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.
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.
This is why they've been trying to move into all the other stuff like podcasts
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.
* For some definitions of useful
What I'm saying is, take what Spotify is actually producing, and compare that to half of what NASA is producing. Or compare Snap to a third of NASA, etc.
I mean I get wanting to shit on adtech over NASA, the latters is... significantly more cool. I just don't get why it's related to explaining how efficient or inefficient NASA is at the significantly cooler stuff.
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.