Caltech Could Lose Control of JPL For First Time In Decades (space.com) 35
NASA plans to open competition for the contract to operate JPL for the first time in nearly a century, meaning Caltech's historic role managing the iconic deep-space lab could come to an end when its current agreement expires in 2028. According to JPL, Caltech has managed the lab since the its inception in the 1930s, and has done so for NASA since the agency was established in 1958. Space.com reports: According to the JPL statement, Caltech has been preparing for this possible transition since last summer, so the news "comes as no surprise." But the potential change is part of a larger shakeup for the agency. Earlier this morning, NASA announced a major reorganization, which is separate from the JPL news. "To support the agency's ambitious short- and long-term goals, NASA is taking action to increase specialization at centers and integrate mission directorates, elevating delivery of technically excellent work," the agency said in a statement today.
JPL is NASA's lead center for the robotic exploration of Mars and other deep-space locales. The agency has worked with JPL through Caltech as a manager for nearly 70 years. Though JPL still counts as one of NASA's field centers, it's run as a contracted FFRDC (federally funded research and development center). This status has allowed the lab to function slightly differently than other NASA centers; it has a unique sort of independence, though NASA has always had significant oversight of the lab. "As an FFRDC, JPL operates under a special contractual and governance framework designed to ensure that its work is performed in the public interest and aligned with national priorities," NASA has stated. "The FFRDC model enables NASA to retain access to this depth of capability while maintaining a clear separation between government decision-making authority and contractor execution responsibilities."
Opening up the competition for institutions beyond Caltech to operate JPL could mean significant changes for everything from day-to-day mission management to big NASA science programs. Until now, JPL and Caltech have been heavily intertwined, with mission personnel, scientists, leadership, and others working closely "across the pond" between JPL and Caltech. JPL mission and program meetings often include Caltech employees and sometimes even take place on its Pasadena campus.
JPL is NASA's lead center for the robotic exploration of Mars and other deep-space locales. The agency has worked with JPL through Caltech as a manager for nearly 70 years. Though JPL still counts as one of NASA's field centers, it's run as a contracted FFRDC (federally funded research and development center). This status has allowed the lab to function slightly differently than other NASA centers; it has a unique sort of independence, though NASA has always had significant oversight of the lab. "As an FFRDC, JPL operates under a special contractual and governance framework designed to ensure that its work is performed in the public interest and aligned with national priorities," NASA has stated. "The FFRDC model enables NASA to retain access to this depth of capability while maintaining a clear separation between government decision-making authority and contractor execution responsibilities."
Opening up the competition for institutions beyond Caltech to operate JPL could mean significant changes for everything from day-to-day mission management to big NASA science programs. Until now, JPL and Caltech have been heavily intertwined, with mission personnel, scientists, leadership, and others working closely "across the pond" between JPL and Caltech. JPL mission and program meetings often include Caltech employees and sometimes even take place on its Pasadena campus.
well, that's it then. (Score:1)
You can expect that missions flown in the years after this transition to last up to, but not beyond, the originally spec'd end. So, no more multiplanetary Voyagers or years' long rover missions.
Why: Privatization == free money? (Score:5, Insightful)
The government always pretends that a for-profit entity taking charge of taxpayer's money can have only happy outcomes. Add-in pork-barrelling contracts and scope-creep, and a lack of auditing and legal responsibility, and the result is worse outcomes on all metrics.
It's like the billionaires have bait-n-switch down to a fine art.
Re:Why: Privatization == free money? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not that the US government is bad at it. Privatization is inherently bad. For profit companies by definition care about profits. Those who run them, in addition, care for short term profits. So give them an infrastructure that cost billions to build and tell them to manage it, do you think they are going to put serious effort on maintaining it or going to lengths to serve the least profitable customers (that have already paid their share towards building the infastructure). The worst example where I currently live (UK) is water companies who have figured out it is cheaper to pay the penalties for dumping raw sewage into rivers and seas rather than maintain and expand the infrastructure that prevented this. Of course governments make it even worse as politicians get kickbacks. There is no other explanation I can think of for the privatization of ONLY profitable airports in Greece. The ones that make money they sell to (usually German) companies "for stimulating the economy and attracting investment", the ones that are not making money are bankrolled by the taxpayer. I would understand the "attracting investment" part if they at least bundled some unprofitable ones to the 14 they gave to Fraport on the first round for example...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Privatization is inherently bad
This statement seems overly broad. Governments everywhere have always relied, to varying extents, on the private sector.
Should governments make their own toilet paper? Their own computers? Their own cars and trucks? Their own airplanes? Should they grow their own crops to feed the military?
No government can be totally self-sustaining and self-sufficient, every government always relies on the private sector for some portion of its needs. The more appropriate question is, what kinds of things should a governm
Re:Why: Privatization == free money? (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't mean to say that it's always a bad idea; but when someone says 'privatization' that's a "we'll have SAIC do it" proposal not a "employees and the DoE use laptops they got under a GSA schedule contract rather than from the First People's Computational Manufactury" proposal.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
they basically always mean contracting out something large enough to be or have been an internal program
That is a very hand-wavey statement. The problem is, there is no actual definition of that boundary, and it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. You didn't, for example, address the vehicle maintenance example. This is clearly one of those areas that should be outsourced in some places, but not in others.
Some areas are clear. Jails should never be outsourced. But toll roads? Questionable. There's no inherent reason a toll road can't be private, and many are.
The point is, the boundary is not an easy one
Re: Why: Privatization == free money? (Score:3)
The other key is how honest, transparent, and effective the government oversight is.
You can aggressively manage a contract for toilet paper and save your constituents money, or you can use it to wash millions into your friendsâ(TM) and familyâ(TM)s pockets.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely. And in which category should we place today's administration?
