How NASA spends our public money

[BSNW]

This is a little vent...( I am sure I will pay dearly for my opinions....this is a forum after all! )

I saw this article and it seemed to touch an already raw nerve. I have spoken to many that are concerned about how NASA does its science. I am NOT taking away from their accomplishments and I do not doubt their contribution to science and technology. What I do have are issues with their glacial pace on how they do it and how much (public) money they do it with.

Many in that organization hide behind the "We are/I am NASA after all" attitude which seems to exclude them from question. Kind of like how we never questioned doctors in the 1950's.

SLS is based on old technology and will still be plopping major parts of their rocket in the ocean. The James web telescope is "criminally overbudget" so much so they received a rebuke from members of congress and a threat to lose their funding. All this while SpaceX is landing rockets and developing technology that makes NASA look like they never left the 1970's.

I would encourage you to read the article in the attached link here: https://arstechnica.com/science/202...paceflight-america-still-waits-for-an-encore/

Before you are tempted to pile on (me) for daring to speak poorly of our beloved NASA, please remember, I love what they have done and indeed value all they do...and before I am told about how their budget is a mere ~3% of the US budget, etc. Please remember, inefficiency and overspending at any level is not good for NASA nor our country or the space program. How many years have passed since the shuttle last launched? What do they have to show for it since then? I would like them to explain why Orion is so behind without saying "we did not have enough money".

IMO...I think NASA needs to get over themselves, get the "stinking lead out" and get it done....and maybe try to land a rocket for reuse in the next 100 years.

 

[Antares JS]

NASA takes less than 0.5% of the federal budget. Otherwise you're pretty much right, but I hold congress to blame for the SLS debacle more than NASA itself. SLS is being built according to congress's instructions. Remember that NASA doesn't get to decide what they do. Congress tells them what to do. We can blame NASA and Boeing for bad management that caused many of the cost overruns, but the fact that NASA is building a non-reusable rocket with 70's technology is because that's what congress told them to do.

 

[BSNW]

NASA takes less than 0.5% of the federal budget. Otherwise you're pretty much right, but I hold congress to blame for the SLS debacle more than NASA itself. SLS is being built according to congress's instructions. Remember that NASA doesn't get to decide what they do. Congress tells them what to do. We can blame NASA and Boeing for bad management that caused many of the cost overruns, but the fact that NASA is building a non-reusable rocket with 70's technology is because that's what congress told them to do.

Thank you for your reply. I do appreciate it.

However, is it not part of the NASA mission to promote, develop, and implement NEW technology? Like in the early days, NASA's activities gave us so many new technologies we use every day. I thought congress approved or did not approve proposals from NASA, not the other way around. Looks like the SLS is another jazzed-up version of "let us just do what we did before" - pretend it is new and waste billions of dollars doing it.

I mean no disrespect....but it seems like NASA always blames someone else for their lack of productivity and fiscal problems (BTW: 0.5% of a trillion dollars is a heck of a lot of money.....and SpaceX has proven they can do more and in less time, with the funds they have).

 

[heada]

NASA does ALOT more than just space launches with their budget. Comparing NASA to SpaceX is not fair since their scopes and the services they provide are vastly different. And the SLS was dictated by congress to NASA, not the other way around. It was a case of "you'll build this and use these contractors and here is your budget. If you don't like it, we'll cut other items from your budget so you can work on this instead"

 

[neil_w]

Yes, you cannot blame NASA for the SLS, which is largely a pork project dictated by congress.

That said, I do think there are lessons to be learned from SpaceX's approach, which is more analogous to an agile approach vs. NASAs waterfall. SpaceX iterates quickly (breathtakingly so) and isn't afraid to fail. NASA still seems to follow the "failure is not an option" mantra. I don't think NASA could ever fully adopt the SpaceX approach... if they had half the number of failures/explosions/landing crashes that SpaceX did, the public and/or Congress would have their necks on the chopping block. But I think there's probably a useful middle ground to be had.

This mostly applies to heavy lift and crew-related activities, though. NASA seems to be doing well (for the most part) with its other stuff. I admit I haven't followed the James Webb telescope saga that closely.

 

[Antares JS]

However, is it not part of the NASA mission to promote, develop, and implement NEW technology?

Yes, but again, they can only do what congress tells them to do. NASA can propose and request things, but in the end congress decides what they get to actually do. Congress not only dictates how much money NASA gets but also how they will spend it to the last dollar, and NASA can't spend money any way other than how they are told to.

it seems like NASA always blames someone else for their lack of productivity and fiscal problems

Bad project management from NASA and Boeing is indeed responsible for a lot of the cost overruns, but it's congress that agrees to keep flushing more money.

