🚀 go-pugleaf

(For Part I, see NASA and Criticism Taboo...)

                           PART II

OK, I left off at the recap of Congress's mandate to NASA, as it was
established in 1958:

    "Learn to operate automated and manned vehicles in space beyond Earth's 
atmosphere; explore our solar system and the universe for the advancement of
knowledge; make certain that all NASA discoveries and technical advancements
are made promptly available for bettering human lives, for peaceful use by all
mankind."

Great goals and impetus given to NASA by a very politically motivated Congress
(The utilitarian Soviets were already in "space beyond Earth's atmosphere...").
Politically motivated but at least motivated.  Well, I would dare say that NASA
and the United States have gone on in the last 55 some-odd years and
accomplished most, if not all the mandates, to a substantial degree....except
the last one - 

"make certain that ALL NASA discoveries and technical advancements are made
PROMPTLY available for bettering human lives, for peaceful use by all mankind."

As a recent post alluded to, Tang, Velcro and Teflon (PTFE'S) were not the
"inventions" of NASA, they were utilized to such a degree by NASA that they
received a big boost and underwent intense refinement by and due to NASA
programs.  I don't know about the preceding statement as it applies to "Tang"
but many other "new" technologies were either created by or adopted and
enhanced by NASA.  These include integrated circuits, high performance gas/jet
turbines, structural analysis computer programs & CAD, insulation for cryogenic
use, and so on...

Anyone who gets Tech Briefs can see some highly esoteric technology gadgets,
gimmicks and processes that are making their way out of the woodwork.  But Tech
Briefs has really only hit the main stream user group over the last decade.  I
believe  (I spoke to one of their editors)  it began in the 70's as an internal
bulletin within a or several NASA centers.  

If you are one of those lucky souls to aquire the publication slick "SPINOFFS"
you will also see PR coups in the form of better soles for tennis shoes,
advanced fire-fighting equipment and training processes, superior protective
metal coatings for outside structures (IC 531) and so on and so forth.  Who
gets these publications?  How many go out of NASA proper?  When I was
instructing a group of NASA PAO's and related workers, they claimed that very
few issues were actually published and that they were not easy to get a hold of
(sort of a status symbol on coffee tables or something).

Each NASA center has a Technology Utilization Office/Center.  I am aquainted
with several of the Tech Ute officers and I know that these "underpaid" workers
are very dedicated to their jobs but the importance of their job is underscored
by the severe lack of manpower each center experiences.  

Most, if not all of the NASA centers put out an Annual Research and Technology
publication, very similar to "SPINOFFS", although not quite as slick.  I JUST
found out about these publications last year and I have been involved with NASA
and the space program for the last 8 years and technology transfer for the last
three (I am currently working on my master thesis which is focused on
technology transfer in the spacesuit program).  

WHERE AM I GOING WITH ALL THIS?

Good question.  Has anyone ever wondered why NASA has to constantly fight for
what seems to be its very existance, almost every fiscal year?  I do.  If all
this great stuff is going on within all these great programs, why is begging 
for money always the posture that NASA has to take?  Not all agencies or bureaus
have this problem.  Veteran's Affairs actually got more than it asked for
during Budget Fiasco 1990 (thanks to pork barrelling by Congress not Bush)
while the only way NASA could get the budget it got that year was because of
what some claim to be (and I am not so sure I don't agree) pork barrelling by
Bush in the form of SEI and the Space Station Freedom (this, all against his
Veep's specific studies and advisory panels [the choir!!] first
recommendations).

They have to fight because they are seen as a luxery expenditure by John Q.
Public.  Mark Oderman, a space industry consultant suggests that 

"The U.S. space agency is perceived as a luxury expenditure by the public...
NASA will NOT survive the coming decade unless it pursues technology with direct
civilian applications, and works more closely with industry." 

Yeah, ok, so Oderman is one man and he is not God but he does have a point. 
Cut the waste, regain managerial balance (i.e. top heavy bureaucratic
organizational charts, padded middle management structures, programs just to
have programs, employees just to have employees.).  I am not cold-hearted, I am
not insensitive but I am not stupid.  The end results of obese and obtuse
organizations is more obesity and more obtusity (new word :)  ) if not checked
by comprehensive changes.  I doubt "gradual" changes ar going to work.  Not on
a four year, admisnistration to administration fiscal and political cycle. The
only thing gradual about much of NASA's bureautypical speed, is the rate at
which it toots it's own horn.  NASA, as an entity mind you, has been asked to
do deep soul searching so many times, and by the very people (Congress) who
have already sold theirs.

