RSS Feed
Twitter
13 Comments
"We found 21 SRB members--close to one-third of all non-Federal CxP SRB members-- with conflicts of interest and determined that each of the SRBs for CxP and its constituent Projects included at least one non-Federal Government employee who was conflicted. Specifically, each SRB included at least one non-Federal Government employee who was an employee or consultant of a NASA contractor with an interest in or contract with either CxP or one of its projects. For example, the 12 non-Federal members of the CxP SRB included 4 members (33 percent) who were not independent."
Another case of Inspector General hyperventilation about an imagined theoretical conflict of interest, rather than any actual evidence of improper behavior.
The end result of this will be to remove some highly dedicated, talented, and experienced people from the independent review process.
This report addresses the SRBs for the Constellation Program (CxP) and the CxP projects.
How Interesting the Report has NO mention of ESMD or any actions or in-actions of the mission directorite.
SMD, ARMD are complient with FACA laws. Why is it ESMD/JSC cannot get it's act together and deal with the fact the effort is nothing but nepotism [(nep-uh-tiz-uhm)] Favoritism granted to relatives or close friends, without regard to their merit. Nepotism usually takes the form of employing relatives, close friends, or appointing them to high office.
Conflict of interest at NASA? There's no conflict of interest at NASA. Everyone has the same interest, making sure the contractors make as much money as possible with as little risk as possible. It's a team effort. No conflict at all.
I'm glad the IP finally decided to look into something. I'm afraid that they've only hit the tip of the iceberg. Cronyism, and placing people who simply have no expertise in the areas in which they are placed, predominates. Maybe some significant changes will occur. If not then the people who suffer are the US taxpayer and the program.
SMD and ARMD are not free of this. They have the same issue with their greybeards.
There is no difference in the way all the mission directorates operates. SMD has its own problems with waste
SMD, ARMD are complient with FACA laws.
hey have the same issue with their greybeards.
There is no difference in the way all the mission directorates operates. SMD has its own problems with waste
try and white wash it all you want me.
SMD, ARMD are complient with FACA laws, ESMD/CxP are not at this point it appears.
dfens hit the issue and chronic behavior that saturates the ESMD/CxP business process nicely
Clueless flash, your uninformed opinion is wrong as usual
I am not trying to whitewash anything. Actually I am countering your whitewashing of SMD and ARMD.
SMD was not compliant for the Mars Scout for 2011 and hence the mission got delayed. The "chronic behavior" saturates the SMD and ARMD and is common to all of NASA. Your bias against ESMD is unfounded. SMD and ARMD do not deserve to be put on Pedestals. ESMD problems are common to all of NASA.
For those that think this situation is ok, then never complain about Lobbyist and congressmen on the take to write legislation. One potential remedy for the consequences of this is to make every contractor on these boards ineligible for any new contract( prime or sub) for the next several RFP's
I agree with j loe that it is just the tip of the iceberg, but for a TOTALLY different reason. The fact is that with the major contractions that have occured, and are continuing, in the aerospace industry, nearly all the players are owned by, under contract to, or in direct competition with, everyone else. You aren't going to find anyone who is competent who DOESN'T have real (or perceived) COI issues!
"SMD was not compliant for the Mars Scout for 2011 and hence the mission got delayed."
Yes, but in the case of the 2011 Mars Scout, it was one, lone panelist and SMD took action without IG intervention.
In the case of ESMD, there's twenty-one (21!) panelists with conflicts of interest comprising one-third (33%!) of the review board. And on top of that, ESMD let this situation fester for years until the IG finally intervened. The magnitude and duration of the problem are almost unfathomable.
The other posters are absolutely right that this goes to the organizational culture of ESMD and how it diverges from norms in the other NASA directorates. Its cause is either slipshod standards or look-the-other-way cronyism (or both), neither of which is an ingredient for a successful engineering development program anywhere.
ESMD problems are common to all of NASA
Yes Me I agree ESMD is causing problems for NASA. very nice wordly me.
even the ig thinks this to be the case.
Interesting but naive comments throughout. SRBs are supposed to review the programs, very complex programs doing of all things "Rocket Science". So where are you going to find knowledgeable competent people? This industry is very small and highly technical you don't need bean counters to come and evaluate. And Don't say DOD, they are not exactly an example of how to do complex difficult things efficiently. Imagine if they went to other industries to find reviewers, they may as well pick from the posters here, since each would have a fix for NASA. Don't you all just love chaos. The people on the SRBs are highly trained and competent greybeards, yes greybeards, and even they have a difficult time grasping the magnitude of the challenges of the program. What NASA should consider employing is a non-technical individual outside the agency to review the SRB candidates to ensure that there is as best achievable no conflict of interest for the selected SRB member. In this way they serve the fuction of SRB member cop.
Leave a comment
- 7 Feb: NASA Commercial Crew Forum [New]
- 7 Feb: NASA Talk Features Pioneer Researcher and Inventor [New]
- 8-9 Feb: NASA and Industry Join Forces for Virginia Aerospace Day [New]
- 9 Feb: NASA International Space Station Advisory Committee Meeting
- 9 Feb: NASA Hosts Special Event With Recent Space Station Residents [New]
- 10 Feb: Media Invited to see Space Hardware Bound for Japan [New]
- 10-11 Feb: Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee Meeting
- 11 Feb: NASA Astronaut to Honor Black History at Virginia Air and Space Center [New]
- 13 Feb: ESA Briefing on New Results from Planck Mission
- 14 Feb: Astronauts' Discussion Of Recent International Space Station Mission
- 14 Feb: NASA Tweetup With Space Station Astronaut Ron Garan
- 15 Feb: STA reception with Mike Coats
- 15-16 Feb: 15th Annual FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference
- 21 Feb: ISU 16th Annual Symposium: Sustainability of Space Activities: International Issues and Potential Solutions
- 22 Feb: 2012 International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium
- 22-23 Feb: 2012 NASA PM Challenge
- 23 Feb: NASA Advisory Council Science Committee Planetary Science Subcommittee Meeting
- 26-28 Feb: Space Exploration Alliance 2012 Blitz
- 27-28 Feb: Second International MEPAG Meeting
- 27-29 Feb: Next-Generation Suborbital Researchers Conference
- 28 Feb - 1 Mar: 4th Annual NASA STEM Educators Workshop Series
- 2 Mar: NASA Glenn Tweetup Celebrating 50th Anniversary Of First American To Orbit Earth
- 6-7 Mar: JPL Hosts High-Tech Small Business Conference
- 22 March: Symposium on Suborbital and Small Satellite Missions
- 22-23 Mar: NASA Adminstrator Bolden Speaks at Aerospace and Defense Conference [New]
- 27-29 Mar: 50th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium
- * Submit Your Event | More Events *
Another case of Inspector General hyperventilation about an imagined theoretical conflict of interest, rather than any actual evidence of improper behavior.
The end result of this will be to remove some highly dedicated, talented, and experienced people from the independent review process.