Here’s a web site where you can weigh in. Pete Worden is currently in the lead by a large amount.
[Update a few minutes later]
Heh. You get a choice of two Wesleys — Huntress and Crusher.
[Update late afternoon]
Neil H. has set up a betting pool on who it will be.
I also created a prediction on HubDub for this, although this is a prediction of who’s most likely to be picked, not necessarily who should:
http://www.hubdub.com/m27933/Who_will_Obama_name_as_NASA_Administrator
Bolden’s currently in the lead with 36%, followed by the catch-all at 27%. Michael Griffin’s way down at 2%.
Keith Cowing is now reporting that Dr. Griffin has submitted his resignation and is going skiing, not to return.
Setting aside who I want, I predict Charles F. Bolden will be the next NASA Administrator. The political stars align well for that choice
Note:
Bolden was Senator Bill Nelson’s shuttle pilot and Nelson has been a defender of Mike Griffin.
Bolden has defended the VSE but has suggested changes to its current implementation.
Direct 2.0 is on the cover of the latest Popular Mechanics.
Team Direct members are on their way to Washington, right now, per nasaspaceflight.
Bolden has previously lobbied for ATK.
If Ares 1 is canceled (and it should be canceled) Direct 2.0 is ATK’s best shot at keeping a large piece of the pie.
Bolden is said to have a compelling public presence having been chosen to narrate the Space Shuttle exhibit at the Kennedy Space Center and he is African American, which should not matter but probably does.
Bolden’s resume is otherwise beyond stellar and word is he gets along very well with people.
Therefore, I predict Bolden and I also predict Direct 2.0 gets an official review by the next NASA Administration.
= = =
Note, about a year ago I predicted Obama would win the nomination over Clinton and Rand scoffed.
I also predicted Barack Hussein Obama would be elected President, and Rand scoffed even more.
Even though she’s repeatedly denied an interest in being Administrator (preferring Deputy Administrator instead) I still have a hunch it might be Lori Garver. Of course, as head of the transition team she certainly can’t go on the record as saying outright that she’s interested in the job herself. Obama would need to be quite public that he was picking Garver because he truly believed she was the best for the job, rather than risk generating a perception that she had simply nominated herself.
Pete Worden (currently at the top of the linked list) would be awesome, but I get the impression that he’d be too polarizing. He’d definitely be the “change” candidate, though. From the video I’ve seen of him it also seems like he’d be good as an on-air personality to make the case for whatever NASA ends up doing directly to the American people.
I predicted Obama would win the nomination over Clinton and Rand scoffed…
You also predicted that Mike Griffin would be Administrator for another term and ESAS would be a roaring success.
If Ares 1 is canceled (and it should be canceled) Direct 2.0 is ATK’s best shot at keeping a large piece of the pie.
Oh? You’re telling us the Obama administration doesn’t really care about “change” and only wants to rape the taxpayers for the benefit of ATK?
I don’t think Obama would have appointed people like Lori Garver and George Whitesides to his transition team if that were true.
Obama isn’t perfect, but I think we ought to give him a chance. Sometimes, you Obama bashers go too far. 🙂
“Obama isn’t perfect, but I think we ought to give him a chance. Sometimes, you Obama bashers go too far.”
LOL!
As for predictions I’m going to throw out that we’ll see Direct 2.0 replacing Constellation, COTS D being mandated, and an EELV alternative for ISS access pushed as a backup.
Just because it would be the most solid US manned space policy ever (so far) and cheaper than the current approach as long as someone vets the Direct proposal thoroughly and finds that their cost estimates are correct.
And I want a pony.
And I want a pony.
<VOICE=”Pony Nazi”>No pony for you!
</VOICE>
> Direct 2.0 replacing Constellation, COTS D being mandated, and an EELV alternative for ISS access pushed as a backup.
Why not just have Direct 2.0 and the EELVs compete with each other under COTS-D? I’d assume that if the plans are truly worthwhile they’d be able to compete against each other (and SpaceX’s) on equal footing.
Why not just have Direct 2.0 and the EELVs compete with each other under COTS-D? I’d assume that if the plans are truly worthwhile they’d be able to compete against each other (and SpaceX’s) on equal footing.
Because they can’t? Direct 2, like Ares, would require most of the Shuttle infrastructure at KSC. That means enormous fixed costs.
EELV isn’t quite as bad, because they’ve already got the pads, but remember when Lockheed started making noises about a “commercial” capsule launched on an Atlas V, then abruptly switched and said they wanted the government to pay for its development?
They absolutely can’t compete and shouldn’t. It’s an approach to space access and a foundation for a rugged healthy space policy that I think of as “BARE Necessities”. I’ll never get around to writing it up in detail (and I probably wouldn’t do a good job of it) so I’ll describe the core idea and apply it to US manned space access.
BARE Necessities include the following three categories and single rule:
* Basic and Assured access to and return from orbit.
* Redundant access to and return from orbit.
* Experimental access to and return from orbit.
* No launch system and vehicle can be categorized in more than one of the three categories at any moment.
Translated into current US space policy:
BA: Direct retaining existing capabilities.
R: EELV “Plus” as a fallback position.
E: COTS D as a new approach.
This is about flexibility, reliability, and ruggedness, and also systematically expanding capabilities/approaches opening up as well as retaining future options.
(Oh please God no, I can feel my hair growing pointy! ^_^)