Author Topic: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread  (Read 31628 times)

Offline jacqmans

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17927
  • Houten, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3563
  • Likes Given: 201
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

« Last Edit: 04/24/2018 08:47 PM by Lar »

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10811
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7730
  • Likes Given: 5608
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #1 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 .
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #2 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?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10629
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2789
  • Likes Given: 1068
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #3 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.
« Last Edit: 04/24/2018 10:25 PM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1167
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 417
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #4 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.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3001
  • Likes Given: 8017
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #5 on: 04/25/2018 12:05 AM »
Good luck!
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline DistantTemple

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • England
  • Liked: 181
  • Likes Given: 308
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #6 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.

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.
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #7 on: 04/25/2018 12:50 AM »
It's probably relevant to repost his swearing in ceremony in this new thread:


« Last Edit: 04/25/2018 12:54 AM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #8 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.”

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #9 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/
« Last Edit: 04/25/2018 02:17 AM by yg1968 »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3001
  • Likes Given: 8017
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #10 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?
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Tea Party Space Czar

  • President, Tea Party in Space
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 259
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #11 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

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #12 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.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2018 11:00 AM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4488
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1232
  • Likes Given: 2379
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #13 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...
« Last Edit: 04/25/2018 11:15 AM by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10629
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2789
  • Likes Given: 1068
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #14 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.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2018 12:02 PM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #15 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.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #16 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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #17 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. 

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #18 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.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7655
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 8225
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #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.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2018 04:38 PM by john smith 19 »
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #20 on: 04/25/2018 04:38 PM »
I don't why people don't understand that the NASA administrator doesn't get to do what he wants.  It is not like he is chef and handed the keys to a restaurant and can set the menu to his liking.  Rather, he is a manager of a restaurant that the owner sets the theme and the manager has to work within the theme/menu.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2018 04:39 PM by Jim »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7655
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 8225
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #21 on: 04/25/2018 05:00 PM »
I don't why people don't understand that the NASA administrator doesn't get to do what he wants.  It is not like he is chef and handed the keys to a restaurant and can set the menu to his liking.  Rather, he is a manager of a restaurant that the owner sets the theme and the manager has to work within the theme/menu.
Indeed. He's in charge of how to make a policy happen.

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

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

It's my impression that previous Administrators have not been as active as they might on shaping what it is they are asked to do into a mission the Agency can (affordably) carry out.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #22 on: 04/25/2018 05:03 PM »

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

Griffin went out of his way to try to shape

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10629
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2789
  • Likes Given: 1068
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #23 on: 04/25/2018 06:27 PM »

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

Griffin went out of his way to try to shape

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

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4321
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 3892
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #24 on: 04/25/2018 08:03 PM »

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

Griffin went out of his way to try to shape

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

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

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

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 437
  • Likes Given: 159
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #25 on: 04/25/2018 08:09 PM »

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

Griffin went out of his way to try to shape

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #26 on: 04/25/2018 08:33 PM »
SLS and Orion won't get cancelled, Congress will make sure of that. But I have some hope that future programs will take advantage of the commercial sector (for example, commercial habitats, BLEO commercial cargo, and commercial landers). I am also hoping for BLEO commercial crew but I am skeptical about NASA endorsing it (despite Gerst recently saying at the NAC that it was a possibility, in addition to Orion).
« Last Edit: 04/25/2018 08:35 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3001
  • Likes Given: 8017
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #27 on: 04/25/2018 08:57 PM »
The same way Congress sat down Charlie B. and was asked to to the impossible without a major increase in funding they will set Jimmie B. before them as well... Now if the new administrator can sell a dual-launched moon mission using SLS/Orion and a non human rated Falcon Heavy equipped with a Dragon derived lunar lander we might actually have something to work with in short order with and not break the budget... Leveraging the available commercial hardware (with some new developments) partnered with NASA we can meet the technical requirements and satisfy multiple Congressional districts across the country...
« Last Edit: 04/25/2018 09:28 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 437
  • Likes Given: 159
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #28 on: 04/25/2018 09:17 PM »
SLS and Orion won't get cancelled, Congress will make sure of that. But I have some hope that future programs will take advantage of the commercial sector (for example, commercial habitats, BLEO commercial cargo, and commercial landers). I am also hoping for BLEO commercial crew but I am skeptical about NASA endorsing it (despite Gerst recently saying at the NAC that it was a possibility, in addition to Orion).
Congress and its current makeup are likely to change drastically in the near term. There is no way of knowing what a future very different looking Congress will do with SLS. Given the increasing deficit spending and the increasing likely-hood that sometime in the 2020s the US will face defaulting on its debt or enacting austerity measures, I think it is not at all an unlikely assumption that SLS is cancelled at some point in the future.

