Author Topic: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration  (Read 82480 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #80 on: 05/26/2009 02:16 pm »
What I was largely referring to was the comments posted to blogs, which are not always anonymous, but rarely demonstrate any real insight into how the process of selecting a policy, or an exploration architecture, actually works.  That insight is not easy to attain (obtain?), but so much of what I see are posts by people who don't even recognize that they lack the insight.

You focused on my mention of the Ares 1/Orion.  Let's set that one aside.  I don't really care about the technical arguments, and I don't want to get into the issue of whether someone who is complaining is actually an engineer at Marshall, or an engineer at Boeing who would rather sell an EELV.  My point is NOT about Ares 1/Orion specifically.  I only used that as an example.  We could easily pick another topic. 

My post _was_ about the fact that too many people assume that the NASA administrator has supreme power to do whatever he wants, without understanding that his hands are tied by the White House, Congress, and the OMB.  And it is about the fact that too many people assume that they, with limited knowledge, experience, resources, somehow know more about what should be done than the people in the driver's seat.

That's not to say that the decisions made by the drivers are all correct.  But it is saying that so much of the shouting out in internet land is made without an appreciation for just how complex, and subtle, the whole thing actually is.  It's easy to say "the administrator should do X" and a heck of a lot harder when you actually have to spend days poring through Excel spreadsheets to try and figure out how to keep 5000 employees on the payroll and contracts on schedule and toilet paper in the bathrooms.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #81 on: 05/26/2009 02:33 pm »
Understood, and in which case the opportunity is available for such misconceptions to be educated is available, which you've taken (and thankfully allows this thread to get back on topic).

Quote
My post _was_ about the fact that too many people assume that the NASA administrator has supreme power to do whatever he wants, without understanding that his hands are tied by the White House, Congress, and the OMB.  And it is about the fact that too many people assume that they, with limited knowledge, experience, resources, somehow know more about what should be done than the people in the driver's seat.

That's not to say that the decisions made by the drivers are all correct.  But it is saying that so much of the shouting out in internet land is made without an appreciation for just how complex, and subtle, the whole thing actually is.  It's easy to say "the administrator should do X" and a heck of a lot harder when you actually have to spend days poring through Excel spreadsheets to try and figure out how to keep 5000 employees on the payroll and contracts on schedule and toilet paper in the bathrooms.

Which is great, as I know the issue revolves around some people thinking General Bolden will get into his office at 9am, look at the Constellation path, and keep looking at it until he leaves at the end of the day. Obviously that misconception required addressing. It did not require a prefacing of "well this is the internet" as the reason for some people's misconceptions.

So maybe those that know the General can give their opinions on his ability to handle a large organization, and then we're right back on topic.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #82 on: 05/26/2009 02:37 pm »
Understood, and in which case the opportunity is available for such misconceptions to be educated is available, which you've taken (and thankfully allows this thread to get back on topic).

Quote
My post _was_ about the fact that too many people assume that the NASA administrator has supreme power to do whatever he wants, without understanding that his hands are tied by the White House, Congress, and the OMB.  And it is about the fact that too many people assume that they, with limited knowledge, experience, resources, somehow know more about what should be done than the people in the driver's seat.

That's not to say that the decisions made by the drivers are all correct.  But it is saying that so much of the shouting out in internet land is made without an appreciation for just how complex, and subtle, the whole thing actually is.  It's easy to say "the administrator should do X" and a heck of a lot harder when you actually have to spend days poring through Excel spreadsheets to try and figure out how to keep 5000 employees on the payroll and contracts on schedule and toilet paper in the bathrooms.

Which is great, as I know the issue revolves around some people thinking General Bolden will get into his office at 9am, look at the Constellation path, and keep looking at it until he leaves at the end of the day. Obviously that misconception required addressing. It did not require a prefacing of "well this is the internet" as the reason for some people's misconceptions.

So maybe those that know the General can give their opinions on his ability to handle a large organization, and then we're right back on topic.

