This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
News

Charlie Bolden: "I'm Not a Democratic Political Appointee" (update)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 31, 2012
Filed under ,

Keith’s note: Charlie Bolden held his SES summit the other day. This time it was done virtually so as to save travel funds. 400-500 people were on the telecon from across the agency. According to participants, at one point Bolden was asked a question about the election and what he thought as a political appointee. Bolden replied “I do not see myself as a Democratic political appointee.” He then went on to talk about how he often did not agree with what the White House wanted him to do at NASA and how he had brokered some political deals with republicans. He added “if I had done what the President had wanted then NASA would just be a technology program”.
Keith’s update: According to NASA PAO this is a transcript of what Charlie Bolden said (in contrast to what multiple sources who listened in on the telecon have told NASA Watch):
“Let me make a subtle correction to something you said. I’m appointed by the president. I work for the president. I have the utmost respect for the president. My job, however, is to add advise the president on what force the agency should be. I like our priorities because I think we help develop those and they may not be — they may not be exactly where somebody else sitting in this seat would have been. We helped to develop those priorities and so that’s where I’m trying to keep the agency aligned. I don’t view them as democratic or Republican priorities. I emphasize that these — they represent significant compromises. If the president had gotten his way, the number 1 priority for the agency probably would have been something like technology development. That is something about which he is passionate and if you notice, it is not one of the three major priorities. But it is — it is the underpinning of everything we do.”
I asked NASA PAO for a full transcript of Bolden’s remarks but NASA PAO has declined to provide one. Note that the question that Bolden is responding to was not transcribed by NASA – only his response. i.e. “Let me make a subtle correction to something you said.” OK, what was it that the questioner said? My sources say that Bolden was asked about the political implications of the election as a political appointee aligned with a Democrat affiliation.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

50 responses to “Charlie Bolden: "I'm Not a Democratic Political Appointee" (update)”

  1. jamesmuncy says:
    0
    0

    Wow… just, wow… 

  2. John Kavanagh says:
    0
    0

    For the first time ever, I sympathize with the loyal opposition in Congress who fought the Obama administration’s plans for NASA.

    • muomega0 says:
      0
      0

      Once again, Bolden said none of the things that are suggested.
      “Playing an old Republican game: if you don’t like the reality that
      exists, try to create a new one”

      —–
       
       “if I had done what the President had wanted then NASA would just be a
      technology program”.

      So what is wrong with technology anyway?

      Are not engine programs like J2X, 5 seg SRM, SSME to RS68 to RS68 regen to
      SSME, and liq strap ons *technology* programs?

      I thought Obama only wanted technology programs and no exploration missions, but
      Bolden saved us from technology programs?!

      Clever, by funding
      SLS, Obama got what he wanted anyway:  technology
      and no missions (Orion in 2021!) ?   So confusing….

      What is next?  Constellation/SLS being blamed on democrats?

  3. SpaceTeacher says:
    0
    0

    If Mr. Bolden is telling the the truth, then I have a newfound respect for him. However,  he may have just gotten himself fired if people in the White House
    don’t like his candor.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Space Teacher,

      If people in the White House “don’t like his candor,” then they don’t understand what his job responsibilities are.  As he said, his job is to advise the President.  If the President doesn’t like or doesn’t follow that advise, that’s not a problem with Bolden.  Charlie Bolden doesn’t tell Mr. Obama how to be President, and by the same token, Mr. Obama shouldn’t presume that he knows better than Bolden what NASA should be doing.

      I think clearly that Bolden’s comments referenced here refer to what President Obama had in mind for NASA before the two of them talked things out and came to an understanding, and there’s nothing wrong or unusual in that.  Although the President is, by law, the ultimate decision maker, he, or any President, would be foolish not to listen the the advise given him/her by the NASA Administrator.  Often times a President will do something differently from what the NASA Administrator recommends, but it’s for political reasons, not technical reasons.  Although that stinks from our perspective, it is not unreasonable from a political/diplomatic perspective, where it is often just one issue within a group of contentious issues which have to be traded off between parties, or between the White House and Congress.

      I think firing Bolden over this would be seen as petty across the board, and so it’s unlikely to happen, especially this close to the election.  And it would be thoroughly unwarranted, since he was only doing his job.

