How a Trump-Musk government efficiency commission might affect NASA

Former President Trump’s suggestion that a government efficiency commission be formed to examine the workings of every part of the federal government is a brilliant one. The idea that SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk be in charge of the commission would seem to be a no-brainer.

Such a commission would be the perfect vehicle for looking at NASA, an agency with a storied history beset with a slew of problems.

One of the major problems NASA faces is its difficulty with bringing projects on schedule and on budget. Examples over the past few decades include the International Space Station and the James Webb Space Telescope. 

Some projects, such as the Mars Sample Return and the VIPER lunar rover have gone so far off the rails that they face cancellation or at least a lengthy process of rescoping. The tale of the Space Launch System, key to the Artemis return to the moon, remains depressing.

NASA is not unique in its inability to complete projects on time and under budget, The large number of weapons systems the Defense Department has funded that cost more and took longer to develop than originally planned goes back many decades. The F-35 is an example.

Civilian infrastructure projects have not been immune to government waste, such as the $7.5 billion the Biden administration has spent to build just seven electric car charging stations.

An article in Quartz, citing a study in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy, noted that projects at NASA have suffered an average cost overrun of 90 percent. By comparison, projects undertaken by SpaceX have had an average cost overrun of 1.1 percent.

One reason for SpaceX’s relative success is that NASA concentrates on “one-off projects focused on ‘quantum leaps’ — the Space Shuttle or the Space Launch System,” whereas Musk’s company climbs up “the launch value chain, from the small Falcon 1 rocket, to the expendable Falcon 9, to the reusable Falcon 9, to the Falcon Heavy.” 

NASA reinvents projects every time, while SpaceX evolves its hardware, improving on what came before. The fact that SpaceX doesn’t have layers of bureaucracy or direct congressional mandates as NASA does is helpful, as well.

Public policy experts have known that something was wrong with NASA for decades. The White House, dating back to the second Bush administration, responded by commercializing parts of the space agency’s functions. Thus, several commercial initiatives, including Commercial Orbital Transport Systems (COTS), Commercial Crew, Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS), Human Landing System and several private space stations to replace the International Space Station were undertaken.

Commercialization, with the exception of the problems encountered by the Boeing Starliner, has been successful, suggesting that two solutions exist for what troubles NASA.

One solution would be to commercialize as many functions of NASA as possible, including planetary science and Earth science. In effect, the space agency would do little to nothing in-house. It would hand out contracts on a fixed-price basis to control costs.

The other solution would be to figure out ways that NASA could borrow from the corporate cultures of its commercial partners. The space agency would streamline the decision-making process and would collapse layers of bureaucracy. The proposed commission’s task concerning NASA would be to reimagine how the space agency functions and to develop a plan to implement it.

Finally, the role of Elon Musk in the government efficiency commission raises questions.

On the one hand, the idea of appointing Musk would seem to be a brilliant one. Musk, the richest man on the planet, has a proven record of doing the impossible, doing it relatively cheaply, and making a lot of money doing it. If he can teach the federal government, including NASA, the secrets of his success, the United States will benefit immeasurably,

On the other hand, Musk’s involvement in the commission raises conflict of interest questions. SpaceX, especially, makes a lot of money on government contracts and its activities are heavily regulated by the government. Even if the commission’s proposals are found to be sound, some will raise questions if Musk and his companies stand to benefit.

Reforming the federal government, including NASA, would be worth the argument. If Musk can save taxpayers trillions of dollars, perhaps erasing the deficit and beginning to reduce the national debt, his personal benefit would be a small price to pay.

Mark R. Whittington is the author of “Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?” “ The Moon, Mars and Beyond” and, most recently, “Why is America Going Back to the Moon?” He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.