Does NASA support dissenting opinions in the ranks?

[BrianSlee]

One of the problems facing any large organization is institutional thinking.&nbsp; My question to all you NASA folks out there is... Has NASA as an organization really applied the lessons learned from past failures and tragedies by giving the rank and file an opportunity to openly disagree with current program plans, policies, and procedures without fear of reprisial or is there an atmosphere of intimidation and fear preventing people from speaking their true mind? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p>How does that saying go&nbsp;"A cricket chirp is worth a thousand words"</p><p>Something like that lol</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One of the problems facing any large organization is institutional thinking.&nbsp; My question to all you NASA folks out there is... Has NASA as an organization really applied the lessons learned from past failures and tragedies by giving the rank and file an opportunity to openly disagree with current program plans, policies, and procedures without fear of reprisial or is there an atmosphere of intimidation and fear preventing people from speaking their true mind? <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />According to Wayne Hale, dissent is not only tolerated, but encouraged. If he says so, that's good enough for me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>According to Wayne Hale, dissent is not only tolerated, but encouraged. If he says so, that's good enough for me. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />But is Mr. Hale part of the rank and file we are talking about?</p><p>And if this is true why are there reports that many of the people participating in the Direct 2.0 effort doing so in secret?</p><p>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/15/the-other-moon-rocket-some-nasa-engineers-believe-is-better-than-ares/</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<p><font color="#333399"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>According to Wayne Hale, dissent is not only tolerated, but encouraged. If he says so, that's good enough for me. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /></font>Re: "Does NASA support dissenting opinions in the ranks?"</p><p>Dissent may be encouraged within the ranks, but the question is: Who is in the ranks?&nbsp; There may not be a very diverse range of opinions represented within the ranks to start with.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Slava33]

I think NASA is just too political, and you know how politics works: whoever is on top doesn't accept ANYTHING coming from the other side of the aisle. &nbsp;But then, people at the top change often.&nbsp;<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Re: "Does NASA support dissenting opinions in the ranks?"Dissent may be encouraged within the ranks, but the question is: Who is in the ranks?&nbsp; There may not be a very diverse range of opinions represented within the ranks to start with.&nbsp; <br />Posted by centsworth_II</DIV><br /><br />I would say the ranks go all the way down to the people who clean the toilets and mop the floors and I would be really surprised if there was no, or very little, diversityof opinion in an organization the size of NASA.&nbsp; IMHO lack of diverse views in a large organization is indicative of a totalitarian mentality by management.&nbsp; Direct 2.0 definitely hints at some diversity of opinion within the ranks of the engineers and probably at least some of the managers who would be needed to organize and drive such an effort.&nbsp; So why are they hiding and doing the work anonymously?&nbsp; If they are not using NASA paid time to do the work, what do they have to fear? Where are the NASA folks who believe that we should be using the EELVs already designed and ready?&nbsp; Are there none to be had?&nbsp; I don't think so.&nbsp; So why won't they come forward and say I am so & so and I disagree and heres why? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How does that saying go&nbsp;"A cricket chirp is worth a thousand words"Something like that lol <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />chirp <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>chirp <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />Just because no one thinks your thread is worth responding to does not mean it is right. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[halcyondays]

<p>Not sure which thread to put this in, but there's an article by Alan Stern in today's New York Times sharply criticizing&nbsp;NASA and its financial handling of projects, especially pointing fingers at MSL.</p><p>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/opinion/24stern.html?ref=opinion</p>

