We do what we do because we believe in what we do

The author is obviously a science fiction writer and I do not recognize the world he is describing. I have been at NASA for a long time. Here is my experience.

The pay is good, comparable to the aerospace private sector. When you factor in the better benefits (e.g. leave, retirement, health care) - it may be a better deal. The hours in general are much better than the private sector, which often requires forced, unpaid overtime. Try to direct a civil servant to work OT with no extra pay! Those that do work OT either volunteer or are getting paid.

As for job security, civil servants haven't been laid off in any significant numbers since the early 70s. NASA contractors generally have more stable jobs than other aerospace private sector workers.

NASA is one of the most recognized and admired named brands on the planet. Friends, family, and the public in general look up to NASA employees. We are just one part of a very large U.S. Federal Government - albeit one with a really cool Mission. There's no need to portray us as saints and martyrs. We are darn lucky to have such a cool job. Frankly many of us don't deserve it.

A most excellent article!

Reminds me, it was repeatedly stated during the commission that we went to the moon during Apollo because of geopolitical Russia this and that.......

Nobody working in the Space program was dedicated to geopolitical nonsense.

When Lockheed took over the Shuttle Ops contract from Rockwell, and brought in management from various defense programs, the thing that bugged them the most was that they discovered that space workers were loyal to the space program - not the contractor.

NASA was really at it's best during the first 5 shuttle flights.

@Mike Nottle

During my time as a NASA contractor, I saw a lot that corresponds to Turzillo's comments. Including folks, CS and contractor, putting in unpaid overtime because project success demanded it. Job stability did not exist.

The comment about private sector forced hours, overtime, and pay is an interesting one considering that much of NASA's work is done by contract to that same sector.

Mike Nottle:

You're LUCKY your a NASA type instead of a regular space worker/engineer...

At Pueblo for 18 yrs (87-2004) with MDAC/Bloeing on end of Delta 1 ,
entire Delta 2,3 and start of D4 upper stage.

* NO 401K for first 8.5 yrs
* No retired medical
* No pension for first 12 yrs
* Salary 75% of industry norm all 18 yrs
I'll be working until they carry me out horizontal, so in addition to being stupid we do it for the love of rockets.

Civil service employees rarely get paid OT. Typically we get straight comp time or credit hours. In most cases we don't need to get "directed" to work past our regular quitting time. We just do when we feel we need to (i.e. to finish a test, to attend an important meeting, etc.)

Obamanaut: At least some very prominent participants in Apollo were fighting the commies, a very geopolitical bit of "nonsense"; a number of the astronauts have described it just so, as have other folks all across the ranks. How old were you during Apollo? Methinks you do not appreciate the times as they were.

Mr. Nottle: I agree with the sentiments of those above indicating that your experience base must be very limited. In the first 8 years I worked for a NASA contractor, my salary went up all of ~10K, amounting to an average annual raise of

Having been a NASA subcontractor to prime contractors with my own small business for over 25 years, I share many of the mixed views within these comments. Of course we're passionate about what we're working on within the NASA community and its international partners, but we've all had major frustrations too. To me, NASAwatch is a natural product driven by both of these factors.

However, let's celebrate the many successes and work together along with the emerging space entrepreneurs and expanding international partners to help NASA make even more real contributions to national and global challenges. NASA introduced "spaceship Earth" to the world, now let's become partners to help sustain it. The ISU, whose Summer Session is at NASA Ames this year, based on a couple of brief visits I made there, is a great source of new partners in this effort.

It's not just NASA employees that do it because they believe in it. Not even just scientists and engineers. I'm an engineering technician for a major areospace/defense contractor. I don't have a college degree, but I believe in it too. Nearly everything I do will help humankind in its voyage to the stars.

Plus its fun when you're making small talk around a bunch of "normal" folks. You hear about people working on cars, working in offices, fixing plumbing etc. And then the question comes to me.

"What do you do?", they ask.

"Oh, I test and approve materials for use in Earth orbit and beyond.", is my reply.

Those that have known me all of my life are not surprised. Working in aerospace is something I wanted to do since day one. I didn't exactly plan to be just a technician; I had higher ambitions that came to naught, but the enthusiasm still remains.

