I have a piece up at AOL News calling for a new NASA administrator.
[Update a while later]
My favorite comment over there so far (there are about thirty, most of them pretty dumb):
Are you sure it’s not just because he’s black??? I’ve rarely heard that much hatred and pure BS except from racists! What proof do you have for these theories of yours? Other then way much Rush!!
Wow, this guy has me pegged.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Here’s another gem, from “RetardedPalin”:
Its the Republicans that see NASA as a waste of money. Bush cut NASA funding. Christians don’t believe there’s any reason to be looking at space or going there.
Sigh…
[Update a while later]
Here’s another highly perceptive comment:
Where did you buy that fully loaded Manure spreader? Thats some load of disrespect for a former Marine Corps General, enjoy your NASA retirement check you republican old f@rt. it is your generation that heaped these problems upon us.
Every day I look in the mail for my NASA retirement check, but it’s never there.
Link is messed up.
Should work now, thanks.
Some of these aren’t Bolden’s fault. The incoherent rollout was mostly the result of last minute decisions passed down from the White House. The Muslim outreach was done on orders from the White House, which were subsequently disowned. Even the trip to China may have been on orders from the White House, leaked criticism notwithstanding.
“•The incoherent rollout of President Barack Obama’s new space policy”
You can not coherently rollout an incoherent plan.
If he’s being sabotaged, and not backed up, by the White House, then he should resign, and explain why. I would.
You can not coherently rollout an incoherent plan.
It was inchoherent in that it still supported HLV R&D, but that was only an (insufficient) political sop.
The scuttlebutt is that Bolden won’t resign because his staff, especially Garver, would be hung out to dry by Congress if he did.
…his staff, especially Garver, would be hung out to dry by Congress if he did.
What does that mean? If he resigns, Lori becomes acting administrator until there is a replacement. What could Congress do?
“It was inchoherent in that it still supported HLV R&D, but that was only an (insufficient) political sop.”
I was incoherent in that it promised a little something for everybody, in terms of technology development, but without either a sufficient budget or a driving goal on which all the “new” technology was to be used.
…without either a sufficient budget or a driving goal on which all the “new” technology was to be used.
How do you know what was a “sufficient budget”? And it did have a driving goal — the capability to perform arbitrarily large missions beyond earth orbit.
Retardedpalin=TLE.
“How do you know what was a “sufficient budget”? And it did have a driving goal — the capability to perform arbitrarily large missions beyond earth orbit.”
An (in the interest of brevity) oversimplified example. I have seen the budgets for the NERVA rocket (dating back to the 1960’s, when I assume we can all agree NASA was doing things more efficiently) the money allocated for research in that area would not have covered all of the proposed work (Nuclear Thermal, VASMIR, etc.).
Therefore, eventually, if anything was to be accomplished a down select would have to have been made. Nuclear Thermal (especially LANTR) would probably be the best choice for Cis-Lunar orbit to orbit transport, while VASMIR might win compared to Martian orbit to orbit requirements.
In absence of a goal more specific than “the capability to perform arbitrarily large missions beyond earth orbit” what criteria would be used to decide on which of these otherwise equally worthy systems to expend the limited resources.
Rand:
Good on ya for mentioning the visit by Bolden to China. Isn’t it odd that, weeks after the visit, there is STILL no reporting on just what was discussed, what was on the agenda, or precisely whom Bolden met?
And this from the most transparent government, ev-uh?
Worse, in light of the November 2009 joint statement between Hu and Obama, we’re supposed to get an “appropriate” reciprocal visit. Who is this “player to be named later”? We seem to have bought a pig in a poke, w/ no idea as to just what manner of pig we’re obtaining.
That Bolden’s own people seem unable to say whether they visited w/ someone who truly was their counterpart (China National Space Agency? China Manned Space Engineering Office? People’s Liberation Army?) bodes ill.
I have seen the budgets for the NERVA rocket (dating back to the 1960’s, when I assume we can all agree NASA was doing things more efficiently) the money allocated for research in that area would not have covered all of the proposed work (Nuclear Thermal, VASMIR, etc.).
