Congress, NASA

Rep. Lamar Smith calls for investigation of “politicization” of NASA

Late Thursday the office of Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) issued a press release announcing that the congressman was calling for an investigation by NASA’s inspector general (IG) into the “politicization” of NASA. Smith cites an internal NASA report claiming to find evidence that “Obama Administration political appointees ‘focus on Democratic political goals, not national goals,’ creating a dysfunctional and hostile work environment for NASA’s career civil servants.”

The release is vague about any specific problems that report uncovered even as Smith called for the NASA IG to investigate any improper or illegal action. “I am calling for an investigation to see if any improper actions have been taken to steer agency funding and contracts, circumvent the civil service hiring process, or if other mismanagement of agency resources has occurred to benefit ‘Democratic political goals,'” Smith said in the statement.

The letter that Smith sent to NASA IG Paul K. Martin, dated Wednesday, does offer some more details. In the letter, Smith mentions a report prepared by 4-D Systems, one that apparently involved interviewing NASA senior civil servant managers about the agency leadership. The executive summary of that report, provided to Rep. Smith’s office on September 22 (more than two months after Smith requested it at a House Science Committee hearing), “provided some disturbing insights about a dysfunctional and hostile work environment created by Obama Administration political appointees toward NASA’s career civil servants,” Smith states in the letter. He specifically cites “Politicos’ focus on Democratic political goals, not national goals” and a lack of trust from and communication with agency leadership: “Two groups, political and career that communicate to themselves.”

Smith asks Martin to assign the case to a “senior career investigator” who can work independently “without any interference from Obama Administration political appointees” and that the investigation be completed within four months.

71 comments to Rep. Lamar Smith calls for investigation of “politicization” of NASA

  • Rhyolite

    I don’t see a single concrete accusation in this. Who did what, when, and why was it wrong? What are the names, dates and actions? Without specifics, this looks like nothing more than a ‘politicized’ fishing expedition.

  • NASA Fan

    Us vs. Them is wide spread in any large organization. It matters not that it’s between politico’s and career civil servants.

    This is a wide spread phenomena in any large organization at all levels.

    Yawn…………

  • Robert G. Oler

    goofy RGO

  • Oh, this is just too funny.

    Hopefully someone asks the NASA IG to investigate the political interference by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and the rest of the Texas Republican delegation in Congress.

  • Bennett

    I demand that windy spend however much time is required to write over-the-top hyperbolic essays decrying the obvious socialist and NASA-wrecking communistic actions employed by the current administration’s appointees at NASA aimed at killing NASA-based HSF so that we become a technology-poor satellite of China, and, dammit, let’s crucify the bastards!

    Oh, sorry, that must have been a bad piece of sausage.

  • josh

    if anything, the agency was politicized under bush.

  • Of all the issues with NASA, he chooses this one based on no specific information? Sheesh.

  • Coastal Ron

    So Rep. Lamar Smith is alleging the same type of thing that Bush was caught doing with the Justice Department?

    Whatever – as long as he gives NASA more money to pay for the investigation…

  • vulture4

    What an incredible piece of baloney.

    But the truth is even stranger and I would not have believed it had I not seen it with my own eyes, and heard it from more than one source. The politicization that exists is primarily in the substantial fraction of NASA employees who are convinced that the only reason NASA has problems is that “Obama and the unions” are trying to destroy the space program by giving money to SpaceX.

    When asked why the President would attempt to destroy a federal program, they say that it is because he knows they are Republicans. When confronted with the fact that Obama attempted to increase the NASA budget in a time of budget cuts, and that commercial spaceflight more closely follows Republican ideals of competition than the monolithic Constellation/SLS/Orion program, and that Commercial has at least a chance of leading to a profitable industry, and that SpaceX is not even unionized, they consider it all an elaborate subterfuge.

    I would simply ask that instead of talking and acting in secret, they speak up and explain their points of view, politely but honestly and completely. Unless people are willing to discuss how they really feel, it isn’t possible to find resolution, reach a compromise and re-establish NASA as an effective organization.

  • Lets extend that investigation back into the Bush era…

  • SpaceColonizer

    Rep. Lamar Smith… I would like to congratulate you. Never have I seen such a perfect example of someone setting a bomb and waiting for it to blow up in their face.

