As previously noted, some localities are bracing for a potential NASA center closing review (or BRAC, to use the DOD terminology), never mind the fact that there is no BRAC process planned for NASA at this time. In this week’s issue of The Space Review, Taylor Dinerman makes that case that a BRAC is a bid idea because of cultural issues. Namely, two of the leading centers that might be closed in a BRAC, Ames and Glenn, are among the few major “Northern” centers the agency has; the rest are in the South. (I would gently disagree with Taylor that Maryland is a Southern state; in my experience living in the Maryland suburbs of DC the last few years, the Baltimore-Washington corridor at the very least has a distinctly Northeastern, not Southern, feel.) Regardless, having all of NASA’s major centers concentrated in one area of the country may not help the agency win support nationwide. Moreover, the process of a BRAC itself would create a political fight that “would cripple the organization for years, just as a badly managed merger can wreck a pair of strong corporations.”
You’re being mislead by living in suburban DC. Out in the country, it’s definitely the south. They serve grits there, for gosh sakes.
Recall that it was a border state before the war, with many southern sympathizers during it. It’s also the northernmost part of the Tidewater area settled by the Cavaliers of southwest England, though it’s not far to Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley, which are definitely the north (settled by Quakers).
I believe the nation is more homogeneous than in the past, therefore public support for the space program should remain relatively the same no matter the locations of the centers. However, I doubt the same can be said for the legislative support.
Mr Walker said, “I believe the nation is more homogeneous than in the past”
That would certainly be news to those of us in the “north” who are on the losing (so far) side of the “cultural war,” especially since we are, after all, circa fifty percent of the nation.
When the Republicans took overall charge of Congress, all the naval bases in the San Francisco Bay Area (one of the world’s best natural harbors) were promptly closed. No one here believes this was a coincidence. (No one’s complaining, now, either, since it turned out to be one of the best economic things that could happen to the region, freeing up huge swaths of land for development and / or preservation as open space.) No one here believes that it was coincidence that American Airlines (based in Dallus) got their bail out loan, and United (based in Chicago and generally serving the older, northern cities) did not. But, that’s politics for you, and the way the cookie crumbles. . . .
However, I fully expect that, if any NASA bases are closed, NASA Ames will be at the top of the list, even though it is the center most responsible for the automation technologies that NASA sees as so important to the VSE (and which I actually oppose as largely a waste of money; if the goal is to send humans to the planets then we should use humans to do that).
— Donald
When the Republicans took overall charge of Congress, all the naval bases in the San Francisco Bay Area (one of the world’s best natural harbors) were promptly closed.
All of them? Really? Mare Island is still open, as far as I know, as is the Naval Supply Center in Oakland.
No one here believes this was a coincidence.
No one? Really? Every single person in the Bay Area is ignorant of the non-partisan BRAC that recommended their closure, and had zero to do with the Republicans taking over Congress?
Are tinfoil hats now the fashion in the Bay Area?
“Bupartisanship” is in the eye of the beholder. Sure, the BRAC was bipartisan — I even agree with that. However, it was also a political entity, beholden to the ambiance (and the Congress) of the time. It will be a bipartisan commission that recommends the closeure of NASA Ames even though they are in a location that develops the technology NASA says they need. But, it remains true that with the political rise of the south, by some funny coincidence the government’s high technology facilities and institutions in the south seem to have a remarkably superior survival rate to those in the northern “blue-voting” states. No one should be surprised by this, least of all those of us on the losing end of this equation. It is a political reality, as inevitable as the wind.
— Donald
However, it was also a political entity, beholden to the ambiance (and the Congress) of the time.
The Congress of the time that the BRACs came up with the lists including those bases was Democrat–almost all of them occured prior to 1994. Better loosen the chinstrap.
Okay, my strong recollection is that all this occured in the midst of Mr. Gingriche’s “revolution” in the House. If I am wrong, my appologies.
— Donald
The closings occurred then. The decisions to do so occurred prior, sometimes several years before.
Now consider what other things you might know that are wrong…
If we could return to the TOPIC, for chrissakes…
Taylor’s op-ed is an unfortunate strawman. What NASA needs is not a BRAC, but a PFRAC, i.e. a Program and Facility Realignment Commission. There needs to be a decision about what programs and facilities need to be shut down, not centers. Taylor is right that it would be really hard, and probably not worth it, to close centers outright. It would therefore probably too hard to put in place a BRAC which would close one or more centers.
The right question is: what things are centers doing that NASA doesn’t need them to do, and what things are centers NOT doing that NASA does need them to do. And what facilities are tied to these irrelevant programs or unmet needs?
Then the Centers can either give up those activities/facilities which NASA doesn’t need and shouldn’t pay for, or find other public or private customers for them.
– just my 2cents
Sure, especially if you return the favor.
However, note this from the free political encyclopedia.
