Total Members Voted: 63
Voting closed: 02/29/2024 09:31 am
Who is the best NASA Administrator ever…
The NSF site needs a way to add the poll selections. Currently this is not available. But would recommend a list: * Michael Griffin* Willie Nelson (current)* Any of the other prior administrators (Vote for no more than one)
There are two ~identical options for Dr. James C. Fletcher 4/27/1971 5/1/1977.
Quote from: deltaV on 01/29/2024 06:11 amThere are two ~identical options for Dr. James C. Fletcher 4/27/1971 5/1/1977.There are actually three entries for Dr. James C. Fletcher since they served twice. It's probably better to have one combined entry that covers both their terms.
I agree, waiting for mods to delete so I can re-post.
Can I fairly pick a best one? Absolutely not. This is like the argument over who is the best basketball player of all time. Everyone has their own perspective.
I haven’t seen any way to add the poll details for some reason. I was wondering what others impressions were for their favorite. Especially with some mention by one YT video suggesting Griffin as one who could return to the NASA administrator role. Apologies for the longer rationale.
Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Charles F. Bolden, Jr. 7/17/2009 1/17/2019Robert M. Lightfoot Jr. 1/20/2017 4/23/2018Jim Bridenstine 4/23/2018 1/20/2021
Quote from: catdlr on 01/29/2024 08:41 pmMaj. Gen. (Ret.) Charles F. Bolden, Jr. 7/17/2009 1/17/2019Robert M. Lightfoot Jr. 1/20/2017 4/23/2018Jim Bridenstine 4/23/2018 1/20/2021Suspect there's at least one typo here and I'd guess it's Bolden's end date.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 01/29/2024 09:38 pmCan I fairly pick a best one? Absolutely not. This is like the argument over who is the best basketball player of all time. Everyone has their own perspective.Well I think a poll on the worst administrator would be result in a much tighter consensus on the top 3, and probably nudge towards thread lock in under 2 pages.I admit I will have to take some time learning the history of past administrators to really be fair in the poll. I feel like each administrator needs a blurb with their greatest accomplishment, then some perspective on how this has propagated through time.
Quote from: 19 Orionis on 01/30/2024 12:56 amI haven’t seen any way to add the poll details for some reason. I was wondering what others impressions were for their favorite. Especially with some mention by one YT video suggesting Griffin as one who could return to the NASA administrator role. Apologies for the longer rationale.So I gather your interest in membership feedback for NASA Administrators during the last 20 years as well as some rationale for their selection. Is this list of NASA Administrators sufficient? This list doesn't include interim positions. If you are satisfied I'll publish the poll.Daniel S. Goldin 4/1/1992 11/17/2001Sean O'Keefe 12/21/2001 2/11/2005Dr. Michael D. Griffin 4/14/2005 1/20/2009Robert M. Lightfoot Jr. 1/20/2017 4/23/2018Jim Bridenstine 4/23/2018 1/20/2021Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Charles F. Bolden, Jr. 7/17/2009 – 1/20//201917Bill Nelson 5/3/2021 IncumbentTony
Looks good. Maybe add “other” for nostalgic perspectives. Can sense that a “worst administrator” poll might be therapeutic for some to relieve their dark energy, but I will let someone else start that.
And I'm not 100% cost focused, as I think both of the above also did good PR for NASA, but what is the use of having a budget and schedule if you can't manage them good enough to accomplish anything? Just look at the Artemis program today, with the totally made up 2024 human landing date - that has probably cost the U.S. Taxpayer $Billions already in misspent money, and unfortunately both Bridenstine and Nelson are on the hook for that.
Of the choices presented, I chose Daniel S. Goldin, specifically because he instituted the "Faster, better, cheaper" philosophy, which TRIED to address the cost growth with space programs.My second choice is Charles Bolden, even if I didn't like his enthusiasm for the SLS. If you look at the NASA OIG reports for large programs, he was able to make huge improvements on cost and schedule growth compared with Michael Griffin, which is why I prefer NASA Administrators to have a demonstrated management background. If you don't have a management background, like the last two NASA Administrators, then that makes it harder to see thru all the BS being presented as fait accompli, whereas a real manager knows better.And I'm not 100% cost focused, as I think both of the above also did good PR for NASA, but what is the use of having a budget and schedule if you can't manage them good enough to accomplish anything? Just look at the Artemis program today, with the totally made up 2024 human landing date - that has probably cost the U.S. Taxpayer $Billions already in misspent money, and unfortunately both Bridenstine and Nelson are on the hook for that.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 01/31/2024 12:18 amAnd I'm not 100% cost focused, as I think both of the above also did good PR for NASA, but what is the use of having a budget and schedule if you can't manage them good enough to accomplish anything? Just look at the Artemis program today, with the totally made up 2024 human landing date - that has probably cost the U.S. Taxpayer $Billions already in misspent money, and unfortunately both Bridenstine and Nelson are on the hook for that.What manned program other than Apollo has hit its original schedule? Apollo did that with an unlimited budget to attack the unknown unkowns that every large scale development program runs into. The Shuttle was years behind schedule and way over budget when it finally flew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_design_process...{lots of other examples of programs that went over their schedule and budget}
Commercial Crew, especially Starliner, is way behind on its original schedule. Since most programs, NASA and commercial, never hit their aspirational target date, why does the 2024 date that most people knew would never be hit bother you so much? You mention it frequently.