    I had myself a good laugh when I first heard about this earlier today. Would love to see this report come back and point out that the only politicization going on at NASA is the bipartisan pork mandated by Congress called SLS, a rocket that NASA has no need for. Or better yet: Democratic Senator Bill Nelson pretty much pushed that legislation himself… oh boy, this is going to be good.

  • DCSCA

    Maybe someone should just buy this attention-seeking GOP Congress-critter a copy of Andy Chakin’s book, ‘A Man On The Moon’ so he can read up on NASA and discover it has been a ‘politicized’ organization since it’s ‘official’ inception in ’58- if not before.

  • Fred Willett

    Perhaps the good congresscritter could investigate why silly programs like SLS get proposed while sensible options like
    http://www.transterrestrial.com/papers/Bienhoff_AIAASpace2011.pdf
    get ignored.
    Clearly people who love spending money for the sake of it are stacking the deck. Is this want he’s complaining about?
    Oh, sorry, he’s complaing about people who DON’T want to waste money?????

  • vulture4 wrote:

    The politicization that exists is primarily in the substantial fraction of NASA employees who are convinced that the only reason NASA has problems is that “Obama and the unions” are trying to destroy the space program by giving money to SpaceX.

    My experience here in the Space Coast is that the blame for Obama comes from the space worker unions. The unions want the recent status quo, where they were paid double their neighbors to polish the chrome for life.

    So far as I know, SpaceX is not unionized, and that’s what they’re afraid of — a competitive wage for jobs actually required.

    In fact, in early 2010 after the Administration proposed cancelling Constellation, they were driving around here in their oversized pickups with signs that read, “SAVE SPACE — SUPPORT UNIONS.”

    One of those nonsensical signs is still on the union board at work.

  • amightywind

    It wasn’t that long ago when a NASA administrator. Obama, Bolden, Garver, and Holdren changed all that. NASA has now become a hostage to the President’s leftist agenda and has brought on board its special interests, like Solyndra Space. That agenda has achieved the same result at NASA as it has throughout this once great land, stagnation.

  • common sense

    @ amightywind wrote @ October 7th, 2011 at 8:27 am

    I am afraid this is not very good. Sen. Smith is out-amightywinding you. I did not think it possible but…

    “this once great land”

    Are you saying this land (the USA I assume) no longer is great? Tss, tss, tss. Bad amightywind. Not very patriotic…

  • amightywind

    It wasn’t that long ago when a NASA administrator.

    Sorry for the fragment. I am busy creating shareholder value today and I was in haste when I wrote it. I meant to say: it wasn’t that long ago when a NASA administrator’s term routinely spanned administrations.

    Are you saying this land (the USA I assume) no longer is great? Tss, tss, tss. Bad amightywind. Not very patriotic…

    Bill Parcells once said, “you are what you are”, when asked to explain his team’s disappointing results. Recovery starts with realism.

    I am afraid this is not very good. Sen. Smith is out-amightywinding you. I did not think it possible but…

    I don’t mind at all. I wish more congressmen would spread my important message.

  • It might be best for Rep. Lamar Smith to get a little more specific about these “disturbing insights about a dysfunctional and hostile work environment created by Obama Administration political appointees toward NASA’s career civil servants.”

    Otherwise, I mostly just focus on the part where “career civil servants” want to preserve their job security.

    Don’t we all.

  • I meant to say: it wasn’t that long ago when a NASA administrator’s term routinely spanned administrations.

    More historical ignorance from abreakingwind.

    That has never been the case.

  • If there’s any problem of politicization it’s that Griffin is using full steam to undercut reform at NASA in any way possible, as part of his campaign for “Restoration” as Emperor (oops, I mean Administrator). He is aided by this by his leftover top loyalists at the Agency. Charlie Bolden should have dumped them; instead he dumped virtually none of them.

  • amightywind

    More historical ignorance from abreakingwind.
    That has never been the case.

    Daniel Goldin: Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 44

    to Clinton’s credit. More pwnage from amw!

    A bit of advice, you’ll never persuade anyone of your position when you snarl. It has made you lazy.

  • Christopher

    I’ve heard NASA civil servants making jokes about having Obama under the main engines of the shuttle during takeoff, so yes, I would agree that there is a poisonous political environment at NASA. It just happens to be delusional and conservative, at JSC anyway.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    It is amusing that the same people who pontificated on Mike Griffin’s alleged reign of terror are now denying the idea that maybe Obama administration appointees may be acting in a political manner.

