Long-term planning (an unfortunate lack, thereof)

No argument from me regarding the perverse incentives and outcomes of NASA
projects.

I think NASA is going to continue to exist for some years to come. For
what reason, I don't know. To expect rationality is probably too much to
ask. But it will continue to get $15 billion a year. I just wish those
$15 billion could be spent on less dopey things than ISS and missions to
Pluto/Mercury/Europa/Mars.

Ron Menich

"Mitchell E.
Sent by: thereof)
root@...
atters.com

06/08/01 02:02
PM
Please respond
to ssi_list

...

Sounds sensible. This program would certainly work.

Hypothetical situation. You are elected as minister for space, in a
hypothetical European country, called Hypothetica. Hypothetica is one
of
richest nations in the world, but most of the money is used up just
through
maintaining the public services. You are given a budget of about $2-$3

billion per year and want to fulfil the O'Neill vision as quickly as
you
can. You have almost total discretion in how you spend the money.
There are
nearly sixty million people in your country, and many of them dream of

going into space, walking the lunar deserts, living in O'Neill
colonies
and enjoying cheap electricity. If you keep them waiting for too long
they
will grow impatient. Your visionary space ambitions are part of what
got
you elected and the people are itching to see results. What sort of
space
policy would you design? What would you consider to be the optimum
schedule?

Actually, I tell a lie. This isn't entirely hypothetical. In fact
its
not that hypothetical at all.

Tony

I do not disagree with anything that Ron or Arthur said about things that
need done. I do however have concerns about the assumptions underlying the
question of how do you go about doing these things.

The NASA approach:
Create a large self perpetuating bureaucracy coupled to a voracious job
supplying industrial complex.
Spend most of a project changing the requirements to burn budget without
accomplishing anything.
Make sure political concerns out weigh anything else so that alternatives
never see the light of day. (Some country donates a robotic arm without any
reference to design requirements or alternative approaches that has a 100%
chance of failure, then be sure to build your whole system around it.
Don't want to seem ungrateful. Sorry, soapbox item, I was at a conference
ten years ago where this happened. Today's problems are just a result of
the NASA way that caused me to write letters to congressmen after that
conference requesting that NASA be dismantled.)
And add all the other things any of us have ever complained about.

Define your political requirements first!
Is the goal Pax Hypothetica? How much control do you expect to end up
with?
Is this being done for the good of all mankind or a more limited set?
Do you expect any financial returns or is this a public works project?
What is the maximum size the government bureaucracy should be? What is the
minimum?
What is the minimum number of jobs that industry must have? What is the
maximum that will be allowed? Remember that every job created is a
constituency that is trying to keep themselves employed and that can be a
real problem when paying them takes money away from more important
activities.
What % of the money must be spent in Hypothetica?
What methods will be used to provide limelight for politicians in control?
ISS could be considered the fall-out of a American President's need to have
something to talk about at a press conference after a meeting with the
Soviets.

It would be really great if this was a public works project.

My approach would be along these lines:
1. No more than a 10 man central office.
2. Create 2 to 10 independent non-profit membership research centers
modeled on SSI that would receive 50% of the budget. The reason to use the
SSI approach is that these would be citizen groups increasing citizen
involvement and providing money (dues, etc.) that would supplement
government money. SSI franchises might be interesting.
3. 25% of the money would be distributed to aerospace companies to do X in
Y time or no more contracts. Preferably they would be creating
infrastructure for the research centers to use.
4. 25% would be spent on blue sky startups or approaches that could
seriously reduce the cost of getting there. Collaborative engineering
seems like a good example.

I would try really hard to think of ways of creating public involvement.
Remote robotic operators could be chosen from people who bought the
simulator, had passing scores, and bought a time slot. The highest scores
would get free time slots and some nominal pay. How many decisions really
need to be made behind closed doors by a select few. The more open to the
public the better. All designs and discussions should be open via
something like . I think that if NASA was forced to
make everything available on the web for public comment that we would have
a very different program and much more worldwide interest.

Wrap-up:
If Hypothetica does things the way NASA does them, then they will be a
two-bit player in NASA's game. That could be an easy acceptable solution
to some. To be more than a two-bit player is going to require breaking all
the rules. Time to live on the edge.

Mitchell James
mejames@...