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.
Budget

Watching Where NASA's Money Goes

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
June 28, 2016
Filed under
Watching Where NASA's Money Goes

Keith’s note: The next time you hear the space and planetary science communities complaining about budget cuts consider what their NASA mission PIs are paid at SwRI (2014 IRS Form, Part VII)
[Juno] Scott J Bolton $345,145 + 51,887
[New Horizons] Sol A Stern $370,522 + 52,435
SwRI is not at all shy about telling you how much money they earn – indeed they put this on their press releases. They are a non-profit, so this whole income thing should not be all that important – right? Just sayin’
“About SwRI: SwRI is an independent, nonprofit, applied research and development organization based in San Antonio, Texas, with nearly 2,800 employees and an annual research volume of $549 million.”

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

34 responses to “Watching Where NASA's Money Goes”

  1. cb450sc says:
    0
    0

    There are some subtleties here. Fully encumbered salaries (salary+benefits+overhead) at many institutions like universities can be very high. Overheads can easily be in the 60-70% range, and they compound on all the other costs. It’s not uncommon for it to cost the agency $3 for every $1 in salary an individual actually receives. Companies like SWRI, Eureka, Vanguard or other companies that basically act as fiscal offices tend to have drastically lower overheads. The total dollar amount that it costs NASA is about the same, even though the employees receive much larger dollar salaries. I have personal knowledge of PIs leaving their academic positions for companies like this, since the payscales are much higher.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      This is not the case for SwRI. Their overhead rates are higher than universities. The salaries are also, in general, higher. Also, the quoted compensation appears to come from IRS filings. That would make it the competition going to the individuals in question, not the total, burdened cost to NASA.

      • cb450sc says:
        0
        0

        Well, I’m not directly familiar with swri, but I am with the others. My own direct salary jumped by nearly 80% when I moved to one of them. But the bottom line to NASA remained identical. There’s not really a whole lot of rhyme or reason to where these salary numbers come from – it’s usually some sort of idea based on industry salaries, competing institutions, and the tea leaves of what NASA is willing to absorb. I’ve seen a lot of budgets flex in the early stages by factors of two based mostly on aggressive posturing (“negotiating”) as opposed to actual engineering.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          I worked there at one point, and SwRI isn’t like that. Salaries and overhead are both quite high. They depend on convincing customers (e.g. NASA) that the value of their work is worth the price.

          What you are describing sounds fairly close to Planetary Science Institute. They don’t have higher salaries, but the overhead is very low. That lets them get a lot done for the same price as other institutions.

          As an additional note, we aren’t really talking about what scientists are paid. If you look at the referenced IRS filing, Bolton ad Stern are listed as some sort of deputy or assistant vice president. Their current job, and what SwRI expects from people at that level, is really management not science. They bring in important contracts and manage a scientific project. No one pays over $200,000 for someone who actually makes the measurements, analyses the data or puts together theoretical models (and, by that, I mean the nuts and bolts work, not the “big picture ” ideas.)

  2. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    I’m missing your point here Keith. Are you saying that these salaries are too high? I would point out that Drs. Bolton and Stern hold the command positions in science that make the USA a world leader. The numbers seem high, true, but these guys are at career pinnacles doing cutting-edge science, absolutely new science, and leading very large teams. I say good for them.

    • barc0de says:
      0
      0

      For comparison, both make only slightly less than the President of the United States, who is, one might say, also holding a command position, at a career pinnacle, and leading a very large team, only at several orders of magnitude higher levels than these two PIs. There’s the issue of public- vs. private-sector salaries, but all three are doing “government work”. http://www.senate.gov/refer

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        That some are paid less than they are worth isn’t a new observation.

      • rktsci says:
        0
        0

        Yes, they make almost as much as the President. But a president can leave office and make millions per year doing speeches and being on boards. Not so for these scientists.

    • unfunded_dreams says:
      0
      0

      I concur. If someone is managing a massive portfolio of cutting edge research projects, I’d rather have a brilliant researcher at a high salary than an average PM at GS-15 rates.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Why do you think having a high salary guarantees someone to a brilliant researcher? Why do you think there is even a correlation?

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          I’d expect, as you mentioned above, that the salary equates with making rain.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Sure. But I’ve met excellent researchers who can’t write a decent proposal, and people who can’t do very good research but can write compelling proposals.

    • muomega0 says:
      0
      0

      The salaries are certainly lower than other sectors, but SWRI appears to have a dozen folks with President in their title with salaries in the 150K to 900K range plus 50K+ of deferred compensation (pdf page 47).

      Researchers in academia and USG may receive ~1/3 of this amount with no possibility of deferred compensation.

      I thought top researchers needed less oversight, so is this why the USG and universities pay less? Recall that for cognitive thinking, the more you pay the less you perform. It is contrary to what many learned in economics. More workers required.

      https://www.youtube.com/wat

      • rktsci says:
        0
        0

        Tenured professors and civil servants essentially have jobs for life. It’s nearly impossible to fire them for non-performance, they have good salaries, and excellent benefits.

        • muomega0 says:
          0
          0

          Shuttle-been around for decades, as well as many other military programs, all contracted out, exact opposite is true–impossible to fire non civil servants. Any layoffs at SWRI?

          Two other concerns. Congress dictates that NASA spend 6B/yr on SLS/Orion/ISS, so you conflating ops costs with costs of R&D. The top 1000s of researchers in the world would not produce much of ‘value’ performing Shuttle derived R&D given this conflating. The top researchers are also spending too much time writing proposals since it appears more and more cash is shifting to their ‘management’.

          The second concern is the notion that those with jobs for life are non performers, which is direct conflict with the rewards for cognitive thinking–more pay the less folks perform–take money off the table. When a non civil servant’s contract is up, they focus only on the next gig or proposal–very inefficient. It makes for a good sound bit however.

          • rktsci says:
            0
            0

            Tens of thousands of contractors were laid off as Shuttle was wound down and the construction phase of ISS was completed. Many of my friends got the ax. Not a single civil servant went out the door via layoff. They just got shuffled to other programs.

            As for performance and pay, I’ve worked with NASA civil servants that had essentially retired in place and were there just to get a paycheck. They went to meetings, shuffled papers among themselves, and not much else. IMHO, NASA could lay off the right 10-20% of their staff and increase productivity.

          • montagna_lunga says:
            0
            0

            I’ve worked with civil servants who after their retirement still held a grudge for my saying what you just wrote, to them (in a meeting, 20 years before!)

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          You are confusing “top researchers” with tenure or civil service jobs. There are plenty of top notch researchers with soft money jobs and no job security beyond their ability to get their next proposal funded.

          • rktsci says:
            0
            0

            The OP specifically said USG and academic researchers. No confusion on my part. I had one of those soft money positions.

    • MountainHighAstro says:
      0
      0

      Michael, I would also agree with your point. I could even go further and say that NASA should have competitive salaries because the agency should be attracting the brightest and most effective leaders, rather than just the ones with the most civil dedication

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Isn’t that how you end up with people willing to do unnecessary work because they need a charge number to put on their time sheet? Don’t we want some people willing to do what is best for the project or the program, as opposed to what is best for their bank account?

        • MountainHighAstro says:
          0
          0

          like anything, there is a slippery slope to contend with. as it stands, NASA underpays. I’ve seen many hardworking brilliant graduates go on to the private sector due to the lack of competitive offers

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      No one at NASA makes anywhere close to what they make.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        No one at NASA makes close to what Elon Musk makes either. Nor does the governor make as much as the head coaches at UF and FSU, who are the highest paid state employees in Florida. Of course there are executives in private industry and at some of our major universities who are clearly overpaid as well. Appropriate compensation is what it takes to get someone who can do the job well.

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      I’d say this is news-worthy in a much broader sense than just things space, SwRI and PIs. More broadly the very idea of what a “non-profit” is seems to have changed dramatically. It seems that sometime around the 1980’s non-profits started to think like cost-plus contractors whereby power and prestige were treated as more important than profit. There are endless stories about charities that rake in millions but disburse only a small fraction of their collections to the actual cause they say is their purpose.

      So the dilemma boiled down to numbers is much like these charities that might take in $100M but disburse only $25M to their stated cause. The usual defense is quite simple. They say if they ran a charity the old fashioned way, very austere, with lots of volunteers (and amateurs), the collections might only be $20Million (or after the small “overhead”, maybe $18M goes to the cause).

      It’s not an easy issue, but it’s well worth thinking about what we mean by “non-profit” and how these support their causes, before we get into a situation where the ends eventually become secondary to the means.

  3. RocketScientist327 says:
    0
    0

    Keith, I am fully aware this is your website and you do not always approve of posts that can be more political in nature. I always respect that but I have to take a little bit of an issue with this and I hope it is ok that I am a wee bit political.

    If this is the private sector paying these salaries than I am ok with it. I fully realize that SwRI is obtaining government contracts to fulfill NASA missions and frankly – fine. JUNO and New Horizons were wildly successful.

    We are paying these two men for their known quantities. Not only are they leaders but they know how to execute big ticket missions. We pay for that. If the budget is cut then it is up to SwRI to re-evaluate its proposals to win NASA contracts.

    Speaking specifically to Dr. Stern – New Horizons launched on time and on schedule. I have no problem with his salary schedule. I wish he would be allowed to do more. He is worth it. Success is worth it.

    I wish he never left SMD. While he and I are ideologically on different sides we are both very fiscally conservative. When Stern realized JWST was a black hole for astrophysics he left.

    Alan Stern as NASA Administrator under the next president regardless of party… Yes Please… YES PRETTY PLEASE.

    It would be a pay cut for him but many on both sides of the aisle respect Dr. Stern and frankly if I may Keith – crap will get done, the BS will stop, REAL science will get done, and HSF will recover.

    There is so much more here to discuss but this is a great place to stop.

    Thanks for listening.

    VR
    RE327

  4. rktsci says:
    0
    0

    There is a common perception that non-profits are warm and fuzzy companies that have low pay and do good rather than seek profits. That’s true of many.

    However, some of the most cutthroat companies out there are non-profits – one hospital chain in Houston comes to mind. They pay very high salaries, have excellent benefits for the execs, and are run no differently than a for-profit in the same field.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      The difference between a “for-profit” and a “not-for-profit” hospital is that a NFP doesn’t have to share any of its profits with stockholders.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Returning to the original topic SwRI is a not-for-profit, as opposed to a non-profit, company.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          The distinction is completely lost on me?

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            The distinction is based on tax and other legal status, so you’d have to ask a lawyer to get the details right. But, in general and as I understand it, non-profit companies are supposed to charge just enough to cover their costs ( I.e. not make a profit.) A not-for-profit may charge more, and make a profit. But the profit is not given out to the owner or the stockholders, and making money is not supposed to be the company’s goal. Instead, the profits are internally invested to improve the company or achieve some goal.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            To get back to the OP, both Juno and NH are large programs with budgets of over $1B. At a time when the 108 NCAA Div 1 college football coaches _average_ $1.75M/yr I feel the salaries quoted for Bolton and Stern are pretty reasonable.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Actually, that’s a stronger point when I add some numbers. I was going to say that both Juno and NH are long-running programs, so we should really be calling them roughly $100 million/year programs rather than over $1 billion total.

            Then I tried to look up similar numbers for NCAA football annual numbers. Wikipedia (which may or may not be accurate) gives $8.7 billion in NCAA division 1 revenue in the 2009-2010 academic year, 60% of which came from mens football. Depending on how that is distributed among the teams, the top 108 you mention probably had $20 to $50 million in revenue.

            So, on an annual basis and relative to the size of the program they manage, it would be reasonable to say Bolton and Stern are underpaid compared to college coaches. (Which, at least for me, doesn’t say much, since I feel college coaches are overpaid…)

            I would like to see similar numbers for the fraction of the budget spent on management, as opposed to one person’s salary. But I have no idea how to look that up.