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.

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.

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

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.