Critical report warns NASA is underfunded and its future is at risk

A four-person crew of civilians launched Tuesday morning on a private Space-X rocket for a five-day mission to include the first commercial spacewalk in history. NASA has big plans to send people to the Moon and Mars, but a sweeping new report from the National Academies of Sciences raises questions about the agency. Science Correspondent Miles O’Brien reports.
Geoff Bennett:
A four-person crew of civilians launched this morning on a private SpaceX rocket for a five-day mission that aims to include the first commercial space walk in history.
It comes less than a week after Boeing’s troubled Starliner capsule returned to Earth without its astronauts. NASA still has big plans, including sending people to the moon and ultimately Mars.
But a sweeping new report out today from the National Academies of Sciences raises questions about the agency.
Science correspondent Miles O’Brien joins us now.
So, Miles, help us understand the essence of the concerns laid out in this report.
Miles O’Brien:
Well, Geoff, it’s a concern which has been around for a long time, but it was well-articulated by a very prestigious group led by Norm Augustine, a former CEO of Lockheed Martin and kind of a famous member of the aeronautical community.
And what they’re saying essentially is, NASA — you just mentioned some of the things they’re trying to do return to the moon, go to Mars. It has huge goals, big missions on its plate, and not nearly enough budget and perhaps not the expertise to pull it off and, on top of that, maybe not even the infrastructure.
Geoff Bennett:
And much of this, as I understand it, is linked to NASA’s decision about a decade ago to partner in a more significant way with commercial contractors like SpaceX.
What does the report say about the consequences of that decision and what it’s meant for NASA’s work force?
Miles O’Brien:
Yes, you can put it in the category of unintended consequences, I suppose.
NASA, created by careful funding and letting out contracts to the likes of SpaceX a very vibrant space industry in low-Earth orbit, which, as you pointed out, is succeeding greatly. We have yet another private mission in space right now. SpaceX has had tremendous success, but it is also luring the best and the brightest engineers and scientists to its fold, because it is so exciting.
And meanwhile, NASA, being bureaucratic, it takes them three months just to hire an individual, difficulty keeping up with matching salaries. And there are other high-tech enterprises which compete with them, are left with a diminished work force that’s graying quite a bit and perhaps not the expertise they need to really do the job that lies ahead.
Geoff Bennett:
Another challenged link to the bureaucracy, as you described it, in this report, budgeting and long-term planning. Tell me more about that.
Miles O’Brien:
What the committee found out was somewhat shocking, but there it is. NASA doesn’t do a lot of true long-term planning.
The agency relies on the kindness of Congress, if you will. It gets an annual budget. Sometimes, that budget isn’t even appropriated until middle of the year. So it goes hand to mouth year after year. And space is something you need to think about at least at the decadal level.
To go anywhere, you have got to think about a 10-year plan or more. And when you are subject to all the vagaries of politics in one-year, two-year, or four-year cycles, it becomes difficult to make those plans. And so the agency, frankly, has not. And, as a result, it’s not making strategic investments in its infrastructure and the like.
Geoff Bennett:
Let’s talk more about that, because the report says that much of NASA’s infrastructure is from the 1960s and a lot of it is poorly maintained.
How big of a problem is that when NASA wants to partner with third-party companies, these commercial contractors?
Miles O’Brien:
Yes, the commercial contractors, by definition, are new and are building shiny new facilities.
NASA, meanwhile, much of its facilities, its capabilities for launching into space hearkens back to the Apollo era. We’re talking, on average, 60-year-old infrastructure to get spacecraft into orbit. That is obviously not a sustainable situation.
NASA clearly had a lot of funding back in those Apollo days and is, in some respects, living on the vapors of that. But you can only go on so long doing that. And the fact that it isn’t putting aside the right amount of money to invest in that infrastructure is one of the big failings that this committee identified.
Geoff Bennett:
Miles O’Brien, our thanks to you, as always. We appreciate it.
Miles O’Brien:
You’re welcome, Geoff.