This was an interesting conference, in Huntsville it is all about SLS; and none of the government folks could attend. I was a late replacement so I am sorry if I didn't convey my thoughts very well, but the message was intended for the Huntsville industry crowd.Plain and simple, we all need to take a page from the SpaceX playbook. Ditto for the other new space companies. Continuing to use the management processes and financial arrangements that came out of the cold war will not work in today's environment. Whether you like the big rocket or would rather use small rockets; whether you want to go first to the moon or to mars or to an asteroid, no program is going to succeed using the management processes of the past. To succeed today, revolutionary and innovative management and finance are required. We all like to discuss the technical and engineering details when we really need to discuss how to be innovative in management and finance. That was the intent of my message. Hope it came through.
"Now, I will admit to you that I'm an old line guy. I'm not a big fan of SpaceX. I fully expected I would be joining the chorus of 'I told you so' when they crashed and burned. But, even though they've had difficulties, they are succeeding. You have to recognize that."
...Plain and simple, we all need to take a page from the SpaceX playbook. Ditto for the other new space companies. Continuing to use the management processes and financial arrangements that came out of the cold war will not work in today's environment. Whether you like the big rocket or would rather use small rockets; whether you want to go first to the moon or to mars or to an asteroid, no program is going to succeed using the management processes of the past. To succeed today, revolutionary and innovative management and finance are required. We all like to discuss the technical and engineering details when we really need to discuss how to be innovative in management and finance. That was the intent of my message. Hope it came through.
Quote from: QuantumG on 10/09/2013 12:42 amHeh, I just pulled up the video and discovered the same thing. It's amazing what a difference the mere tense of a quote does to it, isn't it? Yeah! Didn't help that I was on my own with the live coverage. Usually we have two or three throwing quotes into a thread and people get a better mix of what's been said. I'm editing that direct quote into that post, but for those who didn't see the original paraphrased quote, it was still pretty much ok, as I added all of the "but they are succeeding" into it. People selectively quoting are a bigger problem.
Heh, I just pulled up the video and discovered the same thing. It's amazing what a difference the mere tense of a quote does to it, isn't it?
the message was intended for the Huntsville industry crowd....Whether you like the big rocket or would rather use small rockets; whether you want to go first to the moon or to mars or to an asteroid, no program is going to succeed using the management processes of the past.
Quote from: Wayne Hale on 10/09/2013 09:40 pmthe message was intended for the Huntsville industry crowd....Whether you like the big rocket or would rather use small rockets; whether you want to go first to the moon or to mars or to an asteroid, no program is going to succeed using the management processes of the past. Isn't the main concern about bang/$ ratio? What incentive does the industry have to improve it? It seems very little as long as they get paid until the programs gets cancelled as too slow/costly/policy change/etc. and new replacement programs get lobbied in place. Doesn't the status quo suits them fine, the people who should change their management practices the most to get better results are currently furloughed, no?The bit odd thing is that 60s management practices produced a period of manned lunar flights 2-3 times a year. The first reaction is always to remind that NASA got 4+% of the federal budget, now just ~0.5% so that's why people no longer walk on the Moon. Does the percentage of federal budget really matter, isn't the inflation adjusted actual sum more telling? Unless wiki got it wrong (could be...) NASA today is getting 50% of what it got in the 60s in constant dollars. Why doesn't that amount of money today buy at least one manned lunar mission per year? I can think of three reasonsa) bang/$ ratio has decreased since the 60sb) for reason X (you tell me) general inflation adjustment is not applicable to aerospace costsc) somethings elsedisclaimer: just my €0.02 on the issue, if this is wrong place for comment like this then mods feel free to move/axe
The bit odd thing is that 60s management practices produced a period of manned lunar flights 2-3 times a year. The first reaction is always to remind that NASA got 4+% of the federal budget, now just ~0.5% so that's why people no longer walk on the Moon. Does the percentage of federal budget really matter, isn't the inflation adjusted actual sum more telling? Unless wiki got it wrong (could be...) NASA today is getting 50% of what it got in the 60s in constant dollars. Why doesn't that amount of money today buy at least one manned lunar mission per year? I can think of three reasonsa) bang/$ ratio has decreased since the 60sb) for reason X (you tell me) general inflation adjustment is not applicable to aerospace costsc) something else...
b) for reason X (you tell me) general inflation adjustment is not applicable to aerospace costs
The bit odd thing is that 60s management practices produced a period of manned lunar flights 2-3 times a year. The first reaction is always to remind that NASA got 4+% of the federal budget, now just ~0.5% so that's why people no longer walk on the Moon. Does the percentage of federal budget really matter, isn't the inflation adjusted actual sum more telling? Unless wiki got it wrong (could be...) NASA today is getting 50% of what it got in the 60s in constant dollars. Why doesn't that amount of money today buy at least one manned lunar mission per year? I can think of three reasonsa) bang/$ ratio has decreased since the 60sb) for reason X (you tell me) general inflation adjustment is not applicable to aerospace costsc) somethings else
The bit odd thing is that 60s management practices produced a period of manned lunar flights 2-3 times a year. The first reaction is always to remind that NASA got 4+% of the federal budget, now just ~0.5% so that's why people no longer walk on the Moon. Does the percentage of federal budget really matter, isn't the inflation adjusted actual sum more telling?
Unless wiki got it wrong (could be...) NASA today is getting 50% of what it got in the 60s in constant dollars.
Not sure of the reason, but NASA's New Start Inflation Index does not track the CPI well.
Also, NASA is doing a bunch of other stuff nowadays; IINM in the '60s it was much more focused on Apollo and its precursor programs (Gemini, Ranger, Surveyor).
Quote from: 93143 on 10/11/2013 02:04 amAlso, NASA is doing a bunch of other stuff nowadays; IINM in the '60s it was much more focused on Apollo and its precursor programs (Gemini, Ranger, Surveyor).No, it was just as diverse as now. There were the 7 Mariners , 41 Explorers, 6 OSO, 6 OGO, 2 OAO, 3 BIOS, 6 Pioneers, 10 Tiros, 9 ESSA, 4 Nimbus, in addition to the Rangers, Lunar Orbiters, Surveyors, and comsats
Hey Mary Lynne great job! Nice bombshell question regarding leadership... Their expression was a bit priceless...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 10/12/2013 12:22 pmHey Mary Lynne great job! Nice bombshell question regarding leadership... Their expression was a bit priceless... Thanks - though that was a bit unfair of me - but, to be sure, I really didn't think it was a bombshell - though its a tough question, and one that's a bit sensitive for industry. In international gov't-to-gov't programs, industry can't get out front (well, I guess they could but could cause lots of confusion.) I was really looking for "what leadership is" in this context, which is why I tried to clarify my meaning in my follow up comments. I thought it was really pretty generous of them to agree to participate in a "no presentations" discussion. Don't know how it came across on the webcast but it was interesting sitting there. I'm glad folks here were able to watch.
They did not stream the second day, but were so pleased with the participation (2500-plus viewers, or so) that they announced today they'll consider webcasting it all next year. They also only decided on Monday to stream the afternoon of the first day, so I think a lot of folks may have thought that only the portions reviewed in Chris's article and discussed previously in this thread (which took place in the morning) were webcast. The afternoon sessions can be seen at this link, if anyone is interested (this is a bit self-serving--and risky--since I moderated the first panel in the afternoon, with representatives from corporate Washington representatives; feel free to skip that one, hehe):http://uah.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer/Default.aspx?id=dbeaf69c-c290-40d6-a3cc-c14df65a0079