      Steve

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Bolden wasn’t President Obama’s pick, I believe he was strong armed by Senator Nelson to take Bolden who would be a monster rocket fan to keep the pork rolling in.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          I think Bolden was considered a safe choice after Obama was attacked by people inside and outside of NASA for proposing Lori Garver, who is not part of the clique and holds the view that human space should be accessible to significant numbers of people, not just half a dozen civil servants. If aviation progressed like human spaceflight there would ave only been six people in the air anywhere in the world in 1953.

      • Oscar_Femur says:
        0
        0

         I thought his job was to carry out administration policy as it applies to NASA?

      • SpaceTeacher says:
        0
        0

        Hi Steve,
           I don’t mean fire him now bu ease him out next year if the Pres. wins re-election.
           It’s nice to see an administrator fighting for NASA. I read that a few people turned the job down before Bolden accepted it. I wonder why? 
        Joe

  4. ellegood says:
    0
    0

    When President Obama visited KSC in April 2010, he conveyed a near-term vision for NASA to focus on developing the technologies, scientific rationale, and infrastructure that are prerequisite for future human exploration beyond Earth orbit. He wanted commercial launchers to service the International Space Station, and the deferral of a heavy-lift rocket decision until 2016. Congress (mainly the Senate) pushed for a nearer-term heavy-lift rocket program, which is one of the political deals Bolden was referring to.

    Edit: It’s not like there wasn’t a plan or desire for BEO exploration, it just wasn’t going to happen very soon (it still won’t, under anyone’s plan). Remember, this 2010 announcement was made amid a national outcry for government spending reductions. What the President failed to grasp, I think, were the implications of not having an aggressive vision with firm destinations and timelines.

    • Ralphy999 says:
      0
      0

      I agree Edward. Spot on.

    • newpapyrus says:
      0
      0

      There’s nothing near term about a manned Mars flyby (not even a manned landing!) sometime in the middle 2030s.

      And Obama wanted to delay HLV development because his boy Elon told him back in 2010 that NASA didn’t need to build an HLV  since Space X was already going to build one.

      Elon wants NASA’s Commercial Crew and HLV flights to go exclusively through him! But what business man wouldn’t want tax payer money going exclusively to their company:-)

      Marcel F. Williams

      • ellegood says:
        0
        0

        I can’t find the citation, but I recall that Musk explicitly said NASA should develop its own SLS/HLV.

        • John Kavanagh says:
          0
          0

          Edward, when Elon had is BFB speech at the National Press Club, he tossed a bone to NASA/Congress with this SLS reference. Frankly, I think that’s just Elon avoiding controversy with his largest customer.

          In the near-term, it isn’t helpful if Elon telegraphs the possibility of Falcon Heavy as a SLS substitute or Dragon as an Orion substitute. In the long-term, as budgets tighten, the commercial alternatives – including EELVs and CST-100 – will become obvious/less controversial.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Marcel,

        Where are you getting this stuff?  Do you have some secret listening post where you can eavesdrop on conversations that nobody else hears?

        The publicly available facts contradict your post completely.  And if there was anything to your contention, why is NASA, with Presidential approval, also awarding COTS and other contracts and money to several other companies besides SpaceX?

        Steve

      • jamesmuncy says:
        0
        0

         Marcel,

              You are smoking your powerpoints again.  Ed didn’t say Obama laid out a near-term plan for actual BEO exploration flights, since even 2025 NEO missions aren’t really near term.  And, as Ed pointed out, that’s a big reason Obamaspace failed. 
        He needed to connect the dots, and he didn’t. 

              But, arguably, Charlie Bolden is responsible for that failure as much as the President.  Charlie is supposed to be the detail guy.  Charlie is supposed to say: these are great investments, but we need to weave them together into a real strategy with some near-term achievable goals. 

                                      – Jim

        p.s.  And when Elon announced the Falcon Heavy, he explicitly declared that it was NOT the super heavy that NASA needed for large scale human exploration of Mars.  I know, because I was standing there listening to him. 
           

        • ellegood says:
          0
          0

          I didn’t say “Obamaspace” has failed. It seems to be progressing as planned. I suspect that after the (re-) election we’ll see a bit more specificity on destinations, timelines and architectures. We’ve seen some trial balloons (L-2 space station), but it makes no sense to finalize these things prior to Nov. 6.  

          • loupgarous says:
            0
            0

            There’s so much that Obama’s not “finalizing” before day after tomorrow.  And the (re)election’s not a lock any more.  

