Replace NASA?

NASA is a great agency-- when its allowed to do its job of exploring and pioneering the solar system!

Unfortunately, since the end of the Apollo era, the politicians in Washington really didn't want NASA's manned space program to be anything more than just the 'symbol' of a manned space program. And that's why NASA has been trapped at LEO since the early 1970s.

Unfortunately, when Congress finally approved 'meager' funding for manned beyond LEO missions, the Bush administration allowed Griffin to turn a Moonbase program into an Apollo Redux program, politically undermining NASA's efforts for beyond LEO missions. The fact that Griffin picked the most expensive architecture possible to return to the Moon also didn't help!

We need a permanent base on the Moon so we can find out if humans can physically adjust to low gravity environments without long term deleterious effects. And we need to begin exploiting the Moon's oxygen and hydrogen resources in order to dramatically reduce the cost of space travel beyond LEO.

Having NASA helping private companies to develop their own private commercial space programs independent of NASA is also very good for NASA and the country as long as these private companies are not primarily dependent on tax payer dollars in order to sustain themselves.

Marcel F. Williams

I read the 5 point Vision from Mr. Ferren and it really does not deal with what NASA has been doing or responsible for. It seems like this off cuff comment from him of Dissolving or Replacing NASA represents someone that is totally our of touch with what NASA does within all Centers.

When it comes to Education, I don't see any agency that is more involved like NASA and I am proud to say that over the years many including myself have participated as Judges in High School project fairs and I have assisted many University Engineering projects like Fuel Cell UAV Aircraft right here in Central Florida.

To top it off, it is within my Performance Plan to assist Educational sectors whenever possible!

I very sorry to say that from reading all of the article about this topic "Replacing / Dissolving NASA" is just another example of a Knee Jerk reaction to someone's dissatisfaction over how NASA is being run.

I can tell you all that no Agency is perfect and from the looks of things, NASA is a very nice place to work as we get involved with local community events, and again Educational Projects and events.

Too bad that Mr. Ferren feels the way he does...

Oh well, can't satisfy eveyone!

PadRat

Let us see how Obama's change works first. There is no guarantee a replacement NASA would work any better, it might be just renaming NASA and using more political appointees.
Still, I am open to this idea. I know there is much good about NASA, but there are also disturbing legitimate questions, many of which are raised here by Keith's column. Given the overall performance since 1973, eliminating NASA should not be completely out of the question.

NASA is already doing what he advocates. More of the same "balkanization" that encourages fighting for meager funding among the various interests (HSF vs Robotics vs Earth "Science" vs Bureaucracy vs Education vs Aeronautical Research vs pick a theme this budget cycle). Is that the best thinking we have?

Pull the plug, we're done.

There's no recommendation here other than to change NASA's name to NEA.

That's not even rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. It's renaming it to "Panzyship."

Most people don't realize that there's anything wrong with NASA. We all complain here, all the time, that people have no idea what NASA's doing, right? Well, it's true. Look at the protestors in 2010 complaining that Obama was canceling the Shuttle.

Why are they protesting? Because they care.

Why are they protesting in 2010? Because they have no idea it was cancelled six years ago, because nobody knows what NASA's doing.

For us the name "NASA" evokes a mental image of Washington politics, corrupt senators, a President who doesn't give a rat's rear, billion dollar boondoggles and arguments about what to do with the manned space program.

To many people, it is those awesome Mars rovers they keep hearing about that seem to last forever. And if it weren't for some PR bungling, it'd be the Kepler mission discovering hundreds of new worlds in one glorious shot. NASA was in every one of those asteroid movies coming up with some mission to save the world.

Where do those spectacular space pictures come from? Who landed on the Moon, beating the Chinese by an amazing 40 to 50 something years? Who would save the world from an asteroid?

"NASA".

So if something's broke in America's civilian space program, I can tell you one thing that most certainly isn't; "NASA".

(And by that I mean the name.)