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

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

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

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

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

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3001
  • Likes Given: 8017
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #29 on: 04/25/2018 09:35 PM »
We have commercial capability and experience that didn't exist 8 years ago so these are new times and even though Jimmie B. was one of them they are not going to give him a blank check especially with mid-terms looming... The president wants the Moon so, hey give it to him... Let's Go!
« Last Edit: 04/25/2018 09:45 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3191
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1631
  • Likes Given: 1958
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #30 on: 04/25/2018 09:42 PM »
SLS and Orion won't get cancelled, Congress will make sure of that.
Out to when?

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

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

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

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4321
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 3892
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #31 on: 04/25/2018 10:05 PM »
I do not entirely agree. The parts about Griffin's legacy are true. But the part's about Jim being unable to make changes, no I don't think so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Online Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1433
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 1767
  • Likes Given: 231
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #32 on: 04/25/2018 11:06 PM »
Hey guys - how about we wait and see? The future is literally happening right now. Regardless of what gets said here, the legacy of the new Administrator will unfold before us and we’ll see what happens...
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #33 on: 04/25/2018 11:15 PM »
SLS and Orion won't get cancelled, Congress will make sure of that. But I have some hope that future programs will take advantage of the commercial sector (for example, commercial habitats, BLEO commercial cargo, and commercial landers). I am also hoping for BLEO commercial crew but I am skeptical about NASA endorsing it (despite Gerst recently saying at the NAC that it was a possibility, in addition to Orion).
Congress and its current makeup are likely to change drastically in the near term.

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

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

Offline Tea Party Space Czar

  • President, Tea Party in Space
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 259
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #34 on: 04/26/2018 12:05 AM »
Congress and its current makeup are likely to change drastically in the near term.
The house Republicans are in trouble.  It is not entirely sure if they will lose power but their majority will shrink imho.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #35 on: 04/26/2018 01:48 AM »
Tom Cremins Appointed Acting Chief of Staff by Administrator Bridenstine:
http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=51356

Online Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17881
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6114
  • Likes Given: 800
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #36 on: 04/26/2018 07:36 AM »
James Webb was only a politician, but he kept Apollo rolling most of a decade when it consumed up to 5% of the whole federal budget.  Later he got Shuttle built despite Nixon's very negative views on the space programme as essentially something that made the Democrats look good (IE Himself look bad).

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

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

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

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #37 on: 04/26/2018 02:46 PM »
SLS and Orion won't get cancelled, Congress will make sure of that.
Out to when?

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

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

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

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

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3001
  • Likes Given: 8017
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #38 on: 04/26/2018 04:22 PM »
"we’ll see what happens..."
He Johnny, how about we refrain from using "that phrase" we hear on a daily basis from the president here on NSF and actually talk about an actual sensible-afforable and achievable space policy direction...
« Last Edit: 04/26/2018 05:48 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5598
  • Liked: 1142
  • Likes Given: 684
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #39 on: 04/26/2018 05:36 PM »
SLS/Orion will soon -- in 2020-2021 -- have to compete on the launch pad with the likes of Vulcan/Centaur V, New Glenn, Falcon Heavy, BFR/BFS, and later New Armstrong.  Lofting a whole 70t at $1B per launch, SLS/Orion will be hard-pressed to finish in the top three.  What Bridenstine can do is to allow (not block) that competition.

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

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10629
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2789
  • Likes Given: 1068
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #40 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.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2018 06:35 PM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5598
  • Liked: 1142
  • Likes Given: 684
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #41 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).

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10629
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2789
  • Likes Given: 1068
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #42 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.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2018 06:35 PM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3001
  • Likes Given: 8017
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #43 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...
« Last Edit: 04/26/2018 08:21 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4321
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 3892
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #44 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.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2018 10:10 PM by Coastal Ron »
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Alpha Control

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1195
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #45 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.

