NASA, White House

Is Bolden’s number up?

On Wednesday, NASA administrator Charles Bolden visited the United Launch Alliance (ULA) factory in Decatur, Alabama, where the company assembles Atlas and Delta rockets. During his visit, local media quizzed him on a variety of topics, from the looming threat of sequestration to rumored discoveries by the Mars Science Laboratory Rover to even whether he bought a ticket for the Powerball lottery and its estimated $550-million jackpot. “I did not buy. My wife was supposed to buy one,” he said, as reported by television station WAFF.

Maybe he should have, though. The Orlando Sentinel reports that Bolden’s future as NASA administrator in the Obama Administration’s second term is “uncertain”. The article largely recounts some of the missteps Bolden has made in the last three and a half years, as well as speculation about whether he’ll continue in the post (a spokesman for Sen. Bill Nelson, perhaps Bolden’s biggest supporter in Congress, said that the senator “fully expects Charlie Bolden to continue as administrator” in the next term.)

The most damning comment about Bolden, though, comes from an anonymous “senior administration official.” “The senior White House staff is aware of the [NASA] administrator’s inability to advance their agenda and will have to decide whether they make an adjustment in a second term,” that official, not authorized to speak on the record, told the Sentinel. A second unnamed official said Bolden “was just the kind of leader NASA needed” during the Space Shuttle’s retirement, but suggested that NASA “would benefit from a leader fully committed to implementing the bold policy put forth by the president and his administration.”

Of course, even with those comments, Bolden may remain at NASA for some time to come; an official said replacing Bolden would require replacing a “legend with a legend.” But he could have still bought a Powerball ticket: if he won, the estimated cash payout of $360 million would more than cover the shortfall in NASA’s planetary program in 2013, for example…

110 comments to Is Bolden’s number up?

  • JimNobles

    Realistically, who’s good enough to replace him and wants the job?

  • Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur)

    Jim,
    While there are plenty who fit in the former category, and several that fit in the latter (including a certain former NASA Admin), the combination of the two may be mutually exclusive…

    ~Jon

  • pathfinder_01

    I thought I either read or hear that he was only going to be admin for 4 years sometimes towards the start of his job.

  • Mary

    “to advance their agenda.”

    That’s scary.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    My two-bit take on Bolden is that he does not have a personality that forms strong opinions or positions on issues. If you’ve ever listened to him talk at length to a group, he’s very touchy-feely, amorphorous, and prevaricating. I don’t think he’s actually committed to any particular path for NASA. I think he just bends with whatever direction the wind is blowing that day.

    • Coastal Ron

      Dark Blue Nine said:

      My two-bit take on Bolden is that he does not have a personality that forms strong opinions or positions on issues.

      I don’t know if I’d go that far, as I think he feels he has strong opinions and positions. But I think he has been a good manager of the current NASA programs, so in that case I see him as a good leader. However I do agree that from the standpoint of communicating “the future”, he has not been able to persuade many.

      So from the standpoint of what was needed in the first four years, I think he was a good choice. But if Obama wants someone to setup what NASA will be doing in the future – and help convince Congress that they should fund it – then Bolden probably isn’t the right person for the next four years.

      Too bad Musk isn’t available. Likely Jeff Greason (XCOR) isn’t available either, but I think he would be an interesting choice.

      Any other suggestions?

      • Dark Blue Nine

        If he was willing to undergo the process again, I’d nominate Isakowitz over at VG.

      • common sense

        Neither Musk nor Greason would fare well as NASA Admins.

        Isakowitz is a much better choice since he’s gone through very senior government jobs already.

        But if VG was able to take him out of his position at DoE, I hardly see why he would come back to NASA. Why would he do that?

        • Dark Blue Nine

          Isakowitz served a long time at DOE over two Administrations, and I think he had put in enough time with the government overall to qualify for certain retirement benefits. I don’t think VG pulled him away from DOE. I think he was looking.

          If he was given a real shot at reform, with strong backing from the White House, Isakowitz might take a shot at NASA. It’s where his heart is — his degrees are in A&A from MIT, after all. But I’m not sure such an opportunity exists now. We won’t be sure until after the sequestration/budget deal is over and how the Administration parcels its impact to NASA becomes known.

          • common sense

            Even though I don’t know Isakowitz I believe you are right about where his heart may be, suffice to look at his resume.

