Problems that I see in this pitch:
Pg. 3, Commercial Innovation at NASA - "Emphasize 'inside technology pull' (e.g., mission-driven) rather than an 'outside technology push' (e.g., external market-driven)."
- Command economies rarely result in success. What is wrong with "external market-driven" solutions? Isn't one of NASA's goal to aid the industry?
Pg. 13, Competitive Prizes:
- "NASA would have the rights to the technical results of all prize contestants"
- This will keep commercial companies from going after these prizes. NASA should only be entitled to the winner's technical result (i.e., drawings, specs, patents), not any of the other contestants, who may want to recoup their investments by turn their effort into a spin-off commercial ventures. This would allow NASA to continue to control the commercial space marketplace. I'm not even thrilled about NASA claiming ownership of the winner's proprietary rights, as NASA should only be entitled to purchase the winning product or service at a pre-stated price defined in the prize contest rules.
- "The prize also serves as an evaluation tool for make / buy decisions – if insufficient competition, the clear indication would be to make it in-house or contract for it."; "If insufficient competition by a date certain or milestones not achieved, the prize could be canceled and NASA could stay on plan by contracting for the same thing."
- If there is "insufficient competition, the clear indication would be to" re-evaluate the prize contest rules, not immediately jump to the conclusion that prizes don't work and then "make it in-house or contract" or assume the "prize could be canceled and NASA could stay on plan by contracting for the same thing." This is setting up the prize option for failure. It is clearly in here to appease NASA and contractors concerns that prizes might take away their funding.
- "NASA’s Centers required to participate on industry teams; could not compete; NRC can provide peer review"
- Why would NASA centers be involved on a prize team at all?!! NRC is not a biased peer review as it is made up of corporate heads and other institutions dependent on NASA funding. A truly independent panel should define and interpret the prize contest rules. The rules should set clear winning criteria and minimize the opportunity for subjectiveness. By using the "peer review" term, it appears that Dr. Pace is assuming that the prize is for some subjective scientific accomplishment, rather than for a product or service of easily determined quality.
Pg. 14, Broad Issues for Consideration - "Are appropriate mechanisms in place to perform “due diligence” on potential cooperative efforts?"
- Competition rather than cooperation should be the goal - what is this a commune?!! If the prize winning criteria are clear and unambiguous AND the prize is awarded to a distinct product or service, then “due diligence” won't be necessary, as it will be "cash and carry" procurement rather than "trust me, I'm a government contractor, you're a NASA manager ready to retire and come work for us after we win" procurement as usual.