Personally, I don't believe he would have taken the job offer if there was something the president said that he fundamentally disagreed with, if he thought there was a hidden agenda out there, or if he would just be a pawn to the political machine.  So everyone can take that for what they will. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Marisum

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #83 on: 05/26/2009 03:34 pm »
We don't need "Jobs Programs" to support the Shuttles, EELVs, ISS or any other program. We need a realistic, affordable, sustainable and comprehensive plan to move into space. We don't have any of those. A workable, affordable and successful program would create more jobs than supporting outdated, dangerous and expensive boondoggles. NASA, Congress, Air Force, etc. needs to set their butts down together and come up with a real plan. Want happen though because the system is just too corrupt.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #84 on: 05/26/2009 03:42 pm »
We don't need "Jobs Programs" to support the Shuttles, EELVs, ISS or any other program. We need a realistic, affordable, sustainable and comprehensive plan to move into space. We don't have any of those. A workable, affordable and successful program would create more jobs than supporting outdated, dangerous and expensive boondoggles. NASA, Congress, Air Force, etc. needs to set their butts down together and come up with a real plan. Want happen though because the system is just too corrupt.

Why do we need a "plan to move into space?" Garver likes NEOs, maybe she can think of a reason.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #85 on: 05/26/2009 03:46 pm »
We don't need "Jobs Programs" to support the Shuttles, EELVs, ISS or any other program. We need a realistic, affordable, sustainable and comprehensive plan to move into space. We don't have any of those. A workable, affordable and successful program would create more jobs than supporting outdated, dangerous and expensive boondoggles. NASA, Congress, Air Force, etc. needs to set their butts down together and come up with a real plan. Want happen though because the system is just too corrupt.

I agree with you in some parts.  It would be a great idea if everyone sat down together, but that has been done before.  We have no problem coming up with the road map....the problem is always implementation.

Sure there will be set-backs and technical issues but the real problem is the contract structure (cost plus!!!), lack of initial requirements definition and then scope creep with requirements changing on the fly(which leads to more cost and schedule creep).  Add in some risk-adverse culture elements and eventually the project implodes on itself.  Sound familar?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #86 on: 05/26/2009 03:52 pm »
We don't need "Jobs Programs" to support the Shuttles, EELVs, ISS or any other program. We need a realistic, affordable, sustainable and comprehensive plan to move into space. We don't have any of those. A workable, affordable and successful program would create more jobs than supporting outdated, dangerous and expensive boondoggles. NASA, Congress, Air Force, etc. needs to set their butts down together and come up with a real plan. Want happen though because the system is just too corrupt.

So you think/hope General Bolden/Lori Garver will......? Just to keep this on topic and stop 15 "But I think we should launch Orion on EELVs" posts ;)

(If they even have the time to personally deal with it as much as people think/hope, as per Blackstar's point about the job involving multi-large organization requirements).
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline GimmeSpace

  • Member
  • Posts: 84
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #87 on: 05/27/2009 12:51 am »
It's tempting for everyone to want to see a NASA admin that fits their view of what to fly with and what's the answer, right now...

I agree with the previous comments that argue it's more complex that that.

Obama wants to be seen as a science president. He's already commented on that. He's not going to encourage young minds into science by breaking up busy NASA projects without a very compelling reason.

Add to that the recession, his #1 rule will be "Don't break anything right now."

 
"Mission Accomplished."

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #88 on: 05/27/2009 03:49 am »
Blackstar, I couldn't agree more with your comments. You have summarized my sentiments exactly.

On the issue of minor stakeholders in a decision arm waiving or second guessing NASA upper management (i.e. arm chair QBs), I thought Griffin's response to the transition team outlined in the ASAP report was telling (and kind of goes in the direction of what you are saying):

Quote
3) What are the important "unrealized opportunities”?

Coming into this position, one of the thing most important to me personally, but which I realized I would probably not have sufficient time to address, is the issue of what I call “excess process” at NASA. I’m not going to elaborate extensively on exactly what I mean by “excess process”, as I think it is self-evident. Suffice it to say that, whether we are talking about flight-readiness reviews, resolution of on-orbit nomalies, milestone design reviews, or merely the machinery of bureaucracy, we at NASA spend far too much time generating “buy in” in all directions throughout the organizational hierarchy. Too many people who are minor stakeholders in any given decision believe, and are encouraged by custom to believe, that they particular voice is essential to the process. Almost never are they informed that such is not the case, that a good decision can be made with far less input from many fewer sources. This behavior is almost endemic to government, and is never entirely avoidable to the extent that can be attained in private enterprise, where efficiency in decision making is the lifeblood of an organization. But even in government it can be reduced. If I were to be asked to serve a second term at NASA, this would be my top institutional priority.