            BUT again and I think as you state, unless he is given a real shot at it why would he leave VG? VG, just like SpaceX, will turn out in a mini-NASA with programs to send people to space. So long that VG can be sustained I see a lot more potential there than at NASA where the roadblocks are so enormous and so immovable. Here again suffice to see what has been accomplished for the past 40 years and I suspect Isakowitz is interested in HSF more so than in cube-sats. Nothing against cube-sats. Just sayin’.

            For an opportunity to exist the WH and Congress would have to give him free rein. For some reasons, one of which is called SLS , the other MPCV, I suspect they won’t let him do it. As with anything of this magnitude I suspect that until a financial catastrophe of some sort happens nothing will move, at least not in a 4 year term.

            FWIW.

      • JimNobles

        “Too bad Musk isn’t available.”

        He wouldn’t take the job. He has his own space program.

      • Martijn Meijering

        Chyba.

      • Martijn Meijering

        Huntress would be another interesting candidate, or Steidle if he is available again.

      • Dave Hall

        Coastal Ron: Too bad Musk isn’t available.

        Interestingly, I think Musk does forsee politics, or at least diplomacy, in his future. When asked in a recent interview* if any books stand out as being inspirational, he highlighted Walter Isaacson’s “Benjamin Franklin”, so I read it. Although it covers his entrepreneurial and science years, the meat of the story is Franklin’s diplomatic role in the founding of America.

        * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-s_3b5fRd8
        (skip to 7:15)

  • Egad

    The words I find in this reportage to be both interesting and puzzling are “their agenda” and “bold policy” used in reference to the White House/administration. What in this world or out of it are those? SLS? Commercial space?

    • Robert G. Oler

      Egad…commercial space. RGO

    • Dark Blue Nine

      The heavy bets that the Administration wanted to make on new space technologies and commercial space transportation to break open new space exploration frontiers. Congress wanted to maintain the old Shuttle jobs and votes instead and created SLS and MPCV to do so. With the bulk of the funding freed up by Shuttle retirement going to SLS/MPCV, the Administation was only able to place a modest bet on commercial space transport and practically no bet on any new technologies, making their NEO and Mars goals largely empty ones.

      • Pfjeld

        Dark Blue Nine: most succinct assessment of NASA’s situation I’ve ever read.

      • Coastal Ron

        Dark Blue Nine said:

        Congress wanted to maintain the old Shuttle jobs and votes instead and created SLS and MPCV to do so.

        I would go back one step further. Obama set up the Augustine Commission, and actually acted on their recommendations by requesting Congress kill the program – and Congress did!

        OK, the MPCV and SLS emerged as echo’s of the old program, but that was a political compromise to kill the overall program. I think those will be dealt with during the second term, and I think the right new NASA Administrator could lay the groundwork for that.

        • Dark Blue Nine

          “OK, the MPCV and SLS emerged as echo’s of the old program, but that was a political compromise to kill the overall program. I think those will be dealt with during the second term,”

          That’s my hope, but I’m doubtful given the Obama campaign rhetoric on SLS, and the much bigger fights the Administration is facing with Congress on larger issues. Barring a massive, unavoidable budget overrun on SLS/MPCV in the next four years, I think the Administration has had its fill of NASA and will punt to the next President.

        • vulture4

          With the exception of the Ares I, whose role was simply assigned to SLS/Ares V, it isn’t clear what element of Constellation was actually cancelled. Lunar and Mars landers just haven’t received any funding from Congress, and they were not funded under Bush either. SLS/Orion gets the vast majority of NASA development funding.

          My sense is that the attempt to cancel Constellation was largely unsuccessful, although the program has little or no prospect of even determining its goals, let alone achieving them. I agree with you that they may be dropped in the next few years, but it is by no means certain.

          • Coastal Ron

            vulture4 said:

            With the exception of the Ares I, whose role was simply assigned to SLS/Ares V, it isn’t clear what element of Constellation was actually cancelled.

            Constellation had a very clear initial goal that even Congress-scritters could understand – return to the Moon in a bigger way (i.e. Griffin’s “Apollo on steroids” description).

            What’s left of Constellation (the SLS & MPCV) has no goal beyond test flights. Also, while the SLS may seem like it’s on track to become operational, Congress has funded no use for it, and when Congress does look into funding missions for it, they will find that NASA’s budget will have to boosted at least 50% in order to fly the SLS just once per year.

