NASA: "We're going back to the moon!"

I liked this one with an upside down Endeavour.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/557842main_iss027e036638_1600_428-321.jpg

Big size here...
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/557848main_iss027e036638_full.jpg

oh nice http://appropriations.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=250023

― caek, Thursday, July 7, 2011 11:18 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

> >This is not the last word.  The House Appropriations Subcommittee
> >will consider this bill tomorrow.  And the Senate will also have a
> >separate bill on NASA funding. However, in the present climate this
> >step puts the centerpiece of astronomy's future at great risk.
> >
> >JWST and Astrophysics has entered a very dangerous zone.
> >
> >The impacts are numerous if JWST is terminated:
> >
> >1)  termination is very damaging for future astronomy and
> >astrophysics scientific productivity and for the pre-eminence of US
> >science;
> >
> >2)  termination would result in no observatory-class mission to carry
> >out broadly-based research when the current Great Observatories reach
> >end-of-life;
> >
> >3)  termination undercuts the Decadal Survey process since it was the
> >top ranked program in the prior 2000 Decadal Survey, and it is
> >identified numerous times in the 2010 Decadal Survey as a
> >foundational program for future astrophysics research;
> >
> >4)  termination of JWST, as the natural successor to Hubble, would
> >result in the loss, once Hubble fails, of a very large part of the
> >remarkable public interest that astronomy has enjoyed;
> >
> >5)  termination would eliminate a major source of inspirational
> >science education and outreach results, particularly for the interest
> >in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) that comes from
> >the high profile HST and JWST science results;
> >
> >6)  termination would reduce the strength and visibility world-wide
> >of the US science program, not just astrophysics;
> >
> >7)  termination would reduce US credibility as an international
> >partner given the Canadian and European partnership on JWST and their
> >substantial contributions to the program;
> >
> >8)  termination of JWST, following on from the termination of the SSC
> >(Superconducting Super Collider), would send the message that the US
> >is relinquishing leadership in major science projects -- it will be
> >very difficult to start any other major science project or mission;
> >
> >9)  termination would eliminate the broadly-based research funding
> >for the community that results from the Great Observatory-class
> >missions if none are operating, and greatly reduces opportunities for
> >undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate education;
> >
> >It is essential that we make our voices heard.

So assuming a similar development timescale, JWST is the only hope any currently working astronomer has to do optical/infrared astronomy in space for the rest of their career. It's being placed in a more distant orbit than Hubble, which means it can't be repaired if something goes wrong, and it's lifetime can't be extended if things go well (both were the case for Hubble). Fingers crossed, eh? This is a good summary of the situation: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101027/full/4671028a.html

― caek, Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:56 PM (8 months ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol

:(

seriously. it's been a clusterfuck, but it's our clusterfuck, you know?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/science/07webb.html

don't have much to add but yeah this is super depressing.

ha this happened over the weekend too:

http://www.universetoday.com/87245/subaru-8-meter-telescope-damaged-by-leaking-coolant/

^ aw shit that explains why my dad had to be on the summit the other day. all he told me was that he listened to joan jett on the way down and it was a "beautiful morning" though.

(my dad is an engineer for subaru)

oh rad!

looks like the Spielberg war of the worlds

oh man the inside is so cool. the whole summit is so cool. nothing up there except those huge domes, like cathedrals.

us in our regulation hard hats:
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/47572_705670264166_19506071_38038078_7669841_n.jpg

anyway yeah :( :( about the jwst but i guess Big Science stuff is the first to go when people get upset about "spending". because what does it do for me.

oh cool! i would love to got to mauna kea.

i have only been to palomar and the mcdonald.

i would love to go to hubble too but space does not work that way.

american astronomical society responds

http://lists.aas.org/pipermail/aasmembers/2011-July/000215.html

(kind of)

there is a great section in David Mitchell's "Cloud Atlas" where a post-apocalyptic tribal dude finds Mauna Kea

just FYI

that is in my unread pile. i will keep an eye out!

