NASA, We Have a Problem

NASA has got its “faster, better, cheaper” program partially right. Its missions into space no longer take decades to develop and don’t cost billions. But it missed out on the “better” part, and that’s why it should take another look at its goal of exploring outer space on the cheap.

The costs that NASA did not take into account when it decided to take greater risks--and inevitably to live with more failures--include the erosion of public confidence in the space program, the disillusionment of NASA scientists and diminishing political support in Congress. The replacement cost of all that could be substantial.

NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin on Thursday took the blame for last year’s botched missions to Mars, and well he should. He was hired by the Bush administration for his cost-cutting prowess at the TRW Space & Technology Group in Redondo Beach and was kept on by the Clinton administration as the model of a reinvented government official who could do more for less. Under his leadership, the old, expensive projects, such as the Cassini mission to Pluto, were out. Off-the-shelf technology, minimal testing and no-backup-system missions were in. The faster, better, cheaper program scored some initial successes, most notably the Mars Pathfinder mission, which in August 1997 landed a small rover on Mars.

But while Goldin told Congress year after year that NASA could do more at the same level of funding--in real terms, NASA’s budget actually dropped 5% since 1993--NASA scientists were putting in 80-hour work weeks to keep up. Engineers were forced to cut corners and testing was curtailed.

The corner-cutting finally did show. Last September, NASA lost the Mars Climate Observer because a contractor failed to convert data to metric units. In December, it lost the Mars Polar Lander, probably because of an undiscovered problem with its braking rockets. The entire Mars exploration program in shambles, NASA postponed further launches to draw up a new plan.

In an independent study released Tuesday, veteran space scientist Thomas Young and his panel concluded that the Mars program failed because NASA “tried to do too much for too little” and took unacceptable risks.

NASA still delivers spectacular science. But its formidable brand name has dimmed, its scientists are disheartened and its fan club is shrinking. It would appear that faster, better, cheaper cannot deliver on each one of its promises and that NASA and Congress have some retooling to do.