Planetary Radio: Space Exploration, Astronomy and Science - Space Policy Edition: NASA at a Crossroads

Episode Date: November 1, 2024

Norm Augustine, the distinguished aerospace industry veteran behind numerous influential studies, joins the show to discuss “NASA at a Crossroads,” the new report that raises alarm bells for NASA���s workforce, infrastructure, and technology capabilities. Augustine, who chaired an expert committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, came to the conclusion that NASA is on an unsustainable path, and has underinvested in its enabling workforce and physical infrastructure for decades.  The solutions put forth by this report committee will require years of effort from NASA, Congress, and subsequent presidential administrations. Which path NASA decides to take, however, may not be known for years to come. Discover more at: https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/spe-nasa-at-a-crossroadsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hello and welcome to the Space Policy edition of Planetary Radio, the monthly show where we explore the politics and processes behind space exploration. I'm Casey Dreyer, the Chief of Space Policy here at the Planetary Society. In 2022, buried within the tens of thousands of lines of legislative text that comprise the CHIPS and SCIENCE Act was a request from Congress that the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and Medicine establish an independent committee tasked with evaluating the state of NASA's core capabilities, its workforce, its infrastructure, and its ability to develop technology.

The committee that ultimately came to be encompassed a broad swath of expertise in the space community, including space scientists, engineers, senior managers, space policy experts, and even veterans of the commercial space industry, including, senior managers, space policy experts, and even veterans of the commercial space industry, including some from SpaceX. This committee of 13 people spent nearly two years

visiting NASA facilities throughout the country, interviewed hundreds of staff and contractors, including NASA's most senior leadership. What they found was disturbing, the essence of which is captured in the title of the report that came out of their evaluation, NASA at a Crossroads. This report, which I think is one of the most important reports to come out from the National Academies in recent years, made seven core findings about what they saw and then eight major recommendations for how the space agency and Congress and all of its supporters can

help fix it. The key though, I think, is this. The report committee found that for decades NASA has under-invested in itself. It has under-invested in maintaining its infrastructure, which is unique. It has under-invested in its workforce, which is under incredible competition, not just from commercial space companies, but from the growing tech industry that wants to siphon off some of NASA's most capable and successful and talented individuals to work in similarly hard problems, but with a lot more money. Additionally, the space agency itself has become more bureaucratic and concentrated

of decision making at NASA headquarters, it has gone somewhat adrift and lacks an executable, long-term strategy necessary to help prioritize limited resources in the present. And of course, it found that NASA is underfunded and has been underfunded for decades. These are all big problems. And I'm not gonna lie.

But these are fixable problems. And the first step, of course, to fixing a problem is to recognize that it's there. They recommend, ultimately, that the agency begin to better invest in itself and even, and this is, I think, the most difficult choice, if it requires reducing the number of new missions that it takes on.

That is a big ask for a space agency that likes to do things and for a public that frankly expects an agency to do things. The chair of this committee knows what he's talking about though. His name is Norm Augustine and he's probably the most one of the most storied and influential members of the space community having worked in both government and corporate capacities in aerospace since 1958. Most notably he was the chairman and CEO of the Lockheed Martin Corporation and since his retirement in the late 1990s he has led a number of very influential studies including the 2009 Blue Ribbon review of the United States Human Spaceflight Plans Committee for President Obama at

the time which led to the end of the Constellation Program, NASA's first effort to return to the moon in the 21st century and help set the direction of spaceflight policy under the Obama administration. I am very excited that Norm Augustine can join us today to talk about the conclusions of this report and to talk about how NASA and Congress and the next administration can begin to address some of these. You will hear us talk a lot about the findings and some of the key aspects that he discovered and his committee discovered upon doing this work.

And really emphasizing again that NASA just has not had the resources it needs. And assuming that may not change how you can redirect and focus the resources that it does have to make the agency work better. assuming that may not change how you can redirect and focus the resources that it does have to make the agency work better. There is one aspect of this report though that I find really interesting and I think probably underappreciated and maybe the hardest thing to internalize because it goes against the inertia, excitement, opportunity that we're seeing with the embrace of commercial space partnerships at NASA.

