Audit Finds Problems with ISS Management

SuperBanana writes "According to an AP story carried by the Boston Globe, an internal audit released yesterday by NASA found numerous problems with management of the station, in some ways similar to the problems in the shuttle program. This includes missing, inconsistent, or outdated technical drawings; inadequately trained staff, and analysis of failure trends that is 'severely lacking'. Despite the report's length(172 pages) no specifics are cited. The report is not yet available in the press section of NASA's site."

Comments

You know...

[Bobdoer]

For something so complicated as rocket science, they really need to work at double checking their work.
Heck, in the last while we've heard of Challenger breaking apart, a space suit malfunction and a faulty file system on the Mars probe. However, it must be noted that they almost always figure out the problem, afterwards.

Re:You know...

[LinuxGuyFriend]

With pretty much anything that goes wrong (including 9-11), post-incident audits always seem to find a pile of organizational problems. It's interesting to see how often organizations evolve almost exclusively because of such findings. Perhaps a lot of governmental programs would benefit from regular audits that would look not just at things like how much cash is spent and where, but rather at the procedures themselves.

Re:You know...

[El Volio]

The problem is not that process audits aren't done they are. Both private and personal organizations have regular audits performed and reports like this generated. The real problem is that, in many cases, those with the power to make substantive changes (management) simply don't want to do so because it's too expensive, whether in terms of time, money, or other resources, and it requires some disaster to really motivate them.

So what you get are organizations that are always fixing the previous generation of problems. Challenges morph over time, and if you're fixing the problems you should have fixed ten years ago, and as cheaply as possible, then you're probably not fixing the problems you need to fix now, looking ahead to the challenges you'll be facing over the next few years.

Re:You know...

[UnknowingFool]

For something so complicated as rocket science, they really need to work at double checking their work.
Heck, in the last while we've heard of Challenger breaking apart, a space suit malfunction and a faulty file system on the Mars probe.
However, it must be noted that they almost always figure out the problem, afterwards.

I'd hate to burst your bubble but both the Challenger and Columbia incidents were issues that the engineers had foreseen. Unfortunately in both cases, engineers had warned their supervisors of dire consequences and were largely ignored. In these cases, it was not the technical skill but management interference that caused the failures. In the others, Murphy's law may have played a part along with shrinking budgets and short timelines.

In the Challenger case, an engineer at Morton Thiokol (the company that made the boosters) came forward at a Presidential Commission to tell how his company knew of the danger a year before the Challenger exploded. They knew because he had pleaded with his supervisors to change the O-ring design because it was faulty. For coming forward, he was fired and blacklisted.

In the Columbia case, NASA engineers reviewing the takeoff footage had seen the foam strike the wing. To investigate the problem further they wanted ground-based or space-based cameras to take more detailed footage of the left wing or even a space walk to verify any missing tiles. These suggestions were quashed by supervisors as too costly. They highly recommended the Columbia delay the landing until they could gather more data. That was nixed too as it would present the wrong PR image. The damage to the wing was minimal they were told.

NASA To ISS Managment:

[GiveMeLinux]

NASA: There are just so many things you shouldn't be doing.

ISS: What, what am I doing, can you give me specifics?

NASA: If you don't know, then I'm not telling!

Re:NASA To ISS Managment:

[krumms]

Sounds like the SCO/IBM case :P

Re:NASA To ISS Managment:

[Temporal Outcast]

I know its meant to be funny, but it sure as hell is scary to think that space is being managed no differently ;-)

Duct tape anyone

[dncsky1530]

So its the budget crisis that casued the Mire to be patched with duct tape, will the ISS suffer the same fate?

Re:Duct tape anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "Mir", not Mire.

Re:Duct tape anyone

[Marillion]

Perhaps an interesting Fruedian Slip. Perhaps intentional.

Mire

And this is suprising?

[nighty5]

I was an IT technical auditor for a big 5 a few years back. I also did some (boring) process work to map out IT areas of audit weaknesses / risk.

