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

Job Security at NASA

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 17, 2013
Filed under , , ,

Is NASA about jobs, or actually accomplishing something?, Houston Chronicle
“The diversity of these centers, including sites in populous states like Texas, California, Florida and Ohio, ensures political clout for the agency in both houses of Congress. At the same time, NASA has to continually spread work around all of these centers and keep senators and representatives from the homes of each of the 10 happy. Which is to say, first and foremost, saving jobs.”
Federal budget cuts threaten NASA’s space travel plans, KTRK
“… All that costs money, and Bolden says NASA’s $16.8 billion budget request gets chopped to just $16.1 billion if the seqester is not rectified. “At the $16.1 billion level, there is no way in the world they can continue to operate a center like JSC at the level of employment that we have right now,” Bolden said. Bolden laments this would mean cutbacks at all NASA centers, primarily contractors. But furloughs for civil servants, he confides, could also become necessary.”

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

9 responses to “Job Security at NASA”

  1. chriswilson68 says:
    0
    0

    Wow, Bolden really makes it clear that it’s all about jobs and the only reason something gets done is to try to justify the jobs.

    There’s a great, long, direct quote from Bolden in the first article. Early in the quote he says, “… if your concern is jobs, which it is for all of us …”. OK, so Bolden is saying his top priority is jobs. And he’s saying the top priority is jobs for “all of us” whoever “us” is (NASA management? The administration? All of NASA? All of government?). Then, he goes on to say, “But we’ve also got to be accomplishing something that we can tell the
    American taxpayer ‘this is worth the money we’re spending.'”.

    So Bolden is saying jobs are the real driver for everything. As an afterthought, once you’ve decided on the jobs you want to have, you need to try to accomplish something so you can convince the taxpayer to keep spending money on those jobs.

    It’s official. NASA is a jobs program first, an “accomplish something” program second, and only to the extent necessary to keep the jobs.

    • Odyssey2020 says:
      0
      0

      Yes, NASA is certainly a jobs program. Just think Obama would have practically eliminated NASA if it wasn’t politically necessary to keep it around.

      Also, the military use of NASA is always floating in the background. Example: NASA convinced Congress we needed a Space Shuttle and used the fact that it could be used militarily to get it finally approved. Only when the military decided it didn’t need the shuttle anymore did the Shuttle get mothballed.

      Under Obama NASA’s HSF budget has shrunk in half. True, he didn’t shut down the shuttle program, that was Bush. But Obama has decided he doesn’t need an active HSF during his presidency so he just threw a bone by all that Asteroid mission B.S. And all that is to keep the respective politicians in office, thus a jobs program.

      None of this is Bolden’s fault. He’s just being used by the Obama administration to do their bidding. Charlie will be ultimately be rewarded for playing ball, he’ll eventually get a cushy promotion to another job. This is how the game is played in Washington..always has, always will.

      • chriswilson68 says:
        0
        0

        “Only when the military decided it didn’t need the shuttle anymore did the Shuttle get mothballed.”

        That’s not consistent with the facts.

        The military decided it didn’t need the shuttle any more shortly after the Challenger disaster. Both NASA and the DoD agreed to shift military payloads to expendable launchers. By February 1987 SLC-6, the shuttle launch complex at Vandenburg was put into hibernation mode, by 1988 it was officially announced it would be closed, and all remaining shuttle-related hardware was transferred to NASA by 1989. There were already military payloads in the pipeline that couldn’t be easily switched right away to expendable launchers, so the last DoD mission for the shuttle was STS-53 in 1992.

        But the shuttle didn’t retire until 2011. That’s 23 years after the military officially decided to end its shuttle use, and 19 years after the last DoD mission. Only 10 shuttle missions were military, and most happened after the last DoD mission.

        So relating the end of the shuttle to the end of military interest in it is contrary to all the evidence.

  2. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Contractors are people too. Every time NASA management says they ended the Shuttle program without layoffs, they mean without Civil Service layoffs.

  3. Sherye Johnson says:
    0
    0

    Uh…DUH!!! For those of you with your heads in the sand, HELLO! NASA is and has always been a jobs program. It is not designed to make money. Civil service jobs are dictated by Congress. Contractor jobs are dictated by contracts. It isn’t rocket science folks.

    I find it funny that contractors or civil service employees are banging the drums for tax cuts and cuts in spending then complain that their job is being cut because of tax cuts and cuts in spending.

    And to think these rocket scientist are the “brightest” of the bunch building human rated spacecraft.

    • nannywhammy says:
      0
      0

      NO federal agency is designed to “make money”… we are Civil Servants, which means our jobs are to provide a service to our Country. NASA research is one of the reasons we are the most technologically advanced country in the world.

      I mean, what exactly is it that you want? To shut down NASA while China builds a moonbase, mines asteroids, and has the ability to protect their satellites because they own all of the world’s space weather observatories? Are you OK with that?

  4. Nassau Goi says:
    0
    0

    The civil servant vs contractor distinction has only grown with time.
    People are getting laid off with multiple decades of experience while many incompetent civil servants are just smirking.

    NASA’S civil servant workforce needs to be recompeted.

    • nannywhammy says:
      0
      0

      And you personally know incompetent NASA civil servants? My experience has been completely the opposite. NASA has some of the smartest scientists, engineers, and technicians I’ve ever worked with.. down-to-Earth professionals who are focused on projects and missions… people who get stuff done. NASA is a great place to work, and yes, we are hiring in certain areas. For those who up for a technical challenge, throw your hat into the ring.

      Naysayers are… well… they have their rewards. Cynics need not apply.