This flowery paean to NASA comes across as revelatory worship at the altars of the Cape and the diocese on E Street. I'm sorry, but the "We do what we do because we believe in what we do, we dream of a bright future, and we live for exploring the unknown" could well be the motto of many many non-NASA people in this nation. I don't think anyone doubts that you believe in what you do, nor that you believe in a brighter future. That you explore the unknown in many respects depends on just what you do. But those qualities hardly make you special.

What you don't do, and certainly not in this piece, is convey to the taxpayer why what you do is worth doing, except by idly throwing around high falutin' words like exploring, vision and limit-pushing. That's not surprising, because that's also a hallmark of the agency, a struggle to figure out and articulate what the hell it's doing that's really worth doing. It's pieces like this that sadly represent exactly that failure of communication. What the public does not need is a statement of your deep beliefs and commitment, but a statement about how what the agency does makes this a better world, makes us a better country, and improves our quality of life.

The events of 40 years ago were inspiring, but shuttle and ISS have never lit the flame as brightly. The implication that a "long period of scientific advancement and societal growth" was due to the Moon landing is simply naive. One could just as well say that the Moon was achieved because of a people that valued scientific advancement and societal growth. Those people actually achieved a lot of things.

I'm not one of those that would scream from the highest mountaintops that we must focus on the problems on earth before we can explore the universe. But I will certainly shout out from a handy podium that we must do a better job coming up with reasons why problems on Earth can be helped by such exploration. Problems on Earth are what it's all about. That has to be why we explore the universe.

So take a handful of Valium, look past the swamp of vacuous phrases, and give it another try.

Frank's Note: Herb, I have been a professional communicator for more than 20 years-here's my take: We explore space because every flight we do improves our world. It does so by strengthening our fragile economy, gathers scientific discoveries that tell us new truths about our place in the universe and on Earth, provides a flow of technologies that help a child hear or their grandparents walk, make planes and buikldings safer and protect both firemen and astronauts; develop engineering science that has applications in many places; make America more competitive in our globally-linked world and yes provides thousands of jobs for young students who study the hard subjects and sciences. Spaceflight is what a great nation does for itself and the world: Make life better and more interesting for all-for it is true that the best way to understand ourselves is to look and search beyond, to new worlds and their unique histories.. For half a century America has led in this peaceful quest to improve the human condition, protect familes and stand guard for freedom.
Period.
Paragraph.
End of story.

Mr. Turzillo's comments may seem schmaltzy and even corny in this day and age of cynicism & self absorption, but as a veteran of over 20 years in the aerospace industry, who has seen more than his fair share of things that would make Dilbert's boss seem progressive & employee-focussed, for me, at least, his post has hit it right on the head. I have spent most of my professional life building aircraft & spacecraft because it gives me an intense sense of pride and fulfillment to be part of these endeavours. Notsithstanding any of the silliness, waste and bureaucracy that plagues the world's space agencies, to be part of the dream of human flight and exploration is what keeps me working in this industry. Not only working, but being happy in my work and proud of what I accomplish and what my team, company and country have accomplished.

When I was a kid, a looong time ago, my high school yearbook asked the question, "what do you want to be when you grow up." I answered "an aerospace engineer". Being able to look back and realise that I have been living and will continue to live that dream is one of the best things I can imagine.

Even though I am now even starting to be considered a "greybeard" (or in my case a "bald head") for certain subjects at work, I can still step back and look at a lot of my projects, grin and think "this is just so freakin' cool!"

In the end, my career choice still rocks, just like I thought it would when I was 10 & watched Neil walk on the Moon.

Paul

Civil service rules are very clear about reporting your time. No supervisor would dare direct a CS to work OT and not have them declare those hours. If they did, they'd be subject to dismissal. When I stated that CS were paid for overtime, I should have used the term compensated.

Many CS volunteer OT and do not report the hours out of a sense of duty and/or because they enjoy the work. This is technically against the rules, but is commonly overlooked.

As for job stability, NASA CS have extremely secure jobs. NASA contractors have historically had much more stability than the rest of the aerospace sector.

I do not dispute that many NASA employees / contractor are hard working and dedicated - as the author has stated. However, the author's depiction of NASA workers as undercompensated and overworked (presumably compared to the rest of the aerospace sector) is simply not true. For older CS on the CSRS retirement system, that assertion is laughable.

