### NASA Confronts Obstacles with Old Infrastructure, Workforce, and Tech Progress
NASA, the leading space agency of the United States, is encountering substantial challenges that could impede its pursuit of long-term strategic objectives. A recent assessment from a panel of independent experts reveals that NASA is contending with outdated infrastructure, a diminishing budget for mission support, and the potential exodus of engineering talent to the private space sector. These factors, combined with inadequate long-term planning for technology advancement, threaten the agency’s capacity to execute its most ambitious endeavors, including the Artemis initiative aimed at returning humans to the Moon and upcoming crewed missions to Mars.
#### Deteriorating Infrastructure: An Increasing Concern
Among the most urgent challenges outlined in the report is NASA’s aging infrastructure. Approximately 83% of NASA’s facilities have surpassed their intended lifespans, with a maintenance backlog estimated at $3.3 billion. To illuminate the scale of the issue, NASA allocates about $250 million annually for routine maintenance, implying that a $600 million increase in yearly funding for infrastructure repairs would be necessary to clear the backlog within ten years.
“NASA’s dilemma is it always seems to have $3 billion more programs than it has in available funds,” stated Norm Augustine, chair of the National Academies panel responsible for the report. Augustine has chaired similar comprehensive evaluations of NASA’s space initiatives in 1990 and 2009, yet the current assessment presents an even more dire outlook.
The report indicates that a significant number of NASA’s facilities are rated as “marginal to poor” in terms of condition. For instance, the Johnson Space Center in Houston, which manages astronaut training and houses NASA’s Mission Control Center, contains some of the lowest-rated facilities. Other locations, such as the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California and the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, perform better but still face notable challenges.
The declining condition of NASA’s infrastructure transcends superficial concerns. As Erik Weiser, a NASA official, emphasized, “You can possess a world-class microscope and materials lab, but if the building collapses, that microscope is rendered useless.”
#### A Declining Budget for Mission Support
Although NASA’s budget for missions has risen by 8% since 2010, the funding allocated for mission support has decreased by 33%. Consequently, each dollar designated for mission support now has to accommodate 50% more mission activity compared to just over a decade ago. This disparity is especially troubling as NASA embarks on some of the most intricate missions in its history, including the Artemis program aimed at returning humans to the Moon.
“In terms of both architectural complexity and technical complexity, NASA today—for instance, in the Artemis program—is tackling challenges that significantly exceed anything encountered during the Apollo program,” Augustine remarked.
The panel advised that Congress create a revolving working capital fund for NASA, akin to those employed by other federal agencies, to guarantee that the agency possesses the resources required to sustain and enhance its infrastructure. This proposal would necessitate federal legislation but could offer a more viable solution to NASA’s infrastructure dilemmas.
#### Absence of Long-Term Technology Planning
Another significant issue raised by the panel is NASA’s deficiency in having a long-range approach for technology development. The federal government functions within one-year budget cycles, with overall spending plans only reaching five years into the future. This short-sighted focus contradicts the extensive timelines necessary for NASA’s missions, which often require decades to accomplish.
“NASA’s operations and missions typically involve decades of efforts, or at least a decade of work,” Augustine noted. The panel urged NASA to create a more comprehensive plan for technology development, which includes establishing “need dates” for mission-critical technologies.
Ed Crawley, an engineering professor at MIT and a panel member, pinpointed three essential technologies that NASA must cultivate to fulfill its long-term objectives: in-space power and propulsion, technologies for entry, descent, and landing on Mars, and radiation safety measures for astronauts. These are what Crawley termed the “three miracles” needed to transport humans to Mars.
#### Competing for Engineering Expertise
The emergence of the commercial space sector, spearheaded by companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin, presents both opportunities and challenges for NASA. While the agency has reaped benefits from collaborations with these entities, particularly via fixed-price service agreements, there are concerns that NASA’s growing dependence on commercial partners could dilute its own engineering proficiency.
NASA’s commercial collaborators frequently depend on the agency’s technical knowledge and facilities. For example, SpaceX utilized NASA’s launch pads and vacuum chambers to test its Crew Dragon spacecraft. Nonetheless, the panel cautioned that over-reliance on service contracts could relegate NASA’s role to that of a supervisory entity rather than an active engineering organization.
“Very few of the nation’s most innovative scientists and engineers would likely seek or remain in such purely oversight roles,” the panel noted. This scenario could trigger a brain drain, with NASA’s most skilled engineers departing for other opportunities.