The job of an auditor is to find weaknesses. Like any profession its their job to satisify their existance and to find issues, no matter how big or how small.

I havent read the article (in true Slashdot style - I'm actually writing up some design docs right now!) but I'd say what they have found is typical of any normal IT / technology company where their process is never updated to the standards of their documentation.

Re:And this is suprising?

[lxs]

Dear sir, a recent audit of your slashdot activities dicovered the following weaknesses:

1 - You didn't state whether you are or are not a lawyer, which is essential for the proper functioning of this organisation.

2- Throughout the slashdot community, it is considered acceptable practice not to RTFA. excuses made include, but are not limited to: "not wanting to add to the slashdot effect", "everybody does it" and "FP! OMFG! ROTFLMAO!" This kind of laxity needs to be remedied if this organisation is to remain competitive in today's hostile economic climate.

Our team suggest, outsourcing the posting of comments to emerging Asian markets.

PS. Your bill for this consultation will arrive ASAP.

Justin Timberlake in space?!?

[Ubernurd]

NASA released the report a day after a spacesuit malfunction...

This really burns me

[pq]

So we're flying a large, noisy, semi-empty garage in space, and it is so under-staffed (2 people instead of 2.5 required to maintain it) that we can't even use it for scientific experiments. The only reason it got built is that NASA had spread out pork in too many states to kill it, and the space shuttle needed something to do. Meanwhile, the only reason the space shuttle will fly again is to finish the ISS. And to top it off, both are death traps and we don't even have accurate building plans any more...?

On the other hand, we're cancelling the Hubble servicing mission because of safety concerns - which are very real concerns, but unfixable only because of a political decision that we'd rather go to Mars.

I'm all for the ISS, actually - I love the idea that humanity will not have all its eggs in one basket ever again. Even if the other basket is in a very low orbit around the first one for now, it's a start! But it's sad to watch the old pioneering spirit reduced to election campaign sound bites and random mismanagement, while we shortchange the real science.

Re:This really burns me

[ashot]

Its not much harder to nuke the ISS than it is any other location on Earth.

Re:This really burns me

[jadel]

So we're flying a large, noisy, semi-empty garage in space, and it is so under-staffed (2 people instead of 2.5 required to maintain it) that we can't even use it for scientific experiments. The only reason it got built is that NASA had spread out pork in too many states to kill it, and the space shuttle needed something to do. Meanwhile, the only reason the space shuttle will fly again is to finish the ISS. And to top it off, both are death traps and we don't even have accurate building plans any more...?

Don't forget the bit about being in the wrong orbital inclination making it useless as a staging point on trips to other planets.

On the other hand, we're cancelling the Hubble servicing mission because of safety concerns - which are very real concerns, but unfixable only because of a political decision that we'd rather go to Mars.

Now this I have to disagree with, the shuttle is a deathtrap because it's an overcomplicated compromise between disparate goals and every attempt to produce a replacement has been deliberately killed off - after all, it's not the McDonnell Douglas people who crashed the DC-X.
The orbital space plane is basically an update of the 1960s era X-20 DynaSoar with a more streamlined look about it. It cant replace the shuttle because it has almost no cargo capacity.
IMNSHO what is required is something like the DC-X, a new fully reusable design which can be turned around in a matter of days instead of months, but with enough capacity to replace the cargo hauling now being done by the shuttle. If it's done well enough hopefully flying to orbit could be as safe and routine as international passenger flights are today.

Re:This really burns me

[jabberjaw]

So we're flying a large, noisy, semi-empty garage in space, and it is so under-staffed (2 people instead of 2.5 required to maintain it) that we can't even use it for scientific experiments.
Actually, in a recent issue of Nature they spoke of planning experiments to search for Lorentz violation aboard the ISS. They include a Michelson-Morley type experiment and some involving atomic clocks (?!). The experiments are being pushed by Stephan Schiller and Peter Wolf (the men who brought you OPTIS) They state they hope for this to begin around 2005. Unfortunatly, a subscription is required to view the article and it was rather light on detail, yet it shows there is indeed hope for the ISS as a science platform.