Re: (Score:2)
The more appropriate question is, what kinds of things should a government build itself, vs. buy?
I think the answer is: that which cannot be sustained by a private-sector model.
And even then, it may make sense for a government to build something the private sector can build, if the management-needs dictate it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also more complicated than just "that which cannot be sustained by a private-sector model".
The vehicle maintenance example I provided, is one of those. The private sector can and does sustain a business model that makes it financially profitable to maintain vehicles. For small towns, it probably makes sense to have a local repair shop work on government-owned vehicles. For large cities, they may find it more cost-effective to hire their own mechanics.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we're saying the same thing, but thanks for the affirmation.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't think we are saying the same thing.
Vehicle maintenance *can* be sustained by the private sector model. But for some governments, it still makes sense to maintain their own vehicle repair operations.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't think we are saying the same thing.
Vehicle maintenance *can* be sustained by the private sector model. But for some governments, it still makes sense to maintain their own vehicle repair operations.
Which I covered when I said "And even then, it may make sense for a government to build something the private sector can build, if the management-needs dictate it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never gone to a grocery store that sells space missions exploring the solar system. Where do you shop?
Re: (Score:2)
Did I suggest that the two are equivalent? No I did not. You invented a straw man.
My point was to illustrate that "Privatization is inherently bad". The reality is that, it depends.
Re: (Score:2)
Privatization is the process of transferring ownership, property, or business operations from the government (the public sector) to private individuals or for-profit corporations.
You seem to be talking about something different? I never said we should nationalize anything private...
Re: (Score:3)
While it's true that governments are generally inefficient in the way they spend money, we have seen in recent times that some government leaders go to great lengths to make privatization a mechanism for handing out money, rather than serve the people. So maybe not completely "consistent"...there is bad, and then there is unfettered corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just an Orange Power Grab. Donald doesn't care about efficiency, he cares about control, his control.
NASA and JPL already outsource many services to the private sector. Military aerospace contractors often end up with the contracts, I would note. Putting another layer of privatization is a recipe for grift.
Outside competition my ass (Score:3, Informative)
This is just another transparent attempt by el Bunko to sell off a piece of fed. control to his Maggots in industry for a tidy kickback. Before this, it was EPA regs on forever chemicals. Before that it was pollutants in coal fired power plants.
Competency (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Competency (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I see this I think, "Who at Caltech made Trump mad?" He has a tendency to try to get revenge for petty reasons.
True. However, it's not only about what makes him mad, (although many things do, apparently.) Or for revenge.
It's also about what he can do to etch his name into history, no matter the cost, (lack of) consistency, or consequences.
But he does tend to pick his targets based on things that make him mad.
Punishment by dear leader (Score:5, Insightful)
This has absolutely nothing to do with "competition". This is Trump continuing his assault on "woke" (whatever that means) insttituions of higher learning. Most especially ones on both coasts.
But here's another thing. Caltech has been doing this work for decades. It's well-established and works hand-in-glove with JPL to get things done. Each knows what the other is doing. If this goes through, whomever buys the contract will not have that institutional knowledge unless they pull over people from Caltech. Even then, there will be a disruption as the owner is brought up to speed. How many mistakes and bad decisions do you think will be made, costing taxpayers who knows how many billions of dollars as missions fail?
Where I work we're going through a similar situation. We've been using a supplier for who knows how long. That supplier has been in existence for decades and has a well-established quoting sytem, the web site shows what's available so you can do comparisons, and the people know what they're doing. Everything just works.
Fast forward to last year where we were told we had a new supplier. We were to start using them in July of 2025. We didn't start using them until March of this year, and they do not have a web site which was supposed to be running last month. Getting a quote from them is at least a 24-hour wait. Recently (three weeks ago), a message went out to not use the supplier because of the issues they were having such as not delivering the products quoted and paid for. For now, we're back to using our previous supplier until told otherwise.
If we've having this issue buying products when moving to a new supplier, how difficult do you think moving from Caltech to whomever will be when they're involved with spaceflight?
don't get your panties in a wad (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to do Gov contracting and FFRDCs are very common. The #1 problem with them is cost growth over time. A recompete is healthy. It forces the contractor to review everything and see how they can reduce costs. They rarely lose. They have way too much knowledge about the job requirements that others don't. That means their bid will be more realistic and the bid price will be low risk. By that I mean another company may assume certain requirements not explicit in the RFP and bid low on those tasks. The actual cost, once a contract starts, will be renegotiated and it isn't unusual for the new negotiated price to be higher than the incumbent. Therefore risk. Even if the incumbent does lose, the vast majority of the staff usually rotates onto the new contract - usually with a modest pay cut.
Re:don't get your panties in a wad (Score:5, Informative)
JPL has been run by CalTech for 90 years because it's the CalTech rocketry club founded in 1936. Its services are some of the most productive investments of the US federal government.
You're looking at this as basic MIC M&A. If they wanted to cut the budget or be more efficient they could just rewrite the contract as they always do at renewal. This is a theft of expertise.
Re: don't get your panties in a wad (Score:5, Insightful)
i would generally agree that recomputing a contract is generally good, IF the competing entities have the experience and expertise in executing the terms of the contract. I think the thought process here is that the contract will be steered towards one of Trump's political allies that has no experience or business running JPL.
Re: (Score:2)
comment to undo mod
It's not privatization (Score:3, Informative)
I am not saying the contract should go to a for-profit corporation (in California that would make it subject to taxes--an instant cost increase). I do think opening up competition would force a revisit to the cost structure, which is a healthy process.
Trump? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this because Caltech failed to manage it appropriately or because Trump wants to take money from Caltech and give it to a more Trump friendly group