This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Budget

Special Sequestration Protection for MSFC?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 20, 2013
Filed under , , ,

Marshall Space Flight Center may feel minimal hit from sequestration, Rep. Mo Brooks said, Huntsville Times
“During a speech today at the Washington Update Luncheon at the Von Braun Center, Brooks spoke in encouraging terms when asked what impact the budget cuts, known as sequestration, would have on Marshall Space Flight Center. Brooks began his answer by saying he had breakfast today with Huntsville Mayor Tommy Battle, who talked recently with Robert Lightfoot – the former director of Marshall who last year was promoted to associate administrator at NASA. “I think Marshall, based on the information I’m getting from Mayor Battle and elsewhere, is going to survive sequestration a little bit better than most of the centers around the country,” Brooks said. “Time will tell if that’s the way it plays out.” It puts NASA in a somewhat unique position, given that the space agency has been a target in recent years of budget cuts and canceled programs.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

8 responses to “Special Sequestration Protection for MSFC?”

  1. ellegood says:
    0
    0

    Indeed. Florida, it seems, will be the loser again. While MSFC’s roles in SLS and Orion are largely protected, KSC’s commercial crew and cargo programs will suffer. And of those cuts that will affect SLS, they are mostly tied to launch infrastructure spending…at KSC.

    • Ralphy999 says:
      0
      0

      The Lockheed Martin Orion assembly and checkout operation has been moved to KSC. Florida Space paid for the move and setup to the tune of $30 million. There are other things in the works for KSC as well.

  2. chriswilson68 says:
    0
    0

    The sad part is that Marshall is the biggest drag on NASA and the whole space program.  Closing Marshall would free up a lot of money without losing anything of real value.

    Marshall’s original reason for existing was to build launch vehicles.  The time for government to do that has long past.  Now Marshall just stands in the way of turning that job over to industry.

    • Spacetransp says:
      0
      0

      After so many failed private attempts and nobody in the world having ever made money with space launchers, there are still a lot of people ready to destroy NASA in the name of American private entrpeneurs. They all are dragging government money to achieve partial developments: why should the taxpayers fund this or that private company ?   Commercial developments are not possible because there is no commercial market.It is a field for government research.

      • Michael Reynolds says:
        0
        0

        Maybe because the government hasn’t done enough to help spur a commercial market outside of communications in space.

        Also it isnt about destroying NASA and replacing them with private entrepeneurs, its about changing NASA’s role from building launch vehicles (something they havn’t been good at in years) to being the lead entity in P3 projects.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        why should the taxpayers fund this or that private company? 

        Spacetransp,
        If we think of these “private companies” as a means rather than an end, then what the tax payers are funding is the development of national capabilities — capabilities that neither NASA nor anyone else in the US currently provides.  These non-government companies, new and old players alike, are the only space launch providers that the US has, or will have in the near future.  It’s not just about profits.

        In addition, these “commercial” providers are providing these capabilities to government at a much lower cost than NASA, or any government entity, could do so for themselves.  The government, as a customer, IS the major portion of the current “commercial market.”

        It seems to me that this is clearly a win-win situation, so I don’t understand either why you are against it, or where you get the statement, “so many failed private attempts and nobody in the world having ever made money with space launchers“.  Aside from Kistler, all of the aerospace companies are moving forward, surviving and making money through both government and non-government contracts.

        Commercial space is alive and well and has never been in better shape.  The only problem I see is with the inability of people to recognize and accept the new commercial approach with the advantages that it offers over the old ways.

      • chriswilson68 says:
        0
        0

        “why should the taxpayers fund this or that private company ?”

        For the same reason NASA funds this or that private individual who works for NASA — because they are doing work that NASA wants done!

        When I go to buy my groceries, I’m not paying my money because I want to help Safeway.  I’m doing it because Safeway is giving me something I want in exchange for my money.

        All the money that NASA spends goes *somewhere* — to employees, to contractors, to suppliers — somewhere.  NASA pays the money in order to get something.

        The only difference between NASA using a commercial strategy to get capabilities developed and services provided and doing business the traditional way is how efficiently the money is spent.  Commercial makes use of market forces to get more per dollar.  Paying a bunch of government employees who can’t be fired for not being very good at what they do, and paying old aerospace giants based on contracts that reward them for increasing costs, is a recipe for inefficiency.

        How is this hard to understand?

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

         NASA is funding technology development by a wide range of companies because it creates commercial products that help our economy. After years with no commercial launches from the US, SpaceX has a large backlog.