First off, I want to thank everyone for taking the time to read my write up. When I was asked to submit it by a coworker, I really did think about the criticism I would receive from those I work with along with those outside of the space business. However, I still feel that what I said remains a positive statement for anyone that considers what they do, as Paul perfectly said, “just so freakin' cool”.

Editor's note: and thank YOU for taking the time to write this and allowing us to share it.

@Mr. Nottle: I understand your view point and honestly do respect it. The comments about compensation and overtime are strictly from the viewpoint of those in my particular age range, and I know it varies quite a bit depending on your experience, work location, and duties. However, the statements you quoted were not included to say, “give me a raise and reduce my hours, pity me” or to portray anyone as a “martyr”, but as a statement that it’s a conscious choice that we all make to stay in our positions when there are definitely more lucrative opportunities elsewhere in industry. No one is chained to the launch pad, If they are unhappy with their position, they are free to leave at anytime and take a job elsewhere. Yet there are more people fighting to get, or stay, within the gates rather than trying to rush out of them.

@Gene: I received some other comments about how I seemed to focus on engineering. Please trust me when I say that was not the intention. The greatest people I work with are those that get their hands dirty every day turning the wrenches. They do a thousand different jobs, and they all have to be done perfectly every time. Even with an engineering degree, I will whole heartedly proclaim that I have learned more from these fine folks than I ever did from a textbook. Studies and degrees give you a good foundation, but you need the hands on experience to truly be an expert. Oh, and I think its fun when someone asks, “What do you do?” “I’m on a team that sends humans into space.”

@Mr. Falstein: I agree with you that the statements you quoted could be applied to many places outside of the space centers, and I honestly hope it does. When I referenced exploring the unknown, that was in the context of each persons individual contributions make up one small piece of exploration, that we are all explorers. As far as the statement you made that I didn’t provide any proof to the taxpayer for their return investment, well I encourage you to reread my article. While I did choose to not focus on dollars and objects, I did want to focus on the more defining qualities that make us a better people. Mostly, the apollo and shuttle both dealt a blow to the concept of something “being impossible”. How many inventors decided to try something new, or take on a task that was previous considered impossible? Many of them may have failed, but some succeeded, and we are better off for it. The taxpayer in the context of my paper will be getting a “Character Stimulus”, and that is priceless. The merits of the financial and technological benefits are well know and can be easily googled, so I chose to only focus on the more abstract benefits of spaceflight and attempt to take it beyond a pep talk and perhaps cause a little bit of thought and self reflection. I’ll admit though, taking a handful of Vallium and singing a flowery paean in front of headquarters would probably make for an interesting morning! :)

For everyone else, I appreciate the positive comments and it is truly great to see there are other like-minded individuals out there. As Paul said, my article may be a little schmaltzy and corny, and I accept that. However, this is how I honestly feel about our space program. It’s the passion that gets me through the tough days when politics seem to rule, and it helps me to look beyond it to the bigger picture of what we are trying to do. I used to just glance up at the sky and think that’s where we’re sending our dreams and passions, but now the target is more focused. I look to our nearest neighbor glowing bright in the clear night sky calling for us to stand upon her and look back at our wondrous planet. Just something to think about, I bet the world would be a different place if all political negotiations had to be done in a glass room on the moon as the earth rose above the horizon, so scantly small it could be covered by the tip of your thumb.

Per Aspera Ad Astra

Thanks, Mr. Turzillo, for your thoughtful response. I think you're on the right track. But just remember that there is a big gap between inspiration and implementation. So "character stimulus" is warm and touchy-feely, but those aren't words that federal appropriators would use. They are sort of handwaving words, and do not provide any measurable metrics for success. How do you know if your investment is working? Granted, this is a good foundation for an argument, but it isn't the argument. Making us better people is an argument that applies to a huge number of possible federal investments. What is special about space?

I don't think the financial and technological benefits are at all well known by the American public. Are we talking Tang here? Or Helium-3 perhaps, for financial gain? Perhaps we're just talking about shoveling money at aerospace companies to keep us doing creative things? But such creativity investments don't have to be expended on space exploration. Sure, you'll find all manner of stuff on Google, but it's mostly handwaving if not highly suspect. It's a little too easy to just brush that issue off by handing folks a lmgtfy.com URL.

