'Star Trek' inspired NSA command center

[Hand of Evil]

Got to love the name: Information Dominance Center

http://social.entertainment.msn.com...ith-b-alexanders-command-center?ocid=ansent11

"We are what we are, and we're doing the best we can. It is not for you to set the standards by which we should be judged!"

The mighty Starship Enterprise Capt. Jean-Luc Picard once uttered these words, and as a new profile of Keith B. Alexander makes its rounds online this week, the Trekkie NSA Director is likely thinking something similar.

According to the Foreign Policy article, Alexander used a "Star Trek"-inspired command center when he was running the Army’s Intelligence and Security Command at Fort Belvoir, Va.

Dubbed the Information Dominance Center, the facility became a central location for high-ranking military and lawmaking "Star Trek" lovers across the board, according to an excerpt of the profile posted on PBS News Hour's website.

"When he was running the Army's Intelligence and Security Command, Alexander brought many of his future allies down to Fort Belvoir for a tour of his base of operations, a facility known as the Information Dominance Center," the excerpt begins.

"It had been designed by a Hollywood set designer to mimic the bridge of the starship Enterprise from Star Trek, complete with chrome panels, computer stations, a huge TV monitor on the forward wall, and doors that made a 'whoosh' sound when they slid open and closed. Lawmakers and other important officials took turns sitting in a leather 'captain's chair' in the center of the room and watched as Alexander, a lover of science-fiction movies, showed off his data tools on the big screen."

Our favorite part? "'Everybody wanted to sit in the chair at least once to pretend he was Jean-Luc Picard,' says a retired officer in charge of VIP visits."

There are conflicting reports as to who commissioned the building of the command center: Foreign Policy (via The Guardian) claims Alexander had the Trekked-out joint built as part of an "all-out, barely-legal drive to build the ultimate spy machine," while the Washington Post's sources claim it was built in 1998, three years prior to when Alexander took the job.

Either way, The Guardian unearthed some photos of it, and they are amazing; The images reportedly came from DBI Architects, Inc., which claims to have built the thing.


Tech specs posted with the photos say the center boasts 10,740 square feet, with "the prominently positioned chair provides the commanding officer an uninterrupted field of vision to a 22'-0" wide projection screen.”

The facility was meant "to enable 24-hour worldwide visualization, planning, and execution of coordinated information operations for the US Army and other federal agencies," the site reports, quoting DBI Architects. "The futuristic, yet distinctly military setting is further reinforced by the Commander's console, which gives the illusion that one has boarded a star ship."

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

You should see the IT operators in their go-go boots ...

 

[tomBitonti]

Wait ... taxpayer $$ were spent on this?

TomB

 

[Janx]

Wait ... taxpayer $$ were spent on this?

TomB

it looks inspired by Star trek, but it isn't Star trek. On that direct point, we don't have anything to be peeved about because nobody spent tax dollars recreating the bridge of the Enterprise.

Nextly, any command center is likely going to be designed by somebody. So assuming we actually needed a command center, tax dollars were going to be spent paying somebody to design it, plan it and build it. Regardless of what it looked like.

I think we'll have to take it as a given that no office (government or corporate) is going to head over to Office Depot and buy the $30 2.5' x 5' tables and $50 office chairs and some power strips to furnish their command center that VIPs will be taken through. Suffice it to say, some money is going to be spent on appearances, whether we like it or not.

So in my mind, the real determining factors on whether taxpayers should be indignant or not is whether this configuration was more efficient/effective than others, and whether that was worth the return on investment.

In other words, did we pay too much for this, compared to another fancy arrangement that would have looked nicer AND been better for managing the center?

I doubt that we, the average tax payers have enough info to truly determine if we needed it, if it was the most effective design, if it was the best price, if it was the most impactful for influencing VIPs who visited it.

Despite some people potentially having objections to the general topic the command center was for (politics), the decision was made to build it. Since those objectors didn't get their way, the fallback position should be "did we do the thing I didn't want us to do as well as we could do it?"

 

[tomBitonti]

For a functional command center, I doubt a star trek set would be a good design.

Also, as a social team building move, the strategy has a good chance of irking some members of the team. If it gets in the way at all of getting work done, then lots of folks will be annoyed -- folks have busy lives, and would rather spend quality time with their family or in a favorite pursuit, or advancing their careers, rather than deal with this sort of stuff.

Mostly, you want to keep affectations like this out of work places. They usually lead to no good.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Janx]

For a functional command center, I doubt a star trek set would be a good design.

How would you or I know if that layout is or isn't a good design for the kind of command center they built?

Is the standard NASA control center layout the best? How do they know? (actually NASA probably did studies)

Is a really big screen, and an elevated captain's chair effective for overseeing the work being done?

Have you designed and built a few command centers for a national security department (as I assume their needs are different than what is needed for a FEMA NOC)?

Part of what I'm questioning, and I don't mean to put tom in the hotseat, is that other people exact plans, build things, run things in ways without ever asking for outsiders feedback or input.

It's easy to sit on the outside and criticize it, but as we aren't on the actual team building or using it, and the vast majority of us aren't actually experienced in whatever Washington boondoggle we're complaining about this week, who are we to say what is or isn't an effective system.

Obviously, some wastes of money stand out more than others. But there are some things, like this, where it may look like a waste to a layman, but may actually work quite well.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Unfortunately, the stuff that is genuinely discussion-worthy that the NSA invested a lot of money on is highly political in nature and not an EN World appropriate topic.

So I guess all we can rage about is their command chair.

I hope they have at least some decent circuit breakers in there, so that not countless of NSA workers are getting injured or killed by some random short circuit. On the other hand, the likelihood of being attacked by a cloaked Bird of Prey are a lot lower.

 

[Alzrius]

On the other hand, the likelihood of being attacked by a cloaked Bird of Prey are a lot lower.

If they're cloaked, they can't attack anyway (notwithstanding that prototype from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country).

 

[Janx]

Unfortunately, the stuff that is genuinely discussion-worthy that the NSA invested a lot of money on is highly political in nature and not an EN World appropriate topic.

So I guess all we can rage about is their command chair.

Well stated.

That's probably an accurate assessment of why this stuff gets attention.

 

[sabrinathecat]

The original 1966 TV bridge was considered for Navy vessels as well, but the tech to run the cabling was too costly