Charlie Bolden Doesn't Want Anyone to Criticize NASA
NASA chief Bolden says criticism of agency’s direction ‘undermines our nation’s goals at a very critical time’, Houston Chronicle
“NASA Administrator Charles Bolden dismissed rumors that the future of U.S. space exploration is in jeopardy and rejected speculation that his agency has no plans for future human spaceflight. “Those who perpetuate that myth only hurt the space program,” Bolden told businessmen, academics and journalists Tuesday afternoon at the National Press Club. “Such talk undermines our nation’s goals at a very critical time,” he said. “The truth is we have an ambitious series of deep space destinations we plan to explore and we are hard at work exploring the hardware and the technologies to get us there.”
“The truth is we have an ambitious series of deep space destinations
we plan to explore and we are hard at work exploring the hardware and
the technologies to get us there.”
I heard this 3 years ago after President Obama took office and appointed you NASA Administrator and yet nothing has changed. I’m still waiting!
Exactly! How about some specifics?
We have been in low earth orbit since the early 1970s. A whole generation has lost out to space exploration while the legacy astronauts just kept quiet. This is not a democratic vs. republican issue. Pardon me if I am skeptical of either party saying, “Don’t worry we are the experts. Just leave it to us.”
If the hardware for these deep space missions is SLS, we have a serious problem. Isn’t CONSTRUCTIVE critasium GOOD! We have to find a way to cancel SLS and use that same money to support the cheaper faster cots type agreements to make Space leaner and faster and better, to make BEO deep space affordable?? I don’t think suggesting a better way is being bad. But then I’m not very political.
Long way around the barn
We may have passed the first corner Houston.
PS In the Garver defending NASA thread a while back I only read a little of it. but I was left thinking that she was supporting the cheaper LEO commercial and expensive BEO public Space when they/she knew SLS is an old fashion taxpayer waste. They, NASA officals job is to lie to the people about the best way to go. I know they HAVE to support what congress says is our Space program right?? right ??? right????
Well I don’t
JOE TAX PAYER
Ayhan
With SLS, NASA is going in the wrong direction. Hopefully Boldon is working behind the scenes to turn NASA around.
Obama supported cheaper space/our only hope at a space future.
Don’t be fooled by big expensive rocket programs
Sounds like his boss … he’s above criticism. And because criticizing NASA is to criticize him – don’t do it.
I find it curious that Charlie should bring something like this up in a major address at the National Press Club, where one would think that optimism and positivity would be the rule. What exactly is he responding to defensively? Is there something new that we haven’t been hearing for the last few years? But perhaps he really sees this as a “critical time”. Wonder what he means by that. Election? Sequestration?
What a typical reaction by the boss of an agency—no criticism please!
Mr. Bolden makes me laugh–he is talking of developing warp drive when we don’t know when we will be traveling beyond LEO. NASA’s Direction should be called Fantasyland.
Not sure why this is a reply to my post, but I’d be happy to respond to a lame argument.
Mr. Bolden is talking about developing a warp drive because (1) it’s pretty cool stuff that we’d be absolutely daft not to at least assess, and (2) because he’s spending a tiny tiny bit of money doing it until it shows promise. That’s smart.
Let me ask you this. Why is Charlie spending a HUGE amount of money on ISS, which is mainly about long duration human habitability in zero-g, if we don’t know when we’re going to be doing any year-long trips anywhere? You would say that’s pretty dumb too, I guess.
These are strategic decisions made to assess potential about what we’d someday like to do. But in order to do it, you have to sort out the opportunity costs, and the value metric. That’s what agency administrators are paid to do.
I understand the frustration that people are feeling, but negative comments don’t help. We’re supposed to be advocates for space and NASA. If we’re making negative comments we’re just feeding ammunition to those who would take away what little is left of our NASA space programs. We’re into a really delicate time money-wise, so please, let’s not sound negative. Besides, at this point in the pre-election song and dance I don’t think we can hang too much meaning on what any of the public figures are saying. One way or another, after November it’s going to be a whole new ball game.
Steve
A whole new ball game? I doubt it.
