NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => Space Policy Discussion => Topic started by: jacqmans on 04/24/2018 06:40 pm

Title: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: jacqmans on 04/24/2018 06:40 pm
Closing the old thread about the nomination process (found here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39678) and starting a new one with the NASA press release.

Please keep discussion within bounds, respectful, and constructive. -Lar

---

April 23, 2018
RELEASE 18-028

Vice President Pence Swears in New NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine


Jim Bridenstine officially took office as the 13th administrator of NASA Monday after he was given the oath of office by Vice President Mike Pence at the agency’s headquarters in Washington.

“It is a great privilege for me to be here today, to be able to usher in on behalf of the President of the United States what we believe is a new chapter of renewed American leadership in space with the swearing-in of the newest Administrator of NASA, Jim Bridenstine,” said Vice President Pence. "Under Space Policy Directive 1, we will send American astronauts back to the Moon, and after that we will establish the capacity, with international and commercial partners, to send Americans to Mars. And NASA will lead the way."

In his new role at NASA, Bridenstine takes over an agency critical to the nation’s economy, security and technological preeminence.

“NASA represents the best of the United States of America,” said Bridenstine. “We lead, we discover, we pioneer, and we inspire. I look forward to our journey together.”

As part of the swearing-in ceremony, Vice President Pence and Administrator Bridenstine spoke live with NASA astronauts Scott Tingle, Drew Feustel and Ricky Arnold, who currently are living and working 250 miles above Earth aboard the International Space Station. The astronauts offered congratulations and shared stories of their experiences on the orbiting laboratory.
 
Following the ceremony, which was attended by Bridenstine’s family, employees and media, the Vice President and new administrator held a meeting with senior agency leadership at headquarters and NASA’s centers via video teleconference.

“The appropriations bill that is now law renews focus on human spaceflight activities and expands our commercial and international partnerships. It also continues our pursuit of cutting-edge science and aeronautics breakthroughs,” Bridenstine told agency leadership.

Bridenstine was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 19, to serve as the agency’s administrator. Prior to this position, he served in the U.S. House of Representatives for the state of Oklahoma, where he held positions on the House Armed Services Committee and the Science, Space and Technology Committee. Bridenstine also is a pilot in the U.S. Navy Reserve and the former executive director of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum and Planetarium.

Read Bridenstine’s official biography at:

https://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/bridenstine-biography.html

Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Lar on 04/24/2018 08:49 pm
This thread should discuss things like priorities, challenges, areas of likely focus, and new news items as they arise. Keep partisan politics out, please .
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 04/24/2018 09:07 pm
JB has termed the private space sector as the US "secret weapon" for a space renaissance(5:00 in video linked below).  Is there any near term opportunity for him to make a statement that illuminates his intentions -- or is this something that will only trickle out to avoid a train wreck with certain congressional power centers?  He was quite forthright in this presentation... can he continue that as NASA Admin, as a political appointee?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7jlYPVP6nY
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: clongton on 04/24/2018 10:24 pm
I like this guy! Forty Five minutes and never once did I yawn. He had my undivided attention right from the beginning. This guy - because of his experience in Congress - knows what he's talking  about and seems able to pick the center right out of a question and give an answer that goes straight to the heart of it.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 04/24/2018 10:37 pm
He was quite forthright in this presentation... can he continue that as NASA Admin, as a political appointee?

Maybe his experience in Congress can help him be fortright and keep his position.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/25/2018 12:05 am
Good luck!
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: DistantTemple on 04/25/2018 12:31 am
Good luck!
Excellent Guy.... Brilliantly knowledgeable on all the question asked at FAA Commercial Space Conference (CSC); detailled, technical, and fully informed. And totally passionate about space. Jim Bridenstein at FAA CSC Feb 2017 (https://youtu.be/s7jlYPVP6nY)

I am putting aside my concerns about his climate science denial, and hope he is not destructive on that. And his strong military slant is an issue, but I think it will turn out a great asset, and he will bend the "race" for continued US eminence,  to much faster and more flexible progress.

Almost his opening remarks were "You are my secret weapon" ... that is the commercial space companies sitting in front of him. And (obviously it was the CSC ) he kept enthusiastically explaining how Commercial Space was going to be more involved, in defense, in weather, on the Moon.... Changing the balance between Gov, and CS was his main theme....

I look forward to great leaps forward... just at the right time.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/25/2018 12:50 am
It's probably relevant to repost his swearing in ceremony in this new thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX_9CbS4KPA
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/25/2018 01:16 am
Here is an article on the swearing-in ceremony:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/the-bridenstine-era-begins/

Quote from: Marcia Smith
At a later meeting with senior NASA officials, however, Pence spoke about the growing role of the commercial sector in space.  Trump “wants us to look in new, and renewed, and fresh ways, about American leadership in space” and “to clear the way …. for more capital investment, more private investment, and more innovation from our burgeoning commercial sector.”
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/25/2018 01:24 am
It looks like Bridenstine met President Trump on Monday:

Quote from: Jeff Foust
Pence said. He added that Bridenstine and Pence would meet with President Trump in the Oval Office shortly after the meeting.
http://spacenews.com/bridenstine-sworn-in-as-nasa-administrator/
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/25/2018 01:33 am
Here is an article on the swearing-in ceremony:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/the-bridenstine-era-begins/

Quote from: Marcia Smith
At a later meeting with senior NASA officials, however, Pence spoke about the growing role of the commercial sector in space.  Trump “wants us to look in new, and renewed, and fresh ways, about American leadership in space” and “to clear the way …. for more capital investment, more private investment, and more innovation from our burgeoning commercial sector.”
So is that an indirect way of saying don't expect more money from Congress?
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 04/25/2018 03:55 am
Congress will continue to fund NASA porkulous missions whether the administrator or the president want to.  A couple of opinions:

In my opinion would President Trump veto the NASA spending bill which will be packaged with 30 other bills to make it an all or nothing scenario.   Mr. Bridenstine will work magic to try and ensure commercial (whatever you want to define it as) continues to grow. 

Again my opinion,  Mr. Bridenstine is already screwed.  Here is why:  The greatest momentum a sitting president has is his first 100 days - unless war breaks out - then we all rally.  With Mr. Bridenstine assuming the NASA controls just a few months from the midterm elections I am not sure how much impact he can have.

It is hard to be at NASA today.  Politicians rolling in and out of office every two to six years makes it next to impossible to do anything meaningful in a long run.  That is why, personally, I prefer public/private partnerships on explorer and discovery class missions.  Maybe in the vein Mr. Bridenstine can milk some more missions for SMD.

Imagine Astrophysics, Planetary, Helio, and Earth  all rolling one explorer and one discovery class a year.  Granted these are not the Battle-star Galacticas like JWST but we could really move the ball down the field.

I am optimistic.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 04/25/2018 10:59 am
Bridenstine knows that he'll have to keep money flowing to SLS/Orion, or the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). will put a contract out on him -- do everything possible to cut him off at the knees.  So, SLS/Orion spending will roll on...call it insurance money.

True on first 100 days, but this isn't a normal presidency.

A leverage he has beyond the 100 days is the Nat'l Space Council.  This organization could help get a few things started that the Admin alone couldn't touch.  Best thing he can do is clear a path for commercial space, keeping options open, starting public-private partnerships that enable (at least not disable) private innovation.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/25/2018 11:13 am
Although he can't do much about the huge Pork flowing for the SLS: I'm hoping he can investigate 'Skunk Works' style, lower cost  options (no, really) for a reusable or at least partially reusable manned Lunar Lander. It would make a good companion piece for LOP-G and SLS-Orion overall. A large one would be a four person Lander, or a lower-priced two person job with capabilities similar to the Apollo LM; but more robust and at least partially reusable.

As long as the Pork flows, I can't see many ways that the Senators and Congresspeople dining on that Pork would have too many objections to Bridenstine coming up with a Lander that could be developed in 5 years for less than $8-to-10 billion. He could get a competition started with relative newcomers such as SpaceX, Blue Origin or Masten to compete for the contract. If LockMart or Boeing wanted to throw their hat in the ring; they could ask trusted foreign Space industries in Europe or Japan to partner with them. And one stipulation is that it could be either crew or Cargo version - in a similar way that Soyuz/Progress now is. Only reusable, of course.

Yeah; a guy can dream but it doesn't have to remain a dream. Cislunar space is the near future frontier. Just send more money...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: clongton on 04/25/2018 11:50 am
This is one of the reasons that I do not object, in general terms, to a politician becoming the Administrator. He would know his way around Congress and what kind of "accomodations" would need to be made in order to get what he wants funded, and how to make them.

Bridenstine sat on the Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Science, Space and Technology during the 113th, 114th, and 115th Congresses. Within the Science Committee, Bridenstine has sat on the Subcommittee on Environment (Chairman) and Subcommittee on Space.

Given his obvious grasp of the details and finer points as evidenced in his speech and the following Q&A posted above, I think he'll make a fine Administrator.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 04/25/2018 11:58 am
A place for him to start building infrastructure is propellant depots -- make EUS refuelable, enable Vulcan/Aces, provide for Lunar Lander refueling, etc.  Everyone wins... and NASA only pays for delivered propellant, plus some OTA seed money up front.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Jim on 04/25/2018 02:40 pm

A leverage he has beyond the 100 days is the Nat'l Space Council.  This organization could help get a few things started that the Admin alone couldn't touch.  Best thing he can do is clear a path for commercial space, keeping options open, starting public-private partnerships that enable (at least not disable) private innovation.

No, the NSC has no more leverage than the Admin.  The president is either behind the admin or not, the NSC is not going to help.  The NSC works for the president and so that does not help with congress.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Jim on 04/25/2018 02:42 pm
A place for him to start building infrastructure is propellant depots -- make EUS refuelable, enable Vulcan/Aces, provide for Lunar Lander refueling, etc.  Everyone wins... and NASA only pays for delivered propellant, plus some OTA seed money up front.

No, he can't do such stuff on his own.  He does what is directed by the president and congress. 
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/25/2018 03:28 pm

A leverage he has beyond the 100 days is the Nat'l Space Council.  This organization could help get a few things started that the Admin alone couldn't touch.  Best thing he can do is clear a path for commercial space, keeping options open, starting public-private partnerships that enable (at least not disable) private innovation.

No, the NSC has no more leverage than the Admin.  The president is either behind the admin or not, the NSC is not going to help.  The NSC works for the president and so that does not help with congress.

I imagine that the NSC could have a role to play if there is a disagreement between OMB and NASA on funding priorities. The Senate (especially Senator Nelson) often makes OMB appear like they are the villains. FWIW, I disagree with Senators that claim this; I think that OMB is often anti-pork and that is what bugs these Senators the most.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 04/25/2018 04:27 pm
This is one of the reasons that I do not object, in general terms, to a politician becoming the Administrator.
Nor should anyone.

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).

The truth is (as Augustine II pointed out) NASA either has too many tasks to do with its appropriated budget or too little budget to do the tasks the President and the Congress insist it do.   :(

NASA has long needed an Administrator  who is prepared to say that to both the President and Congress "Either increase our budget or reduce the list of programmes you insist we carry out."

No, he can't do such stuff on his own.  He does what is directed by the president and congress.
And that, right there, would seem to be the biggest problem he will have for his time with the Agency.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Jim 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.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: john smith 19 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.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Jim 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
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: clongton 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.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron 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.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: FinalFrontier 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.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 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).
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science 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...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: FinalFrontier 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.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science 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!
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: speedevil 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?
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron 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 (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/strahand/roles.htm). 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?
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Johnnyhinbos 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...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 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
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar 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
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 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
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon 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.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU 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.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science 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...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Proponent 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.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: clongton on 04/26/2018 05:56 pm
Here's where Administrator Bridenstine's political experience will, imo, serve him, NASA and the space community in general well.

Some folks want to turn this into a SLS vs. SpaceX vs. BO discussion. That's not likely to happen for a very long time, if ever. SLS isn't really about space anymore - it's 100% politics that will use space and SLS/Orion to meet political goals. SpaceX and Blue Origins are completely the opposite. Both are about space, but for different reasons. What folks don't seem to realize is that it doesn't actually matter that in coming years SLS/Orion will not make any economic sense.

It started out under Mike Griffin as Ares-V/Orion as a way to implement President Bush's VSE. That actually was about space. But then ultimately the 3-state (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). (Alabama, Florida and Texas) took complete and unchallenged control of the program to where the point is no longer actually using the system to advance the cause of humanity in space (as was the VSE's goal), but to ensure the long-term survival of high-paying jobs back in the home states. But before anyone criticizes them for that remember that that is why the people from those state keep re-electing them; because they do a good job of that, using SLS/Orion as the vehicle to accomplish it. And so long as those jobs can be reasonably continued, nothing will change in that regard. Remember that in spite of all of us, Apollo wasn't actually about the moon either. That too was political, and congressional support ended as soon as the Apollo-11 crew safely returned. The Soviets had been beaten - mission accomplished. The new mission is the high paying jobs in the (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). states.

Enter Administrator Bridenstine. He is a creature of Congress, and knows how to get around and get things rolling in a specific direction. SLS/Orion is NOT going to be cancelled for a long time. He knows that! It WILL actually fly a few times. Not because it makes economic sense, but because it keeps the 3-state (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). happy. Instead of working against that, I think Mr. Bridenstine will use that to his, and our advantage.

He knows the (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). is not going to let SLS get cancelled. So he will not fight that. Instead he'll grease those skids in such a way that makes him, if not an ally, at least a friend of the (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words).. That will create a working environment with them where they will be predisposed to work with him to help him get his priorities passed, BECAUSE he helps them with theirs. It's called back-scratching. That is exactly how legislation becomes law in Congress.

Eventually what will happen is that SLS/Orion will no longer be capable of maintaining enough of those jobs at home so they will get slowly phased out - not cancelled, but phased out. In their place will be other high profile hardware needed for the moon and Mars, completely in keeping with the Administration's goals. Let's call that the SLS Follow-on Program (SFOP). And the (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). will help the Administrator get those, so long as they get the lion's share of the jobs. I believe the Administrator and the (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). would both view that as a win-win.

President Trump has been office for 1-1/2 years with 6-1/2 years to go (he'll likely get re-elected). That's enough time for the groundwork to be laid for a transition to begin, and more than enough time to dot the "i" if Mr. Pence replaces him in 2024. The Moon/Mars hardware design and development will overlap SLS/Orion for some time and the phasing out of SLS/Orion design/development jobs will be gradual, as the 3-state region phases in the SFOP programs and Commercial companies step into the lift gap. SLS will not go out with a bang. It will be more of a quiet whimper.

SLS/Orion will be the last government designed, government owned and operated launch system. And Administrator Bridenstine will be remembered as the architect of the transition.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Proponent on 04/26/2018 06:19 pm
I would "like" your post were I not rather less certain than you of Trump's re-election (I'm not expressing a view as to whether his re-election is desirable, only as to its likelihood).
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: clongton on 04/26/2018 06:34 pm
I would "like" your post were I not rather less certain than you of Trump's re-election (I'm not expressing a view as to whether his re-election is desirable, only as to its likelihood).

Based solely on historical averages. Most presidents (not all) serve 2 terms. Even ones that became highly unpopular during their 1st term. Not an expression of personal preference - just an acknowledgement of historical trends and power gained in 1st 4 years.

I revised the statement to make that clear.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/26/2018 08:08 pm
Next summer will be 50 years since we landed on the Moon. If the Administrator can get boots back on the lunar surface it would be a great accomplishment for the agency. I really don't care how many masters the program has to feed or by what combination of architectures or LVs, those available or soon to come into service. If or when BFR/BFS comes into being we will adjust our HSF accordingly if deemed necessary for the Moon or Mars... The average American being 35-37 years old never watched humans walking on another world on live TV and they too will be forever changed by the experience...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/26/2018 08:41 pm
Enter Administrator Bridenstine. He is a creature of Congress, and knows how to get around and get things rolling in a specific direction.

Bridenstine was only in Congress for 5 years. What accomplishments did he have that lead you to believe that he "...knows how to get around and get things rolling in a specific direction"?

Quote
SLS/Orion is NOT going to be cancelled for a long time. He knows that!

Even people outside of the beltway understand the forces the keep the SLS funded. How is this a revelation on his part?

Quote
He knows the (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). is not going to let SLS get cancelled. So he will not fight that.

The NASA Administrator works for the President. So unless the President WANTS the NASA Administrator (whoever it is) to fight against the SLS, then they won't fight against the SLS.

Besides, the real indication about the SLS is not whether the development of the SLS is funded, but the OPERATIONAL USE of the SLS is funded. And so far there are no fully funded programs that MUST use the SLS. The Europa Clipper has alternatives it can use, and LOP-G is still in the conceptual phase. Plus NASA has not told Congress how much it will cost to fly the SLS operationally, nor does Congress know how much the LOP-G will cost to build and operate, so Congress could still get stickershock.

So if Congress decides to keep NASA's budget flat, there isn't much that Bridenstine can do to change the future of anything. Programs that use the SLS will dominate NASA's budget for years to come.

Quote
Instead he'll grease those skids in such a way that makes him, if not an ally, at least a friend of the (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words).. That will create a working environment with them where they will be predisposed to work with him to help him get his priorities passed, BECAUSE he helps them with theirs. It's called back-scratching. That is exactly how legislation becomes law in Congress.

I know you're enthusiastic about Bridenstine, but I think that's a little over the top. He's from deep-red Oklahoma, and his political views are perfectly aligned with the conservative wing of the Republican Party. He's been a back-scratcher for his whole time in Congress...  ;)

Plus, if the Democrats take over the House next year then Bridenstine may actually be a liability, not an asset. Because he is NOT liked by the opposition party.

Quote
Eventually what will happen is that SLS/Orion will no longer be capable of maintaining enough of those jobs at home so they will get slowly phased out - not cancelled, but phased out. In their place will be other high profile hardware needed for the moon and Mars, completely in keeping with the Administration's goals.

Just to be clear, you are saying that bids for future NASA hardware will result in contractors in Alabama, Florida and Texas winning, and not just any contractors but the same ones that build the SLS today?

Quote
SLS/Orion will be the last government designed, government owned and operated launch system. And Administrator Bridenstine will be remembered as the architect of the transition.

Let's hope the first part is true, but Bridenstine is only in a position to make that NOT true. He can perpetuate the SLS, but it's the private sector that is making the SLS obsolete, not a NASA Administrator.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Alpha Control on 04/26/2018 09:18 pm
Just saw this on SpaceNews (via Jeff Foust's re-tweet of an EOS interview).  I must say I'm rather shocked that a former NASA Administrator would publicly dismiss his successor.   He seems to be saying that NASA will be okay in spite of Jim Bridenstine being there. I've never seen that.  My opinion of Charlie Bolden just dropped.

https://eos.org/articles/former-nasa-administrator-weighs-in-on-new-space-agency-head

I think he should not have commented publicly, as any agency staff who consider themselves as Bolden supporters make take his comments to mean it's okay to back away from their new boss to some degree.  I think comments like these can foster disrespect.

Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/26/2018 09:51 pm
Just saw this on SpaceNews (via Jeff Foust's re-tweet of an EOS interview).  I must say I'm rather shocked that a former NASA Administrator would publicly dismiss his successor.   He seems to be saying that NASA will be okay in spite of Jim Bridenstine being there. I've never seen that.  My opinion of Charlie Bolden just dropped.

https://eos.org/articles/former-nasa-administrator-weighs-in-on-new-space-agency-head

I think he should not have commented publicly, as any agency staff who consider themselves as Bolden supporters make take his comments to mean it's okay to back away from their new boss to some degree.  I think comments like these can foster disrespect.
I don't see it... Bolden is a private citizen and is entitled to his right to speak freely and NASA personnel are bright enough to formulate their own thoughts IMHO...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/26/2018 10:19 pm
Just saw this on SpaceNews (via Jeff Foust's re-tweet of an EOS interview).  I must say I'm rather shocked that a former NASA Administrator would publicly dismiss his successor.   He seems to be saying that NASA will be okay in spite of Jim Bridenstine being there. I've never seen that.  My opinion of Charlie Bolden just dropped.

https://eos.org/articles/former-nasa-administrator-weighs-in-on-new-space-agency-head

I think he should not have commented publicly, as any agency staff who consider themselves as Bolden supporters make take his comments to mean it's okay to back away from their new boss to some degree.  I think comments like these can foster disrespect.
I don't see it... Bolden is a private citizen and is entitled to his right to speak freely and NASA personnel are bright enough to formulate their own thoughts IMHO...

An observation:
There's been a tradition, but not an inviolate one, that former officeholders are gracious to, and refrain from criticism of, their successors in public.  Privately, off the record--maybe not.  Exception--if the two parties are competing for the same position.

Some of the questions asked were, in my opinion, loaded questions that implied disapproval of Bridenstine and invited a negative response.  I observed Bolden turning some of those questions into positive connotation answers.

A final tought: Charlie Bolden is Charlie Bolden?

YMMV.

Edited
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/26/2018 10:26 pm
Just saw this on SpaceNews (via Jeff Foust's re-tweet of an EOS interview).  I must say I'm rather shocked that a former NASA Administrator would publicly dismiss his successor.   He seems to be saying that NASA will be okay in spite of Jim Bridenstine being there. I've never seen that.  My opinion of Charlie Bolden just dropped.

https://eos.org/articles/former-nasa-administrator-weighs-in-on-new-space-agency-head

I think he should not have commented publicly, as any agency staff who consider themselves as Bolden supporters make take his comments to mean it's okay to back away from their new boss to some degree.  I think comments like these can foster disrespect.
I don't see it... Bolden is a private citizen and is entitled to his right to speak freely and NASA personnel are bright enough to formulate their own thoughts IMHO...

An observation:
There's been a tradition, but not an inviolate one, that former officeholders are gracious to, and refrain from criticism of, their successors in public.  Privately, off the record--maybe not.  Exception--if the two parties are competing for the same position.

Charlie Bolden is Charlie Bolden?  YMMV.
Decorum is gone unfortunately if you haven't noticed... :(
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/26/2018 10:33 pm
Decorum is gone unfortunately if you haven't noticed... :(

Yes, but I have the naive? expectation that a USMC general and astronaut would fight for decorum in the culture wars, even if it's a fighting retreat.  :(
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: kch on 04/26/2018 10:35 pm
Just saw this on SpaceNews (via Jeff Foust's re-tweet of an EOS interview).  I must say I'm rather shocked that a former NASA Administrator would publicly dismiss his successor.   He seems to be saying that NASA will be okay in spite of Jim Bridenstine being there. I've never seen that.  My opinion of Charlie Bolden just dropped.

https://eos.org/articles/former-nasa-administrator-weighs-in-on-new-space-agency-head

I think he should not have commented publicly, as any agency staff who consider themselves as Bolden supporters make take his comments to mean it's okay to back away from their new boss to some degree.  I think comments like these can foster disrespect.

I don't see it... Bolden is a private citizen and is entitled to his right to speak freely and NASA personnel are bright enough to formulate their own thoughts IMHO...

An observation:
There's been a tradition, but not an inviolate one, that former officeholders are gracious to, and refrain from criticism of, their successors in public.  Privately, off the record--maybe not.  Exception--if the two parties are competing for the same position.

Charlie Bolden is Charlie Bolden?  YMMV.

Decorum is gone unfortunately if you haven't noticed... :(

Oh, rest assured ... We Noticed.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: clongton on 04/26/2018 10:47 pm
This thread should discuss things like priorities, challenges, areas of likely focus, and new news items as they arise. Keep partisan politics out, please .

Quoting the moderator from the first page because it's becoming obvious that some of you didn't read his instructions. 
Keep this discussion on the Administrator please. Moderators please moderate.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/26/2018 10:57 pm
Decorum is gone unfortunately if you haven't noticed... :(

Yes, but I have the naive? expectation that a USMC general and astronaut would fight for decorum in the culture wars, even if it's a fighting retreat.  :(
One again referring back to the article, I don't see it... But since you brought up Bolden's Bio, the new administrator isn't worthy to "pull his wheel chocks"...

Can we now get back to all the great new accomplishments to unfold at NASA...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/27/2018 12:55 am
Just saw this on SpaceNews (via Jeff Foust's re-tweet of an EOS interview).  I must say I'm rather shocked that a former NASA Administrator would publicly dismiss his successor.   He seems to be saying that NASA will be okay in spite of Jim Bridenstine being there. I've never seen that.  My opinion of Charlie Bolden just dropped.

https://eos.org/articles/former-nasa-administrator-weighs-in-on-new-space-agency-head

I think he should not have commented publicly, as any agency staff who consider themselves as Bolden supporters make take his comments to mean it's okay to back away from their new boss to some degree.  I think comments like these can foster disrespect.

It's also not particularly helpful advice as Bridenstine already knows that he needs to be non-partisan.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/27/2018 12:59 am
Here is a tweet from Bridenstine

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/989174967903367168

Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Lar on 04/27/2018 01:04 am
NASA has long needed an Administrator  who is prepared to say that to both the President and Congress "Either increase our budget or reduce the list of programmes you insist we carry out."

There is a third alternative... do the programs in a more cost effective way.  That's not a realistic alternative though.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/27/2018 01:13 am
Lori Garver welcomes Bridenstine to NASA:

Quote from: Lori Garver
Welcome @RepJBridenstine and best of luck. Nice to see @NASA hasn’t changed their Vision Statement in a few years... I’m fond of this one!

https://twitter.com/Lori_Garver/status/989305465384460288
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Lar on 04/27/2018 01:20 am
Bolden's remarks didn't strike me as all that partisan, and as a former administrator, his remarks are worth heeding. Dissecting them in this thread is fair game if done with decorum in a non partisan manner.

Shout out to Clongton for reminding us all to do a good job of that.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/27/2018 03:57 am
I disagree. Bolden repeated stuff that Bill Nelson said but at least Bill Nelson said it prior to Bridenstine's confirmation (not after). Lori Garver on the other hand's tweet showed more "decorum". Garver supported Bridenstine even prior to his confirmation. I am starting to think like Jon, that the real concern over Bridenstine is his pro-commercial values, not his social values.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/27/2018 04:06 am
Another tweet from Bridenstine:

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/989653579043614720

Quote from: Administrator Bidenstine
Great 3rd day on the job with the @NASA family.  Excited to get to work on our plan to sustainably return America to the surface of the Moon starting with an aggressive robotic program.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: spacetraveler on 04/27/2018 04:59 am
I would "like" your post were I not rather less certain than you of Trump's re-election (I'm not expressing a view as to whether his re-election is desirable, only as to its likelihood).

Based solely on historical averages. Most presidents (not all) serve 2 terms. Even ones that became highly unpopular during their 1st term. Not an expression of personal preference - just an acknowledgement of historical trends and power gained in 1st 4 years.

I revised the statement to make that clear.

3 out of the 4 presidents who were as unpopular in their first terms as Trump is now were not re-elected.

And given we are already in 2018, from where I see it, the odds are Bridenstine only serves 2 years and change.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Alpha Control on 04/27/2018 05:18 am
I disagree. Bolden repeated stuff that Bill Nelson said but at least Bill Nelson said it prior to Bridenstine's confirmation (not after). Lori Garver on the other hand's tweet showed more "decorum". Garver supported Bridenstine even prior to his confirmation. I am starting to think like Jon, that the real concern over Bridenstine is his pro-commercial values, not his social values.

Thanks YG.  And thanks to Lar, Rocket Science, Chuck, kch, zubenelgenubi for all your comments. I felt it was fair game to bring this up since it was a news story - "Former NASA Administrator gives opinion on his successor".

I think it was zubenelgenubi's and kch's comments that clarified it for me - it was the lack of decorum from Charlie Bolden that shocked me. I grew up in a military family - my dad was a 3-star U.S. Navy Admiral - and I can't imagine career officers at that level making public comments like that about their successors, regardless of whether it's a military job or not.

David
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: zodiacchris on 04/27/2018 05:50 am
I just read Charlie Bolden’s interview and thought it was straightforward and fair. No bashing Bridenstine, sound advice, constructive attitude. What lack of decorum by Bolden? ???

Only time will tell how Bridenstine will turn out, let’s relax a bit... :)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: high road on 04/27/2018 07:31 am
Great interview. Managed to miss the "lack of decorum" that was supposed to be in there.

Even if Bridenstine would try to gut Earth Sciences as requested by the president, apparently Bolden implies he is not likely to be successful. And I never expected him to get SLS cancelled. So what's not to like? For the rest he seems to know quite well what he's talking about, and eager to further commercial space.

Benefit of the doubt, given.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/27/2018 01:20 pm
I disagree. Bolden repeated stuff that Bill Nelson said but at least Bill Nelson said it prior to Bridenstine's confirmation (not after). Lori Garver on the other hand's tweet showed more "decorum". Garver supported Bridenstine even prior to his confirmation. I am starting to think like Jon, that the real concern over Bridenstine is his pro-commercial values, not his social values.
I don't get that yg, did we forget the battles Charlie had with Congress to push for funding and priority of Commercial services and crew to ISS? ??? They shoved SLS down his throat...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 04/27/2018 01:45 pm
I would "like" your post were I not rather less certain than you of Trump's re-election (I'm not expressing a view as to whether his re-election is desirable, only as to its likelihood).

Based solely on historical averages. Most presidents (not all) serve 2 terms. Even ones that became highly unpopular during their 1st term. Not an expression of personal preference - just an acknowledgement of historical trends and power gained in 1st 4 years.

I revised the statement to make that clear.

3 out of the 4 presidents who were as unpopular in their first terms as Trump is now were not re-elected.

And given we are already in 2018, from where I see it, the odds are Bridenstine only serves 2 years and change.

This may well be true -- recall, though, the former party in power was the one which strongly promoted commercialization.
(Like Rocket Science said...)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/27/2018 07:59 pm
I disagree. Bolden repeated stuff that Bill Nelson said but at least Bill Nelson said it prior to Bridenstine's confirmation (not after). Lori Garver on the other hand's tweet showed more "decorum". Garver supported Bridenstine even prior to his confirmation. I am starting to think like Jon, that the real concern over Bridenstine is his pro-commercial values, not his social values.
I don't get that yg, did we forget the battles Charlie had with Congress to push for funding and priority of Commercial services and crew to ISS? ??? They shoved SLS down his throat...

I sort of wonder sometimes if it wasn't commercial crew being forced unto Bolden by OMB. I think that Bolden said that he wasn't crazy about commercial crew at the beginning but he eventually got behind it. I also wonder what happened to Garver. Was she encouraged to leave or was her new job, an opportunity that she really couldn't pass up?
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/27/2018 08:22 pm
I sort of wonder sometimes if it wasn't commercial crew being forced unto Bolden by OMB.

Let's remember who the NASA Administrator works for - the President. And Obama wanted Commercial Crew. It was part of the trade for keeping the ISS, and what Obama gave up was allowing the SLS and Orion MPCV to be created from the ashes of the Constellation program.