Mr. Turzillo:

I hate to be a picky stickler on a valid underlying premise, but if the glass room rested on the lunar surface, the Earth wouldn't rise above the horizon, it would stay in essentially ('cept for variation caused by the Moon's orbital eccentricity) the same place in the sky all the time.

Just a reinforcing hint, though, of how much one's consciousness and worldview will change for those who will be living and working up there in the (we hope) not-too-distant future.

BTW, the middle of my previous post got wiped out somehow. Sorry if it seemed incomplete; it was. The missing piece just highlighted that my less-than-average starting salary and long-term compensation (at least during those first eight years) were considered pitiful by folks I knew at the time in other industries and disciplines.

The following is from GAO report number GAO-07-1004 entitled 'NASA: Progress Made on Strategic Human Capital Management, but Future Program Challenges Remain' which was released on August 9, 2007.

"NASA is unable to compete with the private sector in recruiting senior management because of its lower salaries and smaller compensation packages, in spite of flexibilities granted to NASA by Congress through the NASA Flexibility Act of 2004, NRC reported. Industry senior-level compensation packages, including recruitment bonuses, far exceed federal government pay scales, which include stock and retirement packages for senior executives in industry that can range into the tens of millions of dollars.[Footnote 13] (See app. II for additional information on use of the act.) However, NRC did find that NASA's pay scale is competitive with industry's at the entry and middle levels."

Please note that pay is only part of overall compensation, which also includes leave policy, medical benefits, and retirement packages - all of which are generally better at NASA as compared to the private sector.

So I guess we should all feel sorry for NASA's senior management?

from Bob Mahoney:

"include stock and retirement packages for senior executives in industry that can range into.......

the tens of millions of dollars"

LOL!!

So, does anybody still seriously think industry will do HSF Ops cheaper than NASA (Shuttle) currently does??

well I can't say I'm surprised by all this. All too often it seems like the people that are the most vocal, are those people that just complain a lot, love to complain a lot, and who really don't have a unique thought in their brains, and want to so quickly turn a positive reflection of those who work in the industry and their belief in this endeavour into something negative. To all the Negative Nancys out there: know the limitation of your knowledge, you don't know everything, and making a bigger ego doesn't make you smarter. Good job Calvin for a long needed refreshing take on humanities inseparable need and roots in exploration.

@Mr. Falstein - There is definitely a big difference between inspiration and implementation. I can only speak for myself, but I do practice what I preach and try to actively bring about the needed change to make these visions of grandeur a reality. I also actively write congressman and senators about supporting our space program, and encourage others to as well. As far as my choice of words, “character stimulus” is definitely not something a federal appropriator would use, but I hope someone that is more familiar with the appropriations process would be able to prepare the materials required to support the idea. My skill lies in “rocket science” and the occasional urge to write, and I try to capitalize on both in order to hopefully inspire someone who does have the required talent to support the goals of human spaceflight.

@Mr. Mahoney - I had this fantastic vision of the earth-rise photo taken from the Apollo capsule, and as I read your response I definitely had a “oh, duh” moment. I appreciate the correction as I am a stickler for accuracy as well. It was 3 o’clock in the morning and I blame my sleep deprived mind for not grasping the finer points of orbital mechanics at that moment. My apologies. Hopefully my old astrodynamics professor doesn’t find out or I’ll never hear the end of it! Thank you once again for your comments, they are appreciated!

@Mr. Nottle - I appreciate the research you did in order to find this information, but I think it proves my point more than it does yours. No one just “becomes” NASA senior management overnight. Most, I assume, work their way up rather than just hiring in as a senior manager. While I can’t truthfully say I know any of them personally, I suspect they knew when they started their careers, and began moving up the ranks, that the hours they were investing were not going to be rewarded with a six or seven figure salary. So I have to believe there was a higher motive involved beyond monetary compensation. I also have a problem with the wording in this study, or at least how they defined “competitive”, as it is currently used subjectively with no data to back it up. Is that a 5% disparity between the industry average and NASA? 10%? 15%? Over a period of years, that is significant. It also doesn’t define if that is the value of the total compensation package, or just the base salary.