            The reason for that is that SLS-sized missions will likely cost at least $10B each, and once you fill up the pipeline with one mission per year, that means just the SLS mission funding alone will be $10B per year in NASA’s budget (currently $18B total), and that doesn’t include the cost of the SLS rocket and operations. And one flight per year is not only costly, but very dangerous from a flight tempo standpoint.

            If my assessment of the SLS program is right, then that means the MPCV has a limited usefulness too. Since future space exploration would be sized for existing rockets, that would likely lead to bypassing capsule-based exploration and jump directly into space-only vehicles (what we should be doing anyways).

            So I guess in my view the Constellation program was truly cancelled, but it’s just taking a while to close out all the hardware programs.

        • Dark Blue Nine

          I’d also argue that the Administration’s cut to the Mars Exploration Program in FY 2013 is indicative that the Administration is taking the least politically painful path forward on NASA from now on. Obama set a humans-to-Mars goal and sample return is arguably on the critical path to such a mission. That cut could easily have come from SLS/MPCV with no impact other than extending development another couple/few weeks. Instead, the Administration chose to set the Mars program back almost a decade. I think this is because the political pain from JPL cuts, which mostly go unnoticed by the California delegation due to the state’s large economy, was judged lower than the political pain from JSC/MSFC/KSC/SSC cuts.

          • Coastal Ron

            Dark Blue Nine said:

            I’d also argue that the Administration’s cut to the Mars Exploration Program in FY 2013 is indicative that the Administration is taking the least politically painful path forward on NASA from now on.

            We’ll see if a new NASA Administrator can affect that, while also convincing Congress. Tough job in these tight fiscal times.

      • Robert G. Oler

        Dark Blue Nine wrote:

        “Administation was only able to place a modest bet on commercial space transport and practically no bet on any new technologies, making their NEO and Mars goals largely empty ones.”

        you area smart guy/gal(?) and one of the more thoughtful persons here. Your post are almost always light not heat and I cannot even say that about myself…(I do enjoy the heat sometime)

        But I seriously do not think that NEO and Mars were ever this administrations goals.

        Obama is not a “goal guy” I dont say that pejoratively really but during the campaign I spent sometime trying to figure him out, and I think that the last two or three weeks, the ones when even without the “unskewed” polls I think he was in some peril of losing…

        Obama is more an Ike in terms of his view of history and historical developments. Losely put Ike believed in my view that if he and his administration simply “set the stage” or enabled possibilities then events would shape themselves and mostly do it well.

        There are in my view two keys to this (although his space policy could also illustrate this)..his handling of teh Suez crisis and that at Little Rock. IN both (and again in the notion of a space program) his policies set the stage; they did not force the play. …and the currents sweeping history more or less did the rest.

        Ike and Obama in my view have about the same notions of spaceflight. IF proper policy will nudge things then Obama I think in large measure believes that history and how it is moving will eventually do the right thing. Goals just get in the way.

        RGO

        • common sense

          “But I seriously do not think that NEO and Mars were ever this administrations goals.”

          I think that they were not necessarily goals that his administration would achieve during his mandate but rather to prepare the field so that eventually such trips would be feasible. And the plan was a good one. But no it would probably not happen for a decade or two (or even more?). It still was a bold plan. Because the technologies you develop for such a trip may, just may, have an impact here on Earth as well in terms of energy production and management. In terms of medical research as well. Computer science. Etc. Anyway. A lot of areas would benefit from making those technology developments. A lot more than using SLS/MPCV one-shot (almost certainly suicidal by the way) strategery.

          FWIW.

          • Robert G. Oler

            Common Sense

            The “goals” in my opinion were an attempt (that was not all that well done) to be a shiny toy to the goal people…the reality is that with our technology we are many technology steps away from any real ability to travel outside earth orbit in some economical or actually safe fashion. RGO

        • Dark Blue Nine

          I hope that the Administration is serious about its NEO and Mars goals because it’s one of only two reasons for the Administration to take the political pain necessary to terminate SLS/MPCV and replace them with more affordable launch alternatives and a more well-rounded exploration plan. If the Administration is not serious about its NEO and Mars goals, then absent a major, unavoidable, budget overrun on SLS/MPCV, the Administration is not going to do the heavy lifting necessary to reform the current path “exploration” program. (I put “exploration” in quotes given that MCPV’s one-off SM remains unconfirmed by the US and the lack of any other, actual exploration hardware development.)

