Those who attended yesterday’s AIAA/WIA joint luncheon expecting the speaker, NASA administrator Charles Bolden, to make major announcements about the future direction of the agency came away disappointed. “I’m not going to talk about Augustine,” he said early in his speech, referring to the Augustine committee and its final report released in October. “If you came to hear about Augustine, you can leave now.”
Instead, much of his speech focused on some other issues that he deemed important for the agency: education, NASA’s workforce, and technology development. On the last point, he said NASA has done “OK” historically, but could improve. “We need to change our mindset and the way we work together to have our people start thinking of NASA not just as a collection of incredible missions but as a developer of the innovative technology that helps drive our nation’s economy,” he said. That means, he said, working across mission directorates as well as outside the agency with industry and academia.
“Our missions and programs in human spaceflight, in aeronautics, and in science make us important and relevant,” he said. “We need to do a better job of explaining who we are, what we do, and the important of our missions to our stakeholders and the public, but that’s the subject for another luncheon talk.”
While Bolden didn’t talk about the Augustine committee’s work, he did drop hints that significant change in one manner or another was coming to the agency. “We’re going to be fightin’ and fussin’ over the coming year. Some of you are not going to like me because were not going to do the same kinds of things we’ve always done. We can’t. We can’t do that and survive,” he warned. “We cannot continue to operate the way we have. Things have got to change.”
One area of change that Bolden did say was coming was greater international cooperation. “That’s what the president wants to do, and he didn’t have to tell me that, because that’s what I’ve been doing all my life,” he said, noting that be believes that the two organizations who do more for diplomacy than anyone else are the armed forces and NASA. That international cooperation, he added, would include “non-traditional partners”, such as China. “There are not a lot of things I can tell you with certainty, but I can tell you that; he said do that,” Bolden said, referring to the president. Later, in a brief Q&A session, he added about working with the Chinese, “I’d rather work with them than fight them.”
Bolden also addresses the subject of ITAR reform during the Q&A, praising the efforts by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to push for reform. “The leader in our country right now in trying to work ITAR initiatives and trying to revamp it is the secretary of defense,” Bolden said. He credited “NASA’s persistent emphasis” on ITAR for winning over support for reform elsewhere in government.
“non-traditional partners†is an Orwellian way of saying enemies of the United States. This will not end well.
@Mark
Let’s get real here. We’re not talking about national security and defense. This is NASA human spaceflight, i.e., “technotainment.” I would be concerned too if the Administration was pushing for more integration between the US and PRC in the military arena, but it’s not. As many of us have pointed out over the years, DOD has made quite certain that the activities of NASA have no impact on national security.
“education, NASA’s workforce, and technology development.” “greater international cooperation”
So where does space fit in? You know, the third letter in NASA?
Note to Major Tom – I am being sarcastic in the sentence above.
Seriously though we have a Department of Education for education, A Department of Labor for workforce development, the national laboratories that DOE runs and DARPA that DOD runs for technology development and the State Department for foreign aid. NASA focus should be on exploring space and expanding humanity’s presence into it, not doing the job of other government agencies. If it inspires kids to see astronauts walk in space or on the Moon/Mars fine, but that is not supported to be NASA’s job and that function is no where in NASA’s charter
I have a feeling the blogsphere will be crying soon for the good old days when Griffin was Administrator. At least he was focused on space not social or foreign policy issues.
Correction: but that is not supposed to be NASA’s job. (I hate JAVA spell check).
““non-traditional partners†is an Orwellian way of saying enemies of the United States. This will not end well.”
Well, considering no ‘enemies if the US’ are currently proposing major efforts in spaceflight, I’m not that worried. China, while not exactly Canada or the UK on the list of nations with good US relations, is also far from an enemy. Their international stances have also moved further and further toward our own over the past. Beyond that, their space tech is pretty comparable to our own, so while they may learn a thing or two about rockets (read ICBM’s for the worried) from us, the gains would likely be pretty minor. (note:i’m actually not a big fan of China, but I don’t really see them as an active enemy)
Plus, we did some major space cooperation with the USSR for several decades when they weren’t just AN enemy of the US, they were THE enemy of the US. Short of Nazi germany and Hirohito’s Japan, a greater enemy the US has never had. Proceed with caution on China, sure, but let’s not panic.
