NASA and the Columbia report

NASA are being slated left, right and centre for some very poor managment that led to the destruction of STS Columbia in February. It's being said that NASA has learnt little or changed little since the STS Challenger tragedy in 1986.

While I think this is all true and needs to be corrected straight away, I have not seen much criticism of what I think is the root cause of the problem with NASA - that withdrawl of government funding to NASA has caused a brain drain and led the best of their engineers and managment off to the private sector, leaving less talented and less experienced people in their place.

Less money has also meant that there is no money to upgrade flight systems - the systems of the shuttle are 30 years old at this stage and perhaps if there was money available to spend on getting new systems then the shuttle would not be as vulnerable. Sure, it's an old design, but if the money was there, perhaps a new shuttle with new and modern systems could have been built. If there was money, then perhaps a tile inspection and repair kit - designed at the time the shuttle made its debut, but later cancelled for lack of finance - would have been standard - and used as a matter of course.

Those are my thoughts. What do others think?

I couldn't agree more.

NASA is simply not a priority anymore for the American Government and hence it is not getting the prestige, money and people it needs to do it's job well.

However another major problem with NASA right now is that it is an agency without a mission. Where are they going? What are their long term aims? IMHO no one really knows!

They are putting allt heir energy in to the ISS but the ISS was supposed to be a stepping stone to the Solar System, not an end in it self.

What NASA needs is for President Bush to make a commitment to go to Mars and to do it in such a way that he inspires the nation in the way Kennedy did with Apolo. However given the current US President that looks extremely unlikely indeed, there is more chance of him invading Ireland as part of the "war on terror"!

It really is sad to see what has become of NASA. The shuttle is old, it was never meant to STILL be in service now. Both the X33 and X34 should now be in use instead of the shuttle but both those projects were scrapped because of a lack of money.

Bart B.

that withdrawl of government funding to NASA has caused a brain drain and led the best of their engineers and managment off to the private sector, leaving less talented and less experienced people in their place.

Those are my thoughts. What do others think?

I agree.

Dan Golden was appointed administrator in 1992 and was criticised by some for the cuts he made (radically reducing the administration costs and personell for example). "faster, better, cheaper" was the motto.

However despite being a good buisnessman and being able to run NASA as a business he understood `space`, he was an engineer, and had worked in the field for a long time, initaially working for NAS in 1962 on electronic propulsion systems, crucially he also had vision.

His tenure ended in November 2001, 10 months into the administration of George W.

In december 91, Bush appointed Sean O'Keefe as administrator. O'Keefe is a republican, not that theres anything wrong with that per se, but he wasnt appointed because of his ability to lead a space program. He is an administrator, hes been chief financial officer for the US DoD, hes been Professor of Business and Government Policy. Nowhere in his background is there any scientific background. He put there to cut costs further and run NASA purely like a company.

I dont blame O'Keefe for Columbia, I'm sure he ran NASA to the best of his abilities and in the best way he thought possible for NASA. And perhaps it was just bad luck that the tragedy happend on his shift, from the sounds of the report it was a disaster that was waiting to happen.

However questions must be asked of the US government, for appointing their old business buddies to posts like this. And of course for cutting NASAs budgets while still making demands of them, George W is still managing to pump money into the US DoD and increase the UD debt.

It was inevetable that NASA would get (rightly I think) criticised for the columbia tragedy. And seeing the way things work in the states that will be the end of it. I think the root cause of this was a lot close to the white house and decisions made there.

Cheers,
~Al

I have to agree with virtually everything said here. It's clearly obvious that if you withraw 40% of the funding and expect the same or better level of performance, engineering expertise and skill then you're not on this planet. I am amazed that the space shuttle has flown for as long as it did considering the crazy costs involved. As management of tax payers money becomes more important every day, of course the responsible thing to do is to try and reduce costs where possible and seek value for money. We all like lower taxes and hate to see it been wasted every day on inefficiencies in the public sector. The US is no different.
However, one disturbing fact behind all this tragedy was that they knew from the very second the shuttle left the launch pad that it was struck by a piece of foam. This makes it very different to the previous shuttle tragedy where it blew up all of a sudden - in this case action and investigation could have been undertaken. It was the conscious decision of NASA to do nothing. BIG mistake - one that they will regret for a LONG time!
As for sending a person to Mars - I'm not as keen as alot of other people might be. Of course, it's a very gung-ho and almost romantic idea to push ourselves to the very limit and try and pull off a major engineering feat. However, the costs and risks are hugh. Tens of billions of dollars are involved - money that no economy in this world has lying around in the bank especially with the financial problems of the ISS. The world and it's politics has become a much more complex place in the last few years and the willingness of the public or the politicans to undertake such a mission is unlikely to happen for many a decade. With the continuing improvement of technology, the same amount of money could yield a far more significant return not just in determining if there is life on Mars but on other solar system bodies also. Besides, look at the Moon - conquered in 1969, fairly well ignored since then. Would Mars be the next Moon? If we decide to go there, we're gonna need a better reason than to collect a few stones. Sounds boring I know, but when it's tax payers money you have to be. I see it far more likely that a private company will land man on Mars first.
Michael