By: John Malkin

John Malkin — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:55:03 +0000

The bureaucracy within NASA is inherited from the government in which is exists. Many times O’Keefe has complained of the bureaucracy in which he had to operate. In other words bureaucracy begets bureaucracy. It is my hope that despite this fact that Dr. Griffin will raise NASA above this bureaucracy and allow a new national space program to emerge. This is not guaranteed and only by constant vigilance by US voters particularly space activist can success be attained. Rep. Calvert words are the most promising, I’ve heard from government in 30 yrs. There is actually a chance the US could move forward on space policy. The other alternative is NASA will eventually suffocate within bureaucracy which wouldn’t be pretty. However the private sector would eventually emerge in some form with little control by American citizens, otherwise no national goals. I realize an endless debate on the better course will ensue but the simple fact is that nobody really knows the outcome of either path.

Transformational Space Corp is t/space as noted by Jeff.

By: Mr. Walker

Mr. Walker — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:53:24 +0000

In my opinion, Rep. Calvert was probably referring to t/Space.

NASA’s bureaucracy requirements could spell trouble for any smaller company (as compared to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc) desiring to compete under the VSE. This in turn could greatly reduce competition. NASA needs to state its high level requirements, and then base its purchase decisions upon being a consumer of transportation services.

If NASA truly wishes to transform itself, it needs to start with its bureaucracy.

Comments on: Calvert talks space

By: John Malkin

By: Mr. Walker