          Given that the Administration allowed SLS/MPCV into the 2010 NASA Authorization Act and signed it into law in the first place (when they could have fought those inclusions harder or even vetoed the bill), combined with Florida campaign rhetoric endorsing SLS/MPCV and the recent cuts to the Mars Exploration Program, leads me to believe that the Administration is not serious about its NEO and Mars goals. After sequestration or a budget deal, I think we’re going to see the SLS/MPCV schedule bump out another couple years, and float along with more schedule delays and no actual exploration hardware development for the next four years. Despite the press making a kerfluffle over Bolden’s future status, I don’t think think the Obama Administration isn’t going to touch NASA again in any significant way. This mess is going to get passed along to the next President.

          I hope I’m wrong.

      • Martijn Meijering

        practically no bet on any new technologies, making their NEO and Mars goals largely empty ones.

        NEO missions require no new technologies at all, much as certain research laboratories and otherwise unviable SBIR shops would have us believe..

  • Robert G. Oler

    Anything is possible but a more likely analysis of the signals “unnammed” sources are putting out is that these are a public signal for Charlie to reinforce the private ones “I” am told he is getting…which is “the election is over, winds blowing put the sails up and go somewhere”

    Charlie was about as feckless as Obama was his first term…but since the election Obama has gotten a reasonable amount of wind in his sails, the GOP is not in retreat but in a rout and it is likely that Obama and the Dems will have more yank on the budget “issues” then was imaginable by “some” (Like Whittington’s scion M. Barrone…what a hoot) a week before the election.

    2013 will be a pivot year. Some high points

    1, SpaceX will either succeed or fail as a commercial entity. if the latter then Lockmart and Boeing and ULA are on a slow march to oblivion unless they can figure out some price issues.

    2. the budget negotiations coupled with cracked hulls and sliding timelines will likely kill SLS or Orion or both…and some hard budget choices will have to be made. This will have implications for commercial crew.

    3. The EML station will flounder and turn out to be a stalking horse for ISS expansion; including some effort at commercial ie inflatables…

    4. Obama is/will pivot to the “East” (or Asia to be more precise) and that will mean that the Indians come into some fashion ISS. The PRC will not.

    5. Commercial cargo (OSC) and launchers in general are (if SpaceX suceeds) come under a lot of evolutionary pressure…

    Bolden and the folks under him need to start NOW coming up with answers for this. So far Charlies been clumsy in moving forward he needs to step up the pace.

    Bolden has held the reigns in an eera of badly done divided government, but the election has at least temporarily cured that…As Custer said the fourth day at Gettysburg “gather up every one who can ride or walk, arm them and charge the traitors, at least harass Bobby Lee back to VA and maybe we can finish him”

    Charlie needs to figure out what he thinks is coming, set an agenda and start advancing him…or they are going to can him for someone who can. RGO

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Obama would face the problem that no sane person would want the job under his administration. Therefore I nominate Dan Goldin.

    • After all we had such great progress under Goldin (sarcasm). Of course, I can think of at least one other administrator who was worse.

      • E.P. Grondine

        Goldin was one of the best NASA administrators ever. We would have had two manned launch systems and DIRECT now with no dislocation to the tech base and at a far lower cost had Griffin not changed course.

        Goldin was also responsible for those Mars rovers the manned Mars enthusiasts love so much.

        • Robert G. Oler

          E.P. Grondine
          November 29, 2012 at 11:34 am · Reply

          Goldin was one of the best NASA administrators ever

          in retrospect Psycho Dan has been one of the more able administrators since oh the Apollo days.

          Goldin synched up with Clinton and particularly Gore who gave him the political backing necessary to do what was the mission, and that was deploy ISS…say what you want about Psycho (and I did) the reality is that he kept the focus on getting the darn thing flying.

          RGO

    • joe

      Sadly true. The Goldin pick was funny and scary at the same time.

      • Development of Direct would have just delayed the needed move to commercial. And according to the Augustine report any large SD-HLV (including Direct) would not be practical in the long run. All I have to say to Joe and E.P is: dream on little broomstick cowboys.

        • E.P. Grondine

          Hi Rick –

          The DIRECT numbers were worked extensively by people far more skilled than you.

          Just because ULA does not state that its corporate policy is to colonize Mars, does not mean that they are not a commercial company.