I gotta say that the press release caek quotes above, listing 9 (count 'em 9!) devastating impacts if JWST is terminated just struck me as very weak arguments on the whole, just throwing stuff against the wall to see if it will stick. The preeminence of USA science will be jeopardized! Children will have fewer pretty pictures of nebulae to get them interested in astronomy and science, and therefore we will generate Fewer Technicians for The Future.

Face it, there's just one impact that matters; astronomy will lose an exceptionally valuable for tool for advancing our knowledge about the remoter parts of the universe, which knowledge would enable astronomers to piece together a more accurate picture of the universe as a whole. Entire areas of research would be gutted. We'd be throwing away an opportunity to learn many interesting things.

If that reason isn't enough, none of the others will make a dime's worth of difference.

Otoh, really big expensive projects are also opportunities for expensive and spectacular failure, too.

it's not just a "we're #1 at science" thing. scientific leadership since the war has resulted in the us growing a huge skilled economy. both through migration, and american kids growing up in an environment where academic science is prestigious (in a way it isn't in a lot of the rest of the world) and so choosing to go into it. it's been kind of the unique selling point of the u.s. economy for 70+ years.

the potential scientific impact of jwst is massive but it's not particularly cost effective compared to, e.g., SDSS ($200/scientific paper!). personally, i don't think the cost of any space mission is worth it merely on the grounds that we find stuff out we don't know. pure knowledge just isn't that important. astronomy is culture: we get paid to do it because society finds it profound and exciting and stuff, and also because many economies recognize that if you want a strong applied knowledge economy (and you do) having a strong basic research sector is demonstrably a necessary condition, even if it does feel like wasting money.

also manned space exploration sucks.

it's not just a "we're #1 at science" thing. scientific leadership since the war has resulted in the us growing a huge skilled economy. both through migration, and american kids growing up in an environment where academic science is prestigious (in a way it isn't in a lot of the rest of the world) and so choosing to go into it. it's been kind of the unique selling point of the u.s. economy for 70+ years.

So that's why perhaps over half the population thinks global warming is a hoax.

-- Gorge, Ph.D.

the median person in the u.s. thinks less of science than the median person in most other developed countries, sure.

but you don't need everyone to think science is great for the prestige attractor effect to operate.

On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.

i'm not saying jwst is going to fix problems with mass perception of science issues that are considered political in the u.s.

Whoever wrote that press release does not make their fundamental argument explicit. Instead the author bets that by increasing the number of arguments (9!!), he will impress the reader by sheer quantity. But since all the arguments are minor variations on a primary argument that is never stated, the overall effect is fatally watered down.

caek understands the primary argument: if you want a thriving modern economy, science and technology must be elevated to positions of prestige and high status within your society, in order to attract talented and ambitious people. You can't do this without spending a signifigant amount of money on basic research, because that is how status is measured in our society. The rest of the benefits of a thriving scientific community flow rather naturally from this initial condition.

well tbf that's not a press release, that's an email i got forwarded with some ideas for talking points (agree that it's pretty scattergun)

the aas will hopefully have a slightly more compelling case later today/tomorrow.

They have a lot of brilliant minds. Surely a few of them grasp rhetoric at a fairly high level of competance.

I'm pretty sure the brainiacs at NASA will come up with something else to spend FIVE BILLION DOLLARS on that'll keep soccermoms interested in science.

astronomers mostly hate nasa and are happy to see its funding get moved to science fwiw

They must feel conflicted about big money-hungry projects like JWST sopping up the available funds, mostly sent to Raytheon, et. al.

i think manned space exploration is cool provided it's not just shuttling a couple people into orbit for a weekend for the nine millionth pointless time, which is apparently what it is

i mean obv we should be doing a lot more robot stuff before we Go To Mars but i think we should still be looking at a permanent presence on the moon

why? because it's cool and there's only so many pleasures in life

it'll be a great day when the defense department has to prove that children will get excited about bombers to buy a bomber

i think i'm ok with manned exploration as long as it's not an either/or thing with research which, in practice, it would be, despite the fact that they have basically no overlap. whether it's something the u.s. government should be doing i have no idea.

They must feel conflicted about big money-hungry projects like JWST sopping up the available funds, mostly sent to Raytheon, et. al.