This may be the mostly deeply flawed poll ever on this forum (Hey! We could start a poll on that). The idea that a "Best NASA Administrator Ever" poll would not include every administrator, especially Webb who got Apollo to the moon is beyond astonishing. It's insulting to the Space Race generation. The choice of candidates is like starting a similar poll on the Best US President Ever and limiting the choices to the last 2.
All fake dates do is reduce the trust anyone has in anything NASA does. And don't you think that is a bad thing?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 01/31/2024 09:58 pmAll fake dates do is reduce the trust anyone has in anything NASA does. And don't you think that is a bad thing?I have had plenty of experience developing software.
I think all target dates are fake by your definition for any development that pushes the envelope on what has been done in the past. They are just educated guesses when you do something new. And if the project has any level of complexity, the specifications change along the way. I don't care what study you have done, you don't know for sure until you do these projects.
Funny story - a guy at NASA TV/Select once told me there was a HQ bathroom brawl between a Goldin fan and a O'Keefe fan. At least they were passionate.
I'm curious why there are so many votes for Jim Bridenstine [...]
I'm curious why there are so many votes for Jim Bridenstine, when he was only NASA Administrator for about 1,000 days, or 2 years and 9 months.Despite not having a management background of any significance, and remembering that he was a climate change denier when he was in public office, what accomplishments did he do in less than 3 years that merit such praise?Because if you are looking for someone that had a firm hand on NASA internally, and could woo Congress to back his plans, then Michael Griffin should be your vote, even though he made (in my opinion) horrible choices.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 02/01/2024 07:01 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 01/31/2024 09:58 pmAll fake dates do is reduce the trust anyone has in anything NASA does. And don't you think that is a bad thing?I have had plenty of experience developing software.I would agree that software is far less able to be forecasted than hardware. Service contracts have similar challenges. However...QuoteI think all target dates are fake by your definition for any development that pushes the envelope on what has been done in the past. They are just educated guesses when you do something new. And if the project has any level of complexity, the specifications change along the way. I don't care what study you have done, you don't know for sure until you do these projects.Most of my background is doing hardware production management, including being a factory scheduling manager for consumer products. There are entire industries that rely on engineering meeting deadlines in order to meet manufacturing and marketing deadlines. Including entirely new products.And yeah, NASA is always building new hardware, and projects like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) are pushing the limits of the available technology. But the JWST is also a poster child for a number of issues, including scope creep, congressional acceptance of budget and schedule slippage, and the lack of a firm manager to focus the program. And ultimately that comes down to the NASA Administrator, regardless who started the program.Remember the SR-71? It was an evolution of the A-12, which Lockheed received a contract to build in late 1959, and they did their first test flight in April 1962 - less than 3 years later. The A-12 was truly revolutionary, and still is to some degree, and it shows what a well led team can do.SpaceX certainly embodies a lot of the right characteristics for efficient product development, but there are plenty of companies that can also do that. But unfortunately I wouldn't put Boeing in that group, and they publicly stated they would not bid on Firm Fixed Price contracts anymore, which kind of tells you that they don't think they can bid and manage programs very well.I worked for a government contractor once that lost a lot of money on a large contract, and you know what they did? They tightened up the review of their bidding process so that they could ensure that they truly understood what the requirements were, and how they were going to meet those requirements. And it worked, they stopped losing money on Firm Fixed Price contracts.NASA has no shortage of programs that are over schedule and over budget. The SLS Mobile Launcher (ML) 2 is a great example of this, where Bechtel bid a $383M Cost-Plus contract for delivery in March 2023, but now the contract value has skyrocketed to $960M, and it won't be ready until October 2025. Oh, and an independent review team thinks the cost will go up to $1.5B, and it won't be ready until November 2027.By my count SpaceX will have built, and made operational, no less than THREE launch platforms for their Starship during that same amount of time, and I'd wager they will spend far less than $1.5B per launch mount - even though the Starship is far larger, and the launch mount is also a landing platform.There are competent engineering teams out there who can produce pretty accurate estimates, but that is because they are well led teams. And NASA Administrators are the top managers at NASA, and they enforce management discipline down into the organization. Of course unrealistic due dates and clueless Congressional mandates don't help, but that is also why a NASA Administrator has to have the ability to push back on unrealistic goals.And we did see Jim Bridenstine try to do that with the return-to-Moon program (not sure it was Artemis then), when he threatened to not use the SLS. But the Trump Administration didn't have his back on that, so he backed down.But the biggest reason you don't start with a "uninformed" date is that it KNOWINGLY wastes money. Because some parts of a complex program CAN make that date, but then they are sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for everyone else, where they could have done something else instead. And waste is NOT good.So if the NASA Administrator is not the person to be in charge of reducing waste at NASA, who is? No one? We should ignore it? Because that would sure seem like it would be encouraging institutionalizing bad behavior...