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not sure which thread to put this in, but there's an article by Alan Stern in today's New York Times sharply criticizing&nbsp;NASA and its financial handling of projects, especially pointing fingers at MSL.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/opinion/24stern.html?ref=opinion <br /> Posted by halcyondays</DIV></p><p>As the MSL is scheduled to launched just next yes, I would have to state that by far the most of the cost overruns of this program are behind it, and it would be an even greater waste to cancel or reduce this mission at this time.</p><p>The Webb telescope could indeed be looked at however.&nbsp; But here again this particular project is far tou vital to science to be reduced of canceled at this time.&nbsp; The thing that does worry me more than anything else about the Webb however is that it is going to be deployed at far too great a distance from the Earth to be fixed as the Hubble was if something goes wrong. &nbsp;</p><p>If extra money in the manner of cost overruns has to be spent to make sure that this vital project does NOT have any problems on its deployment, then so be it!</p><p>What is NOT being said here is that NASA's over all budget is so tiny in comparison to even the deficit, let alone the total federal budget, that any kinds of overruns here are just plain noise level to the federal budget.&nbsp; I really can't think of how NASA can even begin to deep such budgets in line, when the kinds of projects that NASA does are so very complex, and usually are one of a kind types of things, that nobody has ever even attempted before! &nbsp;</p><p>Does anybody here with any experience in project management even begin to know haw to do that?&nbsp; In particular when you have such politicians staring over your shoulder and micromanaging the project also! </p><p>I know that NASA should not be just given large amounts of taxpayers dollars, but tell me when we can seemingly afford more spending on wars in the Middle East during just one month than NASA's ENTIRE budget for an ENTIRE year, does this kind of harping at NASA even seem useful for the great American taxpayer at all? </p><p>To me at least it certainly is not useful to the cause of science, nor the general advancement of humanity into the future. And to me at least, that is the really important question! </p>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>before! &nbsp;Does anybody here with any experience in project management even begin to know haw to do that?&nbsp;<br />Posted by frodo1008</DIV><br /><br />Yes.&nbsp; It's called leadership.&nbsp; Programs are supposed to use the metrics of </p><p>1. Cost </p><p>2. Schedule </p><p>3. Performance</p><p>In determining program structure and implementation.&nbsp; Any PM worth his weight in salt should balance program objectives against these criteria before the first dollar is spent.&nbsp; When developing a program plan the first consideration is always cost (except in areas of real national security threats e.g. war) second is schedule and believe it or no the last one to be considered is performance.&nbsp; There are always tradeoffs during the initial phases of any acquisition program for major systems,&nbsp; you simply can't have&nbsp;everything you wan't whenever you want it.&nbsp; If management can't manage the expectations of the&nbsp;people writing the requirements and develop program schedules and specifications that can be implemented within the given budget then they should be fired and&nbsp;replaced by people who can.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not sure which thread to put this in, but there's an article by Alan Stern in today's New York Times sharply criticizing&nbsp;NASA and its financial handling of projects, especially pointing fingers at MSL.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/opinion/24stern.html?ref=opinion <br />Posted by halcyondays</DIV></p><p><strong>Maybe Nasa is setting up a black budget (It sure doesn't get much from the Fed. budget) to support black projects.&nbsp;<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-surprised.gif" border="0" alt="Surprised" title="Surprised" /> I say, &nbsp;good for them.&nbsp;<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" />&nbsp; </strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[halcyondays]

<p>I suppose NASA received 4% only because there was an expressly urgent focus towards landing men on the moon, which was perceived as a matter of national prestige and even national security.&nbsp; Absent those motivations, you can't maintain the momentum.&nbsp; I too can only dream of what may be possible if NASA could get a share of the $700bn bailout money or even move up to 2%, never mind 4%.&nbsp; It's not going to happen, probably never was in the good times, and certainly not now.&nbsp; The priority of the new Administration and Congress will be extricating the country from the financial disaster and then secondarily from a couple of wars, then perhaps things like health care, infrastructure, couunter-terrorism etc........&nbsp; </p><p>We space science enthusiasts will just have to get used to being low priority.&nbsp; Space, it seems to me, right now has little emotional or intellectual&nbsp;pull on the US legistlative leadership and on the nation as a whole, which partly reflects, of course, almost zero interest in science projects in the media, in schools and among most 'ordinary' people.