Congress, NASA

Cautions about Bolden and Garver

Since Saturday morning’s announcement of the nominations of Charles Bolden and Lori Garver to the positions of NASA administrator and deputy administrator, respectively, the reaction has been almost uniformly positive. Members of Congress, industry organizations, and newspaper editorials have all endorsed the nominations, calling them a positive step forward for an agency that they felt was in desperate need of permanent leadership.

An exception to those accolades, though, is an editorial in Thursday’s New York Times. The paper is not opposed to Bolden and Garver necessarily, but unlike others is also not immediately won over by them. “Unfortunately, General Bolden lacks deep expertise in space science and engineering and his past ties with the aerospace industry will raise conflict of interest problems,” the editorial states. Garver, it adds, “has no technical background or major managerial experience but knows the agency and its issues.”

Besides Bolden’s previously-discussed ties to ATK and GenCorp Aerojet, the Times raises another potential conflict: “There is also concern that General Bolden may feel indebted to Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, one of his most outspoken backers, who tends to favor space activities that generate jobs and revenues in his home state.” Because of those potential conflicts, the editorial concludes, “The Senate needs to assure itself that General Bolden will be fiercely independent.”

47 comments to Cautions about Bolden and Garver

  • MrEarl

    NASA needs a leader, not a techie. Someone who can get the various divisions working together for a common cause. In this case the quick transition from the shuttle to Orion.
    I don’t know if Bolden is the right person to do that, but he shares many of the same qualities of James Webb who so ably lead NASA through the formative years.
    Meanwhile I’ll be watching his confirmation hearings and the upcoming Augustine panel for clues to the direction of manned spaceflight.

    Good luck Mr. Bolden.

  • Anne Spudis

    A pilot and former Marine, Bolden encouraged the young doctors and scientists to follow the principles he learned in the Corps.

    “It’s our core values — honor, courage, commitment,” he said. “… Be courageous in everything you do. Don’t be afraid to stand up to someone who is about to do something wrong, because you know it’s wrong. And be committed no matter where you happen to go.” Bolden calls graduates to action (Houston Chronicle – May 28, 2009)

  • richardb

    The NYT suggests Nasa needs a “fiercely independent” administrator? They are delusional and continuing to be irrelevant.

    I can’t think of any top level Obama appointee that is “fiercely independent”. Nor a Bush II; nor a Clinton; nor a Bush I; nor a Reagan appointee from bygone eras.

    That’s a great way to never get considered for the appointment at all.

  • Blue

    I think the Times wants a “fiercely independent” administrator who will be able to stand down Nelson and cancel human space flight.

  • stargazer

    There are no perfect choices, but Bolden seems like a very good candidate. Truthfully though, if the Obama Administration wants to back away from human spaceflight or the ambitious human exploration agenda set out under VSE, no NASA Administrator will be able to prevent that. I think Mike Griffin would have been regarded as a much better Administrator if he had not been beset by inadequate funding from the start. Time will tell what fate has in store for NASA — and us.

  • John Malkin

    As long as the NASA administration is an appointee, they will never be “independent”. I would like to see the position to be a long term position. Is there another similar position within government which isn’t appointed?

    NASA will stay in the Human Spaceflight “business” for a very long time. There are too many states in the US with a stake in government funded Human Spaceflight plus we have agreements with other countries all over the world. The bigger questions is how NASA will leverage existing assets both internally and externally.

    I think Mr. Bolden will move NASA in a positive direction. I’m looking forward to the hearings.

  • While withholding judgement until I see results, my initial reaction to the Bolden / Garver team is positive. They’re both supporters of the kind of future I want to see in space (one that is not only or even primarily about science and robots), and the prior administrator’s technical credentials did not prove to be an unadulterated positive, to put it mildly. I think Ms. Garver has the political smarts that NASA needs, and Mr. Bolden has more than enough technical knowledge for what, after all, is a political and managerial job, not a technical one.