Space launches attended:
Antares/Cygnus ORB-D1 Wallops Island, VA Sept 2013 | STS-123 KSC, FL March 2008 | SpaceShipOne Mojave, CA June 2004

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3001
  • Likes Given: 8017
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #46 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...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1910
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Liked: 518
  • Likes Given: 1761
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #47 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
« Last Edit: 04/26/2018 10:30 PM by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium!

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3001
  • Likes Given: 8017
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #48 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... :(
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1910
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Liked: 518
  • Likes Given: 1761
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #49 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.  :(
Support your local planetarium!

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1764
  • Liked: 492
  • Likes Given: 8815
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #50 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.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10629
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2789
  • Likes Given: 1068
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #51 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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3001
  • Likes Given: 8017
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #52 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...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #53 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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10811
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7730
  • Likes Given: 5608
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #55 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.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #56 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
« Last Edit: 04/27/2018 01:15 AM by yg1968 »

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10811
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7730
  • Likes Given: 5608
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #57 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.
« Last Edit: 04/27/2018 01:21 AM by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #58 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.
« Last Edit: 04/27/2018 04:08 AM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #59 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.

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 641
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 139
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #60 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.
« Last Edit: 04/27/2018 05:02 AM by spacetraveler »

Offline Alpha Control

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1195
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #61 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
Space launches attended:
Antares/Cygnus ORB-D1 Wallops Island, VA Sept 2013 | STS-123 KSC, FL March 2008 | SpaceShipOne Mojave, CA June 2004

Offline zodiacchris

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Port Macquarie, Australia
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #62 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... :)

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 796
  • Europe
  • Liked: 224
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #63 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.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3001
  • Likes Given: 8017
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #64 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...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #65 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...)
« Last Edit: 04/27/2018 01:50 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #66 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?
« Last Edit: 04/27/2018 08:02 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4321
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 3892
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #67 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...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #68 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).
« Last Edit: 04/27/2018 08:49 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #69 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.

Offline Tea Party Space Czar

  • President, Tea Party in Space
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 259
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #70 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

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #71 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

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3001
  • Likes Given: 8017
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #72 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"...


"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #73 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. 
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 02:44 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3001
  • Likes Given: 8017
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #74 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...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4321
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 3892
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #75 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.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8689
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5459
  • Likes Given: 1794
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #76 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.

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10811
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7730
  • Likes Given: 5608
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #77 on: 04/28/2018 07:20 PM »
General "will #45 get re-elected, here's why/not" questions are off topic.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #78 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.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4321
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 3892
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #79 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...
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 09:40 PM by Coastal Ron »
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #80 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.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 08:33 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #81 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

Offline Inoeth

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...

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #83 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
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #84 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.
« Last Edit: 05/09/2018 10:41 AM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6866
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6774
  • Likes Given: 2114
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #85 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/

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #86 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.
« Last Edit: 05/09/2018 01:47 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #87 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
« Last Edit: 05/09/2018 08:04 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #88 on: 05/10/2018 12:21 AM »


Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #89 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.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1295
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 349
  • Likes Given: 1082
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #90 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!
Paul

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!
Failure is not only an option, it's the only way to learn.
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the custody of fire" - Gustav Mahler

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10629
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2789
  • Likes Given: 1068
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #92 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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5598
  • Liked: 1142
  • Likes Given: 684
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #93 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.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6866
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6774
  • Likes Given: 2114
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #94 on: 05/11/2018 06:26 PM »


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

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #95 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.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22510
  • Liked: 843
  • Likes Given: 300
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #96 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)
« Last Edit: 05/13/2018 01:38 PM by Ronsmytheiii »
And this is a good reminder that just because one of your fellow space enthusiasts occasionally voices doubts about the SpaceX schedule announcements or is cautious about believing SpaceX has licked a problem before actually seeing proof that's true, it doesn't mean they hate SpaceX.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10629
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2789
  • Likes Given: 1068
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #97 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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3001
  • Likes Given: 8017
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #98 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...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8689
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5459
  • Likes Given: 1794
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #99 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.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #100 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.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3001
  • Likes Given: 8017
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #101 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...
« Last Edit: 05/13/2018 09:56 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #102 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.
« Last Edit: 05/13/2018 09:58 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3001
  • Likes Given: 8017
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #103 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...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #104 on: 05/13/2018 11:57 PM »
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3001
  • Likes Given: 8017
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #105 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...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8689
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5459
  • Likes Given: 1794
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #106 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.
« Last Edit: 05/14/2018 06:30 AM by woods170 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #107 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.