And as far as I remember Bolden was a constant and forceful supporter of Commercial Crew. Do you have any references that say otherwise?

Quote
I also wonder what happened to Garver. Was she encouraged to leave or was her new job, an opportunity that she really couldn't pass up?

Lori Garver was Deputy Administrator of NASA for 1,512 days - 4th longest out of 20 NASA deputies. Leaving to become the General Manager of the Air Line Pilots Association seems like a very smart career choice. Not sure why sinister reasons have to be contemplated...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/27/2018 08:47 pm
I can't find it now but I remember Bolden admitting that he wasn't sold about commercial crew at the beginning of his tenure as Administrator but that he eventually got around to it.

He (or someone else) also said at some point that he had to act as a referee between those that wanted to give everything to the private sector (such as Garver) and those that wanted NASA to keep everything in-house. Bolden himself considered himself to be a moderate.

There is also some hints of that in the interview linked above, he is almost warning Bridenstine not to try to change NASA's culture.

I don't mean to criticize Bolden too much as I think that he did a good job as Administrator but he is not as strong a supporter of the private sector as Garver was (or even as much as Bridenstine).
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/27/2018 08:48 pm
I would "like" your post were I not rather less certain than you of Trump's re-election (I'm not expressing a view as to whether his re-election is desirable, only as to its likelihood).

Based solely on historical averages. Most presidents (not all) serve 2 terms. Even ones that became highly unpopular during their 1st term. Not an expression of personal preference - just an acknowledgement of historical trends and power gained in 1st 4 years.

I revised the statement to make that clear.

3 out of the 4 presidents who were as unpopular in their first terms as Trump is now were not re-elected.

And given we are already in 2018, from where I see it, the odds are Bridenstine only serves 2 years and change.

It would be until January 2021 at the very least. So almost 3 years.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 04/28/2018 01:22 am
I disagree. Bolden repeated stuff that Bill Nelson said but at least Bill Nelson said it prior to Bridenstine's confirmation (not after). Lori Garver on the other hand's tweet showed more "decorum". Garver supported Bridenstine even prior to his confirmation. I am starting to think like Jon, that the real concern over Bridenstine is his pro-commercial values, not his social values.

BINGO
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/28/2018 02:03 pm
Bridenstine is promoting Earth science (as he said, he would):

Quote from: Administrator Bridenstine
Finishing my first week @NASA. Looking forward to Monday's public briefing on the upcoming GRACE-FO mission. We're mapping Earth's gravity to understand the hydrosphere and our changing planet. Tune in Monday at 1pm EDT to hear from our experts.

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/990007423569203200
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/28/2018 02:06 pm
I disagree. Bolden repeated stuff that Bill Nelson said but at least Bill Nelson said it prior to Bridenstine's confirmation (not after). Lori Garver on the other hand's tweet showed more "decorum". Garver supported Bridenstine even prior to his confirmation. I am starting to think like Jon, that the real concern over Bridenstine is his pro-commercial values, not his social values.

BINGO
How do we not know that Sen. Nelson asked Bolden for "his professional opinion" and that is what was stated by the senator, unless you have "evidence"...

Now can we let this all go and get back all the "good" things to come under the new administrator... I can only remain hopeful for the nation but in the end I'm a "results oriented person"...


Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/28/2018 02:42 pm
I disagree. Bolden repeated stuff that Bill Nelson said but at least Bill Nelson said it prior to Bridenstine's confirmation (not after). Lori Garver on the other hand's tweet showed more "decorum". Garver supported Bridenstine even prior to his confirmation. I am starting to think like Jon, that the real concern over Bridenstine is his pro-commercial values, not his social values.

BINGO
How do we not know that Sen. Nelson asked Bolden for "his professional opinion" and that is what was stated by the senator, unless you have "evidence"...

Now can we let this all go and get back all the "good" things to come under the new administrator... I can only remain hopeful for the nation but in the end I'm a "results oriented person"...

I wasn't implying that they spoke to each other. I was just noting that their discourse is similar. I also think that Bolden's comments are inappropriate especially after Bridenstine has been confirmed. Let Bridenstine's record speak for itself, he should be given the benefit of the doubt at this point. 
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/28/2018 03:10 pm
I disagree. Bolden repeated stuff that Bill Nelson said but at least Bill Nelson said it prior to Bridenstine's confirmation (not after). Lori Garver on the other hand's tweet showed more "decorum". Garver supported Bridenstine even prior to his confirmation. I am starting to think like Jon, that the real concern over Bridenstine is his pro-commercial values, not his social values.

BINGO
How do we not know that Sen. Nelson asked Bolden for "his professional opinion" and that is what was stated by the senator, unless you have "evidence"...

Now can we let this all go and get back all the "good" things to come under the new administrator... I can only remain hopeful for the nation but in the end I'm a "results oriented person"...

I wasn't implying that they spoke to each other. I was just noting that their discourse is similar. I also think that Bolden's comments are inappropriate especially after Bridenstine has been confirmed. Let Bridenstine's record speak for itself, he should be given the benefit of the doubt at this point.
All I care about are the agency's spaceflight results that will or will not occur under his purview for the nation. At this point he has no record at NASA other than raising his right hand... Let us move forward...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/28/2018 03:39 pm
He (or someone else) also said at some point that he had to act as a referee between those that wanted to give everything to the private sector (such as Garver)...

Such a side never existed. This is a strawman that is trotted out far too frequently.

It's never been the SLS vs commercial, it's always been SLS vs itself - that the U.S. Government never needed the SLS except for jobs.

The private sector is certainly not trying to compete with the SLS, nor are there business models that would compel them to try and "compete" with the SLS (whatever that means).

Quote
...and those that wanted NASA to keep everything in-house. Bolden himself considered himself to be a moderate.

Bolden did what Bridenstine will have to do - support whatever the President wants, and execute whatever Congress has written into law.

Which is why being NASA Administrator is mainly a management job, not a lobbying job.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 04/28/2018 04:40 pm
I disagree. Bolden repeated stuff that Bill Nelson said but at least Bill Nelson said it prior to Bridenstine's confirmation (not after). Lori Garver on the other hand's tweet showed more "decorum". Garver supported Bridenstine even prior to his confirmation. I am starting to think like Jon, that the real concern over Bridenstine is his pro-commercial values, not his social values.

BINGO

Uhm, we have a Like button to show support for posts. As several of the mods have pointed out in recent years that Like button is there to prevent "Bingo" posts.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Lar on 04/28/2018 07:20 pm
General "will #45 get re-elected, here's why/not" questions are off topic.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 04/28/2018 07:55 pm
He (or someone else) also said at some point that he had to act as a referee between those that wanted to give everything to the private sector (such as Garver)...

Such a side never existed. This is a strawman that is trotted out far too frequently.

It's never been the SLS vs commercial, it's always been SLS vs itself - that the U.S. Government never needed the SLS except for jobs.

The private sector is certainly not trying to compete with the SLS, nor are there business models that would compel them to try and "compete" with the SLS (whatever that means).

Quote
...and those that wanted NASA to keep everything in-house. Bolden himself considered himself to be a moderate.

Bolden did what Bridenstine will have to do - support whatever the President wants, and execute whatever Congress has written into law.

Which is why being NASA Administrator is mainly a management job, not a lobbying job.

Disagree

NASA, led by the Admin, can prepare and recommend policy and programs to the President -- the Executive Branch is supposed to work this way, with each Department or agency bringing their expertise to the White House.  Admin Bridenstine can both create and lobby for programs he believes are in the best interest of the country (or NASA, or the current Administration, or Alabama for that matter), if first convinces the President to endorse the program.  Being just a 'manager' of someone else's portfolio can also be the role the Admin plays, but might as well just keep the senior civil servant in the position (in all Executive Branch Departments) if that's all there is to the job.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/28/2018 08:13 pm
Bolden did what Bridenstine will have to do - support whatever the President wants, and execute whatever Congress has written into law.

Which is why being NASA Administrator is mainly a management job, not a lobbying job.

Disagree

I guess we are disagreeing about what the definition of the word "mainly" is? Because to me that means the majority of his job is to be focused on making sure NASA is executing what it's already been directed to do by law and by the President.

Does the NASA Administrator do other things? Sure. Never disputed that.

Quote
NASA, led by the Admin, can prepare and recommend policy and programs to the President -- the Executive Branch is supposed to work this way, with each Department or agency bringing their expertise to the White House.  Admin Bridenstine can both create and lobby for programs he believes are in the best interest of the country (or NASA, or the current Administration, or Alabama for that matter), if first convinces the President to endorse the program.

That was the way it worked under Obama, Bush 43 and Clinton, but not how it works under Trump. NASA is one of 10 agencies and departments represented within the NSC, and if the NSC is working properly then ALL recommendations for what NASA could do will come through the NSC. Bridenstine would have to do an end-run around the Vice President in order to put something in front of Trump, and so far I don't think we've seen that happen.

Oh, and Mick Mulvaney, the Director of the Office of Budget and Management is on the NSC too, and his job is to vet all proposals before they are added to future budget proposals, which is another barrier to Bridenstine lobbying Trump on his own.

Quote
Being just a 'manager' of someone else's portfolio can also be the role the Admin plays, but might as well just keep the senior civil servant in the position (in all Executive Branch Departments) if that's all there is to the job.

Regardless how he runs NASA Bridenstine will be responsible for NASA's performance from here on out, so he better dive into the details about NASA if he wants to survive future Congressional hearings - the honeymoon period for Trump appointees ended last year...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 04/28/2018 08:29 pm
...

That was the way it worked under Obama, Bush 43 and Clinton, but not how it works under Trump. NASA is one of 10 agencies and departments, and if the NSC is working properly then ALL recommendations for what NASA could do will come through the NSC. Bridenstine would have to do an end-run around the Vice President in order to put something in front of Trump, and so far I don't think we've seen that happen.

...

JB is free to 'lobby' the VP and the NSC, too. 

He would be wise to do exactly that... and let the ideas be 'theirs' -- in the best interest of the Country as a whole. 
I believe that he and the VP are mostly on the same page.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/09/2018 02:01 am
Quote
Cruz: fought tooth and nail to get Bridenstine confirmed as NASA administrator. Think he will promote more public private partnerships. #HumanstoMars

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/993970186951823360
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Inoeth on 05/09/2018 04:21 am
In many ways i'm actually kind of surprised that Shelby didn't fight this nomination- Bridenstine seems like the last person you'd want as head of NASA if your biggest goal is to keep SLS alive. Bridenstine is doing a lot to push commercial companies that make something like SLS seem insanely wasteful, slow and excessive... Heak, in the latest presentation by Bridenstine where he talked about going to the moon, not once was SLS or Orion mentioned...

Cruz pushing for Bridenstine otoh makes sense given companies like SpaceX are starting to have a larger and larger impact in Texas as far as the space-sector goes...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 05/09/2018 10:34 am
This is a discussion that is long overdue at NASA.  May give the agency some wiggle room (more like unshackle them) to move forward.

Quote
NASA is an agency whose very purpose implies that we *have* to take risks - do things that nobody has ever done before. Read more about my thoughts on how strategic risks are important for space exploration: https://go.nasa.gov/2I2qEDm
https://twitter.com/Dr_ThomasZ/status/993852525647450112

The full listing of risk and innovation/iteration are worth reading.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/drthomasz/2018/05/07/taking-strategic-risks-in-space/?utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=Dr_ThomasZ&utm_campaign=NASASocial&linkId=51458350
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 05/09/2018 10:39 am
The theory is quite insightful; the practice at NASA (HSF particularly) needs work.

Highlights of the list:

Quote

1) Innovation and iteration always go together. The kicker: to an outsider, especially one who is not innovative, iteration looks like failure. ...

2) “Pounding risks flat” has opportunity cost, and they are often not part of the discussion. ...

3) Process does not eliminate the need for sound judgment and deep skill. ...

4) The best decisions are the ones scrutinized by great people with a diversity of view-points. Yes – innovative decisions require tension in the team. ...

5) Projects, like investments, should have a portfolio approach when it comes to risk. ...

6) Finally, managing risk is a leadership challenge. Lacking risk tolerance is not the fault of our engineers and lower level managers, nor those tasked with risk assessment, but a reflection of values and ambition driving leadership. ...

If Jim Bridenstine does anything to move down this path, he will be a successful Administrator.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/09/2018 12:39 pm
Jim Bridenstine currently giving a keynote at the Human to Mars summit:

https://livestream.com/accounts/7167144/events/8136734/ (https://livestream.com/accounts/7167144/events/8136734/)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 05/09/2018 01:46 pm
Innovation and iteration... earlier comments from NASA...
Now Mars architecture on the table:
Quote
John Connolly, NASA: if you’re going to the surface of Mars, go to the surface. Don’t go to Phobos or build up a lot of infrastructure in Mars orbit. #HumansToMars

Quote
Connolly: There’s something like 10^37 ways to do a Mars mission (based on matrix of engineering options included in Architecting Mars report.) We looked at three of them. #HumansToMars
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/994210800737902592

Things are looking up.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 05/09/2018 08:04 pm
More on architectures vis-a-vis launch cost:
Quote
Connolly: how would Mars mission architectures be affected if the cost of launch dropped by an order of magnitude? Franco Fenoglio, Thales Alenia: I would launch more mass and spend less on optimization. #HumansToMars
emphasis mine
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/994296187523133442
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/10/2018 12:21 am

https://youtu.be/0OXahEkf6WA
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 05/10/2018 11:04 am
Nicely done.  He has the sense to keep it brief and meaty.

More substance, technology, and organizational/financial detail than ever before in a Moon/Mars exploration effort... not a 'horizon' goal any more.  IMO, we need to be doing such things as we can do, now, and build progressively to a future of exploring the Moon and Mars -- not a someday grand plan that never happens.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Hog on 05/11/2018 03:06 pm
SLS as the government backbone to explore where an economy do not currently exist.

Moon AND Mars!

Sounds good to me, let's quit the bitching and moaning and get 'er done!
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AbuSimbel on 05/11/2018 03:41 pm
SLS as the government backbone to explore where an economy do not currently exist.

Moon AND Mars!

Sounds good to me, let's quit the bitching and moaning and get 'er done!

Statements like this are infuriating to me.

You have at least two prominent players, with a multi billionaire financial backing in the US private sector that are investing in these supposedly 'non existing economies' in which 'the private sector doesn't want to invest'.

But yes, let's keep on ignoring them and acting as if they didn't even exist.

Go SLS!
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: clongton on 05/11/2018 05:10 pm
Statements like this are infuriating to me.

You have at least two prominent players, with a multi billionaire financial backing in the US private sector that are investing in these supposedly 'non existing economies' in which 'the private sector doesn't want to invest'.

But yes, let's keep on ignoring them and acting as if they didn't even exist.

You misunderstand what he said. He's talking about economies ON the moon and ON Mars.
Not about the economic efforts here on earth that are supporting efforts to get there.
And he's correct. There is no "economy" ON the moon. There is no "economy" ON Mars.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Proponent on 05/11/2018 05:27 pm
Bridenstine mentioned Mars's volcanos as hazards to humans? There are none active, are there? Not a big deal, but it seems an odd error for an administrator, especially one who is  a long-time space cadet.

It all sounds nice, but I am doubtful he'll really make much progress if he has to keep paying for Orion & SLS.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/11/2018 06:26 pm
https://youtu.be/J0ACwpJT2ek (https://youtu.be/J0ACwpJT2ek)

Quote
Two things of note:

1. Emphasizes that NASA is moving from a model of owning and operating launch vehicles to being a customer. "One of many."

2. "We've got commercial rocket builders using rockets multiple times." This is "driving down the cost of access to space."

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/994985138911105025

Quote
SLS and Orion aren't going away any time soon, IMO. But I don't think we've ever heard a NASA administrator talk like this about the potential benefits of reusability and the need to lower the cost of getting into space.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/994985448459005953
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 05/12/2018 05:32 pm
Kinda shocking that the Administrator can say such things and have zero reaction from the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)., especially a particular Senator named Shelby.  Would be great to know what transpired in the Bridenstine/Shelby chat that led to a successful confirmation for Jim Bridenstine and continued silence during three weeks of promoting commercial space and only occasionally 'endorsing' SLS/Orion.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 05/13/2018 01:37 pm
Kinda shocking that the Administrator can say such things and have zero reaction from the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)., especially a particular Senator named Shelby.  Would be great to know what transpired in the Bridenstine/Shelby chat that led to a successful confirmation for Jim Bridenstine and continued silence during three weeks of promoting commercial space and only occasionally 'endorsing' SLS/Orion.

Probably because NASA/Birdenstine are pushing payloads that SLS/Orion supporters see as justifying their system. The biggest argument against SLs is that it is a rocket without purpose, and those in power probably feel commercial DSH and a lunar lander give it that purpose. They just won’t entertain the idea that commercial rockets can deliver them (See Europa Clipper)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: clongton on 05/13/2018 02:45 pm
They just won’t entertain the idea that commercial rockets can deliver them (See Europa Clipper)

Sooner or later real events will overtake their self-imposed blindness.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/13/2018 04:22 pm
He gets paid to represent NASA and not ULA, BO, Orbital/ATK or SpaceX... So that's where his purview ends...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 05/13/2018 04:28 pm
They just won’t entertain the idea that commercial rockets can deliver them (See Europa Clipper)

Sooner or later real events will overtake their self-imposed blindness.

I hope so. But I'm afraid it will be later than sooner.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 05/13/2018 07:43 pm
He gets paid to represent NASA and not ULA, BO, Orbital/ATK or SpaceX... So that's where his purview ends...

First, NASA's job is to advance the United States of America in space -- NASA itself is just another USG bureaucracy; it has no 'standing' of its own and cannot be 'represented.'

Second, I don't think he believes his job is limited to NASA and its hardware.  He is under the impression that he leads USA's civil spaceflight effort, and isn't going to be the slightest bit parochial about it.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/13/2018 09:40 pm
He gets paid to represent NASA and not ULA, BO, Orbital/ATK or SpaceX... So that's where his purview ends...

First, NASA's job is to advance the United States of America in space -- NASA itself is just another USG bureaucracy; it has no 'standing' of its own and cannot be 'represented.'

Second, I don't think he believes his job is limited to NASA and its hardware.  He is under the impression that he leads USA's civil spaceflight effort, and isn't going to be the slightest bit parochial about it.
He has no authority over the private companies I listed and as far as the use of commercial vehicles, it has been on the books for some time but is "toothless" if not enforced...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 05/13/2018 09:57 pm
He gets paid to represent NASA and not ULA, BO, Orbital/ATK or SpaceX... So that's where his purview ends...

First, NASA's job is to advance the United States of America in space -- NASA itself is just another USG bureaucracy; it has no 'standing' of its own and cannot be 'represented.'

Second, I don't think he believes his job is limited to NASA and its hardware.  He is under the impression that he leads USA's civil spaceflight effort, and isn't going to be the slightest bit parochial about it.

He has no authority over the private companies I listed and as far as the use of commercial vehicles, it has been on the books for some time on the books but is "toothless" if not enforced...

No authority over them is correct... but he can hire them to meet the Nation's spaceflight needs.

His job isn't limited to using NASA's capabilities... and looking out for 'NASA's interests.'  If the Nation's spaceflight effort could be advanced by cutting NASA's workforce, I believe that it would be his job to do so.  (I know it is blasphemy to talk about reducing USG -- especially NASA -- workforce, but that may be the exact thing that is needed.)  In the same vein, if it is the Nation's spaceflight interest to double NASA's workforce, he should do it.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/13/2018 10:02 pm
He gets paid to represent NASA and not ULA, BO, Orbital/ATK or SpaceX... So that's where his purview ends...

First, NASA's job is to advance the United States of America in space -- NASA itself is just another USG bureaucracy; it has no 'standing' of its own and cannot be 'represented.'

Second, I don't think he believes his job is limited to NASA and its hardware.  He is under the impression that he leads USA's civil spaceflight effort, and isn't going to be the slightest bit parochial about it.

He has no authority over the private companies I listed and as far as the use of commercial vehicles, it has been on the books for some time on the books but is "toothless" if not enforced...

No authority over them is correct... but he can hire them to meet the Nation's spaceflight needs.

His job isn't limited to using NASA's capabilities... and looking out for 'NASA's interests.'  If the Nation's spaceflight effort could be advanced by cutting NASA's workforce, I believe that it would be his job to do so.  (I know it is blasphemy to talk about reducing USG -- especially NASA -- workforce, but that may be the exact thing that is needed.)  In the same vein, if it is the Nation's spaceflight interest to double NASA's workforce, he should do it.
It's there in his job title "NASA Administrator"... Not the nation's spaceflight administrator...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 05/13/2018 11:57 pm
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/14/2018 01:36 am
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Civilian government space, not private space flight, nor the DoD, We have the nation's auto manufactures for example; none are owned by the government... I can play this game all day if you like...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 05/14/2018 06:24 am
He gets paid to represent NASA and not ULA, BO, Orbital/ATK or SpaceX... So that's where his purview ends...

First, NASA's job is to advance the United States of America in space -- NASA itself is just another USG bureaucracy; it has no 'standing' of its own and cannot be 'represented.'

Second, I don't think he believes his job is limited to NASA and its hardware.  He is under the impression that he leads USA's civil spaceflight effort, and isn't going to be the slightest bit parochial about it.

He has no authority over the private companies I listed and as far as the use of commercial vehicles, it has been on the books for some time on the books but is "toothless" if not enforced...

No authority over them is correct... but he can hire them to meet the Nation's spaceflight needs.

Yes, in theory he can. In practice he can't, given the "wishes" from certain folks at the Hill. And that brings us back to Rocket Science's fine observation:

...and as far as the use of commercial vehicles, it has been on the books for some time but is "toothless" if not enforced...

I agree with Rocket Science here.
IMO Bridenstine won't be allowed to enforce widespread use of commercial vehicles. Too many folks are entrenched with SLS and Orion. And you might remember how US Congress stalled CCP for years by under funding the effort, even trying to have one of the CCP contractors thrown out via a down-select to single provider (Boeing). The only reason the latter never happened is because some guy named Vladimir Putin decided to act like the new Russian czar and invaded the Crimea. Thus exposing the vulnerability of the US having access to the ISS via a Russian spacecraft only.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/14/2018 02:18 pm
Bridenstine won't cancel Orion and SLS. He'll have a hard time enough just to push for new commercial initiatives. I am not convinced that future commercial initiatives will remain commercial: lunar landers are currently commercial but NASA said that they may not remain so; NextStep2 is currently a commercial program but NASA wants to transform it into a governmental program.  Even commercial LEO habitats may not remain so, Senator Cruz is fighting against ending ISS.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: spacetraveler on 05/15/2018 12:07 am
Bridenstine won't cancel Orion and SLS.

Nor could he do so even if he wanted to. NASA is mandated by law to build the system. Only Congress can cancel it.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/15/2018 02:00 am
Bridenstine won't cancel Orion and SLS.

Nor could he do so even if he wanted to. NASA is mandated by law to build the system. Only Congress can cancel it.

The Obama Administration cancelled Constellation without Congress' prior approval. But it was difficult. In the end, only Ares I got cancelled and replaced with commercial crew.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: MATTBLAK on 05/15/2018 02:27 am
The Altair Lander was defunded quite early on :( I hope that at least some of that work ends up being used in a future Lander.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/15/2018 02:45 am
Bridenstine won't cancel Orion and SLS.

NASA Administrators works for the President, and with the NSC dotted line reports to the Vice President. Plus no changes to the budget are done without the OMB Director approval.

In other words, it's not Bridenstine's call to make whether the SLS and Orion live or die.

Quote
He'll have a hard time enough just to push for new commercial initiatives.

People keep talking about "commercial initiatives" like the details have been worked out. They haven't. They are only proposals so far, and no one really knows what the business models will be or what the opportunities will be.

None of that can be worked out until the U.S. Government decides what the goal is, and how much effort the U.S. Government is willing to put towards that goal - which pretty much boils down to money. When will we get a commitment on a goal and money?

Quote
I am not convinced that future commercial initiatives will remain commercial: lunar landers are currently commercial but NASA said that they may not remain so; NextStep2 is currently a commercial program but NASA wants to transform it into a governmental program.  Even commercial LEO habitats may not remain so, Senator Cruz is fighting against ending ISS.

Remember the arguments about why Commercial Cargo was really "commercial"? The definition that I use for "commercial" is that the capability can be used for non-government customers. So in order to know whether there are truly "commercial" possibilities for capabilities that NASA needs, they need to be defined so that everyone can figure out if there are any potential commercial customers for the same (or similar) government needs.

Based on what we know about commercial demand for LEO (i.e. hasn't appeared yet), I find it hard to believe that commercial demand will appear for government activity in the region of our Moon.

And if there is no "commercial" demand for activity in the region of our Moon, then that means the U.S. Government is going to have to foot the bill. Which could affect whether such an effort gets backing (and funding) from Congress.

My $0.02
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/15/2018 03:16 am
Bridenstine won't cancel Orion and SLS.

NASA Administrators works for the President, and with the NSC dotted line reports to the Vice President. Plus no changes to the budget are done without the OMB Director approval.

In other words, it's not Bridenstine's call to make whether the SLS and Orion live or die.


It's not only top-down. It also goes bottom up.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Proponent on 05/15/2018 08:01 am
The Obama Administration cancelled Constellation without Congress' prior approval. But it was difficult. In the end, only Ares I got cancelled and replaced with commercial crew.

Seems to me it was the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that canceled Constellation.  That Act passed the Senate on a voice vote and, unusually, the House adopted the Senate's bill.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 05/15/2018 08:48 am
The Obama Administration cancelled Constellation without Congress' prior approval. But it was difficult. In the end, only Ares I got cancelled and replaced with commercial crew.

Seems to me it was the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that canceled Constellation.  That Act passed the Senate on a voice vote and, unusually, the House adopted the Senate's bill.
That is correct. It wasn't the White House that cancelled CxP. The White House merely proposed it. But it was legislation from US Congress, more specifically the mentioned NASA Authorization Act of 2010, that terminated funding for CxP and was signed into law by the President.

Why did this happen? Because US Congress would have looked incredibly bad had it willingly ignored the harsh conclusions from the Augustine Committee. So, US Congress killed CxP to save face.
The gravy train however was fully resurrected less than two years later when two of the four major elements of CxP (Ares V and Orion) where brought back from the dead: SLS (Ares V in disguise) and MPCV (Orion in disguise).
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: philw1776 on 05/15/2018 03:22 pm
Zubrin's open letter to Jim B suggesting that NASA run its crewed spaceflight programs purpose driven like it runs its successful science programs...

https://www.weeklystandard.com/robert-zubrin/nasa-focus-should-be-on-the-moon-mars-and-the-wfirst-telescope

"if you actually want to get Americans to the moon in our time is to cancel the lunar orbiting toll booth and use its ample funding ($504 million this year, with much more planned to follow) to develop a lunar lander...

Instead of procuring translunar transportation systems, why not procure translunar transportation services? Use the commercial space model and put out a call to industry to propose transportation services to deliver cargos of various sizes one-way to the lunar surface and human crews round-trip."
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/15/2018 03:42 pm
Bridenstine won't cancel Orion and SLS.

NASA Administrators works for the President, and with the NSC dotted line reports to the Vice President. Plus no changes to the budget are done without the OMB Director approval.

In other words, it's not Bridenstine's call to make whether the SLS and Orion live or die.


It's not only top-down. It also goes bottom up.

Of course employees contribute. But Bridenstine is not in charge of his destiny at NASA...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Jim on 05/15/2018 03:47 pm
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

the NASA administrator is not the spaceflight equivalent to DNI (Director of National Intelligence)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Jim on 05/15/2018 03:51 pm

Remember the arguments about why Commercial Cargo was really "commercial"? The definition that I use for "commercial" is that the capability can be used for non-government customers.

And that would be the wrong definition.  "Commercial" is where industry designs, builds and owns the instruments to provide a service to the US govt.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 05/15/2018 05:10 pm
Eric Berger:
Quote
The frustration is real.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/996434913829310464

Quote
THREAD @JimBridenstine @MarkKirasich I have been an avid space fan since 1957. Watched every launch of Mercury, Gemini, & Apollo. Attended the last Saturn V launch (45 years ago TODAY). The sad note is after #ASTP (in '75) we waited six years for the #Shuttle. We're now...

Quote
...post-Shuttle plus EIGHT years and counting. Americans look forward to @NASA_SLS and crewed @NASA_Orion but still in the distance. We need these vehicles, but the vision is blurry, the budget is too small and the slips just keep on coming. On the other hand, ...

Quote

...@elonmusk's @SpaceX is designing and building #BFR and #BFS with a vision, strategy, and plan for actually taking people to #Mars in a viable vehicle. @NASA_Orion will never go to Mars. It's too small. It will be great for #LEO and perhaps #Lunar travel excursions, ...

Quote
...but definitely not Mars. Even though it uses new technology, it is still #Apollo legacy. It has been a victim of too many administrations, too many changes, too small budgets, and program management that accepts slip after slip. It's time to talk to @realDonaldTrump and...

Quote
...@VP, and get some real priorities for this country, and some real money. Otherwise, step aside and let companies like @SpaceX take us on the journey for which we've all been waiting.
https://twitter.com/garywfuller/status/996150472359559169
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Jim on 05/15/2018 06:37 pm
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Civilian government space, not private space flight, nor the DoD,

Nor NOAA, FAA, or DOC
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/15/2018 06:40 pm
The Obama Administration cancelled Constellation without Congress' prior approval. But it was difficult. In the end, only Ares I got cancelled and replaced with commercial crew.

Seems to me it was the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that canceled Constellation.  That Act passed the Senate on a voice vote and, unusually, the House adopted the Senate's bill.

It wouldn't have been cancelled without the FY2011 Budget, so the Administration had a very important role in it.  Congress never would have cancelled it on their own.

Same thing with SLS and Orion, it will not be cancelled unless the Administration proposes to cancel it. But I don't expect that to happen. 
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/15/2018 06:52 pm
The Altair Lander was defunded quite early on :( I hope that at least some of that work ends up being used in a future Lander.

I was under the impression that almost no work had been done on Altair (or Ares V) at the time of cancellation.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/15/2018 06:55 pm
The Obama Administration cancelled Constellation without Congress' prior approval. But it was difficult. In the end, only Ares I got cancelled and replaced with commercial crew.

Seems to me it was the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that canceled Constellation.  That Act passed the Senate on a voice vote and, unusually, the House adopted the Senate's bill.
That is correct. It wasn't the White House that cancelled CxP. The White House merely proposed it. But it was legislation from US Congress, more specifically the mentioned NASA Authorization Act of 2010, that terminated funding for CxP and was signed into law by the President.

Why did this happen? Because US Congress would have looked incredibly bad had it willingly ignored the harsh conclusions from the Augustine Committee. So, US Congress killed CxP to save face.
The gravy train however was fully resurrected less than two years later when two of the four major elements of CxP (Ares V and Orion) where brought back from the dead: SLS (Ares V in disguise) and MPCV (Orion in disguise).