Now Iran is a rising space power, and I’d be more cautuious about them, for sure. They are, however, a nascient power not likely to play a credited role in the space scene for at least another 5 years or so, and will likely be a minor space power for at least another decade.
“‘non-traditional partners’ is an Orwellian way of saying enemies of the United States. This will not end well.”
Yes, engaging the United States largest debtor, emerging regional Asian superpowers, and the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter in activities that align their interests with ours is a bad idea.
Yes, using admission to international civil space partnerships as a quid pro quo for greater transparency regarding China’s national security space activities is a bad thing.
Yes, not having a backup to the Soyuz for ISS crew transport while the overrunning Ares I and underfunded commercial crew debacle plays out over the next decade is a bad idea.
FWIW…
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ December 10th, 2009 at 6:36 am
“non-traditional partners†is an Orwellian way of saying enemies of the United States. This will not end well…
Honestly Mark dont you ever tire of seeing one “danger after another” gathering near our shores from really trivial things?
Do you have to roll everything up in an extreme designed to push responses to the limit? you are reminding me more and more of “General Turgidson” in Dr. Strangelove “they might see the big board”
I assume you are worried about the “Reds” aka the PRC.
do you really think that a trip (assuming this is what happens) to the ISS for their Soyuz nockoff is going to be anywhere near as damaging to our national security as say the trillions of dollars that the last administration (and to be fair, this one) seem to be borrowing from the PRC?
Or the fact that with mostly the right wing cheering job after job has been allowed to be exported from the US to the PRC so that the “wealthy” the folks the GOP seems to be on Custer’s last stand to protect can be more wealthy?
It seems unlikely that in this administration (at least) the PRC is going to 1) ride the shuttle (wow they might get a peak at technology that we are retiring) or 2) Ares (wow they might get a peak at technology that will be hopelessly obsolete by the time it finally staggers off the design board into hardware…assuming it continues.
What “might” happen is that they can take their Soyuz knockoff, dock at the Russian port and see “ISS”…oddly enough it will probably take them less effort to do all this, then your favorite people at NASA are going to make Musk and his group jump through to get close to the station.
I cannot for the life of me see that as a greater peril then the trillions upon trillions of dollars that we are either borrowing from the PRC or exporting in terms of American jobs and private cash there to buy goods that are manufactured there so folks like Walmart can make a lot of money for the top 1 percent.
comeon try and think these things through
Robert G. Oler
“This will not end well”
Hmm Not end well like how? Could it be that China will own most our industrial assets? Could it be that China if not cooperating with the US will seek cooperation elsewhere (e.g. their old friends from Russia, Iran, etc)? Could it be China will offer seats on Shenzou at WalMart discounted prices?
I think you’re right, we should not cooperate with China: They might be of help to our recovery. We should just allienate them. At least we would have a new Cold War of some sort where China will run the US in bankruptcy in another out of control defense spending (it reminds me of something past here). But hey we’d have great weapons! Only China will own the bank so we won’t be able to use them in any way.
Oh well…
“Note to Major Tom – I am being sarcastic in the sentence above.”
How old are you? Ten?
Grow up.
“NASA [sic] focus should be on exploring space and expanding humanity’s presence into it, not doing the job of other government agencies.”
Civil space activities are a means to policy ends (knowledge generation, economic growth, security, etc.). They are not ends unto themselves.
Government space exploration has to be tied one or more government roles. If we can’t identify a government role, taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be spent on it. Exploring anything or expanding human presence anywhere — just for the sake of exploring or expanding — should be a privately funded activity, not a government activity. We have to justify why it’s important for taxpayers to spend national resources on government space exploration.