  • Daniel Goldin: Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 44

    That’s Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43. There was no Bush 44.

    And that’s one example. It’s the only one. And Goldin didn’t survive long in Bush 43. It’s never been “routine.”

    But please, continue to demonstrate your ignorance.

    It is amusing that the same people who pontificated on Mike Griffin’s alleged reign of terror are now denying the idea that maybe Obama administration appointees may be acting in a political manner.

    What “alleged reign of terror”? Why do you make things up? And who is “denying” anything? We just want to see some actual evidence.

  • More pwnage from amw!

    Hilarious.

  • common sense

    I tell you what really, really bothers me:

    We, the USA and NASA in particular, are short on cash. Yet a moronic Republican Congressman thinks it is okay to waste our little taxpayers’ money to investigate whether NASA is politicized or not. Such a slap in the face of the US taxpayers!

    How absurd is that? Coming from the “small government” hypocrites?

    Yes this is bothering me the most. I can’t wait for the next elections. Hopefully.

  • NASA Man

    Not baloney if you are one of those NASA people. If you only knew. Shuttle 30-yr program and you people blame Bush? This thread really shows a lack of understanding and education on the subject.

  • common sense

    @ NASA Man wrote @ October 7th, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    I wish you could translate your statement. You were 30 yrs on Shuttle? Bush is blamed? What for? Try and be specific.

  • Bennett

    NASA Man wrote @ October 7th, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    “Shuttle 30-yr program and you people blame Bush? ”

    Well, that little snippet doesn’t provide much of an inside view. Please illuminate those of us NOT “living the dream” on the taxpayers’ nickle.

  • amightywind

    It’s never been “routine.”

    That has never been the case.

    You said never. I only need to cite a single counter example to disprove what your assertion.

    Yet a moronic Republican Congressman thinks it is okay to waste our little taxpayers’ money to investigate whether NASA is politicized or not.

    It is congress’ duty to oversee NASA. I think the great gulf between the political appointees and the NASA rank and file is exceptional. It is not as a problem in the Defense Department. Gates and Panetta are both relative moderates, and the war machine is functioning smoothly. They were well chosen by Obama. Holdren is a 60’s radical. He is the ventriloquist who makes Garver and Bolden’s mouths work. NASA is not functioning smoothly.

  • Bennett

    “You said never. I only need to cite a single counter example to disprove what your assertion.”

    No, Rand said “It’s never been “routine.””

    He is right, as routine implies “regularly”. A single instance is not “regularly” or “routine”.

    Fail.

  • eh

    Good thing he doesn’t have any real work to do.

  • common sense

    @ amightywind wrote @ October 7th, 2011 at 3:51 pm

    “It is congress’ duty to oversee NASA.”

    Do you really need a Congress investigation to figure that NASA is politicized? Yes? Really? It’s okay with you we spend $100Ks or worse for such a pathetic issue.

    Guess what! The street down my house is highly politicized. Wow.

    Now can we get back to serious things?

  • DCSCA

    @Christopher wrote @ October 7th, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    “It just happens to be delusional and conservative, at JSC anyway.”

    And yet news stories on Thursday reported NASA will begin accepting applications and recruitung astronauts for the post-shuttle era in November. Pretty funny. Guess those jokesters in Houston haven’t got the word- they’re out of business- out of $$$ and out of sync with the massive problems facing the USA today. Yes, the managers at NASA are a funny lot all right. Hilariously out of touch with the real world around them here on Planet Earth. Or maybe they’re just chuckleheads.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    A piece at the Houston Chronicle illuminates the story a little further. There is a line item in a survey of NASA center directors that suggest that Obama’s political appointees (with the exception perhaps of Bolden) concentrate on “Democratic political goals” at the expense of national goals. This is something that bears further exploration since it suggests a level of politicalization and corruption.

  • vulture4

    I have to agree with AMW that politics at NASA is nothing new. In fact the phrase “NASA politics” is redundant, because both words mean the same thing. I am irritated at Nelson for jumping in bed with Selby on the Constellation/SLS/Orion gravy train and attacking the NASA leadership when they tried to suggest a more practical course, and at both Augustine and Obama for not making a real decision.