The finding is essentially that NASA has begun to depend too much on these commercial services contracting not just for mature technologies and capabilities like sending cargo to the space station, but for early technology development projects like landing humans on the moon. Now, obviously, we have seen incredible success with some of these companies. We have seen incredible cost savings, and we have seen the birth of a dynamic and bold and capable new commercial space economy and ecosystem, particularly in the United States, but triggering such similar investments around the world. And the report and norm you will hear makes an effort to say not all of these are bad,

but that NASA needs to be judicious about how and where it outsources its most basic technology development. Because, and this is the key subtlety that I think is so interesting, in the effort to reduce its risk of cost overruns by going to these public-private partnerships, NASA actually adds a ton of other types of risk that are more fundamental, maybe harder to quantify initially, but ultimately

I think far more consequential to the direction of the agency. In this particular case, the committee found that by moving to these commercial services contracts, they're turning NASA from an agency that does things into an agency that just oversees the application of money to other companies, to other places that do do things. That changes the tenor and it changes the soul in a sense of an organization. And that is the worry for this committee that it ultimately undermines the capabilities of the workforce, the in-house expertise, the unique knowledge set carried by a public space agency with its own workforce of engineers and scientists and technicians.

Now whether or not you think this is a good or bad thing, I think this is something that no one has really openly talked about in terms of the decision process that NASA goes through in deciding whether to give a commercial contract or do something in-house. And obviously, many of the big projects NASA has done in-house recently have not gone well. And so there's no real motivating alternative to really keep things in-house, but maybe thinking about it in terms of, are we investing in the space agency writ large in a long-term way helps offset maybe the cost or increased cost of doing it internally rather than externally. These types of questions about what kind of space agency we want, what kind of capabilities

we want in a public space agency versus in a commercial private sector, I think are going to be some of the most important questions we face as a nation in the next administration space policy and subsequently for the next maybe the next 10 years. This report that Norm Augustine led addresses that and again some of these other real fundamental capabilities and problems facing our space agency that again are fixable but will take leadership, commitment and effort not just by advocates but by NASA itself, the administration and the next Congress. I hope that you enjoy this next conversation. Again it's very

fascinating and I'm delighted to welcome Norm Augustine to the Space Policy Edition. Norm Augustine, welcome to the Space Policy Edition. I'm delighted to have you here. Well, thanks, Casey. It's good to be here. It's a topic of interest to me. And me too, as I was saying earlier, this report, NASA at a Crossroads,

I found to be just very well-timed, first of all, but also putting real analysis and numbers and thought into trends I feel that a lot of us have been witnessing in NASA's performance and struggles in the last few years. So it's I think one of the most important reports that we've had in a while and I very much hope that it gets the consideration and course correction that you recommend in it. Before we talk about those though, let's talk about what you found. So you led a and I very much hope that it gets the consideration and course correction that you recommended it. Before we talk about those though,

let's talk about what you found. So you led a committee from the National Academies to study a series of issues around workforce infrastructure and performance at NASA. And I wanna first talk about the title, which I think is quite provocative. What are the crossroads that NASA is standing at right now? What are the potential pathways

that the agency is flirting with? Okay, Casey, I'm happy to talk about that. If I might just preface it a little bit, I'm going to be describing another quote that was put together by 13 people, of which I was only one. And this is a group of people with very broad backgrounds, some that worked for NASA, some

from industry, some from academia, one astronaut and so on down the line. Among ourselves, we have over 500 years of experience, personal years of experience in the aerospace industry, which I guess tells you something about our age too, but I'll let that go. We did a very extensive study. We visited all nine NASA sites, centers, and plus the federally funded, we say FFI DC, federally funded Research and Development Center. So we talked to over 400 NASA employers, we held over 25 meetings just among ourselves. So we got a pretty good look at NASA. And the

basic message that came out, but I don't know that it would have been one that we expected to permeate each of the areas when you were asked to investigate. Well, I sure said that the committee was set up at the request of the Congress in the Chips and Science Act and the FY22 Appropriations Act. And the Congress asked us to look at three areas, infrastructure, personnel and human resources, if you will, and technology. And our work statement added a fourth area, which we called systemics, where those things are cut across those first three areas or outside influences on those three areas. And so to answer your question, the thing that really stood out to us was all four of

those areas led us to the same issue that was the dominant issue, the lots of little issues obviously in the organization size of NASA. But those are common threads. The common thread was, it's one that has been around for a long time. It is that NASA had almost every year for decades had one program that had money. It was trying to do more than it could do. And that leads to a question of, well, how has it done all the great things it's done in the last couple of decades if it didn't have enough money to do it? And the conclusion, no, we

rely on that. It's not unique to NASA. It's true of industry, certainly, and some universities, probably more industry. The issue is that if you don't have enough money to do what you want to do in the near term, one thing you could do is don't invest in the long term. And I'm afraid, or I shouldn't say I am on committee, is find that NASA's been guilty of that, and the Congress has, the nation has. But when decisions were made as to pursuing a given near-term program or to not maintain the infrastructure of NASA, the decision generally went and say, well, let's do the near-term

program. And of course, I've been seeing great successes there. But meanwhile, and if you'd like, I can walk through the Air Force areas and give you examples of what's happened in the business world. And while I've spent a good deal of my time, the answer has generally been a case of going out of business strategy. And to put it bluntly, NASA's ought to going out of business strategy. And to your very root question, which was the title of the report, NASA is at a crossroads. We considered more dramatic words even, but decided we would avoid that. But NASA is at a point, you can only do this for so long until it actually catches up with

you. And NASA is getting off the coast to the point where it's going to catch up with it in the view of our committee. And I should also say that this was a consensus report. And it goes even further than that and tells you the words in the report itself, the 200 pages, the words of the report have unanimous support of all members. I want to follow up with something core to this and then I'd like to address some of the core findings and recommendations and I'll look forward to those examples of the

various areas in which we're seeing this. But I'm reading through this and some wonderful reports. We will link to it in the show notes. Why now? I kept coming back to that. What has happened to make the crossroads basically present themselves now? You say correctly that NASA's had too much program

for its budget, but I feel like that's effectively been true since the shuttle era. Is there something that changed recently or is this the slow degradation? of a bureaucracy Basically hitting a limit of how long you can do that Yes, I think God would say it's been there so that degradation of law I'll see you know as I mentioned this is not unique to the SAA industry. It does this sort of thing. This is a personal example of what I'm talking about. When I took my first job in the aerospace industry years ago, the average shareholder held their

shares eight years. Today, they hold them four months. They're the next quarter. And so given that shareholders don't want you investing in research and development, don't fix the move. Somebody else will worry about that. And NASA, this is one of those examples of a strategy that produced a, I shouldn't say unexpected quite because it's obvious it's going to happen. But it's not obvious when it's going to happen. We've reached the point where this is not a problem for business as usual. That's an interesting follow-up.

So just to hit on this one more time, and again, I know you're speaking for the unanimity of the committee. I was thinking back to when you led the presidential commission looking at Constellation in 2008 and 2009, and I see a lot of similarities, at least in some of the externalities of how it's being represented. And maybe, again, if it's a gradual decline, this is a function of that kind of continuation of those trends. But I'd like to posit that one extra thing

has fundamentally maybe changed in the last 15, in the years between your report and this current one, which is the growth and maturation of the commercial space sector, which is something that you talk about in this report. But basically there are now alternatives to NASA, both in capability, workforce, infrastructure, and dynamism, and not just NASA, but NASA and the classic prime contractors

and this new class of space startups epitomized by SpaceX or Blue Origin. Does that seem to be a core aspect of this, that there's now alternatives for people who want to work in space, they don't have to go through NASA or the classic contracting? It's an interesting question, in the sense that the previous report you mentioned that I was involved in, I encouraged NASA to support building an industrial, more self-capable, commercial aerospace world, if you will.

And NASA, to its great credit, did that and helped SpaceX and others get started. That I think is something that the members want to look at and encourage strongly. We do raise a caveat, but it's a very narrow caveat. I want to emphasize that. When you're talking about early development work that involves very sensitive technologies, very high demand, very advanced technologies. With those conditions, we believe it's very important that NASA maintain internally a capability to do those things internally. And we don't argue that it should do all that work internally at all, but it should keep

a capability. And in our work, we learned a great quotation from Ron Vaughn Vaughn on the subject. He said that engineers quickly lose their skills if they don't keep their hands dirty. And we believe that's true. And if NASA becomes strictly an overseer, basically a contract monitor, it's gonna be very hard for NASA to keep very many good engineers around,

good engineers, you know, the most creative ones, don't want to be contracted on it. So the Williams spent part of their time with that. So if NASA's to maintain a capability at all, and we happen to think it needs to, it's going to be essential that it maintains that in-house capability in certain areas. NASA today puts out about 85% of its work, it's one of the out-of-the-box anyway. And so I think one welcomes the growth of the commercial base, at least to the citizen of the country, I think we should. It could do a lot in conjunction with NASA, but it can't be at the total expense of NASA. That is a whole conclusion from this report that I think is