&nbsp; That may have an upside, in the sense that NASA can just get on and do what it does do best for the time being, relatively undisturbed, and without being seen as a major consumer of hard-needed money.&nbsp; Still, those of us of a certain age will have to get used to the fact that we shall be unlikely to live to see an effort of the same intensity as Apollo in the 1960s.&nbsp; The only thing that could upset this&nbsp;might perhaps&nbsp;be discovery of life on Mars, an asteroid heading towards the Earth&nbsp;or maybe the Chinese landing men on the moon.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I suppose NASA received 4% only because there was an expressly urgent focus towards landing men on the moon, which was perceived as a matter of national prestige and even national security.&nbsp; Absent those motivations, you can't maintain the momentum.</DIV></p><p>It's a pity too.&nbsp; IMO revisitng the moon is *NOT*a matter of national security, whereas our continued exploration of space *is* in fact a matter of national security.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I too can only dream of what may be possible if NASA could get a share of the $700bn bailout money or even move up to 2%, never mind 4%.&nbsp; It's not going to happen, probably never was in the good times, and certainly not now.&nbsp; The priority of the new Administration and Congress will be extricating the country from the financial disaster and then secondarily from a couple of wars, then perhaps things like health care, infrastructure, couunter-terrorism etc.......</DIV></p><p>Exactly.&nbsp; It will be hard to "fault them" for that attitude as well.&nbsp; I think NASA will be lucky to hang onto their current funding levels in these economic conditions.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> We space science enthusiasts will just have to get used to being low priority.&nbsp; Space, it seems to me, right now has little emotional or intellectual&nbsp;pull on the US legistlative leadership and on the nation as a whole, which partly reflects, of course, almost zero interest in science projects in the media, in schools and among most 'ordinary' people.&nbsp; That may have an upside, in the sense that NASA can just get on and do what it does do best for the time being, relatively undisturbed, and without being seen as a major consumer of hard-needed money.&nbsp; Still, those of us of a certain age will have to get used to the fact that we shall be unlikely to live to see an effort of the same intensity as Apollo in the 1960s.&nbsp; The only thing that could upset this&nbsp;might perhaps&nbsp;be discovery of life on Mars, an asteroid heading towards the Earth&nbsp;or maybe the Chinese landing men on the moon.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br /> Posted by halcyondays</DIV></p><p>I would not be so sure about that.&nbsp; In the current economic scenario, I think you're right, it's not going to be likely that NASA will see a significant increase in it's funding, or that it will be given any new "mandates" by the next (few) administrations.</p><p>I think however that we will live to see a surge of exploration that comes not from govermental funding, but from the private sectorl . I've been amazed at the technological progress I've seen since the 60's.&nbsp;&nbsp; It won't be long now before the private sector starts filling in a lot of the 'gaps' that public sector funding might otherwise need to fill, albeit slowly and deliberately. &nbsp; I also believe that EM propulsion systems will eventually make space travel fairly commonplace. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

I think we are getting a little bit off topic here.&nbsp; And yes I am one of the guilty parties ;O) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes.&nbsp; It's called leadership.&nbsp; Programs are supposed to use the metrics of 1. Cost 2. Schedule 3. PerformanceIn determining program structure and implementation.&nbsp; Any PM worth his weight in salt should balance program objectives against these criteria before the first dollar is spent.&nbsp; When developing a program plan the first consideration is always cost (except in areas of real national security threats e.g. war) second is schedule and believe it or no the last one to be considered is performance.&nbsp; There are always tradeoffs during the initial phases of any acquisition program for major systems,&nbsp; you simply can't have&nbsp;everything you wan't whenever you want it.&nbsp; If management can't manage the expectations of the&nbsp;people writing the requirements and develop program schedules and specifications that can be implemented within the given budget then they should be fired and&nbsp;replaced by people who can.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>In the first place I take it you have little experience on the space side of aerospace?</p><p>In these kinds of projects, performance, and especially reliability, are EVERYTHING!