posted 12-07-2014 10:06 AM               

Today, isn't it correct to say that if NASA requires something to do 'Y', it looks to the private sector to see if there is a firm that will sell them the necessary to do 'Y'? NASA neither runs nor manages the programme.

posted 12-07-2014 10:29 AM               

Congress (legislative branch) is only one third of the US government, the other two parts being the Executive and Judicial branches. Congress can only pass laws, it has no mechanism to carry out these laws. It is up the the Executive branch (the president and federal agencies) to carry out these laws.

1. When NASA has a contract with a private firm, it still "runs or manages" the project. What only varies is the depth of penetration/oversight and that is determined by the type of contract. NASA can buy pieces from different contractor and be the integrator, but it will still pay another contractor to provide support or actually be the integrator. NASA doesn't do hands on work for large projects. There are always contractors involved.

2. NASA never really had its "own" launch teams. They were always mostly contractor with a few NASA personnel in management positions. The makeup of the Delta and Atlas launch teams didn't change much once they became commercialized in the 80's.

3. As for NASA "owning" launch teams and launch vehicle manifests, there is no connection. If there was any real problem with a payload on the shuttle, it would have been recycled and taken its turn with all the other launches contracted for Complex 39. That happened many times in the past. Orion is just another payload. The shuttle was a launch vehicle. Once the ISS became the only user of the shuttle, then the shuttle would wait around for the ISS cargo.

posted 12-07-2014 05:05 PM            

Even when you look at "quintessential" NASA activities like launches, they actually don't launch very often. You could start a NASA production line making rocket engines but if they only need 2 or 3 of those engines a year those technicians are going to be sitting around doing nothing but collecting paychecks quite a bit.

posted 12-09-2014 03:26 PM            

In preparing for this speech, I looked over the list of names of those who worked out the technical papers for this event. My first thought was what an impetus the national space effort would receive if all those people were on the government's space rolls.

For example, 80% of the first 180 names mentioned on the program came from private industry or universities. Obviously, those organizations could ill afford to lose such talent. But one of the major problems confronting our space effort stems from the government's own rules which prevent it from competing for talent with private organizations.

We, in the government, must find a way to offer top competence more than a large sacrifice and a small paycheck.

Just last week, at the request of the President, I visited five of our major space installations. The difficulty of retaining high-quality personnel was clearly the greatest problem observed. All too often, the government space installations are training grounds for the highly paid technicians and vice presidents of private industry. We lose far too many of our best people.

posted 12-09-2014 03:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cozmosis22:
...this from a speech by Vice President Lyndon Johnson at the American Rocket Society meeting in New York City on Saturday October 14, 1961

---