From: http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101112-jwst-cost-imperils-priority-projects.html (dated November of last year)

During a Nov. 10 news conference, NASA released the findings of an independent review that found the JWST will cost some $1.5 billion more than its current $5 billion life-cycle cost estimate, and that the observatory’s launch, previously slated for June 2014, will not occur before September 2015. Led by John Casani of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., the Independent Comprehensive Review Panel attributed JWST cost growth to poor management and inadequate funding reserves needed to develop, launch and operate the next-generation flagship astronomy mission.

Alan Stern, a former associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, said the cost growth could ravage the agency’s $1.1 billion annual astrophysics budget, 40 percent of which is already consumed by JWST development.

“Are we going to turn off all the many existing astrophysics satellites and kill the support to analyze the data from them and stop building anything else, just so JWST can continue to overrun?” Stern said. “That’s the question that the astrophysics community has to ask of itself, and that NASA should be asking.”

According to the independent review panel, Congress will need to add about $250 million to NASA’s $444 million request for the JWST in 2011 alone just to maintain the newly projected 2015 launch date. Another $250 million will be needed in 2012, in addition to the agency’s current projection of $380 million for the program in that year.

“Even at the best case, the $1.5 billion upper will virtually wipe out the inspirations of the newly released decadal survey in astrophysics for 2010-2020,” said Stern, who currently is associate vice president of the Southwest Research Institute’s Space Science and Engineering Division in Boulder, Colo.

Stern was referring to the National Research Council report, released Aug. 13, that laid out the science community’s top priorities in astrophysics research for the next decade. Formally titled “New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics,” the survey designated the $1.6 billion Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope as the top priority for large missions and also recommended that NASA continue to spend about $100 million per year on more modestly priced missions.

NASA's manned program became extinct when the shuttle establishment killed off the X-33 in 2001. The last ten years have been an exercise in retrofuture wish-fulfillment.

SpaceX and/or Scaled Composites will fly a guy into space before NASA does.

^^^OTM

will be awhile before non-NASA commercial enterprise gets to the Moon though, much less Mars

I'm counting on Andy Griffith to get us there.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0aGGYTJxkYs/TRwAkbvIvYI/AAAAAAAAAjQ/nRjYUzMIh3E/s1600/salvage_1.jpg

This is a neat sorta-NASA-related thing:

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/aroundthemall/2011/06/q-a-nichelle-nichols-aka-lt-uhura-and-nasa/

...I’ve decided to form the Nichelle Nichols Youth Foundation for Space Sciences—technology, engineering, math and attending performing arts. I want to further careers and interest in young people and bring back the majesty that the United States once held in education. So, for me, that is what I want to give. That is what I want to be known for. That is what I hope is my legacy.

ok here's the proper aas response

http://lists.aas.org/pipermail/aasmembers/2011-July/000216.html

Apart from needing to be split into smaller paragraphs, that's a huge improvement over the talking points email you posted yesterday.

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lolvo9PPX01qz4vjro1_400.pnghttp://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lolvo9PPX01qz4vjro2_400.pnghttp://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lolvo9PPX01qz4vjro3_400.png

want these prints

http://designarchives.aiga.org/#/entries/%2Bid%3A21333/_/detail/relevance/asc/0/7/21333/going-to-work-in-space/1

After reading this, I'm convinced that the US no longer deserves a space program. Certainly NASA (outside of JPL) doesn't.

A new schedule, created by NASA, has provided a “preliminary, budget restricted” manifest which places the first flight of the fully evolved Space Launch System (SLS) in the year 2032. The information includes details on the chosen configuration and hardware, but provides a depressing schedule, with a flight rate of just one mission per year, after a staggered opening which results in SLS-2 waiting until 2021 to launch.

As admitted by NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, the decision on the configuration of the Space Launch System (SLS) was made on June 15, a decision based on the winning Design Reference Vehicle (DRM) out of the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) hosted RAC (Requirements Analysis Cycle) study effort.

