Comments on: Glenn loses another Congressional advocate

By: vulture4

vulture4 — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 02:46:29 +0000

Interesting. Any of several centers could be closed. If SLS was cancelled MSFC could be closed. But SLS will probably burn another ten billion before it dawns on Congress that they cannot afford to actually use it.

By: I'll never tell

I'll never tell — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 03:44:58 +0000

A bit of space history you may not know. Back in 1993 a decision was made to close MSFC. All the political things had been done to make it happen. It was stopped because NASA could not afford to cancel/move the existing contracts in place @ that time. SO yes it can be done and will be done in the next 2-3 years. Pick a field center with a redundant mission, old facilities and few major contracts in place (add in what can be transferred within reason) and you can guess who will go 1st.

Yes, NASA does need a RIF.

By: vulture4

vulture4 — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 03:13:32 +0000

It isn’t really a question of one center being unproductive. Any of them could do good work. The problem is that they don’t work as a team, and often they have management that does not understand where the value lies. Ames, for instance, had an extensive program in aeronautics (as did Langley) but both have slipped considerably in recent years. Glenn had a very good program in ISS payloads but again NASA seems to have forgotten it. Marshall has become dominated by SLS, which is a dead end. Closing a center won’t do any good; the problem is at the program level – and in some cases in the selection of center directors.

By: Andrew Gasser

Andrew Gasser — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 01:16:32 +0000

I have to chuckle at amightywind. Although he or she corrects him or herself the post shows that this person is so out of touch with the direction that NASA and our space program needs to go.

I can easily make the argument that the best center for our dollar is NASA Ames. And to be fair, it really isn’t even close. I know all the centers do a lot of amazing things and trying to pick one over the other is like trying to decide which child you love the most. So I will say this:

No one innovates like NASA Ames. They continue to push the boundaries, and maybe some buttons, of what NASA should do. Some simply do not like this. Other space analysts have not simply taken the time to visit Ames because of its location.

I would invite my former Senator Coburn to take a visit (I lived in Oklahoma for some time) and see all the awesome things Ames does. I would not tell anyone one which base to RIF, but I will say that Ames is the first center we need to keep.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space

By: BeanCounterfromDownunder

BeanCounterfromDownunder — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:43:09 +0000

Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 31st, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Well yes, but I guess piggies fly as well

By: Stephen C. Smith

Stephen C. Smith — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:38:05 +0000

Aw, one piggie is unhappy because a bigger piggie bumped him from the trough. Welcome to natural selection.

Just once, I’d love to hear one of these porkers say, “What’s best for the national interest is more important than bringing pork to my district.”

By: amightywind

amightywind — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:01:27 +0000

I take that back..actually, Glenn and Ames do some great research, like in aeronautics. A heavily used and influential icing research tunnel exists at Glenn, along with hundreds of unique test rigs. Glenn researchers are leading experts in cryogenics and space propulsion.

By: amightywind

amightywind — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:44:40 +0000

One of the NASA Centers needs to go. More importantly, NASA needs some serious reform and a RIF. Glenn or Ames seem like good candidates for closure to me.