&nbsp;</p><p>And I don't need my considerable aerospace experience and studies to tell me this, just a little common sense will do just fine! </p><p>If you have an object on a planet such as Mars that is some 100 million miles from the Earth, and something goes wrong that the people back here can't do anything about (which is at least 50% of the time when something does go wrong), then your project could have been under budget and on time, and it still would not amount to a hill of beans, because your entire project is now a total failure! </p><p>NASA tried that "Faster, Better, Cheaper" mantra on science projects sometime ago, and it tuned out to sometimes make the faster, and cheaper thing, but it was an unmitigated failure as to better.&nbsp; The most famous example being the case where somebody forgot to check that the metric system is not always equal to the English system of measurement units!</p><p>This is not to say that a certain amount of cost and schedule can't be at least somewhat factored into performance and reliability, because they can be.&nbsp; But is is a whole lot harder than such industries as house building projects where the knowledge has been around for years how to do a certain thing.&nbsp;</p><p>These projects are even long term enough in some cases that entire new instruments then become available for far better data by the time such instruments are to be placed on the spacecraft itself.&nbsp; Should we then settle for less data just to keep the costs down?&nbsp; I can guarantee you that project scientists are going to want the best data available!</p><p>The only off the shelf item that is used by NASA on an on going basis is the fantastically reliable Delta II launch system.&nbsp; After all, if you do not even get the package to LEO because of a launch failure, then where has all your project money gone to? </p><p>In order for project data to be easily useful it usually must have a large repeat value along with a great deal of precedence.&nbsp; Unfortunately, as I originally pointed out not only are most of NASA's science projects a one of a kind type of thing, but there is really very little (although it IS steadily growing) knowledge ahead of time for what you are even trying to accomplish.</p><p>Another example, is the Falcon I spacex thing.&nbsp; Even somebody with as much at stake in this as Elon Musk himself had to admit, (and it was much to his credit that he had the courage to admit it in the first place) that it was a whole lot harder than he originally thought it was going to be to get a successful launch off the pad!!</p><p>Now all he has to do is to repeat that success a good number of times to establish a true reliability record. </p><p>NASA not only has to do that sort of thing, but then has the far greater complication of placing the spacecraft some hundred(s) of million miles away (so far in most instances that the actual time lag for information is at least ten minutes or more long!).&nbsp; The truly amazing thing to me is that they have done it as well and often as they have. &nbsp;</p><p>NASA's over all budget is so tiny not only in comparison to the actual federal budget, but even more in comparison to what we have learned about our solar system and universe in return!&nbsp; To say nothing of the literally $trillions of dollars worth of technology that has changed our very way of life since NASA was originally started!</p><p>Sometimes I seem to lose all hope of ever getting this simple message through to people even here.&nbsp; NASA is NOT an EXPENSE of the federal government, it IS an INVESTMENT, in both the future of this country, and even of all mankind in the long run! </p><p>If you can't see that then why do you even bother to post on a site with the name space.com?&nbsp;</p><p>Well, perhaps I am a little bit sorry for the rant, but this is something that I have been fighting ever since I started in aerospace (and I have now been retired since the year 2000), in 1962,as a nineteem year old just cutting the machined sharp burrs off of rocket engine parts at Rocketdyne, right when we were going to actually put men on the moon!&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>And sometimes I do get tired of the fight, especially here! </p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In the first place I take it you have little experience on the space side of aerospace?In these kinds of projects, performance, and especially reliability, are EVERYTHING!&nbsp;And I don't need my considerable aerospace experience and studies to tell me this, just a little common sense will do just fine! If you have an object on a planet such as Mars that is some 100 million miles from the Earth, and something goes wrong that the people back here can't do anything about (which is at least 50% of the time when something does go wrong), then your project could have been under budget and on time, and it still would not amount to a hill of beans, because your entire project is now a total failure! NASA tried that "Faster, Better, Cheaper" mantra on science projects sometime ago, and it tuned out to sometimes make the faster, and cheaper thing, but it was an unmitigated failure as to better.