Memos on the decision, based around the utilization of a Shuttle Derived (SD) Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) – as requested in the Authorization Act – soon circulated at the main NASA centers, with references to an official announcement to be made on July 8, the launch date for STS-135.

In a sign of how widespread the information was, Atlantis’ commander Chris Ferguson told the media to expect the announcement on the next vehicle to be made on launch day, following his arrival at the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) from Houston. His statement wasn’t retracted, nor was it corrected, by NASA Public Affairs.

July 8 came and went, as Atlantis launched on the final NASA shuttle mission – and most likely the last domestic manned mission for several years.

General Bolden was then called in front of a “Full Committee Hearing – A Review of NASA’s Space Launch System“, where lawmakers were given the chance to ask questions about the delay in pressing on with the SLS.

After a tough opening question, the General gave arguably his most impressive public performance to date, holding firm on why he was not able to reveal specifics on the vehicle’s configuration. His defence was related to industry restrictions and an ongoing independent cost analysis effort by Booz Allen.

That costing effort – which began on July 5 – is likely to be completed by mid-August, while an announcement on the configuration of the vehicle, is expected “soon”.

An attempt to request NASA push on with making a public statement on the SLS configuration to the media – to coincide with Atlantis’ landing at the Kennedy Space Center – was turned down by NASA’s leadership.

The continued delays to the announcement are now causing numerous managers and workers – at least those remaining after the massive jobs losses shortly after Atlantis’ return – to question if the delay is based on politically-aligned tactics to kill the SLS.

Of course much of this is worst-case scenario FUD from NASA's part, but I'm sick of NASA's institutional nihilism.

By way of comparison, this is almost the same amount of time between Explorer 1 and Apollo 11.

Booz Allen Booz Allen Booz Allen Booz Allen Booz Allen Booz Allen Booz Allen Booz Allen

here's some more inside baseball on the us astronomy community's response to the jwst defunding

http://lists.aas.org/pipermail/aasmembers/2011-August/000222.html

this editorial contains the sunk costs fallacy, but is otherwise pretty good: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bullock-hubble-telescope-20110906,0,4761128.story. ET, it's by the guy i was visiting when you and ned took me out in costa mesa.

Thanks for the heads up on that... worth reading.

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/sep/07/lets-bring-astronauts-home/

uh oh http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/09/planetary_scientists_webb_tele.html

uh oh http://lists.aas.org/pipermail/aasmembers/2011-September/000226.html

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1947/1

Is OMB wiping out planetary exploration?

As part of US-European cooperation in Mars exploration, NASA had planned to launch a European orbiter, the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (above), on an Atlas rocket. Those plans are on hold, and may be scrapped. (credit: ESA)

by Lou Friedman
Monday, October 10, 2011

Comments (52)

In 1980, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the NASA Administrator made the decision to shut down planetary exploration in NASA in order to free up funds for the development of the Space Shuttle. This decision triggered Carl Sagan, Bruce Murray, and me to start the Planetary Society. The administration leaders told us, face-to-face, that the planets could wait because soon the cost of access to space would be so cheap that we could fly any missions about which we could dream.

We fought back, and they didn’t shut down planetary exploration. However, they did cut it deeply, resulting in a dark decade with no launches to and no data coming back from from other worlds.

We’re in a similar situation today. Behind closed doors, the administration is deciding on NASA budget cuts that may not be in the best interest of either the agency or the American people. Having caved in to Congressional special interests on the Space Launch System (SLS), the administration is now prepared to sacrifice science and exploration programs in order to prematurely start its development, with requirements that will neither be met nor needed for more than a decade.

Imagine a NASA that for ten years (say, 2015 to 2025) ceases to explore the solar system and stops looking deep into the universe. Already, the administration has said that flagship missions to explore the outer planets will cease. Voyager, Galileo, and Cassini will be followed by nothing. Already, the administration has deeply cut the Mars program, reducing American plans to support a 2016 European mission and taking away funds that were to be used for a 2018 follow-on to Mars Science Laboratory, leading to Mars sample return.

