4 ms·

NASA looks efficient because you’re comparing it to the rest of government. I love the work they do. I wish they did more with what they have. And then I wish

NASA looks efficient because you’re comparing it to the rest of government. I love the work they do. I wish they did more with what they have. And then I wish they had more to work with. When they are constrained, like they are with spacecraft already in flight, their ability to problem solve with the tools and systems they have available is absolutely impressive.

phaedrus 2y ago
I'm sure at NASA as at all government agencies there are teams who work very efficiently and do more with less, and other teams whose mission does not have that characteristic and constraint.
- Tostino 2y ago
  The majority of inefficiency seems to leek into NASA via our Congress.
  - sgc 2y ago
    I agree, NASA would be much further along without that bunch of turnips.
    - bloomingeek 2y ago
      Perhaps if they used Raspberry pi, they wouldn't be in such a pickle? (Sorry)
  - nradov 2y ago
    Pork-barrel politics are ugly and make federal programs like NASA less efficient. But in this case it serves a strategic value in preserving a geographically distributed aerospace industrial base. This ensures we won't lose too much capacity from a single disaster or enemy attack. If that "insurance" means fewer space missions then it's a premium worth paying.
  - _mlbt 2y ago
    This isn’t specific to NASA or Congress. U.S. Government agencies will utilize whatever budget they are given, period. There is no incentive to be efficient. If there is leftover money in the final fiscal quarter you are highly encouraged to use every penny, even if that means buying new furniture and office supplies that you don’t really need. Any leftover money will be given to someone else and you will receive a smaller budget the following year.
    - doctorwho42 2y ago
      I think they are commenting on the requirements imposed on NASA with regards to where parts are made (what states), etc.
    - dirtyv 2y ago
      I've have personally seen instances where it is recommended to go over your budget, so it appears your budget needs to be increased.
    - anticensor 2y ago
      This isn't specific to the US Government either, it applies to almost any government agency in the world.
semi-extrinsic 2y ago
> NASA looks efficient because you’re comparing it to the rest of government. NASA also looks quite efficient when you compare it to many tech companies. NASA has 18k employees and $25bn budget in 2023, let's compare it with some companies: Spotify and Stripe are each equal to half of NASA both in terms of employees and budget. Snapchat and Airbnb are both approx 1/3rd of NASA in both employees and budget. Yahoo has 1/2 the employees and 1/3 the budget of NASA. ByteDance is 6x larger than NASA on both metrics. Meta is 6x larger in budget and 4x larger in head count. These are just companies making social media apps and selling ads.
- TremendousJudge 2y ago
  Spotify has a 12bn budget? What are they spending it on? Does it include licensing fees?
  - justahuman74 2y ago
    Spotify doesn't have a great bargaining position against the record labels, they don't make much profit. This is why they've been trying to move into all the other stuff like podcasts
- zamadatix 2y ago
  How do I read this employees/budget metric to properly rank efficiency? Is 1,000 employees each with an average burn rate per employee of a $1,000,000/y supposed to be more or less efficient than 2,000 employees with an average burn rate per employee of $500,000/y? If so, why is that a sign of an inherently more efficient company when we haven't even mentioned things like output yet? E.g. some of the companies in the list post a large loss, others post a large gain. If a company doubled it's employee count and posted a 10% change in profit due to staffing budgets why should that result in 100% or 50% change in this metric? Is 1,000 companies with 1 employee each and a budget of $1,000,000/y inherently supposed to be the same efficiency as 1 company with 1,000 employees and a budget of $1,000,000,000/y even if the other company is posting a profit and the small company just spending it all each year? I'm generally on the side of NASA but in this case I just don't understand how to apply this metric in a meaningful way. It seems almost everything else about the company is more relevant to overall efficiency the "amount of money spent in the last year for a given number of people working there". I.e., at the end of the day in terms of efficiency I don't really care if 1 person works at NASA or 100,000 people work at NASA I care how quickly they get meaningful missions completed at a given budget.

phaedrus 2y ago

I'm sure at NASA as at all government agencies there are teams who work very efficiently and do more with less, and other teams whose mission does not have that characteristic and constraint.

Tostino 2y ago
The majority of inefficiency seems to leek into NASA via our Congress.
- sgc 2y ago
  I agree, NASA would be much further along without that bunch of turnips.
  - bloomingeek 2y ago
    Perhaps if they used Raspberry pi, they wouldn't be in such a pickle? (Sorry)
- nradov 2y ago
  Pork-barrel politics are ugly and make federal programs like NASA less efficient. But in this case it serves a strategic value in preserving a geographically distributed aerospace industrial base. This ensures we won't lose too much capacity from a single disaster or enemy attack. If that "insurance" means fewer space missions then it's a premium worth paying.
- _mlbt 2y ago
  This isn’t specific to NASA or Congress. U.S. Government agencies will utilize whatever budget they are given, period. There is no incentive to be efficient. If there is leftover money in the final fiscal quarter you are highly encouraged to use every penny, even if that means buying new furniture and office supplies that you don’t really need. Any leftover money will be given to someone else and you will receive a smaller budget the following year.
  - doctorwho42 2y ago
    I think they are commenting on the requirements imposed on NASA with regards to where parts are made (what states), etc.
  - dirtyv 2y ago
    I've have personally seen instances where it is recommended to go over your budget, so it appears your budget needs to be increased.
  - anticensor 2y ago
    This isn't specific to the US Government either, it applies to almost any government agency in the world.

semi-extrinsic 2y ago

> NASA looks efficient because you’re comparing it to the rest of government. NASA also looks quite efficient when you compare it to many tech companies. NASA has 18k employees and $25bn budget in 2023, let's compare it with some companies: Spotify and Stripe are each equal to half of NASA both in terms of employees and budget. Snapchat and Airbnb are both approx 1/3rd of NASA in both employees and budget. Yahoo has 1/2 the employees and 1/3 the budget of NASA. ByteDance is 6x larger than NASA on both metrics. Meta is 6x larger in budget and 4x larger in head count. These are just companies making social media apps and selling ads.

TremendousJudge 2y ago
Spotify has a 12bn budget? What are they spending it on? Does it include licensing fees?
- justahuman74 2y ago
  Spotify doesn't have a great bargaining position against the record labels, they don't make much profit. This is why they've been trying to move into all the other stuff like podcasts
zamadatix 2y ago
How do I read this employees/budget metric to properly rank efficiency? Is 1,000 employees each with an average burn rate per employee of a $1,000,000/y supposed to be more or less efficient than 2,000 employees with an average burn rate per employee of $500,000/y? If so, why is that a sign of an inherently more efficient company when we haven't even mentioned things like output yet? E.g. some of the companies in the list post a large loss, others post a large gain. If a company doubled it's employee count and posted a 10% change in profit due to staffing budgets why should that result in 100% or 50% change in this metric? Is 1,000 companies with 1 employee each and a budget of $1,000,000/y inherently supposed to be the same efficiency as 1 company with 1,000 employees and a budget of $1,000,000,000/y even if the other company is posting a profit and the small company just spending it all each year? I'm generally on the side of NASA but in this case I just don't understand how to apply this metric in a meaningful way. It seems almost everything else about the company is more relevant to overall efficiency the "amount of money spent in the last year for a given number of people working there". I.e., at the end of the day in terms of efficiency I don't really care if 1 person works at NASA or 100,000 people work at NASA I care how quickly they get meaningful missions completed at a given budget.