From: cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: SUMMARY of 1st NASA TOWN MEETING -- Raleigh NC (long)
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:03:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: samba.1992Nov13.160320.16902
Reply-To: cecil@physics.unc.edu
Organization: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Jon Leech & I were among the 700 people at the 1st NASA Town Meeting, held on 
Monday afternoon 2-6:30 pm in nearby Raleigh.  After an introductory spiel by an
administrator of the host North Carolina State U, Goldin outlined the rationale
for the meetings:

  Town Meetings are the latest phase of NASA's self-examination that began
  a while ago.  Blue & Red teams within NASA defined program cost savings
  (identified 17% cost savings by rescoping programs such as AXAF, Cassini,
  etc.)  Time to publicize progress NASA has made on this, and on its post-
  Cold War mission.  NASA should be *the* source of high technology in the 
  US, and a stimulus to US industry and education.
  NASA budget gap between program costs and funding was increasing alarmingly.
  Budget not going to increase much if at all, so *the best* fiscal discipline
  is required.  Congress must be given believable figures that do not run over
  if they are to support NASA programs.
  NASA's goal is to be *the best* administration in government.
  Need to increase minority and women hires. [Shocking plot in the info packet.]
  In the space program, NASA's primary concern is to improve Shuttle reliability
  and safety.  Freedom is the next major project ... fabrication is imminent.  
  Need to understand how humans tolerate space before we set off for Mars.
  Mission to Planet Earth to study environmental change.
  [No mention of the Moon, or SEI.  Alluded to Pluto Direct.]

Next we watched a NASA video. This highlighted NASA's past accomplishments and,
Goldin explained, was intended to remind NASA employees of their past. It was as
expected.  A pad photo of Challenger on the screen for 1/2 sec, preceded by
ominous music and many references to ``Congress''.  This was immediately replaced 
by an up-beat score as that embarassing episode faded into distant history.  
Various NASA civil servants  then articulated their enthusiasm for the agency.  
[Most ridiculous was a woman, labeled Congressional Liaison, who stated the she 
car-pooled with USDA people and wondered if they felt the same sense of mission 
that she does when they slap a USDA sticker on meat!]  Video culminated in the 
usual idiocy that NASA's goal is ``to journey to the stars!''  

Goldin then fielded questions from the audience for about 45 mins.
Questions, among others, on 
    Shuttle's damage to other NASA programs -- acknowledged, but never again.
    	because NASA is working to get *the best* cost control in government.
    Heavy lift options on assembling SSF -- have'nt completed internal
    	review to establish if the development costs can be justified by
    	the available payloads.  Energiya is *not* an option, because it
    	is felt that too much development would have to be done with the CIS.
    	NASA will be flying a cosmonaut on STS-60 [whose commander was the
    	astronaut representative at the Town Meeting.]  Outstanding issues
    	on Shuttle safety remain turbo-pumps and the engine bells.  NASA
    	is committed to flying Shuttle only for missions that require
    	humans, no more than 8 times/yr.  Will start doing this once all
    	the Shuttle-specific payloads are dealt with, in 18 months or so.
    What about SSTO?  -- too many launch vehicle programs in the works.  Some
    	must be cancelled.  All look favorable when first proposed, but
    	less so as they are costed out.  Doubts the relevance of the 
    	sub-scale DC-X test flight to the overall program.  SSTO relies 
    	heavily on poorly understood composites, some derived from NASP.
    How do you reconcile NASA's statements of support for SEI with its deletion
    	by Congress every time that it appears in the budget? -- NASA must
    	demonstrate cost control, and that it can deliver on time.  Low-cost 
    	missions like NEAR & MESUR will show Congress that NASA can be 
    	trusted, then we will have better success with SEI.
    How to make NASA's support for basic science research less ``faddish''?
    	-- have appointed another bureaucrat to coordinate science support.
    	Also, Len Fisk as Chief Scientist will be tasked with selling 
    	Missions to Planet Earth & from Planet Earth to industry, scientists,
    	and the public.

Questions from elementary school teachers asking for more visual aids so that
they can pacify the uncontrollable children in their charge with videos.  
Statements of support for NASA.  Award for most inane/naive question IMO goes 
to the director of the NC State U Mars Center [builds plywood mock-ups of NASA 
vaporware for shopping malls, among other activities].  He noted that his 
program churned out many fine undergraduate students who learned all these 
vital Mars exploration skills, but who couldn't get jobs in NASA upon 
graduation.  [Too bad NC's furniture industry is not doing too well.]  Goldin 
replied by mentioning NASA's Project Exodus.  No, this is not NASA's response
to P-Swift/Tuttle's return in the 22nd century.  It is their package to induce 
ossified NASA employees to take early retirement.

Goldin then raced off to address business leaders.  [He had earlier visited an 
elementary school to inspire the kids, with minority astronaut in tow.]  
During the break a video wall rehashed Apollo and depicted unfunded missions 
to Mars as if they were imminent.  We looked at a meter-long plastic model of 
Freedom, which included a non-Soyuz ACRV, the new ``mini''-modules, and 3 
solar panels.  [The following afternoon I visited mockups of the Lab and 
Habitation modules that were parked for several days at a local science 
museum in Durham.  Constructed at Marshall, these are full length but 
sub-diameter.  They were manned by a fellow from Marshall, who incidently 
works in the NASA department charged with building plywood mock-ups -- NC 
State Mars Center take note!  He was able to conduct 3 simultaneous 
conversations at 3 different levels of technical sophistication.  It's worth a 
visit with your kids.  The vans will travel with the Town Meeting.  There's 
also something called the Laser Van which has hands-on science demos for 
elementary schools.] 

The information packet had copies of the viewgraphs from Goldin's opening 
comments, and biographies of the panel members.  One of the viewgraphs, labeled
``NASA Buget Gap'' showed the growing deviation with time between NASA's 
program commitments and (an optimistically increasing) funding profile.  
Neither axis was labeled and the vertical (cost) axis was broken, so the plot 
was almost devoid of content!  There was also a pie chart that showed what 
fractions of the 1962 and 1992 budgets went to NASA.  I found this graphic 
misleading because the level of entitlements in the 1962 budget was much 
lower.  If you account for these, NASA's share today of what remains is 6.5%

While we were standing around, a woman armed with a tape recorder introduced 
herself as a NASA employee, and asked if we were satisfied with Goldin's 
responses to our questions. She also solicited our general views on NASA, 
which took some time.  The NASA HQ'ers in the audience were untagged but 
conspicuous Washington suits.  While we were talking, several drifted within 
earshot.  They seemed to float around the hall, easedropping.  Very strange.

After the break, the audience thinned out appreciably, and the 2nd-stringers 
appeared on stage: Senior HQ managers for many programs, the chief of staff, and
Chief Scientist Fisk. Each manager briefly outlined reforms in his/her division,
then fielded the vague audience questions.  I found the comments by the chief 
of staff most illuminating.  She noted that they had been able to reform the 
Grants office so that the average time to award industrial and academic 
contracts had dropped from 100+ days to 8.  We left after a half hour.

Overall, I was fairly impressed.  I had not expected Goldin to attend & it was
useful to spend a few minutes asking him technical questions. I hope he survives
the change of Administration. That aspect of the format was much more successful
than the Paine Commission hearing that I attended in '86.  NASA also solicited 
write-in questions that they promised to answer [Netters, here's your chance!!] 
The feel of the meeting often veered abruptly from that of an arcane 
budgetary/technical seminar to that of a religious revival.  The 2nd stringer 
component was less successful.  No-one in the audience appeared to have a 
focussed question to any of the senior managers.

Although you can pre-register, there didn't appear to be a need. Several of 
our group registered on-site and got the same info package.  They had tables 
of soft drinks, and about a dozen cookies.
---
Gerald Cecil cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu  919-962-7169 
Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.food.cooking,alt.food,misc.misc