Re:This really burns me

[M1FCJ]

Effectively flying to ISS is not more dangerous than flying to Hubble. Either way if something happens, 7 people will die. Flying into orbit or descent to earth is no riskier if you are flying from ISS. Even more, ISS' infrastructure will not allow having 7 additional people on board for a medium to long period. Apollo 13 used LM as a lifeboat but they endured pretty harsh conditions for three days. Also usually there aren't enough space suits in a shuttle flight for 7. What if the docking is not possible? In early Salyut flights docking failures were common occurences. One Spacelab mission was cancelled because of a docking problem.

Killing Hubble is a political decision, nothing more. It pleases Bush&Co because it shows NASA's dedication to Bush's crazy Mars plan, frees up resources and makes it clear to all tech-savvy people that Shuttle is a white elephant and it is nothing what was promised in late 70s and early 80s. I'm not saying Shuttle was a while elephant from the start but just because it existed no replacement was properly funded.

About one basket and eggs scenario, unless you send a good amount of mixed-gender people to ISS nothing good will happen if something happens to Earth. I really don't care about some useless seeds of a cocky Astronaut if there are no eggs to fertilise. They can whack themselves to no end in free fall.

Re:This really burns me

[bmonreal]

There is at least one major astrophysics experiment planned for ISS: the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, a huge particle-physics detector with a superconducting magnet. It will sit on the truss, facing out into space, and measure cosmic rays. From anomalies in high-energy particle and antiparticle spectra, we can learn about dark matter, antimatter, and other topics. Launch in 2007. 13 nation/55 university/488 physicist collaboration. Check it out!

Sound just like a US goverenment document...

[sparkeyjames]

172 pages yet says nothing.

Re:Sound just like a US goverenment document...

[cybermace5]

Yeah, that's pretty amazing. I was only able to manage about 40 pages in school, and that was in double-spaced 12.1pt font with 1.1 inch margins....

Re:Sound just like a US goverenment document...

[ashot]

12.1pt font?

Re:Sound just like a US goverenment document...

[RebelWithoutAClue]

Nobody can say nothing like a real professional.

Outdated drawings?

[October_30th]

Outdated drawings?

Sounds like a prime example of a typical auditor's chickenshit-mentality.

Any project - not to mention a project of this size - is bound to have holes in the documentation, inventory or accounting. Documents get misplaced, tools and materials get stolen/wasted/lost and some spending cannot be accounted for.

Re:Outdated drawings?

[Detritus]

It doesn't help when the people who used to maintain the documentation get outsourced and/or laid off due to budget cuts.

NASA has lost its soul

[mcrbids]

Not all of NASA, mind you. But, if I may criticize, (and I may, it's my right to do so) it seems that NASA has been blowing it for a full generation.

Ever since the shuttle boondoggle, where we were promised all manner of stuff, and instead, ended up with *that* thing... A wasteful, expensive, heavy, obsolete white elephant of a space craft that tried to be everything to everybody and ended up doing nothing well.

Who's gonna get excited by a space program that perpetuates a lie? We've spend billions to keep 30-year-old rust-bucket space technology working that should have been scrapped before it was ever completed.

Now, other countries (China, India, etc) are moving in to fill the vacuum left behind by 30 years of neglect on the part of NASA. The best thing we could do is to disband it, and rebuild a *real* space program, and one that allowed (encouraged?) private enterprise participation.

There's money to be made on space, if our benevolent govt will allow it.

-Ben

Re:NASA has lost its soul

[cavac]

There's nothing wrong with 30-year-old rust-bucket space technology as long as it does its work cheap and reliable.

The old (ancient?) Soyuz launcher is a nice example: Nearly 1700 launches up until now, most of them sucessfull. It is in fact so cost effective, that Arianespace is planing to use Soyuz at Guiana Space Center from 2006 on (as well continuing to use them in Baikonur).