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/2008_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf

Bolden will also have to deal with this "excess process" problem at NASA.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2009 04:14 am by yg1968 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #89 on: 05/27/2009 05:04 am »

On the issue of minor stakeholders in a decision arm waiving or second guessing NASA upper management (i.e. arm chair QBs), I thought Griffin's response to the transition team outlined in the ASAP report was telling (and kind of goes in the direction of what you are saying)

Bolden will also have to deal with this "excess process" problem at NASA.


That is just Griffin trying to cover his butt and legacy.  It is not "minor stakeholders", ie lower tier management but rank and file workers who see that the "emperor has no clothes".

The problem with CxP isn't "excess process" , it is that it is fundamentally flawed and unsustainable.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #90 on: 05/27/2009 04:29 pm »
So what can Bolden and Garver do between their confirmation and the release of the Augustine report?

So far as I have been able to determine shuttle extension is not on the table for the Augustine commission but theoretically the Administrator could start the ball rolling for the 2012 shuttle extension plan without any major expenditures. He could possibly look into redirecting the stimulation monies into a more active COTS-D program.

Anything else?

BTW Blackstar's comment about the Admin. not having much power would seem to be contradicted by Griffin's record to some degree.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Peter NASA

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1294
  • SOMD
  • Liked: 8747
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #91 on: 05/27/2009 05:02 pm »
I think it's admirable some people still think Constellation is a happy ship sailing all the way to a 2019 lunar return, but they are now ignoring the reality that has been officially released by Constellation management. The 2019 lunar return has been lost, that's official. I would advise such people to spend more time keeping up to date, and less time quoting three year old releases on spaceref.

I would also add that Blackstar's comments about the admin having to worry about excell sheets and bathroom contracts as completely wrong. Most roles are delegated out, already, before he even takes up office.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #92 on: 05/27/2009 05:28 pm »
I think it's admirable some people still think Constellation is a happy ship sailing all the way to a 2019 lunar return, but they are now ignoring the reality that has been officially released by Constellation management. The 2019 lunar return has been lost, that's official. I would advise such people to spend more time keeping up to date, and less time quoting three year old releases on spaceref.

I would also add that Blackstar's comments about the admin having to worry about excell sheets and bathroom contracts as completely wrong. Most roles are delegated out, already, before he even takes up office.

There is nothing official. The 2020 deadline is unlikely to be met if the ISS is extended. But the decision to extend the ISS has yet to be made officially. It is likely to be made this fall. The budget in the out years (2011-2013) also has an impact on the 2020 deadline.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2009 09:33 pm by yg1968 »

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #93 on: 05/27/2009 05:33 pm »
So what can Bolden and Garver do between their confirmation and the release of the Augustine report?

So far as I have been able to determine shuttle extension is not on the table for the Augustine commission but theoretically the Administrator could start the ball rolling for the 2012 shuttle extension plan without any major expenditures. He could possibly look into redirecting the stimulation monies into a more active COTS-D program.

Anything else?

BTW Blackstar's comment about the Admin. not having much power would seem to be contradicted by Griffin's record to some degree.

They can figure out exactly what it is they want to accomplish, which will give them a context to work with the Augustine II conclusions. Bolden has hinted he wants to keep the HSF budget from being cut. Garver has hinted she wants a flight to a NEO before lunar landing. They can put their heads together and figure out how to combine those two things into a coordinate goal. A lot depends on what happens with Ares I-X and Falcon 9 over the summer.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #94 on: 05/27/2009 05:34 pm »

There is nothing official.

It has nothing to do with official, it has to do with reality which doesn't support it.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #95 on: 05/27/2009 05:39 pm »
There is nothing official. The 2020 deadline is unlikely to be met if the ISS is extended. But the decision to extend the ISS has yet to be made officially. It is likely to be made this fall. The budget in the out years (2011-2013) also has an impact on the 2020 deadline.