          I often get demonized by manned Mars flight enthusiasts, but there is a lot they do not know, including certain hard realities about manned Mars flight.

          Aside from that, they generally know nothing, and I mean nothing, about exactly how severe the impact hazard is.

          • And the members of the Augustine Committee had far more background and experience than you. Also, I’ve always been a big proponent of ULA as well as SpaceX, but not in relation to Direct.

            Furthermore, what makes you think I’m a Mars fan over any other type of spaceflight?

            Talk about my skill? How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say ridiculous stuff like flyback boosters are being worked on with SLS? Again, what planet are you living on?

    • Robert G. Oler

      Mark Whittington

      Any patriot would want the job because this is an exciting time.

      The GOP is in total retreat, its almost a rout and a new space age of commercial background is dawning. Most will flounder but right now there are more “rocket” programs actually bending metal and laying composites since the end of the coldest times of the cold war.

      When SpaceX succeeds not only will some of us be “richer” but the space future of the US will be assurred. We are in the process of dumping GOP economics and foreign policy; a new world is dawning.

      Its OK we can leave you and the rest of the GOP behind RGO

      • Mark R. Whittington

        No patriot would want the job of NASA administrator under this president. If we avoid fiscal collapse because of the insanity coming from this White House (and it is a big if) NASA will continue to be in disarray and underfunded. It is best to try to ride out the next four years and hope that the next POTUS will be able to repair the devastation.

        • @Whittington
          As you have been told over and over again, it’s not the President that ultimately decides the size of NASA’s budget. He can propose an increase (as Obama did early on) but it doesn’t mean he’ll get it. You must see the world with the mental equivalent of funhouse mirrors.

        • Robert G. Oler

          Mark R. Whittington
          November 29, 2012 at 3:39 pm · Reply

          No patriot would want the job of NASA administrator under this president. >

          we are on the brink of avoiding fiscal collapse. Soon the plan put in by the GOP will take affect; the bush tax cuts will expire and the brilliant sequestration move that the GOP wanted will take affect cutting useless programs.

          In the meantime commercial space is starting to take root.

          A Patriot puts the needs of the country before party or ideology and realizes that so go the votes of the people so goes The REpublic. Despite the inane predictions of your side The President won and we are moving forward.

          Robert G. Oler

          • Mark R. Whittington

            That’s not what the Obama administration wants in a new NASA administrator. They want a yes man (or yes woman) who will toe the line and not have a stray thought that goes against the Policy. A patriot would be assure that he or she would have a freer hand at running NASA without interference under a coherent space policy. That will not happen.

        • Neil Shipley

          How often does one need to say this but NASA is not ‘underfunded’. Evidence SpaceX and what they’ve built and flown with about $1 billion. NASA’s problem is that they’ve never gotten over the unlimited budgets of the Apollo era. They’ve never learnt anything about schedule and cost budgets. They still don’t use EVA in they’re programs even though they profess to use PMBOK methodology heaven help us.
          Quite simply, they lack leadership and management capability and rigour required to deliver projects and programs in their business. Evidence the cancelled, over-cost, over-schedule projects and programs since Apollo days which far outweigh their sucesses.
          Add to that the changing priorities of the WH and Congress as well as the pork battles and what you get is the dysfunctional organisation that exists today called NASA.
          RGO’s right, 2013 will be a watershed year both for NASA and SpaceX (with a few other ‘new’ commercials).

  • Mark Kelly wrote some guest editorials during the election supporting Obama. He might be a candidate, but he’s made it clear that his priority is helping Gabby recover from the shooting. If you read their bio, he’s pretty clear that he has little patience for foolishness, so he’d probably tell those porkers to their face what he thinks of them. At least it would be entertaining.

    Gabby would be an asset in negotiating the Congressional mind fields. But I don’t think she would want to leave Tucson.

    Anyway, just an idea.

    I wonder if anyone would object because his twin brother Scott is still active as an astronaut. He was just assigned the one-year ISS mission for spring 2015.

    • DCSCA

      Kelly is irrelevent. Just one of many shuttle pilots who is more known for the tragedy befalling his wounded wife than for anything he did on orbit. His brother, on the other hand, is going to spend a year on orbit aboard the ISS w/a female Russian cosmonaut– more make-work for a space program going in circles, no place fast. .