SpaceX has proven they can do more and in less time, with the funds they have).

Government vs. private industry is never a contest in this respect. Bear in mind as well that congress's reaction to the awarding of contracts for privately-operated manned lunar landers was annoyance that they didn't implement another big government cost-plus contract to one of the big three.

 

[BSNW]

Yes, but again, they can only do what congress tells them to do. NASA can propose and request things, but in the end congress decides what they get to actually do. Congress not only dictates how much money NASA gets but also how they will spend it to the last dollar, and NASA can't spend money any way other than how they are told to.



Bad project management from NASA and Boeing is indeed responsible for a lot of the cost overruns, but it's congress that agrees to keep flushing more money.



Government vs. private industry is never a contest in this respect. Bear in mind as well that congress's reaction to the awarding of contracts for privately-operated manned lunar landers was annoyance that they didn't implement another big government cost-plus contract to one of the big three.

I do enjoy and am interested in your replies all. I would imagine this would be both a "spirited" and educational thread. I am encouraged by the input.

I see do your point on a number of things but have to say that after projects like Orion (the first one... the solid propellant "Q-Tip" rocket) and (I think) Constellation, James Web, and now SLS...I must say it is getting a little thick. I was sorely disappointed that we were major players in the space station with the shuttle but canceled the project with NOTHING but Soyuz to get us there. Kind of like saying "hey I built a cutting-edge facility to serve the world of science, but it is in another state....and I need to hire a taxi to get me there".

Please remember I love NASA. I was inspired, like most of us, with the things they do and did. I love them enough to say, stop the crap quit blaming Congress for everything, and use the NASA ingenuity you had when you had to fashion a CO2 scrubber from miss-matched parts and duct tape (in a capsule thousands of miles from earth) and develop new technologies with the budget you have.

When you said, "Bad project management from NASA and Boeing is indeed responsible for a lot of the cost overruns, but it's the congress that agrees to keep flushing more money." Does not excuse NASA from wasting it (the money). And oh yes....Boeing...those fine folks who gave us the 737 Max jetliner....Was NASA the folks who gave Boeing the contract for the Orion?

I am fully aware my posts are more passionate than most. But I do have respect for all the input here. I just feel like NASA is going the way of the USPS and it pains me to see it.

I will stop now. I know....I think I have made my intended point...I will hear what you all have to say.

 

[heada]

When Congress says "you will build this, from these contractors, with this money. No, you don't have the option to say no, we'll cut other things out of your budget so you have time. No, you can't change anything, these are your approved contractors and this is what we want built. No, you can't use that money for anything else." How can you innovate around that?

 

[Antares JS]

I get what you're saying, but the point I'm making here is that you also need to take a big chunk of your onus and put it on congress as well.

 

[Marc_G]

Lots of great discussion here.

I think that without restructuring how Congress dictates the agenda (and how funding is to be allocated within NASA, and the contractors ) the pork train will continue unabated.

I would much rather have Congress dictate key objectives on a decade cycle and short term priorities on a quicker turn schedule, allocate NASA a rational amount of money, and cut them loose to do their thing.

But if I had that kind of power, there would be a lot of other things I would fix too.

I'm unaware of a fix for this. Congresspeople want projects to benefit their constituents financially to secure votes. They control the process.

 

[BSNW]

I get what you're saying, but the point I'm making here is that you also need to take a big chunk of your onus and put it on congress as well.

Okay, I do see your point and I agree. It is both Congress and NASA.

 

[Zeus-cat]

Keep in mind that politicians dictate a lot of the purchasing for projects. Why is the famous phrase, "Houston, we have a problem"? Wouldn't it make more sense to have been, "Titusville, we have a problem"? Why locate your control center in Texas when you launch from Florida? Especially back in the early days of computing and telephone communication.

I bet with a little effort you could find out how many states had contractors that supported the Apollo program. Hint, if the number is less than 50, you didn't look hard enough.

 

[JLP1]

It's government in general that is the problem, everything from procurement to major policies every bureaucrat wants a piece of the Pie or maybe we should say a piece of the action.
Remember when Obama was elected he ordered the director of NASA to commit more resources to the Muslim communities teaching them more about western science etc. and his VP (Biden) who is was in charge of the space program slowed it's progress even more.
Then Trump redirected them back to the moon and mars and got things moving some.
And now as it was reported in Time or USA Today I can't remember which the Biden administration will redirect NASA's mission to be more oriented toward Earth science and climate change.
In all reality I think you can forget about NASA and the US government going back to the moon or mars. It will be somebody like SpaceX or maybe SpaceX that will lead us to beyond low earth orbit.
Also I think you can forget about Boeing they can't even set their clocks right plus I think they have already blown about 10 billion and have yet to really launch anything....

