Competition to run JPL comes at fraught moment
Weeks after Trump administration officials announced that management of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory would be opened to competitive bidding for the first time, questions remain about why Caltech might lose control of the lab its researchers founded in 1936.
On the one hand, observers note that recent high-profile delays and cost overruns on major JPL projects have drawn harsh criticism from NASA even before the 2024 presidential election.
On the other hand, the second Trump administration’s record of cutting scientific funding and attack institutions Analysts say it makes it difficult to evaluate any action in Democratic-led states apart from the tense political atmosphere.
“My first instinct is that this [competition] It’s not necessarily a bad thing. “It’s not written that Caltech should run JPL, and it wouldn’t be the worst thing to have competition to run it,” said Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the nonprofit Planetary Society.
“However, this requires the contract evaluation to be fair and impartial, and this administration has no credibility on such matters,” he added. “It is NASA’s responsibility to gain trust and ensure that such an assessment is open and free from political interference. This is nearly impossible.”
JPL became part of NASA when the space agency was founded in 1958, and Caltech has been awarded the contract to directly manage the agency ever since.
Its current 10-year contract with NASA, worth up to $30 billion, runs through September 30, 2028.
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman announced the competition May 22 as part of sweeping organizational changes at the space agency.
“When you step back, it’s worth considering how many additional missions we could have taken on with the resources lost to program cancellations and cost overruns over the years,” Isaacman wrote in an article. memory to the staff. “This is the problem we need to solve so that American taxpayers and the space-loving community can get the highest scientific return on every dollar we spend at NASA.”
Isaacman wrote that allowing competition in the contract for JPL, the only Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) in NASA’s portfolio, was an effort to address cost efficiency concerns.
“This process will take several years and I do not anticipate it will have any impact on ongoing projects or the location of facilities,” he wrote. “But it provides an opportunity to evaluate administrative costs, overheads, and ideally find ways to achieve science faster and more cost-effectively.”
One joint statementCaltech President Thomas F. Rosenbaum and JPL Director Dave Gallagher said the competition was “not a surprise” and that a team was already in place “to make sure we are set up for success.”
In July, NASA’s Acquisition Office held a meeting. information event For companies and institutions interested in the upcoming FFRDC contract.
dozens of registered participants Including universities such as USC, Texas A&M and Georgia Tech; Aerospace companies such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin; and nonprofit companies such as MITER, which operates several FFRDCs, and the Universities Space Research Association, a university consortium founded in 1969 by the National Academy of Sciences. (SpaceX, which has been awarded more than $13 billion in NASA contracts over the past decade, was not on the list.)
“Lockheed Martin has more than 50 years of deep space exploration success with JPL, supporting landmark missions to Jupiter, Venus, Saturn and Pluto, including nearly a dozen missions to Mars,” said Bob Behnken, vice president of exploration and technology strategy. “We look forward to further developing this unique partnership in the coming years. We are following NASA’s review closely and will continue to evaluate how we can best contribute to the agency’s mission.”
Other participants contacted by The Times declined to discuss their participation.
Isaacman noted that JPL may come under scrutiny even before it takes over NASA. The billionaire entrepreneur talked about the high costs at the La Cañada Flintridge establishment. memory It was prepared ahead of confirmation hearings on its priorities for the space agency.
Isaacman “Contract structure: Too expensive” wrote about JPL In a table summarizing the organizational problems at each of NASA’s centers. “Must increase throughput and ‘time to science’ KPI” or key performance indicator.
The institution has experienced some difficulties recently. High-profile management stumbles.
managed by JPL Psyche mission After a metal-rich asteroid failed to meet a 2022 launch date, NASA commissioned an independent review that found internal reorganizations and personnel changes had led to distracted and uninformed administrators and exhausted, worn-out staff.
after 2023 independent review Isaacman’s predecessor, Bill Nelson, found that there was a “near-zero probability” that the JPL-led Mars Sample Return mission would set its proposed launch date of 2028 and that there was no “credible” way to return rocks from the Red Planet within the stated budget. make a call It forces JPL to compete for its project for bids from industry and all other NASA centers.
Following Trump’s election, Nelson announced: final decision It will be in the hands of the next administration.
The White House pushed for and lobbied for major cuts to NASA’s 2026 budget, which Congress overturned. similarly vertical cuts again this year. JPL has initiated painful cost-cutting measures of its own. reduce the number of staff It grew from about 6,500 employees in 2023 to 4,500 last year due to layoffs and layoffs.
Their struggle comes to a point where NASA enthusiastically embraces the private sector. agency last month signed many important contracts For upcoming moon missions to Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin and other private companies.
Trump also made no secret of his desire to punish states that did not vote for him through job losses. In announcing the decision to move U.S. Space Command from Colorado to Alabama, Trump agreed He said losing three presidential elections in Colorado played a role in the move.
Dreier said it’s impossible to evaluate any decision about JPL’s future apart from the administration’s track record on politically motivated decisions.
“Why is this at the heart of this? Why now? If this isn’t just another political attack on California, what do they hope to gain from this?” he said. “This deserves an explanation because the administration has no credibility here.”