    That said, the New York Time’s reservations are important — and a key example of why they are a far more essential publication than those who blindly joint the chorus.

    — Donald

  • Major Tom

    The Times is off the mark regarding Bolden’s technical credentials or making them a requirement for the position of NASA Administrator. That said, the Times is absolutely right that Bolden’s ties and indebtedness to Sen. Nelson for his nomination need to be explicitely questioned and carefully weighed. Regardless of what one may think of Nelson, the NASA Administrator’s suite should not be an extension of the Florida Senator’s office (or the office of any other congressman). Although congressmen will always pull NASA in different directions, independence from any particular set of parochial ties is critical for a national program.

    FWIW…

  • I think Mike Griffin would have been regarded as a much better Administrator if he had not been beset by inadequate funding from the start.

    He had adequate funding to do the VSE, and he knew how much funding he was going to get. He chose a flawed approach that required more funding than he had.

  • Major Tom

    “He chose a flawed approach that required more funding than he had.”

    By at least $40 billion or nearly a factor of two. By NASA’s own estimates, the costs of Constellation through first human lunar landing have gone from $52 billion to $92 billion. CBO is estimating $110 billion.

    FWIW…

  • Bob Mahoney

    If the NYT is an essential publication (whatever that means), why are they doing so poorly financially?

  • common sense

    What newspaper is doing well financially these days? I don’t know if it is an important publication or worse a relevant one still but NYT still is at the forefront of the news. So only by that measure it is an important publication.

  • G Clark

    The NYT fits the Earl of Sandwichs’ description perfectly. “Your letter…is presently before me and shall shortly be behind me.”

  • What newspaper is doing well financially these days?

    The Wall Street Journal.

  • Both papers are doing far better than most, the reason being good journalism, albeit from opposing points of view.

    — Donald

  • common sense

    @Rand Simberg:

    Did the WSJ get a bail out too???? ;)

  • Gary C Hudson

    “A pilot and former Marine, Bolden encouraged the young doctors and scientists to follow the principles he learned in the Corps.”

    There are no *former* Marines. Once a Marine, always a Marine. :)

  • Both papers are doing far better than most, the reason being good journalism, albeit from opposing points of view.

    The Journal editorial page is conservative — the reporting isn’t.m>

    Did the WSJ get a bail out too?

    They didn’t need one.

  • richardb

    Its an obvious stretch to say the NTY is doing well after being forced to sell out to Slim Carlos as a way to avoid defaulting on their loans last year. If Pinch continues business as usual, Slim Carlos will soon own the NYT.

    But if there is one thing Nasa needs now, its publicity from a major news outlet as the NYT still is on the east coast. If the mainstream media focuses on the terrible shape the human space program is in, its possible more support will be forthcoming to repair the damage of the last few years. But I doubt it. Obama is shaping up to be a weak advocate of Nasa, just as Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter and Nixon before him. What is different now, and I hope the MSM will enagage on this, is Obama has it in his hands whether the human space program will continue with Nasa in the lead. The shuttle is due to shut down next year, Nasa has just signed contracts for Russian rides for years to come and Obama has just launched a sweeping ground to ceiling review of Nasa. The story should be a good one over the next year, hopefully the MSM will do a good job covering it.

  • Henry F.

    Did the WSJ get a bail out too?

    No, but the people who buy it did.

  • ,em>Obama is shaping up to be a weak advocate of Nasa, just as Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter and Nixon before him.

    And Johnson (who ended the Apollo program) before him.

  • richardb

    “Did the WSJ get a bail out too?

    No, but the people who buy it did.”

    Show of hands who hasn’t gotten a bailout? Anyone?

  • And Johnson (who ended the Apollo program) before him.

    Ummm…Lyndon B Johnson? The Pres they named Johnson Space Center after? He was one of NASA’s strongest advocates and was instrumental in jumpstarting the Apollo program.

