1. Engage the Private Community
To allow NASA to accomplish its lofty goals while simultaneously stimulating the American economy, NASA must continue to engage this new commercial space community.
Most people would like to see large scale space development, and many people understand that for it to happen, we must have Cheap, reliable Access To Space (CATS). Many people actively involved in CATS development believe there must be active engagement with the private sector if CATS is going to happen. Dr. Diamandis mentions 3 programs: COTS, Centennial Challenges, and the Mercury Fund (which is now defunct). These programs are good examples of how NASA can effectively engage the private sector, which, I would argue, is usually better than the traditional cost-plus contractor model.
The need for this engagement is because we must create industries in space that requires frequent access to space by space-going vehicles (preferably with humans onboard). High flight rates are vital for CATS development, as both Jon Goff and Rand Simberg have written (and numerous other people have noted). There are numerous areas where NASA could create an artificial market, that would encourage investment into space development by private companies.
2. Use Risk as a Tool
While the culture of "Failure is Not an Option" certainly is a worthy goal, an innovation agency that avoids all risks cannot succeed in its goals. To achieve breakthrough innovations, NASA and all of its partners must relearn how to use risk as a tool, and must discover and define methods whereby each program is willing to tolerate an acceptable amount of well-managed risks to hasten ultimate success.
Many people have discussed how NASA has become risk averse. Some would argue that it actually has always been risk averse, and some have argued that risk aversion isn't something that just came from NASA, but is something more indicative of society at large.
Part of the issue, at least IMHO, risk is usually better managed in an R&D program, rather than an operations program. NASA pushed shuttle into an operations program, when it didn't have adequate funding, and we hadn't done very much with RLVs to begin with. Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were never treated as long-term operational programs. Thus, NASA and Congress and the public at large better understood the risks. Failures happen in R&D, and even expected - they shouldn't happen in operations.
I would also add that this issue with risk isn't relegated to just NASA, as, at least IMHO, a lot of venture capital funds have gotten risk averse (this was happening before the market collapsed, although the market collapse has exacerbated it incredibly). I won't say too much about this, since it could be a posting on its own. However, its been very difficult to see any sort of investment into the space industry, beyond traditional markets. Indeed, this fact was noted at a recent Space Investment Summit.
3. Attract and Retain the Best Workers
NASA needs to once again become an attractive place to work--not only compared to other government agencies, but compared to all other high technology industries.
This part I don't have a whole lot to add. NASA does need to do a better job of selling itself. Part of the issue here is funding, and I won't deny that, but there are other aspects as well.
4. Help America Benefit from the Global Space Community
NASA should work to help the USA reenter the global space community, both by deliberately engaging international partners and by championing a reform of export control regulations.
We often hear talk about international cooperation, via governments. But international relations can be helped by business relations, and educational relations as well. ITAR is one of the most hated issues within the space community. It has hurt business growth, it has hurt educational opportunities, and it hasn't really protected us. Mike Gold, who is the lawyer for Bigelow Aerospace, talked about ITAR, and how it could, in theory, be fairly easy to reform the laws, simply by changing the implementation. I've heard that people familiar with the classified system are mystified by ITAR.
There are other regulations that need to be discussed, but ITAR is the biggest.
5. Take the Lead Where Only NASA Can
the best results are achieved when the government efforts then refocus on the next impossible task, allowing private industry to follow in governmental footsteps and achieve incremental improvements in capability and efficiency.
This ties back to point 1. We've seen countless private entities place satellites into orbit, and we are now talking about companies who are building hardware to put people into orbit. NASA's primary focus, when it comes to its human spaceflight program, should be on what is just beyond what private industry can do. Doing this, and combining it with Point 1, you will retire technical risks, thus allowing private groups/companies/organizations to move in, and create self-sustainable industries. We haven't always been successful with this, but we've seen that it can work, with things like NASA utilizing a contract for Zero-G's parabolic flights, but also with the history of IntelSat and PanAmSat (although admitadlly, that could've been much better handled)
6. Leverage Incentive Prizes
NASA should proactively seek to benefit from incentive prizes, both by offering prizes of its own and by seeking to actively engage in commerce with the teams who compete for and win prizes offered by others.
Dr Diamandis is a well known advocate of prizes. While I do think there are times he oversells prizes, they definitely are useful tools, particularly when something has substantial amounts of technology already developed. This was why the original X Prize was successful - space tech, while not totally understood, has a good amount of heritage, and there are definite commerical applications for sub-orbital flight.
However, as I said, prizes are not the end all of R&D - for basic research, or early stage R&D, prizes do not work, and you need direct investment. And it doesn't help when you make the prizes overly complicated (which is something I worry might be the case when it comes to the Google Lunar X Prize).
NASA (and more importantly, Congress) should not be afraid of prizes. I will say that, unlike direct funding, prizes make lousy pork, but NASA needs to stop being just a pork machine. Particularly when large scale space development can benefit a lot more people.
7. Inspire the Nation, and the World
In all of its activities, NASA should be aware of the needs of its "customer"--the American public.
This is something that NASA has really failed to do, for a while, but especially under Mike Griffin. I don't want to rehash Griffin. However, I want to borrow a comment from Al Fansome over at spacepolitics
The Administrator should be OUTWARD focused, and linking NASA to the needs and demands of the White House, Congress and the American public. James Webb was the ideal.
The Deputy Administrator should be INWARD focused, taking the requirements from NASA's bosses - the White House and Congress - and managing the agency to deliver on those requirements.
NASA does need to do a better job of using communication tools, which is Dr. Diamidas's main point, but I would also add Fansome's comment as well, and should guide Obama in his selection of who he wants for NASA admin.
Key to all of this is that Obama must articulate and understand what his administrations vision for space. And it must also remember that NASA is not the end all of space. |
STATE BLOGS