really important and interesting that again, Alexis, I'm going to put a pin in that we'll come back to it because I think there's so much there. And so if I could just, I mean, if I could thematically put together what I took away from this report, again, kind of tying it into this idea, is that maybe NASA is acting like it has the monopoly in terms of if you want to work in space, you work for NASA or it's very close contractors, but it's no longer a monopoly and the agency has not adapted to that reality. That's how I see this. Does that resonate with you? Would you feel like

the committee would agree with that framing? You led right into one of the four areas of poor, ugly human sources. NASA competes for human resources today in the same marketplace, not only as the traditional aerospace companies, but also the commercial aerospace industry, but also because the technology today is more and more coming out of the commercial world. It's competing with MEDA and Amazon and so on for talent. That puts NASA in a very challenging position because NASA works under the government human resources rules and so on. I could talk about that, but anyway, just let me say that

this, look, NASA participated in a government-wide survey that's conducted by an outside organization that I've had some involvement with. And NASA has, for the last 12 years, based on their employers' responses, made NASA the best place to work, best to be a large place to work, large employer within the federal government. And when we asked a lot of these people we talked to when we conducted our tours, why do you work for NASA? The answer was invariably because the exciting work it does, you get the things you get to do,

and you personally can be involved with it. If we are to have a NASA, that is really important. Those are the kind of people you want. I remember knowing people back when I lived in Los Angeles who worked at JPL and then got poached by Google or Apple to work on self-driving cars because of the connections to Rover, uptime, reliability, all sorts of things. And I realized not just you're paying salaries, but equity in the company. You can't buy, I guess you can buy treasury bills, but you don't get issued equity in the U.S. government by NASA to work there.

So I think this is one of the core ideas is that to retain talent in NASA's workforce, NASA itself has to provide a motivation for them to work there. And that's with the opportunities. And that's where this idea that you can't just farm out all of your most interesting problems to external companies, that's ultimately a self-defeating measure, even if, and this is the key, I think the short-term is even if in the short term you save money. Well, you know, when you add all this, the bottom line conclusion, I suppose, that we

came to was there are only two possible solutions to the dilemma NASA faces. One is to give NASA more money so they don't have to put off the future or shortchange the future if will. The other is for NASA to do less. And either of those things is going to take an awful lot of courage on somebody's part. The circumstances have changed so much, and NASA overall in many areas in the space program. You cited this one. It's very critical.

There are half a dozen that really changed the world that NASA competes in. Given that circumstance, NASA is going to have to be able to attract talent. It's going to have to be able to attract talent, it's going to have adequate funds. But when you look at the federal government's funding, as we did in this committee, the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO for at least two decades that I'm aware of, has put out periodically a graph, very interesting chart, maybe one of the most interesting I've ever seen. It shows the federal government's receipts versus time, the budget income, and on it, it shows the federal government's discretionary budget, the amount of money that be spent on discretionary things. And the non-discretionaries,

of course, those things that are not appropriated each year but have long-term appropriation, that things like Medicare or Medicaid, Social Security, so on, plus the interest on the federal debt, which you have to pay, and what's left over discretionary. Well, the bottom line is that discretionary budget is headed not just to diminish but to go to zero under current law. And not that far. When I first saw it, the day was 2042. Today, it's in the early 2030s. And it's that budget, that discretionary budget that funds NASA. And competing with NASA for funds are the rest of the discretionary budget that includes things like national

defense, homeland security, national infrastructure. And so the chances of getting much more money for NASA is going to be very difficult. So then you turn to the other solution, which is cancel programs or no-sign programs, just decide whether it would be very hard. Supposing the United States were to say, we can't afford to go back to the balloon in 2026, as NASA's currently saying. And so we'll go in 2035. Well, you remember that China has been saying we're going to go in 2030, and China's done a pretty good job of doing what it says it's going to do in this area. And so it gets to 2030, sense it's going to do in this area. And so it gets to 2030, China puts people back on them alone, then the United States says, well, we couldn't afford to do that. Is that a signal we want to

send to the world? So my whole point is that these are our choices. Let's talk about the other, we've been talking a little bit about workforce, but just very briefly, you also looked at technology, infrastructure, and then the systemic issues. What are some of the examples of challenges in technology and infrastructure at NASA? Well, first of all, let me take a big picture look at technology. That is the technology budget that NASA had purchased in power 30, the line item for R&D, has decreased by 34% since 2010. And since that time, the share of the NASA budget that goes to that more basic research has declined by 54%.

And so this is, again, part of the same story. It was starving the future. In this case, it's technology. And that, of course, industry is doing less of the fundamental stuff. They're doing a lot more of the applied work. But the space program is just not investing in the future in terms of technology. To take your question on the issue of one of the technologies that are particularly critical, we thought that if we asked NASA to put together that list for us, time phase

over time, critical technical milestones, we figured we'd spend the whole year working on that. Well, it turns out NASA really does have such a chart. And as we talked to a lot of people at NASA, the reason that was unanimously, I guess, cited was that when you're working for the government, that the longest-range financial planning they do is five years. They have a one-year appropriation. That appropriation, about half the time, doesn't get done until well into the year that's the

already year. It makes no sense to plan. And it's not a bad argument. We think there are things we could do better than we're doing today, but it's not a bad argument. So when you try to look at one of the specific technologies, when do we need them? We found there wasn't much to go on. We did find a report in the year 2014 that we spent a lot of time studying, and it had 10 top issues we should be studying. And we put together our own rather abbreviated list, and it almost identically matched the same list which was put together in 2014.

We added a couple of things, but it included things like nuclear propulsion in space. It included nuclear power on a planet. It included landing on a planet with large payloads of humans aboard. It included spacesuits for operations long-term and not on a planet, for up in space. And the things of that type, the don't that I think are huge surprise. But in our view, they're all well underfunded today. I just want to emphasize what you're saying here.

I was stunned when I read that and the idea that NASA does not have, as you say, like we needed this technology by this date in order to achieve some goal. There's no master plan behind that, which after the initial shockwars off, as you point out, makes sense given that the dramatic mismatch of long-term strategic planning on the scale of decades with what they're actually funded to do with also the political winds or elected officials changing every few years on top of that. But still that makes it very difficult.

And has there been, are there examples that NASA can look to about how to sustain long-term types of technology development or strategic planning like this that they can draw from because it's, I understand in a sense that technology development is a process and not a thing. And I always feel like that makes a big difference, particularly in an elected representative democracy where you have you're making a case for something. People I think resonate to the idea of an object. You can picture it in your head. It's a finished thing.

You can see it launch into space like you wrote the Clipper. It's harder to it's technology development is an abstract concept. That's it. It's a thing that we do without a clear outcome, though you can have directed technology investments. And it just seems like it's just a very difficult thing to implement consistently over time in the structures we have as a public agency.

So is there an example of how this can work or is it just always going to be a challenge? I think put together a proposed approach that solves part of the problem that we're discussing. It does not solve the whole problem. And when you do long-term projects, development projects in particular, where you're doing things that have never been done before, you have to have funding margins for the unforeseen. Those are almost impossible to come by without funding.

I've had sad personal experience of that area. Similarly, one needs to have an idea of what funds will be available when and count on it. That doesn't work in our government. We could obviously do better than we do, but when we solve that problem, as long as we have the current laws about appropriating each year and so on, that's not going to get entirely solved. What we proposed, as I said, we were surprised, as you were, that NASA didn't have lots of this kind of planning. What we proposed is without tying to the year 2029 or something like that, it is possible to say that say that if in the year T0 we're going to put humans on Mars, then you can make a pretty good estimate that the year T0 minus X that you better have demonstrated full-scale nuclear

thermal propulsion system, then in the year T0 minus, you would better be able to demonstrate a prototype on the ground of that system. And then a T-0, you better have all the components available and the architecture agreed upon. Once you've done that, you can start to break it down and say that T-Y, you need these various elements and you need about this many people, we think, that we have on reserve because we don't know what problems we're going to run into. And so doing that, you can be much quicker on your feet, much more flexible. And I think we think you better plan it, but that's not a shortcut for a stable budget, though, without question. We'll be right back with the rest of our Space Policy Edition of Planetary Radio after this

short break. Greetings, Bill Nye here. NASA's budget just had the largest downturn in 15 years, which means we need your help. The U.S. Congress approves NASA's annual budget, and with your support, we promote missions to space by keeping every member of Congress and their staff informed about the benefits of a robust space program. We want Congress to know that space exploration ensures our nation's goals in workforce technology, international relations, and space science. Unfortunately, because of decreases in the NASA budget, layoffs have begun. Important missions are being delayed, some indefinitely. That's where you come in. Join our mission as a space advocate by making a gift today. Right

now when you donate, your gift will be matched up to $75,000 thanks to a generous Planetary Society member. With your support, we can make sure every representative and Senator in DC understands why NASA is a critical part of US national policy. With the challenges NASA is facing, we need to make this investment today. So make your gift at planetary.org slash take action.

Thank you. Planning I think is maybe at the core of this because you also in the report, the committee noted that NASA doesn't have really a long-term strategic plan either and of course you can't plan your technology needs if you don't know what you want to do. What kind of human capital do you need if you don't know what you're going to do and what type of infrastructure? Do you need this has been a persistent? I mean we talk about a moon to Mars program

What what is missing in that framework that provides? ill definition for these needs Well today, of course, we talk about to go back to the moon and on to Mars. Going back to the earlier two reports I worked on for NASA, we strongly emphasized that it would be awfully easy to go back to the moon and back down there

and that would be the end of it. So, at least those two prior reports strongly urged to continue to focus on the Mars. And NASA has been very good about setting out the plan for Artemis is to go to the moon and on the Mars, which is, in our view, shows an indication of planning ahead, but there's not much planning behind the statements.

And again, we think the reason for that is there's a lot of opportunities out there in the near term to do very important things. And so inadvertently, maybe we aren't laying the groundwork in terms of technology, people and infrastructure, that's the whole story, to go to Mars and do the other things that we talk about, we want to do. store to go to Mars and do the other things that we talk about, we want to do. And that was exactly the question the colonel asked us to address, was are we ready to do these things? And sadly our answer is no. And as I say, that raises the question, well, how have we been doing so well?

And I say, we, I mean, NASA, our, our earth, how we've done so well. The answer is that we've taken money from the future and brought it forward and spent it on today. And we've done very well. We might be proud of that. And all of us, I think, might be proud of what NASA overall has done. What's the status of infrastructure, NASA's physical infrastructure right now? Yeah, infrastructure is often overlooked not only in NASA but at universities and corporations and so on.

And by NASA infrastructure, we mean not only buildings and roads and things like that, but also computers and test facilities and research support facilities and so on. So it's the backbone of NASA to some degree. I think the old backbone is human talent, but this is a part of it. And if you look at the status of the infrastructure at NASA, I'll just quote a few statistics here from the back of my mind. Today, 83% of the infrastructure at NASA is past its design life. If we continue to modernize, but the rate we have been for the last couple of decades, the average piece of infrastructure at NASA will be 320 years old.

average piece of infrastructure at NASA will be 320 years old. And their goal is 60, incidentally, to have a bill that was 60 in the industry would be far less than that. And of course, this is the leading edge of technology we're talking about. We're talking not only about the most advanced computers, but also we stood on our leaking roofs, literally NASA facilities and factories and research and development facilities. The bad news is that the NASA budget isn't very big on the overall scale of things. It's part of the GDP. The good news is it's not very big in the sense that you could double it without impacting the GDP much.

And I'm not proposing doubling NASA's budget here, but there may be a little more flexibility than one would think. But it is a challenge. And it indeed is going about a business plan. Just another example, the NASA mission budget since 2010 has increased by 8%. The mission support budget has declined by 33%, and that's all that purchasing power parity. And a little arithmetic will tell one that under that circumstance, today each dollar of mission support has to support 50% more dollars of vision budget than it had to do in 2010, which of course is a very big challenge.

So there are some things that could be done that will help. Basically you set up a fund for infrastructure that pays you goal, the users pay a charge for what they use, and it recycles the funds back into the evolving fund. We think that's something that should be looked at. We made a lot of lesser recommendations along the way that will help a lot, but they're not the total answer. Has NASA management become too centralized in the last 10 years? The great question is whether NASA has become too centralized.

And if one goes back to the failure of the Columbia, the failure report has a couple of remarkable statements, one of which is the failure of Columbia had as much to do with NASA culture as it did with foam. Of course, November was a piece of foam that hit the leading edge of the shuttle wing and caused the failure and the loss of several astronauts. That report also says that, and the current leadership is saying this, that more and more of the things that NASA does cut across centers. They're very interdisciplinary. They don't move out one center. And that raises the question of how you avoid duplication, how do you be

efficient. And so given the boost of the failure reports from the Columbia, the NASA leadership has taken steps to put more responsibility on the mission programs, the mission side of the budget, and less responsibility in the side of the center, if you will. Also in doing this, more and more has migrated to the headquarters in terms of day-to-day control of ordinary activities. Our committee fully subscribes to the notion that ultimately the NASA leadership, NASA headquarters, is responsible for everything at NASA. But that doesn't mean it has to try to get involved in everything at NASA, that it has to delegate and delegate carefully and then monitor. And

it's our belief that there are indications that there's an unintended consequence of what we tend to do is very constructive steps. The unintended consequences are doing things like putting more authority in the mission side in the expense of the center side, and that they're putting more authority for day-to-day things in the headquarters than they're out in the field. I could quote examples for hours,

but one that jumps in my mind is, if a NASA center discovers that it needs a person with talent in a very specific area, some really critical area, and goes to headquarters and says, may we hire a person to work in this area? And eventually it gets an answer back to the S.U.A. Well, from that time at the S.U.A. until NASA can make a conditional offer to a specific individual, there's 81 dates. Well, your average outstanding engineer

is gonna sit around for 81 dates to see if he's got a job or she's got a job. And they'll get seven other jobs offered from elsewhere in industry during that period of time. And so that's very good by government wide standards. NASA has some special treatment that they get there, it would go a little faster. And so that's an example of the kind of situation we're brought into. And our committee on this issue, and I'm glad you raised your hand because it's a really important one. Our committee takes the position that you can't put a management team in charge of NASA,

and then tell them how they have to organize and what the culture has to be, and then hold them responsible. If you're not holding them responsible, you can't tell them how to do their job. And so our committee was reluctant to go say, this is what you ought to do. So our committee took the point position. NASA, we believe there's a lot of evidence that you have a problem of too much authority in headquarters for day-to-day matters and the drift authority from the centers to the mission directorates that seems

to have gotten out of balance. And we recommended that NASA set up a review conducted by NASA that involves outsiders, maybe from industry, maybe from academia, that involves NASA retirees and current NASA people. national retirees and current national people and checks and sees if this concern we have doesn't deserve some change in the way business gets done. There are a number of findings that your committee makes. Seven findings and eight recommendations I should say and and unfortunately as much as I'd love to we can't go through all of them. We talked about budget that's an obvious one we talked we're kind of implying some of these

kind of management improvements and efficiencies. Things like this revolving fund for infrastructure improvements. How has NASA or other external entities responded or members of Congress, have you been finding a positive response to the recommendation? Yes, I've given probably 15 briefings now. It's all in the public, of course. I've briefed the Senate side and the outside and OMB and OSTP and, well, of course,

NASA headquarters, NASA writ large. And the response to me is very, very encouraging. My secretary told me the other day, is getting very, very encouraging. My secretary told me the other day, since I retired, I've chaired a culture of 43 committees and commissions on every subject you could think of, and some you couldn't know probably. But I've been encouraged, and a lot of those I worked on, nothing ever came of them, not much. But in this case, the NASA leadership, putting the people in the field, in fact, nobody has said,

well, we think you're wrong, your data are wrong. They probably have nuances on what we have said or that would be understandable. But by and large, we actually really do have a problem that we've got to collectively figure out how to solve it. And one of the things that makes this a particular particular challenge case is that NASA alone can't solve it. So that's where to take help from the Congress, from OMB, from industry, and you go down the list. And this is not just NASA's problem, this is a national problem.

Well, this is where I think to circle back a bit to this idea of commercial services contracts, which your report and committee highlights specifically as if misused, and I'll just emphasize that because I know you want to be cautious with how this is interpreted. But the idea of giving as opposed to your classic cost plus contracting where NASA sets the requirements, contractors bid, and then they get paid for delivering the product, no matter if it is more expensive or not. Services, right, is what we've seen with commercial crew, commercial cargo, and now with human landing system, lunar landings, Eclipse, and other things are being all experimented on.

This idea that maybe there are movements or people who don't want to see NASA return to that capability, but would rather have it outsourced. And I think about this in terms of some of the critiques I've seen about the report or responses, whereas should we want to go back to a NASA that created this in the first place, or is it time to move into this new system? Is there an appropriate level where NASA should just be a pass-through agency for commercial contractors that who may be freed from some of the burdensome bureaucracies that we face with government agencies? Do you see, was that ever under the consideration of the committee to

radically reevaluate this particular role or is this fundamentally not what we talk about when we talk about NASA. The question you raised did come up and it came up largely in the context of the areas we were asked to address. For example, could NASA maintain the human resources it needs to do if you operate under a change model, in-house versus out-house? Should NASA provide facilities for industry, should industry provide their facilities and so on. And the clear feeling is that in this country, the free enterprise system has been one of the factors that's made the nation wealthy and strong. And that's true of NASA, which has put most of its work out into the free enterprise system.

