NASA ponders the right stuff

The coincidence between this weeks commercial sub-space exploration and the drive within our space agency NASA to do things faster, better and cheaper perhaps has led to: NASA mulls cash prizes for private spaceflight milestones according to USA Today. Incentives are a powerful way to influence behavior, as anyone who has stepped into a Vegas casino, cut coupons, or met sales targets knows.

In the wake of the first private, manned mission to space earlier this week, a NASA official said the federally funded space agency might offer awards for commercial spaceflight milestones.

According to Reuters news agency, the prizes might range up to $30 million for the attainment of goals such as a soft lunar landing or bringing back a piece of an asteroid.

An oft-overlooked problem with incentives though is creating a reward system that actually reinforces the desired behavior. A couple of weeks ago we referenced the changes made in the USPTO as a result of Congress eliminating public subsidy and changing the Patent and Trademark office to a pay as you go system. The result has been a change in operations that emphasizes ease and speed of processing applications. One perverse outcome has been the shift to processing high quantities of applications but not having the resources available to judge the merits or quality of the applications. In other words, the incentive, a direct relationship between the number of applications processed and the revenue earned, has resulted in more and more patents being filed and processed, with a corresponding fall off in quality of patents issued because staff is unable to keep up with the flow.

So, what might happen if NASA starts offering 'rewards' for successful space exploration or development of capabilities? As we have no details, there is no way to know, but the motivation on NASA's part seems to be clear. Encourage more organizations and groups to invest their own money to achieve goals NASA defines as worthy of reward. One thing is certain - a number of unqualified applicants will try stuff if the reward is large enough. In addition, a significant amount of money, far in excess of the rewards being offered, will be expended on meeting the criteria that earns the rewards.

By offering a reward for a specific outcome, you often have little control over how that outcome might be achieved. This is what NASA seeks to accomplish - allowing the marketplace of ideas to provide a larger number of alternatives than simply funding one or a few different approaches. Economically elegant, but this may prove problematic for an organization like NASA with their culture, environment and "way" of accomplishing missions.

There is no way to control elements outside of your organization when the reward system, like a lottery, is open to everyone. Perhaps the agency thinks by instituting typical DoD or NASA contracting provisions for evaluating applicants that it can pre-qualify or self-regulate the process. Of course, that would eliminate the vast majority of organizations and companies like Scaled Composites (Burt Rutan's company and Paul Allen's money) from participating.

Does this proceed from a faulty assumption? Is this explicit recognition that the market place may have better ideas about how to soft land on the moon than NASA does? This seems unlikely or at least highly improbable. Can an insular organization like NASA, design a program for agencies and actors outside of their direct control that aligns the reward system with the mission and strategy that NASA has established for itself? Reasonably, it can't. Should NASA allow others to do things cheaper and more easily than NASA can? That is closer to the mark and workable.

Perhaps a better use of NASA's money would be figuring out how to do what they do cheaper, better and faster by examining their own organization, strategies, business processes, goals and objectives, risk assessments and bureaucracy. It is fine to do more with less as a goal. However, often when you substitute quantity for quality, you have made a decision to accept efficiency in a trade-off for effectiveness. That may not be what NASA is hoping to achieve.

Dick, Paul and pilot Mike Melvill justly deserve the accolades for their stunning accomplishment. Lets also credit NASA, ESA, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Brazil, Israel, India and others. The space exploration program, manned space flight, decades of effort, millions of hours of R&D, science and technology and billions of dollars in expanding our knowledge and establishing human's place within the universe preceded this week’s grand event.

Perhaps that should be the new mission of NASA. Doing the work that allows the Dick Rutan's of the world the opportunity to make history. NASA could not have done what Space Ship One did as cheaply, quickly or effectively. Of course, they had already done that faster, harder, better with far cruder tools and technology - 40 years ago. The only incentive they needed then was the challenge of doing it and that was enough.

Update 26 June: Administrator Unveils Next Steps Of NASA Transformation which will result in a strategic re-alignment of mission and directorates.

In a report released last week, the President's Commission on Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy found, "NASA needs to transform itself into a leaner, more focused agency by developing an organizational structure that recognizes the need for a more integrated approach to science requirements, management, and implementation of systems development and exploration missions."

"Our task is to align Headquarters to eliminate the 'stove pipes,' promote synergy across the agency, and support the long-term exploration vision in a way that is sustainable and affordable," said Administrator O'Keefe. "We need to take these critical steps to streamline the organization and create a structure that affixes clear authority and accountability."