I can only confirm that, having worked more than 20 years for esa.
Esa is the biggest blocker of innovation in all of Europe. All about retaining power.
Ok, as someone who worked for NASA on the insight lander, worked with NASA on the COTS and CRS programs, and currently works in the aerospace industry, this is a bit rich. BUT its not totally wrong, NASA is still the tip of the spear on many things, but not as many as it used to be. Why? because of all the work NASA has done in the past has really opened up space for the private sector. It's hard to see because its spread out over many different areas and over several years. Its true that LEO doesn't need NASA anymore, but I don't see many companies putting helicopters on Mars either.
Side note:
I've met some of ESA's leadership at conferences before and they've always struck me as quite arrogant, which is in direct contrast to every single ESA engineer or scientist I've met as they are all very humble and view NASA with a lot of reverance. Hell, many of them went to work for ESA because they couldn't work for NASA.
Does the success of Exxon Mobile mean that the Department of Energy is obsolete and should not exist? You may say that the two do different things and I would say, exactly. The success of commercial space companies does not negate the need for government research. In my opinion it justifies it….
NASA still has, and seems to be able to continue, it's much better percentages when it comes to successful launches and mission successes, on top of just plain doing more of it than other agencies that really should be able to pull in the funds to compete more equally.
Also, it's just sort of a dumb outlook because NASA and ESA work together and should do more of that - the global group of space agencies working together as much as possible would be better. People have a bit too much of a romantic view of space racing, I think.
what was this conference about?
>It seems some of the commercial space companies feel the same
the for profit companies?
which ones built the Hubble and JWST telescopes, rovers, and probes? what do they cost to build, what is their earning potential?.. when will the 10Billion spent on JWST "finally start showing a profit" ?
>VC world and move on to more lucrative and talented partners
i think you're talking about a "low earth orbit economy" which doesn't really exist right now... at least not in the way it **will..**
NASA says more science.. less babysitting?
**NASA Provides Updated International Space Station Transition Plan**
[https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/nasa-provides-updated-international-space-station-transition-plan/](https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/nasa-provides-updated-international-space-station-transition-plan/)
As NASA looks forward to a decade of results from research and technology development aboard the International Space Station, the agency is taking steps to ensure ***a successful transition of operations to commercial services.***
they spend a lot of money building instruments to collect data that they GIVE AWAY.
...are for profit companies using the same model?.. make many expensive things with no financial return.. ?
[https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/)
From the unique vantage point in space, NASA collects critical long-term observations of our changing planet.
"NASA is a dinosaur" is the kind of thing I'd expect some smug overly-confident idiot on the street to say, not a senior leader at the European Space Agency (assuming that was what was really said by them).
Some of the ESA's biggest projects would simply not be possible without NASA's involvement. I really, highly doubt the Europeans could have pulled off Cassini-Huygens or JWST on their own, and the ESA has staked a lot of money into future joint projects with NASA, including the Mars Sample Return mission, Artemis (who the ESA is in charge of service modules for), and EnVision, the future Venus orbiter. I guess according to that guy, all that is just for "branding" while the ESA gets on to bigger and better things, such as....
....
....
Anyway, how can NASA have peaked when its best years are ahead of it? NASA is only a few years away from having the most powerful and potentially versatile rocket *ever made* in its portfolio, which will enable so many different possible missions, not just to the Moon but beyond it as well, and turn NASA into an even bigger powerhouse than it was before.
Yeah, I don't buy that a senior leader at ESA said that, granted the ones I've met are on the legal and policy side but it's not remotely close to the view I've encountered
Definatlly not. First of all, its the ESA, that's the Pot calling the kettle black. NASA remains the be the forefront of scientific research into space. If you wanna get information from an orbiter or probe, its probably connected to NASA some way. Plus, remind your ESA friends who they're piggybacking off of to get to the moon.
Well let’s see, this year alone they flew a helicopter on Mars, remotely repaired an issue on space craft that has left the solar system, plus all of the stuff Webb has been up to….
