A lesson from the past...

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

najab

Guest
I was reading up on the Mercury program and I came across some of the 'design rules' - the CEV program managers should have these tattooed to their foreheads:<p><li>Existing technology and off-the-shelf equipment should be used wherever practical.<li>The simplest and most reliable approach to system design would be followed.<li>An existing launch vehicle would be employed to place the spacecraft into orbit.<li>A progressive and logical test program would be conducted.<p>Max Faget will be sorely missed....</p></li></li></li></li></p>
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
A-bloody-men. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
C

cdr6

Guest
To your list I recommend Kelly Johnson's rules for running the famous "Lockheed Skunk Works." Available at his web site along with copius other applicable information for NASA Engineers and Managers.
 
D

drwayne

Guest
We think alike, when I read those rules, my first thoughts were of the Skunk Works rules...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Kelly's Rules<br /><br />Rule Number 1<br />The Skunk Works' program manager must be delegated practically complete control of his program in all aspects. He should report to a division president or higher.<br /><br />Rule Number 2<br />Strong but small project offices must be provided both by the military and industry.<br /><br />Rule No. 3<br />The number of people having any connection with the project must be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people (10 percent to 25 percent compared to the so-called normal systems).<br /><br />Rule No. 4<br />A very simple drawing and drawing release system with great flexibility for making changes must be provided.<br /><br />Rule No. 5<br />There must be a minimum number of reports required, but important work must be recorded thoroughly.<br /><br />Rule No. 6<br />There must be a monthly cost review covering not only what has been spent and committed but also projected costs to the conclusion of the program. Don't have the books ninety days late and don't surprise the customer with sudden overruns.<br /><br />Rule No. 7<br />The contractor must be delegated and must assume more than normal responsibility to get good vendor bids for subcontract on the project. Commercial bid procedures are very often better than military ones.<br /><br />Rule No. 8<br />The inspection system as currently used by the Skunk Works, which has been approved by both the Air Force and the Navy, meets the intent of existing military requirements and should be used on new projects. Push more basic inspection responsibility back to the subcontractors and vendors. Don't duplicate so much inspection.<br /><br />Rule No. 9<br />The contractor must be delegated the authority to test his final product in flight. He can and must test it in the initial stages. If he doesn't, he rapidly loses his competency to design other vehicles.<br /><br />Rule No. 10<br />The specification applying to the hardware must be agreed to in advance of contracting. The Skunk <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
I've been on several programs subcontracting or even working directly with the Navy. I always thought it wasn't too bad. Then I got on a program working with the Army. So far, it's been a great deal smoother. They seem to be a lot more pragmatic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
I will admit, I have had *minimal* contact with the Navy. I have worked primarily with the Army and Air Force.<br /><br />I just thought the 15th commandment - as I have hear it, second hand was amusing.<br /><br />I did have a security officer tell us one day, when we were going to be working on a joint project with the Navy, who stated "There is a reason why they put those folks on boats and send them way the hell of shore"<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
S

steve82

Guest
The old saw in project management circles is that if you want to build a system for the Air Force, it has to have the latest technology. If you want one for the Navy, it has to be along the lines of traditional systems. If you want to build for the Army, you have to meet the specs, and if you want to build for the Marines it has to accomplish the mission.
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Good one. I had not hear that one!<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
H

halman

Guest
najaB,<br /><br />Following the rules stated for the Mercury program, would not the Russian Klipper on a Proton rocket be the best application of the rules?<br /><br />And how can we use an existing launch vehicle? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Remember this thread? "</font><br /><br />Well to be fair -- only 4/5ths of that launch vehicle already exists. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
P

