What would you do to make NASA more efficient?

[crazyewok]

What I would like to see is politicans given far less power to micro manage and get in the way of running it.

But failing that I would see a NASA better manage its projects. A example would not starting a expensive program or project like constellation that could be cancelled externaly by politics. If a project of say $100m+ goes ahead then it has to be secure from cancellation unless there is a fundemental issue.

[Comrade Jenkens]

Firstly one of the worst and most wasteful things that NASA does (and not entirely their fault) is constantly starting projects and research and then cancelling. Its just throwing money away!

Also the fact that things have to go through layer after layer of procedures and meeting after meeting which more often than not see no purpose at all and only result in further delays. Things should be streamlined and got on with rather than just talked about! These problems are not limited to just NASA but the majority of western industries and companies.

[crazyewok]

Firstly one of the worst and most wasteful things that NASA does (and not entirely their fault) is constantly starting projects and research and then cancelling. Its just throwing money away!

I hear you. Really if a project is to be cancelled or considred to expensive to procede it should be done when the R&D is at the <10 Million stage. In the R&D I have done most projects are cancelled before they cost to much. If you are going to procede with a $500 million + Project its has to be planned out to the detail and all the bases covered, if it is cancelled then its down to fundemental reasons. If you dont think you have the budget to do multiple big projects then DONT! do one or two at a time instead of starting a dozen and cancelling half of them. he budget needs to be set by the govement but it needs locking and descions on project and dircetion left to the experts.

These problems are not limited to just NASA but the majority of western industries and companies.

Most goverment agancys are. In the private sector not so much. A compnay with the waste and choppy focus and direction of NASA in the priavte sector would not last long, in fact a big Pharma compnay I worked for had that exact same problem. Its also why Space X is able to launch at $4,109 per kilogram rather than say the shuttles $18,000 per kilogram or the SLS $10,000 per kg. A private company does not have as many demands or complications. Falcon rockets are cheaper as they have been designed for a specific task and job rather than a jack of all trades.

[Comrade Jenkens]

Industry really need to look at and learn from the private industry. Many eastern countries also have much more streamlined processes which allows them to do the same job for a fraction of the cost and time. South Korea being a good example.

The company I worked for took on a project estimated to cost around 100 million and that would take around 10 years. They managed it for 10 million in a year!

[Themohawkninja]

I don't really see much that can be done. What they've done with all the budget cuts is amazing, and the fact that they keep not finishing projects isn't so much their fault as it is Congress for cutting everything.

[crazyewok]

I don't really see much that can be done. and the fact that they keep not finishing projects isn't so much their fault as it is Congress for cutting everything.

And thats were I think we have to look to imporve. At the very top.

At the very least they should not start a $100 million+ project unless it can be locked from meddleing morons in office.

[Themohawkninja]

And thats were I think we have to look to imporve. At the very top.

At the very least they should not start a $100 million+ project unless it can be locked from meddleing morons in office.

Lock the funders from dictating where the money goes? That's just like how taxes work! Nobody would agree to that.

[crazyewok]

Lock the funders from dictating where the money goes? .

I didnt say the monkeys in suites would LIKE it or agree to it. Just saying thats would improve NASA effectiveness leaps and bounds. Let the experts decide the projects, the funders just dictate the budget.

[Themohawkninja]

I didnt say the monkeys in suites would LIKE it or agree to it. Just saying thats would improve NASA effectiveness leaps and bounds. Let the experts decide the projects, the funders just dictate the budget.

If the experts aren't dictating where the money goes, then projects that could have worked will just be dropped for not meeting development quotas.

If the experts to dictate where the money goes, NASA might end up dwarfing the DoD in costs.

[crazyewok]

If the experts aren't dictating where the money goes, then projects that could have worked will just be dropped for not meeting development quotas.

If the experts to dictate where the money goes, NASA might end up dwarfing the DoD in costs.

Well I would give NASA it fixed budget. Lock it. And then let NASA experts work within that budget. All congress would be allowed to do is set the overall general budget but not be able to interfere with the individual projects, or at least give them a window, so say they can cancel a project as long as its below $100 million in costs, as soon as it goes over then that window expires unless a very big fundamental issue is found.

My last department was given a £20 million a year budget for the development of better processes to seperate certain anti bodies. The budget was set buy the finance department by people that didnt have a clue about microbiology or immunology. But we were allowed pretty much free rain with the budget. any projects of over £20,00 had to presented to them for approval, once they signed off that was it, there window to halt a project was gone. If we blew millions on a dead end that was on us and someone head (job) would roll but the suites normaly kept out and trusted us as long as we were doing our jobs. And that sustem worked well and I think its still going and the company doing very well. worst place I worked was micromanaged from the top, that compnay had to sell billions in asets recently.