        • newpapyrus says:
          0
          0

           Come on James! Elon’s been planning a super heavy of his own for a long time now! And he’s still talking about it!

          Reference:

          http://www.flightglobal.com

          Marcel

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        Marcel, either provide references or stop making these wild unsubstantiated claims. And phrases such as “his boy Elon” border on personal insults. Knock it off.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          Dunno, Keith. It made me think of ‘his boy, Elroy’! BTW where’s my flying car?

        • newpapyrus says:
          0
          0

          I’m always happy to provide references for my post:-) And I hope others will do the same!

          Marcel F. Williams

          SpaceX gets set for next giant leap

          http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.co

          “Elon Musk has suggested that SpaceX could develop a heavy lift version of his Falcon launch vehicle for a fraction of the price NASA proposes.”

          http://voices.yahoo.com/spa

          SpaceX Looks Beyond LEO

          http://spaceksc.blogspot.co

          Elon Musk vs NASA and the US rocket industry – ding ding!

          http://www.theregister.co.u

          Megacorp sees Elon Musk/prez chumship threat?

          http://www.theregister.co.u

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Marcel,

            1. There’s nothing I can see in any of these references, or any others I’ve ever seen, to suggest that “Elon is Obama’s boy.”  There has been nothing nothing from either one of them to suggest any arrangements, or even discussions, between them.  The NASA/SpaceX contracts are the entire extent of any relationships that exist.

            2. Musk does not suggest and has not in the past suggested that NASA should forego SLS because he’s working on a big LV.  He has been candid all along about the fact that SpaceX is looking at several large LV options, as your references show, but there has never been any suggestion by either Musk or Obama (or any of their associates) that a SpaceX offering should be planned for by NASA instead of SLS.

            3. “Elon wants NASA’s Commercial Crew and HLV flights to go exclusively through him!

            Nonsense.  Musk has said time and again, including in at least one of your references, that competition is the key to succeeding in this business.  He has publicly stated that government sole sourcing is a huge mistake and that he will always advise against it.  But the bottom line here is that neither Musk nor Obama has ever said, or even hinted, that SpaceX’s/Musk’s goal is to become the exclusive commercial and/or HLV provider for NASA.  There is absolutely nothing to support his idea.

            I’m afraid your references don’t support your surprising statements above, and in fact, most of their content doesn’t relate in any way to your allegations.  They talk mostly about Falcon 9 and the fact that SpaceX is planning larger LVs in the future without specifying what/who they will be used for.  This is all old news and none of it suggests, let alone proves, any collusion or even planning discussions between Musk and Obama.  Sorry.

            Steve

          • newpapyrus says:
            0
            0

             1. President Obama has a fascination with super wealthy individuals. And he likes to take their advice.

            So it was no surprise that on the day when Obama bluntly told NASA “We’ve been there before.” when referring to a lunar return, photographs were taken with him and Elon Musk on that same day.  Obama seemed pretty angry that day with NASA employees but he was all smiles with Elon! 

            http://blog.al.com/space-ne

            2. Give me a break! Exactly who else was in the market for a super heavy lift vehicle back in 2010 other than the Federal government.

            3. Elon is suggesting prices for his launch vehicles that would guarantee that no other company would be able to compete with him. Of course, he still has to demonstrate  that he can routinely launch his vehicles into space without major failures or accidents.

            But he’s certainly not out to play fair with other companies– especially companies that he’s already attempted to sue.

            http://www.freerepublic.com

            Elon’s out to dominate. That’s the nature of capitalism!

            Marcel F. Williams

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Replying to newpapyrus,

            Marcel,

            You have a unique way of interpreting events. Everybody wants to maximize their market share, agreed, but that has absolutely no connection to your contention that Musk wants “NASA’s Commercial Crew and HLV flights to go exclusively through him!” I’ve already said that Musk has stated repeatedly that competition is necessary in the industry/market.

            As for your new addition that “President Obama has a fascination with super wealthy individuals. And he likes to take their advice,” where did that come from, have you spoken to the man perhaps? And either way, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything discussed above.

            Piling more fabrications and irrelevancies on top your previous suggestions does not support your contentions. I respectfully suggest you quit while you’re behind instead of continuing to dig yourself in deeper. The fact that no one else has added any comments supporting yours (quite the opposite) I think should be telling you something.

            Steve

          • speragine says:
            0
            0

             yeah maybe, but he sure would stand to benefit from it!

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      Actually, Bolden specifically commented on the date for heavy lift, he said the President told him NO LATER than 2015 to have the basic outline for a heavy lift rocket. Which mean’t Bolden said he was free to make that call at anytime.

       I thought the President wanted to first fund new domestic heavy lift engines so no reliance on the russians?

  5. Fred says:
    0
    0

    He can’t have it both ways. Good try Charlie.

  6. Tom Sellick says:
    0
    0

    Very satisfied with Mr. Bolden.

  7. Yohan Ayhan says:
    0
    0

    See Keith, I was right. This is why Romney will keep Bolden.
    Bolden is the man!!! And does not give a damn about politicians!

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Huh?

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Yohan,

      I don’t know what you’re thinking, but if Romney gets elected, it’s just a matter of time before he gets rid of Bolden along with much of the current NASA.  NASA will never be the same, if it even continues to exist.

      Steve

      • Yohan Ayhan says:
        0
        0

        I have not read any sources stating otherwise. I believe its just your opinion.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          Yohan this is getting old. You challenge others yet you provide zero facts to support your claims.  How would you know these things? Do you work in Washington?

        • SciFiFanLA says:
          0
          0

          I agree that Steve should support his claims with factual references before he pre-supposes what a candidate will do.  Unless of course he works for the candidate in question and has inside information.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            SciFiFanLA,

            I do not have any association with Mr. Romney, nor do I have any factual references.  I’m afraid that all I have is the very little that everybody else has when it comes to Romney and NASA, since he’s basically said almost nothing.  There are two things that he has made clear, and they are the basis of my opinion (only an opinion) as to what may happen.  First, Romney/Ryan policy is clearly fixated on money; they are giving the impression that they are going to cut spending on anything they can (that isn’t of interest to them).  Second, when he does mention NASA, he always gives national security as the reason why NASA is important to the country.  In my opinion, when you put these two things together it is not unreasonable to think that, if elected, Romney will try to change NASA from what it is now to something more applicable to national security, with a reduced budget.  When making major changes like that, should he do so, the most effective first step is to get rid of the old leader(s).  But this is all just a bad feeling.  I have no support for it at all, and I hope I’m completely wrong about it.

            Steve

          • SciFiFanLA says:
            0
            0

            Steve – all I can say is that in my opinion, topics like NASA will not swing the election.  As such, I am sure Mr. Romney has kept the focus on the Economy and National Security since those are talking points he believes will enable him to win.  I hope (and I use that word losely) that NASA’s value is well known to the Congress and that the organization can withstand the changes in the WH every 4-8 years.  One of the issues we have always had is the constant redirection that results from administration changes.  It would be nice to establish a long term plan and stick to it.  While flawed, one of the benefits of the ARES program was that it had long-range thinking.  It just did not mesh well with today’s economic realities.

      • Fred says:
        0
        0

        I would  agree with your opinion that Bolden is out if Romney wins, this is a no brainer most admins have done this (clinton being the exception although he should have jettisoned Golden). As for the radical changes to NASA you allude to, that sounds like far left radical pontification of what Republicans do. Which of course have no basis in reality.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          Fred,

          You may be right; I don’t know, because I have absolutely no idea what “far left radical pontification” means, so if I’m guilty of that, it is through ignorance rather than conscious intent.

          The “radical changes,” as you call them, I offered only as a possibility, based on what little Romney has said.  He clearly has no plans with respect to NASA at this time, because when he was asked about NASA, his response was that he would develop a plan for NASA (obviously this means he will do so in the future, and has not done so yet).  I have no real problem with that.  He doesn’t know yet what he wants for NASA and there are higher priorities to deal with at this point in time.

          I stick by my statement that whenever I’ve heard him asked about NASA, he states specifically, and only, that NASA is “important to national security.”  This is something that he did several times, not a one-off.  So, having said nothing about the things that NASA has been doing and repeatedly tying NASA to national security, something not currently a NASA responsibility, I don’t consider it at all unreasonable to suggest that, given his own way, he will augment NASA’s duties and priorities in that direction.  His advisers are not likely to sway him on this, I don’t think, because lately they can’t even agree among themselves on this issue.  Plus, those advisers have not maintained a consistent position with respect to NASA themselves.  Ironically, I suspect it will only be the pork producers in Congress who will keep Romney from (eventually) making major changes to NASA if elected.