propforce

Guest
<i><font color="yellow">"....The old saw in project management circles is that if you want to build a system for the Air Force, it has to have the latest technology. If you want one for the Navy, it has to be along the lines of traditional systems. If you want to build for the Army, you have to meet the specs, and if you want to build for the Marines it has to accomplish the mission. ..."</font>/i><br /><br />If you want to work for NASA, multiply your most conservative estimate by 3, e.g., 3X more budget, 3X more man-power, and will take 3X longer.... <br /><br />You will use 3X of everything when dealing with NASA's bureaucracy. NASA will staff 3 people for everyone you have on your contract as "technical oversight". These people will have nothing to do except to call your people up everyday and ask questions.<br /><br />As a contractor program manager, you'll need to take a copy of NASA organization chart and make sure you'll have at least one of your guys (or gals) to deal with each function/ department/ agency of NASA organizations that's involved in your project. <br /><br />You can not risk the schedule or budget of your program by counting on NASA for a decision. God helps you if you're counting on a NASA center to contriubute a 'key technology' on the program. But of course you must give one or more NASA centers a piece of work, if you plan to have a slightest of chance of winning a contract (as shown in your proposal what % of $ you're giving back to NASA as 'GTA'). Once a NASA center receive a piece of your budget, they pretty much ignore their commitments of key dates on your project, but be fully prepared that they'll blame you as an excuse of why they're not meeting key milestones. <br /><br />Key in winning NASA contracts is technology, technology and technology, the crazier the better. No matter how unrealistic it is in terms of budget or schedule, or simply whether it can be done or not. <br /><br />- Name withheld for a very good reas</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

steve82

Guest
Seems like every new program that comes along begins with a desire to keep things simple and start with what we know. But the goals of the program keep changing ("requirements creep") and we start trying to find technical solutions for political problems. Kelly Johnson had an advantage in his Skunk Works where the customer would ask him for a Mach 2+ interceptor and that's what they'd get. Seems like NASA winds up having to make a space station that will:<br /> a) support medical research and cure diseases<br /> (the "democratic" ISS)<br /> b) promote new manufacturing technologies and industries. (the "republican" ISS)<br /> c) Make the Russians a full partner with major hardware in the critical path to promote international goodwill and give their military scientists something relatively benign to do (the "Clinton" ISS)<br /> d) Get a whole bunch of International Partners to build separate components and pound them all together to make it look like a space station (the "let's save money by offloading the costs elsewhere and pay for it all later ISS).<br /><br />Given how long it takes to build and deploy a major space project (about 3 Administrations worth) the goals are bound to change and there's going to be a lot of rework along the way. <br />Anyway, I can't remember what, exactly, it was when we first started out.......
 
H

halman

Guest
propforce,<br /><br />It seems to me that NASA has not had a clear-cut goal, with dedicated funding to acheive it, since the days of the Apollo program. Since then, it has been a mixture of having the agency setting its own goals, and then trying to justify them to Congress, and 'corporate welfare' projects mandated by Congress, which inexplicably always lose funding when it comes to actually building hardware.<br /><br />NASA seems to be one of the few, if not the only, major government programs which has to establish its worthiness for continued funding, year after year. And Congress does not seem to realize that doing only one thing at a time means accomplishing nothing. Instead of beginning construction of a space station in 1983, which is what the space shuttle would have been fairly good at, Congress dragged its feet, turned down several excellent designs, and finally agreed to the International Space Station only because of pressure from other nations. Of course, the space shuttle is now over 20 years old, which, for a protoype vehicle, is astounding, and needs frequent upgrades to maintain effectiveness.<br /><br />If Congress were to give NASA a specific goal, such as building a base on the Moon, and guarentee funding for 5 year blocks of time, I believe that NASA would function properly. In the environment which it has to operate at this time, I think that its performance is entirely typical of a large government agency.<br /><br />And if you think that the government is getting bilked by NASA, consider the Drug Enforcement Agency. Its annual budget is about the same as NASA's, yet since its inception, it has had absolutey no effectiveness in its stated mission, according to its own operatives. Sure, they are doing something, but it is having zero success in accomplishing what the agency was created to do. That would be like NASA never flying any hardware whatsoever, just doing endless design studies. The Mars Rovers, the Cassini probe, the International <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If you want to work for NASA, multiply your most conservative estimate by 3, e.g., 3X more budget, 3X more man-power, and will take 3X longer....<br /><br />You will use 3X of everything when dealing with NASA's bureaucracy. NASA will staff 3 people for everyone you have on your contract as "technical oversight". These people will have nothing to do except to call your people up everyday and ask questions.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Hmmm..... Maybe it's different as a subcontractor than as a prime to NASA, but that's not the experience I've had. At my company, our NASA contracts have been among our most straightforward, with practically no requirements creep. At least as far as I know; I haven't been personally involved with any of those projects, but with related non-NASA projects.<br /><br />Our first NASA contract (well, at my part of the company, which was acquired long after the parent company gave up being one of the aerospace heavyweights) was Chandra's command and control subsystem. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> We're quite proud of that one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
P

