on politics? Got any links, or do you only chime in when the billionaires in question don't hold coincident political views with your own?

12 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Yes, and the minute SpaceX goes from scrappy upstart to government sponsored monopoly with no accountability the rot will set in because that’s literally what happens every single time for completely obvious reasons. You haven’t solved the problem. You’ve just traded one corrupt money suck for another. 

You keep saying "government-sponsored." They champion fixed price contracts that they win by being cheaper/better.. Get back to me when they switch to sole-source, cost-plus contracts like Boeing/LockMart/NG.

There is no "money suck," NASA doesn't have enough money available for launch for this to be meaningful in this case. Where's your post in the ULA thread about the corruption that won them (ULA) 60% of the Space Force launches for a rocket that didn't exist? Your arguments would be more convincing if they did not only ever appear to attack one provider (cause you don't like the boss).

The reality is that Isaacman will probably be fine. I have way more concerns about his ability/skillset to do the political work in DC than about "corruption." The NASA Admin is tasked with executing the space goals of the President, that changes every 4-8 years since NASA was founded.

 

12 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

And now that Elon has purchased his own regulators it’ll be real interesting to see if those regs don’t just serve to protect his own interests. I mean when has that ever happened. 

I assume you were dropping similar political bombs in threads in say, the Tesla thread, in the last 4 years? Links? You must have pointed out that the billionaires that supported the current admin got the admin to do events and policies (they literally set the tax credit to keep out Teslas—then Tesla dropped their prices to get the credit anyway) about EVs, and left out the only meaningful EV manufacturer in the country, right? You know, when you'd see  events and press conferences where you'd think all the EVs made in the country were made by GM or Ford?

The standard here seems to be express the reality that power is a thing, and that it can certainly serve the interests of the powerful—but only express it if the side in question is not your side.

Back on the topic of the NASA admin, who would you suggest? You need to pick someone who will do what the admin wants—even if you dislike the current admin, picking someone the President would accept is required for this exercise, obviously (same if we were talking about the current admin). This person needs to have no connections to politics or industry (the latter apparently even as a customer). They also can't be friends with anyone rich who supports the new President. Who does this leave? Goes back to my first reply, that you apparently want internal promotions for career NASA people only. This would of course just cement the NASA culture forever and make it less agile. There's also the real chance of political capture within NASA for those sorts of internal picks as they all have an interest in being in favor of the most funding, so any side talking about trying to cut spending in any way is likely less represented.

 

Edited December 17, 2024 by tater

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Cool, so I assume you posted about the new FTC/FAA/NASA appointments in later 2020, early 2021 then? That they might pick winners/losers based on politics? Got any links, or do you only chime in when the billionaires in question don't hold coincident political views with your own?

Dude I have never had good things to say about Nelson, nor very many of his predecessors. I've said repeatedly that this problem goes back decades. The rest of your post is a collection of red herrings and lazy comparisons assuming was in support of past corruption despite me saying repeatedly that I am not. Just read what I wrote. Im not going to sealion for you. If ethics just aren't your strong suit and facing the clear and obvious problems with paid influence no matter who is doing it isn't something you can come to terms with there just isn't much I can do to help you. 

Edited December 17, 2024 by Pthigrivi

[tater]

11 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Dude I have never had good things to say about Nelson, nor very many of his predecessors. I've said repeatedly that this problem goes back decades. The rest of your post is a collection of red herrings and lazy comparisons assuming was in support of past corruption despite me saying repeatedly that I am not. Just read what I wrote. Im not going to sealion for you. If ethics just aren't your strong suit and facing the clear and obvious problems with paid influence no matter who is doing it isn't something you can come to terms with there just isn't much I can do to help you. 

Yes, you say that now, but you only actually post a new post into a thread bringing this up—often skirting rules, derailing threads—when it's Musk related. It's not about me claiming you support previous corruption (I made  no such claim), it's that you only post when it's Musk-related. We get it, you think the X man is doubleplusungood.

I recall only seeing examples where you try and post something political in a way to avoid the rules to take a swipe at Musk... but I could very well be wrong. Since you know the sorts of posts you make much more accurately than I do, by all means, post the links from the last 4 years to you attacking the side you agree with for doing the same unethical things, I'm very open to changing my mind.

 

 

 

 

[Vanamonde]

Please avoid politics and limit the discussion here to NASA. 

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Yes, you say that now, but you only actually post a new post into a thread bringing this up—often skirting rules, derailing threads—when it's Musk related. It's not about me claiming you support previous corruption (I made  no such claim), it's that you only post when it's Musk-related. We get it, you think the X man is doubleplusungood.

I recall only seeing examples where you try and post something political in a way to avoid the rules to take a swipe at Musk... but I could very well be wrong. Since you know the sorts of posts you make much more accurately than I do, by all means, post the links from the last 4 years to you attacking the side you agree with for doing the same unethical things, I'm very open to changing my mind.

I think it's just that I don't post much on this board all that much since KSP2 floundered and even before that I stuck mostly to game and development subforums. I've definitely asked "seriously how has SLS not been canceled" and said things like "Damn BO seems pretty useless" and further back talked about horrendous administrative decisions related to Colombia and Challenger. I do personally think Nelson is a bit of a twit. Those posts just don't seem to be very controversial and so don't end up in long very visible arguments. 

[magnemoe]

37 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I think it's just that I don't post much on this board all that much since KSP2 floundered and even before that I stuck mostly to game and development subforums. I've definitely asked "seriously how has SLS not been canceled" and said things like "Damn BO seems pretty useless" and further back talked about horrendous administrative decisions related to Colombia and Challenger. I do personally think Nelson is a bit of a twit. Those posts just don't seem to be very controversial and so don't end up in long very visible arguments. 

This now BO has picked up their pace a lot. 
Even and this is an joke: They messed up the paperwork to FFA on purpose to get an reason a delay they can not be blamed on, and it would not be that many months delay. 

[Pthigrivi]

6 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

This now BO has picked up their pace a lot. 
Even and this is an joke: They messed up the paperwork to FFA on purpose to get an reason a delay they can not be blamed on, and it would not be that many months delay. 

Yeah Im sure I made comments about that a while ago. I mean truth be told I might like Bezos even less than I like Elon just as a person. I'd just love to see SOME kind of competition in these markets. Holding out hope Stoke makes strides over the next few years. If we see Isaacman really making it possible for viable competitors to grow and find footing I'll be happy. 

[tater]

 

Ob_Isaacman: he has been officially put forth for confirmation as the next NASA Admin.

[darthgently]

 

[tater]

<blink>

[Pthigrivi]

To be fair “Like the Trail of Tears, but in space!” Sounds exactly like how mars colonization will probably go at this point. 

Edited January 21 by Pthigrivi

[darthgently]

14 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

To be fair “Like the Trail of Tears, but in space!” Sounds exactly like how mars colonization will probably go. 

Poor Martians!

[Pthigrivi]

13 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Poor Martians!

More likely this article, but on Mars.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari/the-dark-side-of-dubai-1664368.html?callback=in&code=NMQ1ZMQXZTUTMMJKMS0ZZJFHLTK0MJETZJFKN2I0NTKWZWU1&state=d808ea2f1cb44a56871d0a6f722e228a

Edited January 21 by Pthigrivi