Author Topic: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussion thread  (Read 29091 times)

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6238
  • Liked: 4068
  • Likes Given: 5580
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: 8925
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2823
  • Likes Given: 7430
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: 6238
  • Liked: 4068
  • Likes Given: 5580
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: 8925
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2823
  • Likes Given: 7430
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: 6238
  • Liked: 4068
  • Likes Given: 5580
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: 8925
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2823
  • Likes Given: 7430
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: 8591
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5205
  • Likes Given: 1671
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: 9689
  • Liked: 1405
  • Likes Given: 877
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: 9689
  • Liked: 1405
  • Likes Given: 877
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 »

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4431
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1183
  • Likes Given: 2288
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: 4256
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2903
  • Likes Given: 3772
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: 9689
  • Liked: 1405
  • Likes Given: 877
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: 5570
  • Liked: 1101
  • Likes Given: 675
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: 8591
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5205
  • Likes Given: 1671
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: 1093
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 729
  • Likes Given: 311
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: 4256
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2903
  • Likes Given: 3772
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: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
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: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
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: 6238
  • Liked: 4068
  • Likes Given: 5580
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

Tags: