Comments on: Bipartisan opposition http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/10/20/bipartisan-opposition/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=bipartisan-opposition Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: Matthew Corey Brown http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/10/20/bipartisan-opposition/#comment-1660 Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:50:19 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=321#comment-1660 NASA can only transform from the bottom up. But it won’t. A top down approach will not work either unless a couple of very major reorgs happen. The first few reorgs should be done to kill any inertia at the middle and bottom. Then the last reorg is to give new inertia and direction to go.

]]> By: Kevin Parkin http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/10/20/bipartisan-opposition/#comment-1659 Fri, 22 Oct 2004 06:21:46 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=321#comment-1659 If it’s regional pork politics as usual for NASA, then the centers will continue to oppose each other rather than work together.

Their reason for existence will be jobs rather than exploration, and the exploration initiative will die in all but name and Powerpoint slides.

NASA’s transformation cannot and will not be bottom up.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/10/20/bipartisan-opposition/#comment-1658 Thu, 21 Oct 2004 04:25:02 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=321#comment-1658 Bud Cramer (D-AL) being an example of a Democrat supporting the VSE (due to the NASA Center in AL).

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/10/20/bipartisan-opposition/#comment-1657 Thu, 21 Oct 2004 04:23:35 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=321#comment-1657 If opposition is bipartisan, then support is also bipartisan.

It seems that support/opposition of the Vision for Space Exploration will be on pro-NASA/anti-NASA lines, not party affiliation.

]]>