All of this now falls under the Augustine HSF Commission's review. Assuming that the Administration and Congress are going to accept, implement, and fund most or all of that Commission's recommendations is not something I am willing to bet on. Whether Bolden will fight for or against the Commission's recommendations is also something that will be interesting to see.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #96 on: 05/27/2009 05:40 pm »
I think it's admirable some people still think Constellation is a happy ship sailing all the way to a 2019 lunar return, but they are now ignoring the reality that has been officially released by Constellation management. The 2019 lunar return has been lost, that's official. I would advise such people to spend more time keeping up to date, and less time quoting three year old releases on spaceref.

I would also add that Blackstar's comments about the admin having to worry about excell sheets and bathroom contracts as completely wrong. Most roles are delegated out, already, before he even takes up office.

There is nothing official. The 2020 deadline is unlikely to be met if the ISS is extended. But the decision to extend the ISS has yet to be made officially. It is likely to be made this fall. The budget in the out years (2011-2013) also has an impact on the 2020 deadline.

The "decision" about the life-cycle of the ISS is not one that NASA, or even the White House can make alone. It must be ultimately determined by the Congress and what it decides and what it provides the funding for. And right now, if you read the current law, the Congress is pretty clear on its expectation for at least 2020. That, of course, is subject to change, as are all laws, but as for right now--and as of last September when that law was enacted, the betting should be on 2020. The ONLY reason that the continuation of ISS would delay a lunar landing is because of the flatline budget profile in the out-years, which no one--other than OMB--has found to be an acceptable projection, at least that I've heard. Stop drinking the OMB Kool-Aid!!
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #97 on: 05/27/2009 05:47 pm »
51D Mascot,

Yes I know, I have made the same point about ISS extension in another post. The reduced projected budget in the out-years is also far from certain but worrisome nonetheless. Good to know that no one is accepting it. I hope that the Augustine doesn't take it for granted it either because it could impact their recommendations.

In any event, it is almost a given that the Augustine commission will come out in favour of extending the ISS (which I hope happens).  If I remember correctly Gerst made the point  that the ISS extension was to be made officially this fall. He said that every ISS member country (including the United States) needed to work it out in their respective countries and then formally agree to it. 

But the next question becomes can we afford both maintaining the ISS and completing Ares V at the same time. My guess is that Ares V will not be ready before 2025 because of budget constraints. But I thought President Obama himself wanted to reduce the deficit starting in 2011 once the recession is supposed to be over.
« Last Edit: 05/28/2009 06:01 am by yg1968 »

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #98 on: 05/27/2009 05:48 pm »
So what can Bolden and Garver do between their confirmation and the release of the Augustine report?

They can figure out exactly what it is they want to accomplish, which will give them a context to work with the Augustine II conclusions. Bolden has hinted he wants to keep the HSF budget from being cut. Garver has hinted she wants a flight to a NEO before lunar landing. They can put their heads together and figure out how to combine those two things into a coordinate goal. A lot depends on what happens with Ares I-X and Falcon 9 over the summer.

Both the question of HSF funding and a NEO flight would seem to come under the Augustine HSF Commission and not something that Bolden or Garver can implement in the short time between confirmation and the receipt of the Review. If the Commission is truly independent Bolden's and Graver's views will not have much impact. Whether the Commission will obtain useful and formative information from Ares I-X and Falcon 9 is an interesting question.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Bolden, Garver nominated for NASA Administration
« Reply #99 on: 05/27/2009 05:56 pm »
The "decision" about the life-cycle of the ISS is not one that NASA, or even the White House can make alone. It must be ultimately determined by the Congress and what it decides and what it provides the funding for. And right now, if you read the current law, the Congress is pretty clear on its expectation for at least 2020. That, of course, is subject to change, as are all laws, but as for right now--and as of last September when that law was enacted, the betting should be on 2020. The ONLY reason that the continuation of ISS would delay a lunar landing is because of the flatline budget profile in the out-years, which no one--other than OMB--has found to be an acceptable projection, at least that I've heard. Stop drinking the OMB Kool-Aid!!

51-D Mascot would there not be other reasons why ISS might be terminated before 2020?

1) physically impossible to maintain the station due to shortfall of logistics, lack of transport for major ORU's, and/or danger of terminal failure of critical components? (remember we have never heard NASA even say it was possible to extend the ISS)

2) Augustine Commission recommends termination.

“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Tags:
 

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