NASA IG Paints Bleak Picture For Agency Projects 73
coondoggie writes "The bottom line for NASA as well as any number of government agencies in this new era of sequestration is money — and NASA in this case has too many programs chasing too few dollars. That is just one of a number of bleak conclusions NASA's Inspector General Paul Martin laid out to a Congressional hearing adding that 'declining budgets and fiscal uncertainties present the most significant external challenges to NASA's ability to successfully move forward on its many projects and programs. For the first 6 months of this year, NASA has operated under a continuing resolution that funds the Agency at last year's level of $17.8 billion. Moreover, NASA's share of the Government-wide sequestration cuts reduce that spending authority by $894 million.'"
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
If NASA were receiving this mythical "automatic 5-10% annual budget increase" you speak of since 1990, their present budget would be somewhere between 25 and 80 billion dollars a year. In reality, NASA's inflation indexed budget has been essentially flat since then and they have declined to representing one percent to less than half a percent of the federal budget over the same timespan.
Meanwhile, America's one-of-a-kind privatized healthcare system that already costs more per capita than any other on earth by a factor of several continues to inflate costs at double-digit rates. The concentration of wealth in the 1% of the 1% has reached levels not seen since the start of the Great Depression. The GOP has clearly indicated that they will sooner burn our government to the ground than entertain the suggestion that top-tier tax rates be raised from the lowest levels in living memory, or that investment income be taxed at more than half the rate of personal income, at the same time they scream at the top of their lungs that the deficit can only be fixed by doing things that overwhelmingly hurt the poor and middle class.
Of all the problems we're facing, the fact that our government spends a whopping few percent of its budget on actual science (nasa, nsf, doe combined) is not one of them. In fact, given the almost inconcievably huge returns on investment that investments in science historically bring, it's quite insane that we're not spending more on it. I think of a trillion dollars of wealth poured into a black hole in Iraq, never to return, and imagine what if, instead of the wealth-destruction described to the letter in 1984, that trillion dollars had been spent on research into fusion reactors, fuel cells, batteries, solar technologies, computing...
Re: (Score:1)
That's nice, but personally I'm sick of hearing bureaucrats insist they can't cut anything or that the end is nigh if they don't receive as much of a budget increase as they really wanted.
Not to mention the tantrums they throw if they experience any "cuts"... yes, I'm sure there was *no way* the Secret Service could afford to allow White House tours to continue. Or that the DOJ had to release illegal immigrants from jail onto the streets in advance of "cuts" (I guess deportation isn't an option anymore).
It'
Re: (Score:3)
If you can cut X% of your budget easily, it means you were running inefficiently in the first place. Any idiot who proclaims they experience no losses from cutting say, 20% of their budget, as has been out there since the sequestration hit, should be fired because it means they were straight up wasting 20% of their budget since it was apparently unnecessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
-- The problem, generally speaking, is that government is inefficient. A dollar spent on government goods and services is, more likely than not, better left in your pocket to spend on the private sector's goods and services. That's as true of NASA as it is of the DOD. We've already spent hundreds of billions of dollars, both directly and indirectly, on things like solar technologies, fusion, etc., that have gone nowhere. It would have been better if that money had been left in our pockets to buy the goods and services that we want; at least then we'd have something for it. Yes, government occasionally invents something from time to time that proves useful; the same is true for the private sector, but the private sector does it for less.
To throw out a NASA example, the International Space Station (ISS) cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 billion (including contributions from many other countries), a third of which was the cost of Space Shuttle flights (36 flights at $1.4 billion each, according to Wikipedia. This includes the fixed costs of keeping the Shuttle program running past the year 2000 since the Shuttle was used almost exclusively for the ISS.).
What did we get as a result? I think the three main benefits were a demonstra
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the 1% of the 1% of the 1%. This family [wikipedia.org] controls about $1 trillion in assets. It's time to tax the shit out of them. When you can donate a castle [wikipedia.org] to charity, you have too much money. That smells of a tax dodge.
For the sake of argument, let's say we did what you suggest--hell, that we went even further than that and we took every red cent that they "control." We would pay for this year's budget deficit, and that's about it. Now what?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mentioned the Republicans but forgot to mention the Democrats would rather burn the republic to the ground than make mile reductions in their massive increases (which started under Bush btw).
Your one-sided rhetoric shows you are part of the problem, not the solution. It is the Democrats you praise who are playing the same game schoolboards play, but at a national level, where they cut school bus service first, to irritate parents. Here, they do asinine things like not deploy an ostensibly needed aircr
Re: (Score:2)
you would be more grateful if we pulled all your cell phone, satellite tv and a bunch of other shit brought to you by NASA technology.
Why dont you educate yourself a little on what the NASA does for the country instead of sitting there in your poopoo chair whining and complaining about things you know nothing about.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:1962: MAN IN ORBIT - 1969: MAN ON THE MOON !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Since ?? Wall Street and Too Big To Fail banks have sucked all the BIG capital into the pockets of a few !! And you let them !!
ISTM that since about 1980 we've been running the USA as a cream-skimming operation for the rich. Once they have everything they'll move on to another country full of stupid voters and leave what's left of the USA to fend for itself. Probably burdened with huge IMF debts, which, unlike the current debt that everyone is fainting over, actually have to be paid back.
Re: (Score:2)
ISTM that since about 1780 we've been running the USA as a cream-skimming operation for the rich
FTFY.
Is there any hope left? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given NASA's constant funding problems for the last few decades, by this point all the talented engineers and researchers would of left. Also with the current political environment of focusing spending on the War on Terror related projects and social support, I would be surprised if there will be any increase in budget allocation to the space-related sciences.
At this rate, is there any meaningful hope left for NASA, JPL or indeed any government-funded space-related agencies?
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your correction. Still learning English, so the corrections are welcome.
Re: (Score:1)
at the moment, nobody really gives a fuck about nasa or space since they're trying to focus on figuring out how to pay their bills, and rightly so... i know nasa bureaucrats are thinking of themselves too, but if you like begging for handouts there are other ways/places to do it
Re:Is there any hope left? (Score:4, Interesting)
at the moment, nobody really gives a fuck about nasa or space since they're trying to focus on figuring out how to pay their bills, and rightly so...
Exactly. A few decades ago, the old "we can't just keep throwing money at the poor" reaction made some sense, as things like homeless shelters, support for the elderly & disabled, public schools & universities (like the ones that created much of the original Internet) were relatively well-funded; unemployment wasn't out of hand, minimum wage wasn't being eclipsed by the cost of necessities but there was plenty of help for those that needed it. The situation wasn't remotely near perfect, but it was close enough to divert some funds into scientific endeavors that aren't devoted to saving & drastically improving lives.
That's not true anymore. Most adults over 30 are under a hell of a lot of pressure between knowing job security is shit, their pay not mirroring how hard/long they work, the cost of necessities is eating most of their paycheck, plus have kids plus elderly/disabled relatives they will (or are) need to help out substantially because the programs that would've done so 30 years ago were cut to the bone. Some of the geeks on Slashdot are (or should be) worrying even if they do earn a good living, as the age bias could easily cause long-term havoc unless they can excel enough at a new career to be hired in middle age with zero work experience in the field. It's usually the inexperienced younger folk that haven't had to help others out yet that shrug the issue off and focus on their dreams & ideals...
Personally, my thought is that we should return to the overall taxes & spending setup that helped spur the creation of the Internet and the space program, because it's all ultimately interconnected. Those of you whose reaction to the above is to resentfully think that a lack of dependents & current success means you shouldn't have to pitch in, that's what it will take if you want an America like the one that achieved great things several decades ago; if you want one like the stagnating, slowly failing one of the last 12 years where people focus on individually scrabbling for what they can grab for themselves rather than working together to achieve great things, keep pushing for the path we're on.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, my thought is that we should return to the overall taxes & spending setup that helped spur the creation of the Internet and the space program,
What are you talking about? Are you under the impression that what we have now is not tax and spend?
Re:Is there any hope left? (Score:4, Interesting)
Given NASA's constant funding problems for the last few decades
During the last few decades (1990-) NASA has enjoyed consistent funding [wordpress.com] just north of 15 billion inflation adjusted dollars every year. That pattern has survived four presidents and almost six administrations.
The "funding problem" you imagine is received bullshit. Given that NASA is just one of many 'discretionary' costs that must compete with the ever bloating welfare state and chronic $1E12+ annual deficits since 2008, a NASA spending authority loss of only 5% is a testament to our values and our wisdom.
Our wisdom... sounds weird doesn't it? Taking the occasional break from self-flagellation is useful behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that NASA is just one of many 'discretionary' costs that must compete with the ever bloating welfare state and chronic $1E12+ annual deficits since 2008, a NASA spending authority loss of only 5% is a testament to our values and our wisdom.
That's a lot of shit. NASA's budget amounts to a rounding error on our military budget. If you think that makes us wise, it's clear you are not even distantly acquainted with wisdom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the US is spending too much on the military, but the military does national defense, which is one of the few things that most people agree is important.
I agree, but I think it should be tempered by the needs of planetary defense. Also, pork.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but I think it should be tempered by the needs of planetary defense.
The US military happens to be a better fit than NASA for planetary defense as well. Among other things, the US military has a bigger space budget than NASA does and they built and operated the existing systems for detecting threats on Earth and in space.
Also, pork.
The problem here is that NASA is just as pork-ridden and inefficient as the US military. If we redirect the waste from the US military without doing a similar cleanup at NASA, then we'll still squander that money.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that NASA is just as pork-ridden and inefficient as the US military.
