This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Congress

Yet Another Space Policy Advisory Committee

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 18, 2012
Filed under , , ,

National Academy of Sciences Committee on Human Spaceflight Meeting
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Yet Another Slow Motion Advisory Committee on Human Space Flight
“The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 was signed into law on 11 October 2010. It has taken more than 2 years for everyone to get around to starting this study. The start date listed for this committee is November 2012 and its report is due for delivery in May 2014. That’s 1 year, 7 months. This NRC is responding to authorizing legislation passed in 2010 by the 111th Congress, with a committee now being requested by the 112th Congress, and its report will be presented to yet another Congress (113th) during the second year of a new presidential administration in mid-2014 – one where policies are in place that will differ from those in place when the task was assigned, with budgets that differ from initial conditions under which the study was undertaken.
Net result: the committee’s advice will be out of synch with reality and somewhat overtaken by events having taken a total of 3 years, 7 months to complete. Oh yes: the cost of this study? $3.6 million.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

16 responses to “Yet Another Space Policy Advisory Committee”

  1. npng says:
    0
    0

    As you know and as your many-year colleagues would remind you, these committees are put together in a very deliberate way:  they enable each and every individual to escape individual responsibility, they “work toward a consensus” and then vote recommendations in as a group.  Vaguely similar to the plot on Murder on the Orient Express, it’s not one individual that murders a (makes a bad) decision, it’s all of them.  

    With a dozen in the committee, one can always assign blame to the other eleven.  The same applies to being productive or coming up with the necessary solutions.  Design by Committee rarely if ever works.  It’s Group Grope that takes forever to accomplish nothing while getting paid.  Do they get fired or lose their job if they fail to perform?  No.  Committees structured like this are everywhere.  There is no consequence for poor performance or failure.  Small wonder we never get to the necessary solutions.

  2. Helen Simpson says:
    0
    0

    The length of time that it takes to complete these studies is indeed
    somewhat frustrating, but the questions are at a high enough level that
    the duration speaks to careful consideration and deliberation. They deal with questions we’ve been living with for a long time, and that we’ve managed to exist with without an immediate answer. That
    Congress asks for these studies is pretty sensible. It’s that
    NASA and the Administration can’t seem to come up with answers to the
    questions that Congress is asking. In this case, neither NASA or the White
    House has ever come up with a compelling and ultimate picture of what human space flight is for in the context of the high level of technical sophistication we’ve now reached, and how the strategy that they march to fits with the goals that
    they set out for themselves. We are treated to the ol’ “exploration” flag being proudly run up the pole, where everyone stands around and salutes it. Not at all surprisingly, Congress is a little confused by that.

    That the NRC does these studies is significant, because the they organize and produce really independent reviews by some very smart and capable
    people. At the least, Congress is asking these smart and capable people
    to articulate what NASA and the White House seem to be incapable of
    articulating. If you want to call that what Congress can use to beat NASA around with, that works for me. Someone should be beating on them with well considered and carefully articulated words that NASA hasn’t figured out how to produce itself. Far better that Congress asks an independent body to coordinate this than for members of Congress to make up their own words, which would likely be poorly articulated and downright embarrassing and counter-productive.

    Now, one can ask why studies like these can’t come out of internal NASA Advisory Committees. I’ve never been very impressed with the policy efforts of those committees, and as was well known from the Griffin era when these committees underwent large scale purges, these committees don’t really feel that much freedom in what they say. That’s too bad.

    I’m actually looking forward to the report from this committee, which may well get its hands around rationale for human space flight that we desperately need.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Indeed that was my reaction, too. The decadal studies that guide other disciplines came to my mind as I read this. I do wonder at the tardiness, but on the other hand, if at the end we gain some sort of consensus that serves as the basis of a logical approach and provides supportable goals, I can be patient.

    • tutiger87 says:
      0
      0

      We don’t need yet another damn study. We need to fly. We need a planand we need to stick with it, for good or for bad.

      • Helen Simpson says:
        0
        0

        I wish it were better understood that elected officials, especially those who see themselves as national leaders, don’t have the luxury of making plans “for good or for bad”. We had a hastily conceived plan (Constellation) that turned out to be “bad”.  At least from the affordability standpoint. Shall we throw darts and go for another plan? Or maybe we should stop and think.

        • Michael Reynolds says:
          0
          0

          The problem with these committees isnt that they don’t come up with wonderful ideas. The problem is that for the most part they are ignored by policy makers. At most, the policy makers pick and choose parts that best fit their agenda or best serve their constituents in their districts (more likely the lobbiest who pay for their campaigns).

          So ultimately it doesnt matter that we “stop and think”, because the people choosing from those ideas when this happen are horrible at picking what is good for the nation. So until we fix the root cause of the problems that face NASA (and the rest of the nation/government for that matter) no amount of committees will be effective at moving forward a plan that works.

          • Helen Simpson says:
            0
            0

            That makes some sense. But we’re after more than “wonderful ideas”. We’re after some clear thinking, perhaps from new and different voices. The NASA Strategic Direction committee that just reported out concluded (much to the surprise of many) that there was actually little enthusiasm for a human trip to a NEO. Press reset, guys! The NEO Hazard Mitigation committee that reported out last year was highly skeptical about the value of human trips to NEOs for protection. Press reset again! The Technology Roadmap review committee came up with some valuable observations, and gave specific guidance to how OCT should respond to it.

            So while they may not come up with “wonderful ideas”, they do force us to take a good hard look in the mirror, and come to terms with things that have not been well considered.