Edited January 18, 2014 by crazyewok

[KASASpace]

I would seperate it from the bureaucrats. Then I would give NASA a "go do this" budget to get the hardware, added on to the budget they already have. After that, I would give them the ability to take donations. As well as increase the demand for space launches, allowing for the mass-production of launch vehicles and reduction of prices.

[CluelessModeler]

If I had my choice at NASA, I would immediately scrap the SLS program. I don't think that recycling old technology and trying to push the bounds of what it could have done will neccessarily benefit the agency in the long run.

Now, there's been growing opposition to this program, as people are finally starting to realize that this is the "Rocket to Nowhere" as there is absolutely zero defined goal to this program. Obamas original proposal to capture an asteroid has gained 0 attention in the senate, because it garners no, for lack of a better term, strategic value to what NASA will gain. I understand that there is science to be done and innumerable gain to actually capturing one of these relics.

But sadly, it's not what science you can do that drives innovation and change. It's only what projects and what contracts can be brought to my district that will garner support for NASA doing anything. At least, politically speaking,

It's unfortunate that so much of what NASA has accomplished, and still can accomplish, has become mired in politics.

I've had conversations with people who've worked at NASA, and I believe that almost everyone who's worked at there believe that the most productive days at the agency are behind them. Now that America doesn't have an ideological for, the USSR, to compete with. We will never capture the imagination of the public, and garner the requisite support from the right people to get another Apollo-esque program going.

I guess, in my humble opinion, that in order for NASA to be run more efficiently, there needs to be an incredible culture change. Not only in the agency, but in the country as a whole.

Politics needs to be removed from the equation, (Good luck with that) and we need to return to logical steps that will set us up to start exploring the solar system.

Smaller steps, like exploring Europa remotely. Which, at last check, was the most likely celestial body to hold some variation of water.

I believe that if we start to expand our robotic program farther out, into other worlds. That the knowledge we gain there will eventually allow us to recapture the imagination of the public. Which, in turn, will allow us to return to being the nation that leads the way in spaceflight.

/end rant.

[Dunbaratu]

Most goverment agancys are. In the private sector not so much. A compnay with the waste and choppy focus and direction of NASA in the priavte sector would not last long

NASA doesn't have choppy focus and direction. The politicians giving it its marching orders and controlling its budget do. And even that's not entirely true. The politicians themselves don't have choppy focus and direction, but when congress is looked at as if it was one single minded entity that's what it looks like. What's actually happening is that politician turnover occurs in the middle of a NASA project. One congress approves a project, then the next congress gives it the axe, then the next congress starts it again, then the next one comes in and says "that's great but let's start over and build it in my home state instead." The space shuttle that NASA proposed was not $18,000 per kilogram for payload. It was a much better design. The politicians controlling the funding forced the stupid jack-of-all-trades design goal onto NASA in order to let the Air Force use it for military payloads.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Steven Mading

[DaveofDefeat]

Keep the politicians out of it, reminds me of the time a congressman ordered more M1 Abrams to be built, even though the army didn't want them, simply because the factory was in his district.

[crazyewok]

NThe politicians giving it its marching orders and controlling its budget do. And even that's not entirely true. The politicians themselves don't have choppy focus and direction, but when congress is looked at as if it was one single minded entity that's what it looks like. What's actually happening is that politician turnover occurs in the middle of a NASA project. One congress approves a project, then the next congress gives it the axe, then the next congress starts it again, then the next one comes in and says "that's great but let's start over and build it in my home state instead." The space shuttle that NASA proposed was not $18,000 per kilogram for payload. It was a much better design. The politicians controlling the funding forced the stupid jack-of-all-trades design goal onto NASA in order to let the Air Force use it for military payloads.

Which is exactly why I think programs should be locked once they reach a certain point. Stop political change overs from getting in the way. If a program is set in motion it should Finnish it course and not be at the whim of partisan politics and political squabbling.

[Skyler4856]

The money NASA receives for a project should be contingent on the success of prototypes and cost efficiency of a project

[rkman]

people are finally starting to realize that this is the "Rocket to Nowhere" as there is absolutely zero defined goal to this program

The Space Launch System is just that: an ascent vehicle. As such its goal is defined as to put things into space.

Which those things are and where in space they will go are matters for other space programs.

But unless the US plans to quit space exploration, there's bound to be demand for for a space launch system.

[G'th]

Give them the same freedom and budget to do what they need to do (and thus actually complete their projects) as the military gets.

You hardly ever hear about Congress burying something the Air Force is doing in red tape, but there's countless NASA projects that got buried. Granted, there's more behind why that is, but regardless. Congress generally doesn't tell any branch of the military what they can and can't work on*. The same should be had for NASA.

*I could be wrong on that end. Feel free to correct me.