Re:NASA has lost its soul

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the soul may still be there, but I blame shortsighted management for poor operations prep.

Over the last 10 years, cost plus contracting has disappeared, replaced with fixed-cost contracts. But the industry never learned how to properly plan for operations... when the money ran low toward the end of the contract, they asked for more. You can't do that now.

So contractors bid low to win and then try to come up with ways to cut operatons so they don't have to ask for more money. The easiest way is not to staff certain positions --> without staffing, computers and simulators are not needed --> without staff, that pesky dcumentation is not needed.

So when I hear that ISS has poor documentation, training and equipment, it's par for the course. It's just poor management combined with the fact that the operations phase of any program does not generate profit for contractors and increases risk for the civil servant oversight.

Until NASA forces programs to accept the added cost and risk to take operations seriously, we'll see more of these articles.

Re:NASA has lost its soul

[M1FCJ]

And Soyuz (the company) is now designing something much larger and useful. At least they are doing something for future. What is NASA's plans for a replacement craft? Well, there's nothing that's usable in 20 years time. Instead NASA is going to fly these shuttles until they all burst into flames in one way or the other. :-(

Security? Paaaah.

Re:NASA has lost its soul

[Fujisawa Sensei]

There's nothing wrong with 30-year-old rust-bucket space technology as long as it does its work cheap and reliable.

And the Shuttle is none of these.

Re:NASA has lost its soul

[Marillion]

I largely agree. In any endevor, you will find gaps in documentation as well as other flaws.

In Business America, if a manager want to axe someone, all they have to do write up every little flaw, every little gaff, every little hiccup. They'll give the employee a bad review. Then one day they plant a big folder of all the "problems" on a table and instruct the employee to find another job.

I wonder if the audit is part of a larger plan to justify a shut down of the ISS.

yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

so when are NASA gonna outsource managment? :P

Surprising? No.

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of sectors of NASA are poorly managed, look at how they purchase equipment through purchasing agents.

A store I worked at had NASA employees purchase 10 Creative Nomad Jukeboxes as marked the LPO as 'mobile hard-disk". Many instances like this had taken place. Blatent missuse of budgeted money.

Ever wonder why we haven't had a manned mission to Mars? Partly because their purchasing policies are flawed. Partly because emlpoyees are allowed to spend $4000 on MP3 players, slip it through the system, and listen to Jungle Boogie instead of doing real science.

Opportunity makes a theif...

Re:Surprising? No.

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked there for 25 years and never saw anything like that. All of our office furniture was World War II surplus. If we wanted technical books, we usually had to pay for them out of our own pockets. Most of our PCs were built from scrounged and excess parts. If I needed office supplies, like paper and pens, I usually ended up paying for them out of my own pocket, since they weren't available from our supply office. I couldn't even get postage stamps. Somebody decided they were too prone to pilferage to be given to ordinary employees. Sometimes I used surplus parts from my home computers to repair and upgrade my work computer. Installed with my own personal tools, since simple tools like screwdrivers were difficult to get from the supply system. The way I see it, the government owes me a sizable chunk of money for all of the things that they should have provided, but didn't.

Re:Surprising? No.

[M1FCJ]

And on your way to work and back, you walked uphill both ways, I suppose?

Re:Surprising? No.

[anubi]

Yes.. the aerospace contractor I worked for quite a while operated like this... and you know what? It was very efficient. We knew exactly how our stuff worked. If something broke, we fixed it. Yes, a lot of us brought tools from home to work. It was that kind of place. Most of us were older amateur radio operators and electronic hobbyists having the time of our lives. It was our company, and our efforts made a difference.

