Overhauling NASA's Tangled Internet Presence – No Obvious Progress
NASA Internal Memo: Website Modernization and Enhanced Security Protocols 15 May 2019 (PDF)
“Currently there are an estimated 3,000 public-facing NASA Web sites, yet the top 10 sites receive 80 percent of all Web traffic. Additionally, some NASA partners operate Web sites on our behalf outside of the Agency, creating redundancy and accumulating unnecessary costs. Not only does this duplication of information cause confusion, each Wen site provides potential access for a cyber-attack on NASA’s assets. The shutdown earlier this year gave us a clear view of the cyber vulnerabilities inherent in operating thousands of Web sites. We need to take steps to protect our resources in a hostile cyber landscap, examine our digital footprint, reduce costs, and maximize the effectiveness of communications efforts. In addition to security risk, multiple sites dilute our effectiveness in communicating key messages about our missions.”
Keith’s update: OK. It has been 9 months. Has anyone actually done anything called for in this memo from the Administrator? The CIO shows no evidence of having done so (no surprise). Same goes for PAO. Its is not even clear who is responsible for this – I have heard that the task was tossed into the Chief Scientist’s lap – that makes no sense. SMD issued a memo about this yet little seems to have been done. Indeed, NASA issued a press release today ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Revisited‘ which says “For more information about the Voyager spacecraft, visit: https://www.nasa.gov/voyager https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov” Why does NASA need to pay people to maintain TWO websites for Voyager? Why do they have multiple websites for virtually all of their missions?
– NASA Just Can’t Stop Doing Web Stuff Twice UPDATE: Three Times, earlier post
– NASA’s Confusing ICESAT-2 Websites, earlier post
– Progress Made In Making NASA’s Internet Presence Leaner, earlier post
– Dueling NASA Websites Update, earlier post
Keith, you have been rattling on about this for years. Please leave it alone. It’s useful to have more than one site per mission – let’s say a basic site for the wider public, at nasa.gov. and a more specialist site with access to raw images, detailed status reports etc. at JPL or APL. Reduce it all to one site and we risk it all going to the lowest level (particularly now). This is a non-issue that is being blown out of proportion. There’s so much serious stuff to go after, so have pity on us and let this one go.
If this was not an issue then why did the NASA Administrator order his agency to fix it? I am not leaving anything alone and will continue to rattle. Have a nice day.
I might agree with that if the various web pages did have different content and levels of detail. That’s why I’m not annoyed by each instrument on a spacecraft having their own, more specialized web page. Or the NSSDC (National Space Science Data Center) having a uniformly formatted and more technical page describing every mission.
But that’s not the case for the NASA (headquarters), JPL, PI-institute, and Discovery/New Frontiers program pages. The content and level of detail is basically the same. Just formatted differently and hosted separately. And, since different people are responsible, potentially contradictory since updates and corrections can’t be easily coordinated.
I’m pretty sure I know why. All those different web sites can and should _mention_ the missions they are involved in. And those mentions should contain a link to a page with more details on the mission. But no institution wants to give away web hits by linking to someone else’s web site. Media relations people want to (actually need to, in their performance reviews) put a spin on the content which emphasizes _their_ institution’s role. And people like having control of the content, so they can push updates and new information out quickly. And, of course, everyone agrees the format, level of detail, etc. should be consistent from one mission page to another. But no one agrees on exactly what that consistency should look like.
I don’t mind Keith repeatedly pushing out stories about this. It is annoying and wasteful. Do I think he’s going to change anything by doing so? “Sancho, My armor!”
Stay tuned. Ever wonder what prompted the memo?
I have always interpreted this as another manifestation of the organization’s long history of poor public engagement. Inadequate funding, inferior skills, distorted or handicapped mindset…or a mix of all these things to varying degrees and other things besides?
After the media stopped fawning (doing the job for them as it were all those years ago) as the space race thrill faded, the organization still hasn’t figured out how to do it effectively.
Looking at other Federal Government web sites like the FAA and FCC, they are all a mess. They are all difficult to use, use non consistent terminology and certain areas of the web sites are offline during after hours. NASA is no worse. Our government at work…………