I'd rather have space pork than exploding pork.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any hope left? Are you kidding me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet, we have two rovers on Mars and two orbiters at Mars, an orbiter at Saturn, an orbiter at Mercury, a fly-by probe on the way to Pluto, multiple astronomical observatories, lunar orbiters, and more earth sciences orbiters than you can shake a stick at... In fact, NASA has more going on currently [nasa.gov] than at almost any other time in it's history. I'd suggest you calibrate your biases against reality, because the former is way out of touch with the latter.
I've been hearing that question since the mid-70's - NASA watchers seem to be mostly nothing but a bunch of Chicken Little's for whom the sky is perpetually falling.
From years of watching NASA, their problems aren't so much budgetary and managerial... and not just at HQ, but all the way out to the line troops at the Centers. NASA has a long standing problem with properly estimating and managing their budgets. To be fair, some of that isn't their fault - Congress is rarely inclined to fund the engineering development missions that would give them the experience to do so... as a result, practically every program and mission is a one-off that absolutely must succeed because failure isn't an option. And because Congress and the general public treat every failure as an earth shattering disaster, something of a positive feedback loop has been established which just makes the problem worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me correct your statement: "Given NASA's constant funding problems for the last few decades," In fact you meant to write, "Given NASA's constant spending problems for the last few decades..."
They have an $18B budget yet can't find a way to get by. Really? Maybe it is time to re-examine what NASA should and should not be about and fit that into the $18B instead of crying about not getting more to fund extravagant missisions of dubious value. ISS? $100B for what great scientific achievments that only
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Do the math. Not that big of deal (Score:1)
Re:Do the math. Not that big of deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Try again. Sequestration hit 5 months into the year. Assuming a relatively constant spending of money, $894 million is 8.6% of $10.4 billion[which is 7/12 of 17.8 billion]. This makes senses as it is the commonly quoted percentage for every agency facing cuts. But all of that budget isn't really cuttable. Say half of the budget is uncuttable. That leaves you needing to suddenly cut 20% out of the budget that is cuttable. This is where you get 1 day a week furloughs and whole programs/services eliminated like we've been hearing about in other agencies.
Calling your bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Sequestration, BY LAW, only applies to discretionary funds. There are, built into the law, programs that are "uncuttable", and yes, they are generally about half of total expenditures.
And you fundamentally don't understand how government research agencies work. Employees at those agencies have to write proposals, just like every other researcher in the world, proving the usefulness and relevance of their work.
Cutting salaries would entail even more paperwork and bureaucratic overhead than furloughs, and furloughs have the added benefit of ensuring that the government doesn't artificially devalue employees' work by expecting them to produce the same for less.
Congress has burdened government employees with far more mandatory rules and regulations than businesses are subject to. In addition to mantory training, full documentation of all purchases with several levels of authorization for every penny so they can audit it later, and periodic investigations to make sure they interpret the rules properly, government employees must adhere to OSHA rules to the letter. They have to request approval for overtime and comp time, and working it without reporting it is a federal crime. They are required by law to take lunch (their timecards won't let them submit over seven hours without a lunch break), and if they work through lunch they are once again lying on their time cards and committing a federal crime.
You want to make it possible for government employees to save the government and the country money? Start with Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
And there is good reason for all that: when private businesses become wasteful or corrupt, they go out o
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how you managed to write the first thought down and not see the obvious problem conflict with your second.
Re: (Score:2)
And what would that conflict be, according to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once you have a permanent position or a fixed term position, the employer can't simply say "you don't have a job anymore, I'm not paying you past Monday".
I can tell you've never worked for a company before, because there's this little thing called "at will" employment.
Let me direct you to something more at your particular mental level. [yahoo.com]
I'll let you have the last word because I really don't care what a gradeschooler thinks about employment.
Re:Total bullshit assumption (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
i'm surprised they didn't threaten another challenger disaster or an apollo 1 fire or some other fearmongering nonsense, especially since the white house is leading the way with that tactic
Re: (Score:2)
i'm surprised they didn't threaten another challenger disaster or an apollo 1 fire or some other fearmongering nonsense, especially since the white house is leading the way with that tactic
That would require NASA participating in Human Spaceflight, a business they currently are not participating in anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
they send bodies... erm i mean astronauts... over to russia for testing... erm i mean launches... in ukraine
but in any case, i wonder if most americans know this? i mean if they believe the tripe that comes out of the white house...
Re: (Score:3)
THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS.
Re: (Score:2)
You must have missed the follow up
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/26/once-thought-lost-and-now-found-6-billion/ [cnn.com]
But the inspector general's new report says almost all the $6.6 billion was properly handed over to Iraq and its Central Bank. "[Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction] was able to account for the unexpended [Development Fund for Iraq] funds remaining in DFI accounts when the CPA (Coalitional Provisional Authority) dissolved in June 2004," the new report says. "Sufficient evidence exists showing that almost all of the remaining $6.6 billion remaining was transferred to actual and legal CBI (Central Bank of Iraq) control."