I don’t see why It couldn’t. You might be thinking that Steve is referring to who the POTUS will be. But ultimately I think the makeup of the 113th congress and who will be sitting on the committee of science, space and technology, could ultimately change the course of NASA. Remember that NASA Authorization Act of 2010 outlines the funding and direction of NASA through fiscal year 2013 and is where the SLS is funded from. A different makeup of the committee could alter what the new act would look like and whether SLS (and many other NASA programs) continues to be funded.
Exactly, Michael.
When the Congress, and in particular the subcommittee that has managed to take control of NASA, are two different parties, then next to nothing happens to/for NASA.This time around has been unusually bad. So, however things shake out after the election, things are going to change. For better or for worse? That we’ll have to wait and see, but at least there’s a chance that the stalemate will be over,Steve
When a government agency isn’t performing, when an agency has been on the GAO’s watch list of budget and schedule overruns for 20 years. Well yes.. then negative comments are not only warranted but are mandatory IF we want to change the outcome.
I am tired of 12 billion taxpayer dollars blown on projects like Constellation and we do not even get one single orbital test flight .. 12 BILLION .. with a B. Not one orbital test flight. That borders on the criminal.
Agreed Donald. But this situation was largely enforced on NASA by Congress. And even worse, NASA’s (and the WH’s) attempts to correct the root cause of these issues, with moves like COTS and SAAs, are being constantly and openly roadblocked by members of Congress which is doing its best to reverse the trend and disallow the new measures, and who themselves bitch about delays and overruns, yet are the guilty party forcing NASA to continue doing things in the pork-generating ways that result in the things we all complain about. So, to my mind, Bolden is perfectly justified in saying don’t criticize NASA, because most of the $^%@&^ is not their fault and against their wishes, like SLS. But Bolden has to be a good soldier and follow orders. If he were to openly and publicly state that NASA is being deliberately frustrated by Congress, who are screwing up the works, not only would he be out of the job, but the repercussions against NASA from Congress would make the things even worse. I think saying as much as he did actually borders on brave defiance.
Steve
What can we do to Help???
Steve
That 4th graders wisdom lololol
A 4th grade teacher was teaching her class about species extinction.
A boy raised his hand and asked the question
WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP?
The teacher had no answer. So she decided to have the kids find a species in trouble and help.
They chose a fresh water shrimp in a water shed near by that was in trouble because the streams it lived in was being farmed.
They contacted the farmers and started planting willow trees on the banks of the streams.
Today 15 years later the shrimp still thrives and the farmers lose less soil to erosion and there are triple the number of types of birds that live there.
Using Space to protect Earth
WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP???
I wish I knew George. In theory, every American can write to his/her elected representatives and express an opinion, offer ideas, ask questions, and outright complain. That might help if enough people did it, but first there would have to be much more of a consensus of opinion as to what “the people” want from NASA, and from the government in support of NASA. What I like about NASA Watch, and other entities similar to it, is that the exchange of ideas and information has the potential to help bring us closer to consensus. The biggest “simple” hole in the wall that I see is that we all seem to have our own personal favorites, HSF vs. machines, Moon vs. Mars, astronomy vs. planetary science, ambitious vs, safe, long-term vs. quick return, old space vs. new space, etc.
It would be nice if NASA (and space in general) was divided into divisions that were simpler to grasp, with names (and acronyms) that were easier to use and didn’t change. Now, it’s almost like trying to discuss topics for which there are no nouns; it makes for poor communication. And as it is now, X people will give you X opinions as to what NASA should be doing and how money should be spent.
If we had a simpler, common “language” to use, then we could perhaps pick our “favorites,” one from each division, and the most commonly selected set of favorites could then be “the people’s choice,” and we could work more effectively at selling it to the powers that be.
For now, I guess we’re just shrimp, waiting for some fourth graders to come along and work with the farmers to get it right.
Steve
Oh I totally agree. But I wish NASA employees would man up and fall on their sword at congressional hearings.
“no senator .. that is .. insane”
“No senator that is bats$#&# crazy”
“sorry senator that is insanity on a bun”
They should ninja up and start standing up to Congress and YES it will cost them their job, but at least it would start a national conversation if the whole top tier stood up to congress and called it like it was. Sunlight is the only disinfectant that will change NASA.
Could be an internal moral issue at NASA. Maybe there are fears more of the agency’s best and brightest will end up in the (growing) commercial space sector. NASA can afford to lose a few astronauts off payroll. Some of the more experienced subject matter experts? Not so sure.
As long as the Nation doesn’t lose the talent. Does it matter who pays the paycheck?
Donald,
It would matter to NASA, and to the employees in question. I think Doug is right on the money. I’d be extremely surprised if there wasn’t a lot of worry and anxiety over this among NASA employees. Given a choice between working at a properly working NASA and moving elsewhere, most people would prefer to stay, especially those who have been there the longest and have acquired the most experience. And many of these people are too close to retirement age to be hired elsewhere.Steve
Why? NASA could just subcontract the work out to the commercial firm that hired the talent they lost.
I do not remember moses coming down from the mountain saying “X amount will work at NASA for all time”
The number of workers should be free flowing depending on need AT THE TIME.
It is silly to pay 200 million a month for workers who placed and reconditioned tiles on the shuttle {just an example do not hang me for it just trying to illustrate a point} when are not doing shuttles.
If the funding priorities are changing then cut early to save funding. As long as the people stay in the trade, that expertise is always available.
Let’s face it, we are rapidly becoming second or third rate in space exploration. Our leadership has been vision free for many years and many administrations; perhaps now is worse than ever. When the Chinese land men on the moon, we will wake up, maybe. At that point catch up will not be as easy as it was 50 years ago.
Note that the NASA budget is 15-20 billion, the same as it was in the Apollo era. It is a very small fraction of what it was at that time. We can, and could have afforded to do so much more. It is very sad and depressing.
second or third rate? That is nuts.
No country is even even in the same ballpark as the US.
We have probes sent to every planet, the Dawn mission, hubble … the list goes on and on and on
No other country even comes close to what we have and are achieving in space.
i think you’re being hard on Bolden. as i read the article it doesn’t say “don’t critise NASA” but it says “don’t say we don’t have plans for human space exploration”. which is correct, NASA has plenty of plans, too many perhaps !
You got it. NASA has more plans then it knows what to do with. But what it hasn’t had is leadership
Kind of hard to have decent leadership when said leaders are tied down with congressional puppet strings.
Perfect reply.
Typical lib response blame Bush or now congress, take no responsibility. No wonder NASA is in the uncertainty state it is in.
1. Learn to argue properly, personal attack are nothing more than a fallacy, and make you look stupid.
2. I’m not a liberal, I’m a moderate (fiscally conservative, socially liberal).
3. I am not equating the failings of NASA to just the 112th congress, I am equating it to every congress since it’s inception, democratically controlled or republican.
You get blue like everyone But me and Barack Can make your troubles go away Blow away, there they go… Cheer up, Charlie
NASA is getting good at coordinating messages with the White House.
Last week Lori gave a very excellent campaign speach praising Obama every page and helping us understand how we are better off that 4 years ago. It even talked about the $1.4B KSC got for 21st century launch site (it got lost on the way to KSC). The only thing that kept her away fron a Hatch Act violation is that she dis not say “vote for Obamma”.
To the point in this thread she said “Finally, there are some who believe that NASA has lost its edge and is no longer the world’s leader in space. In fact, some have suggested that we’re now number three. Sounds to me like they’re either woefully uninformed or, worse, betting against America. That is never a good bet.”
When one of your legs is chained to Capitol Hill, there isn’t much you can do but run in circles.
How’s this “grab” you ? Bolden doesn’t want criticism of NASA. As an administrator he should be prepared for criticisms and look at them as being constructive criticisms but apparently he’s not smart or mature enough to
see it that way. He’s too sensitive to actually “see” it. Lori Garver appears to be in the same mold.We’re expected to accept their “spins” on the program and accept them as if we’re naive children.They don’t realize that people are smarter than that and can see right through them. Is it any wonder why the government’s in such a mess?