Jim Bridenstine is winning this poll because of the Artemis program and his ability to sell it on both sides of the aisle. Nancy Pelosi was even singing his praise for promising to put the first woman and person of color on the Moon which helped get support in Congress.
“To be clear: the first woman and the next man on the moon will both be American astronauts..."
He also made people feel like we're finally going somewhere again after years of stagnation in human spaceflight.
He will be remembered as the administrator when Artemis got started as an official goal to get back to the Moon.
Bill Nelson is just staying the course. It may be exactly what is needed and the best possible right now. But it doesn't make him all that memorable. This is a popularity contest as viewed by voters who are mostly outside the agency.
I think the results are very predictable so far for these reasons. Bridenstine's tenure isn't that long, but it is memorable.
Can anyone find a reference to show that Bridenstine changed the goal to "the first woman and the first person of color"?
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 02/02/2024 06:14 pmJim Bridenstine is winning this poll because of the Artemis program and his ability to sell it on both sides of the aisle. Nancy Pelosi was even singing his praise for promising to put the first woman and person of color on the Moon which helped get support in Congress.Vice President Mike Pence, when he announced the return-to-Moon program, stated:Quote“To be clear: the first woman and the next man on the moon will both be American astronauts..."So it wasn't Bridenstine that promised to put the first woman on the Moon, Pence did.As to the first person of color, as of September 21, 2020 NASA was still just saying "the first woman and the next man", and the first reference I can find about "the first woman and the first person of color" is from the Biden Administration on April 9, 2021. Which if true, would mean that Bridenstine didn't have anything to do with the "person of color" aspect.Can anyone find a reference to show that Bridenstine changed the goal to "the first woman and the first person of color"?I'm just trying to make sure that what people are praising Bridenstine for, that he actually did that.QuoteHe also made people feel like we're finally going somewhere again after years of stagnation in human spaceflight.OK, but Bridenstine didn't create the return-to-Moon program, V.P. Pence announced it, and Presidents are responsible for those decisions. And sure, Bridenstine was a champion of ALL the programs that under his purview, but don't ALL NASA Administrators do the same? Heck, Bolden gets docked by a lot of people for being a huge supporter of the SLS - probably a bigger supporter than Bridenstine. So are you just forgetting that all the other NASA Administrators have been cheerleaders too?QuoteHe will be remembered as the administrator when Artemis got started as an official goal to get back to the Moon.Right, the person who had the program fall into their lap. He didn't create it though, and while you may want to give him all the credit for the good parts of the Artemis program, are you going to deduct credits for all the bad parts? I mean, Artemis is going to be years late, isn't he responsible for any of that? And if not, why?QuoteBill Nelson is just staying the course. It may be exactly what is needed and the best possible right now. But it doesn't make him all that memorable. This is a popularity contest as viewed by voters who are mostly outside the agency.I did NOT want Bill Nelson running NASA. At all. So yep, placeholder is a good description.QuoteI think the results are very predictable so far for these reasons. Bridenstine's tenure isn't that long, but it is memorable.Bridenstine's is the most recent of the "former" Administrators, and for those that are fans of returning to the Moon he happened to be sitting in the NASA Administrator seat when the President created what is now Artemis.But I don't think anyone has still really outlined what Bridenstine has done that makes him an "exceptional" NASA Administrator, other than just being a "popular" person...
OK, but Bridenstine didn't create the return-to-Moon program, V.P. Pence announced it, and Presidents are responsible for those decisions. And sure, Bridenstine was a champion of ALL the programs that under his purview, but don't ALL NASA Administrators do the same? Heck, Bolden gets docked by a lot of people for being a huge supporter of the SLS - probably a bigger supporter than Bridenstine. So are you just forgetting that all the other NASA Administrators have been cheerleaders too?
The Moon, with its three-day emergency journey back to Earth, represents the best place to learn, train, and develop the necessary technologies and techniques for in situ resource utilization and an eventual long term human presence on Mars. Fortunately, the Space Launch System and Orion will start testing in 2018. This system, with a commercial lander, could quickly place machines and robots on the Moon to begin the cis-lunar economy. With the right presidential guidance, humans could return in short order as well; this time, to stay. [...]The U.S. government must establish a legal framework and be prepared to defend private and corporate rights and obligations, all keeping within the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. The United States must have cis-lunar situational awareness, a cis-lunar presence, and eventually must be able to defend freedom of action in space. Cis-lunar development will proceed with American values and the rule of law if the United States leads. [...]Commercial launch vehicles are maturing and commercial deep space habitats are currently in development. A renewed focus on utilizing the Moon can help further these advances and achievements. The choices we make now can forever make America the preeminent spacefaring nation.
Poll