          All of the above I offer only as a personal opinion about possible future events.

          Steve

  8. Jonna31 says:
    0
    0

    Leadership starts at the top.
    Looking at who has occupied the NASA Administrator position the last twenty years really goes a long way to explaining NASA’s current, dire straits. Behold the leaders of our space program: Mr. “Faster, Cheaper, let’s hope Better” gave way to the mostly anonymous bean counter, who in turn gave way to the Physicist who couldn’t add and subtract dollars and cents, to this guy who deserves his own website cataloging the incredible things he says on a near weekly basis.Poor Charlie. We had such hope for you once upon a time. But don’t worry, regardless of who wins the next election, your next job as a space-issues talking head for MSNBC will have its own perks I’m sure.
    Seriously though. Maybe NASA should be be split up to made more manageable  Four smart, serious people across twenty years who prior to NASA had gold-plated careers, couldn’t fix budgeting problems, convince congress space is relevant, and couldn’t defeat entrenched constituencies. There is zero reason to believe the next guy will do any better. 

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Jonathan,
      Sounds like you’ve become pretty bitter with respect to NASA in the last little while.  Don’t give up yet; there’s still hope.

      Steve

    • loupgarous says:
      0
      0

      I’m with you on “Maybe NASA should be be split up to made more manageable.”
      DARPA-STO should handle procurement of anything with immediate defense applications, including hardware for overhead imaging.Everything else… the Tea Party in Space platform has some intriguing suggestions, most aimed at making privately-owned and managed transportation to space the primary carrier for business and most Federal government projects requiring access to space.That reduces NASA’s remit to the original NACA/NASA mission of space technology development, any scientific space missions that can’t be done with privately-owned spacecraft, and liaison with other Federal agencies for sensitive projects such as development of high energy density power sources such as DoE’s plutonium-239 reactors or the Navy’s Polywell fusion reactor concept.It would also throw Big Science projects like the James Webb Space Based Telescope into sharp contrast with everything that USED to be a NASA project, and provoke discussion (“Is this trip into space – and the excruciatingly expensive payload – REALLY necessary?”)

  9. Nassau Goi says:
    0
    0

    Politics + advancing technology = bad combination

    – Galileo

  10. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Funny how there are a republican space goals and democratic Space goals. No wonder we never get much done!!!!!!

    sounds about as silly as the lunies fighting the martians and the robots against the humans to me.

    • loupgarous says:
      0
      0

      The problem with buying space travel from NASA versus a private concern is that NASA has a bad case of defense contractor-itis and has to try and procure components for any transportation system it makes from as many states and Congressional districts as possible; so that here in landlocked metropolitan Denver we have not one but TWO major space technology hubs.  Not so much “republican space goals versus democratic space goals” as “whose congressional districts make out this year?”

  11. yg1968 says:
    0
    0

    The transcript is completely different from what was first reported by sources. This goes to show that second hand information from sources should be taken with a grain of salt.

  12. bobhudson54 says:
    0
    0

    Bolden’s now on the defense due to his job being “on the line”. Its hard to transition from a “yes,man” to one who’s more program orientated. It may be too little,too late,Charlie.

  13. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    I think the most typical comment around here is that we expected Charlie to stand up on our behalf in front of the Administration; if necessary he should have laid his badge on the table; and we think we are in really bad shape in HSF now, because he failed to do so. 

    I don’t think most of us see that NASA has any kind of a realistic HSF plan or strategy. Its one thing if Musk, Boeing and others get their manned systems flying so that we can support ISS; the current situation puts us all in immediate jeopardy and should never have been allowed to happen so they are late in getting a manned logistics capability in [;ace to replace Shuttle. But a real plan, a timetable, a strategy, a rationale for going beyond LEO?? We haven’t seen it. There are fictions about sending an Orion around the moon in 10 years (why?) or to a NEO in 15 years (where is this fictional NEO and how are we getting there? Six months in a capsule?). Explain what you are going to do with the SLS. I know a lot of people here are not against it, we just don’t know why we should be for it. 

    Poor communications, poor strategy, poor planning. Bolden and his support staff have let us down. 

    Don’t give me excuses about his Deputy and her sole interest in commercial carriers really running the show. Either Bolden is the Administrator or he’s not. Either NASA has a plan and strategy or it doesn’t.