P.S. Might Russian Pencil story? Seriously???

While lumping undersea research in with space exploration makes sense on the surface, it will only add another forgotten letter (most people have no idea what the second letter in NASA really means).
As mentioned above that would only be more balkanization.

If a kid is raised in a dysfunctional family, changing his name won't make him any less screwed up.

Congress is a very cynical place. The lawmakers are very good at making bombastic statements about high and mighty goals and values, but in fact all they ever do is try to fit as much money shoveling as possible behind said lofty goals and values.

How many starry-eyed congressmen are out there that really BELIEVE, to their very core, that it is important for humanity to expand beyond this planet? Important enough to make the right decision no matter where the funds flow? To take a political hit in order to support that decision? right.... They are either just ignorant, cynical, or just plain can't be bothered.

So it doesn't matter what we call the agency congress forms. It's up to people who believe in the cause to lead the exploration of the next frontier.

NASA has evolved (or should I say devolved) to fit the environment in which it operates. Can't blame the rocks for sliding down hill.

The right solution is to support those individuals and companies that are on fire, that truly feel that space exploration is a critical goal. It is not surprising that these individuals are capable of doing so much more for so much less, and not very surprising, in retrospect, that they generate so much resistance in the ranks of congress, and of the established space eco-system.

I sure hope this genie is out of the bottle by now.

Sure, change the name, go ahead. (Yawn.) That's not the problem.

Yes, the agency has many problems, probably including weak and mis-cast management, as well as a workforce tuned for the last decade's space program vs. the next decade's. Sadly, people are being laid off now to address that imbalance, but it's a pain that must be endured for NASA to fulfill its next mission well. Most of NASA is fine, and some is excellent; it sure wouldn't improve from being atomized and reassembled.

The most important change that should be made is to stop Congressional micromanagement. Congress should define broad objectives, success criteria, and metrics for those success criteria, with only a factor 2 more detail than the President's plan; and then it should hand NASA a check to go do those things. Instead we have Congress-critters defining how many segments an SRB should have. (Sheesh!) NASA needs to be free to make technical decisions for technical questions, and not have to consider geographical spending patterns as a key driver.

Rather than dissolve NASA, what I'd recommend is capping any program of record--manned or otherwise--at around 4 billion dollars. NASA can do some interesting and fundamental R&D with this approach. For example, there are three classes for solar system exploration missions: scout, moderate and flagship (with flagships cost capped at $2-4B. I've come to the conclusion that human spaceflight R&D should be competed, internally or externally, just like any other exploration proposal, and capped.

Capping expenditures could get NASA out of the massively expensive programs that have been problematic for decades. If the President and or Congress wants to fund hugely expensive PoRs (for example, the heavy lift launch vehicle), then these RDO proposals should be funded and managed outside the core NASA structure.

The article was serious? I thought it was satire. After all, it had comedic gems like suggesting that the way to get over "being fascinated with complex solutions to simple problems" was more emphasis on systems Engineering! :)

Although, I did run across these yesterday on wikipedia "antipatterns":

Organizational anti-patterns

* Analysis paralysis: Devoting disproportionate effort to the analysis phase of a project
* Cash cow: A profitable legacy product that often leads to complacency about new products
* Design by committee: The result of having many contributors to a design, but no unifying vision
* Escalation of commitment: Failing to revoke a decision when it proves wrong
* Management by perkele: Authoritarian style of management with no tolerance of dissent
* Matrix Management: Unfocused organizational structure that results in divided loyalties and lack of direction
* Moral hazard: Insulating a decision-maker from the consequences of his or her decision.
* Mushroom management: Keeping employees uninformed and misinformed (kept in the dark and fed manure)
* Stovepipe or Silos: A structure that supports mostly up-down flow of data but inhibits cross organizational communication
* Vendor lock-in: Making a system excessively dependent on an externally supplied component

The question is, is it worse than other places in industry and government?