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.
Personnel News

Reinventing Government Yet Again

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 15, 2017
Filed under
Reinventing Government Yet Again

White House prepping government reorg executive order, Federal News Radio
“The White House is preparing a new executive order to require agencies to plan and suggest ways to reorganize the government. Federal News Radio has learned that a draft order is circulating in the government and could be issued this week after the expected Senate confirmation of Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) to be the director of the Office of Management and Budget. The draft order includes a series of requirements for agencies to quickly turn around plans to improve how the department meets its mission. The draft also details a list of elements the agencies need to include in those plans ranging from a list of programs that are duplicative to whether state and local governments or the private sector could do the work better to the costs of ending or merging the capabilities. The draft order also calls on agencies to determine if back-office functions are duplicative with other services within another agency, bureau or program and if so, could they be consolidated.”
Zero Base Review Team Report, 19 May 1995 (earlier NASA RIF Watch post)
“An internal NASA review team has produced proposals to enable the agency to meet the tough funding targets set by the Administration in the 1996 budget, Administrator Daniel S. Goldin said today. The proposals include sweeping management and organizational changes to cut spending an additional $5 billion by the end of the decade. “I’m pleased with what I’ve seen so far,” Goldin said. “We’ve found ways to streamline operations, reduce overlap, and significantly cut costs without cutting our world-class space and aeronautics programs. We have much hard work before us, but I believe a stronger and more efficient NASA will emerge.”

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

22 responses to “Reinventing Government Yet Again”

  1. MarcNBarrett says:
    0
    0

    Why do I have this feeling that this reorganization is going to affect all aspects of the government EXCEPT the military? The military budget is bloated in excess of $600 billion per year and needs to be audited and reorganized, but I doubt very much that trump will touch it, since he IS a Republican after all.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      The US spends more money on the military than the next 8 top spending countries combined.

      As an engineer when I’m trying to improve the performance of some operation, I look at the performance analysis and immediately ask myself, can I cut the time off the chunk that makes up the vast majority of the time. I don’t try to “zero out” tiny things first.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        The problem is that the rest of the world, especially Europe, expects the U.S. to be the world police. Reducing that budget means reducing our protection of Europe, Japan, South Korea etc. That means those nations that have been able to able to get by with minimum spending on defense will need to spend more.

        However when President Trump advocates that, for example threatening to reduce U.S. forces in Europe unless NATO members fulfill their obligations to spend 2% of the GDP on defense,something few members have done over the last 70 years, he gets attacked.

        So what do you want? The U.S to be world police,or to do as President Trump is doing and advocating for the rest of the nations of the world to pay their fair share and not depend on the U.S. to protect them?

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          The other side of the argument: the US benefits immensely from a stable Europe. Far outweighs the cost. 45’s comments reflect his poor understanding of nuance.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            While true, Europe benefits immensely by relying heavily on the US military. Less European military spending means more money they can spend on other things (and less money the US can spend on other things). The sword cuts both ways.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, that is one reason Europeans are able to brag about how their infrastructure is in better condition than American infrastructure. They were free to spend on railroads, roads, water systems etc., while we had to spend the money we could have used to fix our infrastructure on tanks and planes to defend them. Is it any wonder most Americans support President Trump in demanding Europe, Japan and South Korea finally start paying their fair share?

            NATO was intended as a temporary shield against the Soviets while the Europeans rebuilt their economies. But instead of using their rebuilt industry to protect themselves they used it to under cut American firms in global markets and improve their lifestyle. It’s time for Europe to pay its fair share, or at least the 2% of GDP they agreed to pay for defense.

            Same with space. Per capita they spend only about 30% on ESA compared to what we spend on NASA. If they want a Moon Village they should step up to pay for it instead of advocating NASA to take the lead. They have the money and technology to do it without raiding Uncle Sam’s tax payers.

            And while we are at it lets not forget the mess the U.S. is stuck with in the Middle East was the result of European bungling when they carved up and mismanaged the Ottoman Empire after WW I. The English for example made conflicting promises to the Jews and Arabs on Palestine that have resulted in 80 years of fighting. And who is paying to clean that mess up? The USA.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yea, the Europeans will probably start fighting with each other as soon as we pull our troops out. Then Uncle Sam would probably have to put an end to it as we did in WW I and WW II. Maybe a better idea would be for President Trump to just turn Europe into the 51st state so at least we get tax revenue from defending them 🙂

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          It seems to me we should be doing both. Other NATO members contributing their fair share (2% of GDP) would mean the US ought to be spending less to defend other NATO nations (we’re spending much more than 2% GDP on our military). Ultimately, this would mean things like cutting the US military budget and getting the rest of NATO to take up the slack.

