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.
Congress

Coats Endorses Culbertson/Wolf NASA Revamp Bill

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
August 12, 2012
Filed under , , , ,

Let’s bring logic to NASA’s budget process, Editorial, Houston Chronicle
“Culberson’s and Wolf’s bill would model NASA’s budget process after that used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Doing so would make the agency less political and more professional. It calls for the president to appoint the NASA director to a 10-year term and would make the budget cycle multiyear rather than annual. The notion has Coats’ endorsement. He notes that if they were able to plan out four or five years “it would be amazing what we could do with our team.”

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

33 responses to “Coats Endorses Culbertson/Wolf NASA Revamp Bill”

  1. Robert van de Walle says:
    0
    0

    Downside?

    • Mark_Flagler says:
      0
      0

      One potential downside would in the authorization process–Congress should never specify goals AND how to reach them technologically. NASA should have room to maneuver as technology changes, and as these changes make new goals achievable.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      A ten year rein for a bad administrator…

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Mike for 10 years!!! Lololol

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          George,

          That happening might just bring back assassination as a popular art form.

          Steve

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Dennis,

        It would obviously have to be revocable on a non-performance basis, with “performance” clearly spelled out in detail first.  In a sane world, I think all politically appointed positions should be constantly contingent on clearly spelled-out performance.

        Steve

  2. 2814graham says:
    0
    0

    The idea of a ten year funding cycle and a term for the NASA Administrator independent of the Presidential and Congressional cycles is a good idea, though it does not fix everything. As a whole, NASA’s funding has been reasonably stable. When establishing the Vision, NASA was told they could count on a stable budget, but not on a significant increase in its budget. That, in large measure, was the reason that the Vision called for laying out a step-by-step plan for putting in place the systems required for traveling beyond earth. NASA did not do what they were told-they are not doing it today with Orion and SLS-in fact read the other editorial in today’s Houston Chronicle for the opinion of a well respected NASA veteran on this subject. While the ten year Administrator and budget cycle might be helpful, what NASA needs just as much, in both human space flight and planetary exploration, is a well laid out step-by-step, affordable plan.

    A simple and straightforward comparison of what NASA could be achieving is easily visible in comparing Dragon and Orion. Compare their mission capabilities. Both are designed for planetary trajectories. Dragon carries 7 but Orion is down to a crew of only 4. Compare their masses and systems complexity (how aerospace projects were priced in earlier generations). SImilar masses, similar power and thermal system, similar ECLS, similar size ad mass. Now compare the money spent on Dragon and the progress it has made with the progress on Orion and the money spent. Orion support and funding has been near continuous (probably moreso than Dragon). Why has Dragon flown two missions for less than a $1billion, while Orion is many years from being a complete vehicle flying a real mission, after having spent $10 billion, 15?? I’ve lost track.  This is not a Congressional or Presidential problem.

  3. Jonna31 says:
    0
    0

    Sounds like a great idea, but it needs to go hand in hand with really stiff penalties for contractors and centers that can’t control costs. Something like the JWST needs to be a career ending failure for the individuals in questions who can’t control costs. I’m just concerned, this will allow them to carry on (which I suppose, happens now anyway). 

  4. DocM says:
    0
    0

    Not a bad idea, but would it be with a fixed year-to-year increment of X$ or would they use a previous year + X% yearly increment? The latter is usually better.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Doc,

      While I agree that this is an important consideration, it has never been addressed properly in the past because it stops at consideration of the $total. Where we keep losing out is in the specific allocations and the $shuffled after the fact (even though it supposedly isn’t allowed). Managing NASA is, in my mind, the same as managing a major program — you simply can’t divide up the responsibilities. If NASA management is given a budget (for whatever period/task), then NASA management must have total control of spending that budget, and NASA management must be held accountable — in a timely manner — for any mismanagement of that budget and the work it covers.

      Nobody can have more than one boss, and no program/agency/company can be managed by more than one hierarchical entity. Any attempts to ignore these rules inevitably ends in expensive failure. NASA management must have the necessary spending autonomy to match whatever budget it is allocated, otherwise it becomes like a craftsman trying to work while an accountant breathes down his neck and tries to tell him what tools to use. There can only be one hand on the end of the screwdriver; let QC/QA/oversight checks the results instead of disrupting the work.

