NRC Report on NASA's Goals and Objectives
National Disagreement Over NASA’s Goals and Objectives Detrimental to Agency Planning, Budgeting Efforts, National Research Council
“Without a national consensus on strategic goals and objectives for NASA, the agency cannot be expected to establish or work toward achieving long-term priorities, says a new report from the National Research Council. In addition, there is a mismatch between the portfolio of programs and activities assigned to the agency and the budget allocated by Congress, and legislative restrictions inhibit NASA from more efficiently managing its personnel and infrastructure. The White House should take the lead in forging a new consensus on NASA’s future in order to more closely align the agency’s budget and objectives and remove restrictions impeding NASA’s efficient operations.”
Expert panel: NASA seems lost in space, needs goal, AP
“In his statement, NASA’s [David] Weaver said: “We’re fully utilizing the International Space Station; developing a heavy-lift rocket and multi-purpose crew vehicle capable of taking American astronauts into deep space; facilitating development of commercial capabilities for cargo and crew transport to low Earth orbit; expanding our technological capabilities for the human and robotic missions of today and tomorrow; pursuing a robust portfolio of science missions such as the James Webb Space Telescope; developing faster and cleaner aircraft and inspiring the next generation of exploration leaders.”
[Panel member Marcia] Smith said that statement itself shows the problem: “If it takes you that many phrases to explain it, then you do not have a crisp, clear strategic vision.”
* Increase the size of the NASA budget;
I almost LOL when I read that.
Well, not everybody thinks that the idea of increasing NASA’s budget is “LOL”:
http://www.space.com/15310-…
http://thechrissanchez.com/…
http://www.slate.com/blogs/…
I wasn’t saying we shouldn’t. I was just pointing out, that with this congress, President… it will not happen.
Can we agree to fix NASA before we have a discussion on throwing more money at it?
And fixing NASA would consist of……..?
Canceling SLS, changing Orion into a spaceSHIP program/R and D for radiation protection in deep space.
Supporting the commericialization and settlement now! Not wasting tons of money boot strapping to far out there playing the exploration card.
The NRC report polled strategists of Science, Engineering, Medicine – but not Commerce. This is persistent omission. NASA’s role in the great opportunity to expand America’s economic sphere of influence in space was not evaluated.”Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the Administration seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.”
I believe this is relevant: https://petitions.whitehous…
The NRC Space Studies Board was requested to address the NASA management problem and refused. NASA’s ongoing inability to meet schedules, control costs, and prevent cancellation of projects is caused by their unwillingness to recognize and resolve the agencies internal management problems. Morale at NASA has never been lower and will continue to deteriorate until the management problem is solved.
When you say, “until the management problem is solved”, do you mean when congress stops micromanaging NASA?
So, The National Research Council thinks that The White House should fix the problem of Congress interfering with NASA operations. Yet another vote by the mice to bell the cat. It would be great if they could do it, but how exactly does one go about spanking Congress and making them behave?
“The report recommends establishing a national consensus on NASA’s future with the executive branch taking the lead after technical consultations with potential international partners.“
Another great idea, but exactly how does one go about getting a “national consensus“?
Steve
Glad to see that at least the SMD AA (John Grunsfeld) has initiated the next steps in our exploration of the solar system via robotic spacecraft (see http://www.nasa.gov/home/hq…. He seems to be able to put the NASA science program on the right track. Could he do the same for all of NASA?
The NRC report suffers from a confusion that occurs too easily with such studies. A team is asked, at its most fundamental, how to improve a situation. The team discusses the situation and then generates page after page of suggestion that takes each part of the situation and says the improvement would be something other than that situation. Constraints become the focus. Just another rephrasing of understanding the situation, situational awarness. Then the suggested wisdom is to eliminate the constraint. So these reports dont ever actually answer the original question. Replying that an outcome the opposite of the actual state of affairs is the solution is confusing action and process with outcomes and constraints. A start. But incomplete and non responsive.