NASA

NASA’s top challenges

NASA’s Office of the Inspector General released Tuesday its assessment of the top management and performance challenges acing the space agency. The report identified six specific areas of concern:

  • Future of U.S. Space Flight
  • Acquisition and Project Management
  • Infrastructure and Facilities Management
  • Human Capital
  • Information Technology Security
  • Financial Management

The first item covers a wide range of issues, from the retirement of the shuttle and development of a heavy-lifter to commercial crew development and extension of the ISS. The second item notes the cost overruns and schedule delays that many programs have suffered, including, most recently, the James Webb Space Telescope. On the last item, though, there is some good news: NASA announced yesterday that it received a “much-improved” financial audit opinion. That improvement is the issuance of “a qualified opinion, with no material weaknesses”, rather than a disclaimer of opinion, which had been the case the last seven years.

38 comments to NASA’s top challenges

  • amightywind

    A predictable list, by a dutiful bureaucrat. NASA’s real problem is a lack of tangible goals, a firmer apolitical mission that can weather changes of executive and congressional leadership. NASA will remain in chaos until this happens. Better agency leadership team would be beneficial as well.

  • Totally agreed, mighty. It seems we can all agree that NASA is overly politicized and under-managed. What to do about that, on the other hand…

  • GeeSpace

    Getting a qualified opinion is not “good news” , It’s better than a disclaimer of opinion but not something you bragged abput.
    A disclaimer of opinion is an accounting term that generally means that the people looking at the financial records (auditurs) can not determine whether the records are accurate and/or complete, i.e.,financial records are undependable,
    A qualified opinion is a statement by the auditors that some financial records and transactions can not be verified (independently checked) and do not meet the standards of proper (usual, expected, or normal) practice.
    An unqualified opinion from an auditor means that the financial records generally meet with generally accepted (usual) practices and procedures.
    An unqualified opinion is the highest type of auditor opinion which most organizations receive that are operated well financially.

    An financial audit would not determine or find cost overrunds or program delays such as in the Webb Space Telescope. The determination of cost overruns, etc is a management problem.

  • Vladislaw

    I would like to see a report that says X was fired for incompatence, Y was fired for not following standard accounting practices, Z was fired for failure to stick to a schedule…. just once I would like to see a house cleaning for all the screw ups.

  • It’s almost impossible to fire a civil servant at NASA. That’s one of the reasons tht the Aldridge Commission (futilely) recommended that the centers be converted to FFRDCs.

  • Nevermind the fact that generally 80-90% of the people who work at centers like Marshall, Kennedy, Johnson are employed by private contractors and not NASA.

  • Nevermind the fact that generally 80-90% of the people who work at centers like Marshall, Kennedy, Johnson are employed by private contractors and not NASA.

    Is this comment intended to have some relevance to the discussion?

  • MichaelC

    “Efforts to develop commercial vehicles capable of carrying humans to the ISS and other low Earth orbit destinations present significant challenges. One issue of particular complexity is NASA’s intent to “human-rate” any new flight system, whether developed commercially or by NASA. NASA only recently developed comprehensive human-rating standards for NASA-developed systems, and the certification process that will be used to human-rate commercial vehicles – several of which are already well under development – is not yet fully defined.”

    So much for Rand’s constant crowing about man-rating not being an issue.

    It is now.

  • MichaelC

    “-NASA needs to continue to develop incentives and partnerships to encourage use of the ISS by other U.S. Government agencies, other nations, and the commercial sector.”

    “Future of the Astronaut Corps. Identifying the proper role and size of NASA’s Astronaut Corps in a post-Space Shuttle environment presents special challenges to Agency leaders. Since its inception in 1959, the Astronaut Corps has been an integral part of the NASA mission and over the years the Agency’s astronauts have adapted to a variety of new roles and missions. The cancellation of the Constellation Program and the increased reliance on the private sector to provide transportation to and from space raises new questions for the future of NASA’s Astronaut Corps.”

    So Soyuz will have one Russian, one Astronaut, and one tourist every time it launches. And that will be for the next decade because there is not much chance- in my opinion of course- of Dragon carrying people for a long long time. Not with the Man-rating standards NASA is going to push.

  • DCSCA

    “Future of U.S. Space Flight
    Acquisition and Project Management
    Infrastructure and Facilities Management
    Human Capital
    Information Technology Security
    Financial Management”

    In other words, the ‘IG’ is trying to develop a rationale for keeping NASA in existence as an independent, civilian agency like all government bureaucrats naturally try to do. A little late for this as the Age of Austerity arrives. The civilian space agency is a luxury, not a necessity, and a relic of the Cold War, now over for 20-plus years or more. NASA’s overhead has simply priced the agency out of the marketplace in the Age of Austerity. Conceived in the 1960s as a Cold war necessity, NASA is now a luxury the America of 2010 can no longer afford. It simply is not needed any more. Stamp the NASA file with a ‘mission accomplished, well done,’ revoke its charter, dissolve the agency and fold any relevant assets into other down-sizing agencies which can make the most use of them or sell them off to the private sector.

  • Bryan R

    I think its a good report. It really is to the point. I’m a bit surprised that some of the blogs have not made more of it.

    I am glad they were accurate about Constellation succumbing to out of control costs and schedule, although they left out the part about requirements and processes which were also poorly controlled and inconsistent between themselves and between that program and the Vision.

    I hope US manned spaceflight can survive; but, we might never recover from the damage that was done by the Constellation program.

  • So much for Rand’s constant crowing about man-rating not being an issue.

    I have never said human rating is not an issue, let along “constantly crowed” about it. Learn to read.

  • byeman

    “And that will be for the next decade because there is not much chance- in my opinion of course- of Dragon carrying people for a long long time. Not with the Man-rating standards NASA is going to push”

    Key words – “my opinion”. This shows that you don’t know what you are talking about. The “push” is going to be back on NASA for its outrageous requirements.

  • David Davenport

    Nevermind the fact that generally 80-90% of the people who work at centers like Marshall, Kennedy, Johnson are employed by private contractors and not NASA.

    It’s the other 10-20% that really needs to experience some career transitions.

  • Coastal Ron

    MichaelC wrote @ November 17th, 2010 at 8:58 pm

    So much for Rand’s constant crowing about man-rating not being an issue.

    It is now.

    The issues have never been whether there was going to be safety requirements for carrying crew, it’s been: 1. What are the standards, and 2. Can the commercial providers meet those standards.

    I don’t know if you recognized a particularly salient point, but in your excerpt they say “NASA only recently developed comprehensive human-rating standards for NASA-developed systems“. NASA has been flying the Shuttle for 30 years, and they had Orion in the works for over 5 years, and they only recently developed comprehensive human-rating standards? Hilarious!

    But what that means is that NASA still does not know what is important for human-ratings, and that is the variability that the industry is fearing – will NASA provide meaningful guidance, or will they be overly cautious and retard the industry. These are classic regulatory questions that go on every day in all parts of the regulated economy, and now it’s time for commercial aerospace.

    Regarding human-rating, the bottom line is really survivability, and both ULA and SpaceX will be using capsule-on-top designs with liquid fuel launchers (far safer than side-mount and/or solid-fuel rockets), so the only significant missing feature is the LAS.

    For SpaceX, this is also the reason they are looking for $300M from NASA (develop the LAS & test), so it makes sense for NASA to fund commercial firms to develop the new industry standards for human-rated escape systems. Once these new systems are developed, the industry can leverage off of a standard design.

    This is the type of work that NASA should be focusing on, not building & operating it’s own rockets, but working with the industry to develop safe and reliable space transportation systems and standards.

  • MichaelC

    “I have never said human rating is not an issue, let along “constantly crowed” about it.”

    Uh-huh.

    “Once these new systems are developed, the industry can leverage off of a standard design.”

    Uh-huh.

    “For SpaceX, this is also the reason they are looking for $300M from NASA ”

    NASA has already built and tested 2 LAS systems. You want 300M in tax dollars for SpaceX to build their own?

    Goofy.

  • DCSCA

    @byeman wrote @ November 18th, 2010 at 10:46 am

    NASA can’t even launch a shuttle on time in 2010 and they’ve had thirty frigging years to try to get it right. Hydrogen leaks and cracks in ETs at this point only demostrate the high degree of incompetence at NASA still exists. The civilian space agency as presently structured is an antique from the Cold War. Even the Berlin Wall was eventualy broken up and sold off in pieces. A 40% cut in staff, overhead and budgeting would bring the dreamers back to reality very fast and force some focused thinking from those who remain.

  • DCSCA

    @amightywind wrote @ November 17th, 2010 at 8:17 am

    “A predictable list, by a dutiful bureaucrat. NASA’s real problem is a lack of tangible goals…”

    Was reviewing some old videotapes from 1986-1988. Exactly the same vague ‘lack of tangible goals’ chatter was being made by space enthusiasts around the time of the run up to STS-26 as it was being readied for flight. Nothing has changed, really. Back then, the only ‘goal’ was building a space station… starting in 1995 and completing it by 2000. That went well, didn’t it. NASA doesnt set policy and goals, the WH does and NASA is supposed to implement them.

  • Goofy.

    No, what’s goofy is thinking that SpaceX could use a NASA LAS on the Dragon. Launch Abort Systems aren’t just “strap ons.” They’re part of a system and have to be designed specifically to operate with that system. The Orion LAS is designed to pull the Orion away from an exploding solid booster. The Dragon has no such requirement, and the NASA LAS, which would be overkill, would add so much weight and cost that it would be unusable for SpaceX. Their pusher system will be much safer. And $300M is a bargain, compared to what NASA’s systems will cost.

  • MichaelC

    “Their pusher system will be much safer. And $300M is a bargain, compared to what NASA’s systems will cost.”

    The “pusher system” is a bad idea all around and is more about trying to save money than safety.

    And it is certainly a bargain for SpaceX since the taxpayer is footing the bill..

  • Byeman

    “A 40% cut in staff, overhead and budgeting would bring the dreamers back to reality very fast and force some focused thinking from those who remain.”

    40% equates nicely to MSFC portion, just hack it off and let commercial do the work for launch vehicles.

    But in reality, DCSCA, you don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t even understand NASA to make such a statement. Your rant about NASA only being able to do manned spaceflight is a perfect example of your lack of knowledge.

  • Major Tom

    “NASA has already built and tested 2 LAS systems.”

    “The ‘pusher system’ is a bad idea all around and is more about trying to save money than safety.”

    Your statements are contradictory. You laud NASA’s two systems, one of which is a pusher system, and then you state the a pusher system is a “bad idea”.

    Don’t waste other posters’ time. Make up your mind before you post.

  • The “pusher system” is a bad idea all around and is more about trying to save money than safety.

    A pusher is much safer than a tractor — it doesn’t have to be jettisoned every flight.

  • Coastal Ron

    MichaelC wrote @ November 18th, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    And it is certainly a bargain for SpaceX since the taxpayer is footing the bill..

    You’re losing sight of the forest for the trees. The whole point of the $300M is to provide NASA with a domestic crew delivery system for the ISS. In the manufacturing world this is nothing new, where a customer funds a contractor or vendor to take on a unique task (acquire new machinery or tooling, build new facilities, etc.).

    As I’ve mentioned before, if you do the math you’ll see that NASA would pay the same amount for SpaceX to delivery crew to the ISS from 2016-20 as they would for Soyuz. Common sense says that it’s better to spend government money in the U.S., and not in Russia, so funding SpaceX makes both patriotic and economic sense.

    However, having one service provider is a bad thing, so NASA would need to provide funding to get more than one crew provider going, and this is what the original NASA plan had in mind. Who knows how much they can get done with the $1.3B in the current legislation, so the path ahead is still a little unclear – Soyuz, Dragon, CST-100? Hopefully not the MPCV, because that would doom us to government-funded space travel for a long time, and it would kill any attempts to start non-government space travel (like Bigelow).

    It all boils down to choices – do we continue to use Soyuz, or create a non-NASA domestic capability? Choose wisely…

  • Dennis Berube

    Heres a question for all you space technophiles. With the pusher escape system and it not having to be jettisoned after launch, is it then used in space as breaking rockets for re-entry, or manuvering to different orbits? that would certainly seem like a good idea with regards to having it do two functions instead of only one!

  • MichaelC

    “A pusher is much safer than a tractor — it doesn’t have to be jettisoned every flight”

    B.S.

    Jettisoning something does not make it unsafe; carrying around explosive fuel when it is not needed does. And both nasa systems were mounted on top of the capsule and jettisoned. Both are tractors. Know something before you post Tom.

    I

  • Freddo

    Mr. Church: MLAS is a pusher, not a tractor:

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/wallops/missions/mlas.html

    Know something before you post, indeed, sir.

  • byeman

    “Jettisoning something does not make it unsafe; carrying around explosive fuel when it is not needed does.”

    Know something before posting.

    “Jettisoning something” increase complexity which reduces reliability. Eliminating such an event reduces risk.

    A pusher LAS does not “carrying around explosive fuel when it is not needed” It provides for a dual use for the propellant. If the LAS is not needed, the propellant can be used for the mission.

  • Martijn Meijering

    MLAS was in fact a tractor. Byeman explained this to me on NSF.com. It was connected to the top of the capsule and thus would have pulled it.

  • byeman

    The MLAS was not a test of a true abort system. There were no “abort” motors in the MLAS. It was descoped once it was found that it could not prove the concept. MLAS was no more of a test of an actual abort than Ares I-X was of an actual launch vehicle. Both were more for show than substance.

  • Martijn Meijering

    carrying around explosive fuel when it is not needed does.

    The fuel is neither explosive (hypergolics, which don’t mix well and therefore don’t explode well) nor is it unneeded: it would be used for circularisation and deorbit and maybe even for a bit of deceleration / steering during final descent. It could also be reused.

  • With the pusher escape system and it not having to be jettisoned after launch, is it then used in space as breaking rockets for re-entry, or manuvering to different orbits?

    That’s the plan for Boeing’s CST. It’s not clear whether that will be the case for Dragon yet.

    “Jettisoning something” increase complexity which reduces reliability. Eliminating such an event reduces risk.

    Yes. The Orion LAS had over sixty identified hazards, over half of which could kill you on an otherwise nominal mission (e.g., failure to jettison). It also was one of the factors that led to the out-of-control weight growth that required the extra segment in the SRB.

    And once again MichaelC flaunts his ignorance.

  • DCSCA

    @Byeman wrote @ November 18th, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    It’s understandable why you’re desperate to protect your turf. But you best review what NASA actually does. We know the other things NASA does but to most Americans, its the government agency that ‘sent Glenn to the moon’ and ‘invented Tang’– and NASA did neither. Get out of your bubble. The Age of austerity is here. Pretty much all of it can be done by other agencies. A 40% cut in staff is generous but dissolving the agency as an independent orgasnization and tucking it under the ‘umbrella’ of the DoD might actually save longer term space projects under the guise of ‘national security.’ As it stands now, NASA is quite vulnerable to being essentially eliminated. The duplication of personnel, projects, facilities, etc., make it an easy target. There’s little difference if a payload is lofted by the military or by NASA. The United States simply cannot afford two space programs any longer. And the easiest one to eliminate is NASA.

  • There’s little difference if a payload is lofted by the military or by NASA.

    Neither NASA nor the military “loft payloads” (other than the last couple Shuttle flights). All US payloads, military and NASA, are launched commercially. Someone else flaunting his ignorance.

  • DCSCA

    @Rand Simberg wrote @ November 20th, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    Last time the taxpayers checked, the facilities used to ‘loft payloads’ are O/O by the United States government under the guise of NASA and assorted DoD monikers. Guess places like Vandenberg and other DoD launch platforms, including submarines BTW, escaped your broad-based thinking. Perhaps there’s a USS Musk submerged off Florida we don’t know about. Ignorance, indeed, Simberg. Good grief.

  • the facilities used to ‘loft payloads’ are O/O by the United States government under the guise of NASA and assorted DoD monikers.

    Facilities don’t “loft payloads.” Launch vehicles do. Get a clue.

  • Byeman

    “Last time the taxpayers checked, the facilities used to ‘loft payloads’ are O/O by the United States government”

    Let’s be more direct, DCSCA is flaunting his ignorance as usual.

    The facilities on SLC-37, SLC-41 and SLC-40 are owned and operated by ULA or Spacex. The US Gov’t is not involved with the O&M of these facilities.

    Know something before posting.

  • Byeman

    Forgot to add SLC-3 and SLC-6. The only pads “owned” by the USG are SLC-2 and 17 which are for Delta II, which soon will be deactivated. And LC-39.

Leave a Reply to DCSCA 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>