My .02 cents

 

[dr wogz]

Wasn't there something back in the 80's abut a $127 hammer or a $248 toilet seat? Something about 'government procurement' issues?

 

[JLP1]

The new toilet for the ISS cost 23 million if I remember correctly the one on the space shuttle was about 11 million.

 

[CalebJ]

Does 23 million include shipping, handling, and installation?

 

[Cape Byron]

Does 23 million include shipping, handling, and installation?

And emptying?

 

[Zeus-cat]

As I recall Howard Walowitz worked on the ISS space toilet.

And when I was in the Air Force I approved the purchase of $500 hammers.

 

[jazzviper1]

This is a little vent...( I am sure I will pay dearly for my opinions....this is a forum after all! )

I saw this article and it seemed to touch an already raw nerve. I have spoken to many that are concerned about how NASA does its science. I am NOT taking away from their accomplishments and I do not doubt their contribution to science and technology. What I do have are issues with their glacial pace on how they do it and how much (public) money they do it with.

Many in that organization hide behind the "We are/I am NASA after all" attitude which seems to exclude them from question. Kind of like how we never questioned doctors in the 1950's.

SLS is based on old technology and will still be plopping major parts of their rocket in the ocean. The James web telescope is "criminally overbudget" so much so they received a rebuke from members of congress and a threat to lose their funding. All this while SpaceX is landing rockets and developing technology that makes NASA look like they never left the 1970's.

I would encourage you to read the article in the attached link here: https://arstechnica.com/science/202...paceflight-america-still-waits-for-an-encore/

Before you are tempted to pile on (me) for daring to speak poorly of our beloved NASA, please remember, I love what they have done and indeed value all they do...and before I am told about how their budget is a mere ~3% of the US budget, etc. Please remember, inefficiency and overspending at any level is not good for NASA nor our country or the space program. How many years have passed since the shuttle last launched? What do they have to show for it since then? I would like them to explain why Orion is so behind without saying "we did not have enough money".

IMO...I think NASA needs to get over themselves, get the "stinking lead out" and get it done....and maybe try to land a rocket for reuse in the next 100 years.

I agree. As part of the government NASA is part of the corrupt bureaucracy as the rest of it. I remember the Lockheed "Venture Star". Lockheed produced nothing for over a billion tax payer dollars. I worked for them at the time, and I always felt they were shady. The money just flows in a circle and does nothing.
Boeing and ULA are not much better, like trying to use congress to sabotage Space X.

I grew up during the Apollo program and I love and acknowledge all of NASA's accomplishments and I hope things get better for them some day, but they always seem to dragging their feet on new developments. We were once a race of explorers looking to see what lies over the next hill, but we have lost that.
I hope we get it back some day and if we do it will be younger faster moving companies that inspire that hunger for exploration.

I think it is time for the government to get out of the space business and let competition decide, and this is happening to some extent but strings are still being pulled,

 

[OverTheTop]

IIRC the cordless driver they used for the Hubble repairs was in the order of $1million to make and qualify.

Great discussion. I think there are so many examples of large contractors milking the system and doing average or insubstantial work for their money. Boeing had lost the plot. Between the 737max and the more recent software issues in the test flight they seem to have lost some professional engineering skills along the way, or they are frightened to show them due to management or accountants. Let's hope they turn that around in short order to get some public confidence back. There have been a couple of other things dogging them which I can't recall at this time too.

It's almost like the usual contractors want to do the usual things and keep the cash flowing. Maybe higher risk of failure will get them some more innovation in their projects. Are NASA and their contractors too risk-averse for their own good?

I am not saying there is no innovation, but it is usually slow and evolutionary IMHO. There are exceptions, of course!

 

[Antares JS]

Great discussion. I think there are so many examples of large contractors milking the system and doing average or insubstantial work for their money. Boeing had lost the plot. Between the 737max and the more recent software issues in the test flight they seem to have lost some professional engineering skills along the way, or they are frightened to show them due to management or accountants. Let's hope they turn that around in short order to get some public confidence back. There have been a couple of other things dogging them which I can't recall at this time too.

According to an older co-worker, things started going downhill at Boeing after the merger with McDonnell-Douglas and the non-engineer managers from McD-D took over the combined company. They are largely run by bean counters with MBA's who are clueless about engineering.

Are NASA and their contractors too risk-averse for their own good?

