Author Topic: Where is Charlie Bolden and why does Lori Garver seem so visible?  (Read 12160 times)

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3987
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 418
  • Likes Given: 158
Once again POTUS didn't get what he wanted: His person in a government office. Seems to me he always wanted Garver to be admin but that Charlie stepped up and was preferred by Congress.

I am glad he was cleared. Bolden 1 POTUS/Garver 0
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9168
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 326
Did someone suggest backstabbing?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2714
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
Did someone suggest backstabbing?

JohnFornaro did. Now why did JohnFornaro have that impression? I could guess... if speculation is allowable... Maybe JohnFornaro wanted to give a hint to Charlie Bolden to be careful... Not everyone on the team plays nice. However, I suspect that Charlie Bolden knows that. Let's wish him the best.

Cheers!
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9168
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 326
Who said backstabbing?  Moi?  From the Sentinel article:

Quote
While Bolden has not interfered with the project, the conversation prompted a NASA official to complain...
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8478
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 348
  • Likes Given: 147
Who said backstabbing?  Moi?  From the Sentinel article:

Quote
While Bolden has not interfered with the project, the conversation prompted a NASA official to complain...

The wise manager removes the backstabbers from his office.

If you cannot fire them some other department will be wanting extra staff soon.

Offline cro-magnon gramps

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1506
  • Very Ancient Caveman
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 681
  • Likes Given: 5494
Who said backstabbing?  Moi?  From the Sentinel article:

Quote
While Bolden has not interfered with the project, the conversation prompted a NASA official to complain...

The wise manager removes the backstabbers from his office.

If you cannot fire them some other department will be wanting extra staff soon.

Mr Jeff Hanley for example  :(

 does NASA have any openings in Alaska for some other management person "deserving" of a "promotion" or "dream assignment" ;)
"Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but it has not solved one yet." Maya Angelou
 Tony Benn: "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself."

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 58
 Ms Garver may well be the next admin.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6180
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Ms Garver may well be the next admin.

Ms. Garver would never be confirmed by the current Senate, let alone the Senate that will be seated after November.
JRF

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3987
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 418
  • Likes Given: 158
Ms Garver may well be the next admin.

Ms. Garver would never be confirmed by the current Senate, let alone the Senate that will be seated after November.
Ms. Garver was a pipe dream at best. She was never going to be confirmed period. Personally, I honestly I do not think she belongs at NASA. Period.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 0
Ms Garver may well be the next admin.

Ms. Garver would never be confirmed by the current Senate, let alone the Senate that will be seated after November.
Ms. Garver was a pipe dream at best. She was never going to be confirmed period. Personally, I honestly I do not think she belongs at NASA. Period.

My dream would be her as administrator. She and Bolden have given NASA a nice swift kick in the complacency and I have more faith that the steps toward a sustainable presence in space will happen under them than anyone else.

I hate to say this but NASA needs to reposition itself if it wants to be relevant to this century. Going back to the moon and taking forever to do so (at great expense) isnít a space program fit for this country. I want to see an expanding; not shrinking role for human space flight but all Cxp would have done was two missions a year. If that is all we can afford then maybe taking some time to rethink how we do spaceflight is needed or stick to the more affordable LEO.

While many cheered. I was disappointed when the goal for going back to the moon was announced. I knew that like many politicians Bush would give great words to the goal, but getting funding for it would be another story. What ticked me was the whole way the last program was managed. Dumping the ISS viewed as an acceptable means of freeing funds? Delaying the Lander to fund the LEO program acceptable? Set up a program that depends on funding increases??

What NASA does not need is sugar coating reality. Nor does it need a program that cares more about keeping people employed than meeting its goals cause such a program while politically viable in the short term isnít in the long term. To repeat my EELV evangelism shuttle derived is not a cost effective method for BOE exploration within NASAís current budget profile.

IF BOE exploration is a goal then NASA can free up funds by:

1.   Contracting out LEO cargo and crew delivery to focus on BOE R/D

2.   Getting out the launch business. What we need are payloads not rockets. If you do need a rocket use one as commercially derived as possible that way you can take advantage of economies of scale.

Failing that NASA needs budget increases and that is not likely to happen because NASA is discretionary spending (i.e. the first thing cut when the budget gets tight).

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4420
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1174
  • Likes Given: 2253
Ms Garver may well be the next admin.

There are more than a few people who will (angrily) start looking for new jobs if Ms. Garver becomes Administrator. I would also be inclined to think there would be a few people shown the door if she does, and they will be glad to go.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9168
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 326
I hate to say don't mind saying this but NASA needs to reposition itself if it wants to be relevant to this century. Going back to the moon and taking forever to do so (at great expense) isnít a within the next few years, and for a reasonable price, which they could could if they'd just buckle down, fix the specifications and do it without insider and political hanky panky, would be exactly the space program fit for this country.

Fixed that for ya.

Just becasue there's a period at the end of that sentence, do not think that is the ultimate extent of the program I've been suggesting.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline simonbp

Going to to the Moon makes all sorts of dynamical and astrogeological sense, but Bush said we should go to the Moon, so it's nixed as far as Garver and the WH are concerned...

Offline MP99

Going to to the Moon makes all sorts of dynamical and astrogeological sense, but Bush said we should go to the Moon, so it's nixed as far as Garver and the WH are concerned...

I think HEFT has demonstrated that the Moon is a damn sight easier than a bunch of NEO's.

I'd love to see the focus switch back to the Moon again.

cheers, Martin

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Going to to the Moon makes all sorts of dynamical and astrogeological sense, but Bush said we should go to the Moon, so it's nixed as far as Garver and the WH are concerned...
I think HEFT has demonstrated that the Moon is a damn sight easier than a bunch of NEO's.
    Why do you think so?
       -Alex

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9168
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 326
Alex!  Six or so launches versus two, for an F&F mission.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Going to to the Moon makes all sorts of dynamical and astrogeological sense, but Bush said we should go to the Moon, so it's nixed as far as Garver and the WH are concerned...

I think HEFT has demonstrated that the Moon is a damn sight easier than a bunch of NEO's.

I'd love to see the focus switch back to the Moon again.

cheers, Martin

I don't think the Moon is demonstrably easier. The HEFT asteroid mission develops capacity far above the minimum: four man crew, thirty day stays at the asteroid, and up to a year in space, plus high power SEP.

A minimal "Plymouth Rock" mission requires less new hardware than a Lunar sortie

Offline Carl G

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1129
  • Liked: 217
  • Likes Given: 120
Off topic.

Tags: