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

Growing Uncertainty About Bolden's Tenure at NASA

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
November 29, 2012
Filed under ,

Bolden’s future as NASA chief uncertain, Orlando Sentinel
“Sources inside Congress and the administration said it’s wholly possible Bolden, 66, stays at NASA into 2013 and beyond. They caution, however, that his return is an open question, as the White House remains concerned whether the former astronaut and Marine Corps major general is committed to Obama’s vision for the space agency. “The senior White House staff is aware of the [NASA] administrator’s inability to advance their agenda and will have to decide whether they make an adjustment in a second term,” said a senior administration official not authorized to speak on the record. … No one can deny, though, there has been an accumulation of distractions, and in order to maximize NASA’s opportunities, the U.S. civil space program would benefit from a leader fully committed to implementing the bold policy put forth by the president and his administration”.

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

46 responses to “Growing Uncertainty About Bolden's Tenure at NASA”

  1. Odyssey2020 says:
    0
    0

    Wow, I don’t exactly what to think about Charlie. On one hand, it seemed like he was playing ball, on the other hand it seemed like he had his own agenda. 

    The deal with Charlie forcing Coats and Lugo out was very strange, was it something personal? Did Charlie think they were “empire building”?, or was he just doing some dirty work before he moved on? 

    Something is rotten in Denmark, that’s for sure. We all know politics can be really dirty, be glad if you’re not in the morass. 

    • Fred says:
      0
      0

      Repeating a rumor over and over started on a blog does not make it true. Perhaps Lugo was forced out (I don’t know) but I have yet to hear any evidence that Coats, who had been projecting his departure after the election for close to a year was “forced out”.

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        You are, of course, entitled to believe whatever you wish. Let me suggest that you start reading other websites since you clearly seem to be obsessed with what appears here …not a healthy habit …

  2. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    I very much encourage all of those people who keep saying that Bolden/NASA is supposed to be providing the Vision, Leadership, A Plan, and all the rest of it, to carefully read the quoted text at the top of this thread.  This is the reality, in law and in fact.

  3. spacecadette says:
    0
    0

    “…the U.S. civil space program would benefit from a leader fully committed to implementing the bold policy put forth by the president and his administration”.

    Exactly what bold policy is that?  Using commercial services to provide routine access to LEO?  Great.  Other than that, it seems the Administration’s “bold policy” was to cancel Constellation and replace it with research on improved launch technologies for the next 5 years, followed by going various places beyond LEO at vague times in the future.  Following the introduction of that plan, the administration “boldly stood by” while congress went ahead and changed the Administration’s plan into Congress’s plan.

    Outside of commercial providers of access to LEO, the only thing that’s been bold are the continuing budget cuts.

    • Ferris Valyn says:
      0
      0

       There was the technology program, aimed at lowering mission costs.  That actually was bold. 

      Its unfortunate that Congress didn’t like it

  4. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    Neil deGrasse Tyson would make for an interesting Administrator.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Has he ever run a large agency with a budget over $15 billion with tens of thousands of employees?

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        No.  And what large agency did Obama run again prior to becoming President?  He seems to have made out OK.  Granted Tyson would need a strong supporting staff, but I’d prefer a visionary set the tone than having a micromanager.

    • Helen Simpson says:
      0
      0

      I have to agree that he’d be an “interesting” Administrator. I suspect, however, that he wouldn’t be a very good one. As noted, he hasn’t led a large agency (though neither had Bolden when he took the job). But he also has a decidedly “outsider” view of NASA, and it’s not at all clear that would be constructive to a White House that needs to be connected to the inside. Bolden knew NASA at the root level when he took the job. Surely Tyson is a “visionary”, but that’s not the job of the Administrator. The job of the Administrator is to implement the visions of the White House, and match those visions to the capabilities of the agency, perhaps making some good suggestions to the White House along the way.

      Note that if Neil Tyson took that job, he’d be muzzled by the White House. To the extent that his visions don’t quite align with the White House visions, and to the extent that he’s an articulate and passionate defender of his visions, that would be a real shame. Tyson is a powerful and creative communicator in the job he has now, and communication is what he does best.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        OK, you and Keith have convinced me otherwise.  It would be nice to have an Administrator that could reach the taxpayer like Tyson can, but maybe that’s not what we need.  Alan Stern was pretty close to that, but that didn’t seem to work out so well.

      • npng says:
        0
        0

        Helen, I have a question for you.  When you say “…the visions of the White House,…” I assume you are referring to a collection of individuals moreso than only the President.   If so, what individuals in what entities represent this “White House”? in your view?

        • Helen Simpson says:
          0
          0

          Fair question. But I think it’s one that is based on a simplistic view of “vision”. The White House “vision” for NASA has nothing to do with space exploration per se (and of creating opportunities for select civil servants to have exciting adventures in space). There is no one in this White House (nor, I think, has there really been in any White House) who is committed to such a vision. The “visions” we’re talking about are ones of national security, health and welfare, employment, and national pride and morale. The NASA Administrator and his or her staff can come to the White House and suggest implementation strategies to achieve these things though investment in space, but the ultimate smell test, about how well those suggestions meet these greater White House visions, is up to the Office of the President. Of course, that office is keenly aware of what they can sell in Congress.

