Underfunded, aging NASA may be on unsustainable path, report warns
NASA is not focused enough on the future, fails to think strategically and has a mismatch between ambitions and budget, says a sweeping report by aerospace experts.
NASA is 66 years old and feeling its age. Brilliant engineers are retiring. Others have fled to higher-paying jobs in the private space industry. The buildings are old, their maintenance deferred. The Apollo era, with its huge taxpayer investment, is a distant memory. The agency now pursues complex missions on inadequate budgets.
This may be an unsustainable path for NASA, one that imperils long-term success. That is the conclusion of a sweeping report, titled “NASA at a Crossroads,” written by a committee of aerospace experts and published Tuesday by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.
The report suggests that NASA prioritizes near-term missions and fails to think strategically. In other words, the space agency isn’t sufficiently focused on the future.
NASA’s intense focus on current missions is understandable, considering the unforgiving nature of space operations, but “one tends to neglect the probably less glamorous thing that will determine the success in the future,” the report’s lead author, Norman Augustine, a retired Lockheed Martin chief executive, said Tuesday.
He said one solution for NASA’s problems is more funding from Congress. But that may be hard to come by, in which case, he said, the agency needs to consider canceling or delaying costly missions to invest in more mundane but strategically important institutional needs, such as technology development and workforce training.
Augustine said he is concerned that NASA could lose in-house expertise if it relies too heavily on the private industry for newly emerging technologies.
“It will have trouble hiring innovative, creative engineers. Innovative, creative engineers don’t want to have a job that consists of overseeing other people’s work,” he said.
NASA Administrator Bill Nelson thanked the Augustine committee for the report. “This report aligns with our current efforts to ensure we have the infrastructure, workforce, and technology that NASA needs for the decades ahead,” Nelson said in a statement released by the agency. “We will continue to work diligently to address the committee’s recommendations — and drive our cutting-edge work on Earth, in the skies, and in the stars.”
Congress directed NASA to sponsor a National Academies study to review the agency’s long-term goals and mission plans after Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act in 2022. Tuesday’s 204-page report was compiled after 25 committee sessions across 14 months.
The report is hardly a blistering screed. The tone is parental. It praises the agency — with a budget of about $25 billion — for its triumphs while urging more prudent decision-making and long-term strategizing.
NASA pursues spectacular missions. It has sent swarms of robotic probes across the solar system and even into interstellar space. Astronauts have continuously been in orbit for more than two decades. The most ambitious program, Artemis, aims to put astronauts back on the moon in a few short years. And long-term, NASA hopes to put astronauts on Mars.
But a truism in the industry is that space is hard. The new report contends that NASA has a mismatch between its ambitions and its budget, and needs to pay attention to fundamentals such as fixing its aging infrastructure and retaining in-house talent.
“NASA’s overall physical infrastructure is already well beyond its design life, and this fraction continues to grow,” the report states.
At risk, potentially, is NASA’s status as the world’s premier space agency. China has a robust space program, with lunar ambitions of its own.
The report notes that NASA’s budget has crept up in recent years, but so have costs as the missions have become more complex and ambitious. Factoring in inflation and buying power, NASA’s budget has been relatively flat.
Augustine has long been a NASA critic-at-large. He has served on multiple committees over the past several decades that have reviewed NASA’s overall health. A recurring theme: The agency bites off more it can chew.
That was the conclusion reached by an Augustine-chaired committee convened by President Barack Obama early in his administration to review NASA’s strategy. The report said NASA did not have the resources to carry out the missions advocated by the administration of President George W. Bush, including sending astronauts back to the moon on NASA-built rockets. That led to NASA shelving the moon mission, though it was revived under President Donald Trump and has been sustained by President Joe Biden.
Lori Garver, who served as NASA deputy administrator under Obama, called the report “an excellent roadmap for any future NASA leaders who would choose to make meaningful change.” She cited the report’s observation that NASA routinely runs about $3 billion short of the funding it needs to complete its suite of missions.
“This report could not be more timely to the next NASA transition team’s efforts to realign programs for greater success,” she said in an email.
Ibitetwice on
USA has no way to beat China to the moon at this point. If it all is now in question.
