I have worked at NA SA's Ast ronaut training facility since before the first shut tle launch. Here are my observations, based on 25 years of the real thing, as compared to the article "From Glory to Sideshow".
One AC posted a comment that indicated that s/he figured I was just blathering. Well, I'm going to give enough details here that some people I work with could probably identify me. I'm going to be nice, mostly, and I'm going to hope (probably naively) that the First Amendment will allow me to express my opinion without getting into trouble.
NA SA bashing is fun and easy for the media. Everyone's interested in the sp ace program, whether they support it, or support the idea of ending it. No one is really sitting on the fence when it comes to NA SA. But this is a peculiar job - it's a heavy, dangerous industry, handling the most toxic, frigid and explosive chemicals known with experimental equipment in an environment that wants to kill you, all while millions of people watch on webcams and TV sets. For many years, there was a tourist window over my work area in the astr onuat training facility. People came from all over the world to take pictures of me getting printouts off of an old Univac 1140 impact printer the size of chest freezer. It was amusing.
Think of this: if Shell Oil is a month or two late dragging an oil well into the Gulf of Mexico, who knows or cares but the richest stockholders and board members? If NA SA is late even one day on a launch, the whole nation hears about it. If something goes wrong, it's a world wide news event. And if coworkers and friends die, their names are written in history books. You may think this is sensationalism. For me, it's been reality -and at times, a nightmare- for the last 25 years.
Do people at NA SA waste money like the stereotypical "gover nment contra ctor" or "civil servant"? Not with that kind of pressure in that kind of environment.
The sta tion's nearly useless orbit: That ain't the worst of it. A few years into the "intern ational" phase of sta tion building, Russia ran out of money. Guess who kept them afloat? NA SA did. I didn't get a pay raise that year. Many people in the US lost their jobs so that Russia could keep $600 million of their commitments. Useless? The one thing that sta tion has given us: Manned sp ace flight during an era when Congress couldn't turn their heads up enough to see blue sky. During that period of time, cutbacks, reorgs and layoffs were the annual circus. A lot of good friends left the program during those years.
It is common, even cliche for public figures and the press to blame NA SA for "lack of vision". NA SA just does what it's told. Congress is where the vision isn't. Congress can not keep commitments past the next election year. Building anything of significance takes more time than Congress can wait. I'm not sure if this is true of other gov't agencies, but long ago, I researched NA SA hearings on the hill, and was stunned to discover the congress re-evaluates NA SA's project plans and budgets three times each year - different committees, different agendas, different leadership. And different decisions come out of this. It's a wonder anything ever gets launched. At least they all agree that up is the direction to go when things do get launched.
And they evaluate the budget down to about the half million dollar level. Every NA SA manager that has that much budget or more can be overridden by congresspersons' decisions the NA SA person may not even know are being made. How could any WDC level administrator keep technical plans on an even keel with that much turbulence?
You want vision from an organization that is this over-managed? How?
Next, cost overruns. Well, it's easiest to just give you the history of a couple that I know personally about.
Bui lding 5 at JSC, before the sp ace sta tion, consisted of two main "high bay" areas, joined by lower one story "office building". One high bay area was used for shut tle and sp acelab simulations. The other high bay area was a tourist center, housing the now-unused skylab simulator core and other displays. When the sp ace sta tion project came along, the skylab side was needed for sta tion simulation. The original plans for the sta tion were at least 2 or 3 times as big as the plans for the sta tion being built today. There was a need for at least 4 or 5 sta tion modules to be used for training. I'm not sure if actual sta tion modules would be used, but either way, the simulated modules would of course be life-size. That meant that the skylab side of bui lding 5 would have to be expanded quite a bit. This involved removing 3 sides of a prestressed concrete "lean to" building, greatly beefing up the foundation, and putting back the sides, enlarged to almost double the volume. Construction began.
Congress balked. The sta tion plans were cut back again and again. By the time that Buil ding 5 was ready, the sta tion had shrunk so much that only one module would be needed for training. The original "skylab" simulator was approximately the same size as the sta tion simulator that was built - and the original bui lding 5 would have been plenty big enough.
That's called a "cost overrun". The entire building has of course been put to use - it is much more modern than many of JSC's other facilities. Still, it was built with the original sta tion's funding, so it is part of whatever huge number is quoted by the media as a "cost overrun".
Another example: EMU. Not the bird. Extravehicular Manuevering Unit, otherwise known as the superkewl jetpack you wanted as a kid. Well, actually, probably still want. As bui lding 5 construction began, so did EMU simulation development. It was killed much quicker. All we got were some minicomputers out of it, and the simulation was never finished, or actually, never really well begun. Now, engineers have never let computer hardware collect dust in my memory, and this was no exception. But still, sta tion money, so now it's another "overrun".
Don't believe the big numbers the media throws out about cost overruns. That money was not put into a pile and burned, it actually bought something. And no manager that's even halfway aware of his/her surroundings is going to let resources rust away right in front of him/her. This is true for any government project, not just NA SA. That money did go to the benefit of the sp ace program the taxpayers want. And that part is never reported by the media. The news media does not care about a clever cost recovery that's done after Congress changes plans. There are no good sound bites in proper management and resourcefulness.
Before you think I'm just kissing up - let me say this. Read the CAIB report (Columbia Accident Investigation Board). They were very, very nice, and they only scratched the surface. That report is true and accurate to the level of detail it shows. Only time will tell if they went deep enough, or if NA SA has changed enough. I have my suspicions, but discretion is the better part of staying employed.