            Yes, we need to fix those root causes of the problem, but until we do, taking a good hard look in the mirror is advantageous.

        • tutiger87 says:
          0
          0

          Bad, thanks to the politics which stuck us with a underpowered rocket…smh..We should’ve just stuck the capsule on top of an expendable. Oh wait, we’re doing that now aren’t we…

  3. Helen Simpson says:
    0
    0

    Let me add to my previous post.

    “”Do these congressionally-mandated NRC policy committees ever really say anything useful or new about space policy?”
    With regard to the NASA Strategic Direction committee that has just reported out, you bet!

    Here is a seasoned and independent group of people charterd by Congress and organized by the NRC pointing out to NASA that their sometime goal of an asteroid mission is seriously lacking in at least policy foundation, and that the administration has not really presented a solid case for that mission. Without wanting to be personally judgmental about the importance of such a mission, they’re exactly right that NASA has not developed any kind of consensus on it, certainly not an international one, nor have they constructed their budget plan to really meet that goal head on. This committee basically told NASA to take a good hard look in the mirror, and I think highly of that committee and the NRC for basically calling a spade a spade. I don’t think the NASA Advisory Committee would have done that.

  4. Scot007 says:
    0
    0

    NPNG:

    It is fine to comment critically on a process, if you offer an alternative.  If you cannot offer an alternative, spare us your empty critical comments.

    Having served on and chaired both NRC and internal NASA advisory committees I can tell you that Helen is correct in general about the difference between the two.  The internal committees are, or at least used to be, program advisory committees as distinct from policy advisory committees.  Upon occasion, an internal committee will stick a toe in policy waters, but it is rare.

    • Helen Simpson says:
      0
      0

      That’s correct about the NASA advisory committees being program, rather than policy committees. I should have stated that more carefully. I guess what I find a little frustrating is that in chartering these committees, which are largely composed of smart and independent people, NASA doesn’t reach out to them for some policy guidance, or at least policy commentary. Surely this commentary happens informally, but FACA compliance makes informal input really hard. It may be, however, that OMB/OSTP doesn’t want policy advice at that level.

      That being the case, such congressionally mandated space policy committees from the NRC make a lot of sense, and offer useful perspectives that NASA, and the Administration, wouldn’t otherwise get, even from a Space Council kind of construct.

  5. Inconvienient says:
    0
    0

     My suggestion – name some big formation on Ceres or Pluto after Sally Ride once we get there and the appropriate timeframe has passed. Meanwhile, for the scrape markes made by the Grail mission impacts – why not name them after the recent NRC study on NASA’s strategic vision and the one that is about to begin – the analogy is perfect; they probe just below the surface but have no lasting impact

    • AGoK says:
      0
      0

      you can save a lot of funding at KSC.
      1. you dont need 37 NASA CS in the security office. Let the contractor do their job.  Savings = $4.07M per year

      2. 35% of the CS work at KSC is absolutly doing nothing or is a thrid/forth backup.  Savings = $80.9M per year

      3.  To many upper level SESer’s in front office.  Savings for three folks to transfer or retire, $426,000

  6. Helen Simpson says:
    0
    0

    I’ll tell you what that committee would find. It would find that when an agency, and the administrations that it was part of, are unsuccessful in creating a compelling picture of human space flight that widely excites the public and Congress, providing consensus rationale that justifies it, and spurring increased funding for it, then it’s time to ask an independent committee for some suggestions. More power to them.

  7. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    These committees can meet and meet again. They keep doing the same thing and there is no reason to think that the outcome will be any different. 

    Some of the “space experts” need to define and then sell a strategic direction. They need to put it in terms that sell it to their own people and to the politicians. 

    I don’t know who those space experts are. I am not aware of any Von Braun’s or Gilruth’s or Seaman’s or Mueller’s or Lowe’s. The leaders have passed from the scene. I’ve not seen any managers who are competent leaders. I know the people who you might think are the experts, like Bolden, Gerstenmaier, Cernan or Aldrin, are not those experts. People on the inside like Bolden and Gerstenmaier seemingly have no opinion; they seem to be parroting others and the opinions they have expressed have been muted like they don’t really believe what they are saying. Tom Jones was at least honest recently when he said as they are currently going, SLS and Orion won’t be ready to go anywhere until the 2030s. The only real opinion I have heard that makes any sense is from Spudis (develop cis-lunar transportation).  

    It doesn’t take another committee. It takes some knowledgeable, capable, vociferous people who can speak honestly and logically, who can put together a realistic plan, and who are willing to speak up. All the current NASA leadership fails on virtually every one of these points.    

    • Helen Simpson says:
      0
      0

      “These committees meet again and again” and “keep doing the same thing”? Really? What committee met with the charter and charge that this committee has? Perhaps you could enlighten us. The Aldridge committee almost a decade ago came close, but they were charged with just dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s on a presidential “Vision”.

      As to defining and selling a strategic direction, that’s what this is all about. It’s about that because the “space experts” have been trying to do exactly that for a few decades and have failed dismally. These experts are knowledgeable, capable, and vociferous, and speak honestly and logically, but they failed anyway. Of course, if you don’t know who the “space experts” are, that makes it a little hard to give them a mandate to do it, no?

      As to NASA leadership failing on these counts, please understand that NASA leadership is hired to implement a plan. They are hired to bring engineering and technology together to achieve a goal that offers value to the nation. But NASA leadership doesn’t have much of a clue about what offers value to our nation. So although they can make suggestions about a real plan, that’s not their call.