propforce

Guest
halman,<br /><br />While I agree that the Congress contributed much to NASA's current sad state of affair, I still think that NASA itself have much to blame. For example, take a comparison between the Air Force and NASA program procurement & management practices, eventhough both agency's major procurements are subjected to Congressional reviews and budget approval (and can get very political), the Air Force wins hands down. The Air Force adhere to rigorous systems engineering practice, encourage competitive procurements that often means contractors put up their own funds for phase 1, then pretty much stay out of contractor's hair and evaluate them based on the results and set of ground rules agreed upon earlier. Sure, nothing is perfect and Air Force system have its own flaws. But compare to NASA, Air Force's acquisition and program management system seems like a role model.<br /><br />NASA pays lip service to systems engineering practice. On some major programs that I recalled, the first thing they do after a prime contractor is selected is to revisit & wanted to re-established level 1 requirements. Requirements creep is the number 1 enemy to a successful project and NASA is very good at creeping up the requirements. <br /><br />NASA's decision making process consists of ".... ummm, I dunno, what do you think Marshall?.... ummm, we need to look at this more. Does Langley want to say anything? .... ummm, right now we have no clue, I mean no opinion at this time. We'll need to evaluate this more. What do you say Johnson? .... hello, is anyone from Johnson still one << sound of paper ruffles />>... yeah this is so-n-so from Johnson, the guy who knew just step out, we'll have to get back with you on this one. Anyone from KSC online? ... yeah this is x-y-z from KSC, I have a go-back question... what do these acronym mean? Oh hey, this is Glenn, we were not funded for this portion of work. Who do we need to talk to to get funded?.... Oh yeah, we <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
P

propforce

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Hmmm..... Maybe it's different as a subcontractor than as a prime to NASA, but that's not the experience I've had. At my company, our NASA contracts have been among our most straightforward, with practically no requirements creep. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Calli, you're right. Things are much more straight forward at the subsystm/ box level. <br /><br />But there's another factor, nobody understand software so it's best to leave these people alone. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Everyone is terrified of upgrading software, adding a single line of code can cost as much as upgrading the entire software !! <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Well to be fair -- only 4/5ths of that launch vehicle already exists. "</font><br /><br />*crunch* *crunch* *crunch* (eats words)<br /><br />HeckifIknew Thiokol was already testing a five-segment SRB. I thought that was just a what-if.
 
N

najab

Guest
Oh, that's the 4/5ths that you meant - I thought you were talking about the restartable SSME. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
H

halman

Guest
propforce,<br /><br />I try to be optimistic (naive) and believe that mission driven management would be superior to the morass that we find ourselves in. To be realistic, the management culture in the United States is horrible. When management specialists are brought in to run an engineering agency, they bring with them the mindset of avoiding decision making and responsibility. They also by nature try to use revenue from outside the agency as much as possible, because the bottom line is how they will be judged, not the success or effectiveness of their project. When a person who has no understanding of what they are managing is faced with a decision regarding that activity, they try to substitute concensus for knowledge. "Everybody thought that it would be a good idea, so I went with it." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts