A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA Culture versus Corporate Culture



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 19th 04, 04:53 PM
Bill Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA Culture versus Corporate Culture

Despite all its human flaws, the "NASA culture" has a strong can-do,
will-do attitude that makes it possible for them to achieve what
organizations ten times their size cannot. This sets a very bad
standard for industry, giving the shareholders and investors a high
expectation of their capabilities. Without the shining example of
NASA, industry can plod along and people are perfectly content with
shoddy products, nominal innovation, high prices, and poor customer
support. I would even go so far as to say that the aerospace industry
was to blame for the Challenger disaster, not NASA employees.
Industry has motive, the employees do not.

  #2  
Old April 20th 04, 08:38 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA Culture versus Corporate Culture

Bill Clark wrote:

Despite all its human flaws, the "NASA culture" has a strong can-do,
will-do attitude that makes it possible for them to achieve what
organizations ten times their size cannot. This sets a very bad
standard for industry, giving the shareholders and investors a high
expectation of their capabilities. Without the shining example of
NASA, industry can plod along and people are perfectly content with
shoddy products, nominal innovation, high prices, and poor customer
support. I would even go so far as to say that the aerospace industry
was to blame for the Challenger disaster, not NASA employees.
Industry has motive, the employees do not.


Behold the Nicene Creed of NASA.
You give pretty much any major company in the United States around
1/200th of the total national budget (over 15 _billion_ dollars in FY
2004) to work with, and I think you will be downright amazed with what
they will accomplish.

Pat

  #3  
Old April 20th 04, 07:54 PM
Anthony Garcia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA Culture versus Corporate Culture

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Bill Clark wrote:

Despite all its human flaws, the "NASA culture" has a strong can-do,
will-do attitude that makes it possible for them to achieve what
organizations ten times their size cannot. This sets a very bad
standard for industry, giving the shareholders and investors a high
expectation of their capabilities. Without the shining example of
NASA, industry can plod along and people are perfectly content with
shoddy products, nominal innovation, high prices, and poor customer
support. I would even go so far as to say that the aerospace industry
was to blame for the Challenger disaster, not NASA employees.
Industry has motive, the employees do not.


Behold the Nicene Creed of NASA.
You give pretty much any major company in the United States around
1/200th of the total national budget (over 15 _billion_ dollars in FY
2004) to work with, and I think you will be downright amazed with what
they will accomplish.

Pat


Are you truely sure of that. A great many U.S. companies, and foreign
companies do in fact have revenues of greater than 1/200th of the U.S.
annual budget.

1/200th of 15 Billion is ONLY 75 Million. The mid-sized company I work
for does better than that!!! The proposed budget for 2004 is of the order
of 2.2 TRILLION. Even then, the bar for meeting your criteria for
amazement is pretty low since many of our major companies have revenues of
greater than 15 Billion.

Examples abound:
General Electric -- 134 Billion FY2003 Annual Report
Lockheed-Martin --- 31.8 Billion FY2003 Annual Report (Net Sales ;; a
highly massaged figure)
HP/Compaq --- 19.5 Billion expecte annual revenue (Annual report not
released yet.)
etc
etc

  #4  
Old April 20th 04, 09:48 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA Culture versus Corporate Culture

Anthony Garcia wrote:



Behold the Nicene Creed of NASA.
You give pretty much any major company in the United States around
1/200th of the total national budget (over 15 _billion_ dollars in FY
2004) to work with, and I think you will be downright amazed with what
they will accomplish.

Pat



Are you truely sure of that. A great many U.S. companies, and foreign
companies do in fact have revenues of greater than 1/200th of the U.S.
annual budget.

1/200th of 15 Billion is ONLY 75 Million. The mid-sized company I work
for does better than that!!!

NASA's budget is 15 billion. Boy, I _would_ be impressed if they did
what they do on only 75 million a year; that's around 1/8th the price
of a Shuttle flight.

The proposed budget for 2004 is of the order
of 2.2 TRILLION. Even then, the bar for meeting your criteria for
amazement is pretty low since many of our major companies have revenues of
greater than 15 Billion.

Examples abound:

But a great deal of what "NASA" does is actually done by contractors
working for NASA, be it Shuttle upkeep and refurbishment, unmanned
launch vehicle construction, or building equipment for space and
planetary probes- so NASA really _is_ major and minor aerospace related
firms when you look at it.

General Electric -- 134 Billion FY2003 Annual Report
Lockheed-Martin --- 31.8 Billion FY2003 Annual Report (Net Sales ;; a
highly massaged figure)
HP/Compaq --- 19.5 Billion expecte annual revenue (Annual report not
released yet.)

The interesting thing here is that these are the company's revenues,
NASA doesn't really have any annual revenues, as it costs far, far, more
to fund than any small amount of money it might bring in annually
through sales of its research information and patent rights on any of
its new equipment or processes... in fact, its not _supposed_ to make a
profit, but freely distribute everything that it invents or discovers.
Around 25 years ago, I heard a former NASA scientist come up with a
really novel idea- NASA should make a profit on both it's
telecommunication satellite launches, and develop a constellation of
earth-resource, weather, and imaging satellites, whose products would
then be sold to whoever is interested- with the moneys thus realized,
NASA could afford to run a modest exploration program at _zero_ taxpayer
expense. But of course we aren't going to do that...we aren't going to
launch space tourists like the Russians, build imaging satellites whose
data is for sale like the French, or sell advertising space on the side
of the Shuttle's ET Like many corporations would surely buy... our hands
shall remain clean; and completely unsullied by profit.

Pat
(Picturing a Mars rover imbedding a sign on the Martian surface reading:
"Future home of a McDonald's Restaurant- over 1 billion served...on
Earth alone.")

  #5  
Old April 21st 04, 01:39 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA Culture versus Corporate Culture

Pat Flannery wrote:

But of course we aren't going to do that...we aren't going to
launch space tourists like the Russians, build imaging satellites whose
data is for sale like the French, or sell advertising space on the side
of the Shuttle's ET Like many corporations would surely buy... our hands
shall remain clean; and completely unsullied by profit.


All the national agencies hands are thus unsullied. The for-profit
parts you list above are all private corporations.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

  #6  
Old April 27th 04, 10:23 PM
Anthony Garcia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA Culture versus Corporate Culture

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Anthony Garcia wrote:



Behold the Nicene Creed of NASA.
You give pretty much any major company in the United States around
1/200th of the total national budget (over 15 _billion_ dollars in FY
2004) to work with, and I think you will be downright amazed with what
they will accomplish.

Pat

[snip]
But a great deal of what "NASA" does is actually done by contractors
working for NASA, be it Shuttle upkeep and refurbishment, unmanned
launch vehicle construction, or building equipment for space and
planetary probes- so NASA really _is_ major and minor aerospace related
firms when you look at it.


How convenient, and silly of a distinction. As it happens few companies
.... very few companies don't have to contract SOMETHING out. When
producing an end product no one goes to a contractor/mfg firm and say's
this doesn't count because you contracted the work out. Do some research
and you most certainly need to come to that conclusion. Do you think
Boeing makes air frames, jet engines, fuel pumps, hydraulic pumps,
computers, etc, etc, etc. NOT!!! The same is true of ANY manufacturer of
end products. NASA being a government agency is best described as a
contractor.

Any private company given the task of putting a comsat into orbit is .....
you guessed it ... a contractor. ;-))



General Electric -- 134 Billion FY2003 Annual Report
Lockheed-Martin --- 31.8 Billion FY2003 Annual Report (Net Sales ;; a
highly massaged figure)
HP/Compaq --- 19.5 Billion expecte annual revenue (Annual report not
released yet.)

The interesting thing here is that these are the company's revenues,
NASA doesn't really have any annual revenues, as it costs far, far, more
to fund than any small amount of money it might bring in annually
through sales of its research information and patent rights on any of
its new equipment or processes... in fact, its not _supposed_ to make a
profit, but freely distribute everything that it invents or discovers.

[snip]

Call it revenues, call it funding, call it grants it all represents
resources allocated to an agency/private company with the goal of
producing an end result. It doesn't matter if it is tax $$ or investor
$$. The process for getting funding for projects is in most corporations
very much like it is in government. You have an idea, you run it by some
people. They like the idea and you then put proposals together, prepare
studies showing feasibility, sell, sell sell the idea; finally perhaps you
might get all the signatures you need to spend the money the board decides
to allocate toward this fantastic idea. Again your distinction between
revenue and ... well revenue; in this case NASA gets the $$$ for filling
it's mission of putting golf balls into space.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.