“If it inspires kids to see astronauts walk in space or on the Moon/Mars fine, but that is not supported to be NASA’s job and that function is no where in NASA’s charter”
I don’t disagree that attracting youth towards STEM education and careers is not an adequate justification for the the civil human space flight program. If that was the goal, then the $10 billion that U.S. taxpayers spend on human space flight every year would be better directed to education grants.
But we still have to provide the taxpayer with a reason for spending $100-odd billion on human space flight over the next ten years. What is a government human space flight program going to deliver in terms of policy ends (knowledge generation, economic growth, security, etc.) over the next decade that is worth that amount of resources?
FWIW…
“I have a feeling the blogsphere will be crying soon for the good old days when Griffin was Administrator. ”
Hmmm. Soon like when? It looks to me he’s been away for some time now and nobody’s crying, save for you.
“At least he was focused on space not social or foreign policy issues.”
You don’t know what you’re talking about, sorry. Ares vehicles were used to sustain the solid rocket motor workforce: A social program, not technological. See p. 19 of http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2009/Full/10dec/Hearing_Charter.pdf
“he added about working with the Chinese, “I’d rather work with them than fight them.—
It’s funny and sad that most people who want to “fight” never ever go to fight and seldom have fighting experience while those who do have combat experience would rather not fight…
Oh well…
@Major Tom
Given you track record of taking sarcastic statements as real one I thought its necessary to label it for you.
Example 1: Mark Whittington makes a joking comment about the moon crashing to earth and you go into a long post on how that is impossible and anyone think about it is too stupid to comment on space policy.
Example 2: Common Sense makes a sarcastic statement on the HSF budget being used for STEM and you go into a long post on that not being what Bolden stated.
So I though I would be proactive and label my sarcasm since you don’t see to recognize what it is. But I see now that you probably do but are just using as an excuse to continue to your practice of belittling anyone that doesn’t agreed with your narrow view of space policy.
Why don’t you take a break and let the rest of us focus on the topic instead of responding to your constant attacks on our posts.
@Common Sense
Actually I was a fan of O’Keefe as I think its a mistake to put someone with an engineering background in charge of NASA. That should be the qualification for the number 2 job. The Administrator doesn’t need a technical background. What they need is to know their way around Washington and how to work the Congress/President for funding. That is what made Webb, a lawyer, such a great administrator. The number 2 job should be to tell the Administrator how much is needed to get the job done. That is what his number 2, Dryden, did.
That is why if I had been picking a new administrator I would have reversed the current order giving Lori Graver the job and making Bolden number 2.
“Example 2: Common Sense makes a sarcastic statement on the HSF budget being used for STEM and you go into a long post on that not being what Bolden stated.”
Thanks for pointing out the other poster’s correction a second time. You’re really advancing the discussion.
“Why don’t you take a break and let the rest of us focus on the topic instead of responding to your constant attacks on our posts.”
I’m not the one who just wrote a multi-paragraph post devoid of any space policy discussion to attack another poster on the subject of sarcasm.
Pot, kettle, black, and all that.
FWIW…
@Anon2:
Hmm. I have to say I am perplexed. I thought you liked Griffin but your last post says otherwise and makes a lot more sense, in my view… At least when it comes to the Admin job.
Oh well…
In thinking about the relationship between the US and China, consider the following saying of recent currency:
If you owe the bank a little money, it’s your problem. If you owe the bank a lot of money, it’s their problem.
Also consider Ambrose Bierce’s definition from the Devil’s Dictionary:
ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other’s pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third.
Hmmm …
“If you owe the bank a little money, it’s your problem. If you owe the bank a lot of money, it’s their problem.”
True to some extent but banks have these funny things about foreclosure, repossession, seizing of assets etc…
If the bank can afford to foreclose on you, you don’t owe them enough.
“Lori Graver the job and making Bolden number 2″
OMG Graver is not a Webb not even remotely close.
