Comments on: Briefs: New Mexico spaceport law, NASA sequestration effects, next CNES head, Garneau drops out

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 22:48:37 +0000

Yuo might want to take that up with the towns around El Toro. A base that’s kaput.

By: Dark Blue Nine

Dark Blue Nine — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:44:14 +0000

“Close- no. Consolidation- sure.”

They mean the same thing. You close one facility and consolidate its critical functions at the remaining facilities.

By: Dark Blue Nine

Dark Blue Nine — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:43:03 +0000

“NASA needs to close one of itâ€™s 11 Centers (APL is #11).”

APL is actually a Navy University-Affiliated Research Center (UARC). Only the Space Department at APL has significant NASA business.

But you’re right in that, thanks to Mikulski, APL’s Space Department has become a JPL East/GSFC North that has to be fed just like JPL West and GSFC South. I think Solar Probe is going to be APL’s JWST or Mars Curiousity Rover in terms of signature budget overruns and schedule delays.

“Does anyone realistic see that happening?”

The military has successfully closed hundreds of facilities through Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commissions, who forward a long list of recommended closures to Congress for one up-or-down vote on the entire list.

With only ten field centers (not hundreds of bases), it’s difficult to replicate that “every congressman feels the pain” BRAC process at NASA. When only one or two states/districts feel the pain, their local congressmen will skunk the entire process.

To get enough facilities in the pot, you’d probably have to do an R&D BRAC that includes DOE, DOD, NASA, and other federal research facilities. But however much an R&D BRAC is needed, nothing like that is on the horizon.

By: Fred Willett

Fred Willett — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:34:05 +0000

The effect of sequestration in not that there are sensible cuts, but that every item in the budget is shrunk just a little. Unfortunately this does not flow down easily into the actual hardware.
Now if sequestration would only shrink SLS from 70t to 68t.
(sigh)

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:17:13 +0000

Close- no. Consolidation- sure.

By: JimNobles

JimNobles — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 02:42:30 +0000

Unfortunately Congress won’t let NASA close much of anything. As we all know, trying to shutter a NASA center is as hard or harder than trying to close a no longer needed military base.

By: James

James — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 02:28:01 +0000

NASA needs to close one of it’s 11 Centers (APL is #11). Does anyone realistic see that happening? The more money that is spent keeping roads and commodes open, in a climate of shrinking program budgets, means less of the meat and potatoes for NASA.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:29:23 +0000

In response to budget sequestration, NASA is pulling back on conference participation and other travel.

Poor babies. Back in the Apollo days, the NASA brass endured a pretty austere travel budget. In ’89, top brass comiserated over it at an Apollo reunion conference– particularly the lousy fleet of government cars at their disposal.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:25:40 +0000

dbn is correct, Windy. NASA’s between a rock-et and a hard place. It takes the heat for policies beyond its control. It’s a sitting duck in this era. If Congress directs them to stop recycling office supplies due to a little polliticking by way of a generous Office Depot check showing up with some PAC, there’s nothing they can do.

By: Dark Blue Nine

Dark Blue Nine — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:38:08 +0000

“NASA managers, downsize your agency to match the available funding!”

They can’t. The 2010 NASA Authorization Act prohibits reductions-in-force or even displacements at NASA’s field centers.

Blame Congress, not NASA.