  • Ummm…Lyndon B Johnson? The Pres they named Johnson Space Center after?

    Yes, that’s right. The one who cancelled Apollo in 1967. Read a little history.

  • Rand, you really do a disservice with your revisionist BS. Some of the Apollo Applications were cancelled by NASA after Congress defunded those programs in 1967. Yeah, Johnson signed the legislation which was part of a larger omnibus bill. President Johnson did not cancel the Apollo lunar mission. You need to check the history books you are reading to make sure they weren’t published by The Onion. The Apollo lunar missions were not impacted until after Nixon became POTUS and ordered spending on NASA cut forcing the agency to cut the last three missions.

  • common sense

    @richardb:

    Nope, I did not get any bail out. Should’ve gotten in debts way over my head. Too late. But at least I take comfort that I can help pay the bailees.

  • Ron Carlson

    I think Lori Garver will be keeping an eye on Bolden to make sure he doesn’t get too independent.

    After all, she is an Obot.

    I personally hope that Bolden will do all he can, given available resources, to push for manned Mars missions and to minimize Moon missions.

  • President Johnson did not cancel the Apollo lunar mission.

    I didn’t say he cancelled the mission [sic]. Obviously he didn’t, since nine missions flew to the moon, all of them after he left office. But he ended the program, shutting down production lines for new hardware. It is people who claim that Nixon did it who are the historical revisionists. Nixon was guilty of many sins, but killing Apollo wasn’t one of them. Yes, he could have flown a couple more missions, but basically, at worst, he failed to restart it (something for which there was zero public enthusiasm at the time, or since). He initiated the Shuttle program instead.

    You need to check the history books you are reading to make sure they weren’t published by The Onion.

    Do you think that I, or anyone, find such “argumentation” persuasive (as opposed to juvenile)?

  • Al Fansome

    It would be nice (as well as useful) if one of you quoted a credible source — say a history book on the subject — rather than insulting each other.

    – Al

  • @Rand Simberg

    But he ended the program, shutting down production lines for new hardware.

    These statements are misleading and false. President Johnson did not order an end to the Apollo program. NASA shutdown the Saturn 1B/V engine production lines beyond 515(Apollo 20) after Congress cut NASA’s FY1968 Fiscal budget request by two thirds. Those cuts were in response to several events not the least of which was the Apollo I accident and the Vietnam War. NASA had considered the shutdown only temporary and would resume after successful lunar missions. The engine production lines remained viable until 1970. True, Johnson did not give NASA the strong support he had earlier in the program, but he still supported NASA’s overall goals. NASA’s other Saturn V production lines continued through to 1970. After Nixon took office, he authorized the Space Task Group chaired by Spiro T. Agnew which eventually recommended an ambitious post-Apollo program with a considerable budget. Nixon’s reponse was to reject those recommendations and to order NASA’s funding drastically cut thus effectively killing post-Apollo plans.

    So to suggest that President Johnson was responsible for the end of the Apollo program is at best disengenuous and at worst downright revisionist. Here are some links for you to look at:

    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1976NASSP4403…..A/0000001.000.html

    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4214/ch11-6.html

    Also, This New Ocean by William E. Burrows is an excellent book which covers the NASA program.

    Do you think that I, or anyone, find such “argumentation” persuasive (as opposed to juvenile)?

    Coming from you, this means absolutely nothing. I am under no illusions of ever convincing you of anything. My reponse is mainly for those who have a more open mind. While I doubt juveniles would understand my ‘The Onion’ reference, I am sure many adults would comprehend the reference and some would even appreciate the humor.

  • @ Al

    I am sorry I have been trying to provide some links and this site has blocked those comments. I am not trying be insulting, just fed with those who keep trying to claim that it was President Johnson who killed the Apollo program. This is about comparable to the Moon landing “hoax” nonsense. And apparently NASA archives, Harvard archives, and William E. Burrows agree with me.