Then big company came in and bought us out. Money from venture capitalists flooded our organization. Highly paid management professionals were brought in to optimize our operations. Pride in workmanship flew out the window, to be replaced by whatever got the immediate job at hand done cheapest. We no longer fixed our stuff - we had support contracts. Who cared if we even knew how it worked? But now we had dress codes. Oooh, didn't we look all pretty with our suits and ties! Well, we did get paid better, and dressing the part went with the privilege of being kept on the payroll. But who cared if you spent day and night working on some little quirk you didn't thoroughly understand? Or if you knew how to build something you needed - when you could just throw cash at the problem and gloss it over with some powerpoint presentations? With the mass infusions of cash, technical knowledge seemed to become much less important than management skills. It seemed everybody wanted the latest presentation software, and no-one wanted a thing to do with the old circuit analysis software we had used for years. Having the snazziest system on your desk and office decor seemed to be what everyone wanted. It flat was not fun to work there anymore. It seemed it became dog-eat-dog. They moved us out of the lab and into cubicles. The took our coffee machine away and gave us "secretarial services". Dammit, I was just about born with a soldering iron in my hand...not a Franklin Day Planner!

Everytime I have seen a mass infusion of money into something, it seems to ruin it. The first time I noted this effect, it was in a school system, where when a lot of money was granted into the system, the first thing they did was buy a bunch of unnecessary stuff which then mandated substantial resources to maintain it. Not only that, it completely showed all of us that were volunteering our efforts just how insignificant we were. Just think, who needs to know how to build an oscilloscope from scratch in an electronics class when you could just tweak the knobs on the latest models? I still remember the joys of going into my old EICO and fixing whatever I smoked when I misused the thing ( usually the FET on the frontend differential amp when I got a nasty inductive kickback from a relay coil. )

Answer me this: If a college has an assortment of older oscilloscopes ( some are in need of repair ), and the students not only learn to use the scopes that work, they also learn to fix the broken ones, do you think they got a better education than the ones who only got to use later scopes, but have no idea what's actually in them?

At the college I am attending right now, I am taking some automotive courses. I am doing a "special studies" program... you see, they have an old infrared exhaust analyzer that is no longer functional. I am having a helluva time taking that old thing apart, figuring out how the infrared chopper worked, and will hopefully build an interface so I can send the signals through a A/D converter so I can drop it into a computer. When I get through with that thing, I expect not only to have a helluva good idea of how NonDispersive Infrared analyzers ( CO, CO2, HC ) work, but also how the UV analyzers ( NO, NO2 ), and oxygen sensors work. Not only will I know when a machine is giving me funny readings I can't trust, I will know how to go into the machine, locate the funny and fix it.

Here's the crux of the problem... If I do not know how the machine works and how it arrives at its answers, I probably won't know if the machine is malfunction

Whoa! Big Surprise!

[LooseChanj]

NASA is a big lumbering bureaucracy all by itself. Add in a few dozen other countries/space agencies, it'd be a bloody miracle if it ran well. Hell, it's a bloody miracle they get anything done at all.

NASA TO ISS MANAGEMENT:

[Anonymous Coward]

Get to work!

172 Pages

[Anonymous Coward]

And no specifics. Sounds like the result of too many English classes where professors and teachers insist on X number of pages instead of papers where you get your point across as succintly as possible.

Russian Welfare

[Detritus]

The federal government, not NASA, decided that it would be a good idea to keep all of those Russian rocket scientists employed, rather than designing and building ICBMs for our enemies. So the Space Station became, in large part, a make-work project for Russian scientists and engineers.

Re:Russian Welfare

[mvdwege]

Given that these Russian rocket scientists:

1. Are masters at making cheap efficient booster rockets to get stuff into orbit.
2. Have tons of experience on how to support long-term missions in low orbit space stations,

I'd say that this is more a question of NASA and the US government not wanting to waste billions in reinventing the wheel.

Mart

Re:Russian Welfare

[whovian]

Not wanting to reinvent the wheel, yet apparently willing to trek to Mars? Something doesn't add up here.

Re:Russian Welfare

[Gherald]

How would trekking to Mars be reinventing the wheel? It hasn't been done yet.