“In The Emerging Republican Majority, Kevin Phillips, then a Nixon strategist, argued (based on the 1968 election results) that support from southern whites and growth in the Sun Belt, among other factors, was driving an enduring Republican realignment. While his predictions were obviously somewhat overstated, the trends described could be seen in the Goldwater-inspired candidacy and 1980 election of Ronald Reagan and in the Gingrich-led “Republican Revolution” of 1994. The latter was the first time in 40 years that the Republicans secured control of both houses of Congress.”
The political winds have been clear for a very long time.
BTW, I completely agree with Jim Muncy’s comment.
— Donald
Sure, especially if you return the favor.
However, note this from the free political encyclopedia.
“In The Emerging Republican Majority, Kevin Phillips, then a Nixon strategist, argued (based on the 1968 election results) that support from southern whites and growth in the Sun Belt, among other factors, was driving an enduring Republican realignment. While his predictions were obviously somewhat overstated, the trends described could be seen in the Goldwater-inspired candidacy and 1980 election of Ronald Reagan and in the Gingrich-led “Republican Revolution” of 1994. The latter was the first time in 40 years that the Republicans secured control of both houses of Congress.”
The political winds have been clear for a very long time.
BTW, I completely agree with Jim Muncy’s comment.
— Donald
Sure, especially if you return the favor.
However, note this from the free political encyclopedia.
“In The Emerging Republican Majority, Kevin Phillips, then a Nixon strategist, argued (based on the 1968 election results) that support from southern whites and growth in the Sun Belt, among other factors, was driving an enduring Republican realignment. While his predictions were obviously somewhat overstated, the trends described could be seen in the Goldwater-inspired candidacy and 1980 election of Ronald Reagan and in the Gingrich-led “Republican Revolution” of 1994. The latter was the first time in 40 years that the Republicans secured control of both houses of Congress.”
The political winds have been clear for a very long time.
BTW, I completely agree with Jim Muncy’s comment.
— Donald
>If we could return to the TOPIC, for chrissakes…
I heartily apologize for heading the discussion down that path.
I was trying to express the thought the geographic/cultural divisions across the country are more diffused than they were 20-30(?) years ago and less of a determining factor in NASA’s support. Then again, perhaps its just the areas I travel.
I agree with Jim Muncy’s comment. A PFRAC would be much more palatable to Congress and could be handled more “internally” and therefore under the radar.
I think the PFRAC suggestion is a necessary but insufficient step. I am disappointed nobody apparently has the gumption to address the resources spread too thin problem (and some evidently now belive it never really existed). By the time we get remotely close to the Moon or Mars people will have long forgotten NASA facility closures and just maybe they will be more worried about foreign facilities declaring land and mineral rights at Shackleton Crater.
At the very least I hope this PFRAC includes consideration of assigning key programs to areas where there are sufficient expertise that they can succeed. For example Alabama rates only 26th in aerospace workforce size (http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=355&ArchiveIssueID=38). and that combined with their past performance record suggests it would be deeply unwise to let any next generation launch technology program be run from Alabama simply because that topic is ‘their patch’.
And whatever happened to the transition to FFRDCs? Was it rescheduled for shortly after completion of the Mars Sample Return Mission (i.e. never) or was it swept under the carpet for a worthy reason?
I just get the feeling that with this year’s fiscal battles fought people are too comfortable; that people find it too easy to renege on necessary changes because they’re painful to implement. The idea that closing a field center would incur such a devastating civil war about the agency that it would be cripled for years I find laughable – how would we tell the difference between a supposed NASA whose top management and supporters were all irreconcilable enemies and the one we have now? Certainly not by results. Can we expect to be slowly eased into similar don’t-rock-the-boat mentalities for the shuttle and station too?
If NASA at the top level don’t make necessary reforms because it goes against the political grain then what does that say to all the manned spaceflight managers and employees who are being implored to lose the don’t-rock-the-boat mentality? It tells them that you rise to the top by not rocking the boat.
Kevin,
I agree with a lot of what you say. Many NASA centers should become FFRDCs. And perhaps the Administration should threaten center closure and accept facility/program closure or FFRDC status as a compromise.
But the real fight isn’t over centers, it’s over programs, specifically the Space Shuttle. If the Shuttle is retired on schedule, then a lot of other good changes can happen. If not, then no reorganization will save much.
– Jim
The trouble with each facility as noted before by others happens to be more of a question of what is each really doing for space flight manned or otherwise. Other personel not needed for direct shuttle maintenance and flight control are wasting our tax money for launch of it. Next is if the shuttle workers hands are not actually working on the shuttle then they need to have other duties or a down sizing of head count is needed. And unless the engineers are designing replacement parts to be made by newer companies few are needed as well.
As for Brac or the right sizing of the number of facilities if the work done is unrelated transistion it to the FFRC or put them under another agency such as aeronautics would be covered by the FAA.