      With this level of spending autonomy, I think a 10-year term would work out well — assuming that it doesn’t lead to fixed 10-year terms for all of the management underlings, which would inevitably lead to worse empire building than even Griffin imagined. The “assignment” regulations for all of upper management would have to included in the implementation policies of any new structure.

      Another thought: is it necessary to have a fixed, 10-year (or any period) tenure, or would it be sufficient to simply “disconnect” (in time) agency appointments from the elections?

      Steve

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        It’s, like CASIS, the wrong, too weak model to achieve the effect necessary.

        Here’s why you have institutions – they have steel backbones that don’t get pushed around. Unfortunately Congress has incrementally made for a spineless NASA over 40 years, so they can get their way.

        Now things are changing … somethings don’t work like before. Its hard to insert a backbone into an org that has had it surgically removed over 1,000 operations.

        That’s why this bill is a joke.

  5. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    This bill seems to make sense but if they were to lock in current plans, then that means SLS/Orion ***will*** be the big NASA item for the next ten years and nothing can be done about. A lot can happen in ten years, a new technology paradigm can emerge, another war can occur…

  6. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    Is the text of the bill published? What would the role of Congress be under this bill? Congressman Wolf has consistently micromanaged NASA policy, dictating directly to Bolden and threatening NASA with crushing budget cuts if his orders are not followed.  Wolf says nothing about giving up any of his control. Is this just about taking power away from the President?

  7. Fred says:
    0
    0

    A 10 year plan is a good idea, although it is not a magic bullet, it can help with one of the major obstacles NASA faces. But there are other obstacles that need to also be addressed, many of which can not be legislated. Main on my list is leadership, something that has been elusive at NASA for several decades.

    • myth says:
      0
      0

      5 year plans are a great idea ! They worked so well after Stalin put things in motion.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        myth,  Assuming you’re comment was intended as sarcasm (yes/no?), I would point out that the 5 year plan approach has been a remarkable success in China over the last quarter century. They update their goals from one “plan” to the next, and it has taken them from a third-world country to an economic leader with major wealth during that period. It may not be a system that you add I would be happy living under, but it’s largely benefited the Chinese people and nation. Different strokes.  Steve

  8. ejd1984 says:
    0
    0

    I REALLY hope this will come to fruition. In all sincerity (no sarcasm) – Does this bill really have a chance of passing the House and Senate with the current political climate in DC.

  9. Ken Hampton says:
    0
    0

    Anything that gets NASA on to a more long term plan would be welcome.  It’s a bit of a joke these days how we make plans for next year only to see them completely change within six months.  Used to be we’d have a presidential cycle of stability, but things seem to have only gotten worse.  We spend A LOT of time planning things and just when we’re about to do something, time for a new plan!  

  10. Helen Simpson says:
    0
    0

    An interesting idea, but it’s not clear this will give federally funded space projects the sustainability they need. For one, because project budgets get locked in for several years in this picture, it doesn’t incentivize project managers (c.f Constellation, JWST) to keep to near-term milestones. It also takes space exploration more off the table in the context of policy dialog. If anything, we’d like our leadership to be paying more attention to space, not less.

    The problem fundamentally isn’t political. There is no red NASA or blue NASA. The problem is that without some compelling rationale for the work that it is doing, especially in human space flight, NASA is just a faucet for dollars, and the default congressional aim is to aim the hose at particular states and districts. This legislation won’t affect that. Since it encourages Congress to pay less attention to NASA, it just means that Congress isn’t challenged as much to come up with compelling rationale.

  11. James Muncy says:
    0
    0

    It would be fascinating to see Mr. Coats’ list of failed projects, and to independently judge whether White Houses or Congresses killed them at all, let alone whether they killed them for some inappropriate reason. 

    NASA does have habit of delivering bad news to a President-elect’s
    transition team, hoping that the new White House will bail them out. 
    That hasn’t “worked” since President Carter took a few billion from the Air Force’s top line to finish the Shuttle in 1977. 

    Bill Clinton restructured Freedom around Mir 2.  George W. Bush cancelled the CRV, the HAB module, and the Centrifuge instead of paying George Abbey’s $5B overrun.  Nor did he bail out X-33.  And, of course, Mr. Obama tried to kill Constellation while preserving/expanding COTS into commercial crew. 