I thought I had a point...I lost it.  No, stay with me.  Dennis Wingo rightly
defends his friends, colleagues, and of course livelihood, from critical
comments posted on this newsgroup.  Rightly in the sense that it is not the
little people's fault.  Wrongly in that they are still part of a faulty system
that needs re-genesis not re-vamping.  I wouldn't recommend that they quit
their jobs because of this faulty system (however, the pay-raise might be
enticing*) but a grass roots ground-swell movement (or whatever the trendy
terminology that came out of this last election calls it) from within might be
nice.  Unfortunately, effective movements take sacrifice (usually jobs) and
that sacrifice would be in vain unless enmasse. For there are many hordes of
people ready to take their places, and ready to tow the
corporate/administrative line in order to do what they want AND get paid to do
it.

*   actually, the higher paying corporate job equivalents that former NASA
employees could/might get, are ones that are often funded by NASA (were still
in high reliance on the State) 

For lack of brevity, and for plenty of desire to go to bed, I'll now cut this 
"short".  NASA:

* Demand fair  "apples to apples" comparison when budgets are being considered
(like Super Collider vs. Space Station [hey! were in a budget deficit "crisis",
we can't have everything] not Space Station versus high priestess Barb
Mckulsky's HUD/VA budget items.)

** Demand Post Office type "waivers" on advertising and profit making regulations
(gee, since you're always asked to show a "profit" in order to get the next
fiscal years budget, you might as well be able to pursue one [a profit, that
is]). P.S. I know that the Post Office is not an "official" ageny of the
government but it still has a congressional committe overseeing it and it had
to have some special ruling on the regs...so same for NASA, get the ruling!

*** Get rid of Senator Robert Byrd (D. WV). Do what it takes de-orbit the mass,
target the ground elements (his Washington office, when no one is there
preferably) but let's put the guy's adulterous (screwing everybody else's
budgets) appropriation "habits' out of business.

OK, SO THAT ONE'S NOT SO PRACTICAL IN PLAYING IT OUT...

****Begin privitization of programs and goals and truly (I would shun that pun
had it been intended) be just an "Administration."  

WOW, I JUST SAW THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM KICK IN, IT WAS BEAUTIFUL...IF ONLY...

****Take one, two or more programs high cost, high risk, "non-essential" to the
original congressional mandates (oh yeah, like I can see a review board calling
ANY of its programs "non-essential), cut them and demand the money as
"cost-savings" discretionary funds and begin active promoting of the programs,
processes, techologies and whatever that all these "necessary" centers are
putting out.  Hire the best PR people, give them the best access, institute 
engineering/technical liaison positions and networks so that faster (anything
faster than "really slow" for starters) tech-transfer can receive a positive
catalyst.  Think of what it takes ("if we can put a man on the moon, why can't
we...?") and then do what it takes to get it done.

*****Open up space for all (let the free market work [remember Society
Expeditions, c. 1986? It could have worked, it's about to, it's called DX-Y])
mankind.  No ulterior motives (of course I want to go, don't you?!?!?) but I
can count how many people have been in "space" (LEO and a couple TLO) on both
mine and a couple of clones', hands and feet.   Let's face it, space flight is
going to be "experimental" and "hazardous" until we only have to worry about
"Transporter Psychosis" -Star Trek TNG (1992).  So let's open up the two line
elements and reverse the odds.  Ask half of the U.S Astronaut Corps who watched
Charlie Walker (THIS IS NOT A FLAME) fly three times on the shuttle, three
times more than they have yet to fly.  You see, expertise, money and need have
a funny way of getting things done, so let's get things done!!!

There's more but it'll wait.

Sincerely,

Paul Sylvester Shanley
Researcher ad Infinitum et al
School of Human Sciences
Auburn University
308 Spidle Hall
Auburn University, Alabama  36849
United States of America
VOICE: 205 844 1339 office
VOICE: 205 887 7440 home
FAX:   205 844 1340 office
e-mail  pshanley@humsci.auburn.edu
or 
shanleyl@ducvax.auburn.edu  (to be changed by Feb. 1 to
"shanleyp@ducvax.auburn.edu")



ad astra per Mylanta