Raynzler on
US politicians and voters need to see Chinese astronauts walk on the Moon. The US will quickly find budget for NASA.
NASA supports one of the greatest human endeavors ever and generally shares the adventure and knowledge gained with the world.
ThatKombatWombat on
Ugh we’ve wasted so much money on war and could have done cool space things instead…
Shredding_Airguitar on
A lot can be explained by having geriatric technical illiterates (Senators) writing appropriation bills that force NASA to build things like the SLS. Their mission is creating job programs with defense contractors not space exploration.
the_fungible_man on
>Underfunded…
Full stop. Chronic underfunding & congressional interference is at the root of the many “failings” this reports assigns to NASA.
>NASA is not focused enough on the future, fails to think strategically and has a mismatch between ambitions and budget…
How are they supposed to “focus on the future” and “think strategically” when they can never rely on funding beyond the current fiscal year, and what funding they do get can come with political ~~strings~~ chains attached?
Successful_Brief_751 on
They just waste the money. Why has SpaceX been able to do it so much cheaper? Because it isn’t just tax payer money. There is an actual incentive to reduce cost.
toomanynamesaretook on
Kill SLS. Now fund all the missions using Starship architecture.
Basedshark01 on
They aren’t underfunded, they’re just focusing on all the wrong projects.
NeuralShrapnel on
underfunded HELL NO. more like filled with gov bloat and rot. they get so much money but dont really do much but waste most of it on building its own rockets instead of building landers, rovers, sats and unique missions. they should ditch all rocket dev.
sorry but this idea that more money will fix nasa is a joke
thearchenemy on
All part of the plan to fully privatize it, just like everything else in the US.
NASA is one of the few unequivocally good things the US has ever done, a true inspiration to the world, and of course we want to chop it up and sell it off to the highest bidder.
Keilanm on
They waste money on projects like the SLS trying to chase an antiquated plan of recycling shuttle components. half of the upper administration of NASA needs to be kicked out and filled with engineers instead.
Decronym on
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
13 Comments
Underfunded, aging NASA may be on unsustainable path, report warns
NASA is not focused enough on the future, fails to think strategically and has a mismatch between ambitions and budget, says a sweeping report by aerospace experts.
NASA is 66 years old and feeling its age. Brilliant engineers are retiring. Others have fled to higher-paying jobs in the private space industry. The buildings are old, their maintenance deferred. The Apollo era, with its huge taxpayer investment, is a distant memory. The agency now pursues complex missions on inadequate budgets.
This may be an unsustainable path for NASA, one that imperils long-term success. That is the conclusion of a sweeping report, titled “NASA at a Crossroads,” written by a committee of aerospace experts and published Tuesday by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.
The report suggests that NASA prioritizes near-term missions and fails to think strategically. In other words, the space agency isn’t sufficiently focused on the future.
NASA’s intense focus on current missions is understandable, considering the unforgiving nature of space operations, but “one tends to neglect the probably less glamorous thing that will determine the success in the future,” the report’s lead author, Norman Augustine, a retired Lockheed Martin chief executive, said Tuesday.
He said one solution for NASA’s problems is more funding from Congress. But that may be hard to come by, in which case, he said, the agency needs to consider canceling or delaying costly missions to invest in more mundane but strategically important institutional needs, such as technology development and workforce training.
Augustine said he is concerned that NASA could lose in-house expertise if it relies too heavily on the private industry for newly emerging technologies.
“It will have trouble hiring innovative, creative engineers. Innovative, creative engineers don’t want to have a job that consists of overseeing other people’s work,” he said.
NASA Administrator Bill Nelson thanked the Augustine committee for the report. “This report aligns with our current efforts to ensure we have the infrastructure, workforce, and technology that NASA needs for the decades ahead,” Nelson said in a statement released by the agency. “We will continue to work diligently to address the committee’s recommendations — and drive our cutting-edge work on Earth, in the skies, and in the stars.”
Congress directed NASA to sponsor a National Academies study to review the agency’s long-term goals and mission plans after Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act in 2022. Tuesday’s 204-page report was compiled after 25 committee sessions across 14 months.
