[classicsnoot]

On a certain blog that is completely outside acceptable standards for wrongthink and political correctness, a very popular topic of late is why NASA seems to have it in for Elon Musk Personally and SpaceX generally. The commonly stated reasons, and I will be paraphrasing and transliterating freely, are: HR culture defining administration wide objectives and methods and reasoning, professional embarrassment over languishing reputation, gross incompetence, turf defense of budget and status, and a desire to stay firmly planted on Terra while being lauded for dreaming of the stars.

I am always skeptical of any argument that is unfamiliar, but more and more it does appear that NASA has lost its way. The shuttle was an obvious mistake in retrospect; there may even be some credibility to the obscure theory that NASA only did it to further separate themselves from DoD. I think NASA has become a political creature that is less concerned with science and more concerned with SCIENCE™. If this is the case, they will fight tooth and nail against any expansion of manned space exploration (because it will be both private and military in nature), the will fight against innovation that doesn't spring from their own workshop(s), and they will use Cape Canaveral (and their heritage facilities/infrastructure) as a way to bully "adversaries" into submission.

I hope this isn't the case, and if it is, I hope they can reverse whatever practices and policies that have led us to where we are. As it stands though, it appears NASA is more like OSHA then it is like its historical instance.

[lisper]

> I think NASA has become a political creature

NASA has always been a political creature, but its mission has changed over the years. Its original mission was to beat the USSR into space. Its new mission is to funnel money to key congressional districts. But it has always been political. Science was always a facade.

Source: I worked for NASA for 15 years (1988-2000, 2001-2004).

[V_Terranova_Jr]

The saddest thing about NASA is that the remarkable engineering and scientific capability it possesses... is managed by NASA. It's a great example of one of the most profoundly dysfunctional bureaucracies within the U.S. Government.

[MiroF]

> On a certain blog that is completely outside acceptable standards for wrongthink and political correctness

What does this statement really add besides political signaling?

[jshevek]

It is important as a community that we are aware of the criteria, both claimed and actual, which guide the moderation of our community. Statements like this give people like me an opportunity to research and learn more about the decision making of the mods.

[classicsnoot]

I wanted to be clear that i didn't come up with the ideas I related, and I have gotten in trouble with HN moderation for linking the blog in the past.

[jbay808]

I'm confused by what you mean. NASA has provided SpaceX with lots of expertise and assistance. And you are aware that Starliner is a Boeing vehicle, not SpaceX?

[avmich]

> NASA has provided SpaceX with lots of expertise and assistance.

Can you provide a link about that? I'm aware about SpaceX-NASA cooperation in debugging SpaceX disasters and also financial assistance from NASA on various stages of SpaceX evolution, but would like to learn about substantial involvement of NASA into important technical design and development processes in SpaceX.

[greglindahl]

SpaceX's Merlin engine started with plans and the team that developed the NASA-funded FASTRAC engine -- so there it is on Day 1 of SpaceX's existence.

[avmich]

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/...

"In a salient departure from traditional engine design, NASA and its business partners have adapted commercial, off-the-shelf technologies and common manufacturing methods to develop the Fastrac engine. Significant involvement by small business has aided in broadening the competition and producing lower cost hardware.

For example, Barber-Nichols, Inc. of Arvada, Colo., worked alongside Marshall engineers to design and manufacture the turbopump. The Colorado-based company is experienced in building turbomachinery for the automotive industry and chemical plants, and not traditionally associated with the aerospace industry. The company helped design a turbopump for the Fastrac engine that can be built easily using commercial manufacturing techniques."

Sounds like NASA itself took help from the industry then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)

"The SpaceX turbopump was an entirely new, clean sheet design contracted to Barber-Nichols, Inc. in 2002 who performed all design, engineering analysis, and construction; the company had previously worked on turbopumps for the RS-88 (Bantam) and NASA Fastrac engine programs."

Turbopump is often the most complex part of the engine; doing it from scratch raises doubts how much the engine was derived.

I don't think NASA helped to SpaceX that much before Falcon-1 reached the orbit.

[perl4ever]

I'm not sure who is confused about what, but with the Starliner, Starhopper, and Starship, it seems easy to get confused.

[catalogia]

FYI the Space Shuttle flew 10 missions for the DoD, making it far more relevant to the military than the Saturn V.

[p_l]

After Congress pulled critical funding for a good and actually cheap in use Shuttle, DoD poured money with caveat of requirements that killed shuttle economy long term, many of the requirements never being executed (like polar orbits from Vandenberg)

[mdocherty]

Which blog?

[jshevek]

The author says elsewhere that he has (paraphrased) gotten in trouble with hacker news for linking to it in the past.