- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Infrastructure like this are the perfect projects to generate jobs for average people. The government should be all over this type of thing.
At least create jobs for the best within their construction fields and this create openings down the line. Win-win.
I’d love to read some specifics. NASA has a lot of unique facilities that plenty of their programs and private companies rely on, but I wonder if there are some buildings, test stands, or even entire facilities that should be mothballed. For example, if SLS ever winds down, I’m guessing a lot of money could be saved at Michoud, which seems to take a hurricane hit all too often, and Stennis, which has some incredible old Apollo test stands that look like they want the sweet release of the scrap heap.
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
It’s big news when a hurricane damages buildings at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center or hits a rocket factory in New Orleans.
Erik Weiser, director of NASA’s facilities and real estate division, told a blue-ribbon National Academies panel Thursday that the agency’s budget for maintenance and construction is “wholly underfunded.”
Some of the money comes from specific mission directorates responsible for ensuring launch pads, test stands, and other facilities are in good shape for operations at NASA’s field centers.
“Each center knows what their most important facilities are for success, so when they see an issue, it’s all hands on deck to fix that problem so they don’t impact the mission,” Weiser said.
Weiser briefed a National Academies panel chartered to examine the critical facilities, workforce, and technology needed to achieve NASA’s long-term strategic goals and objectives.
Thursday’s briefing was one in a series of public meetings the committee will hold before issuing a final report with recommendations to improve the situation.
With SpaceX boosters better than what nasa has they may want to refocus for a bit on getting a new solid orbital rocket, and only work on atmospheric instruments. Put the moon and mars on the back foot for a while and shore up the base.
Are you saying NASA should work on a rocket? To me, that seems like the exact opposite of what they should do. It seems like a total waste of resources for NASA to try to recreate what already exists.