      • Coastal Ron

        DCSCA said:

        His brother, on the other hand, is going to spend a year on orbit aboard the ISS w/a female Russian cosmonaut

        Are you implying that Mikhail Kornienko will be having a sex change? Weird.

  • DCSCA

    Time to clean house from top to bottom of the Bolden-and-Garver-types.

    Armstrong’s gone; Ride has passed and the orbiters are all museum pieces. America’s space program is dead at 50 to the public. And taxpayers aren’t telling their kids to grow up to be robots, regardless of any teases from the JPL faculty lounge crowd on Martian maybes. They do this dance every time when they’re hunting for funding for the next gold-plated project.

    If there was a major duscivery, the news would come out of NASA HQ in Washington w/t WH involved, similar to that ‘Mars Rock’ extravaganza in the Clinton Administration.

    Curiosity has yet to justify its $2.6 billion cost and interstingly, a recent PBS spacial making the rounds, touting the capabilities of the rover, conveniently omitted any references to costs and budget overruns to viewers unfamiliar with the project. Just lots og geewhizzing over the engineeering success of the EDL sequence and the zapping or red rocks w/a laser.

    • Robert G. Oler

      “Curiosity has yet to justify its $2.6 billion cost”

      but wait there is an “earthshattering” announcement coming any day now….

      LOL

      Yesterday is the anniversary of Mariner 4 heading for Mars in 1964…that was earth shattering.

      As a note the cost of Mariner 3 and 4 and their boosters in 2012 dollars was 450 million. RGO

      • DCSCA

        NBC News all but torpedoed the hype the night after they reported it. seems NASA cut the legs out from under one of the hyperventalilating project scientists.

  • amightywind

    Bold policy put forth by the President? What would that be? Visits to ISS wearing Ruskie spacesuits?

    but he’s made it clear that his priority is helping Gabby recover from the shooting

    Hmm. Yeah, he’s a real prince. But Gabby’s severe injury didn’t get in the way of his last shuttle flight. And rehab must be going well enough, since we hear Mark Kelly will return to ISS in 2015 for a (hold on to your hats!) 1 year mission. This guy just won’t go away.

    NASA remains Zombieland, a fitting representative of our zombie nation.

    • Bennett In Vermont

      I wonder how important Gabby’s brother-in-law is to her recovery. Isn’t that her husband’s job?

      Try and keep your fact’s straight.

      Oh, never mind.

    • Coastal Ron

      amightywind said in a confused way:

      But Gabby’s severe injury didn’t get in the way of his last shuttle flight. And rehab must be going well enough, since we hear Mark Kelly will return to ISS in 2015 for a (hold on to your hats!) 1 year mission. This guy just won’t go away.

      Uh, confusing two people who happen to be identical twins, as well as astronauts. Care to revise your comment?

    • Dark Blue Nine

      “And rehab must be going well enough, since we hear Mark Kelly will return to ISS in 2015 for a (hold on to your hats!) 1 year mission. This guy just won’t go away.”

      _Scott_ Kelly, genius. Not Mark Kelly.

      You are one gigantic, white-hot, flaming idiot.

    • Robert G. Oler

      Wind…I am glad you are a Republican

      “Hmm. Yeah, he’s a real prince. But Gabby’s severe injury didn’t get in the way of his last shuttle flight. And rehab must be going well enough, since we hear Mark Kelly will return to ISS in 2015 for a (hold on to your hats!) 1 year mission. This guy just won’t go away.”

      Facts are not important to them, to the rest of us they are…as my two year old would say “fracken fool” RGO

    • More words of wisdom from Windy the Neo-con Wonder? LOL.

      Don’t worry, Congress won’t stop the SLS/Orion pork-train just yet.

    • josh

      haha, don’t you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself, windy? you’re talking about scott kelly.

  • E.P. Grondine

    I have this theory that AW is not a real person, but simply a personna Jeff has created to “encourage” discussion here at space politics.

    • Jeff Foust

      Mr. Grondine’s assertion is incorrect.

      • Just like his claim that flyback reusability is being developed for SLS.

        • E.P. Grondine

          That is for the boosters, Rich.

          • Yes, I know. And it still isn’t part of the SLS project.

            • E.P. Grondine

              Hi Rick –

              Why do you think Lock-Mart and Boeing are just go to roll over and play dead in response to SpaceX?

              Why do you think that they will not try to come up with the lowest cost booster possible for SLS?