    It’s not clear to me that Presidents or Congresses failing to give NASA extra money because their programs are delayed or overbudget or just broken, is inappropriate political interference with purely technical (or in the case of the FBI, law enforcement) issues.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Jim,

      Valid point, but who watches the watchers? How does one go about getting an assessment of whether the President and Congress having been arbitrary or realistic in cutting or continuing to support given programs? Even the relevant Committees and subcommittees don’t have any authority to “sit in judgment” of elected representatives. Bipartisanship is supposedly the watchdog in this case, but we’ve seen how well that works.

      Steve

  12. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Steve
    I left you more at one ton on Mars surface for Tinker too.

  13. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Mr. C
    I read where you said that the CCiCot down select was good you think. Taking your point about having three of different sizes selected. Would it have been better to keep funding more companies longer or was the idea of a down select a good thing or not? And if so was the timing good??? Just trying to understand how much direct development funding is a good thing and when it should be only mission driven.
    The Tick Pilot

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

      Policy for NASA is a peculiar thing. You can’t just be pragmatic as you’d like, you can’t limit to mission driven as soon as you’d like, you need to take into account other agency issues. It’s always a tough nut.

      Everyone “play’s” with the plan – the moment you set it in concrete, they play redefinition games … cause policy makers are lawyers, and that’s what lawyers do.  How this screws things up, is that space is intensively top down requirements driven, and the lawyers adamantly ignore this, and wheedle things as they see fit.

      So CCiCAP selection is aimed at generating the best possible selection of POTENTIAL crew service providers, given Congressional limits. So think of it as where you’d go to get a new truck – how many choices would you prefer? In a sense, its all about choice here. Congress said “only the ones in town” in effect.
      You tell me if that’s good enough – my crystal ball is a bit hazy here.

      That’s why, at this point, this bill, and Congresses limits on CCiCAP is more for them about appearances than reality. Its like making meaningless promises you can go back on without loss.

      Now, once we have seen the three players get closer to fielding a crew vehicle, that’s where we can get out the ruler and measure them for missions. Just like weapons systems development / deployment, where you start working with the stuff, and find … surprises. Anyone remember the Bradley Fighting Vehicle? I felt that ATK had that same kind of feel about Liberty(+ capsule?).

      The top level item is that anything that made it through CCDEV 1/2 filter is probably “good enough”.

      Now … what are the missions … so we can start assessing things.

      What would happen … if Dragon turned out to be well suited to BEO as well as LEO? If turnover costs / time and light G load return … matter more for ISS / other stations. If CST100 … has some capabilities beyond Orion that start to matter for other application.

      Now … you force downselect to one. What happens? Which way do you want America to “lose”?

      This was the dilemma in part with EELV downselect. “Been here, done that”.

  14. John Kavanagh says:
    0
    0

    Transforming some Centers in to FFRDCs might help NASA bring more logic to the *spending* side of long term planning.

  15. Gonzo_Skeptic says:
    0
    0

    The long term multi-year budget would actually hurt NASA.  Think about it.

    Plans are just that, and NASA is notorious for having large scale projects quickly going off the financial rails and asking key state budget committee congress critters that smaller projects be sacrificed “for the common good” to keep the big dog projects alive.  And at least something eventually gets built and launched most of the time.

    Without this type of yearly flexibility in the halls of Congress, most big NASA programs, being underbid and inadequately planned, will stall out at the 1/2 to 2/3 completion level when the dollars run out and there is no more to be had.  There won’t be any other option than cancellation.

    Take the politics out of NASA?  That’s like taking eggs out of omelets.

  16. DJBREIT says:
    0
    0

    This would remove the politics from both year to year
    operations and the selection of contactors for the different projects and elements.

    But NASA is far different from the FBI. With the FBI you don’t
    have a bunch of companies and special interest bribing lobbying the FBI.
    In NASA’s case this can be a problem. The devil is in the details.

    In any case anything may be better then where NASA is now.   

  17. Andrew_M_Swallow says:
    0
    0

    Three year budgets would allow NASA to produce significant results on projects whilst giving an opportunity to cancel out of control ones.  New projects could also be started.

  18. ejd1984 says:
    0
    0

    Culberston & Wolf needs to get a few Democrats to co-sponsor the bill as well. To help it gain some political traction.

  19. Eric Pfeifer says:
    0
    0

     None of this matters unless they also increase funding at the same time.