The report is hardly a blistering screed. The tone is parental. It praises the agency — with a budget of about $25 billion — for its triumphs while urging more prudent decision-making and long-term strategizing.
NASA pursues spectacular missions. It has sent swarms of robotic probes across the solar system and even into interstellar space. Astronauts have continuously been in orbit for more than two decades. The most ambitious program, Artemis, aims to put astronauts back on the moon in a few short years. And long-term, NASA hopes to put astronauts on Mars.
But a truism in the industry is that space is hard. The new report contends that NASA has a mismatch between its ambitions and its budget, and needs to pay attention to fundamentals such as fixing its aging infrastructure and retaining in-house talent.
“NASA’s overall physical infrastructure is already well beyond its design life, and this fraction continues to grow,” the report states.
At risk, potentially, is NASA’s status as the world’s premier space agency. China has a robust space program, with lunar ambitions of its own.
The report notes that NASA’s budget has crept up in recent years, but so have costs as the missions have become more complex and ambitious. Factoring in inflation and buying power, NASA’s budget has been relatively flat.
Augustine has long been a NASA critic-at-large. He has served on multiple committees over the past several decades that have reviewed NASA’s overall health. A recurring theme: The agency bites off more it can chew.
That was the conclusion reached by an Augustine-chaired committee convened by President Barack Obama early in his administration to review NASA’s strategy. The report said NASA did not have the resources to carry out the missions advocated by the administration of President George W. Bush, including sending astronauts back to the moon on NASA-built rockets. That led to NASA shelving the moon mission, though it was revived under President Donald Trump and has been sustained by President Joe Biden.
Lori Garver, who served as NASA deputy administrator under Obama, called the report “an excellent roadmap for any future NASA leaders who would choose to make meaningful change.” She cited the report’s observation that NASA routinely runs about $3 billion short of the funding it needs to complete its suite of missions.
“This report could not be more timely to the next NASA transition team’s efforts to realign programs for greater success,” she said in an email.
USA has no way to beat China to the moon at this point. If it all is now in question.
US politicians and voters need to see Chinese astronauts walk on the Moon. The US will quickly find budget for NASA.
NASA supports one of the greatest human endeavors ever and generally shares the adventure and knowledge gained with the world.
Ugh we’ve wasted so much money on war and could have done cool space things instead…
A lot can be explained by having geriatric technical illiterates (Senators) writing appropriation bills that force NASA to build things like the SLS. Their mission is creating job programs with defense contractors not space exploration.
>Underfunded…
Full stop. Chronic underfunding & congressional interference is at the root of the many “failings” this reports assigns to NASA.
>NASA is not focused enough on the future, fails to think strategically and has a mismatch between ambitions and budget…
How are they supposed to “focus on the future” and “think strategically” when they can never rely on funding beyond the current fiscal year, and what funding they do get can come with political ~~strings~~ chains attached?
They just waste the money. Why has SpaceX been able to do it so much cheaper? Because it isn’t just tax payer money. There is an actual incentive to reduce cost.
Kill SLS. Now fund all the missions using Starship architecture.
They aren’t underfunded, they’re just focusing on all the wrong projects.
underfunded HELL NO. more like filled with gov bloat and rot. they get so much money but dont really do much but waste most of it on building its own rockets instead of building landers, rovers, sats and unique missions. they should ditch all rocket dev.
sorry but this idea that more money will fix nasa is a joke
All part of the plan to fully privatize it, just like everything else in the US.
NASA is one of the few unequivocally good things the US has ever done, a true inspiration to the world, and of course we want to chop it up and sell it off to the highest bidder.
They waste money on projects like the SLS trying to chase an antiquated plan of recycling shuttle components. half of the upper administration of NASA needs to be kicked out and filled with engineers instead.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|——-|———|—|
|[BO](/r/Space/comments/1feqh2b/stub/lmpe0b7 “Last usage”)|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)|
|[NRE](/r/Space/comments/1feqh2b/stub/lmp9i9n “Last usage”)|Non-Recurring Expense|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1feqh2b/stub/lmpecnl “Last usage”)|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
—————-
^([Thread #10571 for this sub, first seen 12th Sep 2024, 02:19])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)