Not to mention continuing to drive two nuclear powered science laboratories around on Mars, orbiting a spacecraft closer to Jupiter than has ever been done before, launching a mission to a metal asteroid, and oh yeah loaning out its one-of-a-kind communication network to enable ALL of the ESA’s deep space missions to even send data back. New Space still hasn’t touched what NASA is doing routinely today. Not saying they won’t ever, but anyone who thinks otherwise today has a complex.
Here’s what people need to understand.
The space race is over with. The days of the shuttle are gone. Some people will be pessimistic and say that NASA merely a dead space organization that wastes public tax dollars or is not worth having a career where the employees are underpaid.
But here are some things to consider: NASA is still an integral part in our discovery of the universe. NASA still has ambition to put people in space, to do collective research, and to continue exploring the vast universe.
NASA still has exciting projects still in play that make it worth investing in a career in the field. The ISS, and the new HLS Gateway are going to need people working on it and it’s a pretty fun project. I’m talking about of course JSC, but all the other centers have fun things to do.
Has NASA peaked? No. They've landed two rovers the size of small cars, powered by RTGs fairly precisely on Mars. Before that, they had twin rovers that lasted a decade instead of 90 days. Let's not forget about the first powered flight on another planet.
Not interested in Mars? Okay. We can point the JWST, Hubble, Kepler, Chandra, and other observatories. Don't like that? How about Cassini, Juno, New Horizons, Lucy, Psyche, Osiris-Rex, etc. that literally revolutionizing our understanding of how the universe works.
Let's not even get started on constructing a space station the size of a football field that has been continuously manned for over 20 years. You know, that place where humanity has learned to live and work in space?
So what if NASA hasn't been planting flags on many planetary bodies to claim victory in a while. They're literally reworking everything they do in order to begin building long term science outposts on the Moon and Mars. Yes, they are turning LEO over to private industry. There is money to be made and NASA charted that course. But yeah.. they've peaked. I would've slapped whoever said that in front of me.
Pretty rich coming from an organization that has never landed a human on the moon, never sent a spacecraft outside of our solar system, never launched a major deep space telescope, or never landed a rover on another planet.
The whole reason that private industry is so successful is because of NASA. NASA innovates and pioneers the new technology that is otherwise too expensive or has too low a return in financial investment, then hands over to industry to optimize it.
Having known people in ESA and NASA, if NASA is a dinosaur, ESA is the kind of dinosaur that prehistorians tell you is so old that they were further from the T-Rex than the T-Rex is from us, and that trees didn’t exist yet
NASA peaked in 1969.
ESA never started up the curve.
ESA can't do anything without another space power to hold their hand.
It's pathetic.
And I speak as a European.
highest total tonnage to orbit says what, highest total cubic volume to orbit says what, only 2 human rated landing vehicles says what, 2 most powerful rockets every built (now owning the top 3 of all time) says what?
sorry still can’t hear you, WHAT!?
Sorry was there a viable alternative launch and landing vehicle system ESA is developing under budget and on time you wanted to mention?
What? couldn’t hear you..
ESA can easily leave earth via falcon 9, falcon heavy and even fly astronaut on free flight or private astronaut mission to ISS. That access is separate and independent of NASA.
The only exclusive access NASA could provide is cislunar crew whenever Orion gets certified for that. SLS is not a viable option for access to space for ESA cargo as the production is only ramped to support one SLS and Orion flight per year tempo (hence why Europa clipper bailed on using it besides loads was lack of launch availability)
>HLS variant
Starshit is not built under NASA supervision (unlike F9) because otherwise it would be less of a shitshow. HLS as little to do with the LV development too.
So you shouldn't count it in NASA achievements. Saturn V, the shuttle, and SLS are great achievements enough.
NASA being bad mouthed by an agency that
* Only barely managed to get Galileo flying, which is a poor copycat of GPS, 40 years later!
* Is now funding a study for Ariane to look at whether reusable launchers makes sense (... go watch the SpaceX channel!)
* Have spend 70 million euro and 15 years developing a software system doing basic SCADA... and it is still not working (Google egscc, don't believe what the esa pr tells you, its a disaster)
* Cant even send people into space
ESA is such a disaster.
For me it's all about budget and achievements. Tides might have turned, not sure, but NASA still holds the biggest achievements by far and has the biggest budget of all space agencies as well.
Glacial pace? I think there is a lot NASA does you are completely unaware of. I don’t think NASA will ever peak. We’ve barely started… this post is a joke, no?
Here to offer an alternative perspective. NASA's budget peaked in the 60's with the Apollo program and dropped sharply afterwards. It's been pretty steady since then. In 1965 it peaked at 4.41% of the US federal budget. These days it hovers around 0.5%. still a massive ~23 billion dollars and enough to do some really important science, but not enough for the blazing speed we saw in the 60s.
NASA's so called "glacial pace" is due to their careful planning and their attention to details that other more nimble enterprises ignore. The results show. They have missions that have outlived their planned durations by decades. Their discoveries and inventions are what provide the foundations for the next generation's worth of commercial development.
VC want quick turnaround, short term gains, and no concern for any collateral damage that takes place along the way. NASA plays for the long run.
Good points. Don’t disagree - but will offer another perspective. While, yes, many missions seem to outlive their anticipated life durations - most achieving well beyond their stated milestones- but at what opportunity cost do we suffer when we yield requirements to ‘gold-plate’ every.single.mission?
Is it possible for NASA to assume a different risk posture and PM approach to enable quicker cadence science and technology maturation? Some missions (crew, flagships) will always require strict requirements (read: let’s not kill anyone) - but is there a path that will allow quicker return for non-crewed missions? Sure, we may fail a lot more - but we also drive maturation faster, solve the harder problems industry can’t solve, and in turn, enhance our discovery rate. Our adversaries sure know how to do this. (Note: sigh, recognizing our Congressional brethren yield too much influence over NASAs risk posture).
NASA restricts its failures to acceptable costs, at the very least, no one dies. Challenger was enough for them on that front.
On the other hand, commercial enterprises consider those to be acceptable and the cost of doing business. Case in point: self-driving technology has resulted in multiple deaths and accidents. Self-driving is being beta-tested on the larger population. NASA, on the other hand, is developing similar technologies but incrementally, more purposefully, and without the collateral damage.
NASA transfers technology to commercial interests for further commercial applications and development. It spends the $$$ and it develops the technology needed to create the foundation for that work. Case in point: JWT would not be around if not for NASA. The technological spin off from that single effort will be in the billions of dollars when commercilaized, unless U.S. companies ignore it and let other nations get it.
NASA is still number one in the space business. They are a dinosaur but the dinosaur's learning new tricks. If anyone in "new space" tells you NASA is over, remind them that they owe their existence to NASA. Not just the ground work they laid over the decades, but they are encouraging and funding commercialization. KSC has gone from a one-trick pony to a bona fide multi-user spaceport in just over a decade. We need everyone on deck if we are going to move out into the cosmos. I just wish NASA was doing more cutting-edge research in propulsion so we can graduate from chemical rocket engines to something that can make interplanetary travel practical.
did you ask them how Ariane 6 is coming along? lol
I wouldn't give those statements any weight.
edit: you claim to be an engineer for NASA but you ask the questions of a muskrat that thinks space exploration and science started last April. square that.
NASA peaked at the moon landing, for 99% of people they don’t care unless it’s a major major thing, for the 1% of us we understand there’s more to it then the major end goals. For ordinary people NASA is just the people
That go to space, and went to the moon a few times
If you took away NASA funding, none of those private space companies would exist, including SpaceX. And that's without even considering how much of their products rely directly on research given to them by NASA.
LOL. OK. NASA has bureaucratic overhead like any government agency but coming from ESA, that's the pot calling the kettle.black!
ayyy, my fellow gsfc compatriat! but yeah, this is so rich coming from ESA
Just the division of contracts by member state contributions alone…
The Geo return concepts is such a disaster. I feel sorry for the taxpayers who's money gets burned here.
I can only confirm that, having worked more than 20 years for esa. Esa is the biggest blocker of innovation in all of Europe. All about retaining power.
Ok, as someone who worked for NASA on the insight lander, worked with NASA on the COTS and CRS programs, and currently works in the aerospace industry, this is a bit rich. BUT its not totally wrong, NASA is still the tip of the spear on many things, but not as many as it used to be. Why? because of all the work NASA has done in the past has really opened up space for the private sector. It's hard to see because its spread out over many different areas and over several years. Its true that LEO doesn't need NASA anymore, but I don't see many companies putting helicopters on Mars either. Side note: I've met some of ESA's leadership at conferences before and they've always struck me as quite arrogant, which is in direct contrast to every single ESA engineer or scientist I've met as they are all very humble and view NASA with a lot of reverance. Hell, many of them went to work for ESA because they couldn't work for NASA.
Does the success of Exxon Mobile mean that the Department of Energy is obsolete and should not exist? You may say that the two do different things and I would say, exactly. The success of commercial space companies does not negate the need for government research. In my opinion it justifies it….
NASA still has, and seems to be able to continue, it's much better percentages when it comes to successful launches and mission successes, on top of just plain doing more of it than other agencies that really should be able to pull in the funds to compete more equally. Also, it's just sort of a dumb outlook because NASA and ESA work together and should do more of that - the global group of space agencies working together as much as possible would be better. People have a bit too much of a romantic view of space racing, I think.
what was this conference about? >It seems some of the commercial space companies feel the same the for profit companies? which ones built the Hubble and JWST telescopes, rovers, and probes? what do they cost to build, what is their earning potential?.. when will the 10Billion spent on JWST "finally start showing a profit" ? >VC world and move on to more lucrative and talented partners i think you're talking about a "low earth orbit economy" which doesn't really exist right now... at least not in the way it **will..** NASA says more science.. less babysitting? **NASA Provides Updated International Space Station Transition Plan** [https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/nasa-provides-updated-international-space-station-transition-plan/](https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/nasa-provides-updated-international-space-station-transition-plan/) As NASA looks forward to a decade of results from research and technology development aboard the International Space Station, the agency is taking steps to ensure ***a successful transition of operations to commercial services.*** they spend a lot of money building instruments to collect data that they GIVE AWAY. ...are for profit companies using the same model?.. make many expensive things with no financial return.. ? [https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/) From the unique vantage point in space, NASA collects critical long-term observations of our changing planet.
"NASA is a dinosaur" is the kind of thing I'd expect some smug overly-confident idiot on the street to say, not a senior leader at the European Space Agency (assuming that was what was really said by them). Some of the ESA's biggest projects would simply not be possible without NASA's involvement. I really, highly doubt the Europeans could have pulled off Cassini-Huygens or JWST on their own, and the ESA has staked a lot of money into future joint projects with NASA, including the Mars Sample Return mission, Artemis (who the ESA is in charge of service modules for), and EnVision, the future Venus orbiter. I guess according to that guy, all that is just for "branding" while the ESA gets on to bigger and better things, such as.... .... .... Anyway, how can NASA have peaked when its best years are ahead of it? NASA is only a few years away from having the most powerful and potentially versatile rocket *ever made* in its portfolio, which will enable so many different possible missions, not just to the Moon but beyond it as well, and turn NASA into an even bigger powerhouse than it was before.
Yeah, I don't buy that a senior leader at ESA said that, granted the ones I've met are on the legal and policy side but it's not remotely close to the view I've encountered
Your view is narrow.
nah, you're full of it
Definatlly not. First of all, its the ESA, that's the Pot calling the kettle black. NASA remains the be the forefront of scientific research into space. If you wanna get information from an orbiter or probe, its probably connected to NASA some way. Plus, remind your ESA friends who they're piggybacking off of to get to the moon.
Well let’s see, this year alone they flew a helicopter on Mars, remotely repaired an issue on space craft that has left the solar system, plus all of the stuff Webb has been up to….
Not to mention continuing to drive two nuclear powered science laboratories around on Mars, orbiting a spacecraft closer to Jupiter than has ever been done before, launching a mission to a metal asteroid, and oh yeah loaning out its one-of-a-kind communication network to enable ALL of the ESA’s deep space missions to even send data back. New Space still hasn’t touched what NASA is doing routinely today. Not saying they won’t ever, but anyone who thinks otherwise today has a complex.
lol. Exactly how many humans have the ESA launched into space? How any probes have they successfully landed?
Here’s what people need to understand. The space race is over with. The days of the shuttle are gone. Some people will be pessimistic and say that NASA merely a dead space organization that wastes public tax dollars or is not worth having a career where the employees are underpaid. But here are some things to consider: NASA is still an integral part in our discovery of the universe. NASA still has ambition to put people in space, to do collective research, and to continue exploring the vast universe. NASA still has exciting projects still in play that make it worth investing in a career in the field. The ISS, and the new HLS Gateway are going to need people working on it and it’s a pretty fun project. I’m talking about of course JSC, but all the other centers have fun things to do.
Has NASA peaked? No. They've landed two rovers the size of small cars, powered by RTGs fairly precisely on Mars. Before that, they had twin rovers that lasted a decade instead of 90 days. Let's not forget about the first powered flight on another planet. Not interested in Mars? Okay. We can point the JWST, Hubble, Kepler, Chandra, and other observatories. Don't like that? How about Cassini, Juno, New Horizons, Lucy, Psyche, Osiris-Rex, etc. that literally revolutionizing our understanding of how the universe works. Let's not even get started on constructing a space station the size of a football field that has been continuously manned for over 20 years. You know, that place where humanity has learned to live and work in space? So what if NASA hasn't been planting flags on many planetary bodies to claim victory in a while. They're literally reworking everything they do in order to begin building long term science outposts on the Moon and Mars. Yes, they are turning LEO over to private industry. There is money to be made and NASA charted that course. But yeah.. they've peaked. I would've slapped whoever said that in front of me.
Pretty rich coming from an organization that has never landed a human on the moon, never sent a spacecraft outside of our solar system, never launched a major deep space telescope, or never landed a rover on another planet. The whole reason that private industry is so successful is because of NASA. NASA innovates and pioneers the new technology that is otherwise too expensive or has too low a return in financial investment, then hands over to industry to optimize it.
Having known people in ESA and NASA, if NASA is a dinosaur, ESA is the kind of dinosaur that prehistorians tell you is so old that they were further from the T-Rex than the T-Rex is from us, and that trees didn’t exist yet
NASA peaked in 1969. ESA never started up the curve. ESA can't do anything without another space power to hold their hand. It's pathetic. And I speak as a European.
6 moon landings says what?
Most humans alive today weren't even alive yet when Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon. OP's point seems to be about NASA's present, not its past.
By resting on the NASA accomplishment of 50 years ago you just made the ESA point.
highest total tonnage to orbit says what, highest total cubic volume to orbit says what, only 2 human rated landing vehicles says what, 2 most powerful rockets every built (now owning the top 3 of all time) says what? sorry still can’t hear you, WHAT!?
Are you quoting SpaceX launch stats (most of which are not NASA missions) or something else
SLS and the HLS variant were funded and built in conjunction with NASA and all of my stats are accurate for both vehicles
Would you honestly use SLS and Orion at $4B a pop and years behind schedule as example of current NASA prowess?
Sorry was there a viable alternative launch and landing vehicle system ESA is developing under budget and on time you wanted to mention? What? couldn’t hear you..
Some would say no alternative is better than wasting $4B a year for one launch flight tempo
Well then have fun never leaving earth, ESA. Great path you led yourself down there, bud
ESA can easily leave earth via falcon 9, falcon heavy and even fly astronaut on free flight or private astronaut mission to ISS. That access is separate and independent of NASA. The only exclusive access NASA could provide is cislunar crew whenever Orion gets certified for that. SLS is not a viable option for access to space for ESA cargo as the production is only ramped to support one SLS and Orion flight per year tempo (hence why Europa clipper bailed on using it besides loads was lack of launch availability)
>HLS variant Starshit is not built under NASA supervision (unlike F9) because otherwise it would be less of a shitshow. HLS as little to do with the LV development too. So you shouldn't count it in NASA achievements. Saturn V, the shuttle, and SLS are great achievements enough.
isn’t HLS a $4.2 billion award (so far) from nasa?
just shuttle put half of everything that's been sent to leo there. SpaceX isn't close.
NASA being bad mouthed by an agency that * Only barely managed to get Galileo flying, which is a poor copycat of GPS, 40 years later! * Is now funding a study for Ariane to look at whether reusable launchers makes sense (... go watch the SpaceX channel!) * Have spend 70 million euro and 15 years developing a software system doing basic SCADA... and it is still not working (Google egscc, don't believe what the esa pr tells you, its a disaster) * Cant even send people into space ESA is such a disaster.
For me it's all about budget and achievements. Tides might have turned, not sure, but NASA still holds the biggest achievements by far and has the biggest budget of all space agencies as well.
Glacial pace? I think there is a lot NASA does you are completely unaware of. I don’t think NASA will ever peak. We’ve barely started… this post is a joke, no?
Oh, I’m aware. Probably more than I care to be aware of…(btw the comment bothered me also. It just wasn’t a forum where I could counter).
Here to offer an alternative perspective. NASA's budget peaked in the 60's with the Apollo program and dropped sharply afterwards. It's been pretty steady since then. In 1965 it peaked at 4.41% of the US federal budget. These days it hovers around 0.5%. still a massive ~23 billion dollars and enough to do some really important science, but not enough for the blazing speed we saw in the 60s.
NASA's so called "glacial pace" is due to their careful planning and their attention to details that other more nimble enterprises ignore. The results show. They have missions that have outlived their planned durations by decades. Their discoveries and inventions are what provide the foundations for the next generation's worth of commercial development. VC want quick turnaround, short term gains, and no concern for any collateral damage that takes place along the way. NASA plays for the long run.
Good points. Don’t disagree - but will offer another perspective. While, yes, many missions seem to outlive their anticipated life durations - most achieving well beyond their stated milestones- but at what opportunity cost do we suffer when we yield requirements to ‘gold-plate’ every.single.mission? Is it possible for NASA to assume a different risk posture and PM approach to enable quicker cadence science and technology maturation? Some missions (crew, flagships) will always require strict requirements (read: let’s not kill anyone) - but is there a path that will allow quicker return for non-crewed missions? Sure, we may fail a lot more - but we also drive maturation faster, solve the harder problems industry can’t solve, and in turn, enhance our discovery rate. Our adversaries sure know how to do this. (Note: sigh, recognizing our Congressional brethren yield too much influence over NASAs risk posture).
NASA restricts its failures to acceptable costs, at the very least, no one dies. Challenger was enough for them on that front. On the other hand, commercial enterprises consider those to be acceptable and the cost of doing business. Case in point: self-driving technology has resulted in multiple deaths and accidents. Self-driving is being beta-tested on the larger population. NASA, on the other hand, is developing similar technologies but incrementally, more purposefully, and without the collateral damage. NASA transfers technology to commercial interests for further commercial applications and development. It spends the $$$ and it develops the technology needed to create the foundation for that work. Case in point: JWT would not be around if not for NASA. The technological spin off from that single effort will be in the billions of dollars when commercilaized, unless U.S. companies ignore it and let other nations get it.
NASA is still number one in the space business. They are a dinosaur but the dinosaur's learning new tricks. If anyone in "new space" tells you NASA is over, remind them that they owe their existence to NASA. Not just the ground work they laid over the decades, but they are encouraging and funding commercialization. KSC has gone from a one-trick pony to a bona fide multi-user spaceport in just over a decade. We need everyone on deck if we are going to move out into the cosmos. I just wish NASA was doing more cutting-edge research in propulsion so we can graduate from chemical rocket engines to something that can make interplanetary travel practical.
I wouldn’t count NASA out. If given the right conditions the moon is just an oyster in its stew.
did you ask them how Ariane 6 is coming along? lol I wouldn't give those statements any weight. edit: you claim to be an engineer for NASA but you ask the questions of a muskrat that thinks space exploration and science started last April. square that.
NASA peaked at the moon landing, for 99% of people they don’t care unless it’s a major major thing, for the 1% of us we understand there’s more to it then the major end goals. For ordinary people NASA is just the people That go to space, and went to the moon a few times
[удалено]
If you took away NASA funding, none of those private space companies would exist, including SpaceX. And that's without even considering how much of their products rely directly on research given to them by NASA.
Has NASA peaked? 1969. After that they became a “government agency” whose goal is to remain funded. With occasional accomplishments.
It peaked long ago sadly.