&nbsp; The most famous example being the case where somebody forgot to check that the metric system is not always equal to the English system of measurement units!This is not to say that a certain amount of cost and schedule can't be at least somewhat factored into performance and reliability, because they can be.&nbsp; But is is a whole lot harder than such industries as house building projects where the knowledge has been around for years how to do a certain thing.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;And I will take it that you have little or no experience in program management.&nbsp; Because systems performance and reliability are part of the specifications&nbsp;which are generated as part of the requirements process.&nbsp; Once the requirements are determined and the specifications are set, cost and schedule are established based on the agreed criteria and should be fairly accurate if the PM has done his job.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;These projects are even long term enough in some cases that entire new instruments then become available for far better data by the time such instruments are to be placed on the spacecraft itself.&nbsp; Should we then settle for less data just to keep the costs down?&nbsp; I can guarantee you that project scientists are going to want the best data available!</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;In program management this is what's known as requirements creep and it is one of the main reasons for program cost overuns.&nbsp; The scientists who generate the requirements are the last people who should have any say in changing the specifications once the program is underway because they always want more and the budget is always their last concern.&nbsp; That is why there are program managers.&nbsp; The PM should not be accepting new requirements in the middle of a program unless there is an overwhelming need to do so and only if the requirements generators are willing to provide the funds beforehand to implement them.&nbsp; It is much better to develop an iterative design philosophy and defer new specs for the next generation of systems.&nbsp; The money you save will pay for another mission with greater capability, because it is really expensive to throw away a lot of the work that has already been done and start over.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only off the shelf item that is used by NASA on an on going basis is the fantastically reliable Delta II launch system.&nbsp; After all, if you do not even get the package to LEO because of a launch failure, then where has all your project money gone to? In order for project data to be easily useful it usually must have a large repeat value along with a great deal of precedence.&nbsp; Unfortunately, as I originally pointed out not only are most of NASA's science projects a one of a kind type of thing, but there is really very little (although it IS steadily growing) knowledge ahead of time for what you are even trying to accomplish.</DIV> </p><p>One off constructions are the hardest programs to manage.&nbsp; I have had several under my perview but have&nbsp;managed to bring all of them in on schedule and within budget while still meeting all of the reqs and specs, so&nbsp;I know it can be done on a regular basis.&nbsp;&nbsp;And I will re-iterate that reliability is determined early on by the folks who generate the requirements.&nbsp; The&nbsp;PMs role in that process is to determine whether it is feasible and more&nbsp;cost effective to accept higher risks or pay&nbsp;for the cost of that reliabilty i.e. perfect reliability = infinite cost, so it is a balance based on the value&nbsp;of what could be lost in the event of catastophic failure.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Another example, is the Falcon I spacex thing.&nbsp; Even somebody with as much at stake in this as Elon Musk himself had to admit, (and it was much to his credit that he had the courage to admit it in the first place) that it was a whole lot harder than he originally thought it was going to be to get a successful launch off the pad!!Now all he has to do is to repeat that success a good number of times to establish a true reliability record.</DIV></p><p>My guess is that Mr. Musk had very little PM experience in this area when he started so that does not surprise&nbsp;me at all.&nbsp; To his credit as an exec he went out and found people who did and looks to be well on his way to success because of it.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp;NASA's over all budget is so tiny</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Which is why good program management is so important.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;not only in comparison to the actual federal budget, but even more in comparison to what we have learned about our solar system and universe in return!&nbsp; To say nothing of the literally $trillions of dollars worth of technology that has changed our very way of life since NASA was originally started!Sometimes I seem to lose all hope of ever getting this simple message through to people even here.