Author Topic: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread  (Read 132733 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #20 on: 04/25/2018 04:38 pm »
I don't why people don't understand that the NASA administrator doesn't get to do what he wants.  It is not like he is chef and handed the keys to a restaurant and can set the menu to his liking.  Rather, he is a manager of a restaurant that the owner sets the theme and the manager has to work within the theme/menu.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2018 04:39 pm by Jim »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #21 on: 04/25/2018 05:00 pm »
I don't why people don't understand that the NASA administrator doesn't get to do what he wants.  It is not like he is chef and handed the keys to a restaurant and can set the menu to his liking.  Rather, he is a manager of a restaurant that the owner sets the theme and the manager has to work within the theme/menu.
Indeed. He's in charge of how to make a policy happen.

He's not in charge of what that policy is.

That's said, he can (should?) offer his best advice on wheather that policy is achievable (or not) on the budget he is allowed, or is in fact impossible to achieve on any budget (such as building a faster than light spaceship for the foreseeable future).  :(

It's my impression that previous Administrators have not been as active as they might on shaping what it is they are asked to do into a mission the Agency can (affordably) carry out.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #22 on: 04/25/2018 05:03 pm »

It's my impression that previous Administrators have not been as active as they might on shaping what it is they are asked to do into a mission the Agency can (affordably) carry out.

Griffin went out of his way to try to shape

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #23 on: 04/25/2018 06:27 pm »

It's my impression that previous Administrators have not been as active as they might on shaping what it is they are asked to do into a mission the Agency can (affordably) carry out.

Griffin went out of his way to try to shape

Griffin had tunnel vision - his way or the highway.
He did not try to assist in shaping policy - he tried to use policy to create his own system.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #24 on: 04/25/2018 08:03 pm »

It's my impression that previous Administrators have not been as active as they might on shaping what it is they are asked to do into a mission the Agency can (affordably) carry out.

Griffin went out of his way to try to shape

Griffin had tunnel vision - his way or the highway.
He did not try to assist in shaping policy - he tried to use policy to create his own system.

And we're still living with the fiscal and hardware legacy of Griffin's decisions - a neutered version of his Constellation transportation architecture is still the active PoR.

So unless Congress wants to substantially increase NASA's budget Bridenstine is saddled with the limitations of Griffin's vision of the future, and Bridenstine won't have much ability to make any changes.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #25 on: 04/25/2018 08:09 pm »

It's my impression that previous Administrators have not been as active as they might on shaping what it is they are asked to do into a mission the Agency can (affordably) carry out.

Griffin went out of his way to try to shape

Griffin had tunnel vision - his way or the highway.
He did not try to assist in shaping policy - he tried to use policy to create his own system.

And we're still living with the fiscal and hardware legacy of Griffin's decisions - a neutered version of his Constellation transportation architecture is still the active PoR.

So unless Congress wants to substantially increase NASA's budget Bridenstine is saddled with the limitations of Griffin's vision of the future, and Bridenstine won't have much ability to make any changes.

I do not entirely agree. The parts about Griffin's legacy are true. But the part's about Jim being unable to make changes, no I don't think so.

While it's true that he will be at the mercy of Congress I think he will be able to help out the commercial side of things greatly, from what we have seen of him he is a great supporter of the commercial sector. That is exactly the kind of guy we want and need right now, we don't want someone who believes SLS/Costplus > everything else by any means necessary, that is to say we don't want or need another Mike Griffin right now. This guy strikes me as a very smart and very well informed person, in his speech to CSC he was addressing alot of really important and key issues most people, including former administrators, are not even aware of or don't care about.

I think this man is probably the best possible person we could hope for at a time when commercial LV's increasingly look to eclipse the purpose and need for SLS or anything else like it. No he can't cut or slow down SLS but he can help commercial in other ways, and if SLS is cancelled I think he would be the first person to step up and show congress a commercial LV BEO architecture.

