Griffin: NASA needs to do less

[radarredux]

SpaceRef.com has the transcript for a recent speech by Michael Griffin. As usual, I enoy hear/reading his views, and I have selected a few interesting points to hightlight that touch on common themes in these discussion boards. Here is the link to the full transcript:<br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=23012<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NASA as an institution should stop doing those things which have grown up within the agency during less focused times, things that do not directly contribute to our mission. This is not an approach to doing more with less; we simply need to do less. We need to eliminate activities which are less important, in favor of those which are more important.<br />...<br />We must understand that when we pose questions to contractors, we will get answers – but at a cost. Thus, we need to be judicious in our requests for information and contract deliverables.<br />...<br />NASA managers should, to the extent possible, specify performance requirements and let industry teams propose how to meet those requirements.<br />...<br />While I consider myself a proponent of commercial space endeavors, many other proponents tend to gloss over the difficulties of systems engineering and program management of complex systems in favor of ideological ideals as to how government should act more like commercial enterprise. I am concerned that those proponents have not considered either the technical or public policy issues along with the business case behind many of their assertions.<br />...<br />The energy which must be harnessed to launch SpaceShipOne to suborbital heights is about 2% of what is needed to get into low-Earth orbit<br />...<br />I will observe that government can behave with the speed and efficiency of the best entrepreneurs our country has nurtured. ...(lots of example)... But such efforts require conveying a degree of au</p></blockquote>

 

[john_316]

That post by Griffin is where I got my idea of transferring certain NASA projects over to other government agencies such as NOAA. Not to say they are any less important but to augment other agencies that would or could do a better job in that field.<br /><br />For example: Say you do marine sciences and you are employed by NASA wouldn't it make more sense to switch that over to NOAA?<br /><br />Perhaps even talking to congress to allow other government agencies to fund certain projects through a science department. <br /><br />I guess what I am trying to say is create a science institute that isn't in NASA any longer but at the same time be able to have NASA provide services for them. <br /><br />Perhaps a National Space Sciences Institute that can be separate from NASA and possibly have congress allow the charter of said institute be able to accept grants from persons, universities, and business's outside government and some academia as well to fund new and unique experiments but with some government oversight.<br /><br />That might be able to help further funding things NASA cannot fund while it keeps engineering fields its primary course.<br /><br />I still would allow the NSSI to fly astronauts however on all missions dealing with sciences. I guess this is going to pre-starfleet things isn't it. This would also allow the NSSI to work better with universities and contract those services out that they need as well. <br /><br /><br />I know its like making bigger government but you need to increase the size of government proportionately that of the private sector. If the population goes up 10% so government needs to increase at least 1/10% to help with the demands of private sector.<br /><br /><br />We just need a overhaul.................. Everywhere not just in NASA....<br /><br /><br />

 

[ldyaidan]

I agree. NASA has done a lot, but can't continue to do everything. It is way past time for the public, private companies, and organizations to step in and start taking over a lot of the functions. NASA doesn't have the budget, the time, or the ability to do it all. And they shouldn't have to. <br /><br />Rae

 

[halman]

RadarRedux,<br /><br />The National Aeronautics and Space Administration needs to divide into the National Aeronautics Research Agency and the Off Planet Exploration Administration. Off planet activities are mixed in with all kinds of aeronautical and atmospheric research, which are going on all over the country. The total budget of NASA is often quoted as the amount that is being spent on space exploration, whereas only about half is actually being spent on space. Having a separate agency handle all of the off planet activities demonstrates the importance of those activities, to Congress, and to the public.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

I think the problem is organizations like NOAA don't have the resources to maintain a team for building satelites such as the one that NASA has.<br /><br />It would probably be better if, when NOAA wants a satelite, they transfer funds from their budget to NASA's budget to pay for the whole endevour, from design, fabrication to launch and maintenence. If a private company can do it cheaper, then they can go with that. This way NASA can do such missions, but won't have to pay for them.

 

[holmec]

Right.<br /><br />I thought that NASA will eventually be the lead in 'how to' and experiments and exploration. And encourage and oversee the companies that do the launches. In other words let commerce take over launches and space infrastructure and then NASA can buy services to do exploration. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

Think of it. NASA without the first 'A' becomes NSA, or the National Space Administration. Not to be confused with the secret signal-intelligence spooks NSA, the National Security Agency.

 

[holmec]

"Does anyone want my job?" Mr. Webb, NASA HQ, DC 1961.<br /><br />I don't envy Griffin. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />He's between a rock, a hard spot, congress, mission, budget.....etc.<br /><br />What a great time for NASA! The pressure builds and sparks will fly but its all exciting since government and commerce are figuring out roles in a new manned space era. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I think the problem is organizations like NOAA don't have the resources to maintain a team for building satelites such as the one that NASA has.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Team Boeing?

 

[rocketman5000]

why should NOAA need a team to build satelittes, they don't build the planes they fly into Hurricanes do they? No they buy planes that fit their mission requirements. The same could be done with satelittes. Out sourcing is a good thing at times. If it costs more in overhead to do something in house than it would to go to a contractor you should be using the contractor.

 

[halman]

kpsting,<br /><br />The Off Planet Exploration Administration, or OPEA, would be responsible for all manned space exploration, robot probes to other planets, as well as comets, the Sun, and asteroids. It would not be responsible for Earth imaging satellites, communications satellites, weather satellites, or other space-based applications used for Earth sciences. It would not be responsible for pollution studies, volcano studies, or other Earth based studies of the Earth.<br /><br />Purely and simply, the OPEA, would deal with all forms of exploration off of planet Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[Testing]

NOAA buys sat's from Lockheed <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

It's irrelevant who builds them. My point (which could have been more clearly made) is that it's a commercial provider and not NASA.<br /><br />Infact, I can't quite think of a single example of any hardware that NASA (and later NOAA, NIST and the DOE when NASA is broken up in 2009) couldn't outsource to a more competent provider.