There was also a great story about how a random guy ended up being solely responsible for handling every pallet of cash destined for the Central Bank of Iraq. [cnbc.com]
It's actually a bit disturbing that the US didn't set up any procedures and this one guy was more or less on his own, handling billions of dollars with zero oversight.
Sponsorship & advertising (Score:1)
Nobody ever ruined their eyesight (Score:2)
Do not look into the bright side of the Sun with remaining eye.
Era of big government is waning (Score:2)
If you want to talk about "eras", we should talk about the "era" of relying on the government for access to space being just about over now.
NASA is doing some good work still but properly they should be scaled back, as private companies move now to take us into space far cheaper than NASA ever could. The sequestration cuts are tiny compared to the reductions that make sense for them now.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA (with FAA help most likely) is probably move to a regulatory role with launch providers and, sequestration is going to hinder private manned space flig
Re: (Score:2)
The contractor USA (United Space Allience) maintained and launched te Shuttles. Technically NASA owned the vehicles and facilities but Civil Servants only ever made up 10% or so of the workforce. You need at least a few technical people around to help write clear contracts.
Austerity. (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
This is what a country afraid of its own shadow (Score:1)
Looks like.
Transfer homeland defense budget to NASA problem solved.
Just put these projects on Kickstarter (Score:3)
some of them might actually get the funding ;)
Politically motivated IG statements (Score:4, Interesting)
It's sad to see an Inspector General get on a politicized soap box and yell "the sky is falling!" The Obama administration has gone out of its way to have every cabinet member and in fact everybody down the food chain or should I say "feeding trough" also echo a bunch of FUD over the sequestration. Just like our retarded Homeland Security Chief Napolitano, a bigger political idiot I'd be challenged to find on this planet! [thegatewaypundit.com] Wasn't it her program of "If you see something, say something?" Hey Janet, "you're a retard and a hypocrite because on one hand you tell us that because of sequestration the TSA will have to cut back and we'll have longer waits at the airport and yet you spend another $50M you didn't need toright after announcing that!" Sorry for ranting.
In the private sector, every manager usually has a few goals established that are boilerplate but still applicable.. One of them is "Reduce Costs by x%" usually x is 10. All of us in this economy has had to cut back and it's time for the US Government to stop spending every dollar they take in and a third more. $900B deficits are killing us now and will only get worse, it has to stop.
If you look at the data for NASA the current budget while it is less than they've spent under Continuing Resolutions but in FY2009 [wikipedia.org] (The last year a budget was passed by Congress) Their budget was $17,782B. in 2010 and 2011 they were allowed to spend $18,724B and $18,448B respectively. That's pretty hefty in terms of spending increases and let's not forget they were still flying the Space Shuttles during those fiscal years! It was hella expensive to launch a shuttle and it has been a drain on NASA's budget for decades. By some estimates $192B over the life of the Shuttles.
Now the IG is whining that the budget is going to cause problems? I'd submit that after the Shuttle program ended that the budget should have gone down. But no, it's now down by their latest projection for FY2012 (the current budget year) $17,770B roughly the same as in FY2009!?!? Assuming 4 launches launches per year (FY2010) [wikipedia.org] @ $1.5B/launch [forbes.com] that's $6B just for not flying the Shuttle, but yet the budget didn't go down. Granted only two shuttles flew in FY2011, I'd still submit that's $3B that went to something "else."
What ever "else" is they need to just stop doing that because it came into fruition over the last year.
This is a very very poor set of arguments from an official who is supposed to be independent and the watchdog for the American People and he's not doing his job by echoing the same BS and FUD that the administration has pushed out since February. They have eliminated the Shuttle, reducing expenses of $6B/year and they want more money? What every they're smoking they need to share it with the rest of us!
This kind of attitude clearly points out why there's such a huge vacuum of leadership in DC. From Congress to the White House, it's time to vote them all out of office, but first fire this IG!
The manned spaceflight rathole (Score:3)
get used to it (Score:3)
If we spend more and more money on entitlements, crony capitalism, global warming remediation, and bailing out home owners who can't afford their McMansions, there will be just less and less money left for interesting stuff like space exploration.
Having said that, NASA's budget in constant dollars is actually historically fairly high:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA [wikipedia.org]
Of course, given rampant fiscal irresponsbility, its percentage share of the total federal budget is declining, but that's hardly a decline in funding.
How much could they possibly need (Score:2)
Obama killed the moon trip the mars trip and most of manned spaceflight altogether. NASA is a self admitted Muslim outreach program now. I mean for all his blather about education how much of that do you need to be part of Obama's infinite cadres of teacherscopsfirefighters?