SLS was meant to be Ares V in disguise and MPCV was meant to be Orion in disguise. The 2010 NASA Authorization was essentially Constellation lite. The only thing that got cancelled is Ares I (replaced by commercial crew). Work on Altair hadn't really started.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/15/2018 08:20 pm

Remember the arguments about why Commercial Cargo was really "commercial"? The definition that I use for "commercial" is that the capability can be used for non-government customers.

And that would be the wrong definition.  "Commercial" is where industry designs, builds and owns the instruments to provide a service to the US govt.

Hence why I said "The definition that I use...", because there has been so much debate about what it means.

The definition you provided may be part of what "commercial" is, but even that leaves out government definition of the service like in the case of COTS. And the definition you provided sounds very close to normal government contracting, which does not always lead to the private sector marketing the same products or services beyond the initial government customer.

What the private sector will want to know is not only what Bridenstine interprets "commercial" to be, but what Congress interprets it to be too. We're talking about a lot of time and money the private sector is being expected to invest, but it's not at all clear what their ROI will be.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/15/2018 11:20 pm
Gerst used essentially the same definition of commercial as Jim did. It's a fee for a service such as CRS and commercial crew. NASA doesn't own the hardware, the commercial company does. The potential for non-NASA customers is a bonus.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: QuantumG on 05/15/2018 11:27 pm
Gerst used essentially the same definition of commercial as Jim did. It's a fee for a service such as CRS and commercial crew. NASA doesn't own the hardware, the commercial company does. The potential for non-NASA customers is a bonus.

and before someone starts gerrymandering the definition here, ownership means control. If NASA could tell SpaceX that they can't upgrade the Falcon 9 and keep the CRS contract, we wouldn't be seeing the progress SpaceX has made today.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 05/16/2018 04:57 pm
Gerst used essentially the same definition of commercial as Jim did. It's a fee for a service such as CRS and commercial crew. NASA doesn't own the hardware, the commercial company does. The potential for non-NASA customers is a bonus.

and before someone starts gerrymandering the definition here, ownership means control. If NASA could tell SpaceX that they can't upgrade the Falcon 9 and keep the CRS contract, we wouldn't be seeing the progress SpaceX has made today.

That is an insidious flavor of 'control' where the direction comes from the guys with money, but the financial responsibility (and risk) resides firmly with the 'commercial' entity.  Great way to get roasted on a fixed price contract.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Jim on 05/16/2018 05:24 pm
That is an insidious flavor of 'control' where the direction comes from the guys with money, but the financial responsibility (and risk) resides firmly with the 'commercial' entity.  Great way to get roasted on a fixed price contract.

wrong.  If isn't in the contract or spelled out correctly, the 'commercial' entity is not bound to do anything.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/16/2018 09:36 pm
Gerst used essentially the same definition of commercial as Jim did. It's a fee for a service such as CRS and commercial crew. NASA doesn't own the hardware, the commercial company does. The potential for non-NASA customers is a bonus.

and before someone starts gerrymandering the definition here, ownership means control. If NASA could tell SpaceX that they can't upgrade the Falcon 9 and keep the CRS contract, we wouldn't be seeing the progress SpaceX has made today.

OK, let's say that what Jim stated is what NASA uses as the definition for "commercial". But we all know that what is intended is not always what ends up happening, and that regardless of what NASA calls it the commercial sector may not find enough ROI to participate.

For instance, we all think "Commercial Cargo" is a good example of where NASA delineated a service need and then let the private sector determine how to satisfy it. But we also know that "Commercial Crew", even though the word "commercial" is in the title, that NASA has been much more hands-on with the designs of the crew vehicles. So even though NASA doesn't own the hardware, NASA was very involved in the design of the hardware.

Let's also talk business models, since for me the ultimate goal is to expand humanity out into space, so it's important that we find business models that allow that for the non-government effort.

For Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew, the hope was that after NASA helped to create the cargo and crew transportation services, that non-NASA customers would eventually come forth to use the same services. Both SpaceX and Boeing have stated they made those assumptions, but from what we know no other customers have come forth.

So for this "commercial" lunar effort that Bridenstine and others want, what has the commercial sector learned about the likelihood that what they build for NASA's lunar needs can become a profit center without NASA? I think they have learned that it's not likely to happen, which means that the commercial sector is likely to treat any RFI's and RFQ's for LOP-G as strictly one-off efforts with no potential commercial business afterwards. In other words, unlike with Commercial Cargo & Crew, the private sector will be less likely to foot part of the bill for developing the lunar support services.

I raise this issue because we know the Trump administration is very "budget-minded", and everyone seems to be pinning their hopes on the private sector to make LOP-G affordable. I would not assume that.

Which is why I think that even though Bridenstine has high hopes, that they are not grounded in the realities he has been dealt.

My $0.02
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: clongton on 05/17/2018 11:14 am
For Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew, the hope was that after NASA helped to create the cargo and crew transportation services, that non-NASA customers would eventually come forth to use the same services. Both SpaceX and Boeing have stated they made those assumptions, but from what we know no other customers have come forth.

So for this "commercial" lunar effort that Bridenstine and others want, what has the commercial sector learned about the likelihood that what they build for NASA's lunar needs can become a profit center without NASA? I think they have learned that it's not likely to happen ...

Emphasis mine. I don't think I agree with that Ron. I think they believe it could still happen but it is not likely to be near term. Commercial companies are used to looking for their ROI in a reasonable time period. What they have learned is not that it won't happen but that any ROI from USGov RFQ's are likely to be on a glacial time scale. What they'll do about that is adjust their expectations accordingly. They will still want any piece of the pie they can get and they will have to actually be in the game to get it.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/17/2018 06:53 pm
Quote
I thoroughly enjoyed answering questions from @NASA employees during my first town hall. You can watch the full video at: youtu.be/YFqz7VBoZCE

https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/997182739429421057?s=21 (https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/997182739429421057?s=21)

https://youtu.be/YFqz7VBoZCE (https://youtu.be/YFqz7VBoZCE)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/19/2018 05:47 pm
Much of the press reporting of the town hall has focussed on Bridenstine’s remarks on climate change:

Quote
New NASA Chief Bridenstine Says Humans Contribute to Climate Change 'in a Major Way'
By Sarah Lewin, Space.com Associate Editor | May 19, 2018 07:24am ET

https://www.space.com/40640-nasa-chief-bridenstine-climate-change.html

FWIW I think he did a good job at the town hall. I think what he said was a truer reflection of what he believes now than some of his controversial political statements in the past.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: incoming on 05/22/2018 02:35 pm
For instance, we all think "Commercial Cargo" is a good example of where NASA delineated a service need and then let the private sector determine how to satisfy it. But we also know that "Commercial Crew", even though the word "commercial" is in the title, that NASA has been much more hands-on with the designs of the crew vehicles. So even though NASA doesn't own the hardware, NASA was very involved in the design of the hardware.

Let's also talk business models, since for me the ultimate goal is to expand humanity out into space, so it's important that we find business models that allow that for the non-government effort.

For Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew, the hope was that after NASA helped to create the cargo and crew transportation services, that non-NASA customers would eventually come forth to use the same services. Both SpaceX and Boeing have stated they made those assumptions, but from what we know no other customers have come forth.

So for this "commercial" lunar effort that Bridenstine and others want, what has the commercial sector learned about the likelihood that what they build for NASA's lunar needs can become a profit center without NASA? I think they have learned that it's not likely to happen, which means that the commercial sector is likely to treat any RFI's and RFQ's for LOP-G as strictly one-off efforts with no potential commercial business afterwards. In other words, unlike with Commercial Cargo & Crew, the private sector will be less likely to foot part of the bill for developing the lunar support services.

I raise this issue because we know the Trump administration is very "budget-minded", and everyone seems to be pinning their hopes on the private sector to make LOP-G affordable. I would not assume that.

Which is why I think that even though Bridenstine has high hopes, that they are not grounded in the realities he has been dealt.

My $0.02

As it has plaid out....there really is nothing all that commercial about the commercial crew program, other than the fact that the government does not own the designs (I mean that in a literal sense - the companies retain the intellectual property) and the companies are free to sell their services to other customers. However, as Coastal Ron points out, they don't seem to have landed any other customers, which means that from a pure business perspective they will need to recoup their internal investments via contracts with the government. Since the pricing for commercial crew is essentially fixed, and seems to be turning out to be more expensive than they'd planned (as evidenced by the schedule slip if nothing else - we don't know how much internal reserve they were carrying but i doubt it was sufficient to cover 2 or 3 years of development schedule slippage), they'll look to recover that investment in other ways - perhaps via CRS 2 for SpaceX and Core Stage/EUS for Boeing (pure speculation on my part).

Bridenstine would be well served to take a very fresh, very hard, and very dispassionate look at the acquisition approaches for the commercial cargo program, commercial crew program, SLS, Orion, and even Launch Services Programs and separate the reality from the rhetoric. For years, proponents of the SLS/Orion approach claimed human space flight could only be done under cost-plus contracting. Despite it's lack of "commercial" success, the commercial crew program is (very close to) proving that assertion wrong. On the flip side, the same rhetoric we heard about the government being "one of many customers" for human space flight transportation is being used to tout "commercial" LEO habitats in lieu of a perfectly functional and capable ISS and even large commercial lunar landers....which, at least in the near term seems far fetched at best.

I hope Bridenstine doesn't let his previous affection for "new space" OR his commitment to "old space" stakeholders to protect the status quo keep him from applying the lessons learned so far from all of these efforts to some of the key human exploration acquisition decisions that are going to be made in the next couple of years. If he can separate the realities from the fiction, he could make or at least influence some very big decisions in a way that will benefit the space program for decades to come. If not...two steps forward and three steps back seems more likely.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: clongton on 05/22/2018 04:01 pm
On the flip side, the same rhetoric we heard about the government being "one of many customers" for human space flight transportation is being used to tout "commercial" LEO habitats in lieu of a perfectly functional and capable ISS and even large commercial lunar landers....which, at least in the near term seems far fetched at best.

That is kinda like judging the cake 90 seconds after it was put into the oven and 30 minutes before scheduled removal. Then it needs to cool and then be frosted.

There are no commercial destinations yet and won't be until commercial crew has actually flown. It hasn't flown yet.
What DOES exist is NGOs and foreign governments that are interested in commercial crew transportation to commercial destinations - once such destinations are actually on orbit. But until commercial crew flies there is no business case for commercial destinations - only potential business cases.

One cannot judge the viability of a developing market while the market is just beginning to develop. In fact the cake is not even in the oven yet. You obviously do not want to wait - but you're just going to have to.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/22/2018 06:23 pm
If there was a market for space tourists on Soyuz, you have to believe that a similar market exists for commercial crew. But right now, Boeing and SpaceX are rightly focused on meeting NASA's commercial crew needs first.

In the past, Gerst has mentioned the possibility of having space tourists on ISS but I suspect that there is some resistance to that idea in Congress. But the market for LEO needs to include space tourism as that is likely to be the biggest non-government customers in LEO.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 05/22/2018 06:41 pm
SpaceX has said that there is surprisingly strong demand for 'tourist' flights... but Chuck is correct that crew certification for NASA must be completed before any commercial business can be established.  The end date for the certification is sliding to the right, so Dragon and CST-100 availability for other than NASA is completely unknown.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 05/22/2018 07:08 pm
That is kinda like judging the cake 90 seconds after it was put into the oven and 30 minutes before scheduled removal. Then it needs to cool and then be frosted.

There are no commercial destinations yet and won't be until commercial crew has actually flown. It hasn't flown yet.

What DOES exist is NGOs and foreign governments that are interested in commercial crew transportation to commercial destinations - once such destinations are actually on orbit. But until commercial crew flies there is no business case for commercial destinations - only potential business cases.

One cannot judge the viability of a developing market while the market is just beginning to develop. In fact the cake is not even in the oven yet. You obviously do not want to wait - but you're just going to have to.
+1 (Sorry Chris)

There are several countries and companies that are eagerly awaiting crew certification.  Just my educated "guess" that once crew is up and running within 12 months you will see the shift.  Will Bigelow launch a 330 before 2021?  Doubtful but it could happen.

In the meantime SMD and the Defense Department enjoy lower cost access to LEO and GEO.  Maybe we will do an Apollo 8 mission and land some stuff on the moon.  We have many more options now.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/22/2018 07:38 pm
On the flip side, the same rhetoric we heard about the government being "one of many customers" for human space flight transportation is being used to tout "commercial" LEO habitats in lieu of a perfectly functional and capable ISS and even large commercial lunar landers....which, at least in the near term seems far fetched at best.

That is kinda like judging the cake 90 seconds after it was put into the oven and 30 minutes before scheduled removal. Then it needs to cool and then be frosted.

There are no commercial destinations yet and won't be until commercial crew has actually flown. It hasn't flown yet.

Life is not that serial. SpaceX was selling Falcon 9 launch services well before Falcon 9 had flown. Boeing sells planes before they even officially start the development programs for them too, so customers don't need to see a transportation system working before they starting committing to using them.

Quote
What DOES exist is NGOs and foreign governments that are interested in commercial crew transportation to commercial destinations - once such destinations are actually on orbit.

I think the least amount of risk for a commercial space station is the transportation part. I don't think there is much doubt that both Boeing and SpaceX will create safe transportation systems, and both are quite happy to talk with potential customers about their needs.

I think there are two factors that account for the lack of progress on commercial space stations:

1. Bigelow may be perceived to still be years away from being able to offer such a service, and no one wants to be the lead customer.

2. There really isn't that much demand for commercial space stations.

Quote
But until commercial crew flies there is no business case for commercial destinations - only potential business cases.

Entrepreneurs and businesses don't need to see a transportation system working in order to commit to using it for a future business. This is an artificial barrier you are suggesting.

Quote
One cannot judge the viability of a developing market while the market is just beginning to develop. In fact the cake is not even in the oven yet. You obviously do not want to wait - but you're just going to have to.

Actually you can. It's done all the time in business.

Bigelow has stated he had signed LOI's (Letters of Intent) for customers, which is considered a sign of "demand". But with Commercial Crew getting REALLY close we should be seeing the next logical step, which is customers signing contracts for future space station services. Because it will take Bigelow years to get his hardware built, tested, and ready for launch, and Commercial Crew will have been running for years by the point - wasted opportunity if there really was demand for commercial space stations.

Which is why, for reasons we don't yet know, there isn't yet demand for commercial space stations. And that needs to be taken into account for any plans NASA has for depending on the private sector for going to the Moon.

My $0.02
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: incoming on 05/22/2018 07:41 pm
One cannot judge the viability of a developing market while the market is just beginning to develop. In fact the cake is not even in the oven yet. You obviously do not want to wait - but you're just going to have to.

SpaceX has said that there is surprisingly strong demand for 'tourist' flights... but Chuck is correct that crew certification for NASA must be completed before any commercial business can be established.  The end date for the certification is sliding to the right, so Dragon and CST-100 availability for other than NASA is completely unknown.

If there was a market for space tourists on Soyuz, you have to believe that a similar market exists for commercial crew. But right now, Boeing and SpaceX are rightly focused on meeting NASA's commercial crew needs first.

I don't think anything you guys are saying refutes my point.  If anything you are supporting it. I was responding to earlier posts about the business case for commercial space activities and the ROI "horizon" that companies are willing to consider. I did NOT say or even imply that there would never be other customers of the commercial crew vehicles. My point was that any future users of the vehicles are far enough out that companies will need to recoup their investment from their contracts with the government in order for the the ventures to be deemed profitable within a reasonable investment horizon by modern standards (10 years these days is considered a very long term investment horizon). And I was (admittedly speculatively) extending that point to LEO habitats and lunar landers. 

As to the certification question...it certainly hasn't stopped virgin galactic from taking deposits on space tourism flights. If there was so much pent up demand why wouldn't they be rushing to secure contracts with the companies so that they'll be at the top of the list?  And why would there need to be a destination for a space tourism flight?  It seems to me someone willing to pay "x" for a dragon flight to ISS or to a commercial space station would be willing to pay considerably less than "x" for a few days in orbit in a dragon capsule.

Not to mention the fact that Russia is so desperate for cash, why aren't they selling Soyuz to space tourists any more?  It seems like every year or two they make an announcement that they are marketing it or that they have a customer or two lined up but they never materialize. 
 



Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/22/2018 11:16 pm
Quote from: Jim Bridenstine
Look who just stopped by! It's always an honor to visit with former @NASA administrator and astronaut Charlie Bolden!

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/998607289262264320
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 06/03/2018 06:02 pm
Brief Admin comments:
Quote
NASA Administrator: US Must Compete With China in Space
Quote
Another way to make space exploration more affordable for the U.S. government and taxpayers is to use the utilize private space companies like Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin.

"Where we can buy services, NASA will buy services," Bridenstine told Catsimatidis. "If there is a robust commercial capability that is already underway doing amazing things, NASA can be one customer of many customers, which drives down the price to the taxpayer and it, in fact, increases capability. Those launch-service providers, they compete on innovation, they compete on cost, and all of that is good for the American taxpayer."
emphasis mine
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/nasa-bridenstine-return-moon/2018/06/03/id/863871/
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/04/2018 12:10 am
Brief Admin comments:
Quote
NASA Administrator: US Must Compete With China in Space
Quote
Another way to make space exploration more affordable for the U.S. government and taxpayers is to use the utilize private space companies like Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin.

"Where we can buy services, NASA will buy services," Bridenstine told Catsimatidis. "If there is a robust commercial capability that is already underway doing amazing things, NASA can be one customer of many customers, which drives down the price to the taxpayer and it, in fact, increases capability. Those launch-service providers, they compete on innovation, they compete on cost, and all of that is good for the American taxpayer."
emphasis mine
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/nasa-bridenstine-return-moon/2018/06/03/id/863871/

We all know that is how it SHOULD work, but NASA does not get free reign on deciding when it WILL work that way.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: DistantTemple on 06/04/2018 12:14 am
Is the artificial just a re-write of things said a couple of months back? JB hasn't said this stuff again recently... I think.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/06/2018 10:57 pm
Bridenstine emphasizes partnerships with industry to achieve NASA goals:
http://spacenews.com/bridenstine-emphasizes-partnerships-with-industry-to-achieve-nasa-goals/
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/14/2018 03:22 pm
Quote
Q: update on status of deputy administrator?
Bridenstine: say the same thing I said Tuesday on this. Need a space professional, scientist; beneficial if that person is an astronaut. I’m advocating for Janet Kavandi. [Who is here in the front row] #COMSTAC

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1007280802886029312 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1007280802886029312)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/14/2018 03:24 pm
Quote
Q - what's surprised you as NASA Admin? Bridenstine: I knew that everyone at NASA was exceptionally bright but didn't anticipate how quickly they all would want to give me their opinions. They're not shy! It's good, but it's not easy.

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1007281600776851456
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 06/15/2018 05:34 pm
Quote
I admit I had initial reservations about Jim Bridenstine to head up @NASA but I am VERY impressed with the job he is doing. Very positive reviews. He deserves to have a deputy he chooses & Janet Kavandi would be a great choice! http://SpaceNews.com  https://shar.es/anwA16
https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1007667503445790720

Reposted by Jeff Foust:
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/15/2018 06:54 pm
https://youtu.be/wCqcWWbYUN8 (https://youtu.be/wCqcWWbYUN8)

Quote
Published on 15 Jun 2018
On June 14, 2018, the Federal Aviation Administration's Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee held a meeting at U.S. Department of Transportation headquarters in Washington, DC.

A complete agenda, with a list of speakers, is at:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...

Among the speakers were:

* National Space Council Executive Secretary Scott Pace
* Rep. John Culberson (R-TX), Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
* NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine
* Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL)
* Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Chairman, Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness

The event was webcast live.  The COMSTAC web page is:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/23/2018 03:13 am
Space Situational Awareness: Whole of Government Perspectives (with Bridenstine as a witness):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gx8wanr2bM
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: speedevil on 06/23/2018 09:06 pm
Space Situational Awareness: Whole of Government Perspectives (with Bridenstine as a witness):
My god that was dull.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Fence was a program I was previously unaware of.

Several times the administrator has mentioned 'a dozen companies all with a dozen satellites doing servicing satellites' and once mentioned 'the government could pay for some of these to deorbit stuff'. (clearly, paraphrased).

Lots of mention about 'competitive advantage for people establishing in the US' - but not much clear explanation on how this is so, given the severe threat data is going to be shared freely.

About the clearest mention was the comment around 2:05 that commercial companies might provide better data - the only thing I can think that this might be is potentially damaging objects that are large enough to do damage, but not large enough to typically create more objects of their own size.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/28/2018 08:36 pm
https://youtu.be/RaaqyPNEmXE (https://youtu.be/RaaqyPNEmXE)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 06/28/2018 10:38 pm
This is worth an hour of your time (JB actually starts at 10:20). 
Quite a transparent and informed Administrator!
(and he has a sense of humor... who would have thought that could exist in today's Washington DC.)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/17/2018 03:27 am
Short video:

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1018537172381691904

He says towards the end:

Quote from: Bridenstine
“NASA has a lot of business upcoming with our future Exploration Campaign, that we’re going to be rolling out details in the very near future.”

Not newsworthy but kind of a cool video (Bridenstine landing a plane in a F-35 simulator):
https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1018960388946386944
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/18/2018 03:43 am
Quote
In a July 15 video, Bridenstine suggested more details about NASA’s exploration plans, including roles for international and commercial partners, could be released in the near future. “NASA has a lot of business upcoming with our future exploration campaign that we’re going to be rolling out details in the very near future,” he said.

Asked after the panel when those details could be released, Bridenstine responded, “Maybe in September.”

https://spacenews.com/bridenstine-discusses-iss-future-exploration-cooperation-in-europe/

 
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/26/2018 01:07 am
House Hearing - James Webb Space Telescope: Program Breach and its Implications with Bridenstine as a witness (first panel):

https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-james-webb-space-telescope-program-breach-and-its

Here is the link to the archived video (starts at 16m30s):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmAmcuDB8Q8
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: incoming on 07/26/2018 07:43 pm
Here's a CSIS panel from a day or two ago with Bridenstine, O'Keefe, and Bolden.  One of the most interesting moments (I thought) is toward the end of the discussion when Bolden says something to the effect of he thought for the first two years he was the worst administrator ever. Kind of interesting to hear his humility on that front...

https://youtu.be/uVrDHxyIf4M?t=2200
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: QuantumG on 07/26/2018 11:04 pm
He was, and still is.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/27/2018 12:01 am
House Hearing - James Webb Space Telescope: Program Breach and its Implications with Bridenstine as a witness (first panel):

https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-james-webb-space-telescope-program-breach-and-its


Second panel on James Webb (without Bridenstine):

https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-james-webb-space-telescope-program-breach-and-its

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkWd4OChlDg
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 08/30/2018 10:23 am
Finally. An Administrator that recognizes a ride that NASA can afford... and has the guts to admit it.
Quote
NASA head hints that reusable rocket cos. like SpaceX will enable Moon return
Quote
In a series of thoroughly unexpected and impassioned introductory remarks at one of several 2018 Advisory Council meetings, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine bucked at least two decades of norms by all but explicitly stating that reusable rockets built by innovative private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin will enable the true future of space exploration.

And uses an all-to-familiar analogy:
Quote
“We have reusable rockets [now]… Imagine if you flew here across the country to [NASA Ames] in a 737 and when the mission was over, you threw the airplane away. How many of you would have flown here?” – NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, 08/29/2018

https://www.teslarati.com/nasa-head-reusable-rockets-spacex-blue-origin-future/
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 08/30/2018 11:54 am
Finally. An Administrator that recognizes a ride that NASA can afford... and has the guts to admit it.
Quote
NASA head hints that reusable rocket cos. like SpaceX will enable Moon return
Quote
In a series of thoroughly unexpected and impassioned introductory remarks at one of several 2018 Advisory Council meetings, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine bucked at least two decades of norms by all but explicitly stating that reusable rockets built by innovative private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin will enable the true future of space exploration.

And uses an all-to-familiar analogy:
Quote
“We have reusable rockets [now]… Imagine if you flew here across the country to [NASA Ames] in a 737 and when the mission was over, you threw the airplane away. How many of you would have flown here?” – NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, 08/29/2018

https://www.teslarati.com/nasa-head-reusable-rockets-spacex-blue-origin-future/ (https://www.teslarati.com/nasa-head-reusable-rockets-spacex-blue-origin-future/)

Bah. A few slaps on the hand by Shelby et al. and Bridenstine will be thoroughly back in the SLS/Orion corner without ever using the word "reusable" again.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: AncientU on 08/30/2018 12:52 pm
Gotta start somewhere.
 
Socializing the idea that someone else has or could have more viable exploration technology is a significant leap from Charlie Bolden's, "I don't like ..." and #JourneytoMars, or Coalition for Deep Space Exploration's perpetual stance that operations in the vicinity of the Moon are only possible on SLS/Orion.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 08/30/2018 01:57 pm
Gotta start somewhere.
 
Socializing the idea that someone else has or could have more viable exploration technology is a significant leap from Charlie Bolden's, "I don't like ..." and #JourneytoMars, or Coalition for Deep Space Exploration's perpetual stance that operations in the vicinity of the Moon are only possible on SLS/Orion.


Oh, I fully agree with you.

But...

Shelby et al.
Don't underestimate those critters in US Congress.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: mlindner on 09/25/2018 01:18 am
Gotta start somewhere.
 
Socializing the idea that someone else has or could have more viable exploration technology is a significant leap from Charlie Bolden's, "I don't like ..." and #JourneytoMars, or Coalition for Deep Space Exploration's perpetual stance that operations in the vicinity of the Moon are only possible on SLS/Orion.


Oh, I fully agree with you.

But...

Shelby et al.
Don't underestimate those critters in US Congress.

Shelby is not likely to be running for election again. He's already 84. He'll be 88 in 2022.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: gongora on 09/25/2018 01:35 am
Shelby is not likely to be running for election again. He's already 84. He'll be 88 in 2022.

Remember Strom Thurmond?

On a more relevant note, there was a good interview on CSPAN today with Jeff Foust interviewing Jim Bridenstine at the Washington Space Business Roundtable

https://www.c-span.org/video/?451857-1/space-commerce

Nothing that new or newsworthy, just a solid fairly long interview by a good space journalist.  Regardless of which side of the aisle you tend to identify with, you can't doubt Bridenstine's enthusiasm for spaceflight.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Lar on 09/25/2018 05:51 am
Color me surprised and impressed by that. His appointment is a happy accident.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: MATTBLAK on 09/25/2018 07:18 am
Arguably the best Trump appointee. And I honestly intend no political snipe with that remark.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/25/2018 02:58 pm
Color me surprised and impressed by that. His appointment is a happy accident.

You wouldn't have been surprised had you watched some of his presentations on space-related matters before he was appointed. Don't believe everything that you read, especially when something or someone has become a political football. It then becomes a mudslinging campaign with little connection to reality.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/04/2019 01:04 am
Interview by Bridenstine with the WSJ:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nasa-administrator-jim-bridenstine-on-life-off-earth-11546530870
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/08/2020 10:53 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1325586823549169665

Quote
Even if President-elect Joe Biden's administration asks him to stay, @JimBridenstine says he will not stay on as NASA Administrator.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/nasa-chief-plans-step-aside-under-biden

Edit to add:

twitter.com/free_space/status/1325586486624985092

Quote
“The right question here is ‘What’s in the best interest of NASA as an agency, and what’s in the best interest of America's exploration program?

https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1325586488831209472

Quote
"You need somebody who has a close relationship with the president of the U.S. ... somebody trusted by the administration…. including OMB, National Space Council, National Security Council. I think I would not be the right person for that in a new administration --Bridenstine

twitter.com/free_space/status/1325587070358867969

Quote
“There is a political agreement that America needs to do big things in space exploration, that we need to lead the world ... There have been lessons learned from the past and I think Congress is in a good position to make sure that we have sustainable programs going forward.

https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1325587072191750147

Quote
"To go from [running NASA] to whatever I do next is going to be really hard ... This has been the greatest experience of my life by far, and I'm so grateful for it. But I am under no illusions. There are a lot of people that can do great work as the NASA administrator."
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 11/09/2020 08:29 am
Jim Bridenstine is leaving the stage. Won't stay on the job under Biden. Not even when asked (his words).


But, for those who have been paying close attention for the past two months this is not coming as a surprise. Particularly Eric Berger has been dropping hints since september.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/09/2020 12:15 pm
Bridenstine had previously made similar comments during the summer that an Administrator needed to work closely with the National Space Council and have the confidence of the President and Vice-President and that it would thus be difficult for him to stay under a different administration (see tweet below). But I was hoping that he could be convinced otherwise.

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1322201961433866242

See at 59m of this video where he stated this:

https://youtu.be/V0dw0hwBYTs

In any event, here are some of Bridenstine's biggest accomplishments as Administrator:

Here are some of Bridenstine's biggest accomplishments as Administrator:

-HLS and CLPS
-The Artemis Accords
-Completing commercial crew
-Reducing the sope of Gateway
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/09/2020 02:10 pm
The interview with Bridenstine about his future is no longer paywalled:

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/nasa-chief-plans-step-aside-under-biden
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/09/2020 02:44 pm
As I posted in the other thread, the Senate Appropriation bills are coming out tomorrow. We might find out, through Administrator Bridenstine, how much HLS will get. The Appropriation bills are expected to pass in December. So Jim Bridentsine's job isn't yet done.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: freddo411 on 11/09/2020 04:33 pm
In any event, here are some of Bridenstine's biggest accomplishments as Administrator:

Here are some of Bridenstine's biggest accomplishments as Administrator:

-HLS and CLPS
-The Artemis Accords
-Completing commercial crew
-Reducing the sope of Gateway

I'd add these as accomplishments of JB:

* Significantly moving the SLS forward
* Managing the introduction of Artemis as a serious moon landing program
* Bringing new Space, reusable rockets, and orbital refueling into the high level political/NASA conversation AND writing new contracts out for these.
* Putting NASA payloads on reused commercial rockets.
* Holding Boeing accountable
* Keeping NASA focus on Aerospace
* Managing Pence/Trump/Shelbey/Horn/etc.

And balancing all of these against the interests inside and outside NASA that opposed these.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: hektor on 11/09/2020 04:40 pm
... signing a Gateway MoU with ESA to build a significant chunk of it, including a cupola like contraption plus ESMs for Artemis IV and V...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/11/2020 03:17 pm
Jim Bridenstine is leaving NASA. How should we assess his 30-month tenure?

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/jim-bridenstine-is-leaving-nasa-how-should-we-assess-his-30-month-tenure/
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/11/2020 04:22 pm
So Bridenstine wasn't staying regardless who won the White House. That makes sense, since he truly hasn't been effusive enough in praising Trump (one of the reasons SecDef Esper was fired).