&nbsp; NASA is NOT an EXPENSE of the federal government, it IS an INVESTMENT, in both the future of this country, and even of all mankind in the long run! If you can't see that then why do you even bother to post on a site with the name space.com?&nbsp;Well, perhaps I am a little bit sorry for the rant, but this is something that I have been fighting ever since I started in aerospace (and I have now been retired since the year 2000), in 1962,as a nineteem year old just cutting the machined sharp burrs off of rocket engine parts at Rocketdyne, right when we were going to actually put men on the moon!&nbsp;&nbsp; And sometimes I do get tired of the fight, especially here! &nbsp; <br />Posted by frodo1008</DIV><br /><br />You are preaching to the choir when it comes to "investing in our future". &nbsp;I don't know what I said to make you believe that I think we are wasting money when it comes to space and the associated sciences that go with it.&nbsp;I am merely arguing for better management of the resources we have.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[vulture4]

Regarding dissenting opinions, NASA seems to take safety concerns fairly seriously nowadays. But those who question strategic direction or programmatic decisions are not well received. As an example, when the X-34 program was canceled, X-prize winner (and builder of the X-34 airframes) Burt Rutan publicly offered to fly the X-34 prototypes at his own expense. NASA turned him down, apparently preferring to let the prototypes, built at considerable taxpayer expense, remain useless rather than take the chance that they might actually fly and perhaps cast doubt on the decision to cancel the program. If I'm wrong on this, by all means please correct me.

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;And I will take it that you have little or no experience in program management.&nbsp; Because systems performance and reliability are part of the specifications&nbsp;which are generated as part of the requirements process.&nbsp; Once the requirements are determined and the specifications are set, cost and schedule are established based on the agreed criteria and should be fairly accurate if the PM has done his job.&nbsp;In program management this is what's known as requirements creep and it is one of the main reasons for program cost overuns.&nbsp; The scientists who generate the requirements are the last people who should have any say in changing the specifications once the program is underway because they always want more and the budget is always their last concern.&nbsp; That is why there are program managers.&nbsp; The PM should not be accepting new requirements in the middle of a program unless there is an overwhelming need to do so and only if the requirements generators are willing to provide the funds beforehand to implement them.&nbsp; It is much better to develop an iterative design philosophy and defer new specs for the next generation of systems.&nbsp; The money you save will pay for another mission with greater capability, because it is really expensive to throw away a lot of the work that has already been done and start over. One off constructions are the hardest programs to manage.&nbsp; I have had several under my perview but have&nbsp;managed to bring all of them in on schedule and within budget while still meeting all of the reqs and specs, so&nbsp;I know it can be done on a regular basis.&nbsp;&nbsp;And I will re-iterate that reliability is determined early on by the folks who generate the requirements.&nbsp; The&nbsp;PMs role in that process is to determine whether it is feasible and more&nbsp;cost effective to accept higher risks or pay&nbsp;for the cost of that reliabilty i.e. perfect reliability = infinite cost, so it is a balance based on the value&nbsp;of what could be lost in the event of catastophic failure.&nbsp;My guess is that Mr. Musk had very little PM experience in this area when he started so that does not surprise&nbsp;me at all.&nbsp; To his credit as an exec he went out and found people who did and looks to be well on his way to success because of it.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Which is why good program management is so important.You are preaching to the choir when it comes to "investing in our future". &nbsp;I don't know what I said to make you believe that I think we are wasting money when it comes to space and the associated sciences that go with it.&nbsp;I am merely arguing for better management of the resources we have. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>A much less belligerent post, for which I compliment you!</p><p>You are also now getting down to the nitty gritty of the situation, and I think I misunderstood you there. For that I apologise.&nbsp; When you placed performance last (which would include safety and reliability, which is the area where I spent most of my career in) I had thought that you were talking over all project management.&nbsp; I was wrong in that you really meant your list for after all of the other more important considerations had already been taken care of in the original spec, which any project manager MUST follow, or he is taking on a responsibility that he should NOT be taking on!