Comments by "Samson Soturian" (@samsonsoturian6013) on "How NASA’s New Spacesuit Could Stall the 2024 Artemis Moon Landings." video.

  1. 27 contractors? That's one way to make the simplest things complicated.
    403
  2.  @brokensoap1717  Yes, and such arrangements is what caused Boeing's downturn. Ben Rich, head of Skunk Works put it this way: The contract to build a warship in 1800 was three pages long. The contract to turn that same ship into a museum was three hundred pages long, not including subcontractors. There was even a full chapter of legalese on how they would paint the ship.
    40
  3. Slowly it gets done as everyone still shows up to work and does their jobs. There's a similar story with the Pentagon where there are so many departments that no one can keep track of them all. A bunch of briefings that could just be an email since they don't allow questions, only these briefings are on the other side of a building the size of a small town. The unclassified parts of the building have neither cell service nor wifi in spite both being needed and allowed. An abundance of superfluous offices exist that must approve certain things and file reports but one wonders why the office was created in the first place. Like the Leathality Branch, or an Air Force liaison office to army R&D.
    35
  4. 1. It works well enough for the ISS, and has been up there the whole time. 2. Mismanagement and politics. You see they refuse to copy old designs because they weren't specifically built for girl anatomy and don't have fancy computers hooked up. Also, you see they have 27 contractors, which I don't know why some governments and corporation keep doing that, because it makes the simplest things complicated. If one group changes something, then it must be approved by all the others. Which means if the change effects anyone else several departments will also submit their own changes. Repeat. Also since no one group is married to the project there's no incentive to finish on time or on budget.
    20
  5.  @TheBooban  that shows the limits of your reading
    16
  6.  @brokensoap1717  yes, but you understand how the logical extreme causes problems, especially when no one contractor has the controlling interest in the project (committee based decisions are the definition of inefficiency). This becomes doubly so when the main contractors aren't married to the project, so their execs likely aren't ever aware of problems before they get out of hand. Plus if delays occur, you often still must pay contractors for their manhours, meaning there's no incentive to finish projects quickly. A comparison in the history of the SLS and Starship reveals the net effect of this problem. Starship has dictated by one man betting his fortune on the project and has had a meteoric rise to fame but may collapse if they can't deliver by the time they run out of money. Meanwhile SLS started with the end of the Shuttle and isn't a particularly imaginative evolution, but has proved immensely costly as the work is of high quality but moves at a snail's pace.
    12
  7.  @mytech6779  yeah, but more often than not with government projects there's no one in charge as not only are there several main contractors but no one contractor has put any more than 10% of their manpower in it. The bigwigs that can solve problems are only vaguely aware of problems on the ground as they have many active projects.
    4
  8. Or a politician. A lot of fools would recoil at the idea of using legacy equipment, but that's the pace space moves at.
    4
  9. Go away
    3
  10.  @RidinDirtyRollinBurnouts  sometimes, yeah. But there are aerospace giants for a reason
    2
  11. That was before we found out the project manager is incompetent.
    2
  12.  @sfrsteel  some things get done, but most of their time is spent arguing in circles pointing fingers at rivals. Like back when the DHS made emergency budget requests to resolve backlogs at immigration jails. Congress was so busy arguing whether or not to blame the DHS for the backlog there were delays in approving it.
    2
  13. For the contractors, yes. They have departments that go looking for work in order to convince the Feds to give them a contract in order to give their comrades work. For the government, they're just terrible businessmen.
    2
  14. @000000000 wut?
    1
  15.  @SteveSteeleMusic  you're assuming there's logic and planning where there's never been any
    1
  16. Congress doesn't have ulterior motives with space. They just don't know what they're doing.
    1
  17. He wants to do it himself, not delay the program.
    1
  18.  @dansands8140  the program is delayed until the suit is settled.
    1
  19.  @dansands8140  don't be silly
    1
  20.  @dansands8140  doesn't matter. They'd go broke going to the moon. There's simply no money in it.
    1
  21.  @TheZoltan-42  I won't try to judge the merits of the suit, and neither should you. The annoying bit is the whole project is being hung up over a small matter.
    1
  22.  @dansands8140  you were talking about going to the moon without NASA.
    1
  23.  @dansands8140  you don't know a thing about business or space, so shut up.
    1
  24.  @dansands8140  shut up
    1
  25. R&D for the James Webb started in 1991 just after Hubble launched with a launch date of 2007. Now it's suppose to launch in November and hopefully will be operational before Hubble breaks down for the last time. All these delays come down to space not being easy, politics, and mismanagement.
    1
  26. How?
    1
  27. But it's fun.
    1
  28. Mars landings won't happen in our lifetimes as the engines to get us there don't exist.
    1
  29. That's to reflect radiation and keep the suit cool.
    1
  30.  @uttaradit2  go away
    1
  31.  @francislililles8360  it isn't a matter of technology, but management and budgets.
    1
  32. No fun in that. To be fair, a human can do in a hour what takes a robot a day, and humans can fix things that go wrong. Then again, idiotic politics is involved as NASA go the funding because they specifically promised to put a woman on the moon.
    1
  33. They ain't dirty. Simply mismanaged. 27 contractors each with working together each with their own task and none of them married to the project. You can imagine why there's a lot of paperwork and delays.
    1
  34.  @Bow-to-the-absurd  for the contractors, yeah. That's why with a lot of these 3rd party proposals they're solutions looking for a problem. Contract work is unreliable and they're doing this for a living.
    1
  35. Yeah, we could have let tens of thousands of people die in another civil war. Those fools ain't worth saving.
    1