Re:Russian Welfare

[igny]

Russian Space Agency didn't need NASA's help with providing jobs to russian scientists. They are actively invlolved in Chinese space program now, a very lucrative business, and soon will help India to develop their own space program. Russia also works together with ESA on many common projects, including the planned use of russian boosters in French Guinea.

Without participation in the ISS, Russia would still be taking space tourists to Mir.

Re:Russian Welfare

[DerekLyons]

Given that these Russian rocket scientists:

1.Are masters at making cheap efficient booster rockets to get stuff into orbit.

It's remarkably easy to build stuff cheap when you don't have to pay your workers, when your factories were built for free (no mortgage), when your raw materials were obtained for virtually free, when your workers and vendors go virtually unpaid..

2. Have tons of experience on how to support long-term missions in low orbit space stations,

Except they don't, not really. MIR spent the majority of it's lifetime struggling to stay afloat and supported mostly by American dollars and American cargo transport. They Russians/Soviets haven't actually supported a functioning and useful station in orbit since the late 80's.

Re:Russian Welfare

[grozzie2]

Except they don't, not really. MIR spent the majority of it's lifetime struggling to stay afloat and supported mostly by American dollars and American cargo transport. They Russians/Soviets haven't actually supported a functioning and useful station in orbit since the late 80's.

Mir was opened up in 1986. The first shuttle mission to Mir occurred in 1995. Shuttle missions to mir continued for 3 years, into 1998. Mir was effectively abandoned in 1999, and de-orbit happened in 2001.

From 1986 till 1999, Mir was re-supplied by a steady stream of progress cargo carriers.

The numbers speak for themselves. Of the 13 years Mir was operational, they USA participated for only 3. the original statement is pretty much right on the money, the soviet space agency has bucketloads of experience in dealing with a low orbit space station which was kept continually manned for most of the 13 operational years. Mir had its share of problems over that timeframe, but, that's pretty indicative of all space programs. The value of the soviet experience is just that, the EXPERIENCE i dealing with the problems. In the end, Mir was de-orbited in a controlled manner.

The usa on the other hand managed to put Skylab up, and actually put a crew on it for 3 relatively short missions of 28, 59 and 84 days. during this period it also had numerous problems, the biggest being temperature control. Ultimately Skylab de-orbited in a mostly uncontrolled manner on it's own, about 6 years ahead of the plan. The american experience with low orbit stations is hardly a drop in the bucket compared to the soviet experience, and it was in reality far less reliable than Mir. heck, it was shorter lived and less reliable than Salyut 7, the precursor to Mir.

Americans love to bash the Russian space program, but, the numbers speak for themselves. Take any metric you wish, and look at the statistics. Use 'time on mission', use 'launch vehicle reliability', or just about any other metric you choose to compare the programs. The reality of the matter is, the american manned space program only exceeded the soviet program on one occaision, and that was in July of 1969, when they placed a manned mission on the lunar surface.

They may be broke, but, simple facts speak for themselves. If you have ANY doubts, just take a look at the current state of the american manned space program. Last time i checked, they are outsourcing manned missions to the Russian program due to a technical inability to fly the missions themselves. Thats a pretty powerful statement that pretty much summs up the technical facts comparing the programs.

Re:Russian Welfare

[DerekLyons]

The numbers speak for themselves.

Yes, they do. But you have to look at *all* the numbers and *all* the facts. Of the 13 years Mir was operational, they USA participated for only 3. Shuttle missions continued for three years, but American dollars both proceeded and followed the Shuttle missions.

Between the Shuttle and cash payments, almost 30% of MIRs final mass was courtesy of America. By lifetime, over half of the MIRs lifetime relied directly or indirectly on the Americans.

The situation is actually even worse than the raw numbers indicate. During the mid 90's there was a shortage of KURS docking computers. If they hadn't been removed from Progress, and returned to Earth on the Shuttle, there would not have been the 'steady stream' of Progress. If the Shuttle had not been able to carry up critical spares, MIR would have been abandoned years before it actually was. (During 1995 and 1996 Progess capacity ran at about 80-90% of actual MIR requirments.) Without the hundreds of pounds of water provided by the Shuttle missions (water was always short on MIR), operations would have had to be curtailed if not abandoned outright in 1997.