“We’re going to be fightin’ and fussin’ over the coming year. Some of you are not going to like me because were not going to do the same kinds of things we’ve always done. We can’t. We can’t do that and survive,†he warned. “We cannot continue to operate the way we have. Things have got to change.â€
Thank god. Its about time we figure out what has been done wrong and start doing things right.
I hope he does not rely too strongly on his existing management. These are the folks who got us into the trouble we are in over the last 15 years. Most of them did just about everything wrong.
Zero base management and start anew.
@Enon
I agree, except it’s been longer than 15 years. NASA has been declining since NASA management went on the defensive after Apollo. They’ve been defending their remaining rice bowls for 40 years, an entire generation. As one original Apollo hand used to say, “After Apollo, some quit and left. Others quit and stayed.”
NASA has been declining since NASA management went on the defensive after Apollo. They’ve been defending their remaining rice bowls for 40 years, an entire generation. As one original Apollo hand used to say, “After Apollo, some quit and left. Others quit and stayed.â€
this is actually about the best comment on this thread.
The problem with the space agency in general and human spaceflight in specific is that like most of the federal government spending, less and less is actually pulling its weight in terms of actually doing things for The Republic and making The Republic a better place to be.
It is fairly clear to me that most people who argue for human spaceflight, in one way or another have no real clue how bad things are in The Republic and how mismatched government spending has become over the last 20 years and really out of sync on the last oh 8 or so.
(or alternatively I am screwed up and I would be pleased to be that way).
The irony of it is that we have spent over 100 billion dollars in building ISS and now few in the space advocacy community really care to try and figure out some way for the US to get its money’s worth from it. Instead they are all babbling about “enemies” or the next project or something like that…things that have no relevance to a Republic that is slowly but surely watching its middle class vanish, because there are less and less well paying middle class jobs.
Kind of weird
Robert G. Oler
Re: education as Bolden’s priority for NASA: Bolden is just following orders. Obama told him the most important thing Obama wanted from NASA/Bolden is for Obama’s daughters to be excited about math and science. General Bolden is a good soldier, so that’s what he’s gonna do.
Re: O’Keefe. You’ve got to be kidding. O’Keefe was incapable of making decisions with serious consequences. The life or death decision of whether to service Hubble one more time or not had the man utterly paralyzed.
The rumour is that a US astronaut would fly on Shenzhou
[…] administrator Charles Bolden’s comments earlier this week that greater international cooperation would be a priority for NASA in the near future has attracted some debate. To learn more about potential advantages of obstacles […]
Shuttle was developed and flying in record time and budget; about $1 billion a year between 73 and 81. That was NASA’s last well managed human space effort.
When NASA turned over ‘operation’ of the Shuttle to former NASA managers in STSOC, in 86, they were turning over the operation to what was supposed to be a commercial, cost cutting,efficiency effort, and instead, STSOC and its successors milked the government for everything they could and the NASA management helped them do it.
Space Station has cost $100 billion and so far 25 years, to build a system that operates in a relatively benign environment and is actually pretty simple by comparison with a Shuttle or Apollo. Virtually all of the complicated pieces were built by the internationals supposedly at no expense to the US taxpayer. The management sucked everything they could from the program, promoting their cronies along the way.
International cooperation is great as long as we use it to maintain US skills and technology base. The management of ISS used it as a crutch; by shuffling all hardware development off the the internationals they killed US capabilities in the name of saving money. But they kept taking the money and killed the US technology base at the same time.
Most of those same managers who came out of Shuttle, ISS and mission operations are now in charge of Constellation, and they seemed to be under the impression that another multi-hundred billion dollar, multi-decadal operation is the way to go.
Suck as much of the taxpayer’s dollars, for as long as you can; that seems to be NASA’s modus operandi.
The space program is in real need of serious change.
I am not and was never a big Obama supporter, but I am hoping that he and Gen Bolden can bring some change we can believe in, in the space program. We need it. The program needs it.
