Tracing the Whys

When reading the Augustine Committee’s summary report, there was one particular line that really stood out to me.

“In fact, the Committee finds that no plan compatible with the FY 2010 budget profile permits human exploration to continue in any meaningful way.”

Wow. That is a lot to take in. It isn’t a big surprise, but to see it there in black and white somehow makes it seem that much more real.

Many people who read that report saw it as a death sentence for manned spaceflight. That is not necessarily the case. Given this information, it would seem to be imperative that NASA receive more funding. If that is not possible, are there any other options? If you can’t get more money, what is the logical thing to do?

Spend less money.

When faced with cutting costs in human spaceflight, the first instinct is to think that safety will be compromised, but it doesn’t have to be. In fact, it is possible to improve safety while drastically cutting costs.

It is all about tracing the “whys”.

Many of us grew up constantly asking why? why? why? about everything. I know I did. I probably drove my parents nuts with all the questions. Unfortunately, most of us seem to grow out of that curiosity. We settle into walking around with blinders on. In most government agencies, it is believed that things must be done a certain way. Often this is not the fastest, cheapest, most efficient, least wasteful, or even safest way to do them. Over the years as new processes are implemented, we often take nearly ridiculous measures to make the new processes work with the legacy ones.

For example: Recently, a co-worker was having trouble with a scanner. He was trying to scan in a scheduling document so it could be uploaded to a certain folder on the intranet and thus be visible to all interested parties. I asked him where he got the schedule in the first place. He told me that one of the schedulers prints it out for him every day. I was floored. “You mean it is an electronic document in the first place? She prints it out for you to scan back in? That’s crazy!” He said that he had to add his notes to it before scanning it in. I wasn’t impressed. He said that that was how they were all taught; that’s just the way they have to do it.

In this pervasive culture of just doing things the way we are taught- we don’t ask why. These are not just a few things, but rather thousands of them; some with small impacts and some that are large. The sum of these unasked “whys” are critical to the future of NASA. We must make an agency-wide effort to really ask ourselves why we do some of the things we do.

It isn’t enough to just ask why. We have to trace each “why” all the way to it’s origin.

Traced to their sources, I believe most of the answers we will arrive at could be categorized as such:

  • We do it that way for valid reasons such as safety, feasibility, and cost
  • We do it that way because it was a workaround for some other issue
  • We do it that way because someone wanted it done that way
  • We do it that way because it is the only way we know how
  • We do it that way for a reason that is no longer applicable
  • No one remembers why we do it that way

Of those that are necessary for a reason such as safety, cost, or feasibility; we might then ask if the reason is still valid.

  • Have regulations or equipment been changed, or can they be?
  • Is there new technology available that could improve safety, efficiency, and cost?

In many cases, the answers will be yes, and the door is open for improvement. Those that fall into the other categories hold the real potential. Many are things we are doing for no good reason at all, and can be cut out altogether. Some will need to be changed. Some changes or cuts will be easy, others will not. It will be downright difficult to make many of these changes because they are so deeply entrenched in our culture. This kind of effort will require commitment from all levels of the agency, beginning at the top. All centers will need to be in cooperation, and policies must be consolidated and streamlined across them all in order to be successful. We will need to be creative and innovative in our solutions- perhaps flexing some muscles we haven’t used in a while.

We can rise to the challenge.

I’m not saying that NASA or other government agencies are out there wasting taxpayers’ money. That’s not it at all. When a large organization has been around as long as NASA has, there is a natural tendency to experience a buildup of inefficiencies over the years. Every so often something drastic must be done to clear these non-value added requirements or processes out and forge ahead. Will it really make that much of a difference to the bottom line? Will it enable us to continue with human spaceflight in a meaningful way without an increase in budget?

Don’t we owe it to ourselves and our country to give it a shot?

6 Responses to “Tracing the Whys”

  1. Gordo92  on September 11th, 2009

    You make a very good point Jen. Even if FY10 budget were to be increased, (and I hope it does)
    your insight into ways to spend those dollars merits serious consideration. Hope those who can help make change happen are listening (or reading). This from a Canadian whose CSA has all the same budgetary problems. Really look forward to your tweets.

  2. rockteacherjan  on September 11th, 2009

    Reminds me of the story of the lady who always cut the ends of the roast off. Her husband asked her why she cut it. She said her mother did. When her mother was asked why, she said her mother always did it. Not knowing why it was done, she called her own mother who said, “It was the only way to fit it in the pan I had.”Many times we do things because that’s the way it has always been done. We need to step back and figure out why! :)

  3. Anonymous  on September 11th, 2009

    This is at the heart of those very, very tricky fields like organizational psychology, change management and leadership.

    Unfortunately, most of the kinds of changes that are needed in people’s thinking to do the kinds of things you suggest are surprisingly difficult and usually come about only under duress.

  4. Phillip Huggan  on September 12th, 2009

    I like servicing the L-points infrastructure with astronauts. To me a human-rated rotating centrifuge will be necessary whenever materials science permits. Lots of tether and Texas Labs carbon allotrope R+D. I’d guess this would be aided by even more research. Can Orion make it to useful Lagrange Points?
    Can always plan a manufacturing space station for after ISS. If you can figure out solar sails in space that would cover construction cost. Would need some product, maybe try intercepting a chunk of ice or maybe a textile that collects or changes orbit of debris.

  5. Rolando Quintanilla  on September 19th, 2009

    I really appreciate your post and think that if we just asked “why?” we could save a substantial amount of money that we could leverage to fund more mission.

    I know that we can do more (a lot more). I know this because I know the talent, and the dedication of the people at NASA. Working faster, harder and longer within a system that has gained significant procedural inefficiencies won’t get us where we need to be. Where our nation deserves us to be. Instead, we must work smarter, and collaboratively to meet our mission goals, and meet our potential.

    More money won’t get us to where we need to be if all we do is more of the same.

    $0.02

  6. Maj Dan Ward, USAF  on September 29th, 2009

    Hey Jen – another great post. You had me at “spend less money.”

    I’ve done a little research in this area, and it turns out there is nothing inherent in space systems (or military systems, my specialty) that requires them to cost so much, take so long, or be so complicated. It is entirely possible to develop and deliver world-class capabilities for less money and in less time than we historically have spent.

    The key concept is that constraints foster creativity. Having a severely limited budget and schedule pushes us in the direction of innovation and discovery. We definitely saw this in the Faster, Better Cheaper initiative in the 90′s (9 out of the first 10 FBC projects succeeded wildly – things went south when complexity increased, but that wasn’t inevitable).

    Anyway, great post – keep aiming high!