              Why do you think they would not use that booster as a stand alone launcher?

              • @E.P.
                “Why do you think Lock-Mart and Boeing are just go to roll over and play dead in response to SpaceX?”
                Again, what makes you think I that I think that will happen? Weird!

                “Why do you think that they will not try to come up with the lowest cost booster possible for SLS?”
                According to BAH study, they’re not going to be able to get the cost down enough to avoid budget busting.

                “Why do you think they would not use that booster as a stand alone launcher?”
                Didn’t say they couldn’t. But we were talking about your claim they are working on a flyback first stage booster. They haven’t even made an announcement about that. Give us concrete evidence of such an announcement in the form of an official NASA link or stop the lying.

                Again, what planet are you living on?

              • Coastal Ron

                E.P. Grondine said:

                Why do you think they would not use that booster as a stand alone launcher?

                The boosters that are being talked about for the SLS are pretty simple, and though they will have to be part of a “human rated” system, it takes more than a single stage dumb rocket to make a payload-capable rocket.

                As to your reference about Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, neither been awarded a NASA SLS Advanced Booster contract, so it doesn’t look like either have any interest in making boosters. If they did, then I would imagine they would have their rocket manufacturing joint venture (ULA) submit a bid, but if they did, they didn’t win an award.

                There is no evidence that Boeing and Lockheed-Martin want to do anything with rockets beyond what they already are doing with ULA.

    • Bennett In Vermont

      Even without Jeff’s statement, I knew you were off on this one. No one, I mean NO ONE, could make up the bonehead comments posted by the windy one. Just not possible.

  • Steve Isakowitz might be a good choice, but he’s pre-occupied with Virgin’s various attempts to develop engines for SS2 and LauncherOne.

    Jeff Greason isn’t available, either, with Lynx being built and test flights early next year.

    • Coastal Ron

      It’s one of those ironies that the people that would likely be best for the position of taking NASA into the future are already too busy with their own efforts of actually MAKING the future happen.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rick Boozer
    November 29, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    He was also responsible for changing from a flyoff between Lock-Mart, Northrup-Grumman and Rockwell for a shuttle replacement to dictating going with Venture Star with no competition.>>

    and the USA debacle…he was not perfect RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    Almost what the last thing NASA needs as an administrator is another astronaut or even a scientist or even a technologist…what it needs is someone who can clamor together a vision of what it does.

    There are two competing visions (or two and 1/2).

    the 1/2 is it is a science agency this is mostly the uncrewed platforms and there is an argument that the agency could do that from Hubble to Voyager to MSL there is a line of advance there for a small single digit funded agency.

    the traditional apollo oriented argument is that it is a human exploration agency..tragically there is not much political support for he now tens of billions (to hundreds of billions) that NASA requires to achieve at best mediocre results. It took 100-200 billion to build a space station that doesnt even get a full persons week worth of science.

    then there is some notion that the agency should be a technology agency…and this needs a salesperson.

    Garver was suppose to do that…but she has in my viewed failed miserably.

    OK other then myself (grin) here is my recommendation.

    Bill Nye the science guy…RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington
    November 29, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    That’s not what the Obama administration wants in a new NASA administrator. They want a yes man (or yes woman) who will toe the line and not have a stray thought that goes against the Policy.”

    that is your theory; you have no data to support that other then obama hate. RGO

  • James

    I think its time to shut down NASA, push it off the fiscal cliff. Its really just a bent pipe for congress critters to move money to their states. Any developments that it takes on requires lots more money than is needed to do the job because it operates within the dysfunctional sphere of WH, Congress, OMB, and competing Centers. To prove that point, just witness Space X development efforts: smooth, sustained, successful. So end any pretense its an agency that builds things, and close the development and research centers, leaving only HQ open to shovel money to where Congress tells them. (something the do now under the guise of competed AO style missions)

    Who would want to be an Administrator of a dying Agency?

    • Neil Shipley

      Well I wouldn’t charaterise SpaceX developement efforts as ‘smooth’. They’ve certainly had their rocky moments even the most recent ISS visit both for the lv and the spacecraft. But they continue to refine and progress – yes.

    • Coastal Ron

      James said:

      I think its time to shut down NASA, push it off the fiscal cliff. Its really just a bent pipe for congress critters to move money to their states. Any developments that it takes on requires lots more money than is needed to do the job because it operates within the dysfunctional sphere of WH, Congress, OMB, and competing Centers.