</p><p>Please note that I did state that indeed both schedule and cost should be factored in even at this earlier stage.&nbsp; It is an unfortunate but understandable situation where the original costs and schedules for any large project are sometimes not what they sould be, with any errors usually being in the lower costs and time frames so the original project can be more easily sold to those that truly hold the money for the project in the first place!</p><p>This is not a fault just of NASA's but of almost any large project (and as an experienced PM I am certain that you are aware of this).&nbsp; Heck, we boht know that the military is even more prone to this kind of thing in large weapons systems that NASA is, if for no other reason than some large weapon systems are more expensive that NASA's entire budget for a year is!</p><p>I am more than happy to admit that if you have an actual solution to this particular problem, then you are indeed a better man than I am!</p><p>Once again, sorry about my misunderstanding in what it was the you were actually posting, and thanks for your post that then clarified it!!</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A much less belligerent post, for which I compliment you!You are also now getting down to the nitty gritty of the situation, and I think I misunderstood you there. For that I apologise.&nbsp; When you placed performance last (which would include safety and reliability, which is the area where I spent most of my career in) I had thought that you were talking over all project management.&nbsp; I was wrong in that you really meant your list for after all of the other more important considerations had already been taken care of in the original spec, which any project manager MUST follow, or he is taking on a responsibility that he should NOT be taking on!Please note that I did state that indeed both schedule and cost should be factored in even at this earlier stage.&nbsp; It is an unfortunate but understandable situation where the original costs and schedules for any large project are sometimes not what they sould be, with any errors usually being in the lower costs and time frames so the original project can be more easily sold to those that truly hold the money for the project in the first place!This is not a fault just of NASA's but of almost any large project (and as an experienced PM I am certain that you are aware of this).&nbsp; Heck, we boht know that the military is even more prone to this kind of thing in large weapons systems that NASA is, if for no other reason than some large weapon systems are more expensive that NASA's entire budget for a year is!I am more than happy to admit that if you have an actual solution to this particular problem, then you are indeed a better man than I am!Once again, sorry about my misunderstanding in what it was the you were actually posting, and thanks for your post that then clarified it!!&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by frodo1008</DIV></p><p>Frodo,</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;No apologies necessary.&nbsp; This is a debate and debates can get heated, I almost never take this stuff personally.&nbsp; It is also never my intention to be belligerent. Maybe I need to spend&nbsp;more time reviewing the tone of my posts to ensure I am communicating in the manner&nbsp;I intend.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Frodo,&nbsp;&nbsp;No apologies necessary.&nbsp; This is a debate and debates can get heated, I almost never take this stuff personally.&nbsp; It is also never my intention to be belligerent. Maybe I need to spend&nbsp;more time reviewing the tone of my posts to ensure I am communicating in the manner&nbsp;I intend.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>No problem.&nbsp; I do realize that we are bsically on the same side here, and I would be quite happy to admonish NASA to spend its very limited budget as wisely as possible. </p><p>I am even somewhat critical of the Ares I big stick rocket system, but I think that is being debated on at least one other thread anyway.</p><p>I do wish you and any of your projects all the best! </p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes.&nbsp; It's called leadership.&nbsp; Programs are supposed to use the metrics of 1. Cost 2. Schedule 3. PerformanceIn determining program structure and implementation.&nbsp; Any PM worth his weight in salt should balance program objectives against these criteria before the first dollar is spent.&nbsp; When developing a program plan the first consideration is always cost (except in areas of real national security threats e.g. war) second is schedule and believe it or no the last one to be considered is performance.&nbsp; There are always tradeoffs during the initial phases of any acquisition program for major systems,&nbsp; you simply can't have&nbsp;everything you wan't whenever you want it.&nbsp; If management can't manage the expectations of the&nbsp;people writing the requirements and develop program schedules and specifications that can be implemented within the given budget then they should be fired and&nbsp;replaced by people who can.