NASA/CASIS Ignores NASA's Own ISS Research Announcements
Japanese Space Agency (JAXA) Releases AO for International Research Participation on ISS Kibo Module
“The Japanese Space Agency (JAXA) has released an Announcement of Opportunity (AO) to fund experiments to be conducted aboard the Japanese Experiment Module, Kibo, on the International Space Station in FY2014 or later. JAXA is recruiting proposals that “make full use of the Kibo’s unique environment that will have major impacts on science, technology, industry and society” according to the JAXA Press Release.”
Keith’s note: NASA sent this notice out today regarding research opportunities in the JAXA Kibo lab module on ISS. But is there any mention of this announcement on the ISS National Lab homepage? No. Is there any mention at the CASIS website? Of course not.
NASA runs two main ISS research entry points and they do not bother to stay in synch with each other – and neither one stays current with other NASA announcements on ISS research. The U.S. has always had payload accommodations allotted to it per the ISS MOU in partner labs such as Columbus and Kibo. If NASA cannot get its own story straight for the prospective researcher – and the taxpayers in general – then who will?
Why would there be? NL is designated to be 50% of the USOS. CASIS is not tasked with managing the entire ISS research portfolio. US researchers can pursue opportunities on International Partner facilities, but it’s not CASIS’ job to manage that.
CASIS has the job of facilitating research aboard ISS. NASA issued an announcement via its formal scientific opportunities announcement list regarding research on the ISS and CASIS can’t be bothered to link to this? Laziness.
I disagree. Their job is to facilitate non-NASA research in the portion of the ISS that represents 50% of the US Operating Segment (the NL definition). It is NOT to facilitate research aboard the entire ISS. International Partners and NASA researchers make up the other elements of the ISS research pie, and CASIS is not tasked with managing those sections.
Check your facts. The U.S. has payload space in Kibo, and Columbus. The U.S. has had payload accommodations per the MOU in partner facilities since the inception of the space station. This announcement is totally related.
Yes, NASA has all sorts of barter agreements for space in IP facilities, and some of that makes up the “50% of the US Operating Segment” that is the National Lab. But, that is not the same thing as managing the research announcements put out by the IPs for their facilities that don’t make up part of the NL. I’m guessing that if CASIS did put their nose in this, someone would criticize them for not being focused on the already full plate that they have.
RF,
Like Keith, I interpret it as related. However, even if it wasn’t directly related, it’s a PR opportunity for CASIS and ISS, at a time when CASIS is under fire and walking on egg shells. I think they should be announcing anything that makes it look like they’re in the loop and aware of what’s going on.
Steve
I was not aware that CASIS or NASA has any resposibilbity for Kibo lab research. Why would you wwrite something negative about something they are not resposible for. Not sure this is accrurate. Maybe we should blog on facts not just emotion?
Dude, what facts did I omit? CASIS has the job of facilitating research aboard ISS. NASA issued an announcement via its formal scientific opportunities announcement list regarding research on the ISS and CASIS can’t be bothered to link to this? Laziness.
Not laziness, it would be crossing a boundary that is not theirs to cross. NASA’s research is not their business. Finding new non-NASA researchers is.
The U.S. has payload space in Kibo, and Columbus. The U.S. has had payload accommodations per the MOU in partner facilities since the inception of the space station. This announcement is totally related.
Wouldnt it be nice if someone were coordinating this stuff?
After 20 years the ISS remains “the undiscovered country”….
This is the perfect example of a tremendous improvement that could be realized without additional funding, without a lot of additional people. It requires the existing ISS people simplifying, reducing and expediting their processes. It requires fewer than a handful of people communicating the potential to the industries and companies that might have an interest. There is an issue with respect to access, since there is little upmass available essentially no downmass until some of the commercial suppliers come on line.
I think its really a mismatch of the kinds of people they’ve given the job to with whats needed. The people in ISS are mainly engineers with some scientists. The engineers love the thoroughness and complexity of the process. The scientists mainly know about their own fields of science. Now with CASIS they have a medical doctor??? Whats that about? Mainly they need people with business acumen, marketing and communications skills and a few scientists and engineers in supporting roles. Its really no wonder that ISS made no progress in three decades.
Littrow, you have a very good point, it’s right on the CASIS website. The roles and skills look mismatched. Who created this mess?
CASIS seems to be troubled, an endless mystery to ISS users. Why is the CASIS website still DOA after nearly a year? Why aren’t there any publicity release or public appearances by the executives? By Jim Royston? By the Directors? There isn’t any visibility even from this Comms Director Block. Not a word from Yeatman or Stern on the advisory board. No legislative affairs visibility. No evidence of a permanent Board in place, isn’t that Frank DiBello’s job? What legitimate professional executive would even consider serving on the CASIS Board with this firm in such disarray, they’d have to be crazy. Most of us users have more visibility from the CIA than from CASIS. CASIS controls half of a $100B U.S space asset. Wouldn’t you think DiBello would get on the front page and be a leader that sets the mission right for CASIS? Wouldn’t you think taxpayers would be angrily questioning why Gerstenmaier handed one or two people $50B in space hardware only to have it turn in to a quagmire?
Jerry,
I agree. They could just about hand it off to a couple of coop students; it’s basically a monitor and report task. In fact, if the paperwork trail were simplified, you could give the job to a high school student.
Steve
“I was not aware that CASIS or NASA has any resposibilbity for Kibo lab research.”
Actually. NASA and the US essentially own half of the Kibo Lab resources. Also half of the ESA Columbus Lab.
Exactly.
After awhile it is nauseating to hear criticisms directed at groups, as here with NASA and CASIS on issues. Entities don’t make decisions and take actions, people in them do. It’s people that are accountable, not non-living agencies and firms. If NASA Watch does something wrong, everyone knows it is on Keith Cowing and Cowing has the guts to take that stand. The same transparency and personal accountability should be applied to the discussions in these blogs.
If there is an issue with the ISS, say Gerstenmaier or whomever, specifically, not NASA. The CASIS entity is simple, Frank DiBello and Jim Royston are listed as the two men that are responsible and accountable. If they do something right, say Jim or Frank did it, not the non-accountable faceless entity they are responsible for.
npng,
Excellent point. But all too often accountability is at the heart of the “issue.” When so many of these problems (like ISS payload integration and CASIS) are plagued by turf wars, it’s sometimes very difficult to know who’s accountable, or who did something that wasn’t his responsibility. I myself find it difficult to keep track of who works for whom from month to month. But I think you’re right. Personal accountability is the issue, not organizational, and should be addressed that way. This is one of the reasons I stick with NASA Watch; Keith takes the time to get the names instead of taking short cuts.
Steve
“it is nauseating to hear criticisms directed at groups…Entities don’t make decisions and take
actions, people in them do
Space Station is big. At about $ 3 billion a year budget, that equates to about 20,000 people in the US. The people’s names who you know, Obama, Holdren, Bolden, Garver, Gerstenmaier, Uhran, Suffredini…they are the leaders. They are recognized as the leaders. They set the tone for the organization. Even if they don’t make all the decisions, they are responsible. If they select individuals or organizations or contracts that can’t do the job or don’t do the job, it ultimately comes back to them. They should hold
their subordinates responsible. We need to hold them responsible.
NASA’s problems go back a ways. The era of the 90s was when astronauts occupied every leadership position, because that was the organization the top key leaders came from. The last 10 years has been the era of the mission ops people, most notably flight directors. What organization does the current key leadership come from?
The way the civil service is supposed to work is that you are supposed to identify a position, identify the required criteria for selection, and then seek people to compete for the position and select the best qualified candidate based on merit. It is called a meritocracy. More typically these leaders identify the job, select someone they know to fill it, then write the selection criteria to fit the individual’s resume. Naming your friends to high ranking positions if they are not qualified is cronyism. The cost is to the US taxpayer and to NASA’s mission. This has now gone on for a generation.
If NASA is not getting the job done, we know who is in the leadership positions. You can say space station; the individual’s names are synonymous.
CASIS may or may not eventually succeed, but I would like to see the NASA officials who made the selection asked politely to defend their choice it in light of the problems. One of the difficulties NASA faces today is a frequent lack of consideration of technical capability in contract awards, and a lack of visibility of and accountability by the contracting officers. Part of the difficulty, at least at some centers, is that technical experts don’t have much say in the awards, and all that counts is what is on the paper.
In this case it isn’t even clear that the contract was needed. The original problem was the lack of funding for and direction for ISS science. Managers could have asked the scientists for advice on priorities, more or less as occurs in SMD, or they could have made the decisions themselves. They could have asked Congress for the funding. Creating a new administrative structure does little except raise overhead. Just my uneducated opinion.
CASIS should have hit the ground running. Instead they have spent the past 5+ months trying to figure out how to do what they said they’d do in the proposal that they submitted to NASA.
I would not be surprised if the technical advisers to the contracting officer made this clear before the award. And were ignored. NASA routinely awards contracts to companies created out of thin air for a particular solicitation.
NASA awarded CASIS on July 13th 2011 so it’s been nearly 10 months and soon, as we approach July 2012, it will be a year.
The ISS depreciates over $500M per month, so the U.S. has lost over $5 billion in ISS value already. NASA, Congress, and the White House have given a private 501c3 firm the responsibility of managing half of the ISS, $50 billion dollars worth of federal assets.
The average cost of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier is about $4.5 billion dollars. If the government gave you TEN U.S. aircraft carriers to manage, wouldn’t you think they’d make damn sure you managed them as you originally proposed? Care to guess what the military would do with you if you mismanaged ten aircraft carriers?
Surely you jest.
No I think he has a screw loose.
After 20 years or more of this I’d guess there is no one in a leadership position that has been selected based on their qualifications or merit.
Keith- Just a thought, but here’s something you could do that I can’t, since I am not a member of the press, or even a real person for that matter.
You could asks who was the contracting officer for the CASIS award and just ask him/her directly why he/she selected a proposal from a company that was created out of thin air for the solicitation. You could ask Congresswoman Adams whether she thinks members of congress should have the authority to influence NASA contract awards (as she did with a public letter asking NASA to award the contract to CASIS). You could ask whether other government agencies like NIH, NIST or DOD hire contractors to actually manage (as opposed to perform) research.I don’t advocate persecuting people. I’m not even against CASIS itself; the few people that I know who are associated with it are genuinely trying to do a good job. I just think that until the contract award process becomes a lot more transparent the mistakes of the past will be repeated. It’s a critical decision, and those who make it are public servants and should stand up and explain their actions.