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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Now consider what other things you might know that are wrong…

— Donald