Now we can ignore the possibility of a Biden Administration somehow begging Bridenstine to not leave, and focus on who should be the next NASA Administrator...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/11/2020 04:29 pm
I have trouble believing these rumors. Getting Bridenstine confirmed was hard enough for Trump. I don't think that he would have replaced him. Plus, with the Vice-President heading the National Space Council, the Vice-President already had some control over NASA.

There was rumors that someone in Trump's entourage didn't like Bridenstine. Whether that person had enough power to convince Trump of changing administrators is a different story.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/11/2020 11:06 pm
In any event, here are some of Bridenstine's biggest accomplishments as Administrator:

Here are some of Bridenstine's biggest accomplishments as Administrator:

-HLS and CLPS
-The Artemis Accords
-Completing commercial crew
-Reducing the sope of Gateway

I'd add these as accomplishments of JB:

* Significantly moving the SLS forward
* Managing the introduction of Artemis as a serious moon landing program
* Bringing new Space, reusable rockets, and orbital refueling into the high level political/NASA conversation AND writing new contracts out for these.
* Putting NASA payloads on reused commercial rockets.
* Holding Boeing accountable
* Keeping NASA focus on Aerospace
* Managing Pence/Trump/Shelbey/Horn/etc.

And balancing all of these against the interests inside and outside NASA that opposed these.

Another Bridenstine accomplishment is allowing 2 commercial spaceflight missions per year to the ISS. The first Axoim/SpaceX mission has been officially announced today for the fall of 2021.

https://twitter.com/CommanderMLA/status/1326631425605578757
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/11/2020 11:25 pm
I have trouble believing these rumors. Getting Bridenstine confirmed was hard enough for Trump. I don't think that he would have replaced him. Plus, with the Vice-President heading the National Space Council, the Vice-President already had some control over NASA.

There was rumors that someone in Trump's entourage didn't like Bridenstine. Whether that person had enough power to convince Trump of changing administrators is a different story.

Not sure why it is so hard to believe the people who have actually worked for Trump, when they say that Trump demands you compliment him publicly, otherwise you aren't loyal enough. SecDef Esper is just the latest example of that (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/11/09/exclusive-esper-on-his-way-out-says-he-was-no-yes-man/).

It doesn't matter if someone is competent, only that you are loyal to Trump. So regardless of how competent Bridenstine may have been, that doesn't matter with Trump. Just look at all of the obviously not-qualified people that he has installed in government, and how many obviously qualified people he has fired.

Bridenstine is going out on a high note, which will position him well for whatever comes next - which is likely a job doing lobbying.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: FinalFrontier on 11/11/2020 11:26 pm
He was actually one of the best NASA Admins the agency has ever had, as it turns out, despite being possibly one of the shortest serving ones it has ever had.
What he did to get Boeing to wake up and to hold them accountable on Starliner and SLS was a great thing. Plus he brought propellant depots into the forefront again these two things alone are great accomplishments.
With that said I entirely understand why he's leaving although I'm still sad to hear about. I think he could still have done more great things.

Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/12/2020 12:02 am
I have trouble believing these rumors. Getting Bridenstine confirmed was hard enough for Trump. I don't think that he would have replaced him. Plus, with the Vice-President heading the National Space Council, the Vice-President already had some control over NASA.

There was rumors that someone in Trump's entourage didn't like Bridenstine. Whether that person had enough power to convince Trump of changing administrators is a different story.

Not sure why it is so hard to believe the people who have actually worked for Trump, when they say that Trump demands you compliment him publicly, otherwise you aren't loyal enough. SecDef Esper is just the latest example of that (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/11/09/exclusive-esper-on-his-way-out-says-he-was-no-yes-man/).

It doesn't matter if someone is competent, only that you are loyal to Trump. So regardless of how competent Bridenstine may have been, that doesn't matter with Trump. Just look at all of the obviously not-qualified people that he has installed in government, and how many obviously qualified people he has fired.

Bridenstine is going out on a high note, which will position him well for whatever comes next - which is likely a job doing lobbying.

Your example of Esper is a good one, if Trump wanted to fire Bridenstine, he would have done so already. I suspect that Pence would have a say in this since space is more his responsability (and perhaps also Scott Pace). Pence doesn't seem like an impulsive guy. Anyways, we'll never know unless Bridenstine writes about this in his memoirs (assuming that he writes them).

At this point, I am more concerned about the Democrats installing a good NASA administrator.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Proponent on 11/12/2020 11:44 am
... What he did to get Boeing to wake up and to hold them accountable on Starliner ....

Wasn't it Boeing's failure to pull off the test flight that woke Boeing up on Starliner?
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/12/2020 04:21 pm
He was actually one of the best NASA Admins the agency has ever had, as it turns out, despite being possibly one of the shortest serving ones it has ever had.

What is the criteria that you use to determine how to evaluate the job someone has done as NASA Administrator?

For instance, the GAO yearly report on major projects is certainly an input into such an evaluation, and the latest report showed that major programs had a 31% cost growth unit Bridenstine. Now if spending taxpayer money wisely is a metric the NASA Administrator is being evaluated against (and it should be), then Bridenstine wouldn't be looking very good.

Quote
What he did to get Boeing to wake up and to hold them accountable on Starliner and SLS was a great thing.

What? I think both of those would be classified as doing something AFTER Boeing failed, not BEFORE. Which if you're going to say someone did a good job, you'd hope it was because they saved lives, or saved taxpayer money. But with Boeing taxpayer money was certainly not saved, for either Starliner or the SLS - in fact Boeing was given millions in bonuses for being late during the time Bridenstine has been the NASA Administrator.

Quote
Plus he brought propellant depots into the forefront again...

Has Congress funded propellant depots yet? No. So don't count your chickens before they hatch.

Look, he hasn't been bad per se, but I'm not understanding the metrics people are using to hoist him onto some kind of pedestal...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: freddo411 on 11/12/2020 05:23 pm
He was actually one of the best NASA Admins the agency has ever had, as it turns out, despite being possibly one of the shortest serving ones it has ever had.

What is the criteria that you use to determine how to evaluate the job someone has done as NASA Administrator?

For instance, the GAO yearly report on major projects is certainly an input into such an evaluation, and the latest report showed that major programs had a 31% cost growth unit Bridenstine. Now if spending taxpayer money wisely is a metric the NASA Administrator is being evaluated against (and it should be), then Bridenstine wouldn't be looking very good.

Quote
What he did to get Boeing to wake up and to hold them accountable on Starliner and SLS was a great thing.

What? I think both of those would be classified as doing something AFTER Boeing failed, not BEFORE. Which if you're going to say someone did a good job, you'd hope it was because they saved lives, or saved taxpayer money. But with Boeing taxpayer money was certainly not saved, for either Starliner or the SLS - in fact Boeing was given millions in bonuses for being late during the time Bridenstine has been the NASA Administrator.

Quote
Plus he brought propellant depots into the forefront again...

Has Congress funded propellant depots yet? No. So don't count your chickens before they hatch.

Look, he hasn't been bad per se, but I'm not understanding the metrics people are using to hoist him onto some kind of pedestal...

So if I'm understanding your position, you think Boeing's work is a fiasco, and that J B didn't fix it.    (True).


Did Boeing and it's contract start well before J B arrived?   Yes, yes they did.   Was Boeing's funding politically protected and mandated by Congress and out of J B's control ... yes, we all know this.

Did J B take specific actions inside NASA to "push" Boeing?   Yes he did.   Did those actions fix Boeing's programs .. no they did not.

In short, I don't think it's fair to pin Boeing's fiascos on J B.   It's also true that the budget numbers that you refer to are largely a Boeing problem.   I will grant that other project have budget problems, and that NASA needs to stop the "overruns" gambit.

Perhaps JB should be judged on programs started under him:   CLPS and the HLS.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: abaddon on 11/12/2020 08:09 pm
At this point, I am more concerned about the Democrats installing an unqualified person as NASA administrator. But I am obviously hoping that they do not.
That's off-topic for the thread, and is an obviously biased political statement of the kind that isn't supposed to be allowed on this site.  I would suggest you self-moderate and delete it.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/12/2020 08:35 pm
I have re-worded it. But I find it strange that you are OK with Coastal Ron's post in which he says that Trump does not care about competency (only loyalty matters) which is a lot worse than what I said. Your outrage seems biased.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: abaddon on 11/12/2020 08:42 pm
Trump values loyalty over anything else, and it's not really arguable.  I agree suggesting he doesn't care about competency at all is over the top, and I would agree that Bridenstine was a decent administrator and certainly nowhere near "incompetent".

There's nothing at this time to suggest the Democrats will install an "unqualified person as NASA administrator" other than obvious political bias.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/12/2020 08:55 pm
I didn't say that they would. I said that I was concerned that they might. For example, someone that cares about Earth science but that doesn't really care about human exploration would be problematic (in my opinion). I don't think that they will name such a person but until they name someone as Administrator, I am a little concerned about it.

Saying that Trump values loyalty over anything else is a biased statement that is arguable. Remember that Bridenstine backed Cruz and not Trump during the 2016 primaries, yet Trump still named him administrator. In any event, Bridenstine wasn't disloyal and proved that he was very competent.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/12/2020 09:28 pm
[...
Look, he hasn't been bad per se, but I'm not understanding the metrics people are using to hoist him onto some kind of pedestal...

So if I'm understanding your position, you think Boeing's work is a fiasco, and that J B didn't fix it.    (True).

Did Boeing and it's contract start well before J B arrived?   Yes, yes they did.   Was Boeing's funding politically protected and mandated by Congress and out of J B's control ... yes, we all know this.

Did J B take specific actions inside NASA to "push" Boeing?   Yes he did.   Did those actions fix Boeing's programs .. no they did not.

In short, I don't think it's fair to pin Boeing's fiascos on J B.   It's also true that the budget numbers that you refer to are largely a Boeing problem.   I will grant that other project have budget problems, and that NASA needs to stop the "overruns" gambit.

OK, but what I was responding to was your prior statement:
Quote
What he did to get Boeing to wake up and to hold them accountable on Starliner and SLS was a great thing.

So you apparently think the reason he did a great job was that he did his job? You do realize that when things go wrong managers are supposed to do something to fix the situation, so I'm not sure why you think what Bridenstine did was so unusual or great. If anything the ASAP group thought NASA did a bad job on having insight into what Boeing was doing, so why is that a good thing for Bridenstine?

Quote
Perhaps JB should be judged on programs started under him:   CLPS and the HLS.

I asked what metrics you were using to measure how effective Bridenstine had been, and as NASA Administrator there would be many - including getting new programs started. But it was V.P. Pence who created the 2024 date for Artemis, which is driving the whole sequence of events that Bridenstine had to react to. Did he react well, I would say he did. But that was his job, so if someone is doing their job I give them a "Meets Expectations" mark, not a "Exceeds Expectations" one.

But then again I've been in management my whole career, so maybe I view these things differently than space enthusiasts...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/12/2020 09:42 pm
Your example of Esper is a good one, if Trump wanted to fire Bridenstine, he would have done so already.

Not necessarily. It could be that Trump is focused on the people that really irk him first, like Esper and now two senior Department of Homeland Security officials (https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/12/politics/dhs-officials-forced-resign-white-house/index.html). Trump still has 69 days left to go, so I don't think anyone can say they are safe.

Quote
I suspect that Pence would have a say in this since space is more his responsability (and perhaps also Scott Pace).

V.P. Pence has shown nothing but deference to Trump, and I doubt Bridenstine is anything special to a Vice President that will no longer have any say in NASA. Pence and Bridenstine didn't have a deep personal relationship that I know of.

Quote
At this point, I am more concerned about the Democrats installing a good NASA administrator.

I remember when Senator Rubio was holding up Bridenstine's nomination for many months, depending on whether you're into scuttlebutt (Bridenstine backed Cruz over Rubio) or public statements (Bridenstine would be too political).

We'll see what happens if Republicans hold onto the Senate and Biden is President, but I would imagine that Biden will pick someone that has obvious management and technical talents - far above what Bridenstine had.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: freddo411 on 11/12/2020 09:56 pm

OK, but what I was responding to was your prior statement:
Quote
What he did to get Boeing to wake up and to hold them accountable on Starliner and SLS was a great thing.

So you apparently think the reason he did a great job was that he did his job? You do realize that when things go wrong managers are supposed to do something to fix the situation, so I'm not sure why you think what Bridenstine did was so unusual or great. If anything the ASAP group thought NASA did a bad job on having insight into what Boeing was doing, so why is that a good thing for Bridenstine?

Quote
Perhaps JB should be judged on programs started under him:   CLPS and the HLS.

I asked what metrics you were using to measure how effective Bridenstine had been, and as NASA Administrator there would be many - including getting new programs started. But it was V.P. Pence who created the 2024 date for Artemis, which is driving the whole sequence of events that Bridenstine had to react to. Did he react well, I would say he did. But that was his job, so if someone is doing their job I give them a "Meets Expectations" mark, not a "Exceeds Expectations" one.

But then again I've been in management my whole career, so maybe I view these things differently than space enthusiasts...


Sorry, I'm not OP but I created some confusion jumping into the conversation.

I don't disagree with you when you say: " that was his job, so if someone is doing their job I give them a "Meets Expectations" mark, not a "Exceeds Expectations"  ".     And you are right that Boeing made him look bad too.

If you asked me what I thought of Bolden, I'd say he kept the program of record moving, but he also went out of his way to do some blocking and tackling of commercial alternatives via his verbal comments.    So that would be a negative for me.

J B has also kept the program of record moving, but went out of his way to promote commercial alternatives and write some NASA contracts for them.   So that's the exceeded expectations part for me.

Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Lar on 11/13/2020 12:53 am
(mod) I have no issue whatever with an neutrally worded "I hope entity X doesn't do bad thing Y" sort of statement. But if it's neutral enough not to be partisan, is it actually valuable? Who among us hopes that the next NASA administrator is horrid? I suspect almost no one[1]. So saying that one hopes the next administration installs a good administrator doesn't add much.

Talking about specific characteristics of a desireable administrator, or of a less desireable one, and handicapping who fits in which bins might be more interesting I think?

1 - save for the "we want NASA to be so bad it gets destroyed" crowd...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Lar on 11/13/2020 12:55 am

If you asked me what I thought of Bolden, I'd say he kept the program of record moving, but he also went out of his way to do some blocking and tackling of commercial alternatives via his verbal comments.    So that would be a negative for me.


I've always heard "blocking and tackling" used in a positive way, as in, this person was clearing impediments to good thing X by "blocking and tackling for X"   But you said "of"... are you saying that Bolden was adding, rather than removing, impediments?
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/13/2020 03:14 am
Has Congress funded propellant depots yet? No. So don't count your chickens before they hatch.

It's part of the technology program and it's only $370M over 5 years. There is no reason to believe that it will not get funded. There won't be a separate line in the Appropriations bill or in the explanatory statement/CJS Report for it, given the amounts. In the proposed FY21 Senate bill, technology has a very good budget. Incidentally, having a separate program for technology was proposed by the Augustine committee and gradually implemented under Obama. Bridenstine kept that. So that's another positive for him. Not undoing what your predecessor did for no reason is a big positive in my opinion (especially when it is a good idea such as technology development).
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/13/2020 02:26 pm
One of the things that I have been wondering about is whether Bridenstine would accept an offer to be NASA Administrator in a future Republican administration. He is young enough that it would be a possibility for him. The Hill reports that Trump will announce that he will run again in 2024, after Biden is certified. Ted Cruz might also be tempted to name Bridenstine as Administrator, if he were to win the Presidency.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/13/2020 02:43 pm
One possibility also is that the GOP Senate breaks with all norms and just doesn't allow any Biden appointee to be seated, regardless of who it is. If Biden foresees that, maybe he'll ask to wait for Bridenstine to resign until the appointee is approved by the Senate.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: edzieba on 11/13/2020 03:01 pm
I wouldn't even call that a break from the norm, as obstruction of confirmations has been the norm for split Presidency/Senate control since 2010.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/16/2020 03:09 am
Quote from: Eric Berger
Also, this was a fitting capstone for @JimBridenstine, who has supported commercial space from the outset of his tenure. For goodness sake, he went before the Senate and said he was seriously considering launching Orion on a Falcon Heavy. (Almost got him fired).

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1328184026071490560
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/16/2020 03:36 am
Quote from: Eric Berger
Also, this was a fitting capstone for @JimBridenstine, who has supported commercial space from the outset of his tenure. For goodness sake, he went before the Senate and said he was seriously considering launching Orion on a Falcon Heavy. (Almost got him fired).

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1328184026071490560
He was brave to take the Senate-porkers on for that issue. It was a nice try.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/16/2020 01:12 pm
Bridenstine will not be asked to stay and wouldn't stay even if he was asked.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/16/2020 01:33 pm
I wouldn't even call that a break from the norm, as obstruction of confirmations has been the norm for split Presidency/Senate control since 2010.

For some types of confirmations, it has been the norm for many decades.  Certainly as long as I've been alive, and I'm no spring chicken.  The potential change of our time is that the large minority may no longer be able to obstruct.  This doesn't make any difference for NASA and the rest of the government for at least a couple of years (probably).

He will be gone come Jan 20 and NASA will probably just operate without an administrator for several months or longer.  NASA will just muddle along, as it had done before Bridenstine also for decades.

I do think the interesting scenario is whether he will at some time in the future come back to NASA or in some fashion contribute to NASA policy.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/16/2020 07:56 pm
https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1328436395497676802
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Yazata on 11/16/2020 11:29 pm
I like Jim Bridenstine and I sense that same opinion is widely shared out here among the public, at least among that segment of the public that actively follows space. JB's strength in that regard has been his enthusiasm, his ability to communicate excitement about humanity's future off-planet. He's a bit like Elon Musk in that regard, and frankly I wouldn't be too surprised to see him take some kind of role with SpaceX when he leaves government.

The significance of Bridenstine's leaving is less a matter of administrative "competence" than it is a question of possible larger changes in policy direction.  And little of that is under the direct control of the Administrator. Will the change of administration bring with it an Executive/Congressional deemphasis on HSF? (Regardless of how competent an Administrator is, regardless of how big an advocate of HSF he might be, he might find himself just spitting into the political wind.) Remember that space flight will likely be competing with 'medicare for all' and with some sort of 'green new deal' for a slice of the pie. Hugely expensive program initiatives with big politically-powerful activist constituencies. There's the still unknown longer term economic and social effects of the covid shutdowns to factor in as well.

So whatever Jim Bridenstine does, there's storm clouds on the space-flight horizon. That's true whether he stays or as-expected, leaves.     
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Lar on 11/17/2020 02:20 am
Who is woke and who is not, having hate on for X, and Bridenstine's fitness as a presidential candidate?

ALL OFF TOPIC.   Cease and desist.

----

Some posts were deleted. As ChrisB is often reminding folks. if you reply to a post that is deletion-bait, you are liable to lose your post too, even if it might possibly have been worthy.

Stick to the narrow topic and avoid general politics.

----
(fan) I will miss Mr. Bridenstine as administrator. I did not expect to be saying this when he was appointed.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 11/17/2020 02:29 am
https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1328436395497676802
My first thought was they were holding hands...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 11/17/2020 06:23 am
https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1328436395497676802
My first thought was they were holding hands...

Clearly you need a new prescription for your glasses.  ;)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Proponent on 11/24/2020 03:32 pm
I like Jim Bridenstine....

So do I.  He conveys enthusiasm in a way no other recent administrator and seems genuinely interested in NASA accomplishing something significant in human spaceflight rather than just plodding along with a congressionally acceptable spending program.

Quote
So whatever Jim Bridenstine does, there's storm clouds on the space-flight horizon.

I think the storm is already here -- just look at the FY 2021 budget.  After funding only about 60% of the administration's small, initial request for human landing systems in FY 2020, the Senate, though controlled by the president's party, proposes funding only a third of this year's request.  And if the result is a compromise with the House, it will be even less.

JB's superpower was supposed to be his ability, as a former congressman, to work with Congress.  In the end, help from the vice president notwithstanding, he has not even brought his own party on board.

EDIT:  "compromise with the Senate" -> "compromise with the House"
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/25/2020 12:00 am
Obtaing an extra $3B wasn't realistic. Getting $1B would be a big achievement. I wouldn't assume that a compromise would be less than $1B, it might end up being more. Often the compromise is to increase the amount of spending, not to reduce it.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 11/25/2020 09:33 am
Obtaing an extra $3B wasn't realistic. Getting $1B would be a big achievment. I wouldn't assume that a compromise would be less than $1B, it might end up being more. Often the compromise is to increase the amount of spending, not to reduce it.

Emphasis mine.

Glad to see you came to same conclusion as I did. This conclusion also explains why 2024 was never a realistic target date. At that level of funding even 2028 is iffy.

Bridenstine's failure to get his own party on-board the VPs 2024 plan is one of the reasons why one of my co-workers recently tweeted that, in his opinion, Bridenstine is not a good NASA administrator. And I agree with my co-worker's opinion.

The new plan under Jim's predecessor (Charlie Bolden) was CCP. Charlie managed to get both the Democrats and the GOP on-board to properly fund that. Took 3 years, but still, he managed.

The new plan under Bridenstine is Artemis and HLS. And Jim has failed rather miserably to even get his own party (the GOP) on-board. Let alone the Democrats.

So, which NASA admin did a better job? IMO Charlie Bolden.

What sets Jim Bridenstine apart from many of his predecessors is his very open display of genuine enthusiasm for his job and the subject of spaceflight in general. But that is not THE metric by which to measure the performance of a NASA administrator IMO.

What NASA needs next IMO is more James Webb and less Jim Bridenstine (if you get what I mean). NASA needs an administrator who can successfully work with both sides of the aisle. One that is able to bridge the gaping ravine between GOP and Democrats. Jim Bridenstine is not that person. And even Jim knows this, given his own statement with regards to him resigning when Biden comes into office.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 11/25/2020 12:17 pm
JB's superpower was supposed to be his ability, as a former congressman, to work with Congress.  In the end, help from the vice president notwithstanding, he has not even brought his own party on board.

While yes he hasn't gotten full funding for HLS its important to remember that CCP didn't start getting more than half its budget request consistently till FY2014. The first CCP funding was only $50 million, with next year around $300 million, as compared to $600 million and potentially $1 billion for HLS.

I remember predicting in 2017 we would have at least piecemeal funding for a lunar lander by 2022 and IIRC several people, including yourself, thought I was being overly optimistic.

It's amazing how success and good management can change our expectations. A few years ago getting a billion dollars for a lunar lander seemed like a pipe dream. Now it is being seen as a disappointment.

Bridenstine's failure to get his own party on-board the VPs 2024 plan is one of the reasons why one of my co-workers recently tweeted that, in his opinion, Bridenstine is not a good NASA administrator. And I agree with my co-worker's opinion.

The new plan under Jim's predecessor (Charlie Bolden) was CCP. Charlie managed to get both the Democrats and the GOP on-board to properly fund that. Took 3 years, but still, he managed.

As you point out here it took Mr. Bolden 3 years to get close to full funding for something far less ambitious in scale. That's longer than Mr. Bridenstines entire time in office.

I agree that commercial crew will lead to far grander achievements but let's be fair when comparing performances.

Quote
NASA needs an administrator who can successfully work with both sides of the aisle. One that is able to bridge the gaping ravine between GOP and Democrats. Jim Bridenstine is not that person. And even Jim knows this, given his own statement with regards to him resigning when Biden comes into office.

The partisan rancor will still be there regardless of who is NASA admin. Do you really think the Dems would have wholeheartedly embraced Artemis if only the right person was NASA admin? I don't think you are being realistic in your analysis.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/25/2020 02:32 pm
Obtaing an extra $3B wasn't realistic. Getting $1B would be a big achievement. I wouldn't assume that a compromise would be less than $1B, it might end up being more. Often the compromise is to increase the amount of spending, not to reduce it.

Emphasis mine.

Glad to see you came to same conclusion as I did. This conclusion also explains why 2024 was never a realistic target date. At that level of funding even 2028 is iffy.

Bridenstine's failure to get his own party on-board the VPs 2024 plan is one of the reasons why one of my co-workers recently tweeted that, in his opinion, Bridenstine is not a good NASA administrator. And I agree with my co-worker's opinion.

The new plan under Jim's predecessor (Charlie Bolden) was CCP. Charlie managed to get both the Democrats and the GOP on-board to properly fund that. Took 3 years, but still, he managed.

The new plan under Bridenstine is Artemis and HLS. And Jim has failed rather miserably to even get his own party (the GOP) on-board. Let alone the Democrats.

So, which NASA admin did a better job? IMO Charlie Bolden.

What sets Jim Bridenstine apart from many of his predecessors is his very open display of genuine enthusiasm for his job and the subject of spaceflight in general. But that is not THE metric by which to measure the performance of a NASA administrator IMO.

What NASA needs next IMO is more James Webb and less Jim Bridenstine (if you get what I mean). NASA needs an administrator who can successfully work with both sides of the aisle. One that is able to bridge the gaping ravine between GOP and Democrats. Jim Bridenstine is not that person. And even Jim knows this, given his own statement with regards to him resigning when Biden comes into office.

I fully agree with Endeavour's response. But I just want to add that the Appropriations process is a difficult one and getting an extra $3B would have been difficult under any administrator. The fact that Bridenstine was a politician helped to fund HLS to an extent but there is only so much that you can do.

In terms of comparing Bolden to Bridenstine, there was a lot of good ideas that were introduced in the FY 2011 budget, as a response to the Augustine committee's recommendations, including finally funding commercial crew and having a separate budget for technology development. Those are Bolden's biggest achievements.

Nevertheless, Bolden's biggest failure was not to push for the funding of a realistic destination, other than the Asteroid Retrieval Mission. More specifically, he failed to create programs such as HLS and CLPS.

HLS and CLPS are Bridenstine's biggest achievements. Bridenstine was smart enough not to undo Bolden's biggest achievements, commercial crew and technology development. Hopefully, his successor will be smart enough not to undo HLS and CLPS.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/25/2020 04:15 pm
I fully agree with Endeavour's response. But I just want to add that the Appropriations process is a difficult one and getting an extra $3B would have been difficult under any administrator. The fact that Bridenstine was a politician helped to fund HLS to an extent but there is only so much that you can do.

As the old saying goes, you can't turn a sows ear into a silk purse. Or in this case, it wouldn't matter who the NASA Administrator is if the program that was proposed wasn't viewed as important to America's future. And really the biggest advocate of a program being proposed to Congress is not the NASA Administrator, but the President. If the President doesn't use all their abilities to convince Congress to fund something, then the NASA Administrator doesn't have a lot of support - and Trump never publicly & consistently supported the Artemis program.

Quote
Nevertheless, Bolden's biggest failure was not to push for the funding of a realistic destination, other than the Asteroid Retrieval Mission. More specifically, he failed to create programs such as HLS and CLPS.

The SLS and Orion were created by Congress, not the Obama Administration. And the goal of the Obama Administration was Mars, not the Moon. So blaming Bolden for not pursuing the Moon is completely misguided.

Quote
HLS and CLPS are Bridenstine's biggest achievements.

Time will tell.

Quote
Bridenstine was smart enough not to undo Bolden's biggest achievements, commercial crew and technology development.

WHAT?? Smart enough not to kill Commercial Crew? Bridenstine would have been laughed out of NASA if he tried to cancel Commercial Crew, yet you're giving him credit for not trying? Boy, grading on a scale...  ::)

Quote
Hopefully, his successor will be smart enough not to undo HLS and CLPS.

The thing is the Artemis program is not the "Bridenstine Moon Program". Bridenstine was hired to do a job, and he did it in collaboration with a LOT of people that don't get public credit. So saying that this program or that program was ONLY because of Bridenstine is ignoring reality.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/25/2020 05:23 pm
Quote
Nevertheless, Bolden's biggest failure was not to push for the funding of a realistic destination, other than the Asteroid Retrieval Mission. More specifically, he failed to create programs such as HLS and CLPS.

The SLS and Orion were created by Congress, not the Obama Administration. And the goal of the Obama Administration was Mars, not the Moon. So blaming Bolden for not pursuing the Moon is completely misguided.

I should have been clearer. Bolden didn't create the equivalent to HLS and CLPS for Mars. The only thing that was proposed was Gateway and the related Deep Space Transport (and Gateway wasn't funded until Bridenstine came along). That's part of the problem, Bolden proposed Mars but did not follow through.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Transport

Bridenstine, on the other hand, followed through for the Moon by creating HLS and CLPS.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Proponent on 11/25/2020 07:19 pm
The new plan under Jim's predecessor (Charlie Bolden) was CCP. Charlie managed to get both the Democrats and the GOP on-board to properly fund that. Took 3 years, but still, he managed.

True, though I think Vladimir Putin deserves a lot of the credit for embarrassing opponents of CCP in the Senate by invading Ukraine.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/25/2020 07:31 pm
Quote
Bridenstine was smart enough not to undo Bolden's biggest achievements, commercial crew and technology development.

WHAT?? Smart enough not to kill Commercial Crew? Bridenstine would have been laughed out of NASA if he tried to cancel Commercial Crew, yet you're giving him credit for not trying? Boy, grading on a scale...  ::)

Quote
Hopefully, his successor will be smart enough not to undo HLS and CLPS.

The thing is the Artemis program is not the "Bridenstine Moon Program". Bridenstine was hired to do a job, and he did it in collaboration with a LOT of people that don't get public credit. So saying that this program or that program was ONLY because of Bridenstine is ignoring reality.

You seem to have problems understanding the context of a sentence. Part of the problem is that you keep breaking up sentences that are part of the same paragraph. Generally, a paragraph conveys a single idea. If you break up each sentence in a paragraph, you lose the context of each sentence.

The point that I was trying to make in these two sentences is that cancelling programs for the sake of cancelling program is not a smart thing to do. But politics isn't always logic. So I am hoping that Bridenstine's successor doesn't cancel HLS and CLPS. Bridenstine did not undo Bolden's main accomplishments (commercial crew and technology development). So I am hoping that Bridenstine's successor will not cancel good programs such as HLS and CLPS, just for the sake of putting their stamp on NASA's HSF program.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: butters on 11/25/2020 10:38 pm
My biggest criticism of the Bolden era was the failure to sell the findings of the Augustine Commission. Bolden inherited Constellation. SLS and EUS were products of his tenure, and SLS definitely wasn't shoved down NASA's throat over Bolden's objections.

Charlie was not onboard with commercial launch vehicles for human exploration. His position was that commercial providers will handle LEO so that NASA can focus on exploration. Nothing made him angrier than his belief that Falcon Heavy was oversized for anything other than SpaceX trying to stick their nose where it doesn't belong. They should be grateful for their company-saving ISS contracts.

Bridenstine wanted to explore alternatives to SLS. He grabbed the third rail by floating the possibility of Orion on FH. When it became clear that handing the crew launch segment of the exploration architecture over to commercial providers was not politically doable, he proposed something even bolder: a commercial crew program for lunar landers.