I’m not sure NASA was doing things more efficiently in the sixties. For instance, they were using slide rules. I do know they had a lot more money.
In absence of a goal more specific than “the capability to perform arbitrarily large missions beyond earth orbit” what criteria would be used to decide on which of these otherwise equally worthy systems to expend the limited resources.
I don’t understand why you have to be more specific than that. It implies a scalable transportation infrastructure that can provide arbitrarily large total impulse. Thus, I’d be putting money into on-orbit propellant storage and transfer technology demos. There was plenty of money for that in the original budget request. Particularly if one doesn’t waste money on a heavy lifter.
I’m curious. Its seems every NASA Administrator in the last 20 years has been considered “bad” by the space advocate community, or major parts of it, often after being hailed as a hero by the same community when appointed. Is there anyone the space advocate community believes would be a good administrator and who they would actually stick by? Or are they all simply viewed as sacrificial scapegoats by Space Advocates when the inevitable train wreck occurs when NASA culture clashes with policies that are externally imposed on NASA without any consideration of it’s culture?
So given how the space advocate community has turned against every Administrator in the last 20 years, its difficult to see why any sane or component person would want the job… No wonder it took so long for President Obama to find one.
In terms of Analysis, I don’t see President Obama asking for any resignation from Administrator Bolden. The White House has picked its Administrator, issued it space policy,. made the speech and space is a closed issue until the next administrator unless of course some major accident, or the Administrators’ resignation Forces it to be an issue.
Its seems every NASA Administrator in the last 20 years has been considered “bad” by the space advocate community, or major parts of it, often after being hailed as a hero by the same community when appointed.
I have no idea why it seems that way to you. It doesn’t seem that way to me. And what do you mean by “the space community”? People have opinions, not “communities.” Can you point to an actual person who did this?
Who “hailed” Bolden? Not me, not ever. Who “hailed” Mike Griffin? Not me, not ever. Who “hailed” Sean O’Keefe? Not me.
Tom,
I think the “space community” is far too broad of a community to really lump together like that. For instance, I’ve only really been following NASA politics closely since about half-way through O’keefe’s tenure (which btw, I thought O’Keefe was actually not half bad as an administrator). Most commercial space people I know weren’t fans of Griffin either before he was nominated or while he was in office. Most commercial space people also weren’t too happy with Bolden’s pick either, because it looked like he was going to be a shuttle hugger forced on us by Nelson at the expense of better candidates (like Steve Isakowitz). Actually, while he has tons of faults, I have to give Charlie credit for at least being his own man when it came to shuttle.
Sure, there were lots of people in the larger space community who liked Griffin at first and changed their minds later…but lumping say Rand in with that group seems a little disingenuous. Sure there were some flip floppers in the industry as a whole…but acting like an ATK employee or shuttle fanboy can be lumped in the same opinion group as an alt spacer or a space blogger seems a bit of a stretch.
~Jon
“I’m not sure NASA was doing things more efficiently in the sixties. For instance, they were using slide rules. I do know they had a lot more money.”
Sort of makes my point. If they have less money now, how do they afford simultaneous development of two (or more) types of nuclear rockets?
“I don’t understand why you have to be more specific than that. It implies a scalable transportation infrastructure that can provide arbitrarily large total impulse. Thus, I’d be putting money into on-orbit propellant storage and transfer technology demos. There was plenty of money for that in the original budget request. Particularly if one doesn’t waste money on a heavy lifter.”
This could get to be a long conversation (unfortunately too long to fit in these “little boxes”). If you mean to imply that nuclear propulsion is not required if Orbital Fuel Depots are used, that is certainly a defensible position. Hypothetically granting it to be true why is all that nuclear propulsion research included (and underfunded) in the original proposal. Perhaps more incoherence?
Additionally, as I recall, the Orbital Fuel Depots were listed among some 25 “Flagship Demonstrations” that were to cost between $400 Million and $1 Billion each. At a minimum this comes to $10 Billion. The Budget for “Flagship Demonstrations” was about $7 Billion (I am working from memory, so please do not hold me to decimal points). That is another budget shortfall of about 42% by their own numbers. Again a down select would have eventually been required, but is never mentioned as part of the process in the proposed budget. Perhaps more incoherence?
