Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Fake Banner
By Alex Antunes | February 9th 2009 09:07 AM | 8 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More The Daytime Astronomer articles

All

About Alex Antunes

In "The Sky By Day", Dr. Alex Antunes serves twice-weekly slices of life from the sometimes strange, sometimes oddly normal workday of a NASA astrophysicist. Readers get the inside scoop on what... Full Bio

The recent video "Barriers to Innovation" has some great thoughts about the culture of NASA and its barriers to innovation. Arriving from a Johnson Space Center study, the 10 minute video is worth a look.

Ultimately, yes, I wish NASA had more of a mad scientist component. I think they're risk averse because that's part of their mandate. Google's founders gave Google "do no evil". Congress gave NASA "don't screw up".

NASA takes innovation risks all the time-- but usually late in a mission or on small scales. The older the Mars rovers get, the more risky the missions they'll try. The International Cometary Explorer mission was a fantastic repurposing of an earlier mission to do a comet fly-by. Once a NASA satellite passes its (usually 2 year) primary mission, NASA is happy to get jiggy with things. Unusual observing programs, operating to the equipment limits, repurposing, tackling risky stuff, this happens every day.

My own NASA work history is based on 'required innovation'. Typically, I'm brought in a year or so before a satellite launch to ensure that the science end will be up and running by launch so that science will be done. Once, my boss gave me 2 years and 2 people to follow up my idea of inventing a better ops scheduler, just from one meeting and his "okay". So change is possible-- but it's hard and certainly not automatic.

And when you have hundreds of millions or more at stake for a big project like 'the shuttle' or 'HST', it's much harder to retool everything on a 'maybe'. The 'maybes' stay for smaller stuff or after we're sure the taxpayers got their dollar's worth.

Industry-wide, though, no one does off-the-cuff innovation or throw-and-pray 'hail mary' passes with their core projects. NASA doesn't toss the ISS for inflates on a whim, but they did research them, then licensed the concept. Detroit doesn't ditch gas cars for electrics, but they did design some. The DoD doesn't instantly swap tanks for robots, but they did have DARPA do studies on 'bots. Google didn't ditch search to retool itself as an auction site, but they did toy with auctions around the edges of their core business.

Perhaps the new space age, with folks like Scaled Composites and SpaceX and Bigelow, is just the opportunity we mad scientists need to be agents of change. And hopefully the NASA video, by raising the issue, will open up more innovation in NASA culture. But just as NASA is neither perfect nor totally flawed, so too change is neither always good nor something to be avoided. The trick for space research will always be finding the balance between what we know works, and what dreams we simply have to risk trying.

Comments

Hank's picture
I have thought for some time that NASA has become much too bureaucratic and not creative enough.  It only took 8 years to go to the moon the first time so why will it take 15 to go back?   

Apollo I was a tragedy but those folks were heroes - now everyone in NASA would be villains if something like that happened because a Congressman would want to make a national name for himself rather than understanding that bold science can be dangerous.

Stellare's picture
That video is right on! Big organizations, not only governmental, put brakes on creativity and innovation just to save their asses (excuse my French).

Hank's picture
just to save their asses (excuse my French)

Did you mean NASA a un joli cul?

Stellare's picture
NASA est joli, aussi avec son cul. Mais, NASA a une enorme fesse, qui pèse...trop.
In American, Cute, but too heavy. haha

antunes's picture
I agree we need boldness... not just in NASA, but as a country.  Life is not safe, adventure doubly so.

Gerhard Adam's picture

More than boldness, we need the truth.  All too often the problems intrinsic in bureaucracies is that they tend to lie to the public and then scuttle for cover when the truth is discovered.  People are willing to be bold if they aren't lied to about the realities.

There's also an increasing skepticism about large organization's willingness to cut corners to save money.  This is another reason why people are becoming more risk averse, since often they are the one's taking the risk so that some accountant in the backroom (or a CEO) can collect a bonus.


It's these elements that stifle risk taking and they are endemic in almost every large organization that I can think of.



Maybe a solution to the issues of risk taking in NASA is to set out a small dedicated part of the budget for aerospace Joint Ventures with small and midsized businesses. Shoestring budgets with big goals the real value is in seeding the industry with new agressive businesses who could take real risks quickly and cheaply. The idea is use a shotgun approach to new technologies and spread money over hundreds of small JV's with NASA holding some stake in the JV's if any of these ventures achieve real value in the marketplace NASA could monitize this for other investments. The winners should be able to pay for the losers. The reason NASA doesn't take risks more often is there is little or no incentive for the managers. NASA needs a new skillset 'the Venture Capitalist'.

antunes's picture
Well, fortunately NASA doesn't have CEOs who can write their own bonuses-- the one advantage of gov't work (but not politics) is flat salaries and not as much double-dipping.  I do agree seed money projects are a great idea.  NASA basically can't have a VC post-- only Congress controls the purse strings, and NASA isn't really allowed to monetize things, only research and develop.  NASA even ran into a problem trying to make a 'Space-X' prize, though-- apparently Congress forbids it.  I'll have to hunt up the citation on that.  That's a law that needs to be reworked-- that NASA can offer a contract and still have to pay if the contractor screws up, but they can't offer a bounty for multiple competitors to try to get.  So, yes, a dedicated high-risk budget akin to DoD's DARPA would be a very nice thing.


Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.