My first thought was that this is SO backwards. Surely it would make more sense for the crew launcher to be the commercial fixed-cost service while the lunar lander is the cost-plus Marshall stack? Maybe that's the emerging reality. Can we really fund multiple providers each developing NASA human-rated lunar landers? Who's going to buy flights on a National Team or Dynetics lander other than NASA?

Jim Bridenstine fought the good fight. He pushed the commercial spaceflight agenda as far as it could possibly go in all directions. In one direction he ran into a solid brick wall, and in another direction he was given a long enough leash to become the dog that caught the bus. He got his exciting commercial HLS program, and now it's the age-old question of whether there's enough room in the budget for projects of this scale while also funding SLS/Orion. That's not Bridenstine's fault. That's the reality he inherited.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/25/2020 11:40 pm
Quote
Nevertheless, Bolden's biggest failure was not to push for the funding of a realistic destination, other than the Asteroid Retrieval Mission. More specifically, he failed to create programs such as HLS and CLPS.

The SLS and Orion were created by Congress, not the Obama Administration. And the goal of the Obama Administration was Mars, not the Moon. So blaming Bolden for not pursuing the Moon is completely misguided.

I should have been clearer. Bolden didn't create the equivalent to HLS and CLPS for Mars.

How could he? There wasn't a Mars program for human exploration yet.

Quote
That's part of the problem, Bolden proposed Mars but did not follow through.

What???

Bolden never proposed a Mars program. All he did was talk about the path NASA had been on for decades regarding Mars, and as of 2016 he was saying getting to Mars likely wouldn't happen until the 2030's (https://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/02/nasas-bolden-mars-mission-is-closer-than-ever.html).

And again, NASA Administrators are not in charge of proposing NASA goals, their job is to run NASA.

Quote
Bridenstine, on the other hand, followed through for the Moon by creating HLS and CLPS.

So Bridenstine, alone, created HLS and CLPS. No one else involved?  ::)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Lar on 11/26/2020 01:45 am
(mod) Insufficient collegiality warning.
Before you hit "post" ask yourself .... are you being polite or argumentative?
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Stan-1967 on 11/26/2020 02:52 am

And again, NASA Administrators are not in charge of proposing NASA goals, their job is to run NASA.


This post will probably get lost in the back & forth (friendly?) banter discussing the administrative accomplishments of Bridenstine vs. his predecessors.  However I think the focus on Bridenstine as a Technocrat misses important differences.   

I think what Bridenstine excelled at was that he was not focused solely on the technocrat role.  His job as tasked by his boss was not just to run NASA.  His style & actions were straight out Leadership 101 college textbooks.  Jim would also have been taught all this in his military duties.  I think Jim Bridenstine viewed his top job priorities as communicating a model for how success should be achieved & creating measurable goals.  Then he had to focus NASA on the Trump Administrations "Vision" for how these goals would be realized, i.e Artemis by 2024.  Moving down from that high level priority, he then tried to do all the other tasks of a leader to create a culture of success.  Some, but not all of those things were technocratic in nature.   

Was he a good leader?  I think so.  Was he in his position long enough to make any lasting change?  Probably not.  I say that with sadness, because I really think NASA can be more successful than it currently is. 

That is how I see this conversation has stagnated.  Everything is focusing on what program was or was not executed, what program will be his legacy, etc.  To me the acceptance of that entire line of logic is a defacto acceptance of a NASA that is a a bureaucracy that requires a single style of leader. ( i.e technocratic)  I think the limited success Jim Bridenstine had during his tenure challenges that assumption. 
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/26/2020 03:34 am
I think Jim Bridenstine has done a good job in the short timeframe he has been there. I am sorry that it looks like he is going. What I hate the most is the 'whiplash' and 'not invented here' that often goes with new Administrations when it comes to places like NASA. I think Artemis is the right thing to do at this point in NASA's history. We can argue till the cows come home about how/what is the best way to implement it - however, this thread isn't really about that.

I think many of us know that SLS/Orion isn't optimal and Bridenstine appears to be aware of this! However; he has had to serve his Masters with a fine balance of pragmatism and political expedience to keep that system in the race. VP Pence also seems to have been a fairly good cheerleader for NASA and Artemis. However; let's be clear - this has been a very partisan last few years. I myself am not a U.S. Taxpayer and I have not been a fan (to put it mildly) of the current, Lame Duck Administration but even I will always give credit where credit is due - I think the T Administration has done it largely correct for U.S. Space and Jim Bridenstine deserves more than his share of credit for making that happen.

I think it would be an even bigger tragedy to derail and defund Artemis now than it was to castrate Constellation when Obama came to power in 2009. Constellation enjoyed fairly bi-partisan support back in the day - though we knew even then there were some questionable engineering, mission architecture and infrastructure decisions made. Artemis suffers some hangovers from this - but it could be salvaged with some pragmatic and hard choices. And Artemis enjoys at least half the bi-partisan support that CXP did. BUT: if it is derailed in a similar way as CXP was a decade ago - I fear that the best it's successor (if any) would be a further dilution of political support in the nature of, oh, say one-third that of CXP, or worse.

Taxpayer, Commercial & International co-operation could give the World another planet (or two) to pioneer ways for living on those other worlds. Cheaper than a World War and in my 'Space Geek' opinion; far more exciting. And environmental monitoring and technical spinoffs for helping with Climate Change could surely ride on the engineering coat tails...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: QuantumG on 11/26/2020 09:45 pm
If Jim hadn't done the Twitter thing, who thinks Commercial Crew would be flying by now?

Great bit of politicking.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: joek on 11/26/2020 09:49 pm
If Jim hadn't done the Twitter thing, who thinks Commercial Crew would be flying by now?
Why do you think Jim's tweets had anything to do with it?
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: QuantumG on 11/26/2020 09:56 pm
If Jim hadn't done the Twitter thing, who thinks Commercial Crew would be flying by now?
Why do you think Jim's tweets had anything to do with it?

You mean other than him and Elon meeting, the next day Elon got personally involved in the parachute testing?

There's also the little matter of Gerst.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: joek on 11/26/2020 10:10 pm
You mean other than him and Elon meeting, the next day Elon got personally involved in the parachute testing?
Sorry for being a bit dense, but what did the tweets have to do with it?  AFAICT those conversations were already in-progress.  Or are you suggesting that there tweets had a material impact on their conversations and the trajectory of the outcome?  If so, then why, because I don't see it.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: dglow on 11/27/2020 01:09 am
You mean other than him and Elon meeting, the next day Elon got personally involved in the parachute testing?
Sorry for being a bit dense, but what did the tweets have to do with it?  AFAICT those conversations were already in-progress.  Or are you suggesting that there tweets had a material impact on their conversations and the trajectory of the outcome?  If so, then why, because I don't see it.

Yeah, like, why would Elon pay any attention to Twitter? It’s not like he ever uses it.


My biggest criticism of the Bolden era was the failure to sell the findings of the Augustine Commission. Bolden inherited Constellation. SLS and EUS were products of his tenure, and SLS definitely wasn't shoved down NASA's throat over Bolden's objections.

May I sincerely question this statement? Because this was not my impression at the time, and I would like to calibrate by learning what others’ recollections are. I recall the Senate becoming upset at Bolden and NASA for not moving quickly in their evaluations of alternatives following the Augustine report. What I don’t recall is whether this led to the Senate’s definition of SLS, or followed it (I believe the latter). Regardless, the Senate accused Bolden of dragging his/NASA’s feet.

Anyone care to reinforce or correct my memory and impression here?
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: joek on 11/27/2020 01:55 am
Yeah, like, why would Elon pay any attention to Twitter? It’s not like he ever uses it.
Assume there is a bit of sarcasm in that statement?  Not questioning the parachute testing conversations... obviously there were many occurring in the background.  What twitter has to do with it I have no idea. (Again though, may just me a bit dense and not understanding how twitter had any substantive impact.)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: QuantumG on 11/27/2020 02:10 am
Yeah, like, why would Elon pay any attention to Twitter? It’s not like he ever uses it.
Assume there is a bit of sarcasm in that statement?  Not questioning the parachute testing conversations... obviously there were many occurring in the background.  What twitter has to do with it I have no idea. (Again though, may just me a bit dense and not understanding how twitter had any substantive impact.)

Elon was blowing off the whole discussion and directing everyone to Gwynne, who was fighting NASA for milestone payments that they were refusing to pay - and I believe Gerst was a big part of that quagmire. The contractor for the parachutes was waiting for their money... and there was other issues. Quite a lot of things got straightened out once Jim and Elon met - and they only way he could get through was to play Elon's twitter games.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: joek on 11/27/2020 02:48 am
Elon was blowing off the whole discussion and directing everyone to Gwynne, who was fighting NASA for milestone payments that they were refusing to pay - and I believe Gerst was a big part of that quagmire. The contractor for the parachutes was waiting for their money... and there was other issues. Quite a lot of things got straightened out once Jim and Elon met - and they only way he could get through was to play Elon's twitter games.

As I recall, Bridenstine gave a shout-out to the parachute manufacturer (Supplier) at the uncrewed test flight presser--after, as he said he called them and said (to paraphrase)  "we need this and we need it now"; and the Supplier stepped up (think Musk made similar comments at the presser).

Expect, but don't know, that the issue was that NASA wanted additional parachute tests incurring additional $, which were not committed formally by NASA to SpaceX (and hence Supplier) at that point, which therefore SpaceX would not commit $ to Supplier.  Supplier balked.  Bridenstine got on the phone with Supplier and assuaged their concerns.  Case closed.

No idea if that back-story is accurate, but doubt the twitter back-and-forth had much bearing on it.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 11/27/2020 08:20 am
Yeah, like, why would Elon pay any attention to Twitter? It’s not like he ever uses it.
Assume there is a bit of sarcasm in that statement?  Not questioning the parachute testing conversations... obviously there were many occurring in the background.  What twitter has to do with it I have no idea. (Again though, may just me a bit dense and not understanding how twitter had any substantive impact.)

Elon was blowing off the whole discussion and directing everyone to Gwynne, who was fighting NASA for milestone payments that they were refusing to pay - and I believe Gerst was a big part of that quagmire. The contractor for the parachutes was waiting for their money... and there was other issues. Quite a lot of things got straightened out once Jim and Elon met - and they only way he could get through was to play Elon's twitter games.


Lots of assumptions in your post, and judging by what I got from my SpaceX sources, most of your assumptions are incorrect. The whole Twitter thing and Elon and Jim meeting was mostly stage play.

The real players behind driving CCP forward were Kathy, Gwynne and Benji. The other boys shouting on Twitter and stepping in front of the cameras were mostly doing a PR stunt.
Elon's personal involvement in the parachute problem was actually very limited. He basically called in Airborne and his own team and told them to do 10 chute tests in quick succession as a kind of brute-force approach to testing the fix. That's it.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Proponent on 11/27/2020 07:00 pm
I think it would be an even bigger tragedy to derail and defund Artemis now than it was to castrate Constellation when Obama came to power in 2009. Constellation enjoyed fairly bi-partisan support back in the day - though we knew even then there were some questionable engineering, mission architecture and infrastructure decisions made. Artemis suffers some hangovers from this - but it could be salvaged with some pragmatic and hard choices. And Artemis enjoys at least half the bi-partisan support that CXP did. BUT: if it is derailed in a similar way as CXP was a decade ago - I fear that the best it's successor (if any) would be a further dilution of political support in the nature of, oh, say one-third that of CXP, or worse.

Consider the state of Constellation at the time of its demise.  Money was being spent on Orion and the Ares rockets, principally Ares I.  The Altair lunar lander was little more than a PowerPoint presentation and was not receiving significant funding.  Projected launch dates were slipping at a rate exceeding one year per year.  And the funding profile assumed that ISS's cash stream would magically become available for Constellation in 2016.  I say "magically," because 1) politically, there never was any prospect of terminating ISS (it's now been extended to, what, 2030?), and 2) there were no funds programmed for splashing it either -- it simply disappeared from the out-year budgets.

I would say that replacing Orion/Ares with Orion/SLS actually brought NASA as step closer to the moon, in that, clunky though an Orion/SLS-based lunar architecture necessarily is, it enables a lunar landing under budgetary assumptions that are merely highly optimistic rather than absolutely heroic.

Unless Congress starts showing quite a bit more budgetary enthusiasm for Artemis, I'm not sure that ending it would damage the prospects for a near-term US moon landing all that much.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/27/2020 08:15 pm

And again, NASA Administrators are not in charge of proposing NASA goals, their job is to run NASA.


This post will probably get lost in the back & forth (friendly?) banter discussing the administrative accomplishments of Bridenstine vs. his predecessors.  However I think the focus on Bridenstine as a Technocrat misses important differences.   

I think what Bridenstine excelled at was that he was not focused solely on the technocrat role.  His job as tasked by his boss was not just to run NASA.

How do you know that? Can you show us public information that proves that either Trump or Pence tasked him in that way?

Quote
His style & actions were straight out Leadership 101 college textbooks.  Jim would also have been taught all this in his military duties.

Bridenstine was a naval aviator, and while he does have an MBA, there is no obvious management experience he had in the U.S. Navy that would have translated to NASA. For instance, from what I can see he wasn't a squadron commander, just one of the F-18 pilots.

And as an observation, pilots certainly have to have a lots of skills, but being brilliant people managers is not a requirement. So assuming Bridenstine was a great manager BECAUSE he had been a military pilot is not supported by facts.

For instance, Charles Bolden was not only a military pilot and test pilot, but rose through the management ranks of the Marine Corp to eventually become major general. Bolden had demonstrated management ability in the military, but I haven't been able to see any specific management experience for Bridenstine.

Quote
I think Jim Bridenstine viewed his top job priorities as communicating a model for how success should be achieved & creating measurable goals.

Um, now you're sounding like Bridenstine invented how to manage large organizations.

Quote
Then he had to focus NASA on the Trump Administrations "Vision" for how these goals would be realized, i.e Artemis by 2024.

OK, this is where I throw the BS flag, because NASA is filled with people that know how to work on large complex programs that have political aspects to them, and Bridenstine was brand new to that world. And everyone knew the goal because V.P. Pence publicly announced it, so Bridenstine's job would have been to lead the meetings where his staff was figuring out what the options were to meeting the political timetable.

Quote
Moving down from that high level priority, he then tried to do all the other tasks of a leader to create a culture of success.  Some, but not all of those things were technocratic in nature.

Really? NASA didn't have a culture of success before Bridenstine showed up? How tall of a statue of Bridenstine are you building here?

Look, to me Bridenstine came in with a lack of necessary management experience for the size of organization he was taking over. Remember NASA has 17,000 employees, and a vast amount of contractors that they have to manage. Bridenstine didn't have any relevant experience with an organization of that size, nor did he have a technical background that could help inform him about how to make management choices on technical programs.

But NASA has a large amount of career people that run NASA, and I give Bridenstine credit for not messing with them like so many other Trump appointees have done with their agencies and departments. And Bridenstine was an enthusiastic cheerleader for NASA in the public eye.

So while there are indications that Bridenstine was not the best NASA Administrator NASA has had, he nonetheless is turning over NASA in not too bad of shape - certainly better than what Griffin handed over to Bolden. And for that Bridenstine should be happy about his brief stint at NASA.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: DistantTemple on 11/27/2020 08:49 pm
Bridenstine appears to have an absolutely outstanding memory. He is also completely fascinated in every aspect of space. He seemed to be able to answer ANY question thrown at him, with facts, numbers and dates, and enthusiasm!
He also presented a "humble servant" attitude to astronauts etc, and "you are the guys that do the hard technical work", to NASA staff etc.
He gave the impression that every moment as NASA Administrator was a joy, that he was lucky to work with such amazing people and he would passionately do his job to his absolute best - which was very good with his encyclopaedic knowledge, fast mind, technical awareness, and willingness to learn.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Stan-1967 on 11/28/2020 02:54 am

I think what Bridenstine excelled at was that he was not focused solely on the technocrat role.  His job as tasked by his boss was not just to run NASA.

How do you know that? Can you show us public information that proves that either Trump or Pence tasked him in that way?

Quote
His style & actions were straight out Leadership 101 college textbooks.  Jim would also have been taught all this in his military duties.

Bridenstine was a naval aviator, and while he does have an MBA, there is no obvious management experience he had in the U.S. Navy that would have translated to NASA.

And as an observation, pilots certainly have to have a lots of skills, but being brilliant people managers is not a requirement. So assuming Bridenstine was a great manager BECAUSE he had been a military pilot is not supported by facts.

For instance, Charles Bolden was not only a military pilot and test pilot, but rose through the management ranks of the Marine Corp to eventually become major general. Bolden had demonstrated management ability in the military, but I haven't been able to see any specific management experience for Bridenstine.


Um, now you're sounding like Bridenstine invented how to manage large organizations.


OK, this is where I throw the BS flag, because NASA is filled with people that know how to work on large complex programs ..... so Bridenstine's job would have been to lead the meetings where his staff was figuring out what the options were to meeting the political timetable.

Really? NASA didn't have a culture of success before Bridenstine showed up?

Look, to me Bridenstine came in with a lack of necessary management experience f .......

But NASA has a large amount of career people that run NASA, ....And Bridenstine was an enthusiastic cheerleader for NASA in the public eye.


Ron, as you frequently remind us all, you know a lot about working in a manufacturing environment & are probably highly proficient at making gantt charts, TPS reports & executing project management tasks.  However your comments above conflate two things that are not equivalent.  ( see Dunning-Kruger effect)

"Management" is not the same thing as "Leadership".  There is some overlap, but the skillset is different in important ways.  I bolded & underlined all your usage of the management in your post above.  Try replacing "Management" or "Manager" with "Leadership" or "Leader".  If doing so doesn't change the meaning in your mind, you don't understand the difference. 

If you don't understand the difference, I don't think you are mentally able to evaluate Jeff Bridenstine as a leader when your demonstrated (above) mental vocabulary surrounding the word "manager" is all you know.  You only used the word "lead" or it's derivatives a single time in your post, & if you think Jeff Bridenstine "lead" some hypothetical meeting like he was just passively sitting there to take meeting minutes or something, I think you would be wrong on that.

I maintain that one of Bridenstine's differentiators from previous NASA Administrators was his leadership style.  As a Naval Aviator, he was taught leadership in OCS.  As part of his MBA, he was probably required to take one business leadership class, and likely offered two or three electives on the subject.  More than likely his political & business career also included formal leadership training.  My personal MBA courses had such classes & that was not unique to my school.  My company also also has it's own "Leadership Training" that I have learned from. 

To people who have studied leadership principals it is obvious that Jeff Bridenstine understands & executes leadership with textbook precision that is authentic to who he really is.  He is not a Charles Bolden, James Webb, Mike Griffin, or any other previous Administrator.  Leaders are not interchangeable "cookie cutter" figures who check the right boxes so now it their turn to be CEO.  That is as it should be, different times & different circumstances can demand different types of leaders to get a job done. 

You compared Jeff Bridenstine to a cheerleader, and I would guess ( but I don't know for certain) that you meant it in an unflattering way.  Well guess what... being a CEO-cheerleader for your team/business/unit or whatever is entirely consistent with being a successful leader.  Good leaders inspire & encourage, they enable others to act, they celebrate success, they challenge existing methods that maybe aren't working.  Downstream from these behaviors are measurable changes in an organizations output that an executive leader will be judged on. 


   
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: butters on 11/28/2020 03:40 pm
I think Jim Bridenstine has done a good job in the short timeframe he has been there. I am sorry that it looks like he is going. What I hate the most is the 'whiplash' and 'not invented here' that often goes with new Administrations when it comes to places like NASA. I think Artemis is the right thing to do at this point in NASA's history. We can argue till the cows come home about how/what is the best way to implement it - however, this thread isn't really about that.
I understand that the "Moon!, no Mars!, no NEO!, no Gateway!, no Moon!" stuff gives the impression that program churn is a primary underlying cause of human exploration stagnation at NASA, but I think that argument is oversold and inverted in some respects.

The last time we had what I'll call "organic" program churn was when Michael Griffin rode into town, completely upended Sean O'Keefe's Crew Exploration Vehicle competition, commissioned the ESAS study, and made Constellation the law of the land. All of the program churn that's happened since, in my opinion, has been a struggle to define mission objectives for the architecture that survived the death of Constellation. We can either define doable but uninspiring missions for SLS/Orion, or we can define exciting missions that can't be funded or delivered in any kind of timely manner because SLS/Orion consume too much of the budget.

The churn we've seen since 2006 is a symptom of what has remained the same: the Shuttle-derived launcher and the Apollo-inspired capsule. Many of us have tried coming up with mission profiles in these forums that might be achievable within the technical and political constraints of SLS/Orion, and I'm not sure we've done any better than the real-life decision-makers. There are no good answers, so instead we get a series of different flawed ones.

HLS is my favorite of the flawed answers because it's providing funding for Starship -- and urgency for Blue Origin to deliver in direct competition with SpaceX after losing out on NSSL. That's what's going to influence the future of human spaceflight after it becomes clear that the budget won't materialize to push Artemis as planned across the finish line.

HLS is not going to fit in the budget any better than Altair did. Nothing has changed. This might as well be Thanksgiving 2008. In fact, I'd say it's worse now, because back then we could imagine launching Orion on Atlas Phase 2 or Falcon Heavy, whereas today we know that Orion/FH is never going to happen, and none of the Vulcan variants will have the performance to launch Orion.

If I were playing the role of Norm Augustine: "I don't know what to tell you guys. Maybe just keep spinning your wheels until Starship becomes a solution to your problems. I'm 85 years old, what do you want from me?"
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/28/2020 09:11 pm
"Management" is not the same thing as "Leadership".  There is some overlap, but the skillset is different in important ways.

I actually read your entire post, and besides personal attacks and putdowns (i.e. the reference to TPS reports), I didn't see any facts to support your views or to answer any of the questions I posed above. For instance:

Quote
I maintain that one of Bridenstine's differentiators from previous NASA Administrators was his leadership style.  As a Naval Aviator, he was taught leadership in OCS.  As part of his MBA, he was probably required to take one business leadership class, and likely offered two or three electives on the subject.  More than likely his political & business career also included formal leadership training.  My personal MBA courses had such classes & that was not unique to my school.  My company also also has it's own "Leadership Training" that I have learned from.

Yeah, in high school and college I took physics classes, but I'm not going to be hired to run a physics laboratory.

As you should know from your MBA class, there is what you learn in the classroom but then there is real life. And sometimes the two intersect, and sometimes they don't.

Quote
To people who have studied leadership principals it is obvious that Jeff Bridenstine understands & executes leadership with textbook precision that is authentic to who he really is.

Kind of a broad statement, no? You assuming that you've surveyed everyone that has ever studied "leadership principals" (which I think you mean "principles") and they all agree that Bridenstine "understands & executes leadership with textbook precision".

Provide examples please, which is what I've been asking for. It should be easy...

Quote
He is not a Charles Bolden, James Webb, Mike Griffin, or any other previous Administrator.  Leaders are not interchangeable "cookie cutter" figures who check the right boxes so now it their turn to be CEO.  That is as it should be, different times & different circumstances can demand different types of leaders to get a job done.

Kind of a straw man argument, since I never stated any of that. But I did point out that NASA has now had NASA Administrators that were a naval aviator that had significant management experience and a naval aviator that didn't have significant management experience.

Quote
You compared Jeff Bridenstine to a cheerleader, and I would guess ( but I don't know for certain) that you meant it in an unflattering way.

I don't. I think his natural enthusiasm has been an asset to him, despite his lack of management skills.

Leaders need to be visible in order to create their "aura" - i.e. who they are. Which is important for an organization. And I think NASA personnel saw someone that was genuinely excited about NASA, and they felt was trying to work on their behalf.

Certainly NASA didn't have the type of drama from President Trump that other government organizations had, and if that was because of Bridenstine then he deserves a lot of credit.

And as I have said before, Bridenstine wasn't bad for NASA, but I see no reason to build monuments for him either.  ;)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/30/2020 04:37 pm
Your assumption is flawed. Who says that Bridenstine has to be a good manager. He can hire someone else to manage (a good CFO, etc). He just needs to be a good leader and he has been that.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/30/2020 04:52 pm
Your assumption is flawed. Who says that Bridenstine has to be a good manager. He can hire someone else to manage (a good CFO, etc).

The assumption is always that the people you have in top management positions are good, otherwise an organization has a problem bigger than the person at the top. Remember NASA is a 17,000 person technical organization - you can't delegate every decision, not when Congress expects you to be responsible for the taxpayer money you are given.

Quote
He just needs to be a good leader and he has been that.

It is certainly clear that many people think being a manager and being a leader are two separate jobs. Needless to say I don't think those people have ever been in management...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/30/2020 05:19 pm
A good manager knows when to delegate. Bridenstine has made good management decisions. The restrucuring of the HEO directorate being one example. He made the decision to restructure but the restructuring was done by Gerst, Loverro and Lueders (as recently mentionned by Lueders).

Another good decision was putting CLPS under the Science and HEO directorates.

The science directorate is also much more involved in HSF than it was before.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Proponent on 12/07/2020 05:26 pm
JB's superpower was supposed to be his ability, as a former congressman, to work with Congress.  In the end, help from the vice president notwithstanding, he has not even brought his own party on board.

While yes he hasn't gotten full funding for HLS its important to remember that CCP didn't start getting more than half its budget request consistently till FY2014. The first CCP funding was only $50 million, with next year around $300 million, as compared to $600 million and potentially $1 billion for HLS.

I remember predicting in 2017 we would have at least piecemeal funding for a lunar lander by 2022 and IIRC several people, including yourself, thought I was being overly optimistic.

It's amazing how success and good management can change our expectations. A few years ago getting a billion dollars for a lunar lander seemed like a pipe dream. Now it is being seen as a disappointment.

I'd been holding off commenting on this pending resolution of the 2021 budget, but as that keeps drifting, I'll toss in my two cents' worth now.

If your definition of progress is spending some money toward landers, then, yes, after 15 years, that milestone was achieved in FY 2020, when Congress funded about 60% of NASA's small request.  And spending some money is no doubt all by itself a win in the eyes the congresspeople whose constituents benefit.

But if you're a space cadet, you've got to ask yourself how much the spending actually contributes to building and flying something.  In that regard, you point out that after a slow start, funding for commercial crew eventually ramped up to just about full funding.  We do not know, however, what Congress will provide this year: there is no guarantee the Senate's $1 billion for HLS will pass.  Even if it does, it's not obvious that spending isn't falling further behind, because the lander's funding requirements, unlike commercial crews, grow year after year.  Even with the Senate's proposal, NASA's request would be more proportionately more underfunded this year than last.  That sounds to me like a recipe for interminable stretch-outs and cost growth.  And you can bet that if, as seems likely, the Senate does not change hands, political dynamics between the Senate and White House will squeeze discretionary spending.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/10/2020 08:10 am
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1336871024374280202

Quote
Have confirmed that when Jim Bridenstine steps down as NASA Administrator on Jan. 20, Steve Jurczyk will serve as acting administrator until an appointment is made and confirmed.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 12/13/2020 04:34 pm
NASA selects the next Artemis moonwalkers while SpaceX flies a Starship:
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/529951-nasa-selects-the-next-artemis-moonwalkers-while-spacex-flies-a-starship

Quote from: Mark Whittington
Why select the next moonwalkers now, at least four years away from the next moon landing? Much of the reason is, frankly, political. By selecting the next Artemis astronauts, NASA has put a human face on the program. The idea is to make it harder for a future administration (i.e. Joe Biden’s) to cancel or even slow down the lunar program.

Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/14/2020 02:08 am
NASA selects the next Artemis moonwalkers while SpaceX flies a Starship:
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/529951-nasa-selects-the-next-artemis-moonwalkers-while-spacex-flies-a-starship

Quote from: Mark Whittington
Why select the next moonwalkers now, at least four years away from the next moon landing? Much of the reason is, frankly, political. By selecting the next Artemis astronauts, NASA has put a human face on the program. The idea is to make it harder for a future administration (i.e. Joe Biden’s) to cancel or even slow down the lunar program.

Mark Whittington is right about the selection being for political reasons - Vice President Pence ignored not the only tradition of the Astronaut Office making those decisions, but has artificially separated the astronaut corp way too early in their training since the 2024 date is nowhere close to being near a possible launch date. Not only that, but since launches are only once a year, that freezes those crews for many years down the road, and freezes OUT many other astronauts that are training in parallel. Not a very good motivator.

Like so many of Trump's last actions in office, the Biden Administration may just announce rather quickly after taking office that they are reversing that announcement. No political fallout from that, especially if it is done by the incoming NASA Administrator (and especially if it is done by the Acting NASA Administrator).
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 12/14/2020 04:35 am
No, if you had watched the National Space Council meeting, you would know that Jim Bridenstine said that more astronauts can be added to the cadre. The Vice President didn't choose the astronauts.

As Mark Whittington stated, this was partly to put a face on the program in order to make it harder to cancel.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: hektor on 12/14/2020 10:55 am
Like so many of Trump's last actions in office, the Biden Administration may just announce rather quickly after taking office that they are reversing that announcement. No political fallout from that, especially if it is done by the incoming NASA Administrator (and especially if it is done by the Acting NASA Administrator).

I understand that for us it looks very important. That being said I doubt that astronaut corps structure would be a pressing issue for the Biden Administration.

Last night I was rewatching "The Warfare of Genghis Khan" episode of the West Wing and this was pretty much in line with what I expect about the way the Biden administration will handle NASA.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/01/2021 03:23 am
Quote from: Jim Bridenstine
I'm honored @NASAglenn’s Plum Brook Station has been renamed the Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility after our history-making astronaut & Ohio native. The first human Moon landing inspires America’s upcoming return to the lunar surface w/ Mars on the horizon!

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/glenn/2020/plum-brook-station-renamed-for-Neil-Armstrong/index.html

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1344738041768894465

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/bill-announcement-123020/
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/15/2021 01:38 pm
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine: A Look Back

https://youtu.be/iZ3pNJlozLY
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/15/2021 04:04 pm
Trump’s enduring space legacy:
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-space/2021/01/15/trumps-enduring-space-legacy-491419

See also the following tweets for a rebuttal of one of the opinions expressed in the article:

https://twitter.com/jacqklimas/status/1350093718007803904

Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/15/2021 04:49 pm
See below:

Final report by the National Space Council which summarizes the accomplishments under the Trump Administration:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Final-Report-on-the-Activities-of-the-National-Space-Council-01.15.21.pdf

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1350132318158131202
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 01/17/2021 11:19 am
Bridenstine during the press conference:
Quote from: Jim Bridenstine
I think it very well could be that it’s something that’s easily fixable and we can feel confident going down to the Cape and staying on schedule.

That is not something I would like to hear from the NASA administrator. Not only does he override Honeycutt and Shannon ("need at least 250 seconds of data") but it also shows that Jim B. has clearly forgotten how the crew of Challenger got killed: Schedule pressure.