  • Justin Kugler

    The slides suggest that is their perception, Mr. Whittington. It offers no proof that anything improper is going on. It could just be another symptom of the divide between the political and technical worlds.

  • Coastal Ron

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ October 8th, 2011 at 9:25 am

    concentrate on “Democratic political goals” at the expense of national goals

    What are “Democratic political goals”, and are they better or worse than “national goals” (and please define those)?

    And how can you have “Democratic political goals” in NASA anyways?

    Asteroids = Democrats, and the Moon = Republicans?
    Big rockets = Republicans, and small rockets = Democrats?
    Liquid-fueled engines = Democrats, and SRM’s = Republicans?

    How can you tell?

  • Vladislaw

    Mark R. Whittington wrote:

    “There is a line item in a survey of NASA center directors that suggest that Obama’s political appointees (with the exception perhaps of Bolden) concentrate on “Democratic political goals” at the expense of national goals.”

    That’s absolutely freakin’ hilarious, considering Griffin sat before a committee and said the Chinese could get to the moon with four launches of a Long March V rocket, a rocket equal to the Delta IV. Wanna explain blowing through 13 billion for Constellation and not even getting a single orbital launch for the effort? Talk about crony capitalism and subsidies at the expense of National goals.

    Four freakin launches of a Delta IV and we would be back on the moon, but the pork train congress would not have any of that. No we had to blow 13 billion on nothing.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ October 8th, 2011 at 9:25 am

    you were always a sucker for accusations…you bought curveball hook line and sinker. There is lots of accusations in the piece you reference there is no proof. What happened to you? RGO

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Justin – That is why one has investigations. To find out.
    Coastal Ron – Bogus, Opposition to Obamaspace is bipartisan.

  • In other words, the charges remain vague and meaningless.

  • JPSpace

    Chris Shank is Congressman Smith’s staffer who has put him up to this. He was one of the most “political” people ever to hit NASA and moved programs from one district to another purely for political sport. This investigation should look into HIS history. Shank has been doing Griffin’s bidding ever since leaving NASA. He couldn’t cut it in industry, so now he is embarrassing himself on the Hill. Sad really.

  • vulture4

    The issue isn’t purely Democrats vs Republicans, since both Nelson and Shelby support SLS and both Lori Garver and John McCain are at the very least extremely skeptical about it. The issue is whether we want to do something useful in space or something that makes us feel manly.

  • Opposition is bipartisan, as is support. It isn’t a partisan issue except to shallow thinkers who reflexively oppose it just because Obama proposed it. It’s stupid to say that more commercial involvement in space is a Democrat idea, when in fact Bush’s Aldridge Commission strongly recommended it, and then Griffin ignored them.

    It remains mind blowing to see supposed conservatives demanding a “public option” when it comes to spaceflight. At least Newt Gingrich, Dana Rohrabacher and Bob Walker, all of whom are smarter on space issues than any of their current or former colleagues, have their heads screwed on straight.

  • DCSCA

    @vulture4 wrote @ October 8th, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    Both McCain and Garver are unqualified to even be in the same room to ponder SLS and the future of HSF. It is outside the area of their competence.

  • Coastal Ron

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ October 8th, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    Bogus, Opposition to Obamaspace is bipartisan.

    What, pray tell, is “Obamaspace”?

    The use of commercial transportation over government?

    Competitive contracting over sole-sourced?

    Asteroids first versus Moon first?

    Or is it just shorthand for “a name to deride anything Obama wants to do in space”?

  • JPSpace

    So let me get this straight… Senators with nothing but political self-interest and a quest for big aerospace campaign contributions are qualified to address SLS and the future of HSF, but not the Deputy Administrator of NASA? She has a Masters in Space Policy, has worked in not-for-profit, private and public space organizations for 25 years and is Senate Confirmed… Try to be a little objective folks.

  • Martijn Meijering

    It is outside the area of their competence.

    It most definitely isn’t and it is high time prima donna NASA engineers with that attitude were purged from the agency, especially in the top echelons.

  • amightywind

    It remains mind blowing to see supposed conservatives demanding a “public option” when it comes to spaceflight. At least Newt Gingrich, Dana Rohrabacher and Bob Walker,…

    Just insert the term ‘military’ for ‘spaceflight’ and you will understand why. The gadflies you list are outliers in the party. Crazy Newt in particular will say about anything. He is the right wing’s answer to Al Gore.