&nbsp; <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>I will reply to this post because it&nbsp;clearly and succintly presents your position.&nbsp; But having read the later posts, I will make it clear that I do have quite a bit of experience in aerospace and defense development program plans including having been a senior program manager, and having had program managers as well as technical people&nbsp;report to me.</p><p>Cost, schedule and performance are ALL parameters for which the program manager is responsible.&nbsp; The responsibility for performance, as well as cost and schedule remains a responsibiity and a challenge even after the specificatios have been set.&nbsp; The fact that specifications have been set does not imply that they can be met within budget and on schedule, that is the reason that they are specifications and not blueprints.</p><p>Development programs are just that, development programs and they carry with them a degree of uncertainty.&nbsp; Technical specifications are not set in concrete, nor are cost and schedule constraints.&nbsp; That is why risk management is also a major concern of the program manager.&nbsp; Risk management serves to keep a balance among cost, schedule and technical concerns, which are often in conflict.&nbsp; Good program managers keep a budget reserve to handle unknown events of a reasonably anticipated magnitude, as well as some slack in the schedule, when possible.&nbsp; They also seek to manage risk through allocation of technical performance requirements among subsystems.&nbsp; But this balance does not guarantee success, and the history of engineering has shown that in the development and construction of large-scale projects representing new technologies or even just a broad used of many disciplines and technologies that cost overruns and schedule slippages are the norm.&nbsp; Cost alone cannot be the driver for program decisions.&nbsp; A "cheap" system that fails to meet minimum performance requirements and therefore cannot perform the required function is not cheap at all -- it is a complete waste of money.</p><p>The notion that people who are not meeting conflicting and potentially impossible sets of cost, schedule and performance requirements should be summarily fired and replaced with "people who can" is a recipe for turmoil and disaster in technically driven aerospace projects.&nbsp; It might work in the army, where what is needed is application of sufficient resources and known methods to achieve a simply-stated goal, but in aerospace it is called BAD MANAGEMENT&nbsp; or throwing out the baby with the bath water.&nbsp; Replacements of that sort should be taken only after a good deal of soul-searching because the original program management team was selected on the basis of experience and knowledge and experienced and knowledgeable program managers do not grow on trees.</p><p>Schedule is the prime driver of cost.&nbsp; If you want to reduce costs, work faster.&nbsp; So sacrificing schedule in the name of cost is generally a loser.&nbsp; </p><p>So bottom line:&nbsp; Cost, schedule and performance are ALL requirements for the program manager.&nbsp; They must be balanced, and when in conflict the resolution depends on the particular program and the particular issues at hand.&nbsp; Cost is not always the primary driver, and when and if it is found to be the primary driver without further qualification it is time to bring in investigators and look for misbehavior and fraud.&nbsp; A corollary is that schedule does not always take precedence over performance either.&nbsp; In fact any a priori statement that one or another of the three metrics for a program is more important than the other three is a clear indication that the person making that statement is not a good candidate for a program manager.&nbsp; He doesn't understand the problem.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I will make it clear that I do have quite a bit of experience in aerospace and defense development program plans including having been a senior program manager, and having had program managers as well as technical people&nbsp;report to me.Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />I always wondered why we have not made more progress on space programs over the years.&nbsp; Now I have an idea why. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But is Mr. Hale part of the rank and file we are talking about?And if this is true why are there reports that many of the people participating in the Direct 2.0 effort doing so in secret?http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/15/the-other-moon-rocket-some-nasa-engineers-believe-is-better-than-ares/ <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>Wayne Hale was head honcho on the Shuttle PRogram until recently, when he was transferred to a different project more oriented towards the future.&nbsp; He's got an awesome blog.&nbsp; If you haven't read it, I highly recommend doing so.</p><p>Wayne Hale's Blog</p> <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>