Why Does Space Policy Always Suck?
NAS SSB: Committee on Human Spaceflight Public and Stakeholder Opinions Panel
“This meeting is closed in its entirety.”
Keith’s note: Sigh, yet another NAS SSB meeting on “public and stakeholder Opinions” that is closed to the “public” and “stakeholders” i.e. the taxpayers who paid for it. As previously noted on NASA Watch, these expensive ($3.6 million) panels, composed of the usual suspects plus a few newbies, take years to churn out an end product. The product is watered down and is biased toward the pre-ordained opinions of Congress, the committee, and the select consultants that the SSB consults. No description is ever presented to the public as to how input is solicited, processed, or collated – nor does the public have any recourse whereby they can find out how the committee conducted itself.
The end result is presented to Congress. Congress reads the cover page, holds a hearing, and asks NASA to respond within 90 days to questions that miss the original point that the NAS committee was chartered to discuss. The White House then ignores the report – as does NASA – and Congress. Everyone then pats themselves on the back – and the process starts all over again – ignoring everything that the NAS SSB just did.
Because that is how it is done.
This self-perpetuating space policy echo chamber existed before sequesters, shutdowns, and CRs and it will continue to exist once this current budget nonsense is resolved – and it will survive as future congressional calamities ensue.
Yet people still wonder why, after all these years, the process whereby space policy is developed sucks so very much – and why NASA finds it harder and harder to do what it is chartered to do.
Yet Another Slow Motion Advisory Committee on Human Space Flight, earlier post
“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.. The soonest that a NASA budget could be crafted that took this committee’s advice into account would be the FY 2016 budget request. NASA and OMB will interact on the FY 2016 budget during Fall 2014 and it won’t be announced until early 2015 – 4 1/2 years after this committee and its advice was requested in the NASA Authorization Act 2010.”
NASA Wants You To Nominate The Advisors It Ignores
“Charlie Bolden listens (I guess) to what the committee members have to say and then ignores 99% of what is said. Its mostly a slow-motion Kabuki theater: NASA people moving in the shadows – but little real substance up front.”
Good lord.
I wonder if NASA would be better if you could somehow prevent Congress from interfering with their budget except at four-year-intervals. That would allow bad policies to progress longer, but also allow good policies to actually play out their course.
Very perceptive!
I have to concur with KC’s commentary based on my experience with assorted of these type committees over the years. I can add two more dysfunctions here though.
One is that the usual suspects rounded up for these committees do end up in a rather Darwinistic process whereby anyone who strays from the keep-on keeping on approach of such committees will not be invited back when the next committee gets lined up. The chance to keep feeling useful, see old buddies, and share thoughts over beer about solving the problems of the world will be lost. I’ve never seen the really outspoken people get called to these committees, so such a natural selection process must be occurring under guise of wanting people who can work well together as a committee (buddies in the kiddie pool, rather than people who “make waves”.)
Second is that these committees end up hiding behind their charter, taking the charter interpretation to be as narrow as possible. Anyone who comes along and starts talking about the real issues behind the charter and questions at hand will be told they are off-charter (and this perhaps goes to the first item in the process of natural selection and committee members). So we end up with reports that go round and round in useless circles for 100 pages with teeny-tiny little blurbs that point out the real issues only to declare that area out of scope. And onward to the next committee.
I know lots of people who serve on these panels. Once they sit down at the table some sort of groupthink descends upon them and fogs their minds. Once everyone is in the zone the last thing they want is to have someone come into their meeting to disturb the calm. Nothing interesting, provocative, or forward thinking ever emerges – and what is left is what we get as a “space program”. Consensus by default.
Or fault by consensus.
Human spaceflight policy as it churns in the United States is really aerospace industry policy for established federated contractors with NASA centers as their end customers. American space policy won’t open up the frontier; that’ll take great entrepreneurs and other bold leadership outside of these committees. In spite of these committees.