Congress, NASA

Restructuring NASA? Good luck with that.

Today’s Houston Chronicle report that Houston-area congressman John Culberson wants to introduce “revolutionary change” to NASA by completely restructuring the 50-year-old agency. Culberson, a bona fide space geek (in the best sense of the term), wants to model NASA on the National Science Foundation so it can “be driven by the scientists and the engineers” and “be free of politics as much as possible”.

How exactly Culberson proposes to do that isn’t clear: he hasn’t drafted any legislation on this, he told the Chronicle (which means that there’s no chance of anything happening on it this year), and didn’t go into details about how NASA would be transformed. While NASA and NSF are often closely linked as “science” agencies (although NASA is more than just science), the two organizations are very different, and it would seem at first glance very difficult to convert NASA into an NSF-like organization. For example: NASA has tremendous amounts of infrastructure, from field centers to space hardware; NSF, by comparison, has very little. Would NASA retain that infrastructure after that transition? If yes, how would it be run differently? If not, who (if anyone) would take if over, and how would they operate it for NASA?

The Chronicle notes that Culberson also made comments during an online town hall meeting earlier in the week that, on their surface, appeared to be disparaging towards NASA. “We’ve spent a fortune on NASA, and we don’t have a whole lot to show for it,” Culberson was quoted as saying, adding that “NASA wastes a vast amount of money.” Some might argue that those statements aren’t that controversial, but in the Houston area, they did generate a backlash from Culberson’s Democratic opponent and Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX), whose district includes JSC. “It’s times like these when I’m relieved – and I know my constituents are relieved – that I’m the representative of JSC,” Lampson told the paper.

8 comments to Restructuring NASA? Good luck with that.

  • […] Space Politics » Restructuring NASA? Good luck with that. […]

  • Dave Huntsman

    My impression is that an extremely well-meaning Congressman, who has demonstrated interest in one particular area of the space universe (ie space science), may end up inadvertently writing a very bad bill; in spite of the fact true, structural NASA reform really is needed.

    Rule 1: If you’re gonna do true structural reform, it helps if its the right reform; and it almost certainly will not be if he’s only doing it from feeling up one part of the elephant.

    Space science within NASA is the area that has, paradoxically, already experienced the most reform; much (but not all) of it begun under former science director Alan Stern, who was a true reformer. He got serious by enforcing cost discipline, insisting on experience for space mission leadership, and a re-focus on the mother’s milk of science, data analysis. (Ok, maybe it’s the ‘other’ mother’s milk).

    Even before Alan, there were periods where each major failure of, say, a Mars spacecraft, led to serious internal introspection on not only goals and methods, but on ways of doing business. As opposed to science, the other 90% of the elephant – especially the large manned programs, shuttle, ISS, now Orion – are (almost) totally untouched by reform in ways of doing business, aging, atherosclerosis of the organizations, flexibility to new ideas – you name it.

    Thinking of a new reformed NASA along the lines of an NSF shows a misunderstanding of the many different missions NASA has – of which space science is only one, and probably not even the main one. NSF has (mainly) a building (nice one, too!), a checkbook, and a charter that focuses more on pure science than most other Federal agencies. Their charter does not include expanding the human economy into the solar system; it does not worry about the business (not just technical) competitiveness of the U.S. (directly), or about accomplishing many other national goals. They also aren’t the repository of a significant amount of human capital and experience in the various space mission areas we, as a nation, need a (reformed) NASA to do.

    Lastly, concluding that only NASA HQ is ‘the’ problem with NASA shows a misunderstanding of how the Agency works. I’ve got my own idea of the many needed reforms of NASA HQ, having spent six years (of 33 in total in NASA) there myself; but most of the inertia, the inefficiencies, and the parochialisms that must be reformed are at the NASA field Centers. Out of those 9 centers, if I had to rank the ones needing reform the most, the one nearest his own district ranks very high, for example; something I think a majority of NASA’s employees would probably agree with.

    Congressman, you seem well-intentioned; but we all know how good intentions can inadvertently pave the way to the wrong places. We need to go in the other direction. There are true reformers still within the agency; who not only believe in reform, but have a realistic, fact-and-experienced-base feel for what is truly needed. Please plug in to a few of them before you inadvertently pave a road to the wrong place.

  • Good comments, Dave. I would say though that when you say, “…Their charter does not include expanding the human economy into the solar system…,” that NASA doesn’t seem to believe that’s in their charter, either, at least based on its behavior and where the vast proportions of its budget goes.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Mr. Culberson is indeed well intentioned. His passion for science and engineering excellence is among the strongest on the Hill. But it is very true that the needed structural reform of NASA is a lot more complicated that what he has more or less glibly tossed out. That reform is a discussion that needs to be had, but not a bill that needs to be written.

    Now, one of his passions is planet finding in general, and SIM in particular. Culberson teamed with Mr. Schiff of Pasadena to get a new start for that hugely expensive (JPL) mission earmarked into the approps bill, causing considerable consternation in the science community. That’s not a good model for the reform he thinks NASA needs.

    ——-

    when you say, “…Their charter does not include expanding the human economy into the solar system…,” that NASA doesn’t seem to believe that’s in their charter, either, at least based on its behavior and where the vast proportions of its budget goes.

    It isn’t in their charter. Just read the Space Act. Why should they believe it’s in their charter?

    http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html

  • Dave Huntsman

    Their charter does not include expanding the human economy into the solar system…,” that NASA doesn’t seem to believe that’s in their charter, either, at least based on its behavior and where the vast proportions of its budget goes.

    It isn’t in their charter. Just read the Space Act. Why should they believe it’s in their charter?

    I was just quoting a statement both Marburger and Griffin have made. One of the reforms needed is that NASA, DOC, et al also need to have include that in their charters.

  • D. Messier

    I agree with most of Dave’s analysis. Space science is a lot more flexible. You’re dealing with robotic spacecraft that can be of any size or complexity. They don’t require the level of safety and redundancy needed for human missions. You lose one, and it’s embarrassing, but the consequences are far less severe.

    And Dave is right: NASA has been able to learn lessons from its failures. It’s 5-0 during this decade on Mars spacecraft. The results have been spectacular.

  • […] Restructuring NASA? Good luck with that. – Space Politics […]

  • […] the minor kerfuffle that Congressman John Culberson set off last week when he said that “NASA wastes a vast amount of money”? Last night Culberson apologized […]

Leave a Reply to Doug Lassiter Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>