I’d also like to refer back to your second reply when you mentioned job security. If you reference Table 2, “NASA Science and Engineering New Hires by Type of Appointment and Hiring Level” you’ll see that in 2006 over 67% of new hires were two year term appointments. This number has surely grown since then as I have not seen many full time postings at NASA in the last few years. While I think most do get converted to full time eventually, for two years (and up to 6 if extended) they live with the constant fear that “something” could happen and they will be let go. They won’t be laid off, they’re appointment just won’t be renewed. Not something I would consider an “extremely secure job”. Most of industry only has a 6 month probationary period, sometimes less. Despite this, on page 23 the study says, “Center officials stated that using term appointments generally does not deter applicants”. Once again, there must be a higher motive involved to take this risk to your job security when accepting a position with NASA.

There is one last quote from the report I would like to emphasize. “NASA officials said that its employees are motivated by the agency’s mission. In some cases, this results in employees continuing to work after they become eligible for retirement, and some former employees volunteer their time and expertise after retiring from the agency.” (GAO-07-1004, pg. 22)

I believe that speaks for itself.

While I agree that most of you have chosen to do this work "for love of the game", there is another concept related to the sport of football that you must keep in mind:

You're only as good as your last play.

How many times have you seen it on Sunday; a defensive player strutting around after a good play only to get burned for a touchdown the very next play?

Here, you're only as good as your last mission, whether it's manned or robotic.

Living in Pittsburgh, the Super Bowl was last year, as far as the Steelers are concerned. They have to put that out of their minds as training camp opens.

Likewise at the Cape; STS-127 lost far too much foam, and you dodged a bullet once again. It's never wise to test one's guardian angels, you know?

Keep your heads in the game, work hard, and perhaps next October we'll have something to hold up high...but never forget that there are 14 people who can only be there in spirit.

"We do what we do because we believe in what we do"; we in the gallery do what we do because we believe in you.

We don't do what we do for money, we do it for love of the game...

As I stated previously, I believe many NASA workers are hard working and dedicated. My argument is with your assertion that NASA workers are somehow sacrificing lucrative and rewarding careers elsewhere in order to further the U.S. Space Program. Where are your facts? You'd have to believe that your typical NASA engineer had a reasonable shot a becoming a doctor, lawyer, or investment banker to support your statement. Show me some data. Perhaps you are just referring to space ops at KSC and/or JSC. If yes, please say so - and show some supporting data instead of anecdotal, faith based assertions.

In comparison, I presented a GAO report that said NASA entry and midlevel pay was competitive with Industry. Given that leave, health care, and retirement benefits are superior at NASA, it is very clear that NASA is a great career choice - even ignoring the psychic benefit of working for one of the most recognized and prestigious organizations on the Planet.

As for NASA senior management, a few points. Up until the past decade, the vast majoriy of NASA senior managers were on the old-style pension retirement system (CSRS). I think the current statistics are about 50/50. Considering that your average NASA senior manager retiree has 30+ years of service and was making six figure upon retirment, that retirement package is worth Millions of dollars, but only if they put in the 25 or 30 years at NASA in order to collect it. Essentially, these managers were locked in at NASA (referred to as golden handcuffs). Anyone that left before retirement eligibility was a fool.

It has been my experience that, in general, NASA senior managers were promoted because they were the most talented and trusted part of the old boys network that could be counted on to be loyal to the boss, not necessarily NASA's Mission. Many of these players are extremely good at managing up and focus not on the right thing to do for the Agency and the taxpayer - but instead on what will enhance their career, increase their turf, and protect their old boy network. These are the people that sell a Program for $x, knowing full well it will actually cost $5x and then joke about it over scotch and cigars.

Too many NASA veterans (GS-13 to GS-15) will tell you in strict confidence that the quickest way to kill your career is to tell the truth. I sincerely wish it were otherwise.

NoonLady: I do not know why you ascribe that phrasing to me. I'm reasonably certain I never, ever strung those particular words together in speech or in writing. Please check your facts and references more carefully. Mr. Nottle quoted the report that contained them, not me.