Hacker News Reader

Comment by mturmon | Hacker News Reader

This seems to be a dig, but it has no content. I mean, sure, if the funding was greater, the speed of research would quicken in many cases. But you can't criticize from both directions. Do you want cheaper, or faster?

Also, "bureaucratically neutered" is an odd phrase. It's the government, so of course there is oversight and politics at an agency level. But OTOH, the agency's record at not interfering with discrete science findings is actually very good.

What point are you trying to make? [Disclosure, I have published research while funded by NASA.]

View on HN

> But you can't criticize from both directions.

I can't say I understand how that's criticizing from both directions. The research is underfunded, and as you noted more funds generally increases the speed of the research. There are layers of bureaucracy, which naturally slows down the rate of research due to waiting on various aspects of the research to get reviewed and deemed useful to the agency. How is that attacking it from two sides?

And your take on what I mean by "bureaucratically neutered" is fairly accurate, but I stand by it. I am referring to having non technical bureaucrats in the agency calling shots about research they may not understand based on non-related pressures (pork funds drying up due to political shifts, undesirable media exposure for research with uncomfortable results, sudden change in leadership that may not think the research is necessary after all, etc).

All this said, I have indeed never been involved with the agency so you might have a better perspective on the matter than I.

In my experience your comment has very little grounding. I have an extensive science publication record from research supported by NASA. Aerospace and aerospace technology (as opposed to science) is more sensitive to top-level agency strategy changes.

A fair distinction I failed to make, and a point well taken. To also be fair though, I think generally when the layperson (me included) considers NASA and things under its purview, it's easy to blindly scope it within the context of aerospace, especially beside the context of this particular article.

Also, I'd think at JPL you guys would have a bit easier time getting funding/latitude to do the research you do vs a lower profile lab, given JPL's track record.

And even if you do want to call it "bureaucratically neutered" travesties like the Challenger disaster explain why the bureaucracy is necessary.

Does it really? Bureaucracy can very well be counterproductive to such contingencies. The problem that caused the Challenger disaster actually did get documented and reported, but the issue still got lost in the layers and layers of red tape needed to get a shuttle off the ground. Hindsight is 20/20. There is no guarantee that adding more oversight would have avoided the accident.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com