Jim's "Myth" thread: CxP's only problem was that it was underfunded.

[HappyMartian]

Please do.

Thought you'd never ask...

It is a trivial analysis to state the obvious: just about everyone would want to be top banana, so in a trivial sense, it would be better to be Elon.  I think the trivial observation has so little value in the current discussion, that it is wrong.

The real issue here is the pain that the soon to be laid off employees will be feeling, especially when there's not much of a current market for their skills.  These people work hard, but political leadership doesn't really care about that, all of their hot air to the contrary.

Elections are coming. People should vote. Political leaders can spin pretty quick to a new direction when their previous foolishness becomes noted by voters.

Cheers!


Edited.

[MrTim]

was CxP ever fully funded.  If not, then wouldn't it be safe to say that it was a design problem not a funding problem.  allow me to explain. 

Say you want to build a house.  you lay out the design for what you want and go to the bank but the bank tells you they will only give you enough to cover the cost to build the basement.  if you cover your eyes and continue building hoping to win the lottery before you have to pay, does this really mean the bank is at fault for not giving the money.  isn't it your fault for not seeing what you were given and redesigning based on that.  with all construction, there are always overruns so maybe they gave you money for the basement, but because of these issues now you can only afford a hole in the ground.  you can't go go blaming the bank about that.

That's always been my take on Ares I as well as several other big NASA programs. It wasn't designed to stay within current budget restrictions. My belief is that there's never been a realistic expectation for Congress to expand the budget to cover Ares I. So I agree, it is a design flaw not a funding problem.

Sorry to disagree... but it's a planning problem. A design problem would be something like the thrust oscillation issue. Planning problems belong squarely on the shoulders of the managers. Design problems have some engineer fingerprints on them even though some organizations would still place full blame on management.

Furthermore, Griffin made it clear, and multiple congresses (both political parties) agreed that the program would operate within whatever budget congress provided, with all schedules simply slipping to the right as needed. By that reckoning, the program was very explicitly designed to stay within the budget... it just was not designed to stay within the calendar.

Congress repeatedly chose to delay Cx rather than pay more for it. This would be a completely rational and adult choice (perhaps not the one you or I would have made) but congress was being childish in the sense that they knew it would eventually lead to political pain. Same bind they have put themselves into with Social Security and Medicare.... Think "Wimpy" from Popeye: "I will gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today..."

[khallow]

That's always been my take on Ares I as well as several other big NASA programs. It wasn't designed to stay within current budget restrictions. My belief is that there's never been a realistic expectation for Congress to expand the budget to cover Ares I. So I agree, it is a design flaw not a funding problem.

Sorry to disagree... but it's a planning problem. A design problem would be something like the thrust oscillation issue. Planning problems belong squarely on the shoulders of the managers. Design problems have some engineer fingerprints on them even though some organizations would still place full blame on management.

I don't see the distinction. Not saying it's not there, but I can't separate planning from design, especially any planning that precedes development of the Shuttle vehicle. And it seems to me that the planning of a complex asset such as the Shuttle has a substantial engineering "fingerprint".

[beancounter]

Please do. I think you'll have a tough time convincing the thousands of NASA and contractor employees who are about to be laid off with no golden parachute, and no multi-million dollar fortune in the bank!

Elon Musk lost his family and doesn't have much liquid assets nowadays (or so he claims... to his ex-wife ).

I'd rather be poor and have a happy family than rich without one.

I wouldn't be too worried about Elon.  Seems he's moving on and has a new girlfriend or maybe more.  Check out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/01/elon-musk-spacex-rocket-mars

Perhaps he'll take her to Mars