Yes. The issue of lives possibly being on the line aside, failure is bad PR and bad PR is less funding in NASA's case. They are in a position where they are unlikely to be rewarded for success but are likely to be punished for failure.

 

[Louis Wu]

NASA should get completely out of manned missions and dedicate itself to probing the solar system.

 

[Rocks&Rockets]

Working for a Contractor back in the 80's we got the "Silver Hammer" award for doing something... must have been important. Cant remember... hmmm

 

[dr wogz]

NASA should get completely out of manned missions and dedicate itself to probing the solar system.

Isn't that about 80% of their current budget?! non-maned exploratory flights & maintenance?

I do agree, save the manned stuff for the new generation of flyers..

 

[Zeus-cat]

Before my company got absorbed by the Borg (a Fortune 100 company that I won't mention) they had some NASA contracts as well as military contracts for C-5 coffee pots. These were over before I joined the company, but people still complained about them. Engineering, Quality and Accounting all had stories; none of them good. Nightmare engineering requirements, piles and piles of quality documentation and the piles of money that they lost.

I saw some of the ridiculous quality requirements when we had the 737 tanker program. Most of the tanker parts were sourced commercially as they were identical to the commercial 737 parts, but obviously the refueling system was not. I finished my career in Quality and when doing the tanker program we had Quality people on call 7 days a week to run into the factory just to fill out paperwork. Requirements like that drove up the cost to both the government and to the contractor. And it really burns out your people when they have working condition like that.

 

[GuyNoir]

if I remember correctly the one on the space shuttle was about 11 million.

According to one of my sources, it didn't work very well!

 

[Senior Space Cadet]

I have to say that, for the last several years, I've been reading story after story about all the incredible things China is doing and wondering why it's not The USA anymore.
And I'm not just talking about space. It's constantly China just built the biggest this or the tallest that, or the first something else.
Maybe it's no ones fault. Maybe it's just hard to compete with a country that has that many more people than we do. And smart people. A lot of the things we think of as western inventions, were invented in China, first, hundreds of years before. But I think we could be doing a lot better than we are. I think it's leadership from the politicians and not necessarily leadership at NASA. We need someone like John F. Kennedy, without the improprieties.

 

[jrap330]

A few comments:.
China- Because Congress and US taxpayers consider space a waste of money. China is playing catch-up.

1980's- Expensive Hammers. and $600 Dollar Toilet seat. As a DoD civilian this was a big issue. We went through a whole competitive, parts breakout phase where we had to identify any item that was brought from a prime, sole source contactor without any modifications or testing by the prime and directed to go to the actual vendor, manufacturer. But what was misunderstood, a lot of those prices are incorrect, they just get amortize over the cost over the whole multimillion dollar contract. So Congress pass a "true price" clause to actually identified the real cost. But it still did not solve the problem

Congress- Any Major Program over so many dollars or years has Congressional oversite whether DoD or NASA. And at Major Program Reviews, Congress will dictate what they what to see and how money is spent. And if you listen to Congress, science, logic are not apart of their brain matter.

NASA-If you remember the movie Hidden Figures , some members wanted to cancel Mercury after the first few catastrophes. NASA blew it will space shuttle, they oversold the idea on reusable aircraft because of Apollo being so expensive and NASA's head continue to sell idea even thought some engineers determined it was NOT cheaper than a non reusable aircraft.

Challenger catastrophes, NASA was too bureaucratic to listen to their lower level engineers who knew the "O" ring are an issue under cold temperatures. NASA's head decided to launch to meet their schedule.

 

[IraJ]

Keep in mind that the missions for SpaceX and Orion/SLS are far from the same. SpaceX has been designed to go Low Earth Orbit, such as the Space Station and back, about 240 miles from the surface of the earth. With only a few failed missions it does that, and some pretty cool recovery techniques too. However at that altitude if something goes catastrophic then people could be back on Earth in hours. Orion’s mission requirements are to be capable of supporting human missions to the Moon, which at 239,000 miles would be 1000x further, asteroids (distance TBD), and Mars, about 73,454,000 miles, or almost 294000x farther than the Space Station. I could design and build a row boat that could make it a mile across a lake, but take it thousand miles across the Atlantic? Nope! 11 times around the globe? Uh, that would be another hard no. If we want to send people to these locations in our lifetime or our children’s life time there is not another vehicle designed and built to accomplish that. And yes NASA is risk averse, so they layer on checks and requirements that may be ignored at a marginal but real risk levels. Above my pay grade about the proper balance of risk to cost for sending people on those missions, but don’t mix in getting to the Space Station is anywhere near the mission of getting to Mars.

 

[jrap330]

IraJ- Good points , two totally different mission profiles.