And so in terms of any principle about not doing work, what is it in the Interstate side is if you look in China, their big boom period came when they started to adopt the free enterprise system. One, they turned the other direction, things have turned around. So there's no issue, I think, there, but there are issues that, kind, you point to. One has to do with the type of contracts you use, which should be fixed-class contracts or cost-reversible contracts. And each has some horror stories to go with it. And I think it would be our view that each has its merits when it's properly applied. And that think it would be our view that each has its merits once properly applied. And that when you're doing development work, that you get surprises, you're doing

something that never been done before by definition, that's probably not a good place for a fixed price contract. And the history seems to overall suggest that. On the other hand, when you're doing something like the ninepooling with fake station repeatedly with a developed system, proven system, the public should be fixed by. So if it's something that you either do, you've done it before, then that's fine. And when you let service contracts, and this is true of fixed price contracts, of course, particularly, you basically use the government, you, the person who's putting up the money to do the job, give up, you have very little control.

And if you have a mission that has six links like in a chain, six links in a chain, and one of them is fixed price out of the service contract, which you have no control, only the five links, that merits careful thought, it might be very appropriate, depends on how much risk is involved in that six link. And so our bottom line would be that service contracts are fine when used properly, and they're not very fine when they're used

where there's uncertainty in what needs to be done. And so we don't take a strong yes or no position. We try to lay out the conditions under which each might be appropriate. Right. And I think what I really took away from this, which is the bigger picture view and the short-termism versus long-term perspective for the agency and the health of the agency is that You can see exactly this is like a microcosm of the ideas. We've been discussing in this report, which is this budget pressure selects for this cost as my I would say somewhat myopia on cost savings and commercial services contracts have been proven successful and minimizing the risk of cost increases to NASA, at least particularly individually.

I think you make an interesting point about a chain of causality there in a larger program. But NASA is not on the hook for the money, but by doing so, you save the money, you save that you lower the risk. But what you've done is you've added risk to your workforce, talent retention. You've added risk to the utility of your infrastructure. You've added risk to management and changing mores and focuses of how and what NASA does.

And you accept all this kind of, as you point out, this hands-off, more hands-off, more opaque approach that doesn't then feed back into the internal strength of the agency necessarily. And I think that's such an interesting idea and subtlety that we really need to think more about in terms of how we deploy public funding, but also keep the strength of the space agency that the public that does all these other things

that commercial companies generally do. Well, that's a good summary. And I think that I've spent 10 years in government, a lot of two years in academia, a lot of years in industry. And the thing that industry has out there, the magic word is competition. You know, boy, that that's an awfully valuable asset. I think we ought to take advantage of that to the extent we can. What does success look like and when do we start?

As observers, particularly our members or people on the outside, how do we know if NASA takes the right path from the options before it? Very difficult question at this point in time. I mean, two weeks from an election, we don't know who will be running the country, who will be running NASA too much from now. And we don't know what will happen to the overall federal budget. And so I hate to say it, but I think it will be some time. The question probably worse, I think we'd get into these troubles overnight either.

And so we won't solve them overnight. So if we if we a year from now could point to some positive steps, I think that would be encouraging because NASA today they have a $3 billion deferred maintenance problem. And that's a big problem even for the government. That's a 3 billion that doesn't show up overnight. And that's a big problem, even for the government. It's three billion. That doesn't show up overnight. Well, Norm Agassin, we will reach out back to you if we start to see some progress or not in this role. I want to thank you again for joining us on the show today.

Again, I cannot recommend the report enough. You and the other members of the committee, I think that a wonderful job and really hope we start seeing some progress in this matter. So thank you again. Casey, thank you. It's a pleasure to talk about it. It's time for action. We've reached the end of this month's episode of the Space Policy Edition of Planetary Radio,

but we will be back next month with more discussions on the politics and philosophies and ideas that power space science and exploration. Help others in the meantime learn more about space policy and the planetary society by leaving a review and rating this show on platforms like Apple Podcast or Spotify or wherever you listen to this show. Your input and interactions really help us be discovered by other curious minds and that will help them find their place in space through Planetary Radio.

You can also send us, including me, your thoughts and questions at planetaryradio at planetary.org or if you're a Planetary Society member, and I hope you are, leave me a comment in the Planetary Radio space in our online member community. Mark Hilverda and Ray Paoletta are our associate producers of the show. Andrew Lucas is our audio editor. Me, Casey Dreyer, and Merck Boyan, my colleague, composed and performed our Space Policy Edition theme. The Space Policy Edition is a production of the Planetary Society, an independent, non-profit space outreach organization based in Pasadena, California. We are membership-based,

and anybody, even you, can become a member. They start at just four dollars a month that's nothing these days. Find out more at planetary.org slash join. Until next month, add Astra. Music