Almost all of the “slow moving government agency” nonsense is a direct result of lobbyists associated with the private sector.
NASA stagnation is very much a function of lobbying to make private sector space travel the not option. It predated musk. He just took advantage once Russia wouldn’t sell him an icbm
As for plug-in being a half measure? They completely are. But it still would have reduced pollution and get people to understand range.
The Tesla propaganda on range being the worst part. I like the ioniq5 because it means I would recharge most of a battery on a full day of road trip. That means plugging it in while I get lunch and maybe take a piss and stretch my legs around 2 or 3. Which is not at all dissimilar from an ice. But Tesla sells big batteries and supercharger!
Day to day? Charge is irrelevant if I don’t spend the night somewhere or can charge at the office
And the other aspect people don’t understand: road trips are actually really expensive. They put significant wear on a vehicle and, if you can afford the upfront, it is almost always cheaper to rent. Weird as it is
Almost all of the “slow moving government agency” nonsense is a direct result of lobbyists associated with the private sector.
NASA stagnation is very much a function of lobbying to make private sector space travel the not option. It predated musk. He just took advantage once Russia wouldn’t sell him an icbm
While I do not doubt there’s a certain amount of lobbying involved, it’s also in the nature of being a public agency. NASA is tax payer funded which means that it’s successes and more importantly for this discussion failures are potential ammunition to be used by politicians. If NASA pulls off some mission that leads to a breakthrough discovery you better believe any politician that voted in favor of increasing their budget recently is going to take the opportunity to try to steal credit for that hard work. Conversely though that also means any significant failures are potential ammunition their rivals can use against them with attack ads accusing them of frivolously wasting tax payer dollars. All that means that NASA can’t really afford to be blowing up billions of dollars worth of rockets unless there’s a lot of public support for that mission. The very nature of what NASA does means that their failures are very public, while their successes are really only known about in the scientific community unless they spend a lot of money on publicity to rope in media coverage.
The early days of NASA were the perfect set of circumstances, there was a lot of public fear over the USSR getting the ultimate high ground and a strategic advantage over the US so there was a lot of public will for getting access to space. Importantly most of that will extended not to the science involved or the commercial opportunities, but to the ability to project military strength through space. This unfortunately lead to a lot of compromises that damaged the scientific mission of NASA (the shuttle itself was in fact a bit of a boondoggle because of the air force involvement with its development, not because shuttles are bad, but because the air force insisted on certain design criteria for their own needs that ran counter to the scientific mission of NASA). While the cold war was still in full swing, there was still public support for NASA, even though it was somewhat tepid. With the end of the cold war, space access became primarily a commercial concern and shuttle launches had become common place to the point where outside of the unfortunate tragedies most people stopped paying attention to them entirely. Public support of NASA thus hit an all time low making slashing its budget for political reasons, or at the urge of lobbyists for their own goals an easy thing for politicians to do. With dwindling budgets NASA became even more concerned with stretching the dollars they were getting, the very last thing they wanted to be seen to be doing is “wasting” money on risky projects that could result in lost spacecraft.
The very fact that lobbyists can influence the budget of NASA is why they need to be conservative, they absolutely must manage their public image as public outcry at attempts to cut their budget is the only weapon they have to combat those lobbyists.
Day to day? Charge is irrelevant if I don’t spend the night somewhere or can charge at the office
To a certain extent this is true, but you also need to consider that not everyone will be able to charge when away from home. That’s changing, but back when Tesla and the other early electric vehicles first hit the market it was somewhat rare to see public charging stations. You have to remember that for most people a car is a significant purchase, it’s the sort of thing they buy once a decade and need to be able to handle all their needs both expected and unexpected. As such they don’t necessarily make the decision based on what they actually need now, or are even likely to need in the future, but instead of what they imagine they might conceivably need. It’s that fear that leads to range anxiety. In many ways it’s more like a range phobia, because it is in many ways an irrational fear, but it exists nonetheless.
And the other aspect people don’t understand: road trips are actually really expensive. They put significant wear on a vehicle and, if you can afford the upfront, it is almost always cheaper to rent. Weird as it is
Also, no doubt true, but also kind of irrelevant in some ways. It’s an excellent argument to make for why longer ranges are irrelevant, but it’s not something most people think about. I know the handful of times I’ve done long road trips I didn’t rent a car for it. I probably should have, but I didn’t. Most people don’t factor in wear and tear on the cost of a trip, only gas and time. Adding in rental fees on top of that is going to look like a net loss even if ultimately you come out slightly ahead that way.
You are literally regurgitating the propaganda that led to this narrative.
Private sector alternatives don’t grow their staff out of nothing. They come from the government agencies. They are trained by those. They don’t become smarter or better at their job once their paycheck triples.
