Comments on: Brooks wins, Giffords with a narrow lead

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 21:02:05 +0000

@Byeman wrote @ November 4th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
You are deluding yourself by not comprehending that the people of the United States, particularly the down market and to the right crowd struggling to make ends meet these days, equate NASA with sending people into space. Listen closely to the way Americans are informed about NASA activities. Listen to the language of Fox hosts covering a shuttle launch. It borders on childishness and would make the late Walter Cronkite cringe. Even his telecasts from Apollo days were smarter in content and they were targeted to viewers with high school educations of the era. The rest of NASA is esoteric research for science geeks as far as the public knows. We both know that not the case but the dumbed down public of today can be convinced that kind of expensive research can easily be done- if not already duplicated- by other government agencies, like DoD, NOAA or the FAA. They already believe the military as a big stake in NASA as all their pilots are culled from the miltary. The military launches satellites so why duplicate the capability with a civilian agency. The mood in this country is most decidely foul when it comes to government spending with such massive deficits and, as in the private sector, the first thing to cut is any kind of R&D work that won’t show any return for many years. When the shuttle program ends, as far as the public is concerned, the core rationale for keeping NASA ends. If the hard decisions are actually made by the budget cutters, NASA is clearly a luxury they can rationalize that the United States no longer needs. It is a relic of the Cold War. Gutted and stripped of manned spaceflight operations, it’s really not needed. Stamp it ‘mission accomplished’ and fold its assets into other existing agencies.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:37:42 +0000

But itâ€™s an FFRDC thatâ€™s run by Caltech. Couldnâ€™t that sort of thing become more common?

When the Aldridge Commission proposed that in 2004, it was dead on arrival on the Hill. Maybe the politics have changed, though.

By: common sense

common sense — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:57:30 +0000

@ Martijn Meijering wrote @ November 5th, 2010 at 12:37 pm

“But itâ€™s an FFRDC thatâ€™s run by Caltech. Couldnâ€™t that sort of thing become more common?”

I heard multiple times that all NASA centers would go this way but so far… The national labs just change from UC to UC+Industry (including Bechtel). It’s also what the ISS end up being (see NASAWatch). So if something like that happens I would not be surprised to see University+Industry in charge. Is it good? Bad? I believe the changes at the labs were prompted by security issues to include industry (just an excuse? most likely). Now if you include the Industry you may not want to have the usual contractors because of conflict of interests. But I don’t know as a whole if it is the right route. What NASA does at the fundamental levels, the research centers, may very well stay federal. The space centers with ops or engineering only may go this very route. I think first and foremost “we” must decide what we want NASA to do in the future before saying what kind of business model they should be under.

FWIW…

By: byeman

byeman — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:44:39 +0000

That is only changing the management of the center, most of same people would be involved. It is not moving or creating a new center.

By: Martijn Meijering

Martijn Meijering — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:37:48 +0000

But it’s an FFRDC that’s run by Caltech. Couldn’t that sort of thing become more common?

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:32:41 +0000

Yes and no. Unike all the other NASA centers, it’s an FFRDC, and gets contracts from NASA via Cal Tech.

By: byeman

byeman — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:13:24 +0000

JPL is a NASA center.

By: Martijn Meijering

Martijn Meijering — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 12:41:58 +0000

Can you elaborate? Doesn’t NASA “farm out” work to JPL?

By: Byeman

Byeman — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 00:29:29 +0000

DCSCA, again, you show that you don’t what you are talking about. You are among the clueless that HSF equates to NASA and NASA is only HSF. Rest can not be farmed out. No other org has the expertise. Why do you think NOAA looks to NASA for spacecraft procurement?

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 22:08:25 +0000

byeman wrote @ November 4th, 2010 at 11:11 am
“NASA will always exist.” Don’t bet on it. Elements of it can easily be folded into other agencies in years to come as part of cost cutting. Look at the new Congress. See how they handle voting on raising the debt level. The military can make a pitch for space operations of some kind but the need for a ‘civilian space agency’ now stripped and gutted of any real purpose, a purpose defined chiefly out of Cold War angst, is now a high profile waste. All good things must come to an end and NASA’s days appear numbered. Congress can easily farm out the reserarch to existing agencies. The need for a civilian space agency is fading fast. Sad.