I for one am glad Bridenstine is going away 3 days from now. I have been increasingly unhappy with his performance (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45548.msg2158451#msg2158451) but that stupid remark is the final straw IMO.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/17/2021 03:08 pm
The last straw? You have been complaining about Bridenstine from the outset (especially after he removed Gerst as AA of HEOMD).

That quote from Bridenstine is out of context, he left open all options. He said that we didn't know enough at this point. An easy fix was only one of the possibilities.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/17/2021 04:49 pm
The last straw? You have been complaining about Bridenstine from the outset (especially after he removed Gerst as AA of HEOMD).

Just because Bridenstine exceeded the expectations (or fears) of how he would do as NASA Administrator does not mean that he indeed had the required qualifications for the position he held.

Bridenstine was the least qualified NASA Administrator that I can think of.

Quote
That quote from Bridenstine is out of context, he left open all options. He said that we didn't know enough at this point. An easy fix was only one of the possibilities.

Unfortunately though he did propose an option that would disregard further testing. The SLS is supposed to be human-rated, so you wouldn't think you'd be cutting short testing for that just to stay on schedule.

Bridenstine could have NOT said that, but he did.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/17/2021 04:55 pm
He didn't say no further testing. But if it was something easy to fix, they could have a test in about a month which wouldn't have much of an impact on the schedule.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 01/17/2021 05:08 pm
The last straw? You have been complaining about Bridenstine from the outset (especially after he removed Gerst as AA of HEOMD).

Just because Bridenstine exceeded the expectations (or fears) of how he would do as NASA Administrator does not mean that he indeed had the required qualifications for the position he held.

Bridenstine was the least qualified NASA Administrator that I can think of.

Quote
That quote from Bridenstine is out of context, he left open all options. He said that we didn't know enough at this point. An easy fix was only one of the possibilities.

Unfortunately though he did propose an option that would disregard further testing. The SLS is supposed to be human-rated, so you wouldn't think you'd be cutting short testing for that just to stay on schedule.

Bridenstine could have NOT said that, but he did.
Yes he did. And he should have known better after all the flak NASA got over the suggestion to skip the Green Run, in favor of an abbreviated hotfire test on the launchpad.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/17/2021 05:19 pm
Bridenstine said that engineers will make the decision (not him), see below:

https://twitter.com/genejm29/status/1350614503004794882
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 01/17/2021 05:54 pm
Bridenstine was the least qualified NASA Administrator that I can think of.

I will just note here that a much more "qualified" Administrator in your view (Mike Griffin) proposed and pushed hard for Ares I. Bridenstine proposed and pushed hard for commercial launchers and lunar landers. Who did the better job? Which was the better strategy?

Paper qualifications aren't everything. It's also important to note that the job of NASA admin is a management position, not a technical one.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/17/2021 07:37 pm
In the end, you should evaluate someone on their accomplishments and Bridenstine's accomplishments are impressive.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 01/17/2021 07:42 pm
Bridenstine was the least qualified NASA Administrator that I can think of.

I will just note here that a much more "qualified" Administrator in your view (Mike Griffin) proposed and pushed hard for Ares I. Bridenstine proposed and pushed hard for commercial launchers and lunar landers. Who did the better job? Which was the better strategy?

Paper qualifications aren't everything. It's also important to note that the job of NASA admin is a management position, not a technical one.

Emphasis mine.

Do you know that Mike Griffin also initiated Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS)? Which resulted into the highly successful CRS program? Which in turn stood at the very basis of the highly successful Commercial Crew Program?
Or are you just conveniently overlooking that?

The only thing Jim Bridenstine started in his tenure as NASA administrator is commercial lunar landers for Artemis. Everything else, including the disaster that is SLS, he inherited from his predecessors Mike Griffin and Charlie Bolden.
Orion, Lunar Gateway (then known as the Deep Space Habitat), Commercial Crew, CRS and CRS-2, Europa Clipper possibly flying on FH instead of SLS, etc. etc. All of that was already there. Most of that was even there before Trump came into office.

For example: Commercial Crew Program was already on a rock-solid path to first test flights when Jim got into office. The fact that DM-1, DM-2 and Crew-1 were launched on his watch is not Jim's achievement. It had been in the works for many years before Jim was even appointed NASA admin. They also would have flown had someone else been the NASA admin.
People saying that Jim got CCP going really don't know what the h*ll they are talking about.

Jim's tenure as NASA administrator can be summed up as this: lots of cheerleading, staying the course on most program, adding a commercial element to Artemis and failing to secure proper funding for Artemis.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 01/17/2021 07:48 pm
In the end, you should evaluate someone on their accomplishments and Bridenstine's accomplishments are impressive.

Respectfully, I disagree. Jim's cheerleading was impressive. Actual accomplishments, not so much. He just happened to be the NASA administrator when several existing programs, many years in the making, reached their peak.

SLS would have its Green Run around this time regardless of who was the NASA administrator.
Commercial Crew would have flown DM-1, DM-2 and Crew-1 in the 2019-2020 timeframe, regardless of who was the NASA administrator.
Orion being ready to fly EM-1 (Artemis 1) around now would have happened regardless of who was the NASA administrator.

HLS and Artemis Accords. Those are Jim's achievements.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/17/2021 08:06 pm
In the end, you should evaluate someone on their accomplishments and Bridenstine's accomplishments are impressive.

Respectfully, I disagree. Jim's cheerleading was impressive. Actual accomplishments, not so much. He just happened to be the NASA administrator when several existing programs, many years in the making, reached their peak.

SLS would have its Green Run around this time regardless of who was the NASA administrator.
Commercial Crew would have flown DM-1, DM-2 and Crew-1 in the 2019-2020 timeframe, regardless of who was the NASA administrator.
Orion being ready to fly EM-1 (Artemis 1) around now would have happened regardless of who was the NASA administrator.

HLS and Artemis Accords. Those are Jim's achievements.

Gateway was introduced under the Trump Administration. Bolden proposed a Deep Space Habitat which was different.

Bridenstine proposed: HLS, CLPS, 2 private missions to the ISS per year, awarded a contract to Axiom Space for a commercial habitat module at the ISS, Suborbital crew, the Artemis Accords, the Gateway MOUs, HALO, the Logistics contract for Gateway (Dragon XL), NASA buying a lunar soil sample, modular nuclear reactors for the Moon, in-space propellant technological demonstrations; he initiated a number of scientific missions to the Moon (such as lunar trailblazer and VIPER); better integration between the human exploration directorate and the science directorate.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: freddo411 on 01/17/2021 08:09 pm
In the end, you should evaluate someone on their accomplishments and Bridenstine's accomplishments are impressive.

Respectfully, I disagree. Jim's cheerleading was impressive. Actual accomplishments, not so much. He just happened to be the NASA administrator when several existing programs, many years in the making, reached their peak.

SLS would have its Green Run around this time regardless of who was the NASA administrator.
Commercial Crew would have flown DM-1, DM-2 and Crew-1 in the 2019-2020 timeframe, regardless of who was the NASA administrator.
Orion being ready to fly EM-1 (Artemis 1) around now would have happened regardless of who was the NASA administrator.

HLS and Artemis Accords. Those are Jim's achievements.


You can add CLPS as well.    And seeing commercial crew through while keeping to multiple contractors.

The Administration's policy to push NASA to seriously work for a lunar landing, using new space/non-cost plus/multi award contracts is the legacy.   Jim executed on existing programs and he introduced new programs.

We will see if this continues under new leadership.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 01/17/2021 08:33 pm
In the end, you should evaluate someone on their accomplishments and Bridenstine's accomplishments are impressive.

Respectfully, I disagree. Jim's cheerleading was impressive. Actual accomplishments, not so much. He just happened to be the NASA administrator when several existing programs, many years in the making, reached their peak.

SLS would have its Green Run around this time regardless of who was the NASA administrator.
Commercial Crew would have flown DM-1, DM-2 and Crew-1 in the 2019-2020 timeframe, regardless of who was the NASA administrator.
Orion being ready to fly EM-1 (Artemis 1) around now would have happened regardless of who was the NASA administrator.

HLS and Artemis Accords. Those are Jim's achievements.

Gateway was introduced under the Trump Administration. Bolden proposed a Deep Space Habitat which was different.

No, it wasn't. Lunar Gateway is Deep Space Habitat in disguise.

Deep Space Habitat and the associated NEXTStep program were established under Charlie Bolden to create a deep space habitat in cis-lunar space to enable continued manned exploration of the Moon and serve as a prototype for deep space transfer vehicles for eventual manned missions to Mars.

Guess what Deep Space Habitat and Lunar Gateway have in common:
- Both were to be located in Cis lunar space, due to the delta V limitations of Orion.
- Both were to have additional docking ports to accomodate cargo spacecraft and landers
- Both have a core consisting of a propulsion element and a habital element.
- Both were to have an airlock element
- Both were to play a vital role in continued exploration of the Moon.
- Both were to have international involvement for 1 or more elements (ESA, JAXA, etc.)

In other words: Lunar Gateway is Deep Space Habitat with a different name tag slapped onto it.

Same for Artemis 1 and Artemis 2. Just different name tags slapped onto EM-1 and EM-2. The missions themselves didn't change.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/17/2021 08:36 pm
This is what the Deep Space Habitat looked like, it was fairly different from Gateway:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Habitat#/media/File:ISS-Derived_Deep_Space_Habitat_with_CPS.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Habitat
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 01/17/2021 08:39 pm
This is what the Deep Space Habitat looked like, it was fairly different from Gateway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Habitat#/media/File:ISS-Derived_Deep_Space_Habitat_with_CPS.jpg

Are you seriously trying that angle? The design of Deep Space Habitat changed multiple times before it was renamed Lunar Gateway.
The design of Lunar Gateway ALSO changed several times before it more-or-less stabilized on what it is now.

The number and composition of modules does not define the Lunar Gateway. Nor did it for Deep Space Habitat. The function of it DOES however.
And the function for Deep Space Habitat and Lunar Gateway was almost exactly the same.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 01/17/2021 08:48 pm
You can add CLPS as well.

Not really. CLPS started life as an attempt to reboot the cancelled Resource Prospector.
Resource Prospector was initiated sometime in 2014 (under Charlie Bolden) but got cancelled in 2018 when it was moved to a different NASA division which had insufficient funding to continue development. In an effort to save the promising nature of Resource Prospector, Jim Bridenstine outsourced it as a commercial program.

So, is CLPS a Jim Bridenstine achievement? No, it isn't. Just a modified continuation of yet another program he inherited from the guy before him.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/17/2021 08:51 pm
That's a stretch. CLPS and VIPER (Resource Prospector's successor) aren't the same thing. CLPS is much broader than just delivering VIPER. VIPER uses CLPS for delivery but VIPER isn't part of CLPS.

There are two CLPS missions planned per year including this year. Viper is a 2023 mission.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-argues-resource-prospector-no-longer-fit-into-agencys-lunar-exploration-plans/
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 01/17/2021 08:53 pm
Do you know that Mike Griffin also initiated Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS)? Which resulted into the highly successful CRS program? Which in turn stood at the very basis of the highly successful Commercial Crew Program? Or are you just conveniently overlooking that?

I didn't say Griffin never did anything right. My comment was focused on flagship programs. Obviously COTs was a great decision that has led to where we are now. That said, IIRC, he wasn't too supportive of commercial crew back then.

Quote
The only thing Jim Bridenstine started in his tenure as NASA administrator is commercial lunar landers for Artemis. Everything else, including the disaster that is SLS, he inherited from his predecessors Mike Griffin and Charlie Bolden.
Orion, Lunar Gateway (then known as the Deep Space Habitat), Commercial Crew, CRS and CRS-2, Europa Clipper possibly flying on FH instead of SLS, etc. etc. All of that was already there. Most of that was even there before Trump came into office.

So he doesn't deserve any credit for planning to use these items more efficiently and more effectively? He doesn't deserve any credit for turning DSG into a Gateway with actual international agreements and contracts rather than just a dream on a PowerPoint?

As for EC it wasn't until this year that Congress allowed for the possibility of its launch on something other than SLS.

Quote
For example: Commercial Crew Program was already on a rock-solid path to first test flights when Jim got into office. The fact that DM-1, DM-2 and Crew-1 were launched on his watch is not Jim's achievement. Snip....

People saying that Jim got CCP going really don't know what the h*ll they are talking about.

Its fair to point out the accomplishments under Bolden that got CCP to the point it was in April 2018. That said, some major things happened during Jim's tenure that you can't just dismiss.

What about the destruction of the DM-1 capsule after that test launch? How about the Starliner failure? Those were some major challenges for the program that Jim and his team were successfully able to navigate.

Administrator Bolden and his team helped get CCP to the 10 yard line. Jim and his team helped get it across the goaline (at least in SpaceX's case). Is it so hard to see that both teams deserve credit?

This discussion doesn't even account for the improved SLS schedule, CLPS, sizable funding for the first lunar landers since the 60s, opening up more commercial opportunities at ISS, plus much more that Jim did during his tenure.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/17/2021 08:59 pm
Bridenstine was the least qualified NASA Administrator that I can think of.

I will just note here that a much more "qualified" Administrator in your view (Mike Griffin) proposed and pushed hard for Ares I.

Long time manager here, so no good manager should hire someone and then not evaluate them. Unfortunately in the political world that is difficult, which means that it is even more important to hire good people. And the obverse is not true, in that hiring unqualified people would have lead to a better outcome...  ;)

Quote
Bridenstine proposed and pushed hard for commercial launchers and lunar landers. Who did the better job? Which was the better strategy?

I wasn't aware that Bridenstine operated NASA by himself.

Because that sure seems to be meme being put forward by a lot of people. That ONLY Bridenstine thought of using commercial launchers for Artemis, and ONLY Bridenstine thought of having industry design lunar landers (which it did under Apollo too). No one else has contributed to the Artemis program, only Bridenstine.

Let's not get ridiculous about the adoration here... ::)

Quote
Paper qualifications aren't everything. It's also important to note that the job of NASA admin is a management position, not a technical one.

Who said engineering experience was required? Look back at my history of commenting about the NASA Administrator position and you'll see that I have ALWAYS emphasized that whoever is NASA Administrator needs to have experience managing large complex organizations.

And unlike those that make it seem like Bridenstine is some sort of engineering genius, the NASA Administrator should not be in the position where they have to make technical decisions - they are supposed to build the team that makes those decisions.

According to the GAO as of April 2020 (https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/706505.pdf), NASA's large programs will be in worse shape as Bridenstine leaves than when he took over. As the leader of NASA he has to take responsibility for this, right?
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 01/17/2021 09:33 pm
Long time manager here, so no good manager should hire someone and then not evaluate them. Unfortunately in the political world that is difficult, which means that it is even more important to hire good people. And the obverse is not true, in that hiring unqualified people would have lead to a better outcome...  ;)

Read my post. You will not find any statement in favor of just going out and hiring unqualified people. I disputed your definition of "qualified" and pointed out that qualifications on paper are not the be all end all. I have seen highly qualified Ph.Ds who turn out to be terrible bosses.

Jim had spent years in Congress being intimately associated with NASA and space policy. The idea that he was just some yokel pulled off the street to run NASA is incorrect.

Quote
I wasn't aware that Bridenstine operated NASA by himself.

C'mon man you know that wasn't what I said. I wasn't saying Bolden ran NASA by himself either. That is why I specifically said in my post "Bridenstine and his team". No one has said he is solely responsible for NASA. On the other hand that doesn't mean he deserves zero credit for what happened under his tenure. Otherwise why do we even have a NASA admin if they have zero impact?

Quote
NASA's large programs will be in worse shape as Bridenstine leaves than when he took over. As the leader of NASA he has to take responsibility for this, right?

Sure there has been some cost growth and schedule delays but looking at that chart cost growth is still well below where it was in the mid 10s and launch delays are at the 2010 level (and trending down). It is also important to point out that the last few years have been a transition from development to flight operations for programs like commercial crew and SLS/Orion. I would expect some increased delays.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 01/17/2021 10:05 pm
We can relitigate qualifications and argue accomplishments till we're blue in the face. It is my belief based on the facts that Jim Bridenstine was the best NASA Administrator of my lifetime. I have laid out why I think this is the case above and elsewhere. Someone else may think differently and they have the right to say that on this lovely forum of ours. I just think those people are wrong.  ;)

So long Jim. Its been a wonderful ride and I wish him the best luck in his future endeavors. I also wish his replacement well and look forward to seeing who President-elect Biden picks for the position.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/17/2021 10:36 pm
...It is my belief based on the facts that Jim Bridenstine was the best NASA Administrator of my lifetime.

What facts? The GAO report has facts. Cost growth is up during the Bridenstine era, so is launch delay. Facts.

Saying that Bridenstine is the reason why Artemis is so well run is an opinion - what are the facts that prove that Bridenstine improved outcomes, as to just reporting them?
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/17/2021 10:44 pm
...It is my belief based on the facts that Jim Bridenstine was the best NASA Administrator of my lifetime.

What facts? The GAO report has facts. Cost growth is up during the Bridenstine era, so is launch delay. Facts.

Saying that Bridenstine is the reason why Artemis is so well run is an opinion - what are the facts that prove that Bridenstine improved outcomes, as to just reporting them?

As discussed before, the GAO reports were saying the exact same thing about large governmental programs under Bolden. It is in the nature of governmental programs, that is why fixed price contracts are much better.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/17/2021 10:47 pm
Jim had spent years in Congress being intimately associated with NASA and space policy.

Congresscritters don't get "intimate" with the executive branch. Bridenstine had just as much view into NASA as Representative Kendra Horn had, and as I've already said about her being a politician is not a qualification for running a large complex organization.

Quote
The idea that he was just some yokel pulled off the street to run NASA is incorrect.

Actually Bridenstine's non-political qualifications are more applicable to running NASA than him being a former Representative in Congress. But those still pale in comparison to his predecessors.

Quote
NASA's large programs will be in worse shape as Bridenstine leaves than when he took over. As the leader of NASA he has to take responsibility for this, right?

Sure there has been some cost growth and schedule delays but looking at that chart cost growth is still well below where it was in the mid 10s and launch delays are at the 2010 level (and trending down). It is also important to point out that the last few years have been a transition from development to flight operations for programs like commercial crew and SLS/Orion. I would expect some increased delays.

The #1 job of the NASA Administrator is to run NASA, not run a program. So the metrics that NASA is measured by are the same metrics we should measure the NASA Administrator. Because if the NASA Administrator isn't responsible, then no one is for the taxpayers money, and that would be a travesty, right?

Maybe the best way to know how well Bridenstine did is to define what the metrics are that every NASA Administrator should be measured against - including whoever Biden picks. That would make it easy to compare Bridenstine.

So what would you suggest that criteria to be? And how would it be measured?
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/17/2021 11:20 pm
Accomplishments including new programs initiated.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/18/2021 12:18 am
Accomplishments including new programs initiated.

From Wikipedia:
Quote
On 11 December 2017, President Trump signed Space Policy Directive 1, a change in national space policy that provides for a U.S.-led, integrated program with private sector partners for a human return to the Moon, followed by missions to Mars and beyond.

As a reference, Jim Bridenstine was not confirmed as NASA Administrator until April 19, 2018. So Trump initiated Artemis, not Bridenstine.

Also, NASA is part of the National Space Council (NSC), of which NASA is just one of 14 agencies and departments. The NSC is run by Vice President Pence, and it was Pence that announced the 2024 return to Moon date.

So the Artemis program certainly can't be a program that Bridenstine gets credit for creating, right?

What programs were you thinking of?
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/18/2021 12:34 am
Nice try... HLS and CLPS didn't exist until Bridenstine was administrator. The NASA Administrator is part of the National Space Council.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Lunar_Payload_Services

https://www.nasa.gov/nextstep/humanlander

https://www.nasa.gov/nextstep/humanlander2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Space_Council
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 01/18/2021 06:37 am
Pointers to what the functions, roles and responsibilities of the NASA administrator are:

(NOTE: NASA links!)

- https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/plans/Handbook00/chap2.html#Agency (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/plans/Handbook00/chap2.html#Agency)
- https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/strahand/roles.htm (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/strahand/roles.htm)  (paragraph 3.2)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/18/2021 03:38 pm
Nice try... HLS and CLPS didn't exist until Bridenstine was administrator.

OK, so Bridenstine himself, as he ran the whole of NASA, created HLS and CLPS. No one else in NASA came up with the idea first?

I'm just trying to gauge how the term "created" is used here...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: kdhilliard on 01/18/2021 06:51 pm
A fond farewell to Jim Bridenstine from Keith Cowing over at NASA Watch:
You Done Good Jim Bridenstine (http://nasawatch.com/archives/2021/01/you-done-good-j.html)
(January 17, 2020)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/18/2021 09:12 pm
https://twitter.com/GregWAutry/status/1351288562637893632
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/18/2021 10:57 pm
This blog written by Representative Bridenstine on December 29th 2016 on Why the Moon Matters is interesting to read with hindsight:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170903084343/https://bridenstine.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=772

Quote from: Representative Bridenstine's 2016 Blog -extracts-
The Moon, with its three-day emergency journey back to Earth, represents the best place to learn, train, and develop the necessary technologies and techniques for in situ resource utilization and an eventual long term human presence on Mars. Fortunately, the Space Launch System and Orion will start testing in 2018. This system, with a commercial lander, could quickly place machines and robots on the Moon to begin the cis-lunar economy. With the right presidential guidance, humans could return in short order as well; this time, to stay. [...]

The U.S. government must establish a legal framework and be prepared to defend private and corporate rights and obligations, all keeping within the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. The United States must have cis-lunar situational awareness, a cis-lunar presence, and eventually must be able to defend freedom of action in space. Cis-lunar development will proceed with American values and the rule of law if the United States leads. [...]

Commercial launch vehicles are maturing and commercial deep space habitats are currently in development. A renewed focus on utilizing the Moon can help further these advances and achievements. The choices we make now can forever make America the preeminent spacefaring nation.

See also:
https://twitter.com/MarkWhittington/status/1351290303811039232

Here is the entire blog for purpose of archiving it somewhere:

Quote from: Representative Bridenstine's 2016 blog -complete version-
Jim's Blog
Why the Moon Matters

by Rep. Jim Bridenstine
Washington, December 29, 2016


On July 20, 1969, the free world won the space race when an American flag was planted on the Moon. Twelve Americans walked on the Moon during the Apollo program, resulting in a treasure trove of knowledge not only about the Moon, but about the universe.  Even better, by demonstrating the United States’ political, economic, and technological prowess, it played a part winning the Cold War. In 1983, Ronald Reagan introduced the Strategic Defense Initiative to defend the free world from nuclear ballistic missiles. While many called it destabilizing, and even suggested it was impossible to achieve, the Soviet Union took it very seriously, made every effort to eliminate it, and spent whatever it took to compete. They eventually went bankrupt.  SDI, while not fully implemented, was a geopolitical success built on the technical credibility provided by Apollo. As Ronald Reagan predicted, “We win. They lose.”

Through SDI, the Brilliant Pebbles program was born as a space based system to track and destroy ICBMs. Years later, in 1994, a Brilliant Pebbles satellite was repurposed to orbit and map the Moon. That mission, called Clementine, tested military sensors and made history when it provided evidence of lunar water ice. Later experiments by NASA and other space agencies indicated billions of tons of water ice at each lunar pole.

This single discovery should have immediately transformed America’s space program. Water ice not only represents a critical in situ resource for life support, but it can be cracked into its components, hydrogen and oxygen, to create the same chemical propellant that powers rockets.

All of this is available on a world that has no atmosphere and a gravity well that is 1/6th that of Earth. In other words, standard aerodynamic limitations do not apply, permitting the placement of the propellant into orbit either around the Moon or around the Earth.

From the discovery of water ice on the Moon until this day, the American objective should have been a permanent outpost of rovers and machines, with occasional manned missions for science and maintenance, in order to utilize the materials and energy of the Moon to drive down the costs and increase the capabilities of American operations in cis-lunar and interplanetary space.

Water ice on the Moon could be used to refuel satellites in orbit or perform on-orbit maintenance. Government and commercial satellite operators could save hundreds of millions of dollars by servicing their satellites with resources from the Moon rather than disposing of, and replacing, their expensive investments. Eventually, the customers of Direct TV, Dish Network, internet broadband from space, satellite radio, weather data, and others could see their bills reduced and their service capacities greatly increased.

While most satellites are not currently powered by liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, next generation satellite architectures could utilize lunar propellant if low-cost in-orbit servicing were available. Commercial operators will follow if the United States leads with its own constellations.  Such leadership would require a whole-of-government approach with the interagency support of the newly reconstituted National Space Council. The objective is a self-sustaining, cis-lunar economy, whereby government and commercial operators save money and maximize the utilization of space through the use of lunar resources.

This is also the first step for manned missions deeper into our solar system. A permanent human presence on other celestial bodies requires in situ resource utilization. The Moon, with its three-day emergency journey back to Earth, represents the best place to learn, train, and develop the necessary technologies and techniques for in situ resource utilization and an eventual long term human presence on Mars. Fortunately, the Space Launch System and Orion will start testing in 2018. This system, with a commercial lander, could quickly place machines and robots on the Moon to begin the cis-lunar economy. With the right presidential guidance, humans could return in short order as well; this time, to stay.

There are other economic benefits to a permanent presence on the Moon. Utilization of lunar oxides for in situ additive manufacturing (3-D printing) could sustain and develop lunar operations. If economical, we should pioneer the extraction of highly valuable platinum group metals and the ability to transport them back to Earth. The development of practical solar power satellites that beam energy directly to all areas of the Earth is made possible through the use of the resources of the Moon. Research on this concept is already being done in Japan, as well as at the Naval Research Lab here in the United States. The United States government should lead the way in retiring risk for these endeavors with the intent to empower commercial companies to sustain the cis-lunar economy. This could fundamentally alter the economic balance of power on Earth.

As the cis-lunar economy develops, competition for locations and resources on the Moon is inevitable. The Chinese currently have landers and rovers on the Moon. The United States does not. Very soon, the Chinese will be the first of humanity to explore the far side of the Moon and place robots at the poles. As my friend Congressman Bill Posey says, “They are not going there to collect rocks.” China has its own manned space station. The United States’ commitment to the International Space Station ends in 2024. China has a domestic capability to launch its Taikonauts into orbit. The United States relies on Russia. American adversaries are testing antisatellite weapons and proliferating satellite jamming, spoofing, and dazzling technologies. It is time for the United States to re-posture and assert true space leadership.

It must be stated that constitutionally, the U.S. government is required to provide for the common defense. This includes defending American military AND commercial assets in orbit, many of which have the dual role of providing commercial and military capabilities. The same applies for assets on and around the Moon. The U.S. government must establish a legal framework and be prepared to defend private and corporate rights and obligations, all keeping within the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. The United States must have cis-lunar situational awareness, a cis-lunar presence, and eventually must be able to defend freedom of action in space. Cis-lunar development will proceed with American values and the rule of law if the United States leads.

Space utilization has transformed the human condition, including how we communicate, navigate, produce food and energy, conduct banking, predict weather and perform disaster relief. While many of these gains are a result of private investment and commercial markets, they are only possible because the United States government took the lead and retired risk for these capabilities. Today, we are experiencing a space renaissance. The first launch of the Space Launch System is less than two years away. In 2021, we will use the Orion capsule to send astronauts beyond low Earth orbit for the first time since the 1970s. Commercial launch vehicles are maturing and commercial deep space habitats are currently in development. A renewed focus on utilizing the Moon can help further these advances and achievements. The choices we make now can forever make America the preeminent spacefaring nation.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Lar on 01/18/2021 11:50 pm
Could we dial down the level of contentiousness and replace it with collegiality?  Be excellent to each other, please.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/19/2021 12:57 pm
Pretty good summary of Bridenstine's achievements.

Jim Bridenstine was a transformative NASA administrator:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/jim-bridenstine-was-a-transformative-nasa-administrator

https://twitter.com/MarkWhittington/status/1351480057642971138
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Proponent on 01/19/2021 01:12 pm
I would say that while Bridenstine attempted a transformation of NASA, the jury is still out on its success and it's not looking good.

EDIT:  Corrected spelling of "Bridenstine"
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/19/2021 01:28 pm
I would say that while Brdenstine attempted a transformation of NASA, the jury is still out on its success and it's not looking good.

Why? It's looking good. Nobody is expecting Artemis to be cancelled. For HLS, we will find out in about a month. But I expect HLS to be like commercial crew: underfunded at the beginning but eventually fully funded. Like commercial crew, it's likely to be late by a couple of years.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/19/2021 05:12 pm
https://twitter.com/Bob_Richards/status/1351592589057814532

https://twitter.com/DrPhiltill/status/1351677751170899977
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: abaddon on 01/19/2021 05:15 pm
I would say that while Brdenstine attempted a transformation of NASA, the jury is still out on its success and it's not looking good.

Why? It's looking good. Nobody is expecting Artemis to be cancelled.
Artemis is just SLS, so nobody ever expects it to be cancelled, no matter who was administrator.
Quote
For HLS, we will find out in about a month. But I expect HLS to be like commercial crew: underfunded at the beginning but eventually fully funded. Like commercial crew, it's likely to be late by a couple of years.
Maybe.  Commercial Crew fulfilled a clear and existing need to be able to restore a capability we had lost and leverage the existing ISS that we have poured so much money into.  HLS is a new aspirational goal and there is no existing need or restoration of capablity we had, or existing asset that is sitting underutilized in the meantime.  They're not really that similar.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/19/2021 05:24 pm
So this thread has reached 15 pages now. Can some refresh my mind if we carried on at this length with a dedicated thread of accolades after NASA Shuttle CDR. Gen. Bolden left? Just curious...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/19/2021 05:27 pm
Many people say that Jim Bridenstine is the best administrator that NASA has had in a long time. That is the difference.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/19/2021 05:29 pm
Many people say that Jim Bridenstine is the best administrator that NASA has had in a long time. That is the difference.
yg... Not the "many people" line...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/19/2021 05:42 pm
I would say that while Brdenstine attempted a transformation of NASA, the jury is still out on its success and it's not looking good.

Why? It's looking good. Nobody is expecting Artemis to be cancelled.
Artemis is just SLS, so nobody ever expects it to be cancelled, no matter who was administrator.
Quote
For HLS, we will find out in about a month. But I expect HLS to be like commercial crew: underfunded at the beginning but eventually fully funded. Like commercial crew, it's likely to be late by a couple of years.
Maybe.  Commercial Crew fulfilled a clear and existing need to be able to restore a capability we had lost and leverage the existing ISS that we have poured so much money into.  HLS is a new aspirational goal and there is no existing need or restoration of capablity we had, or existing asset that is sitting underutilized in the meantime.  They're not really that similar.

The Artemis program is the entire lunar program, not just SLS. Artemis can continue with or without SLS. But I am guessing that SLS will continue, at least, until Starship is flying crew.