Whether I agree with you entirely or not, I understand your technical position on Orbital Fuel Depots. What I do not understand is why you have so much confidence in Obama’s good intentions in this particular area, when you do not seem to in any other.
What I do not understand is why you have so much confidence in Obama’s good intentions in this particular area, when you do not seem to in any other.
I can’t imagine why you think that I have nonzero confidence in Obama’s good intentions in this area. It’s not about intentions — it’s about policy. This one, while it has its problems, is a huge improvement over the previous one, no matter how well “intentioned” it was.
Jon,
[[[I think the “space community” is far too broad of a community to really lump together like that. ]]]
I though about using New Space, but Rand seems to constantly want to argue the definition of that although most folks know what it means. (as a note, this seems to be one of the core tactics of the blogsphere right, distracting folks by arguing definitions endlessly until they mean the opposite of what they were… i.e the Liberal Fascist gambit)
But overall posts on the new Space blogs were basically rejoicing that “Griffin the evil one” was gone and someone who qualifications were “beyond question” (to use Rand’s own words from his Pajama Media piece on it) was the new administrator.
I also liked Sean O’keefe and thought he had the best qualifications for administrator which was an understanding of Congress and the budget and feel he’s leaving NASA is what basically doomed the VSE to failure.
But coming back to the key point, given how NASA Administrators have been treated on blogs and space opinion websites (remember NASA Watch was started just to rant against Goldin…) who in the right mind would want the job… And is there anyone folks would respect and support as Administrator.
Joe,
In the 1960’s they not only had more money, but the technology was less complex which means it was cheaper and easier to design and build.
given how NASA Administrators have been treated on blogs and space opinion websites (remember NASA Watch was started just to rant against Goldin…) who in the right mind would want the job…
Yes, because unlike all other government officials, only NASA administrators are ever criticized on blogs and opinion web sites.
[rolling eyes]
There’s an old saying about kitchens and heat.
And is there anyone folks would respect and support as Administrator.
Well, I can’t speak for “the space community” or “NewSpace,” but off the top of my head I’d say: Pete Worden, Alan Stern, Lori Garver.
Rand,
[[[Who “hailed” Bolden? Not me, not ever. Who “hailed” Mike Griffin? Not me, not ever. Who “hailed” Sean O’Keefe? Not me.]]]
Ah, the famous invisible gremlin 🙂
Rand,
“This one, while it has its problems, is a huge improvement over the previous one, no matter how well “intentioned” it was.”
I guess we will have to just agree to disagree. I suspect the Administrations intentions with this budget was to close down the existing program and replace it with nothing, while giving Obama “plausible deniability” for having ended American participation in spaceflight. That was what the tech dev stuff was for, cover. Something for everybody (Orbital Fuel Depots for you, NTRs for me, Inflatable Modules for “whoever”, etc.) and in the end nothing for anybody.
The sad thing is they may well turn out to be more successful than they could have imagined. They probably thought they would have to keep up the charade for a couple of years, they may well be able to do all the damage required in one year lay the blame on an “incompetent congress” and have you cheering them on.
By the way I would really appreciate your opinion (and I am not being Snarky) on why the “redundant” nuclear propulsion technology was included in the program. Would not it be as “useless” as a Heavy Lifter?
“Joe,
In the 1960′s they not only had more money, but the technology was less complex which means it was cheaper and easier to design and build.”
Tom,
That would mean it is even less likely that they could pursue multiple development projects for less money. Would it not?
Joe,
Yes, and that is the problem.
Tom
Rand,
[[[Well, I can’t speak for “the space community” or “NewSpace,” but off the top of my head I’d say: Pete Worden, Alan Stern, Lori Garver.]]]
While then you should be happy since Lori Graver is basically running it now in the best naval tradition. (i.e. the Executive Office runs the ship and manages the crew so the Captain is able to focus on external matters like global travels…). So why would you want to downgrade her to Administrator so she could be the target of the blogsphere?
“Joe,
Yes, and that is the problem.
Tom”
Ahh, I see we are in violent agreement.