  • While I doubt juveniles would understand my ‘The Onion’ reference, I am sure many adults would comprehend the reference and some would even appreciate the humor.

    I understand the reference quite well. I often link to it on my blog. I just find it a juvenile reference in this discussion.

    Go argue with Alan Wasser (devoted Democrat):

    Significantly, space funding increased every year, in both the US and USSR, until the passage of the treaty in 1967, and then decreased thereafter. LBJ barely managed to preserve the Moon landing itself, but he effectively killed all the wonderful things that were planned to follow it. Just as in Antarctica, the prohibition on claiming land succeeded in stopping serious development in its tracks. For 38 years, space development and particularly the technology to allow humans to travel to and from the Moon and Mars safely, reliably and affordably, has gotten lip service but very little serious advancement.

  • After Nixon took office, he authorized the Space Task Group chaired by Spiro T. Agnew which eventually recommended an ambitious post-Apollo program with a considerable budget. Nixon’s reponse was to reject those recommendations and to order NASA’s funding drastically cut thus effectively killing post-Apollo plans.

    Really? That was Nixon’s response? The Congress (heavily Democrat at that time) has nothing to do with budgets? And he did it in the face of overwhelming public support for the Agnew proposal?

    Again, go back and read some space history. And learn how about separation of powers, while you’re at it.

  • @Rand Simberg

    David Wasser column is just one interpretation of the events in 1967. The documents he cited only revealed that there was a deep split within his government about the future of NASA which is not surprising. This is the same year of the Apollo I accident and rising protests over the Vietnam war and its costs along with the costs of the Great Society programs. A number of Congressmen were opposed to NASA and gained a stronger hand so even if President Johnson had given a strong endorsement to NASA that year, Congress would have slashed NASA’s funding anyway which is exactly what happened. But Wasser makes quite a leap of logic by stating President Johnson killed the Apollo program. A number of historians and space buffs would certainly disagree with that assertion. What is clear and what is relevant was that the Space Task Group under Nixon proposed major post-Apollo programs which Nixon rejected in no uncertain terms even after the success of lunar missions.

  • A number of historians and space buffs would certainly disagree with that assertion.

    Only partisan ones.

    What is clear and what is relevant was that the Space Task Group under Nixon proposed major post-Apollo programs which Nixon rejected in no uncertain terms even after the success of lunar missions.

    He could read polls as well as anyone else. Agnew was pretty much laughed off the stage when he announced them. And that has nothing to do with ending Apollo. That happened under Johnson, your historical revisionism aside.

  • @Rand Simberg

    He could read polls as well as anyone else.

    President Nixon cared about polls? That statement is hilarious.

    Go argue with Alan Wasser (devoted Democrat):

    The Congress (heavily Democrat at that time) has nothing to do with budgets?

    For someone who has made the claim of nonpartisanship, you have gone out of your way to consistently identify the political allegiances of people you mention in your posts. You continue insinuate politics into every discussion. Not once in any of the above post did I bring up anyone’s politics and not once did I assert that your claim was Republican smear tactic. Yes, there were Democrats opposed to NASA, Walter Mondale being chief among them. However, NASA was not partisan issue. The agency enjoyed strong bipartisan support. President Johnson may have prioritized and decided to defend his Great Society programs and the Vietnam War in the budget battles over that of NASA. He decided to fight the battles he could win, but that does mean he ordered an end to the Apollo program. David Wasser could not produce a single memo or executive order from Johnson’s WH office. All the memos he cited were from various Cabinet members in a government clearly divided in its support for NASA. The main fight seem to be between DOD and NASA which is hardly surprising.

    I dispute this claim that you make because I have read extensively about NASA’s history. You are the one making an extraordinary claim so the burden of proof to back up such claim with extraordinary evidence is upon you. Yet you have only cited one link to David Wasser’s article who argument is based tenuous ambiguous evidence. One fact that I have read consistently in virtually every history that I read about the Apollo program is that Nixon was primarily responsible for ending NASA’s post-Apollo program. Some of which I included in the links provided in above posts.

  • I point out that the Congress was Democrat as a way of showing that Nixon wasn’t solely(or even at all) responsible for NASA budgets.

    One fact that I have read consistently in virtually every history that I read about the Apollo program is that Nixon was primarily responsible for ending NASA’s post-Apollo program.

    That was never in dispute, so I’m not sure what your point is. As I said, Nixon’s sins were many, including on the space program. What was in dispute was who ended the Apollo program. It was Lyndon Johnson.

    My only point was that Johnson was not much more of a big booster of space than any other president was (including Kennedy). There has never been a huge supporter of space, of either party, in the White House, though Johnson and Reagan probably come closest. Disinterest in space has been bi-partisan forever.

  • And I don’t know why you continue to call Alan Wasser “David Wasser.” It makes me wonder how carefully you read what he wrote.

  • @Rand Simberg

    My apologies Rand I got fixated on typing ‘David’ for some reason even though I knew his name was Alan Wasser. And yes I did read his column. And I found several claims he makes rather wanting. For instance in this excerpt:

    Because of that lack of intelligence, the administration had to assume that, if it cut space spending to pay for Vietnam, it might well lose the Space Race. The question became how to keep the other side from using that victory to gain control of space. So Johnson offered the Soviets a deal for mutual renunciation of the prizes to be won: no nuclear weapons in space, and neither country claims ownership of the Moon, regardless of which nation gets there first. As the New York Times pointed out on May 8th, “the treaty sought by the United States would be similar to the one pertaining to Antarctica” which had effectively stopped all development there.

    LBJ must have been pleasantly surprised when the Soviets accepted, since he didn’t realize they too were now worried about the consequences of losing the race to the Moon. LBJ had no idea of the significance of the death of Korolev—if, indeed he’d ever heard the name—but Khrushchev certainly understood, and unlike the US, the USSR could easily keep tabs on how their opposition was doing so they knew the US was doing better than they were.

    The result was the “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies” (referred to simply as the Outer Space Treaty), negotiated directly with the Kremlin by Johnson’s personal representative, former Supreme Court Justice and UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg, and only later shown to the UN in its final form to be ratified by other nations.

    This is a rather strange interpretation. In the 1960s, the US was engaged in developing and operating a spy satellite program the first of which was Keyhole utilizing Corona and Zenit satellites. The real gist of the Outer Space Treaty was that it formally recognized the right to operate military satellites in space since no nation could claim boundary rigths in space. Such overflights had been informally recognized with the launch of the Sputnik. Whether that was a blunder on the part of the Soviet Union is debatable. Thus, of course, Johnson was pleasantly surprised that the Soviet Union would be agreeable to making the orbiting spy satellites legal. It gave the US a hell of advantage in monitoring Soviet Union’s military capabilities. As I have mentioned before, the Apollo 1 accident and the Vietnam War had far greater impact on the space program than this treaty did.

    Obama is shaping up to be a weak advocate of Nasa, just as Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter and Nixon before him.

    And Johnson (who ended the Apollo program) before him.

    This was your original post that I was responding to Rand. Now, you appear to be backing away from your comment. Hmmm…

  • The real gist of the Outer Space Treaty was that it formally recognized the right to operate military satellites in space since no nation could claim boundary rigths in space. Such overflights had been informally recognized with the launch of the Sputnik.

    No, the real “gist” of the OST was that it shut down a race for resources and sovereignty in space (there was concern among State Department bureaucrats over a costly space race to claim extraterrestrial property, as occurred half a millennium before in the New World –they wanted to shut it down before it got really expensive). It worked all too well, as Wasser points out. The recognition of overflight rights was clearly a benefit, and one of the reasons that many argue not to upset that apple cart, but as you note, that became effectively moot after Sputnik (one of the reasons that the Eisenhower administration was complacent, and didn’t realize the potential public outcry and blowback).

    Now, you appear to be backing away from your comment. Hmmm…

    No, I’m not. I back away from nothing.

    Johnson ended the Apollo program. Nixon ended the post-Apollo program. And started the Shuttle program.

    Whether that’s a sin or a mitzvah is for history to judge.

  • richardb

    “Johnson ended the Apollo program. Nixon ended the post-Apollo program. And started the Shuttle program.”

    So who ended the Shuttle era? Bush or Obama? Have we entered a post-
    Shuttle era? How about post-Partisan era?

  • Bush initiated the end of the Shuttle era. Obama will complete it. We are almost in the post-Shuttle era.

  • common sense

    Public’s eventual lack of interest in any of those eras initiated their respective ends. Or there would have been an outcry. But I can’t hear it, can you?

  • Al Fansome

    Rand,

    I understand the point you are trying to make, but I think you are overstating it.

    Example:

    As I said, Nixon’s sins were many, including on the space program. What was in dispute was who ended the Apollo program. It was Lyndon Johnson.

    I have to disagree with you on this, and agree with Gary. Language is important.

    Lyndon Johnson did not “end” the Apollo program. Yes, Lyndon Johnson bowed to political and budgetary realities, and started the “beginning of the end” of the Apollo program (which is not the same as “ended”). The “end” came during the Nixon administration (with the approval and support of a Democratic Congress).

    While you (and Alan Wasser) are correct that the OST stopped a race for sovereignty in space, and potential resources, since sovereignty was never the express purpose of Apollo, the OST is not the root “cause” for the end of the Apollo. Correlation does not equal causation.

    I agree that if the OST had never been signed, that Apollo conceivably could have continued.

    But the root cause for the end of Apollo is that it had achieved its “real” goals (as an instrument of soft power in the cold war), our nation had a growing budget deficit, AND the perceived value of space resources (by our national leaders) was low enough (and the cost of how NASA conducts its operations high enough) that no elected leader could justify (with a straight face) the large federal investment required to “establish sovereignty and acquire the resources”.

    The key problem was that our “space effort” was not designed, from the bottom up, to be “affordable”. It was rational to shut down an “unaffordable program” after it had achieve its national security goals.

    It is irrational to assert that you can take an “unaffordable” system, and a set of values and processes that are not designed to be “affordable”, and just redirect those values and processes to cost-effectively utilizing space resources. Anybody doing the economic analysis at the time (in the mid 60s) would realize that the numbers did not add up.

    I assert that if it had been economically rational to “establish sovereignty” using the then existing (or predictable) technology, that the OST would not have been signed in its current form.

    Thus, Wasser’s line of argument is incorrect.

    On the subject of “sins”, Nixon tasking a government agency with building a “low-cost reusable space transportation system” that was supposed to be a “space truck”, is at the top of my list.

    FWIW,

    – Al

  • While I pointed to the Wasser link, I wasn’t necessarily agreeing with everything that Alan wrote. I agree that the OST did not kill Apollo (though it was bad for other reasons). Vietnam and The Great Society did. Apollo was too expensive a system in too constrained a federal budget environment. And Constellation is very likely to share its fate, for exactly the same reasons.

  • I should add that as Johnson made the decision to end the Apollo program, George Bush did so for the Shuttle program. The fact that the program endured beyond his presidency, to be actually shut down by his successor, doesn’t change that.

  • […] Space Politics Cautions about Bolden and Garver Posted by root 10 minutes ago (http://www.spacepolitics.com) Of why they are a far more essential publication than those who blindly joint the chorus by nasa own estimates the costs of constellation through first human lunar landing your comment name required e mail required not published powered by wordpress and f Discuss  |  Bury |  News | Space Politics Cautions about Bolden and Garver […]

Leave a Reply to Gary Miles Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>