Skylab de-orbited in a mostly uncontrolled manner on it's own, about 6 years ahead of the plan.

Skylab de-orbited early because of unexpected interactions between the solar wind and the upper atmosphere as well as unexpected delays in the Shuttle program. (Keep in mind that the Russians essentially abandoned and allowed to rot multiple stations of their own.) Using it as an example indicates that you are using bias, not facts, to support your argument.

Americans love to bash the Russian space program, but, the numbers speak for themselves. Take any metric you wish, and look at the statistics. Use 'time on mission', use 'launch vehicle reliability', or just about any other metric you choose to compare the programs.

If you choose to use raw numbers and handwave away the raw facts, you are correct. But the facts speak different. (Keep in mind that the Soviet program was completely closed until 1991, and only *today* are some of the facts starting to truly come out.)

Last time i checked, they are outsourcing manned missions to the Russian program due to a technical inability to fly the missions themselves.

Yes. They are outsourcing manned missions to a spacecraft that has flown two flights (the Soyuz TMA), and has suffered significant problems on both flights. They are outsourcing manned missions to a spacecraft that is *less* reliable and *less* safe than Shuttle, as well as *less* capable. (Look at the actual numbers and facts on the Soyuz series. The picture isn't pretty.)

Thats a pretty powerful statement that pretty much summs up the technical facts comparing the programs.

Look at the last spacewalk, and note whose suit caused it to be cut short. (And note they attempted to hide the problems.) Look at the ISS daily report and note the multiple and ongoing failures of critical hardware, hardware provided by the Russians.

The technichal facts are simply; Your beliefs of Russian 'superiority' are based on bias and wishful thinking. They are simply not supported by the facts.

$$$_

[iamacat]

For something as complicated as rocket science, they really need proper funding. Ever worked on a project with unrealistic schedule for an understuffed (say no QA), underpayed group? Was it real high quality when released?

And let people really doing the stuff cut through red tape when approporiate to save money for important things. If a component is not safety-critical and available cheaply off the shelf (say a notebook to check e-mail), let the engineer pick it up in Fry's and expense it rather than going through government bidding, approval and so on. Save that for things like ceramic tiles.

Re:$$$_

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see. Open source software. Understaffed? Mostly. Underpayed? Many don't get payed at all. High Quality? Surprise: sometimes yes.

Re:$$$_

[Anonymous Coward]

Cost, Quality, Speed, pick 2.

The "sometimes yes" projects you mention probably picked cost and quality over speed. That is all.

Re:$$$_

[iamacat]

Somehow I think NASA has to aim for more than "sometimes yes". Manned missions, expensive robots and stuff.

You're forgetting

[lxt]

...that the budget crisis that casued the Mir was the mainly result of the collapse of communism, and Russia realising it actually had no money left.

That does it...

[unknown_host]

I don't wanna be part of the $12 billion gift Bush was gonna give NASA to "take the next steps in space."

They Needed an Audit?!

[dupper]

There's a problem with IIS management? No shit!

Oh, oops...

Prelude to killing ISS?

[printman]

I wonder if this will be used as ammo to kill the ISS...

Re:Prelude to killing ISS?

[Martin Blank]

If it is, then there is ammo for killing a lot of government programs.

A few weeks ago, I made a post somewhere else about running independent audits on the government by an outside firm (or two). My guess was that in the course of a given year, something like $100 billion could be picked out as inefficiencies, waste, fraud, or abuse. Following a report last week about the Secret Service -- hardly the biggest agency -- unable to account for a few billion on its own, I wonder if my guess was far too low.

Re:Prelude to killing ISS?

[printman]

As far as government spending goes, the US government could save billions by paying its suppliers and contractors on time. Usually they pay 30 to 120 days late and pay interest on those late payments!