ISS is a destination in space, just like the Moon. The ISS will eventually be replaced by commercial LEO habitats. In any event, I was arguing that the early lack of funding for commercial crew and HLS will be similar, I wasn't try to argue that both programs are the same.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/19/2021 08:45 pm
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/1351609592199979010
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/19/2021 08:51 pm
It's also her last day at NASA:

https://twitter.com/BettinaInclan/status/1351642866234372096
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/19/2021 09:16 pm
Maybe.  Commercial Crew fulfilled a clear and existing need to be able to restore a capability we had lost and leverage the existing ISS that we have poured so much money into.  HLS is a new aspirational goal and there is no existing need or restoration of capablity we had, or existing asset that is sitting underutilized in the meantime.  They're not really that similar.

The Artemis program is the entire lunar program, not just SLS. Artemis can continue with or without SLS.

Yes and no. If the SLS is cancelled then there would be a gap in being able to fly the Orion. And once you cancel the SLS then the Orion should be looked at also, since it is underpowered for going to the Moon, and has no chance of being evolved into something better - it is the end of the evolutionary line for capsules.

So while replacements for the SLS and Orion are being brought online there would be no human missions to the Moon - no Artemis program.

But once the limitations of the SLS and Orion are removed, then returning to the Moon can be done in a much more efficient way, so ending Artemis and starting something else would be a possibility.

Quote
But I am guessing that SLS will continue, at least, until Starship is flying crew.

We've never needed the Starship to return to the Moon, and we don't now. The SLS has impeded the development of a reusable space transportation system that we could have had in place by now to move cargo and crew from LEO to the region of the Moon. ULA proposed the ACES architecture over a decade ago, and it is still viable in a world with Starship.

Quote
ISS is a destination in space, just like the Moon.

I have to disagree. The Moon is a destination for learning more about our Moon, but it is NOT a mandatory destination. Doing things on the Moon really only helps us to do things on the Moon.

In comparison the ISS is the only place we have in space to learn how to live and work in space, which is MANDATORY for any future human exploration. So it is not a "destination" per se, but a foothold that we are leveraging to learn how to expand further out into space.

Without the ISS we won't know how to expand humanity out into space. Without returning to the Moon we are just postponing learning more about the Moon, but otherwise it doesn't stop us from going to Mars or anywhere else.

Quote
The ISS will eventually be replaced by commercial LEO habitats.

We don't know that for sure, since that is still a decade or more out. Too far out to plan on.

Quote
In any event, I was arguing that the early lack of funding for commercial crew and HLS will be similar, I wasn't try to argue that both programs are the same.

The lack of Commercial Crew cost us money, in that we had to buy crew transportation services to the ISS, and it also cost us science opportunities, since the Soyuz had limited return cargo capabilities. So Commercial Crew allowed us to leverage our investments in space to an even greater degree by increasing the science output of the ISS.

The lack of Human Landing System (HLS) vehicles postpones a return to the Moon that America has been OK with for the last 50 years, so we don't lose anything.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/19/2021 10:20 pm
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1351669573188247561

Source:

https://youtu.be/YC7QQcOZP14
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/19/2021 10:36 pm
Good advice for the next administrator:

https://twitter.com/genejm29/status/1351671543361908743
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/20/2021 02:03 am
So this thread has reached 15 pages now. Can some refresh my mind if we carried on at this length with a dedicated thread of accolades after NASA Shuttle CDR. Gen. Bolden left? Just curious...

Trump era meme's require everyone who has survived to the end of the Trump Administration to be described as "the best ever".  ;)

I liked Bolden a whole lot more than Griffin, but I'm not sure I can classify any Administrator as "the best ever", and I'm not even sure that such a classification makes sense since each NASA Administrator has different challenges that they have to deal with, and different accomplishments they can claim. None of them are 1:1 comparable. Apples vs oranges.

As to Bridenstine, from what I can tell people that want a U.S. return to the Moon LOVE any progress towards that goal, even though Bridenstine was under order from Vice President Pence to "get'r done" by 2024. And EVERYONE knows that if NASA had to build NASA-designed hardware there was no way for that to happen. So apparently Bridenstine being in charge of an agency that makes the only decision possible to satisfy a Space Policy Directive means that Bridenstine himself is responsible for every decision made on the program.

As I recall though, there is no "I" in the word "team"...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: RoadWithoutEnd on 01/20/2021 11:46 am
Bridenstine has been a pleasant surprise, as far as I'm concerned.

He's OG Newspace going way back, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how well he delivered on NASA's commercial potential, but it was still heartening to see.

His politics are baffling and contradictory, but haven't stood in the way of advancing the right NASA agenda, so I consider him to have been a positive influence.  As long as someone actually does the right things, I couldn't care less what bizarre beliefs float around in his head.

I won't try to guess why a man that smart on space policy can't wrap his head around greenhouse gases or human evolution, but nobody's perfect.  Put his picture on the wall somewhere in the vicinity of Webb.



Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Proponent on 01/20/2021 12:11 pm
OG?
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/20/2021 02:41 pm
https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/1351917625715130368

Quote
It has been my great honor to serve as your @NASA Administrator. I will miss the amazing NASA family and will forever be grateful for my time at this incredible agency. Ad astra.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/20/2021 02:50 pm
If only all public servants could care about their job as much and be as enthusiastic, open and willing to learn. He will be rightly missed.

From my perspective NASA has started on a better path, within the inevitable constraints of the political realities. I really hope that path continues and thus Jim’s legacy is built on.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/20/2021 03:08 pm
It's also the last day for the Deputy Administrator, Jim Morhard:

https://twitter.com/jmorhard/status/1351893391907414017

Bettina Inclan is also leaving NASA:

https://twitter.com/BettinaInclan/status/1351651025409765376
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: kdhilliard on 01/20/2021 03:56 pm
...
He's OG Newspace going way back, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how well he delivered on NASA's commercial potential, but it was still heartening to see. ...

OG?

Abbreviation of American slang "original gangsta", meaning "original" or "old-school", evoking the original, authentic style of gangsta rap.
See Wiktionary's entry: O.G. (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/O.G.)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/20/2021 04:03 pm
Thank you and well wishes on your future endeavors.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/20/2021 04:45 pm
https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1351948015242719235
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/20/2021 04:56 pm
https://twitter.com/LeahCheshier/status/1351951641931640833
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/20/2021 05:00 pm
Yeah, but then he calls the United States, and humanity, a failure for not returning to the Moon before he became NASA Administrator.

Bridenstine, departing NASA, hopes Artemis continues (https://spacenews.com/bridenstine-departing-nasa-hopes-artemis-continues/) - SpaceNews

Not sure he truly understands that the United States did not fail to return to the Moon, we CHOSE not to return to the Moon.

Maybe a poor choice of words on his part, but calling the United States a failure...  ???
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/20/2021 05:31 pm
Yeah, but then he calls the United States, and humanity, a failure for not returning to the Moon before he became NASA Administrator.

Bridenstine, departing NASA, hopes Artemis continues (https://spacenews.com/bridenstine-departing-nasa-hopes-artemis-continues/) - SpaceNews

Not sure he truly understands that the United States did not fail to return to the Moon, we CHOSE not to return to the Moon.

Maybe a poor choice of words on his part, but calling the United States a failure...  ???

That's not what he said. He said that it was a failure of the United States not to go back to the Moon and Mars, which isn't the same thing. You can have a failure without being a failure. You are twisting his words.

Quote from: Space News
“I think it’s important that I be the last NASA administrator in history that wasn’t alive when we had people living and working on the moon,” he said. “That’s a failure of the United States and of humanity. We need to make sure that we’re leading the world in a return to the moon and on to Mars.”
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: RoadWithoutEnd on 01/20/2021 05:43 pm
Yeah, but then he calls the United States, and humanity, a failure for not returning to the Moon before he became NASA Administrator.

Bridenstine, departing NASA, hopes Artemis continues (https://spacenews.com/bridenstine-departing-nasa-hopes-artemis-continues/) - SpaceNews

Not sure he truly understands that the United States did not fail to return to the Moon, we CHOSE not to return to the Moon.

Maybe a poor choice of words on his part, but calling the United States a failure...  ???

I think he means spiritual failure, not technical failure.  We had the option, but had abandoned our vision.

There were always two spirits at work in Apollo: The true spirit, where we wanted to go "because it was there" and because the American psyche craved frontiers.  And then the lesser one, that just wanted to upstage a geopolitical competitor.  The latter walked away the instant it had the trophy, and the former's support in Congress was weak, so it all just went away.

With Commercial partnerships, maybe this system is more robust than the Space Race one.  More spiritually intune with the pioneer magic, and not as subject to base political interests.  Bridenstine is owed a lot for the transition.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/20/2021 06:14 pm
Yeah, but then he calls the United States, and humanity, a failure for not returning to the Moon before he became NASA Administrator.

Bridenstine, departing NASA, hopes Artemis continues (https://spacenews.com/bridenstine-departing-nasa-hopes-artemis-continues/) - SpaceNews

Not sure he truly understands that the United States did not fail to return to the Moon, we CHOSE not to return to the Moon.

Maybe a poor choice of words on his part, but calling the United States a failure...  ???

I think he means spiritual failure, not technical failure.  We had the option, but had abandoned our vision.

There were always two spirits at work in Apollo: The true spirit, where we wanted to go "because it was there" and because the American psyche craved frontiers.  And then the lesser one, that just wanted to upstage a geopolitical competitor.  The latter walked away the instant it had the trophy, and the former's support in Congress was weak, so it all just went away.

With Commercial partnerships, maybe this system is more robust than the Space Race one.  More spiritually intune with the pioneer magic, and not as subject to base political interests.  Bridenstine is owed a lot for the transition.
You have those two goals reversed.... The primary mission was to demonstrate the might of a free democratic society when compared to an oppressive communist one. President Kennedy moved the goal post so far so that the all the economic-industrial might of the United States could be brought to bear on the mission. Once the mission was accomplished, as with all missions during the Cold War, the troops stand down. Take this from someone who first hand had to hit the air raid shelters in New York City as being one of the primary nuclear targets during the Cuban Missile Crisis... Any spiritual goal of exploration was secondary...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/20/2021 06:20 pm
Yeah, but then he calls the United States, and humanity, a failure for not returning to the Moon before he became NASA Administrator.

Bridenstine, departing NASA, hopes Artemis continues (https://spacenews.com/bridenstine-departing-nasa-hopes-artemis-continues/) - SpaceNews

Not sure he truly understands that the United States did not fail to return to the Moon, we CHOSE not to return to the Moon.

Maybe a poor choice of words on his part, but calling the United States a failure...  ???

I think he means spiritual failure, not technical failure.  We had the option, but had abandoned our vision.

There were always two spirits at work in Apollo: The true spirit, where we wanted to go "because it was there" and because the American psyche craved frontiers.  And then the lesser one, that just wanted to upstage a geopolitical competitor.  The latter walked away the instant it had the trophy, and the former's support in Congress was weak, so it all just went away.

With Commercial partnerships, maybe this system is more robust than the Space Race one.  More spiritually intune with the pioneer magic, and not as subject to base political interests.  Bridenstine is owed a lot for the transition.

A failure politically, his answer started out by advice for the next Administrator. He was talking about the fact that in the past, Republicans were for the Moon, Democrats were for Mars but it is better to remove such divisions and do a Moon to Mars program which brings both of these groups together (as is currently the case). He was talking about various programs that got cancelled (space exploration initiative of the 1990s, vision for space exploration of the 2000s and even Apollo before that) and said that he wanted to build a program that would stand the test of time and so for him such a program needed to be a united program that brings people together such as the Artemis and the Moon to Mars program in order to have a constitency of purpose.

His remarks start at 1h7 m of this recording (the discussion about US leadership is at 1h10m):

https://youtu.be/YC7QQcOZP14
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/20/2021 06:23 pm
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1351967845517815812

https://twitter.com/Rogozin/status/1351967346915733504
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/20/2021 07:04 pm
https://twitter.com/JonnyKimUSA/status/1351972997683412999
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/20/2021 07:26 pm
You done good Jim Bridenstine by Keith Cowing:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2021/01/you-done-good-j.html

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/1350913423312375809
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/20/2021 11:41 pm
Suzanne Gillen also left NASA today at noon:

https://twitter.com/SuzanneGillen/status/1351989339761364993
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/21/2021 01:12 am
https://twitter.com/AschbacherJosef/status/1352072597048090624
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/21/2021 09:00 pm
Exit Interview With Jim Bridenstine:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2021/01/exit-interview.html

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/1352367954676097031
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/22/2021 03:02 am
https://twitter.com/JAXA_en/status/1352441927958847489
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/23/2021 06:39 pm
This presentation by Bridenstine was made on October 26th 2020 but it was only recently posted to YouTube. It expands on the importance of removing divisions within NASA which was a point that Bridenstine also emphasized in his farewell speech. It's also a good summary of Bridenstine's accomplishments in his three years as NASA Administrator:

https://youtu.be/eyi9Oz3D8LI
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/25/2021 01:10 pm
NASA Administrator joins Acorn Growth Companies:
https://acorngrowthcompanies.com/news/nasa-administrator-joins-acorn-growth-companies

Quote from: Acorn Press Release
“I am excited about joining Acorn Growth Companies and starting a new chapter of service to the United States, while advancing our aerospace and defense industries,” said Bridenstine. “I’m looking forward to re-entering the private sector and working with an established market leader such as Acorn.”

https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1353704558237724674

https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1353706001032224770

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1353706581649731587
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/26/2021 12:48 pm
New House Appropriations CJS Subcommittee Chair Supports Artemis:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/new-house-appropriations-cjs-subcommittee-chair-supports-artemis/

Quote
Cartwright said “I do strongly support NASA funding for the Artemis program because I think it ensures continuation of  American leadership in space exploration and opens up all kinds of opportunities for further scientific research.”

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1353930867819864071

Interestingly, the new chair was one of Bridenstine's friends and supporters when he was nominated as NASA Administrator:

Quote from: Marcia Smith
Former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, once a Congressman himself, understood the connection the agency could make with members of Congress from states and districts not usually identified with the space program and invested a lot of energy in reaching out to them.

He and Cartwright became friends as freshmen Congressman elected in 2012, though from different parties.  Cartwright was one of the House members who signed a letter in support of Bridenstine’s nomination to be NASA Administrator in 2018 when Senate Democrats opposed it.  Bridenstine was confirmed by the Senate on a party-line vote (50-49).

See also this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13tVhZ4bF88
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/26/2021 08:10 pm
From the Acorn Growth Companies website:
Quote
Acorn invests in operating companies that strive to enhance global mobility, protect national interests, and develop next-generation intelligence gathering technology.

None of that is related to what NASA does, and the fact that NASA's ethics team signed off on this position should tell you that Bridenstine's knowledge of NASA really won't be much of an asset for Acorn.

I think they are just hiring a celebrity to help them close deals, but otherwise isn't contributing much to their knowledge of the government market.

It's good for Bridenstine though...  :D
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 01/27/2021 07:23 am
I think they are just hiring a celebrity to help them close deals, but otherwise isn't contributing much to their knowledge of the government market.

It's good for Bridenstine though...  :D

Just can't say anything good about the man can you?  ::)

Whatever his ultimate role ends up being at Acorn if he approaches it with half the enthusiasm and gusto he showed as NASA admin the company will be well served.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: clongton on 01/27/2021 01:25 pm
Among the MANY responsibilities that a NASA Administrator has, one of the most important ones is also the most underreported one; that of being the cheerleader and advocate for the agency, the assigned projects and missions, the workforce and the congressional advocate. Jim excelled in all these skills. He leaves very big shoes to fill in this regard. NASA's loss is Acorn's gain.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/27/2021 03:00 pm
I think they are just hiring a celebrity to help them close deals, but otherwise isn't contributing much to their knowledge of the government market.

It's good for Bridenstine though...  :D

Just can't say anything good about the man can you?  ::)

I literally said the job would be good for Bridenstine. Did you miss that?

I think this is a case of "shooting the messenger", since everything I said was true. Bridenstine has no experience or skills in the prime areas of business Acorn has.

What he does have is celebrity status by being the former NASA Administrator (and a former member of Congress), which as I said many companies hire such celebrities to help close deals. But they aren't bringing him on because he has a track record of creating business opportunities in their areas of interest, that much is clear.

Just stating facts here...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: edzieba on 01/27/2021 03:32 pm
Bridenstine has no experience or skills in the prime areas of business Acorn has.
To be fair, prior to his political career Bridenstein has worked for both the DoD directly (Navy), and for a defence contractor (Wyle Laboratories).
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/27/2021 03:45 pm
As many know on here he wasn't my first pick (I suggested Bob Cabana). I felt he should have taken President Biden's offer to stay on for continuity/best interests for the agency and a symbol of bi-partisanship cooperation...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/27/2021 06:06 pm
As many know on here he wasn't my first pick (I suggested Bob Cabana). I felt he should have taken President Biden's offer to stay on for continuity/best interests for the agency and a symbol of bi-partisanship cooperation...

There is no reason to believe that the Biden Administration offered Bridenstine to stay.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 01/27/2021 07:25 pm
As many know on here he wasn't my first pick (I suggested Bob Cabana). I felt he should have taken President Biden's offer to stay on for continuity/best interests for the agency and a symbol of bi-partisanship cooperation...

Do you realise that the tweet from The Orbit was a joke?

Biden did NOT offer Bridenstine a chance to stay.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/27/2021 07:56 pm
As many know on here he wasn't my first pick (I suggested Bob Cabana). I felt he should have taken President Biden's offer to stay on for continuity/best interests for the agency and a symbol of bi-partisanship cooperation...

Do you realise that the tweet from The Orbit was a joke?

Biden did NOT offer Bridenstine a chance to stay.
I stand corrected, thank you... Hope always springs eternal in me I guess...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: abaddon on 01/27/2021 08:07 pm
Biden did NOT offer Bridenstine a chance to stay.
IIRC Bridenstine publicly stated he would not stay on if asked before there was any public indication of what Biden was going to do.  I think it's likely Biden wouldn't have asked him anyway, but hard to see him asking that when he'd already shut it down publicly.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/27/2021 09:13 pm
Although Bridenstine says that he is done with politics, I am sure that if there was an opportunity for him to become a Senator (for Oklahoma) he would take it. It would be more difficult for him to become a Republican Senator, if he served under a Democratic President.

He is also very young, so becoming NASA Administrator a second time (under a Republican President) is not impossible.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/27/2021 11:08 pm
Although Bridenstine says that he is done with politics, I am sure that if there was an opportunity for him to become a Senator (for Oklahoma) he would take it. It would be more difficult for him to become a Republican Senator, if he served under a Democratic President.

It didn't used to be a mark against someone if they were bipartisan, so I guess you are saying the Republican Party no longer supports candidates that want to work across the aisle? Boy is that a sad statement.

Quote
He is also very young, so becoming NASA Administrator a second time (under a Republican President) is not impossible.

330 million Americans, so I think there are plenty of qualified candidates for a future Republican President to choose from that haven't yet been NASA Administrator. Bridenstine had his turn.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Lar on 01/28/2021 01:24 am
Let's stick to Bridenstine and his accomplishments and skip the general politics.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/28/2021 02:12 am
Although Bridenstine says that he is done with politics, I am sure that if there was an opportunity for him to become a Senator (for Oklahoma) he would take it. It would be more difficult for him to become a Republican Senator, if he served under a Democratic President.

It didn't used to be a mark against someone if they were bipartisan, so I guess you are saying the Republican Party no longer supports candidates that want to work across the aisle? Boy is that a sad statement.

Quote
He is also very young, so becoming NASA Administrator a second time (under a Republican President) is not impossible.

330 million Americans, so I think there are plenty of qualified candidates for a future Republican President to choose from that haven't yet been NASA Administrator. Bridenstine had his turn.

That's a decision for a future Republican President to make. We saw Mike Griffin come back in a different role within a Republican Administration. You can also take Bridenstine at his words when he said that he feels that the Administrator needs to have support of the President and the Vice-President. One of the reasons that Bridenstine did so well (in my opinion) is because he had the support of VP Mike Pence.

Besides, Biden hasn't chosen many Republicans as political appointees. So I don't think that Biden would have kept Bridenstine, even if he had expressed a desire to stay.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/28/2021 04:15 am
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).

In hindsight, my predictions about Bridenstine's future goals and proposals as Administrator in late April 2018, right after his confirmation, were pretty good!

I had also predicted, a few days earlier, that Bridenstine was always well prepared and that he would hit the ground running, once that he got confirmed.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39678.msg1812568#msg1812568
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/31/2021 11:38 pm
He is also very young, so becoming NASA Administrator a second time (under a Republican President) is not impossible.

330 million Americans, so I think there are plenty of qualified candidates for a future Republican President to choose from that haven't yet been NASA Administrator. Bridenstine had his turn.

That's a decision for a future Republican President to make.

Of course it is. Who else would it be? Certainly not you, and certainly not me. I was just pointing out that Bridenstine would likely not be the first candidate that comes to mind.

Quote
We saw Mike Griffin come back in a different role within a Republican Administration.

Not sure if you are implying that was a good thing or not. Lots of people cringed over Griffin coming back into government.

Quote
You can also take Bridenstine at his words when he said that he feels that the Administrator needs to have support of the President and the Vice-President.

You are telling me that Jim Bridenstine is the only person to realize this? All those decades in management and I never realized that I needed the support of my boss...  ;)

Are we done gushing now? (that's enough of that. Lar)

Quote
One of the reasons that Bridenstine did so well (in my opinion) is because he had the support of VP Mike Pence.

Let's remember how the NASA Administrator gets their job - the President decides they will do the job the way the President wants it done. So unless the VP was undermining the President, of course they are going to support the NASA Administrator. Otherwise the VP would be removed from involvement with NASA.

This is simple Management 101, and though we're talking about the U.S. Government, and who Bridenstine worked for (he who will not be mentioned), the same principles still apply - Bridenstine was hired to do what Trump wanted, and Pence was doing what Trump wanted, so of course Bridenstine and Pence would be working collaboratively.

In other words Bridenstine was not an exception in this compared to his predecessors.

Quote
Besides, Biden hasn't chosen many Republicans as political appointees. So I don't think that Biden would have kept Bridenstine, even if he had expressed a desire to stay.

What we know so far of the Biden Administration is that Biden likes to bring in people with a lot of experience in the field they will working in (some exceptions, but generally a rule).

Bridenstine did not have that experience when he started at NASA, and I don't think any non-biased person would think that Bridenstine has any exceptional abilities regarding running NASA. Lots of fans for his cheerleading, and he certainly didn't cater to his earlier climate denial leanings, but otherwise his support seems to be based solely on his push for Artemis.

So it would have been unusual for Biden to keep such a person, and Bridenstine knew that. So Bridenstine left with grace, hoping he left something that will remain durable - just like his predecessors did.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/01/2021 02:35 am
Biden wasn't going to keep Bridenstine because he is a Republican (and a Republican nominee). It's that simple. It wasn't a matter of experience or management skills.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: edzieba on 02/01/2021 11:08 am
Biden wasn't going to keep Bridenstine because he is a Republican (and a Republican nominee). It's that simple. It wasn't a matter of experience or management skills.
A bold claim, but with no evidence behind it. Not only was the decision to leave (and an explicit 'I'll refuse even if asked') taken by Bridenstine before Biden - or anyone on the transition team - had even mentioned asking him, the statement being made pretty much the instant the election was called; but numerous administrations have retained prior NASA administrators appointed by the opposition party.
He could have been kept on under the idea of NASA being a low priority with no need for direct intervention, he could have been kept on on borrowed time in preference to having an acting administrator, or he could have been dismissed immediately. We don't know, and unless some years hence some Biden transition team insider decides that space is interesting enough to go public on their internal decisionmaking (if any had even occurred at that point) we probably never will know.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/01/2021 11:17 am
Dan Goldin was NASA's longest serving Administrator: his tenure covered George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush for a time. Although Mr Goldin seems to be an exception; surely - when all is said and done - there is no reason another, future Administrator could not serve both Republican and Democrat Administrations?
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 02/01/2021 12:08 pm
Biden wasn't going to keep Bridenstine because he is a Republican (and a Republican nominee). It's that simple. It wasn't a matter of experience or management skills.

A bold claim, but with no evidence behind it. Not only was the decision to leave (and an explicit 'I'll refuse even if asked') taken by Bridenstine before Biden - or anyone on the transition team - had even mentioned asking him, the statement being made pretty much the instant the election was called

Emphasis mine.

Correct. No evidence behind yg1968's statement.
Bridenstine himself went with the assumption that Biden would not trust him. He said as much in his stepping-down announcement on November 8, 2020.

By announcing his departure before the Biden team could even ask him, Jim has made it impossible to 'prove' that Biden would not have kept him on as NASA administrator under Biden.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 02/01/2021 12:24 pm
Dan Goldin was NASA's longest serving Administrator: his tenure covered George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush for a time. Although Mr Goldin seems to be an exception; surely - when all is said and done - there is no reason another, future Administrator could not serve both Republican and Democrat Administrations?
Emphasis mine.

In fact Dan Goldin was NOT an exception. He was the third NASA administrator to serve under both Republican and Democrat presidents:

NASA administrator Dr. Thomas O. Paine served under president Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat) and president Richard Nixon (Republican).

NASA administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher served under president Richard Nixon (Republican), president Gerald Ford (Republican) and president Jimmy Carter (Democrat) during his first tenure as NASA administrator.
During his second tenure as NASA administrator he served under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (both Republican).

And then came Dan Goldin who served under Bush the elder, Clinton and Bush the younger. Thus serving under two Republican presidents and one Democratic president.

And I fully agree with your conclusion: there is no reason another, future Administrator could not serve both Republican and Democrat Administrations.

Jim Bridenstine bailing out early, in November 2020, was in my opinion premature. Not that I liked Jim B. one bit, but he never gave Biden a chance to aks him to stay on as NASA administrator. He just recklessly burned his ships behind him on the assumption that Biden would not trust him.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/01/2021 01:10 pm
Biden wasn't going to keep Bridenstine because he is a Republican (and a Republican nominee). It's that simple. It wasn't a matter of experience or management skills.

A bold claim, but with no evidence behind it. Not only was the decision to leave (and an explicit 'I'll refuse even if asked') taken by Bridenstine before Biden - or anyone on the transition team - had even mentioned asking him, the statement being made pretty much the instant the election was called

Emphasis mine.

Correct. No evidence behind yg1968's statement.
Bridenstine himself went with the assumption that Biden would not trust him. He said as much in his stepping-down announcement on November 8, 2020.

By announcing his departure before the Biden team could even ask him, Jim has made it impossible to 'proof' that Biden would not have kept him on as NASA administrator under Biden.

Dan Goldin was 20 years ago. Things have changed since then. Today, politics in the United States is more partisan than it ever was. Bridenstine took himself out (as early as July actually) but it is possible to convince someone to stay. Part of the reason that Bridenstine didn't stay is that he wasn't convinced that he would have the confidence of the Vice-President and the President. A call from Biden and Harris could have convinced him to stay. But I am pretty sure that such a call was never made.

Biden has kept very few Trump appointees and it's not because they lacked experience or management skills. The lack of experience and management skills argument is a false narrative. Both parties tend to appoint people that have a history with the party. That is just the way that it is.

P.S. Here is what Bridenstine said about his future last July:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45548.msg2151566#msg2151566
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/01/2021 07:02 pm
Dan Goldin was NASA's longest serving Administrator: his tenure covered George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush for a time. Although Mr Goldin seems to be an exception; surely - when all is said and done - there is no reason another, future Administrator could not serve both Republican and Democrat Administrations?
Emphasis mine.

In fact Dan Goldin was NOT an exception. He was the third NASA administrator to serve under both Republican and Democrat presidents:

NASA administrator Dr. Thomas O. Paine served under president Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat) and president Richard Nixon (Republican).

NASA administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher served under president Richard Nixon (Republican), president Gerald Ford (Republican) and president Jimmy Carter (Democrat) during his first tenure as NASA administrator.
During his second tenure as NASA administrator he served under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (both Republican).

And then came Dan Goldin who served under Bush the elder, Clinton and Bush the younger. Thus serving under two Republican presidents and one Democratic president.

And I fully agree with your conclusion: there is no reason another, future Administrator could not serve both Republican and Democrat Administrations.

Jim Bridenstine bailing out early, in November 2020, was in my opinion premature. Not that I liked Jim B. one bit, but he never gave Biden a chance to aks him to stay on as NASA administrator. He just recklessly burned his ships behind him on the assumption that Biden would not trust him.
You are correct; I had especially forgotten about Mr Paine's varied tenure. Although my main intention was to bring up NASA Admins during the Shuttle era and now.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 02/01/2021 08:09 pm
Biden wasn't going to keep Bridenstine because he is a Republican (and a Republican nominee). It's that simple. It wasn't a matter of experience or management skills.

A bold claim, but with no evidence behind it. Not only was the decision to leave (and an explicit 'I'll refuse even if asked') taken by Bridenstine before Biden - or anyone on the transition team - had even mentioned asking him, the statement being made pretty much the instant the election was called

Emphasis mine.

Correct. No evidence behind yg1968's statement.
Bridenstine himself went with the assumption that Biden would not trust him. He said as much in his stepping-down announcement on November 8, 2020.

By announcing his departure before the Biden team could even ask him, Jim has made it impossible to 'proof' that Biden would not have kept him on as NASA administrator under Biden.

Dan Goldin was 20 years ago. Things have changed since then. Today, politics in the United States is more partisan than it ever was. Bridenstine took himself out (as early as July actually) but it is possible to convince someone to stay. Part of the reason that Bridenstine didn't stay is that he wasn't convinced that he would have the confidence of the Vice-President and the President. A call from Biden and Harris could have convinced him to stay. But I am pretty sure that such a call was never made.

Emphasis mine.

Bridenstine pubically announced his decision to leave (even when Trump would have been reelected) just a few days after the elections, when everything was still wide open (courtesy of Trump being a sore loser). And you said it yourself: Bridenstine essentially took himself out as early as July 2020.

Biden and Harris could not give Jim a call until the election result was irreversible. By which time Jim had made it abundantly clear that he would not be staying, no matter who won the elections. Presidential candidates, such as Biden, do not go around asking people to stay before the elections have even taken place. So, calling Jim B. before November 3, 2020, was out of the question. And after that date the election results remained officially in doubt until the Supreme Court threw out Trump's protests. Which was well AFTER Jim B. had announced his decision to leave. In doing so he never gave Biden/Harris a chance to give him a call. So again: this situation makes it impossible to provide supporting evidence for your claim that Biden was unwilling to keep Jim on the job.