  2. SouthwestExGOP says:
    0
    0

    The first “finding” is that NASA has too many Centers and they should close some of them?? Such as the Independent Verification and Validation Facility???

    Yeah right!!!

    • Mal Peterson says:
      0
      0

      The IV&V facility is not located on a NASA Center to avoid the potential compromise of its independence that a Center Director – under schedule and cost pressure – might apply. That it is located in West VA is another (political) matter, of course.

      As for closing NASA Centers, if the goal is cutting costs, the studies performed show that the savings are illusory in the next five years. Unique facilities and competencies at each. Replicating those facilities at and transferring personnel to another site has an upfront cost that is considerable. Then, there are the needs for impact aid to affected areas during the transition and environmental remediation costs to restore the property for a repurposed usage.

      As DJT would tweet, BIG MONEY has to be brought to the table.

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        Oh please. IV&V is in West Virginia because of Sen. Robert Byrd. Period.

        • Mal Peterson says:
          0
          0

          I may have been too subtle for you, but that is what the parenthetical “(political)” reference meant….

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        A secondary question would be if any of those capabilities are still needed, and if so could they be outsourced to commercial vendors at the old sites or at the new ones.

        So it takes five years to see the benefits. So what? That is just an argument for doing it now rather than later so the cost saving benefits are sooner than later.

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          Axe SLS/Orion and replace it with beyond LEO commercial crew and commercial HLV. Fund at least two providers for each “commercial” venture so we can attain true redundancy in our manned space transportation system.

          Furthermore, the money saved can be used to develop actual hardware (e.g. landers) for actual beyond LEO missions.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, and get rid of Marshall, Stennis and KSFC so NASA isn’t tempted to build anymore launch vehicles.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            NASA shouldn’t be building anymore launch vehicles anymore than it should be operating its own airlines.

        • Mal Peterson says:
          0
          0

          You might want to investigate the transformation of the Kennedy Space Center to see how that has been underway for a number of years.However, the larger issue is closures require expenditures that have to have a source of funding that does not materially impact the R&D missions NASA has to execute.

        • My 2¢ says:
          0
          0

          NASA needs to do what private industry can’t or won’t. They should not be building in-house spacecrafts. Private industry does it faster and cheaper.

      • SouthwestExGOP says:
        0
        0

        Mal – The schedule and cost pressure come from NASA Hq and far less from a Center Director. I picked the IV&V simply because it is the best example of a set aside, a decision based on putting jobs into a Senator’s state. There is absolutely NO justification for a separate facility for IV&V in particular.

        Many of the NASA centers could be consolidated or turned over to the state that they are in – KSC is a perfect example. Some of the people working there could go to work for the state, some would stay with their current organization. The fact that a center was closed would have no effect on the facility or people working there.

        There has always been parallel facilities, NASA had several facilities that did similar things – the Neutral Buoyancy Facility at JSC and a similar tank at MSFC (I forget the name of that tank). NASA shut down the MSFC tank.

        Also the similar operations centers at JSC and at MSFC – both are still operating. We can list lots of reasons why a center or a facility is nice to have – but the determination of what sign needs to be on the fence around them is a separate discussion.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Does NASA really need the infrastructure it had during Project Apollo? Does it need Kennedy and Wallops if its going to outsource launch to private vendors? Does it need Marshall and Stennis if it is no longer going to be building rockets but instead buying commercial launch services? Especially as the Centers require such a large budget for up keep.

      Turn Wallops and Kennedy over to the spaceport authorities in VA and FL. Close Marshall, Michoud, Glenn and Stennis down, clean up the toxic waste and sell the land off to pay for the costs of cleanup at those sites. Langley and Armstrong could handle the aeronautical research. Goddard and JPL focus on space science and Johnson on HSF and space technology. A smaller leaner NASA could actually move space commerce and research forward.

  3. John Kavanagh says:
    0
    0

    1. BRAC evaluation of which NASA facilities to close/shrink:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

    2. FFRDC transform appropriate NASA facilities that remain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

    3. Spend NASA savings maturing long-lead space technologies not pursued by private sector

  4. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    That’s like saying you need a quantum computer to run MS Word.

    We don’t. It’s true that as a share of GNP defense is lower. But so what? The increment is still wasted money.