Because if she were acting administrator, rather than deputy administrator, she could can (for example) Ed Weiler. I don’t see how she would get any more abuse as acting administrator, or administrator (though there’s probably no way she’d get through a Senate confirmation) than she already has.
By the way I would really appreciate your opinion (and I am not being Snarky) on why the “redundant” nuclear propulsion technology was included in the program. Would not it be as “useless” as a Heavy Lifter?
No, nuclear propulsion has a potentially big payoff. I would characterize orbital propellant storage and transfer as an enabling technology, while nuclear propulsion (which still needs propellant) is an enhancing one.
Do we see a pattern yet? Bolden. Holder. Geithner. Napolitano. Salazar. LaHood. Not only is BO a very poor executive, but his cabinet picks are reall stinkers as well.
Rand,
I am sure if she decided to get rid of Ed Weiler she would simply bring it up with Administrator Bolden and make a case for it. And if he was causing the problems you believe he is then Administrator Bolden would do so.
[[[(though there’s probably no way she’d get through a Senate confirmation)]]]
After which she would have the choice of going back to her current position or leaving the agency if the new Administrator is incompatible. Whereas at the moment she is able to focus on running the agency.
You know Rand the never ending quest for optimal solutions is often as much a bigger barrier to progress then incompetence.
Matula,
you obviously haven’t been paying attention. Charlie hates to fire people. He’s constitutionally incapable of it.
The notion that Deputy Admin Garver could just, for example, throw the Cassani report on Bolden’s desk and say “let’s fire Ed” is ludicrous. Bolden won’t/can’t fire anyone. And Garver isn’t in charge, so she cannot fire anyone.
It is obvious by now that Charlie can’t implement a new direction with Mike Griffin’s staff. (It should have been obvious on day one.) To paraphrase Jerry Pournelle, if Charlie can’t lead, he should get out of the way so somebody can.
– Jim
“By the way I would really appreciate your opinion (and I am not being Snarky) on why the “redundant” nuclear propulsion technology was included in the program. Would not it be as “useless” as a Heavy Lifter?
No, nuclear propulsion has a potentially big payoff. I would characterize orbital propellant storage and transfer as an enabling technology, while nuclear propulsion (which still needs propellant) is an enhancing one.”
Thanks Rand. Just trying to find areas of agreement among space development advocates rather than dwell on differences in the technical areas and there are more than they sometimes seem (along with substantial differences, but these – in my “humble opinion” – are also technical and should be worked out by analysis and discussion not argument).
I will “beat the dead horse” one last time by saying I fear the intent of the current administration is to incite turf wars among advocates of the various tech dev options to the detriment of them all.
Muncy,
I find it hard to believe a Marine Corps General (ret) is incapable of firing anyone, or cleaning house if needed, unless he is under orders not to or doesn’t feel its necessary. I also find it difficult to believe that a Marine Corps General (ret) is incapable of leadership.
– Tom
O’Keefe, and Steidle were not bad at all IMO. Who in the “space advocacy community” was really against CE&R ?
In the 1960′s they not only had more money, but the technology was less complex which means it was cheaper and easier to design and build.
Eyeballs rolling. This has to be one of the dumbest things Tom has said so far!
I suppose he thinks that computers, cell phones, are much more expensive than in the past, because they are much more complex?
Hi Ed, I was wondering when you would show up to attack me which seems to be your only purpose in life anymore 🙂
We are not talking mobile phones and computers, but rockets, aircraft and similar mature technology. Go to http://www.astronautix.com and compare some of the costs of the programs in those days, after of course adjusting for inflation. You will be surprised at the difference in pricing 🙂
Tom and Ed,
In my opinion the increases in cost are due to two different causes:
1. Increases in reliability (safety) requirements.
2. Changes in government procurement/contracting requirements.
Whatever our opinions of the need for either of the changes they are real and cause increased costs. Additionally if more governments funding is given to “commercial” space endeavors (as proposed in “Obamaspace”) these increased cost factors will be imposed on them as well.
Joe,
There is another factor as well and that is the increased amount of electronics in most rockets, aircraft and even cars today. Although the cost of integrated circuits has fallen the number and complexity of those systems found in vehicles of all types has exploded adding to their cost.