  • vulture4

    DCSCA wrote @ October 8th, 2011 at 3:15 pm Both McCain and Garver are unqualified to even be in the same room to ponder SLS and the future of HSF. It is outside the area of their competence.

    Please provide me with a statement either made that was not accurate, honest, and appropriate, something that unfortunately cannot be said of any recent NASA administrator. Garver worked her way up through the space advocacy community and has a pretty good idea what the taxpayers will and will not pay for. McCain said in his usual direct way, way back in 2004, that Constellation was an illusion because its real cost would be far higher than the Bush budget request and the country could not afford it.

  • Just insert the term ‘military’ for ‘spaceflight’ and you will understand why.

    Spaceflight isn’t military. The military has its own space program.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ October 8th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
    Opposition to Obamaspace is bipartisan.>>

    What is Obamaspace? Is there Bushspace? Or Whittingtonspace? goofy

    opposition to The Presidents program is bipartisan only so much as not every NASA district is represented by one party. Having said that the opposition to The POTUS policy is pork based…you love pork what happen to you? To much space? RGO

  • Matt Wiser

    Rand: none of the three you mention have a chance of getting what they advocate through Congress. There’s no way Newt Gingrich is going to be POTUS, and unless Hall retires, Rohrabacher won’t be chair of House Science and Tech Committee. When idealism clashes with political reality, reality wins.

  • Justin Kugler

    Smith’s “investigation” smacks of being a partisan witch hunt.

  • Frank Glover

    @ almightywing:

    “Just insert the term ‘military’ for ‘spaceflight’ and you will understand why. The gadflies you list are outliers in the party.”

    I could just as well use the word ‘unicorn’ instead, it doesn’t make them the same.The government is obliged to ‘provide for the common defense,’ there’s no such requirement with regard to spaceflight.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ October 9th, 2011 at 1:58 am

    When idealism clashes with political reality, reality wins.

    Like when Griffin’s Constellation idealism ran into the reality of Congress canceling it?

    Ironically the man who could save the SLS from a similar fate is Charles Bolden, since he is being far more disciplined in managing the important decisions up front that Griffin did with Constellation. Griffin didn’t have the discipline, and he always figured that any cost overruns would be accepted and covered by Congress… until reality set in.

  • Martijn Meijering

    When idealism clashes with political reality, reality wins.

    When current political reality is opposed to what you think is right, citizens of a free country have a right to oppose it through peaceful means. Sadly dishonest persons on the other side of the debate keep trying to shut down the debate on such silly grounds.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Matt Wiser wrote @ October 9th, 2011 at 1:58 am

    “When idealism clashes with political reality, reality wins.”

    15 billion for Cx and all the nation got was that goofy test flight that was more like a big sounding rocket that went into a flat spin RGO

  • libs0n

    “There’s no way Newt Gingrich is going to be POTUS”

    I wonder if he could lobby himself to be the NASA administrator in a Republican presidency, if he were so inclined, perhaps trading an endorsement for such favor. The candidates do not seem to have strong positions in space other than he, and thus he could step into that role for them.

  • unless Hall retires, Rohrabacher won’t be chair of House Science and Tech Committee.

    Hall is 86 years old. Also, even if he sticks it out, he’ll be term limited in five years, so if Dana hangs around long enough, he’ll get the chairmanship. And fix space policy.

  • DCSCA

    @vulture4 wrote @ October 8th, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    =yawn= Review Garver’s own history and her own words over the past 25 years. You do a disservice to true space advocates like Ley, Clarke, Korolev, Goddard, Asimov, Von Braun, Tsiosklovsky, Bradbury, Oberth, Webb, Paine, Sagan, Kraft, Kranz, Low, Lunney, etc., as Garver is not in that league. Garver a lobbyist, no more, no less, and could just as easily be advocating healthcare policy or airline regulatory matters. Garver has no sense of direction, deztinations or goals beyond securing the next aerospace contract for nebulous long-term and expensive projects.