Re:Prelude to killing ISS?

[Martin Blank]

This goes back to the auditing. The government's accounting practices are often slip-shod at best. Invoices come into the mail room, often spend a couple of weeks getting routed around, and then end up in a pile, where it takes time to go through and pay them, assuming some clerk can find what it's attached to, at which point it gets held up until it can be matched with a known purchase, or is over-ridden by someone and paid -- usually, as you mentioned, well after the due date.

Redhat

[Graymalkin]

Audits of nearly any bureaucratic program is bound to find all sorts of excesses and general problems in the program's methodologies. Bureaucracies tend to function in ways that perpetuate themselves. Whole processes and procedures are created in order to extend the need and scope of the bureaucracy. In a large enough organization you can create an Office of Redundant Redundancy and no one would notice until the organization was thoroughly audited.

I don't see why the ISS is sending people outside to check on the status of the station. Instead of using people for spacewalks why not micro/nanosats? They could be launched from a future shuttle mission or given to the crew in a resupply flight and launched from the airlock. It's need a radio tranceiver, control electronics, and a small CMOS or CCD camera. The AFRL has been working on nanosats for several years now and has a few prototypes. A nanosat cluster was supposed to be launched last year on the shuttle but I don't think it went up before the fleet was grounded. The PICOSat however was launched successfully and was built using COTS (Commercial Off the Shelf) technology. The exterior of the station would be monitored regularly and docking procedures could be monitored from an advantageous angle.

Re:Redhat

[M1FCJ]

It's not they didn't think about it or haven't tried it. Even in 80's there used to be a nice autonomous vehicle which you could strap on and go for a ride around the shuttle. It doesn't need very very high-tech either. It's fairly easy to design something uses compressed air to whiz around and uses gyroes for attitute. It doesn't have to be big, it doesn't have to be expensive.

The problem is, NASA is very conservative. They like experiments but Astronauts really hate change. Nothing has changed since 1970s and they like it that way.

Report is Available

[jayrtfm]

From the NASA site:
2.27.04 - Implementation Plan for International Space Station Continuing Flight - NASA releases an update to its plan demonstrating a commitment to implementing the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, where applicable, to the International Space Station program.

+ Read the Plan (3.5Mb PDF)

'Quality' is the first thing to go....

[Charles Franks]

Doesn't surprise me a bit, when funding gets trimmed 'quality' suffers. 'Finishing Touches', things like making sure you have all the as-built diagrams and other documentation up-to-date, all tech docs are readily accessible etc. etc. These are the first things to go.

Soon, we will give up on manned space

[Animats]

Back in the 1960s, the US had a national commitment to undersea exploration. Men went to the deepest part of the ocean and came back. Small undersea bases were built, and larger ones were planned.

All that ended decades ago. No manned submersible in operation today can go to the deepest part of the ocean. All the undersea habitats are defunct except for Aquarius, which the University of North Carolina now owns and struggles to fund. It's over.

Manned operations in the deep ocean never became cheaper or safer. They're possible, but not useful. Deep ocean work belongs to robots today.

Much the same thing has happened to space. All remaining manned space operations are ego trips for governments. All useful work is unmanned.

Someday this may change, but it won't be done using chemically fueled rockets.

Haven't RTFA'ed, but...

[MyHair]

Duh! It's pretty obvious there are managment problems there. The place leaks like a sieve, there's a torso of human tissue strapped to the outside and scheduled public transportation has been suspended for over a year now.

I thought it said "IIS"

[quonsar]

not that that would change anything.

????ehh????

[Laconian]

What does a luxury car manufacturer know about managing space stations? The gall of it all!

sounds like every IT job i've had

[abandonment]

the things that they mention pretty much make nasa sound like a disorganized dot-com...

i mean - not having up-to-date schematics of the space station? wtf? and then they wonder when pieces break off and go floating off into space?

yikes...

Some of the problems

[Mr2cents]

The problems include:

No hand brake.

No headlights.

Horn is not working.