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.
Commercialization

CASIS Is Still Broken

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 3, 2018
Filed under
CASIS Is Still Broken

Keith’s note: Recently there has been a lot of talk about halting NASA funding for the International Space station is 2024 with the hope that all of the costs currently paid for by NASA would be picked up by the private sector. NASA hopes to use the savings they expect to achieve to pay for the Gateway and its Moon/Mars plans. So … who will handle the commercialization of the ISS? When you ask NASA if CASIS is part of that plan they say yes – but never get too much into the details.
As you all know NASAWatch has taken a special interest in CASIS and its poor performance over the years. Apparently NASA is not too thrilled with CASIS either. This 16 November 2017 letter from Sam Scimemi at NASA to CASIS is rather blunt. There will be much more to follow as to how CASIS says it will respond to NASA’s concerns and what led up to this situation.
Keith’s update: A response from CASIS Letter from CASIS To NASA Regarding Complaints About CASIS Activities
Letter from NASA to CASIS Regarding Complaints About CASIS Activities
“I am writing this letter to you to address recent complaints about CASIS activities that have been brought to my attention both by the ISS Program and by outside stakeholders that require serious and immediate attention. Additionally, it is necessary to communicate some significant concerns brought forward by a number of the National Laboratory’s commercial implementation partners (CIPs) so that actions may be taken to address these issues.
As part of NASA’s oversight of agreements with companies who operate their own commercial hardware on ISS, NASA solicits feedback from them annually to assess their satisfaction with progress towards a robust commercial presence in space and to solicit opinions on any changes that may be needed. There were a number of positives from these exchanges; however, a number of items were raised indicating possible trends that must be addressed. NASA’s chief concerns include the following:
– Unbalanced support to CIPs possessing similar capabilities: Since there are more ideas than there is funding available at this point in time, it is critical that CASIS continue to help all users find funding sources, whether they come from CASIS’s own contacts or are commercial customers of the various CIPs;
– Lack of transparency and parity in CASIS’s CIP selection process: Complaints were raised that CASIS was not consistent nor transparent in determining which CIPs would support National Lab users. While not strictly bound by the same procurement regulations as the federal government, it is critical that CASIS does not enter into situations that create real or perceived conflicts of interest;
– Protection of CIP intellectual property: CIPs indicated that their unique ideas, when brought to CASIS for funding consideration, were not always protected but instead openly competed;
– Delayed communications with CIPs: Complaints from a broad spectrum of CIPs that CASIS is not timely in providing responses to CIPs as well as potential users on projects they have been proposed to CASIS, including a lack of feedback to proposing CIPs on why they were not selected;
– Insufficient communications between the operations and business development teams: Reports of conflicting messages from CASIS departments to CIPs results in frustration and waste of limited resources;
– Limited CIP access to customers which were initially identified by CASIS: Reports of obstruction of direct communication between CIPs and organizations whose initial contact was through CASIS, as well as attempts to control CIP’s ability to directly solicit funding at the source rather than going through CASIS;
– Perception of representational orcanizational conflict of interest: The appearance that CASIS endorses, supports, or otherwise advocates on behalf of some CIPs, but not all.”

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

4 responses to “CASIS Is Still Broken”

  1. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    Somehow, I’m not shocked. When something is broken, I tend to assume it will stay broken until someone fixes it. If i haven’t heard any news about active efforts to fix something, “still broken” is what I expect.

  2. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    I can’t even imagine getting a letter like that from a client.

    My first reaction would be shame.

  3. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    The shame is that we have wasted the resources of a multi tens of billions of dollars orbital facility for now going on 2 decades, because of poor marketing and nonexistent integration processes. And these existed prior to ISS but the lousy ISS management failed to capitalize on what they had, and then put people like CASIS in charge of trying to figure it out. And in the meantime the ISS science people keep trying to advertise they are doing world class Nobel prize worthy science-except they aren’t. There are continuing to do mainly the same sorts of things we’d been doing on Shuttle, Spacelab, Soacehab, Mir for the last 40 years…little more than that and often a lot less….I don’t think anyone believes them anymore which means they have probably done as much harm as good, and in the meantime they failed to get some really praise worthy science on-board. That is opportunity cost and opportunity lost and wasted.

  4. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    Part of the difficulty is the original vision for CASIS was unclear. Was it to “select and fund” ISS research projects using money from NASA, to “manage” (i.e. support) research projects already selected and funded by NASA, or to find “partners” who would pay their own expenses, and if the latter, would the money actually come from some outside “commercial” customer or, by a circuitous route, from NASA itself? Finally, if the money was to be from outside NASA, who would actually be paying the bills, and what would they get in return?

    No one wanted to say the obvious, that other federal agencies and commercial industry did not have a lot of interest in footing the bill for ISS research and that for at least another few decades NASA would have to provide the lion’s share of the funding for developing flight experiments. The general paucity of funds for outside researchers naturally led to people putting work into proposals and not getting flight opportunities and being left with some ill feelings.