      I’ve always subscribed to the idea that government should do what individuals and companies can’t or won’t.

      In that vein, the early days of space rocketry, satellites and exploration were definitely the realm of government since the development money it took was so high. Fast forward to today, and satellites are are now firmly the roll of the private sector, but rocketry is still not completely commercial. Exploration is mainly government funded, but it is showing some signs of the private sector figuring out revenue streams.

      Overall my biggest beef with the way they are funding NASA is with the Space Launch System (SLS). In this day and age the government doesn’t need to build it’s own rocketry since the private sector has already demonstrated that it’s abilities far exceed NASA’s, and NASA has not been funded for any mission payloads that the private sector cannot support.

      Cancel that one program (i.e. SLS) and the rest of NASA really isn’t that bad off. Other than the MPCV, no other program is big enough to merit a large amount of Congressional interference, which is what changing transportation from a “program” to a service does.

      My $0.02

  • common sense

    I would say they were not as successful as they might have been but I hardly see anyone being successful so as long as Congress calls the shots. Who would lose any political capital at the WH over NASA and why? It will not happen. And this is why the most likely event is that this whole thing will fester into oblivion. For how long? Well until SpaceX, VG and the others are able to fly on a regular basis. Then NASA HSF will be dead for real. It might not, had we implemented the budget for developing new technologies for deep space exploration but we did not and therefore it will disappear.

    And that is that.

  • Fred Willett

    Best guy to run NASA is Mike Griffin.
    What!!!!
    Remember he’s the guy who totally stuffed up ALL NASA’s rockets and left the door open for commercial.
    Yea.
    Bring back Mike Griffin.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Jeff a technical question…

    what leaves some post with “reply” next to the header and some post without it? Thank you Sir RGO

    • Jeff Foust

      There is a limit to the number of “levels” of responses in the software. I’ve tweaked some settings, but also consider it a hint that the discussion is perhaps dragging out too far.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Thank you Jeff as one of the resident Hot Air’s I appreciate it RGO

  • josh

    make lori garver nasa administrator and have her cancel sls asap. bolden is unable or unwilling to kill the pork rocket.

  • JimNobles

    “make lori garver nasa administrator and have her cancel sls asap. bolden is unable or unwilling to kill the pork rocket.”

    No one in NASA can legally cancel SLS. It was written into law by Congress and signed into law by the President. Congress can cancel it by changing the pertinent law. Then the President can sign the new law if he decides to. There are things that NASA can do to jiggle the funds or slow down the implementation of SLS construction but no one in NASA can outright cancel it.

    It’s important for newcomers to understand, SLS is Congress’s baby. The President didn’t propose it. He just went along with it.

  • vulture4

    Because Congress passed specific legislation requiring SLS/Orion spending, Obama would have had to actually veto the appropriations legislation to stop the program, a tall order. Plus there is Nelson, a Democrat, who backs it, for reasons that may have to do with his campaign fund. Perhaps we, as interested taxpayers, can go to the public?

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi Rick,

    I have gotten a pretty thick skin over the years. Just because you yourselve don’t know something, does not mean that I am “lying” about it.

    Neither does the lack of a press release, or any public statement.

    I have been through this before, and am going through it now in regards to both the Holocene Start Impact Event and Comet 73P, but this time I’ve been collecting quotes for future use.

    My only question for you is, how big of an idiot do you want to become?

  • E.P. Grondine

    Back on topic, I see Scoop over at nasawatch is demanding a detailed itinerary for Administrator Bolden’s upcoming trip to Japan.

    My opinion: ain’t gonna happen. Japan is a member of ISS, the last I remembered.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Let me restate that.
    My opinion: he ain’t gonna get it. Japan is a member of ISS, the last I remembered.

  • @E.P.
    When you don’t back what you say up with evidence and I and nobody else can find evidence of it anywhere. Well …

  • @EP
    Also as far as 73P is concerned. You acted as though I was saying comet impact was not a danger and mentioned Tunguska as if you thought I didn’t know about it. Evidently you didn’t know that several times over the years on this very blog I have mentioned cometary impact is a danger and even used Tunguska as an example of what can happen. The only person acting foolish here is you.

    I never said cometary impact was not a danger. Just that 73P certainly isn’t.

Leave a Reply to Robert G. Oler 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>