NASAs role in the US

[Tormod]

I am writing a project paper on innovation in the Norwegian space sector, and one chapter will be a comparative study on NASA.

 

I have tons of facts and figures, but one thing I need to figure out is exactly where NASA is positioned in the national hierarchy. I have basically figured out that NASA's administrator reports directly to the President, which to me implies that is an arm of the Government, and not merely a subdivision of something larger. That makes NASA similar to the National Science Council, I think.

 

Yet I don't understand if NASA can be sidelined with for example the Department of Defence or the Office of Foreign Affairs.

 

Can some of you US folks help me locate a chart of the US government and it's branches, or at least explain to me where NASA fits into the picture?

 

(And if you can write a paper on the Norwegian space industry feel free to let me know ;) )

[Tormod]

What I have so far is this:

 

http://www.washlaw.edu/doclaw/orgchart/mainog.html

 

But no NASA there...so it must belong somewhere.

[jackson33]

NASA, is an agency of government, funded from the US Budget and indirectly from several others, but primarily the defense. no agency reports directly to the president, but to the congress. there may be contact, but not required. since congress has the final say on there budget from government and is reported to by NASA, its probably under their control in total.

 

its not easy to track down a total for NASA, expenses or its total cost. at least recently trying to figure out a labor cost, which must be very high all i could find were totals of pay grades in percentages. the environmental agency probably finances the costly Antarctic outpost project. much of RD is paid for under the US budget, but not listing NASA as the cause. the only thing i could confirm was 14,000 work at NASA, Houston alone...

 

i gave up on NASA sites, but you might have some luck going at it from the US Budget angle...

[Janus]

NASA is one of many independant agencies under the executive branch. The Vice President is the Chairman of the Board.

[jackson33]

didn't know that, assume true and thanks...do you know anyplace where total expendatures are listed???

[TheBigDog]

NASA is perhaps the only high profile duty (outside of what is written into the Constitution) that Vice Presidents have. The budget is at the discretion of the Congress, and they have oversight. The VP is at least a figure-head for policy decisions, and gets to champion the cause of NASA in the realm of DC politics. I think that this is based in tradition, with each President since Kennedy choosing to appoint their VP to head NASA.

 

Good question!

 

Bill

[jackson33]

yes, went to VP duties and is spelled out. guess there is a link to the President directly...

[Tormod]

Thanks all.

 

So, NASA being an "independent agency" - how does that place NASA in relation to the Departments etc? Does it mean that it operates more freely, or less?

 

Thanks for the info on the VP. For some reason I thought Griffin reported directly to Bush. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

Jackson, the financial information is not that hard to find, it's here:

 

NASA - NASA's FY 2008 Budget and 2006 Strategic Plan

 

The number of employees was a bit harder to find, but I found it eventually:

 

NASAPeople

[TheBigDog]

It had a great deal of freedom right up to the moment that the Challenger blew up. That was when the Congress stopped trusting them (IMO). NASA was best when they were allowed to do research for research's sake. How they turned into a government subsidized space launch service I do not know. They should be doing a whole lot more on the R&D side of Air and Space, and then hand the technology over to another entity for the applied side of the equation.

 

Need to launch 100 satellites per year? That should not be NASA. Need to develop new rocket technology? That should be NASA. Need to test and prove the new technology? That should be NASA. Need to launch 100 payloads a year with the new technology? That should not be NASA.

 

The moon trips were great research. Having a permanent facility on the Moon should be another entity. NASA should not grow roots. They should always be working on the next generation. The fact that we have sat on the shuttles this long is mind boggling. Long before 1986 NASA should already have been working on the replacement.

 

Bill (to rantish?)

[Tormod]

Good input, Bill. Actually, the history of the global space industry is the same everywhere: the Government has to fund it because nobody else will. Building launchers is not easy, and only a few private companies have succeeded (like Sea Launch). The recent semi-successful launch of the Falcon shows that private enterprise is entering the ground-to-orbit segment, but it will take time.

 

NASA is spending $500 million until 2010 to help grow the private launcher business, and as far as I have been able to understand from my NASA research, they will also look at other ways to enhance private space activities. In fact, one of the stratetig goals for NASA from 2006-2016 is to actively pursue partnerships with private enterprises.

 

My main concern with this is that it's such a huge and risky endeavour that only very few can handle it, and we're *already* seeing monopolies being formed, like the United Launch Alliance.

 

United Launch Alliance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

What I'd like to see here in Norway is a more lively space sector with a lot of smaller, innovative companies creating downstream products like GPS services, games that utilize realtime satellite data, satcom radio on your cellphone etc...the cool things which can create a lot of value and be of use to a lot of people. Today the space sector over here is mostly about telecom and satnav and satellite downlinks...

 

When the infrastructure is in place, a lot of effort should be placed on making commercial markets thrive around that infrastructure.