NASA Pondering Future Stnadalone Flagship Program Offices

[fredinno]

http://spacenews.com/nasa-pondering-future-standalone-flagship-program-offices/

NASA apparently has/had been pondering a seperate office to command and manage the construction of Flagship planetary missions. How would this effect these missions?

[AngelLestat]

It would not fix anything, they may gain some extra control on the budget if it is a separate office but this also increase the spent in the office creation + communication with other agencies + trips + logistics, taxes, etc.

All NASA should be in just one place, in the way that scientist and engineers can live and rent close to that not matter what kind of project they will be working on.  This also relief a lot logistic (sending parts to different agencies), communication bills or travels in case you need to talk to somebody in person, plus they save a lot in hardware, because you dont need 3d printers or other tools for each project, this save the amount of tools you need to buy and you decrease the waste time on those tools when nobody used them.
Then, they also should focus in few goals and try to search the most cheap and fast way to achieve them always looking to the top of the technology or developing new ones.
Another big problem of Nasa is the time they take for developing a project, when they finish all the hardware, software and solutions are outdated by 10 years which increase all the cost related. This also keeps the scientist frozen in time, so when they finish the project they need to update all their knowledge to the current time. 

This usually happens with all the government agencies when they don't need to be efficient to obtain more funds.
If it were well managed like a google center, then they would accomplish 5 times more goals at 1/5 of the current budget.  

Edited January 2, 2016 by AngelLestat

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

It would not fix anything, they may gain some extra control on the budget if it is a separate office but this also increase the spent in the office creation + communication with other agencies + trips + logistics, taxes, etc.

All NASA should be in just one place, in the way that scientist and engineers can live and rent close to that not matter what kind of project they will be working on.  This also relief a lot logistic (sending parts to different agencies), communication bills or travels in case you need to talk to somebody in person, plus they save a lot in hardware, because you dont need 3d printers or other tools for each project, this save the amount of tools you need to buy and you decrease the waste time on those tools when nobody used them.
Then, they also should focus in few goals and try to search the most cheap and fast way to achieve them always looking to the top of the technology or developing new ones.
Another big problem of Nasa is the time they take for developing a project, when they finish all the hardware, software and solutions are outdated by 10 years which increase all the cost related. This also keeps the scientist frozen in time, so when they finish the project they need to update all their knowledge to the current time. 

This usually happens with all the government agencies when they don't need to be efficient to obtain more funds.
If it were well managed like a google center, then they would accomplish 5 times more goals at 1/5 of the current budget.  

...no, that's a bad idea, the first has to do with politics- I don't think Congress would approve of having everything in one state. NASA also needs different offices for the different things it does, like the X-vehicles vs Space probes. Also, keep everything in one place, and you get the problem that it is more difficult to get talent- I agree NASA should have fewer facilities spread out, but even SpaceX has some of its stuff spread out.

[NovaSilisko]

Has nobody noticed that this article is from 4 years ago?

Edited January 2, 2016 by NovaSilisko

[AngelLestat]

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

...no, that's a bad idea, the first has to do with politics- I don't think Congress would approve of having everything in one state. NASA also needs different offices for the different things it does, like the X-vehicles vs Space probes. Also, keep everything in one place, and you get the problem that it is more difficult to get talent- I agree NASA should have fewer facilities spread out, but even SpaceX has some of its stuff spread out.

Let me clarify some things.. I am not saying that NASA should do this now.. of course they can't, they already have all those agencies, What I am saying, that the ideal case (from the beginning) would be just one huge facility.

But that is not just what I think.. Many of the things that I said I extract them from interviews made to nasa administrators or employees, some of the question they ask them was "why spacex is so successful".  

 

Just now, NovaSilisko said:

Has anybody noticed that this article is from 4 years ago?

In the NASA context, is still "news" due how slow are they with each decision

[NovaSilisko]

Yes yes, carry on with your NASA bashing, don't let me get in your way.