    Garver was a go-fer in Glenn’s office in the ’80s and used her tenure at the NSS to unwisely advocate aerospace contracting for the space station in opposition to members wishes advocating pushing back to the moon and on to Mars. Her advocacy cost time and money. The ISS has proven to be a $100+ billion, 25 year ‘WPA’ aerospace works project, as Deke Slayton referred to it; a boondoggle that has return nothing for the investment. Lots of contracts; little progress in space exploration. While at the same time, she resisted HSF space exploration initiatives focusing on a return to the moon while at NSS. This writer personally debated the point with her many years back. Her goal is to secure contracts- not advocate a long term policy with direction and destinations in mind. Garver is not qualified to be making policy decisions for the future of America’s HSF program. Von Braun would be rolling over in his grave. She is a lobbyist by trade, plain and simple, and not a space visionary to be charting the future course for billions of dollars in investment. The space agency has been in free drift long enough. The quicker Garver is jettisoned from NASA, along w/Bolden, the better.

    Rand Simberg wrote @ October 9th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
    “…if Dana hangs around long enough, he’ll get the chairmanship. And fix space policy.”

    “Dana” is an ultra-conservative, Reagan-era fossil and an advocate for the failed policies of privatization and supply side economics- both proven disasterous over the past three decades for American society. “Dana” can help America’s space program best by staying away from it.

  • Oops, make that 88 years old.

  • DCSCA

    @libs0n wrote @ October 9th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
    “There’s no way Newt Gingrich is going to be POTUS” I wonder if he could lobby himself to be the NASA administrator in a Republican presidency,

    The last person on Earth to be associated w/NASA is Gingrich– especially as he has advocated ending it:

    “Gingrich Criticizes NASA

    House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Saturday that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration should have been disbanded after the Apollo moon program ended in the 1970’s. In a lecture at Reinhardt College in this town in northern Georgia, Mr. Gingrich, Republican of Georgia, said that he generally favored Government support for science and technology but that NASA had become increasingly bureaucratic. Mr. Gingrich, however, did not say whether he believed NASA should be disbanded now. Source- NY Times February 6, 1995″

  • “Dana” is an ultra-conservative, Reagan-era fossil and an advocate for the failed policies of privatization and supply side economics- both proven disasterous over the past three decades for American society

    Yes, socialism has been demonstrated to work so much better. If you want to see a fossil, look at the current 88-year-old chairman of the House Science Committee.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ October 9th, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    Funny how only you mentioned socialism. And, of course, the U.S. has had socialism laced through its society since its inception- (see Postmaster Ben Franklin for details) but with respect to spaceflight, a ‘socialist’ society initiated the ‘Space Age’ w/t first satellite and later the first human in space– and has maintained human presence in space since 1961; the PRC is now folling suit. The first rule of the radical right is to never knock success and to highlight failure- and trickledown economics has been an abject failure.

  • a ‘socialist’ society initiated the ‘Space Age’ w/t first satellite and later the first human in space– and has maintained human presence in space since 1961;

    A few people at a time, with many gaps, and at a cost of billions per person. Space will never be settled that way.

    Though I don’t know why I even bother responding to idiot trolls.

  • DCSCA

    @Rand Simberg wrote @ October 10th, 2011 at 1:58 am

    A few people at a time, with many gaps, and at a cost of billions per person. Space will never be settled that way.

    In other words, you were wrong, again. You really have a weak grasp of history and context. That’s how ‘settlement’ progresses and cost is relative. Do America’s space program a favor– stay away from it.

  • vulture4

    @DSCA: I notice you did not list Goldin, O’Keefe, or Griffin among your list of icons.
    Your opposition to Garver seems based on her support of ISS, which you call a boondoggle. This is a policy choice, not an issue of leadership. There are quite a few people, including most of the astronauts, who disagree with you, calling the ISS a remarkable achievement. As to Constellation, which taxpayers are going to pay $400 billion to send a few Americans to Mars? Garver would prefer to first develop technology that makes human spaceflight practical.

  • “A few people at a time, with many gaps, and at a cost of billions per person. Space will never be settled that way.

    In other words, you were wrong, again

    Writes the ignorant troll, with zero basis.

  • DCSCA

    vulture4 wrote @ October 10th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
    @DSCA: I notice you did not list Goldin, O’Keefe, or Griffin among your list of icons.

    Not necessarily ‘my’ icons- but Webb and possibly Paine would make the list before those three: an aerospace contractor, a beancounter and an ecocentric academic.

Leave a Reply to SpaceColonizer 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>