Instead, they are finally allowed to do their job. Because you learn fast that anything too novel will be killed by an upper level manager who drives a really nice car. Or the middle manager who wants that job. And, in the best cases, someone at the competition will suddenly have the same idea
Because politicians are Teflon. If government lab a or company b fucked up, someone else pays. If they succeed? American ingenuity so vote for him.
I used to do government work.
Almost all of the “slow moving government agency” nonsense is a direct result of lobbyists associated with the private sector.
NASA stagnation is very much a function of lobbying to make private sector space travel the not option. It predated musk. He just took advantage once Russia wouldn’t sell him an icbm
As for plug-in being a half measure? They completely are. But it still would have reduced pollution and get people to understand range.
The Tesla propaganda on range being the worst part. I like the ioniq5 because it means I would recharge most of a battery on a full day of road trip. That means plugging it in while I get lunch and maybe take a piss and stretch my legs around 2 or 3. Which is not at all dissimilar from an ice. But Tesla sells big batteries and supercharger!
Day to day? Charge is irrelevant if I don’t spend the night somewhere or can charge at the office
And the other aspect people don’t understand: road trips are actually really expensive. They put significant wear on a vehicle and, if you can afford the upfront, it is almost always cheaper to rent. Weird as it is
While I do not doubt there’s a certain amount of lobbying involved, it’s also in the nature of being a public agency. NASA is tax payer funded which means that it’s successes and more importantly for this discussion failures are potential ammunition to be used by politicians. If NASA pulls off some mission that leads to a breakthrough discovery you better believe any politician that voted in favor of increasing their budget recently is going to take the opportunity to try to steal credit for that hard work. Conversely though that also means any significant failures are potential ammunition their rivals can use against them with attack ads accusing them of frivolously wasting tax payer dollars. All that means that NASA can’t really afford to be blowing up billions of dollars worth of rockets unless there’s a lot of public support for that mission. The very nature of what NASA does means that their failures are very public, while their successes are really only known about in the scientific community unless they spend a lot of money on publicity to rope in media coverage.
The early days of NASA were the perfect set of circumstances, there was a lot of public fear over the USSR getting the ultimate high ground and a strategic advantage over the US so there was a lot of public will for getting access to space. Importantly most of that will extended not to the science involved or the commercial opportunities, but to the ability to project military strength through space. This unfortunately lead to a lot of compromises that damaged the scientific mission of NASA (the shuttle itself was in fact a bit of a boondoggle because of the air force involvement with its development, not because shuttles are bad, but because the air force insisted on certain design criteria for their own needs that ran counter to the scientific mission of NASA). While the cold war was still in full swing, there was still public support for NASA, even though it was somewhat tepid. With the end of the cold war, space access became primarily a commercial concern and shuttle launches had become common place to the point where outside of the unfortunate tragedies most people stopped paying attention to them entirely. Public support of NASA thus hit an all time low making slashing its budget for political reasons, or at the urge of lobbyists for their own goals an easy thing for politicians to do. With dwindling budgets NASA became even more concerned with stretching the dollars they were getting, the very last thing they wanted to be seen to be doing is “wasting” money on risky projects that could result in lost spacecraft.
The very fact that lobbyists can influence the budget of NASA is why they need to be conservative, they absolutely must manage their public image as public outcry at attempts to cut their budget is the only weapon they have to combat those lobbyists.
To a certain extent this is true, but you also need to consider that not everyone will be able to charge when away from home. That’s changing, but back when Tesla and the other early electric vehicles first hit the market it was somewhat rare to see public charging stations. You have to remember that for most people a car is a significant purchase, it’s the sort of thing they buy once a decade and need to be able to handle all their needs both expected and unexpected. As such they don’t necessarily make the decision based on what they actually need now, or are even likely to need in the future, but instead of what they imagine they might conceivably need. It’s that fear that leads to range anxiety. In many ways it’s more like a range phobia, because it is in many ways an irrational fear, but it exists nonetheless.
Also, no doubt true, but also kind of irrelevant in some ways. It’s an excellent argument to make for why longer ranges are irrelevant, but it’s not something most people think about. I know the handful of times I’ve done long road trips I didn’t rent a car for it. I probably should have, but I didn’t. Most people don’t factor in wear and tear on the cost of a trip, only gas and time. Adding in rental fees on top of that is going to look like a net loss even if ultimately you come out slightly ahead that way.
You are literally regurgitating the propaganda that led to this narrative.
Private sector alternatives don’t grow their staff out of nothing. They come from the government agencies. They are trained by those. They don’t become smarter or better at their job once their paycheck triples.
Instead, they are finally allowed to do their job. Because you learn fast that anything too novel will be killed by an upper level manager who drives a really nice car. Or the middle manager who wants that job. And, in the best cases, someone at the competition will suddenly have the same idea
Because politicians are Teflon. If government lab a or company b fucked up, someone else pays. If they succeed? American ingenuity so vote for him.
And this is intentional.