Now, news reports and reliable sources are saying that the administration (in the form of OMB) may refuse to allow NASA to proceed with any joint Mars exploration plan with Europe. This decision would destroy the whole NASA/ESA Mars collaboration that has been built in the past several years. The collaborative plan was to have the US provide an Atlas launch of a European Trace Gas Orbiter mission (with several US instruments) in 2016, and then NASA and ESA would jointly develop a sophisticated astrobiology and sample cache rover mission in 2018. OMB seems to be cutting out the American role in the 2016 mission and refusing to let NASA commit to the 2018 collaboration. (ESA has sent a letter to NASA saying that ESA has committed about $1 billion to the joint NASA-ESA mission, but that financial commitment depends on the US formally committing to its role in the mission. We hear that OMB has refused, thus far, to let NASA respond positively).

The administration has also punted the James Webb Space Telescope. The current plan states that they will support JWST, but they do not specify either a budget or where the money will come from. Are they going to leave that to Congressional special interests too?

We are very much in danger of another dark decade with NASA funding going to new launchers that will have nothing much to launch and no results to show the American people. Sure, tough choices must be made given the financial state of the country, but, as I see it, if the choice is between continuing space exploration with the space telescope and with the search for life and habitability on Mars, or building a rocket to nowhere, it’s not a hard decision.

To be clear: I am very much for both human space exploration and development of a deep space rocket (heavy lift or otherwise) to enable it. I am for it—but not at the expense of cutting out science and exploration. The rocket development, by NASA’s own (surely optimistic) schedule, will not lead to a mission until 2021. Can’t we postpone the rocket new start and then build it with a shorter development schedule (and hence lower cost)? It’s not as if we don’t have rockets or access to space: we have Atlas, Delta, Falcon, and, of course, Soyuz. We have even more rockets around the world for cargo and payloads. Our astronauts and cargo can get to the International Space Station for the rest of its life without the Space Launch System.

This is not some humans-vs.-robots argument. I am among the staunchest supporters for human explorers to go beyond the Moon and on to Mars as soon as possible. But for that to happen, NASA needs to do more than build a rocket over the next decade. Stopping robotic space exploration decreases the chances for human space exploration. If NASA’s Mars program is really devastated, as it now is on paper in OMB’s offices, then public support and interest in NASA doing space exploration in general will wither. It truly will become another federal jobs program.

Desperate times bring desperate reactions, and the ill-advised in-fighting going on among some—fortunately a small number—in the science community over Webb vs. Mars vs. astrophysics vs. solar physics vs. Earth science proves we are in desperate times. Rep. Frank Wolf, the chair of House Appropriations Committee subcommittee whose jurisdiction includes NASA, stoked the in-fighting fires by sending a letter to OMB Director Jacob Lew last month, asking the administration to tell the Congress how they recommend cutting the budget to pay for the increased costs of the James Webb Space Telescope. In tough budget times, such questions are not unfair; however, in this case, the behind-the-scenes maneuvering is being kept secret. The administration should respond directly to Rep. Wolf’s question by recommending delays in the Space Launch System (as President Obama originally proposed) until the fiscal conditions permitted a sustainable and cost-effective program. The money from the delay would pay for JWST, restore the Mars exploration program, including allowing the American role in 2016/2018 to proceed, and pay for a host of other science and technology initiatives.

If the administration will not make that recommendation, then Congress should, as I said last month, vote no on the Space Launch System

Just watched low-budget sf/horror film 'Apollo 18': really lovely recreation of Apollo technology, etc--porn for space race nerds

You might like Stephen Baxter's alt.history novel Voyage about the first manned Mars landing in 1986 using Apollo-era technology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_(Stephen_Baxter_novel)

I DID like that!

The Huell Howser of the astronaut corps is very cheerful when he takes you on a tour of the ISS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_832bo27jo

I'm actually blown away by just how big this thing is now. When the tour ends inside the shuttle, I actually kinda miss it...

Dear Vanity Fair, please hire me to write about science and NASAy subjects because if this is publishable I 100% guarantee that I can write something better: Emo NASA Is Taking Its Feelings Out on the Moon

ISS appears to be full of bales of cocaine.

Noises and sounds of the ISS space station

I just listened to space toilets IN SPACE!

