Making NASA "Open"

I think there are already much of the makings of such a tool already established in the blogs of such websites as NASAWatch, Space Politics, Pal Spudis' Once and Future Moon, and maybe one or two others.

I do not see a need for NASA to replicate the input end of such a communications mechanism. NASA has some of its own blog's but they monitor those to track addresses and as they openly admit, they censor those websites.

All NASA needs to do is identify that they do review specific websites and blogs for input.

What NASA needs, if it does not already have an organization officially charged with it, is a group that reviews, categorizes, consolidates, and forwards blog entries to appropriate NASA management for review.

Whether NASA already has a group to do this or not, I am quite certain that NASA management is already reviewing the blogs and that some of the significant changes we are beginning to see, such as the new Bolden exploration changes, and the elimination of total cost accounting, are at least in part a result of the blogs.

The blogs are in many way a great equalizer. Even the lowest level employees have the opportunity to make input to the highest levels of management.

This cannot happen within NASA today because people are censored, marginalized, moved out of working positions....if they identify issues with existing management. It is unlikely that NASA can get beyond this. It is simple human nature. People do not like to be criticized, especially in public and when/if the critic is identified, it directly leads to revenge.

It would be great if NASA could identify the individuals with the good ideas and accurate, realistic critiques, because those are people who should be the change agents and leaders. But, if they believe they still have an active role to play, those individuals will not reveal themselves.

The only answer is for NASA to select as leaders those individuals who have shown a history of being change agents and competent managers. When they fail to put those kinds of people in charge, the result is a dysfunctional organization, as we have seen over the last five years with Exploration/Constellation.

This is a great idea, i.e. openness about NASA decisions.

I am still puzzled by the logic behind cancellation of ARES 1/Orion program. I understand that ARES V and other portion of the constellation was at very early stage and the change in direction for that portion is not as consequential. But, one can make an argument that ARES 1/Orion was far enough in the development and it is difficult to convince myself (and many of my coworkers) how the replacement programs (i.e. commercial ventures that has not gone through vigorous reviews) can beat ARES 1 program by a year, i.e. 2017 vs. 2016.

Also, it is important to remember that the current work force is as much of NASA asset as facilities and equipment that NASA owns, if indeed not more important. But, from my personal experience, many of my co-workers think that there is no planning done to "map" current personnel to the yet unknown programs. This would mean that some of these people will be gone permanently from the space business. And, along with that many years of experience that NASA invested in. How do you defend such an criticism?

comment deleted at poster's request

Joseph, I see you posted there and people have responded to your posts about that. Do you want to check your statement here for accuracy after seeing what was posted at Open NASA and your reply to the moderators?

Editor's note: I haven't a clue what he is complaining about - he has more posts than anyone else on that site and the sheer amount verbiage he has posted dwarfs the contributions by anyone else. Some of it is good, much of it is redundant, and a lot of it is off topic to the purpose of this website.

"NASA becomes more relevant, efficient, and accountable"

This is the best joke I've heard in a long time!!

NASA does not so much need to be more open as it needs to get rid of the layers of bureaucracy, management fads, and aversion to risk of any sort that have become so smothering in the past decade or more. Couple that with program offices more worried about milestones than innovation and it is little wonder that NASA is where it is today.

How one gets rid of the current management and replaces it with leadership that is not afraid to cut people loose to follow new ideas is beyond me.

"But, one can make an argument that ARES 1/Orion was far enough in the development and it is difficult to convince myself (and many of my coworkers) how the replacement programs (i.e. commercial ventures that has not gone through vigorous reviews) can beat ARES 1 program by a year, i.e. 2017 vs. 2016."

My recollection from the Augustine hearings was that even if developed, what you'd have in Ares-1/Orion is a system that was too expensive to really operate and merely replicating the functionality of taxi services that (they guessed) could be provided more cheaply by the private sector. And Ares-1/Orion delivered too late to run trips the ISS, since it would have to be abandoned in 2015 to pay for Constellation. I caught the Augustine hearings on NASA TV - which was an awesome way to get some openness into NASA proceedings (and provides me a very weak excuse for relevancy of this post to this thread).

This is a great idea.

It won't solve every problem, and it won't change the fact that people in charge don't like to be criticized.

It's still a big step in the right direction.

Oh wow, NASA's own Internet chat room. Boldly going where the private sector can't go. Very avant-grade.

...

On the brainstorming tool, you can:

* View the ideas of others and comment on them
* Submit your own ideas
* Vote for or against ideas you think are most important
* Help moderate the community by flagging inappropriate posts and comments

Ideas and comments submitted to the site are public, and anyone can view them. But you must create an account - become a registered user -- before you can submit, comment, or vote on ideas. Your participation in this dialog is of course voluntary, and no payments or gifts will be made to respondents. However, your participation will help to ensure the outcome of this process meets your expectations and values. ...

This should create a number of jobs for GS-1n civil servants who are masters of English language diction, grammar, and syntax. No run-on sentences or pseudo-technical bureau-speak at NASA! For example:

... As outlined in the Open Government Directive, this brainstorming tool is a mechanism gain input on how to make the key principle of openness a meaningful pillar of NASA's mission, and how to implement participation, transparency and collaboration activities such that NASA becomes more relevant, efficient, and accountable. Key ideas and suggestions developed through this process will be prioritized in the NASA Open Government Plan...

...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=33412

I hope more "open" means releasing data more often from robotic probes.

I agree with David. If they really want to know what we want, their are plenty of existing commercial websites that collect this information without tracking us down to our building and room number.

One thing I would like to see open is the process used to select senior managers. I just don't understand a process in which someone with no technical experience and little experience in the necessary subject becomes selected for these positions. I've said this before, but it seems we have a lot of qualified soon to be position-less Civil Servants that are overlooked in lue of someone's unqualified BFF.

to return to my previous comment..

Ideas to get public awareness up..

1. Live Web cam on the moon or a Lagrange point.( I know this is possible.(RTG power source and its proven viability in conjunction solar power regeneration makes this Idea not only a great idea but doable).

2. Engage young people tell them there is a chance for them to explore space one day and mean it.

3. Try not to invoke Apollo so much although one of the greatest Accomplishment of NASA and its people and mankind in general. Its the giant Albatross in the coop or the giant 1000 lb gorilla in the room.

4. Look Ahead. Think Ahead. Plan Ahead.

Gravity Be Damned!