It's not a perfect or even ideal situation but I think that we will see major improvements to NASA under this man, at least if his public presentations are any metric to go by.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #26 on: 04/25/2018 08:33 pm »
SLS and Orion won't get cancelled, Congress will make sure of that. But I have some hope that future programs will take advantage of the commercial sector (for example, commercial habitats, BLEO commercial cargo, and commercial landers). I am also hoping for BLEO commercial crew but I am skeptical about NASA endorsing it (despite Gerst recently saying at the NAC that it was a possibility, in addition to Orion).
« Last Edit: 04/25/2018 08:35 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #27 on: 04/25/2018 08:57 pm »
The same way Congress sat down Charlie B. and was asked to to the impossible without a major increase in funding they will set Jimmie B. before them as well... Now if the new administrator can sell a dual-launched moon mission using SLS/Orion and a non human rated Falcon Heavy equipped with a Dragon derived lunar lander we might actually have something to work with in short order with and not break the budget... Leveraging the available commercial hardware (with some new developments) partnered with NASA we can meet the technical requirements and satisfy multiple Congressional districts across the country...
« Last Edit: 04/25/2018 09:28 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #28 on: 04/25/2018 09:17 pm »
SLS and Orion won't get cancelled, Congress will make sure of that. But I have some hope that future programs will take advantage of the commercial sector (for example, commercial habitats, BLEO commercial cargo, and commercial landers). I am also hoping for BLEO commercial crew but I am skeptical about NASA endorsing it (despite Gerst recently saying at the NAC that it was a possibility, in addition to Orion).
Congress and its current makeup are likely to change drastically in the near term. There is no way of knowing what a future very different looking Congress will do with SLS. Given the increasing deficit spending and the increasing likely-hood that sometime in the 2020s the US will face defaulting on its debt or enacting austerity measures, I think it is not at all an unlikely assumption that SLS is cancelled at some point in the future.

Furthermore is the fact that every success mounted by the commercial industry further undermines the immense cost and extremely low flight rate of SLS as currently planned. At some point Congress will be forced to make a choice.

IMHO this is why who leads the agency for the next few years is critical, you want someone who will stand up and offer proper alternatives for when that moment comes, because it is going to be a when not an if, SLS is simply too expensive to go un-noticed  when the debt bomb explodes.

I think we have the right guy. I was dubious at first about a politician running the agency, but the more I consider things the more this makes sense. You need somebody who can navigate politics/congress pork, and you need the same person, ideally, to be a commercial supporter at the same time. I think we got both.

The same way Congress sat down Charlie B. and was asked to to the impossible without a major increase in funding they will set Jimmie B. before them as well... Now if the new administrator can sell a dual-launched moon mission using SLS/Orion and a non human rated Falcon Heavy equipped with a Dragon derived lunar lander we might actually have something to work with in short order with and not break the budget...
Bolden was acting at the behest of his president more so than Congress. In fact on several occasions he outright ignored what Congress wanted because of what his president was ordering him to do. Griffin before him, did the same thing but did it out of arrogance not because of orders, but the damage was done. Congress at that time was highly distrustful of NASA administration and anything NASA told them regarding costs and schedule. And why shouldn't they have been? NASA failed massively on BEO planning repeatedly and wasted billions, repeatedly. If you were sitting in a seat on any of the space policy committees at the time you would have done the same thing they did.

And that was not a problem merely limited to NASA at that time or it's administrator, the previous administration made it a point and a legacy to consistently defy and ignore Congress at every possible juncture on just about every issue. This is outside the scope of this forum but it has extreme relevance. I do not think it's at all fair to compare what happened under the previous administration with the here and now. More to the point, I do not think it's fair to say the same relationship that existed between Charlie Bolden and Congress, or Mike Griffin, will exist between JB and Congress, or for that matter any future administrator. There were very unique problems that led to that happening and I do not think them likely to be repeated.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2018 09:24 pm by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #29 on: 04/25/2018 09:35 pm »
We have commercial capability and experience that didn't exist 8 years ago so these are new times and even though Jimmie B. was one of them they are not going to give him a blank check especially with mid-terms looming... The president wants the Moon so, hey give it to him... Let's Go!
« Last Edit: 04/25/2018 09:45 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #30 on: 04/25/2018 09:42 pm »
SLS and Orion won't get cancelled, Congress will make sure of that.
Out to when?

Circa 2024 or so, at least new armstrong, FH - possibly with a stretched second stage, and reusability, all have the likelyhood of being able to launch SLS to orbit for less than it costs to make SLS.
FH (possibly with F9) will have launched around 3 SLSs in mass to orbit by then. (Starlink).

Someone - perhaps even only ULA is going to have demonstrated propellant transfer in orbit.
Never mind if BFR actually happens.

Given a proven FH and New Armstrong, do you really believe SLS will carry on?

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #31 on: 04/25/2018 10:05 pm »
I do not entirely agree. The parts about Griffin's legacy are true. But the part's about Jim being unable to make changes, no I don't think so.

While it's true that he will be at the mercy of Congress...

Saying it that way victimizes Bridenstine, when in fact Congress has a constitutional part to play in our government.

And let's remember what job Bridenstine has - he is an "administrator". Go here to see his job description. People keep inventing new job descriptions for the NASA Administrator, but other than doing the bidding of their boss (i.e. the President), they are managers of what Congress has authorized NASA to do. There may be rare opportunities to provide input into what NASA should do in the future, but unless Congress increases NASA's budget top line there isn't any opportunity for Bridenstine to make any significant changes.

Quote
...I think he will be able to help out the commercial side of things greatly, from what we have seen of him he is a great supporter of the commercial sector.

I keep hearing this refrain, but people that are against commercial space are in the minority these days, so I don't see this as a significant plus or minus. For instance, Bolden was a fierce supporter of commercial space, but he also supported government space. Bridenstine is likely to do the exact same.

Quote
That is exactly the kind of guy we want and need right now, we don't want someone who believes SLS/Costplus > everything else by any means necessary, that is to say we don't want or need another Mike Griffin right now.

Again, Bridenstine works for the President, and gets funding direction from Congress. He has little leeway to do anything on his own.

And I see no way that he would be able to have the same level of influence as Michael Griffin, because Michael Griffin was not only a "Rocket Scientist", but he had experience with big government budget management. People believed him when he talked about hardware systems. Bridenstine is a lightweight in comparison.

Quote
No he can't cut or slow down SLS but he can help commercial in other ways...

Provide some examples that haven't already been talked about prior to him being confirmed.

Quote
...and if SLS is cancelled I think he would be the first person to step up and show congress a commercial LV BEO architecture.

No, he wouldn't be the first person, since the private sector has already done that. ULA has many papers on the subject (using their own rockets as well as others), and Musk and Bezos talk about it all the time. Not being a technical person, Bridenstine can only repeat what others have already said.

Quote
It's not a perfect or even ideal situation but I think that we will see major improvements to NASA under this man...

Can you suggest what those could be?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #32 on: 04/25/2018 11:06 pm »
Hey guys - how about we wait and see? The future is literally happening right now. Regardless of what gets said here, the legacy of the new Administrator will unfold before us and we’ll see what happens...
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #33 on: 04/25/2018 11:15 pm »
SLS and Orion won't get cancelled, Congress will make sure of that. But I have some hope that future programs will take advantage of the commercial sector (for example, commercial habitats, BLEO commercial cargo, and commercial landers). I am also hoping for BLEO commercial crew but I am skeptical about NASA endorsing it (despite Gerst recently saying at the NAC that it was a possibility, in addition to Orion).
Congress and its current makeup are likely to change drastically in the near term.

Not on the Senate side. Only 9 Republicans seats are in play in 2018 (including Ted Cruz) and only 2 of them are tossups. Romney will replace (retiring Republican) Senator Hatch in Utah. Senator Nelson (D) is up for re-election and will face tough competition as he is facing Governor Scott. The House is a different manner but House Democrats haven't been pro-commercial in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018
« Last Edit: 04/25/2018 11:32 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Tea Party Space Czar

  • President, Tea Party in Space
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 284
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #34 on: 04/26/2018 12:05 am »
Congress and its current makeup are likely to change drastically in the near term.
The house Republicans are in trouble.  It is not entirely sure if they will lose power but their majority will shrink imho.

Quote from: FinalFrontier
There is no way of knowing what a future very different looking Congress will do with SLS. Given the increasing deficit spending and the increasing likely-hood that sometime in the 2020s the US will face defaulting on its debt or enacting austerity measures, I think it is not at all an unlikely assumption that SLS is cancelled at some point in the future.

I used to think this - not anymore.  Too many powerful senators and congressmen have drank the SLS kool-aid and will simply fund it.  The fact that NASA is roughly bumped up to .6 of one percent no one will cry loud enough to kill SLS.  Again, my opinion.

Quote from: FinalFrontier
Furthermore is the fact that every success mounted by the commercial industry further undermines the immense cost and extremely low flight rate of SLS as currently planned. At some point Congress will be forced to make a choice.

Very true with every success people question SLS more.  However, no one is willing to draw that line in the sand... but imagine if we spent $2 billion a year on exploring CIS-Lunar Space and not SLS/Orion?  What could be done with a proven Falcon Heavy.  Imagine if we would have went down this FH road in 2012 or 2011.  Where would we be now?

We should embrace the public/private partnerships, space act agreements, and FAR part 12 where we can.  We do not now.  We could get so much further, deeper, into space.  We do not need rockets, we need Europa Clipper missions, more explorer and discovery class missions that do not dominate a sector of an SMD budget for decades.

Mr. Bridenstine can communicate to congress in a way few have in the past.  Perhaps we get lucky.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #35 on: 04/26/2018 01:48 am »
Tom Cremins Appointed Acting Chief of Staff by Administrator Bridenstine:
http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=51356

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8196
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #36 on: 04/26/2018 07:36 am »
James Webb was only a politician, but he kept Apollo rolling most of a decade when it consumed up to 5% of the whole federal budget.  Later he got Shuttle built despite Nixon's very negative views on the space programme as essentially something that made the Democrats look good (IE Himself look bad).

James Webb was a public servant, not a politician. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Webb

NASA budget maximum was 4.4% in 1966. Apollo in that year was 65.8% of NASA budget, so Apollo maximum was 2.9%. Average NASA budget was 2.8% and average Apollo budget was 1.5% of Federal budget from 1961 to 1969. The amount spent wasn't as much as people think.

James Webb retired from NASA in October 1968, before Nixon came into office. The first Space Shuttle studies were started under Tom Paine in January 1969 with the decision by Nixon being made in January 1972 under Jim Fletcher. Don't see how Webb had any input to that decision.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #37 on: 04/26/2018 02:46 pm »
SLS and Orion won't get cancelled, Congress will make sure of that.
Out to when?

Circa 2024 or so, at least new armstrong, FH - possibly with a stretched second stage, and reusability, all have the likelyhood of being able to launch SLS to orbit for less than it costs to make SLS.
FH (possibly with F9) will have launched around 3 SLSs in mass to orbit by then. (Starlink).

Someone - perhaps even only ULA is going to have demonstrated propellant transfer in orbit.
Never mind if BFR actually happens.

Given a proven FH and New Armstrong, do you really believe SLS will carry on?

SLS/Orion will soon -- in 2020-2021 -- have to compete on the launch pad with the likes of Vulcan/Centaur V, New Glenn, Falcon Heavy, BFR/BFS, and later New Armstrong.  Lofting a whole 70t at $1B per launch, SLS/Orion will be hard-pressed to finish in the top three.  What Bridenstine can do is to allow (not block) that competition.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2018 02:47 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #38 on: 04/26/2018 04:22 pm »
"we’ll see what happens..."
He Johnny, how about we refrain from using "that phrase" we hear on a daily basis from the president here on NSF and actually talk about an actual sensible-afforable and achievable space policy direction...
« Last Edit: 04/26/2018 05:48 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #39 on: 04/26/2018 05:36 pm »
SLS/Orion will soon -- in 2020-2021 -- have to compete on the launch pad with the likes of Vulcan/Centaur V, New Glenn, Falcon Heavy, BFR/BFS, and later New Armstrong.  Lofting a whole 70t at $1B per launch, SLS/Orion will be hard-pressed to finish in the top three.  What Bridenstine can do is to allow (not block) that competition.

I think Bridenstine basically agreed during his confirmation hearing not to challenge SLS.  He may well have done that against his better judgment but saw it, correctly in my view, as a sine qua non if he was to be confirmed.  Sen. Shelby, among others, never would have supported him had they had doubts about SLS's future under his tenure.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0