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 641
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 139
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #108 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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #109 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.
« Last Edit: 05/15/2018 02:00 AM by yg1968 »

Online MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4488
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1232
  • Likes Given: 2379
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #110 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.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4321
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 3892
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #111 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
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #112 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.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5598
  • Liked: 1142
  • Likes Given: 684
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #113 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.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8689
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5459
  • Likes Given: 1794
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #114 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).

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1110
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #115 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."
“When it looks more like an alien dreadnought, that’s when you know you’ve won.”

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4321
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 3892
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #116 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...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #117 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)
« Last Edit: 05/15/2018 03:48 PM by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #118 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.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #119 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

[email protected]'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
[email protected], 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
« Last Edit: 05/15/2018 05:38 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #120 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

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #121 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. 
« Last Edit: 05/15/2018 06:48 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #122 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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #123 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.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4321
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 3892
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #124 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.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #125 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.
« Last Edit: 05/15/2018 11:24 PM by yg1968 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8718
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3656
  • Likes Given: 859
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #126 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.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #127 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.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #128 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.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4321
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 3892
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #129 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
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10629
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2789
  • Likes Given: 1068
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #130 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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6866
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6774
  • Likes Given: 2114
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #131 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


Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6866
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6774
  • Likes Given: 2114
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #132 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.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 06:46 PM by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline incoming

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • washington, DC
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #133 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.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10629
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2789
  • Likes Given: 1068
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #134 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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #135 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.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #136 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.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Tea Party Space Czar

  • President, Tea Party in Space
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 259
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #137 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

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4321
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 3892
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #138 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
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline incoming

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • washington, DC
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #139 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. 
 




Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #140 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
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 11:18 PM by yg1968 »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #141 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/
« Last Edit: 06/03/2018 06:03 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4321
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 3892
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #142 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.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline DistantTemple

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • England
  • Liked: 181
  • Likes Given: 308
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #143 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.
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #144 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/

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6866
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6774
  • Likes Given: 2114
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #145 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

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6866
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6774
  • Likes Given: 2114
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #146 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

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #147 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
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6866
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6774
  • Likes Given: 2114
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #148 on: 06/15/2018 06:54 PM »


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/...

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #149 on: 06/23/2018 03:13 AM »
Space Situational Awareness: Whole of Government Perspectives (with Bridenstine as a witness):

« Last Edit: 06/23/2018 03:14 AM by yg1968 »

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3191
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1631
  • Likes Given: 1958
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #150 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.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6866
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6774
  • Likes Given: 2114
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #151 on: 06/28/2018 08:36 PM »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #152 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.)
« Last Edit: 06/28/2018 11:10 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #153 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
« Last Edit: 07/17/2018 03:30 AM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #154 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/

 
« Last Edit: 07/18/2018 03:44 AM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #155 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):

« Last Edit: 07/27/2018 12:04 AM by yg1968 »

Offline incoming

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • washington, DC
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #156 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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVrDHxyIf4M?t=2200

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8718
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3656
  • Likes Given: 859
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #157 on: 07/26/2018 11:04 PM »
He was, and still is.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
« Last Edit: 07/27/2018 12:03 AM by yg1968 »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #159 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/
« Last Edit: 08/30/2018 10:26 AM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8689
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5459
  • Likes Given: 1794
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #160 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/

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...
« Last Edit: 08/30/2018 11:56 AM by woods170 »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #161 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.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8689
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5459
  • Likes Given: 1794
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #162 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.

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2090
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA -- previously in Ann Arbor, MI
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #163 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.
Internal combustion engine in space. It's just a Bad Idea.TM - Robotbeat

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • US
  • Liked: 3462
  • Likes Given: 1996
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #164 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.

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10811
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7730
  • Likes Given: 5608
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #165 on: 09/25/2018 05:51 AM »
Color me surprised and impressed by that. His appointment is a happy accident.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4488
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1232
  • Likes Given: 2379
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #166 on: 09/25/2018 07:18 AM »
Arguably the best Trump appointee. And I honestly intend no political snipe with that remark.
« Last Edit: 09/25/2018 08:02 AM by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread
« Reply #167 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.
« Last Edit: 09/25/2018 02:59 PM by yg1968 »

Tags: