So this is NASA Watch’s new role – using this site for attacking the Deep Space Exploration group? It’s your site and your right but its also sad – I recall when this was the go-to site to find out what was really going on at NASA not to get involved in competing approaches to exploration. And if you look at the report what its really saying is Orion is at risk due to funding shortfalls and irregularities and an optimistic schedule that NASA says it will work to address. No fraud, mismanagement (except maybe by OMB) or contractor gouging just the typical NASA challenge since Apollo – inadequate funding to do its job as good as it could. It happened with Shuttle & ISS too. There must be something more worthwhile to report on.
It is as you say his baby and I am not about to put words in his mouth. I did have a guffaw when I read the headline first. The old saw about “when did you stop beating your wife?” came to mind. Then thinking on it a bit there is substance to this that speaks of a more general apathy.. maybe we’re just punch drunk now. We expect failure. We are conditioned to it in this arena. These are lobbying bodies that are not interested in lobbying for what they are ostensibly about. Instead they are content to suck on the NASA teat with little regard for the overall success of the endeavor: “I’m all right, Jack. I got mine”
Nice cynical post – but really, the SAME drip drip drip of critiques and concerns over costs and schedules were there for Shuttle and ISS – both of which became successful if not perfect programs. Sometimes the concerns are justified and sometimes they lead to fixes that make the program better but if we cancel every NASA program whenever there is a GAO or OIG report, we’d better forget about doing anything ambitious in space.
So in other words who cares what things cost, who cares if NASA does not deliver what it promises, don’t bother to check where the money is going, right?
No, not at all – change as needed to fix legitimate problems when identified; that’s part of the oversight process. And sometimes, like JWST, the program needs to get more oversight attention.) But just because schedule and budget problems crop up doesn’t mean it’s not a good thing to do.
Not cynical at all. Cynical would be to passively expect them to do nothing rather than to upbraid them for not doing it. You are wilfully misinterpreting my post. I make no mention of SLS or profess an opinion about it yet you erect a defence to it in response to me.
OK so what about the part of the report that says NASA agreed with the findings and is working to implement corrective actions:
“To improve the likelihood Orion will be safely operated and developed on cost and schedule, we made four recommendations to NASA …. The Agency concurred with our recommendations and proposed corrective actions. We find the actions responsive and therefore the recommendations are resolved and will be closed upon verification of the corrective actions.
Is it typical for the OIG report to say “will be closed upon verification”? That sounds more substantial, as if they are not just accepting a promise to fix things.
The OIG does a credible job of examining projects but misses the larger point: assessing the cost of the entire system with respect to projected needs and near-term comparable systems.
The OIG doesn’t do that because it isn’t their job. The deciding that the cost of a program relative to its benefits is a policy question. OIG isn’t authorized to make policy judgements.
They are authorized to ask if a project actually has any realistic way to estimate costs and schedules, or if the project managers are just making the numbers up. They are also authorized to ask whether a project actually does follow it’s own policies and procedures. So that’s the sort of thing you see in its reports.
A higher level, second opinion on policy decisions would be a very good idea. But there doesn’t seem to be anyone in a position to do that.
So this is NASA Watch’s new role – using this site for attacking the Deep Space Exploration group? It’s your site and your right but its also sad – I recall when this was the go-to site to find out what was really going on at NASA not to get involved in competing approaches to exploration.
And if you look at the report what its really saying is Orion is at risk due to funding shortfalls and irregularities and an optimistic schedule that NASA says it will work to address. No fraud, mismanagement (except maybe by OMB) or contractor gouging just the typical NASA challenge since Apollo – inadequate funding to do its job as good as it could. It happened with Shuttle & ISS too. There must be something more worthwhile to report on.
You’re missing the point. OIG is raising some red flags on multiple NASA programs (including commercial crew) and NASA is ignoring them publicly.
It is as you say his baby and I am not about to put words in his mouth. I did have a guffaw when I read the headline first. The old saw about “when did you stop beating your wife?” came to mind. Then thinking on it a bit there is substance to this that speaks of a more general apathy.. maybe we’re just punch drunk now. We expect failure. We are conditioned to it in this arena. These are lobbying bodies that are not interested in lobbying for what they are ostensibly about. Instead they are content to suck on the NASA teat with little regard for the overall success of the endeavor: “I’m all right, Jack. I got mine”
Nice cynical post – but really, the SAME drip drip drip of critiques and concerns over costs and schedules were there for Shuttle and ISS – both of which became successful if not perfect programs. Sometimes the concerns are justified and sometimes they lead to fixes that make the program better but if we cancel every NASA program whenever there is a GAO or OIG report, we’d better forget about doing anything ambitious in space.
So in other words who cares what things cost, who cares if NASA does not deliver what it promises, don’t bother to check where the money is going, right?
No, not at all – change as needed to fix legitimate problems when identified; that’s part of the oversight process. And sometimes, like JWST, the program needs to get more oversight attention.) But just because schedule and budget problems crop up doesn’t mean it’s not a good thing to do.
Not cynical at all. Cynical would be to passively expect them to do nothing rather than to upbraid them for not doing it. You are wilfully misinterpreting my post. I make no mention of SLS or profess an opinion about it yet you erect a defence to it in response to me.
No one is forcing you to read NASAWatch. But you should read the NASA OIG reports since they explain what is “really going on at NASA”.
OK so what about the part of the report that says NASA agreed with the findings and is working to implement corrective actions:
“To improve the likelihood Orion will be safely operated and developed on cost and schedule, we made four recommendations to NASA …. The Agency concurred with our recommendations and proposed corrective actions. We find the actions responsive and therefore the recommendations are resolved and will be closed upon verification of the corrective actions.
NASA always responds to OIG and GAO like that. Then they continue as they were doing until its time for the next OIG or GAO audit.
Is it typical for the OIG report to say “will be closed upon verification”? That sounds more substantial, as if they are not just accepting a promise to fix things.
The OIG does a credible job of examining projects but misses the larger point: assessing the cost of the entire system with respect to projected needs and near-term comparable systems.
I agree. They are questioning the positioning of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The OIG doesn’t do that because it isn’t their job. The deciding that the cost of a program relative to its benefits is a policy question. OIG isn’t authorized to make policy judgements.
They are authorized to ask if a project actually has any realistic way to estimate costs and schedules, or if the project managers are just making the numbers up. They are also authorized to ask whether a project actually does follow it’s own policies and procedures. So that’s the sort of thing you see in its reports.
A higher level, second opinion on policy decisions would be a very good idea. But there doesn’t seem to be anyone in a position to do that.
I love it when you say stuff like this. It isn’t your fault you say what others won’t… but should.
Sure – I was not insinuating fraud but flat line funding a development program is fiscal mismanagement
If you actually read the report you’d see that there are more than just funding issue.