4 ms·

This is a wholly inaccurate picture of NASA’s organization then and now. The centers in Alabama, California, and Houston were all subsidiaries of NASA headquart

This is a wholly inaccurate picture of NASA’s organization then and now. The centers in Alabama, California, and Houston were all subsidiaries of NASA headquarters in Washington, and remain so today. Control was never held by the Alabama center, nor was it transferred to any of the other field centers. Von Braun was the director of Marshall (the Alabama center) throughout the Space Race until well after LBJ.

Herodotus38 8y ago
Thanks, I thought the OP's post was odd, as I'd never heard of Alabama being the center, and I've been more interested in spaceflight for the last 4 years. I don't have enough historical knowledge in this area to definitively rule out what was posted, and it seemed plausible that there was tension between solid and liquid development. I am currently readin Von Braun's 'Space Frontiers' and enjoy it. Any recommendations for a next book about the history of US rocketry?
- bryananderson 8y ago
  Andrew Chaikin’s ‘A Man on the Moon’ is a wonderful history of the Space Race.
  - Herodotus38 8y ago
    Thank you
rurban 8y ago
Laughable. Washington gave all control to Von Braun after the Sputnik desaster, and Von Braun delivered dramatically. They only cut his budget, because Von Braun wanted to fly humans to Mars, and Washington wanted intercontinental rockets with nuclear payloads only. LBJ did the first dramatic cuts by favoring the Californian solid rocket development and moved control away from Alabama to the new Houston site. And then Nixon killed it completely and went with the Shuttle program, out of Von Braun hands.
mcguire 8y ago
Yes and no. Yes, NASA HQ is in Washington and always has been. On the other hand, the centers have always had a lot of autonomy; moreso in the past, and the fight to coalesce overlapping facilities is messy. (Source: Work for the NASA Enterprise Applications Competency Center (yes, that's a thing) and get to see the sausage being made.) JPL is one fun example. It's really only loosly associated with the rest of NASA. And it does most of the unmanned, science flight programs, using DOD launch vehicles. That goes back to the early days of NASA following Sputnik and the Explorer I vs von Braun/MSFC/Alabama teams. MSFC has been the center of launch system development since, for the manned side of things. And the shuttle, in retrospect, seems not to have been a great idea. Tl;dr: To paraphrase Ghandi, NASA organization might be a really good idea.

Herodotus38 8y ago

Thanks, I thought the OP's post was odd, as I'd never heard of Alabama being the center, and I've been more interested in spaceflight for the last 4 years. I don't have enough historical knowledge in this area to definitively rule out what was posted, and it seemed plausible that there was tension between solid and liquid development. I am currently readin Von Braun's 'Space Frontiers' and enjoy it. Any recommendations for a next book about the history of US rocketry?

bryananderson 8y ago
Andrew Chaikin’s ‘A Man on the Moon’ is a wonderful history of the Space Race.
- Herodotus38 8y ago
  Thank you

rurban 8y ago

Laughable. Washington gave all control to Von Braun after the Sputnik desaster, and Von Braun delivered dramatically. They only cut his budget, because Von Braun wanted to fly humans to Mars, and Washington wanted intercontinental rockets with nuclear payloads only. LBJ did the first dramatic cuts by favoring the Californian solid rocket development and moved control away from Alabama to the new Houston site. And then Nixon killed it completely and went with the Shuttle program, out of Von Braun hands.

mcguire 8y ago

Yes and no. Yes, NASA HQ is in Washington and always has been. On the other hand, the centers have always had a lot of autonomy; moreso in the past, and the fight to coalesce overlapping facilities is messy. (Source: Work for the NASA Enterprise Applications Competency Center (yes, that's a thing) and get to see the sausage being made.) JPL is one fun example. It's really only loosly associated with the rest of NASA. And it does most of the unmanned, science flight programs, using DOD launch vehicles. That goes back to the early days of NASA following Sputnik and the Explorer I vs von Braun/MSFC/Alabama teams. MSFC has been the center of launch system development since, for the manned side of things. And the shuttle, in retrospect, seems not to have been a great idea. Tl;dr: To paraphrase Ghandi, NASA organization might be a really good idea.