Last:
I find it somewhat strange that you are actually trying to blame Biden and Harris for the reality that Jim B. is no longer NASA administrator, while there is in fact only one man to blame for that: Jim Bridenstine himself.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: TGebs15 on 02/01/2021 08:57 pm
I can’t speak to what yg1968 is thinking but I truly don’t see how the general sentiment to what’s been said is coming across so controversial. Jim Bridenstine did have more baggage than most administrators seeing as he had been a sitting congressman. That with the fact that each President this century has picked their own person to head NASA its really not hard to guess Jim Bridenstine wouldn’t have been asked back. Now clearly people have struck political nerves, but Jim Bridenstine was a great administrator and he left NASA in a good place for whoever was going to follow him. We are seeing a hyper partisan country and it’s not unreasonable for Jim to decide that for the sake of NASA it’s best if he steps aside and allow the new administration to pick someone they will support entirely. Neither side is really to blame.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/01/2021 09:22 pm
Biden wasn't going to keep Bridenstine because he is a Republican (and a Republican nominee). It's that simple. It wasn't a matter of experience or management skills.

A bold claim, but with no evidence behind it. Not only was the decision to leave (and an explicit 'I'll refuse even if asked') taken by Bridenstine before Biden - or anyone on the transition team - had even mentioned asking him, the statement being made pretty much the instant the election was called

Emphasis mine.

Correct. No evidence behind yg1968's statement.
Bridenstine himself went with the assumption that Biden would not trust him. He said as much in his stepping-down announcement on November 8, 2020.

By announcing his departure before the Biden team could even ask him, Jim has made it impossible to 'proof' that Biden would not have kept him on as NASA administrator under Biden.

Dan Goldin was 20 years ago. Things have changed since then. Today, politics in the United States is more partisan than it ever was. Bridenstine took himself out (as early as July actually) but it is possible to convince someone to stay. Part of the reason that Bridenstine didn't stay is that he wasn't convinced that he would have the confidence of the Vice-President and the President. A call from Biden and Harris could have convinced him to stay. But I am pretty sure that such a call was never made.

Emphasis mine.

Bridenstine pubically announced his decision to leave (even when Trump would have been reelected) just a few days after the elections, when everything was still wide open (courtesy of Trump being a sore loser). And you said it yourself: Bridenstine essentially took himself out as early as July 2020.

Biden and Harris could not give Jim a call until the election result was irreversible. By which time Jim had made it abundantly clear that he would not be staying, no matter who won the elections. Presidential candidates, such as Biden, do not go around asking people to stay before the elections have even taken place. So, calling Jim B. before November 3, 2020, was out of the question. And after that date the election results remained officially in doubt until the Supreme Court threw out Trump's protests. Which was well AFTER Jim B. had announced his decision to leave. In doing so he never gave Biden/Harris a chance to give him a call. So again: this situation makes it impossible to provide supporting evidence for your claim that Biden was unwilling to keep Jim on the job.

Last:
I find it somewhat strange that you are actually trying to blame Biden and Harris for the reality that Jim B. is no longer NASA administrator, while there is in fact only one man to blame for that: Jim Bridenstine himself.

I wasn't blaming anyone. Just saying that it wasn't going to happen anyways. As a matter of custom, political appointees send their official letters of resignation in January. That letter of resignation can be refused by the new Administration but it usually isn't. That is how it works. It wasn't going to happen either way.

P.S. Eric Berger said the same thing in a November 11th article by the way.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Lar on 02/02/2021 12:10 am
This subthread about whether B asked B to stay or not, or whether B saying what B said meant B wouldn't ask...  is floundering around a bit and not going anywhere. Let's maybe try a different subtopic.

Also, if you think a thread is problematic, use the report to mod function. Don't post about it. Leave that to the mods (as I am doing here in the above paragraph) Posts removed.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/04/2021 06:55 pm
Jim Bridenstine deserves credit for setting up a program that could last multiple administrations. He must be very happy about this announcement!

Yes, that news made my day!

Thanks to Kristen Fisher, daughter of two NASA astronauts, for asking the questions on Artemis and on Space Force.

Quote from: Kristin Fisher
NASA's Artemis program survives the transition from the Trump administration to the Biden administration! 

@PressSec circling back on my question from yesterday saying: "We support this effort and endeavor."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristin_Fisher

https://twitter.com/KristinFisher/status/1357394498544939018
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/08/2021 10:34 pm
Administrator Bridenstine is very happy about the announcement that Artemis will continue.

Quote from: Chris Davenport
I just checked in with @JimBridenstine who is thrilled about the decision by President Biden to keep the Artemis program going: "I’m just so proud not only of the work we did at NASA, but that we can go from one administration to another and a program like this can continue."

"Because of this decision, we are going to see people walking on the moon for the first time since 1972," he added.

https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1358914949511282690
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/19/2021 01:51 am
https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1362588532053794819
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/19/2021 02:24 am
"There's a reason why a lot of people wanted to draft @JimBridenstine to stay on as NASA Adminstrator."

I'm not getting the connection between a normal letter from a government official to a constituent, and how this makes Jim Bridenstine the only logical choice to run a complex engineering organization.

It's like saying someone who dresses nicely should be an orchestra conductor...  :o

Are we forgetting that NASA has a PR department that usually surfaces these types of opportunities for agencies to interact with the public? And I'm not ascribing anything bad about it, it is a good thing for NASA PR to find ways to interact with the public. Just that I'm not sure how following NASA PR suggestions makes Jim Bridenstine the best NASA Administrator in history.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/19/2021 02:51 am
If you made an effort to be less partisan, you would see why Bridenstine was a good administrator. Until that happens, no arguments will convince you.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/19/2021 03:22 am
If you made an effort to be less partisan...

Really? You are saying you are non-partisan observer of Bridenstine?

Quote
...you would see why Bridenstine was a good administrator.

I've provided my critiques of Bridenstine previously, so I won't repeat, but as a reminder though I will summarize:

- Bridenstine was a better NASA Administrator than many of us feared.
- Bridenstine was, from objective job performance measurements, an average NASA Administrator.

And now people seem to think that one of NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine's jobs was to monitor social media for stories about people that had connections to NASA - and then personally respond to them without anyone else in NASA helping.

Excuse me if I'm having a hard time believing something like that, or that it proves he should have continued running NASA - as if that was a job quality that NASA required to run a agency with a budget of $18B per year. Perspective people, perspective...  ;)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/01/2021 05:42 am
Moderator: A friendly reminder to play the ball, not the man. Thanks.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/10/2021 11:39 pm
For those that miss Jim Bridenstine:

https://twitter.com/spacex360/status/1369744379972321285
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/18/2021 01:25 am
Interesting that the SLS study was initiated when Jim Bridenstine was still NASA administrator:

Quote from: Space News
The [SLS cost reduction] study was not requested by the new Biden administration, Jurczyk said, but instead had it roots in discussions before Jim Bridenstine and Jim Morhard stepped down as administrator and deputy administrator, respectively, in January. “We are not counting on very large budget increases, so if we want to have a reasonable cadence of Artemis missions and have the funding to develop the Human Landing System and surface systems, we need to try to get those SLS per-launch costs down.”

https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-revisit-artemis-1-launch-date-after-green-run-test/
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 03/18/2021 08:32 am
Interesting that the SLS study was initiated when Jim Bridenstine was still NASA administrator:

Quote from: Space News
The study was not requested by the new Biden administration, Jurczyk said, but instead had it roots in discussions before Jim Bridenstine and Jim Morhard stepped down as administrator and deputy administrator, respectively, in January. “We are not counting on very large budget increases, so if we want to have a reasonable cadence of Artemis missions and have the funding to develop the Human Landing System and surface systems, we need to try to get those SLS per-launch costs down.”

https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-revisit-artemis-1-launch-date-after-green-run-test/

Good. Jim understood what was coming under a new administration. Remember, Jim understood perfectly that SLS, being a jobs program primarily, was a less-than-perfect solution for sending people beyond LEO. And he even acted on that opinion in public, by giving Boeing a kick in the pants, via suggesting to fly Orion on Falcon Heavy.

Unfortunately that got him a set of highly unfriendly phone calls from Shelby and Jim has been docile on SLS ever since.
But still, he understood what would be coming under Biden. Better to initiate a review himself than.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/18/2021 11:36 am
Yes, Bridenstine sort of alluded to the Artemis review in his last press conference (see the text in bold below):

During today's press conference (on the SLS Green run test), Keith Cowing asked if 2024 was still a realistic goal, given the underfunding of HLS under the FY21 budget (the question is at 42 minutes of the video):

Quote from: Keith Cowing
Question from Keith Cowing (was actually asking Kathy Lueders but Jim Bridenstine answered):

The source of the charge to NASA to land humans on the Moon by 2024 evaporates at noon tomorrow. Given that the delays with SLS and NASA’s current budget do not support this goal, isn’t the responsible and logical course of action to set a new Artemis landing goal that matches the actual budget levels and schedule progress?

Quote from: Jim Bridenstine
Answer from Jim Bridenstine

I will go ahead and take that. Look, we are moving forward and meeting all the milestones necessary to achieve a 2024 landing. We've requested in the President’s budget request, $3.3B for the human landing system, we got $850M. So we didn’t get everything that we wanted. It must be said, and this is so important, that we have strong bipartisan, apolitical support for the Artemis program. What’s more important than the $3.3B is the fact that we have support from members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, on the appropriations committee and on the authorization committees. This is America’s agenda to return to the Moon, and lead the world, to go with commercial partners and international partners. There is strong bipartisan support for this program.

As far as the date. Look we just got the budget, the appropriations, a month ago or so. NASA is doing its work to figure out: number one, do we need to change plans, do we need to adjust plans? NASA will have to make a determination as to what the options are, before the next administration. And, I have no doubt that the amazing people at NASA are going to present a range of options for our return to the Moon, that the next administration can fully buy into and support.

I just want to re-emphasize how important it is that these programs, like Artemis, these are not programs for, you know, one term. In fact, these are programs that need to be able to spend multiple administrations and, in fact, multi-decades, and multi-generations. If we do it right, 20 years from now, my kids are going to watch, as a new generation of astronauts is developing capability on the surface of the Moon.  Of course, when I talk about 20 years from now, hopefully, I will be around to see it as well. But there is no doubt that the goal here has been and will continue to be to make sure that as we move forward, that we have buy in and support from all of America and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.


https://youtu.be/YC7QQcOZP14
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Proponent on 03/18/2021 02:00 pm
Jim understood what was coming under a new administration.

What is/was that?  More of the same?
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/18/2021 02:33 pm
Jim understood what was coming under a new administration.

What is/was that?  More of the same?

If Senator Nelson is named tomorrow (as is now rumored), I doubt that the SLS Cost Reduction review will go anywhere.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/19/2021 01:13 pm
https://twitter.com/BettinaInclan/status/1372936130904133633
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: clongton on 03/19/2021 01:49 pm
Well it's official. Bill Nelson is nominated and that's not a good thing in my opinion.
I personally dealt with him during the DIRECT days and, while initially looking forward to dealing with him, I changed my mind soon after that started. While he's a nice enough guy, even then he showed a surprising lack of sufficient knowledge about the real needs of NASA. I got the impression (right or wrong) that most of his space-related decisions were politically motivated, after testing to see which way the wind (votes) was going. He did have excellent staffers who actually did the heavy lifting for him.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/19/2021 04:09 pm
Jim understood what was coming under a new administration.

What is/was that?  More of the same?

If Senator Nelson is named tomorrow (as is now rumored), I doubt that the SLS Cost Reduction review will go anywhere.

That study was the equivalent of political theater anyways - there is no significant cost reductions that can be done on the SLS program without outright cancelling it.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/19/2021 06:50 pm
See Jim's post below:

I have met both [Nelson and Bridenstine].  At two separate times, I saw Bridenstine quiz spacecraft program managers on the science of their mission.   I have toured several NASA administrators around spacecraft, none asked anything as detailed as Bridenstine. Bridenstine was better than Bolden, O'Keefe or Griffin.   Griffin was too qualified.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/19/2021 07:50 pm
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1372924894493696002

Not the most inspiring statement (a little too generic). I am surprised that he didn't even mention Artemis or the Moon to Mars program.

Certainly not as inspiring as Jim Bridenstine would have written...  ;)
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/19/2021 07:56 pm
See Jim's post below:

I saw it in the thread where it was originally posted. Why are you copying it to other threads? Are you trying to paste it everywhere to make sure I'll see it?  ::)

And BTW, over the years Jim has disagreed with virtually EVERYONE at some point (or many points), so gloating over Jim disagreeing with me is just plain weird...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/19/2021 08:03 pm
It wasn't related to you. I think that the personal story abount Jim's encounter with Jim Bridenstine asking good science questions is interesting and also belongs in the Bridenstine thread. But I have now deleted the first part of the reply in order to edit your involvment in it.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/25/2021 02:28 pm
I missed this when it originally came out but it's generally a good article (despite being a little political):

The departing NASA chief’s advice for Joe Biden’s space leaders
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/departing-nasa-chief-advice-joe-183130291.html

Quote from: Tim Fernholz
“People need to understand that this is a political job,” former NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine told Quartz last week. [...]

“Think back to the late 1990s with the space exploration initiative, to the moon and on to Mars—it got canceled because the legwork was never done to build the consensus,” he says. “To build a sustainable program, you have eliminate divisions, you have to build consensus, and you have to get the budgets to match the rhetoric.” [...]

"There was this challenge where Republicans were in favor of the moon and Democrats were in favor of going to Mars,” Bridenstine said. “It created this division that kept us from going anywhere. Republicans were for human exploration and Democrats were for the science mission directorate.”

He is advising Biden’s transition team that “the best thing that any leader of this agency can do is find out wherever there are divisions and eliminate them.” One example is NASA’s plan to hire private companies to send robots to the moon. Traditionally, such a program would be part of NASA’s human exploration programs, but under Bridenstine, it is led by the science directorate.

“It’s not human exploration or science, it’s both, and they both can do more when they work together,” he says. “The narrative where everything is a zero-sum game…that narrative is what I thought was important to break down.”
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/31/2021 11:50 pm
See below:

Space industry relieved to see National Space Council retained:
https://spacenews.com/space-industry-relieved-to-see-national-space-council-retained/

Quote from: Space News
When he served as NASA administrator in the Trump administration, Jim Bridenstine often referred to political risk, including changes to programs from one president to the next, as the biggest risk facing Artemis. That is no longer the case, he now says.

“That risk is likely largely mitigated at this point, which, by the way, is not the standard for the last 30 years,” he said during a March 30 NewSpace investor event by Canaccord Genuity.

Bridenstine again endorsed the White House’s nomination of former senator Bill Nelson as the agency’s next administrator. “I fully support him because he does know how the Senate works, he has great relationships on both sides of the aisle, and he’s going to be able to advocate strongly for the president’s agenda,” he said of Nelson. “I think he’s a good pick.”

“To see this transition happened the way it has happened makes me very, very happy,” he said.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/01/2021 12:30 pm
Quote from: Joey Roulette
Jim Bridenstine joins Viasat’s board of directors. Wading into the world of satellite internet, he says he’s concerned about the digital divide and the future of humanity, and he wants to try something new.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/1/22361050/former-nasa-administrator-jim-bridenstine-broadband-viasat

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1377595460387475456
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/01/2021 12:35 pm
More on this:

https://twitter.com/ViasatInc/status/1377593199246647296

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1377592557123870722
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/01/2021 01:16 pm
Another article:

https://twitter.com/SpaceNews_Inc/status/1377606181557039105
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/07/2021 03:22 pm
Quote from: Eric Stallmer
Very excited to have @JimBridenstine joining the growing @VoyagerSH team. Former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine Appointed to Chair Voyager Space Holdings, Inc. Advisory Board.

https://twitter.com/EricStallmer/status/1379810959288582145
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/07/2021 04:41 pm
Former NASA administrator advising acquisition-hungry Voyager Space Holdings:
https://spacenews.com/former-nasa-administrator-advising-acquisition-hungry-voyager-space-holdings/

https://twitter.com/JasonRainbow/status/1379788966111633410
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/09/2021 05:51 pm
See below:

Quote from: Chris Davenport
From @JimBridenstine on the White House budget request for NASA: “I am extremely pleased to see that the Biden administration has increased funding for NASA in the FY2022 budget request. This budget continues the bipartisan Moon to Mars effort under the Artemis program. I urge the Senate to quickly confirm Senator Nelson so that he can assess and advocate for NASA requirements.”

https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1380578042892943366
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/09/2021 07:06 pm
See Jim's post below:

I have met both [Nelson and Bridenstine].  At two separate times, I saw Bridenstine quiz spacecraft program managers on the science of their mission.   I have toured several NASA administrators around spacecraft, none asked anything as detailed as Bridenstine. Bridenstine was better than Bolden, O'Keefe or Griffin.   Griffin was too qualified.

I asked (anonymously) Scott Pace how was it to work with Jim Bridenstine. He gave an answer that was very similar to Jim's story above. Pace said that he was skeptical about a young politician wanting to be administrator. But he said that he was sold on Bridenstine when he was asking him and people at the State Department all kinds of really detailed question about article VI of the OST. He realized that he wasn't like other politicians. He said that Senator Nelson also realized the same thing. It's at 54 minutes of the video.

I also asked Pace (anonymously again) at 49 minutes about working with Vice President Pence (and he also mentioned working with President Trump).

https://youtu.be/nEaVnwB9Um8
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/17/2021 12:38 am
See below:

https://twitter.com/BettinaInclan/status/1383203944336392194
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/17/2021 04:09 am
VP Pence and Jim Bridenstine must be happy about today's announcement that NASA is maintaining its goal of landing on the Moon by 2024 with lunar Starship.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/19/2021 04:34 am
VP Pence and Jim Bridenstine must be happy about today's announcement that NASA is maintaining its goal of landing on the Moon by 2024 with lunar Starship.

The review of the Artemis goals is not done yet, so the Biden Administration has no changes to announce. That is not the same as signing onto the 2024 date.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/19/2021 05:28 am
VP Pence and Jim Bridenstine must be happy about today's announcement that NASA is maintaining its goal of landing on the Moon by 2024 with lunar Starship.

The review of the Artemis goals is not done yet, so the Biden Administration has no changes to announce. That is not the same as signing onto the 2024 date.

The review isn't what you think it is. This review was initiated by Bridenstine himself. It's looking mostly at cutting costs where possible. I am guessing that the recent commercial spacesuit RFI is part of this effort.

In the press conference on Friday, Jurczyk said that lunar Starship maintained the 2024 date as the first crewed Moon landing in its milestones. That was a confirmation that the 2024 date still stands. It was possible that the 2024 would be delayed under this review but we now know that it won't be. Instead of delaying the 2024 date, NASA chose to fund only one provider and accelerate the HLS services contract. That's how the shortfall in the HLS FY21 budget was dealt with.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: woods170 on 04/19/2021 08:28 am
VP Pence and Jim Bridenstine must be happy about today's announcement that NASA is maintaining its goal of landing on the Moon by 2024 with lunar Starship.

The review of the Artemis goals is not done yet, so the Biden Administration has no changes to announce. That is not the same as signing onto the 2024 date.

The review isn't what you think it is. This review was initiated by Bridenstine himself. It's looking mostly at cutting costs where possible. I am guessing that the recent commercial spacesuit RFI is part of this effort.

In the press conference on Friday, Jurczyk said that lunar Starship maintained the 2024 date as the first crewed Moon landing in its milestones. That was a confirmation that the 2024 date still stands. It was possible that the 2024 would be delayed under this review but we now know that it won't be. Instead of delaying the 2024 date, NASA chose to fund only one provider and accelerate the HLS services contract. That's how the shortfall in the HLS FY21 budget was dealt with.

You are misquoting Steve unfortunately. He indicated that 2024 is an aspirational goal ("we may have a shot at....") and he (and Kathy) both indicated that they won't fly until they are ready and it is safe to do so.
This clearly means that 2024 is now a soft goal rather than the hard dealine it was under Trump/Pence/Bridenstine.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-spacex-to-develop-crewed-lunar-lander/ (https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-spacex-to-develop-crewed-lunar-lander/)
Quote from: Jeff Foust
Steve Jurczyk, NASA acting administrator, said the request for proposals put in a 2024 goal for that mission. However, he noted the agency is currently performing a “comprehensive review” the overall Artemis program, including schedules and budgets. He said earlier in the briefing that NASA’s goal was to return humans to the lunar surface “as quickly and safely as possible.”

“These human-rated system developments are very complex, and there is risk. The NASA team will have the insight into the progress that SpaceX is making,” he said. “If they’re hitting their milestones, we may have a shot at 2024.”

“We always fly when it’s safe,” Lueders added.

Given that complex spaceflight projects are always delayed (even the SpaceX ones) it is a given that the 2024 date won't be met. More realistically it will be at least one, and more likely 2 to 3 years later IMO. So, my guess would be late 2026, early 2027.
And that is without the results from the review.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/19/2021 12:28 pm
I am not misquoting Jurczyk. He said that SpaceX has 2024 in its milestones for the first crewed Moon landing (see below). Of course, it's possible that SpaceX will be late but as it stands it's 2024.

Quote from: Spaceflight Now article
NASA’s contract with SpaceX provides for a lunar landing as soon as 2024. “That’s what’s in the plan right now that SpaceX proposed and we’re awarding a contract for,” Jurczyk said.

“These human rated system developments are very complex, and there is risk, but the NASA team will have the insight into the progress that SpaceX is making, if they’re hitting their milestones, if they have a shot at 2024,” Jurczyk said. “We’ll keep you updated as we move along with SpaceX.”

https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/04/17/nasa-chooses-spacex-to-land-next-astronauts-on-the-moon/

The 2024 goal was never a hard deadline. Lueders had said the same thing before when Bridestine was still administrator; she said that NASA was aiming for 2024 but they wouldn't do the mission in 2024 unless it was safe to do so (see below). In terms of the timeline, nothing has changed.

Quote from: Tech Crunch - December 2020 - article
“When we had Commercial Crew, my goal was 2017,” Lueders said. “We did not fly in 2017, even though we were working super, super hard to get to 2017. Having that 2017 goal didn’t mean that I made stupid decisions just to get to 2017 — I still carefully went through and made the decisions. And then we ended up flying in 2020 — in fact we ended up flying [the mission] in 2019, which originally would have been our 2017 goal. People get very fixated on 2024, because it is an important goal for us. But I also know that we’ll work through this carefully, and we will inform people of our progress along the way, just like we’ve done for every single other program out there. And we will fly when we’re ready to fly with the mission capability that we need to fly in a safe and effective manner.”

https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/17/nasas-kathy-lueders-discusses-the-artemis-moon-landing-2024-target-and-team-selection/
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/20/2021 02:31 am
Jim understood what was coming under a new administration.

What is/was that?  More of the same?

If Senator Nelson is named tomorrow (as is now rumored), I doubt that the SLS Cost Reduction review will go anywhere.

That study was the equivalent of political theater anyways - there is no significant cost reductions that can be done on the SLS program without outright cancelling it.
Yeah, there is. Deleting EUS or perhaps replacing iCPS with a competed stage that would eventually likely be Centaur V or the Centaur V Heavy.

Cheaper than SLS 1B, at least.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/21/2021 07:41 pm
Quote from: Lori Garver
To be fair @cboldenjr & I also only got softball questions at our hearing. @Astro_Pam should be appropriately lauded for her service & sail through too. 

@JimBridenstine was controversial & he ended up being terrific. Good to see bipartisanship & support for commercial practices!

https://twitter.com/Lori_Garver/status/1384917912868245511
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/22/2021 06:36 pm
From Senator Nelson's statement at his confirmation hearing:

Quote from: Senator Nelson
I would like to recognize NASA’s former administrator, Jim Bridenstine, and thank him for his service to NASA and this nation. Jim took the Journey to Mars and laid out a plan for NASA to return to the Moon in order to prepare for missions to Mars. He named this program Artemis. Jim had tremendous success in growing political and public support for NASA, particularly around the Artemis program. Jim was also very transparent with the public, and I believe that is extremely important to maintaining public confidence in NASA. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to work with him and will seek his advice.

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/4AB228AD-89D0-459D-9ADD-16CBBB76838A
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: Scintillant on 05/03/2021 08:07 pm
Cross-post from Bill Nelson thread: Jim Bridenstine virtually attends Bill Nelson's swearing in as NASA administrator.
Jim Bridenstine on laptop held by Charles Bolden
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/03/2021 10:28 pm
Here is another picture with virtual Jim Bridenstine:

https://twitter.com/genejm29/status/1389346763992141830

Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/04/2021 12:17 am
Close-up of virtual Jim Bridenstrine:

https://twitter.com/SpeedShot7/status/1389352862858153986
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/20/2021 10:49 pm
Quote from: Nanoracks
We were pleased to have @JimBridenstine the chairman of the @Voyager advisory board in the Nanoracks DC office today! Looking forward to the future of commercial space!

https://twitter.com/Nanoracks/status/1395511074716364802
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/21/2021 09:24 pm
Quote from: Bettina Inclan
Reunited and it feels so good! Today was a good day! It started with breakfast with my former NASA colleagues, @jmorhard, Mike Gold, and our old boss, former NASA Chief @JimBridenstine.

Of course, Mike Gold needed to show his true loyalties

https://twitter.com/BettinaInclan/status/1395849462636023813
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2021 04:20 pm
Interview with Jim Bridenstine:

https://youtu.be/et5Tb4D4HbY
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2021 04:21 pm
Other interview with Jim Bridenstine:

https://youtu.be/iIRREyzRFRQ
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: RoadWithoutEnd on 08/04/2021 02:35 am
Bridenstine is a strange dude.  He's very right about certain things.

Let's just let his reputation rest on the things he did right, and not concern ourselves with anything past that.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: joek on 08/04/2021 02:56 am
Bridenstine is a strange dude.  He's very right about certain things.

Let's just let his reputation rest on the things he did right, and not concern ourselves with anything past that.

And if we should "not concern ourselves with anything past that", why bring it up? Spit it out or don't concern yourself (or us) with it.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: RoadWithoutEnd on 08/04/2021 03:06 am
Bridenstine is a strange dude.  He's very right about certain things.

Let's just let his reputation rest on the things he did right, and not concern ourselves with anything past that.

And if we should "not concern ourselves with anything past that", why bring it up? Spit it out or don't concern yourself (or us) with it.

I didn't bring it up.  This thread brought it up, and I said it wasn't worth worrying about.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: getitdoneinspace on 09/25/2021 07:38 pm
Refreshing to hear Jim Bridenstine again (a recent interview at Will Rogers Institute)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jOmbkD5mB4
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/29/2021 01:50 am
Interesting video. Asked about the status of Pluto, Bridenstine says that it is definitely a planet.

Bridenstine took credit for Ingenuity, he said that many scientists felt that it added a lot of risks when landing on Mars and thus didn't want it to be part of the mission. He said that he decided as NASA Administrator that NASA was going to add Ingenuity to the Perseverance mission.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/05/2022 07:56 pm
Building LEO Destinations and Infrastructure:

https://youtu.be/gutgSv421FU
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/09/2022 01:33 pm
It seems that Jim Bridenstine has cleared or deleted his twitter account.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: JayWee on 06/09/2022 01:39 pm
And look at his followers...
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: kdhilliard on 06/09/2022 03:14 pm
And look at his followers...

Bizarre.
So deleted by Bridenstine and pick up by a bot farm?

Of the 69 ::) followers:
* 63 look to be newly created bots with handles of the form <Woman's name><numeric string>, with 0 tweets or replies, 0 followers, and following somewhere around 2 to 4 accounts (from a small sample the accounts followed seem legit other than @JimBridenstine);
* 2 are OnlyFans women;
* 2 are of young women and entirely devoted to sharing fashionable photos of themselves;
* 2 appear to be legit accounts with interest in space / technology.
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/09/2022 04:02 pm
He still has this twitter account but he hasn't used it since 2018 when he stopped being a Representative:
https://twitter.com/RepJBridenstine
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/09/2022 04:07 pm
And look at his followers...

Bizarre.
So deleted by Bridenstine and pick up by a bot farm?

Yes, I think that this is a new account because if you click on one of Jim Bridenstine's old tweets, it says that this account no longer exists.

See, for example, this tweet on the Artemis Accords:

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1267526739405803520
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/24/2022 02:47 pm
Firefly Aerospace Adds Former NASA Administrator James Bridenstine to its Advisory Board:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/firefly-aerospace-adds-former-nasa-administrator-james-bridenstine-to-its-advisory-board-301656935.html

https://twitter.com/Firefly_Space/status/1584538796930080768
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/30/2022 02:53 am
https://twitter.com/SpaceNews_Inc/status/1597650997618171906
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: kdhilliard on 12/09/2022 07:24 pm
twitter.com/SpaceNews_Inc/status/1597650997618171906

The only report I've seen so far out of Monday's SpaceNews "Fireside Chat" with Jim Bridenstine & Lori Garver are these remarks in Jeff Foust's Tuesday article, Orion swings by the moon on its way back to Earth (https://spacenews.com/orion-swings-by-the-moon-on-its-way-back-to-earth/):
Quote
Praise from former agency leaders

The success of the mission to date won praise from two previous top NASA officials who see it as evidence that the overall Artemis effort is now on track after years of development delays.

“I feel really good about it,” former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said at a SpaceNews event Dec. 5. “I think one of the biggest achievements is that there’s a lot of hardware here that has been under development for a long time. The Artemis program just gave all that hardware a mission, which is what we needed in order to get to where we are today.”

“I think it truly is a great thing to see this mission being so successful, as Jim said. A long time to get here, for sure,” said former NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver at the same event.

Bridenstine, who gave the Artemis program its name while in office during the Trump administration, credited the Biden administration for retaining it. “NASA has a long history of programs getting cancelled, and billions of dollars being wasted,” he said. “And in this case, they kept continuity of purpose and moved forward and I’m just very grateful for that.”

Garver, deputy administrator during the Obama administration, noted the program brought together hardware started in various administrations. “I think the timing was right and it was good to do,” she said. However, she expressed skepticism that the technical approach, including use of the Space Launch System, was the right one for the long term.

“I do not believe that the country can or should probably spend the amount of money we are on launch infrastructure over the longer term. I think that when we have private launch capabilities that rival this we should transition, and that will make me feel a lot better about the future and the future success of Artemis,” she said.

She said she had argued against SLS and Orion while at NASA, but lost that argument. “I was clear when I was at NASA that, once that decision had been made, our job was to make it the very best vehicle we could have.”

“You did not lose the argument,” Bridenstine said. “You got the argument started. It is still going forward and it’s transitioning how we do space.”
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 12/11/2022 02:13 am
See below:

Jim Bridenstine CNN interview today

https://youtu.be/jvYU1F6wtk0
Title: Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/21/2023 10:57 pm
See below (the interview is at half way through hour 2 of the April 21st show):

Jim Bridenstine was on the radio today discussing life in the universe, going to Mars, SpaceX where we should be going.  This reminded me of how good he was as Administrator of NASA in expressing what is going on in space and what we should be doing.  I miss his leadership of NASA.  The clip on Twitter is just a small portion of what he said on the Clay and Buck show today.


https://twitter.com/clayandbuck/status/1649480097684922370 (https://twitter.com/clayandbuck/status/1649480097684922370)