• server room
• coffee machine
• underneath an aircon vent
• office kitchen cupboard
• more server room
• office ping pong table
• someone finally gets around to washing those coffee mugs
• need to call IT and get them to fix the fan on my computer
• restroom ambience
• in the stationary cupboard
• fire escape door won't open properly because people keep going through outside to smoke
• office cleaners' hoover
• roadworks outside the street block out the sound of hitting the stapler to make it work

that guy's blog is amazing

I put this on the Cassini thread, maybe it's better here.

Not sure where else to put this, but here's a 25-minute tour of the international space station hosted by astronaut Sunita Williams.

http://kottke.org/13/01/a-tour-of-the-international-space-station

NASA: "We're not going back to the moon!"

Here's where I rep for Kerbal Space Program, a neat little game/physics sandbox where you construct various rocketry and spaceplanes in an attempt to make orbit, translunar, or intrasolar travel, before failing spectacularly and having your little green astronaut dudes bail out right before everything blows up.

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/

"NASA human spaceflight is the Terry Schiavo of the US government, its been dead a long time, they just need to pull the plug..."

i didn't know about this! http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/FEATURE-FirstPhoto.html

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2912016/Kepler-186f_20x30.0.jpg

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2912018/HD_40307g_20x30.0.jpg

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2912020/Kepler_16b_20x_30.0.jpg

Beautiful.

(Those JPEGs are hueg, BTW)

Voyager 1 has already departed the solar system. For the past five years it’s been sailing between our star and another, and every day it still calls home. One day it will stop calling. For years the team has been slowly turning off instruments on both Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 in order to preserve the most important feature — the communication link. Suzy Dodd thinks the spacecraft have several years left. There’s no way to know for sure what Voyager’s final call will be. “You don’t exactly know when you get to say goodbye.” she tells me. “So every day you should say goodbye.”

https://longreads.com/2018/03/15/welcome-to-the-center-of-the-universe

Was recently reading a biography of Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci and there was this surprising to me part of her life in the mid-'60s when she was in the US hanging out with astronauts from the Gemini program in order to write profiles of them. She was fascinated by space travel and apparently intrigued by the astronauts, and became especially close with Pete Conrad. This work led to a book published in English as If the Sun Dies (1966). Wondered if anyone here has read it.

After the first moon landing she wrote another book about that, apparently published only in Italian in 1970.

I have an Italian copy of If the Sun Dies and enjoyed what I was able to read of it

Wow, that's cool - I gotta look for this

Think you can still get an ebook like I did

It mentions The First Law of Robotics on the first page so there’s that

So I found a copy of If the Sun Dies and this thing is amazing. I've never read such revealing character studies of the astronauts. Plus a ton of fascinating speculation, both practical and philosophical, about the implications of space travel and technological progress. And on top of that, the endlessly interesting perceptions of mid-'60s America through the eyes of a youngish Italian woman. Am only halfway through the 400-page hardcover and can wholeheartedly recommend.

I so want that book

Coincidentally, I've been reading former NASA deputy admin Lori Garver's book Escaping Gravity for the past couple of days and it's not that I *want* Artemis to fail, but it should never have gotten this far. SLS = Senate Launch System.

Scrubbed. I find the entire idea of manned space missions absurd but SLS is a special kind of terrible.

e.g., the annual budget for R01s is $2.2 billion. The cost _per launch_ of the SLS is $2.2 billion.

NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/09/nasa-finally-admits-what-everyone-already-knows-sls-is-unaffordable/

One of the commenters:

As a very junior software engineer for a potential second-tier subcontractor, I was in the back of the room at the first preproposal meeting for the Shuttle. The NASA executive giving the briefing stated that all bids should be on a "Design for Success" basis, that is, your cost estimate should assume that every component you interface to will operate according to spec. Grumbles of discontent from the hardened aerospace systems engineers in the room was met by "Do you want the business or not?" from the NASA guy. It was all shenanigans from their forward.

Well, I guess I now know why I didn't get a second interview (everything was frozen). sigh - back to the coding saltmines.

Yeah saw that news the other day. Fucking ridiculous.