Enon…nicely said…one of the better post on this board
Robert G. Oler
Rob Coppinger wrote @ December 11th, 2009 at 5:52 am
The rumour is that a US astronaut would fly on Shenzhou..
if that is it, then “it” is not very inventive…
Robert G. Oler
Education is a good thing for NASA and the nation. But its only useful if NASA would actually do something meaningful that would reach a significant portion of the school population.
The best time to get the kids indoctrinated is age 10-14. Within 4-8 years they become voters. But NASA’s education efforts are schizophrenic. Except for some small localized efforts, they mistake public affairs for education.
NASA needs to focus the effort on developing some curriculum content that it makes sense for mainstream teachers to use in particular subjects, in particular grades, and then develop the reinforcement for these subjects over the next couple of years.
It does not require a lot of money. It requires a strategy and a coordination of the implementation with a few carefully selected partners to make sure the content is useful and gets into the schools.
“The best time to get the kids indoctrinated is age 10-14″
Why would you advocate ‘indoctrination’? The problem we have right now is that for the last thirty years or so our children have been indoctinated with religious, corporate media and military and violence glorification CRAP from a very early age, and what you see is what you get. It’s not a pretty sight.
What we want are ‘critical thinkers’, and that involves the exact opposite, the antithesis of ‘indoctrination’. That last time we had that is in the post sputnik educational era of the early sixties, and it started with the new math and simple machines and a lot of history of science in the first and second grades, continuing all through elementary school, producing critical thinkers at a very early age. That gave us Apollo, the space shuttle and the modern computer and internet age of instantly available knowledge.
Sorry, I don’t drink your koolaide, I don’t buy your dogma and I don’t believe a word of what you say.
oh dear a once great country having to have help from China, India etc.
Except that China and India don’t need American help.
Rather than a half baked manned spaceflight programme, its better to cancel everything and ride on Chinese spacecraft and Indian rockets.
Thats the cheapest thing to do.
If America was not wasting billions every year on wars (you have not learnt from Vietnam), then maybe you could keep up with the Chinese and Indians
how once great countries fall eventually
“If America was not wasting billions every year on wars (you have not learnt from Vietnam), then maybe you could keep up with the Chinese and Indians how once great countries fall eventually”
Funny thing about that statement is that both India and China were ‘once great countries’ that fell. China rose and fell from prominence and influence several times and is likely to do it again. That is the habit of empires and the cycle of history. And yet China is once again a world power after 5,000 years of history. Seems a touch counter to your argument, no? As for riding their rockets, China would be an option, but India’s planned capsule is far from a high-tech cutting edge replacement. The new Indian manned capsule is little more than a sardine can. While I’m no huge Orion fan, it far outclasses the Indian option even with it’s problems and delays.
“What we want are ‘critical thinkers’, and that involves the exact opposite, the antithesis of ‘indoctrination’. That last time we had that is in the post sputnik educational era of the early sixties, and it started with the new math and simple machines and a lot of history of science in the first and second grades, continuing all through elementary school, producing critical thinkers at a very early age. That gave us Apollo, the space shuttle and the modern computer and internet age of instantly available knowledge.
Sorry, I don’t drink your koolaide, I don’t buy your dogma and I don’t believe a word of what you say.”
Pick up an anthropology text sometime. What you describe is practically the word for word definition of indoctrination or socialization. Granted it is indoctrination as ‘critical thinkers’ but indoctrination nontheless. A history text may help as well as if you actually look at that period in history it was also the age of McCarthyism and the red scare. A finer example of indoctrination there has seldom been in American history. I say as an American that it’s rather odd that we imagine ourselves to be somehow ‘independant thinkers’ and above cultural influence and propaganda. We are the same flawed hairless apes as the rest of our kin across the big pond, rockets or not. Our culture and society provides the environment for the intelligence we posess, but it is as much a liability as it is a benefit.
James Silver may be drinking the orange koolaid, but all you’re advocating is that we switch to strawberry.
Aremis
PS “New Math”, just like “Whole Word English”, has been widely discredited as an utter failure and a waste of our educational resources. It’s probably best you not bring that up as an example of educational success.