Comments on: NASA: Need Another Security Assessment

By: One Eyed Jack

One Eyed Jack — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:09:02 +0000

No surprise there. This is the same government that let’s clerks walk out of national research labs with armloads of restricted documents… Pardon me miss, you seem to have your arms full there. Need some help carrying those restricted documents to your car? Wait, don’t forget your complementary sample of enriched uranium.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:26:27 +0000

This story is hilarious, in sad sort of way. After spending two years at GSFC as a post-doc (read “contractor”) I know more than enough about idiotic security policy at NASA, among other idiotic policies. The REALLY sad part is that NASA is one of the LEAST dysfunctional federal agencies we have.

By: spacewriter

spacewriter — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:15:54 +0000

This reminds me of a project I was working on a few years back; the client was an observatory (to remain nameless to protect the innocent). The directive came down from the observatory’s parent body that a security gate had to be erected on the only road going in and out of the property. The director asked if they wanted him to get security fencing to go along with the gate (since the observatory has open space all around it). “They” (the ubiquitous “they”) told him that no, he didn’t need fencing. Just a security gate.

So, now you can’t drive up to XYz observatory on the nights and weekends without a security code to get through the gate, but by golly, you hike or ride your bike AROUND the gate…

By: skeptigirl

skeptigirl — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:14:24 +0000

I recall a TV interview with an Apollo astronaut who said when they returned from the Moon and were supposed to be in isolation until they were declared free of any dangerous hitchhiking organisms, they noticed the building they were in had an ant infestation. So if ants could come and go…….

By: Will. M.

Will. M. — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:41:56 +0000

I suspect that there is a separate outfit within NASA which is responsible for “security.” Nevertheless, this is really a bollixed policy fer shur. I wonder if the policy DID change since 12/13…

By: PsyberDave

PsyberDave — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:18:52 +0000

The surface of this story is a little amusing. But the undercurrent I perceive is rather disturbing to me. I am generally bothered by organizational stupidity, but when it occurs in an organization that conducts VERY dangerous missions with VERY low error tolerances, then I am alarmed and dismayed. Granted, office security, while important, does not require attention to detail that a launch or a manned mission does. However, I like to think that NASA is an organization that is at the very least capable of forming cogent policy and that the “right hand” knows what the “left hand”is doing. Am I making too much out of this or is there some disarray going on at NASA that might rear it’s ugly head in the form of another tragedy?

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:01:49 +0000

“I thought about asking the management about this incongruity, but my instinct about NASA told me that if I did, the wise men in charge would probably revoke the spouse badges rather than allow us terrible astronauts back on site.”

Right on the money there.