[mdatspace]

NASA would benefit from having more money, but that will not solve its problems. Luckily, NASA did not get cut this year.

http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/01.13.14_fy_2014_omnibus_-_commerce_justice_science_-_summary.pdf

From the bill: "NASA is funded at $17.6 billion

in the bill, an increase of $120 million above the fiscal year 2013 enacted level."

It needs better leadership. NASA's current state is due to both a lack of money and political meddling. The politicians fund projects that reap benefits for them and their constituents, not sensible and efficient projects that take the best route. Thus, the space program goes nowhere, and the project may be cancelled sooner or later with nothing left to show for it(Hint: Constellation).

Then, the cycle repeats(SLS).

Edited January 19, 2014 by mdatspace

[G'th]

Well with SLS, it seems to me to just be something that's meant to break NASA away from the Space Shuttle (which for years has been what most of NASA's major mission have been centered around) and bring them back to where they were before the Shuttle program, with rockets launching dedicated space craft (and not hybrids) into space.

Obviously beyond that basic premise SLS has little defined goals (I mean, SLS' uses can range anywhere from a return to the Moon to simple ISS resupply runs), but I mean I can't blame necessarily blame them considering they're basically trying to reinvent the Saturn V's capabilities (If not the Saturn V itself). Just the idea that they're having to basically reinvent something they put together themselves (Yes, I know why this is) is cause enough for SLS' existence.

[Bioman222]

I'd give them a budget.

[KASASpace]

Well, the best thing to do would be to collaborate with ESA and the RSA to create a common launch vehicle (CLV).

Why? To reduce average launch costs. I would base it off of current EELV tech as well as Angara, and Ariane 5. It should use common materials, that way everyone can make it. The plan would be to mass-produce the cores, and that these cores could be used as boosters perhaps with cross-feed. We could use the RD-180, an off-the-shelf component that costs about 11 million dollars per engine. Much cheaper than other engines. A semi-rigid structure for the Core, which would be "inflated" to get more structurally sound, like the Centaur and the original Atlas. This makes the entire thing much much lighter and even easier to build, reducing costs. Perhaps if this is done soon, we can actually get some sort of a rocket by 2020. The cost would be amortized, reducing the launch costs to less than 100 million dollars, which is affordable even for NASA.

[KASASpace]

Well with SLS' date=' it seems to me to just be something that's meant to break NASA away from the Space Shuttle (which for years has been what most of NASA's major mission have been centered around) and bring them back to where they were before the Shuttle program, with rockets launching dedicated space craft (and not hybrids) into space.

Obviously beyond that basic premise SLS has little defined goals (I mean, SLS' uses can range anywhere from a return to the Moon to simple ISS resupply runs), but I mean I can't blame necessarily blame them considering they're basically trying to reinvent the Saturn V's capabilities (If not the Saturn V itself). Just the idea that they're having to basically reinvent something they put together themselves (Yes, I know why this is) is cause enough for SLS' existence.[/quote']

Did the S-V have a core based off of the Space Shuttle ET? SRBs based off of Shuttle SRBs? Granted similar capabilities, but when you think about it ,we had it the whole time. Just put the RS-25 or SSMEs or whatever on the ET, remove the Orbiter, flatten the top of the ET, and you can get over 100 tons into orbit with just THAT. So, why is it taking so long? It should only take about 2.5 years of full commitment. But is NASA committed? Is Congress committed? Not really.

[Dunbaratu]

Which is exactly why I think programs should be locked once they reach a certain point. Stop political change overs from getting in the way. If a program is set in motion it should Finnish it course and not be at the whim of partisan politics and political squabbling.

The problem with solving this is that you shouldn't remove ALL oversight from a project like that. NASA, like any other government agency, shouldn't be independent enough to create its own self-contained political powerhouse. The oversight is necessary. The problem isn't that there's oversight, but that the people doing the oversight have nearly zero scientific knowledge and an utter lack of respect for those who do (which is what tends to make them ignore good advice). We've created a society in which being smart is a detriment to getting elected.

[crazyewok]

The problem with solving this is that you shouldn't remove ALL oversight from a project like that. NASA, like any other government agency, shouldn't be independent enough to create its own self-contained political powerhouse. The oversight is necessary. The problem isn't that there's oversight, but that the people doing the oversight have nearly zero scientific knowledge and an utter lack of respect for those who do (which is what tends to make them ignore good advice). We've created a society in which being smart is a detriment to getting elected.

Well that why I think there should be a cancellation window. So the monkeys in suites in congress can cancell the project if they wish but as soon as it hits a certain point then its locked. The window should be the intial concept and devopment phase. As you as it gets a all clear to go into production then it should be locked to prevent some fool at the next election from cancelling a project that 90% complete and has had 500+ million already pumped into it.