In this post, I want to ask a question that I hope many will want to chime in on. But first of all, thanks Karen for the comment on the previous post. Know any good cartoonists looking for a column to bring to life? 
In your comment, you wrote: “we and the powers-to-be need to call NASA into action”… I couldn’t agree more that what NASA needs is the ability to empower its people to take some ownership of the agency, to challenge the accepted norms and the traditions of a big bureaucracy- not because we or any one person necessarily has a better way of doing it- but merely for the sake of stirring things up, asking the tough questions, and connecting people together under a common purpose.
Because, otherwise- what’s the alternative? Give in to the complacency and accept things as the way they are because someone else decided so? If everyone did that, then how would anything ever change?
NASA has a rich, storied, awe-inspiring past, but if we as a generation did NOT think that the greatest moments in space exploration were ahead of, and not behind us, then how could we possibly do justice to the great traditions we are inheriting?
Right now, the perception is that NASA is driven by the wardens of politics and regulations; to form a new image of the agency, a new NASA, PEOPLE need to feel like they are a part of the process. They need to feel like their opinions and ideas actually mean something. And in the noble traditions of democracy that this country was founded upon, they need to have a VOICE. That’s what a government entity of the most advanced and proficient democracy the world has ever seen should be about.
So here’s the question: can NASA be a model for an open, transparent, participatory, modern democracy and, in so-doing, set an example for the rest of the government- and the world- of what can be achieved by the human spirit?
Or is that something “too hard to do” or “beyond the scope of requirements outlined by the federal government in a stack of papers locked in a titanium box in some secret storage vault deep under the Rocky Mountains, guarded by a man named Burt who’s been locked down there for the last 40 years as the sole protector of The Requirements”?
February 25th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
NASA as a bureaucracy will not change until one of three things happen:
1) Change is mandated top down. This is very unlikely because people who advocate change do not usually get to the top of bureaucracies. But it could… hypothetically.
2) Worker revolution. If people who work for NASA change their habits and push for change. This requires employees willing to take big risks because it might not be appreciated by those on the top.
3) Mass Public Action. If enough people push from the outside for change, government will do so in order to prevent risk of revolution. History shows us that enough people are loud enough they get what they want.
A mix of the 3 would be great… it needs coordination and leadership…. have an executive, an employee, and a member of the public willing to step up to lead this team?
February 27th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I think we’re really starting to get it on a couple of important points.
I’ve been in Public Affairs for 2 years and have been surprised and, honestly, a little frightened at how hard it is to redirect to course of the Good Ship NASA. There are so many people here that have been doing things a certain way for so long that they seem to take offense when it is suggested that we may want to try another approach. The benefit of having so much wisdom and experience is that….you have an awful lot of wisdom and experience to draw from, but in a technology-based field, change seems to be the name of the game–or at least it should be.
Also, the post mentioned inspiration. It spoke of a “rich, storied, awe-inspiring past”. Now, I may be biased, but there is not much in this existence that is more awe inspiring than exploring and more particularly, exploring the heavens. And we own that. We have the space market cornered. If we want the generation who will end up paying for our next trip to the moon to get on board, we had better start giving them a reason to.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:23 am
You do realize, I hope, that in the 1960’s NASA *WAS* the empowering workplace that you yearn for?
At least, that’s what my history courses told me. I wasn’t there then.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:32 am
Kim: absolutely. I wasn’t there either but the sense I get is that you’re right on target- NASA *WAS* an empowering workplace in the 60’s… and we’ve been thinking of the past- er, Glory Days, ever since.
Honoring the past is important. Learning from the past is important. But if we don’t take this opportunity, this chance to take all the successes and failures and triumphs and tragedies of NASA’s past to create a new NASA to pave a new course into the future, I feel like we are severely dropping the ball that was handed to us by previous generations.
This, in the fine tradition of our space agency’s pioneers, is NOT an option.
February 28th, 2008 at 7:34 am
All I know is that when I test hardware at various NASA sites, I am often testing against equipment that is as old as I am and I am a tail end baby boomer. It certainly is older than my Gen-Y kids. In working with various space agencies for the last 20 years, I still seem to be one of the youngest in the room and everyone else talks a lot about retirement, and pensions, and what charge number they can bill to, and when lunch is. Even when you bring in the latest technology, and the inventor of that technology, there is insufficient technical curiosity from some NASA folks to even ask questions or to see how it might improve their systems. The general response is that “Well that will never work” despite the fact that you can pull up papers showing that NASA did test it, and it did work, but they need to bury it because to compare the modern equipment to what is fielded would show how embarrassingly out of date the NASA hardware is. I have even been in the position of offering to pay to upgrade NASA systems so that my program could get peak performance out of modern technology and having them turn it down because things just aren’t done that way. So much for technology transfer and a working partnership with industry.
I hate to use a broad brush, because there are some amazingly talented people that you get to work with at NASA and I have learned a lot from them. Amazing things still happen but I often wonder if they are accomplished despite NASA instead of because of NASA.
All I can suggest is a lot of early retirement packages - even if it means losing a lot of the “lessons learned” and “experience” of the senior staff. They typically aren’t interested in mentoring or sharing because that would threaten the little empire they have built up to have a career.
Sign me, cynical after going through this once too often but willing to continue to throw myself against the wall because eventually, according to quantum physics, at least once I will end up on the other side, and it pays the bills
Chris, an aerospace wage-slave