Comments on: Would NASA face a BRAC under President McCain?

By: Space Politics » Energy vs. space

Space Politics » Energy vs. space — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:14:44 +0000

[…] energy policy calls for $150 billion over 10 years for alternative energy research. Coupled with desires to reduce deficit spending, as well as growing pressure on the budget from mandatory spending, will space feel the squeeze in […]

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:58:22 +0000

Someone,

You would probably be looking at close to billions of dollars to reproduce the facilities of JSC and MSFC at Kennedy. There is a lot more than just office space at those centers. I don’t think that would be very practical given the extremely modest savings from less travel.

If NASA needs loose centers, I would merge Stennis and Marshall and get rid of Ames. Anything Ames does can be relocated to Dryden or Langley

By: Someone

Someone — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:38:13 +0000

Who is talking about doing any missions? We are talking about reducing the number of centers to save money. And since you can’t launch from Marshall or JSC they could be moved. Kennedy can’t. So it makes sense to consolidate there. Office space is cheap to build if needed.

JSC was created simply to bring the Texas deligation into the NASA camp. And as Johnson’s reward to the people at home. Everything at JSC could have been built at Langley. And the Von Braun team could have been moved to Florida except for the need to keep the votes coming from Alabama.

But as noted it will never happen. Congressional pork politics will keep any Center for being closed. So why worry about it?

By: me

me — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:20:16 +0000

That is just wrong.
1. KSC doesn’t have the facilities or officespace.
1a. MSFC and JSC have unique facilities that aren’t at KSC.
2. What MSFC and JSC do is independent of the launch site. Boeing, LM, OSC, don’t build their spacecraft or launch vehicles at the launch site. Nor control their satellites from there. Neither does the USAF.
2a. With an ELV launched spacecraft, there is little overlap between JSC and MSFC. Just as much as Delta and a GPS spacecraft. You don’t know what it takes to do a mission, with yo
3. Launch sites have a minimum amount of people.
4. KSC supports other centers. Are GSFC and JPL suppose to move there too?
5. There is more travel association with ELV missions than shuttle. Shuttle has reduced their travel dramatically.

6. If NASA were a corporation, JSC and MSFC wouldn’t be the ones to close or move. However, they still could use some downsizing.

Form your comments, you don’t know what it takes to do a mission.

BTW, it is KSC (no “F”)

By: Someone

Someone — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:42:40 +0000

Me,

It would save not just on astronauts but senior staff traveling between JSC, Marshall and KSFC. Alos having them in one place will blur the center distinctions. Its easier to get things done when everyone is in one place.

There a difference between individuals layoffs the impact of the layoffs in the community. Yes, the Shuttle jobs will go away and those individals will leave or retire. But they will be replaced in the community by those moving from JSC and Marshall. So the impact on the community of the layoffs would be eliminated. Just as when corporates downsize and consolidate.

And there would be savings beyond travel. For eaxmple its difficult to see the cost of security going up at KSFC even JSC and Marshall are moved there, well you eliminate the security cost for NASA at both JSC and Marshall. Ditto the other overhead costs required to keep a Center open.

Of course it won’t happne as NASA is not a corporation, but a pork generator, but it would be one way to make the agency cost less to run.

By: sc220

sc220 — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:39:33 +0000

Best approach is to convert the centers to FFRDCs. Then let them compete for resources without the HR limitations associated with civil servants. Survival of the fittest, the ultimate Law of Nature.

By: Me

Me — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:26:01 +0000

1. The astronauts only go to KSC for 3-4 trips including launch for each mission. That isn’t enough of a reason to shut down JSC.
2. Moving JSC to KSC isn’t going to save KSC jobs. Most of the workers to be laid off are technicians and ground ops engineers. They aren’t development or mission ops engineers, which is JSC’s area. There is little work a TPS, SSME, or RSS tech can do on Constellation.
3. Ames as a contract operation like JPL would cost more. JPL exists because it was thought that the civil servant pay scale couldn’t attract the talent needed for JPL. A JPL MTS or any other contractor is more than a civil servant. Half the center workers are already contractor.
4. Contractors already run the aeronautical facilities. But turning over management of the facilities to one of the big aerospace contractors is not viable since they support multiple users
4. And NASA can’t be sold, gm.

By: gm

gm — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 07:34:36 +0000

just sell NASA to private companies… http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/027applenasa.html

By: Someone

Someone — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 06:31:17 +0000

So it appears that NASA is just a giant pork machine whose real mission is to create photo ops and jobs in the districts of key members of Congress. As long as it will do so the money will flow. Any attempt to transform it into a rational organization by deleting unnecessary cneter and missions is not allowed.

Still is anyone could get away with taking the budget axe and trmming the fat and prok off of NASA McCain probably would be.

By: spectator

spectator — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 01:39:49 +0000

Everyone makes good suggestions on what should be done with Nasa. But none of it will happen. The same Federal system that allows Social Security to slowly collapse; that would rather have Americans pay Saudi’s to drill for oil rather than American’s; that props up the prices of all manner of food stuffs; that spends billions on gadgets to secure airports against undesirables yet allows huge chucks of border to barely patrolled.

Yep, Nasa will get all manner of rational reform from Congress and the next Admin.