There are many problem with implementing the reports recomendations some stem from it having never been done to resistance to following though with the recommendations in general.
The convertion of field centers to research centers is just one of the having never been done before items. Though they have a good example to follow in the JPL facility how does one begin the process of change. Which college wants controlling interest at any field facility? Many more such questions need to be explored before Nasa can follow the recommendations contained in the report.

There can be no change without a blueprint, and the Commission report is that blueprint. I think the report states as well as can be stated what must be done and why in order to achieve the long term success of the exploration vision.

The report emphasizes the importance of the profit motive in implementing the vision. That, after all, is why commercial aviation grew worldwide during the 20th century.

Today, only Russia and China are capable of getting crews into space. America is in third place. The U.S. must embrace this new exploration vision with boldness and restore its once-preeminent position in space exploration.

I tend to agree that the important items are that:
A) It is the second major report since Columbia that recommends serious reorganization of NASA
B) It rightfully focuses on privatization (though perhaps wrongly insisting on NASA vehicles doing heavy-lift)
C) It emphasizes the importance of the space program and a hoped-for space industry on the lagging technology and manufacturing capabilities.

It avoids some of the really tough suggestions, but then again the report has to be made palatable in an environment where change is difficult. Overall I'm encouraged. If anyone had suggested to me before the Columbia disaster that NASA would be asking the questions it is, and getting the answers it has today, I would have doubted it. We have to consider how far we've come in the debate since 1 February 2023.

From the spacepolitics site:

Senate hearing on Aldridge report

"The science subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee has a hearing scheduled for Thursday afternoon at 2:30 pm (room SR-253) regarding the final report of the Aldridge Commission, with Pete Aldridge himself scheduled to testify. (I did not see this hearing on the committee's web site earlier this week, so either it is a late addition or else there was a technical glitch somewhere along the line.) Yes, the hearing will be webcast."

I did get to see some of this and found it quite interesting that they needed to go before this commitee.

"NASA authorization bill introduced in the Senate
At this afternoon's hearing of the space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, subcommittee chairman Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) announced that he was introducing today NASA authorization legislation for FY 2025. (The legislation hasn't yet shown up on Thomas.) Brownback said the legislation "would provide the necessary authority for NASA to implement the exploration commission's recommendations." A few highlights of the legislation he pointed out during the hearing:"

The bill would call on NASA to implement a "private sector managed robotic mission to the Moon in three years";
The bill also asks the administration "to clarify US positions on private property rights for those seeking to develop space resources and infrastructure";
It includes provisions to enable NASA to offer prizes (presumably to allow NASA specifically to award prizes bigger than the current $250,000 limit it currently has). Brownback also said he would suggest that NASA's first "big" prize would be a manned orbital flight; he has previously suggested a "Glenn Prize" like that with a purse of $100 million.
Brownback also said that he and his colleagues in the House have asked the GAO to investigate the possibility of commercial ISS resupply, saying that he had not, in his opinion, received a sufficient response on that topic from NASA.

"Of course, actually getting this legislation passed will be a major challenge, given the limited schedule and the host of other legislation Congress has to deal with it; it's been several years since Congress has approved a NASA authorization bill. At the COMSTAC meeting last month, Pete Worden, the retired Air Force general currently working in Brownback's office on space issues, said that he felt there was a "pretty good shot", or at least a 50-50 chance, of getting the legislation passed. We shall see…"

Out come of this looks promising.

Just the tip of the resistance to change.

Officials shun KSC- university concept
Converting Kennedy Space Center into a university-run research facility won't work, Florida lawmakers said Thursday
the only NASA center where humans are launched into space.

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004b/spacestoryN0618NASAREPORT.htm

Having worked for State and Federal governments before, I say it's less than 50-50 that it will be passed. Just coming from what I know. And if it does get passed, the people who don't like change will make thing's so bad that things will get screwed up making the idea look bad. Unfortunately seen that to much.

Who would define the mission parameters, NASA or the Private sector?
What would the mission investigate, search for or build?
Is it just to prove that robots can do what man can not, or is it to lead the way for man?
I have more questions than answers for who will control space exploration.

It was my impression that the people that would put out the requirements for the missions success would be NASA. Atleast, for the short term till private companies find their own missions (sub-orbital flights for example, ala X-prize) to partake in. However, if the payment for the mission is to come from NASA, would make sense that the requirements be set by NASA.

As for the purpose, pave the way for humans (mars and moon), expand our knowledge in areas where we can't get to yet(Outer planets). Or even, test experimental technology in a way that does not risk human life. Ala, Mars Rovers, Cassini, and JIMO.

The requirements come from NASA if NASA is the customer. But the requirements are done differently than in the past. NASA doesn't get to make requirements about how the task is done, just that the task is accomplished. I.e. NASA's statement of the requirement is "We have this payload X that can withstand physical conditions 1,2 and 3 and we want it in this particular obit". How that is accomplished is completely up to the vendor. These days its done more along the lines of "NASA is buying a Delta IV and NASA will launch it and NASA will modify it and NASA will build all of the integration".

For further out NASA would purchase a payload slot on something like a TransOrbital lunar probe the same as any other customer. If they want to buy all the slots so they get to pick the particular orbits, then fine, but they don't get to define how TransOrbital actually builds or launches the probe.

What that ultimately means is an open bidding process, to provide based on specifications to meet the customers needs.
That will be a hard transition for Nasa.

I have a harder and harder time believing that NASA will give up that much control.
Another point, If NASA becomes a customer, they can, and probably use, tactics where there requirments will be so high that a vendor cannot hope to meet them or they will come back to the Fed's and say "There is no Vendor out there that we feel has the capabilities to safely or meet our requirments, we need to be able to launch it ourselves, blah, blah..."

As long as the same people are in control of NASA, this is what most likely will happen.

I believe NASA will still run design studies on possible missions, both to have an idea of what they are asking for as well as an idea of which is the better choice for the mission.

As to the launch it ourselves attitude due to high requirements, then they should revaluate those requirements (to see if they were set unreasonably high) and that mission (is it just too far ahead of its time?).

Leigh,
Here's an excerpt from www.spacefuture.com, that fully states what I'm getting at;

"Recently Apollo scientist-astronaut Harrison Schmidt has called for Nasa to be abolished and replaced with a new organizational structure which would be populated by managers in their 30s and engineers in their 20s, like Nasa during the Apollo project. Perhaps only re-organisation on this scale - equivalent to a fresh start - could overcome the legacy problems described. In truth it was misguided for taxpayers to trust that government space agencies' activities would be more economically valuable than simply supplying services which the public want to buy - the true "American way". That this mistake should have been made in the USA is particularly extraordinary. "

Here is a tid bit that is a hint of what Nasa might also do with the commissions report.

NASA Ponders Shuttle Flight Without Two Key Changes

NASA is considering whether it can return its space shuttles to flight without making two safety improvements that have so far proved to be high hurdles for agency engineers, top officials said on Friday. After the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas last year and killed.

NASA engineers are working on a repair kit that could fix a large hole in a shuttle wing's leading edge. They are also trying to build a boom to inspect the orbiter's underside.

The tasks have proved challenging, so the space agency is considering whether it can launch the shuttles without those two upgrades.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID;=5461206§ion;=news

On a note of continuing education into Space related fields or at Nasa. The Public Service Of NH power company's insert that accompanied the billing include a note on scholarships.
http://www.psnh.com/commonutils/common/content/psnh/athome062004.pdf