          Think about it this way. Space exploration is NOT a national priority. It is important only in the ways that that it meets real national priorities. Maybe that will change. But I don’t think that change will happen soon.

          VSE was unusual in that it appeared, for a while, that space exploration really was a national priority, and a White House vision. But the commitment to that vision turned out to be weak.

          • npng says:
            0
            0

            Helen, thanks for the reply.  Unfortunately I’m now even more confused. 

            Again, what individuals [in this Office of the President] represent this “White House” in your view?   The EOP includes numerous individuals, ones in OMB, OSTP, and others right up to the President.  Who are these individuals?

            I’m sure that each individual has his or her own perception, view, and envisioning of what ‘space’ activities the U.S. might best pursue.  But it seems there is no unified vision.  Instead there are 100’s of different visions.  Or perhaps variations, distortions, illusions or delusions?

            If (and I’m not sure) I understand your words regarding Congress, I assume you’re pointing to the reality that Congress’s focus is on self-interests tied to the States, to jobs, welfare, pride and the like, which simply adds 50 more visions, ulterior motives and hidden agendas to the mix.

            I agree with your VSE words and that in general the commitment turned out to be weak.  It smacks of the Tragedy of the Commons.  Billions in, but what comes out?  Activities fixated in process, but failing to secure results revelant to the National good.  Don’t misunderstand that.  NASA is extraordinary.  It’s the unified vision right at the top that has yet to exist.  It is also that at the top, they lack the tools to measure the potency of outcomes secured and to quantify the substantive relevancy of those outcomes to the Nation.  To simply declare that “we did a lot of science” or gained a lot of knowledge is not sufficient.  The success criteria need to be more specific and clear to all.

            Would you agree?  Or is all of that irrelevant in your view?

          • Helen Simpson says:
            0
            0

            With all due respect, it looks pretty irrelevant. You want names of people who represent the White House? Geez. Just get a list of the WH staff. Those people have a “vision” which they get approval of from the President, for the important national needs that I listed. Space is not one of those important national needs. Get over it.

            Do any of these folks have strong feelings about space? Maybe. Maybe not. Their feelings are probably with regard to the other major visions. For example, I’m confident that there is no one in the White House who is committed to colonizing the solar system as a reason for investment in space. That being said, I see no reason to believe that the White House space policy isn’t “unified”. What makes you think that? That’s a very odd statement. Do you detect contradictory policies coming out of the WH?

            As to Congress, just take the old line — “The President proposes, and Congress disposes.” In the end, what happens is what Congress allows to happen. Congress makes things happen. The President does not. (Though certainly Presidential leadership can suggest what should happen.) Congress isn’t just a lot of voices that get added to the voice of the White House. It’s the only voice that counts in the end.

      • tutiger87 says:
        0
        0

        Bolden led the 3rd Marine Air Wing. A very large agency indeed.

      • BeauHica says:
        0
        0

        Don’t think he’d be interesting or good.  No experience in leading a large organization and unimpressive scientific credentials.  Very few publications, none of note, most with lots of coauthors.  I don’t know what he has visionaried.  He wants more dollars for NASA while glossing over how poorly NASA spends what it currently gets.  His bombast is off-putting.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          unimpressive scientific credentials
          Really?  Quite aside from his various awards and medals, and the fact that Carl Sagan tried to recruit Tyson to Cornell for undergraduate studies, Tyson’s education includes:
          • Bachelor of Arts in Physics, Harvard.• Master of Arts in Astronomy, University of Texas.• Master of Philosophy in Astrophysics, Columbia University.• Doctor of Philosophy in Astrophysics, Columbia University.• Honorary Doctorates from at least 17 major US educational institutions.
          From Wikipedia:Tyson’s research has focused on observations in stellar formation and evolution as well as cosmology and galactic astronomy.  He has held numerous positions at institutions including University of Maryland, Princeton University, the American Museum of Natural History, and Hayden Planetarium.He’s also been appointed to work on Presidential commissions.I’d call that pretty impressive scientific credentials, especially when you add in all of the books, public appearances, TV shows, etc. that he’s done.Of course, none of this is particularly relevant to whether or not he’d make a good candidate for NASA Administrator.

          • BeauHica says:
            0
            0

            He has studied at some good places but then so have a lot of people.  His publication list shows 13 or so refereed papers over a very wide timespan with a lot of gaps.  He is a media star, no doubt, and I think that has a lot to do with the honorary doctorates.  It is a known dangle to get commencement speakers.
            http://www.haydenplanetariu

            I’m on the whole ok with him out there advocating for science in general.  If it is to get on tv, science has to be sensationalized and he fits well within that framework.  Making him NASA administrator is equal to naming a sports talk show host as NFL commissioner.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Based on the current NFL commissioner, I’d prefer a talk show host!  😉

            Again, I know I’m completely flip flopping since I can’t decide myself, but do you need to be a manager or a leader to be an Administrator?  I’d argue that we’ve had plenty of managers with strong organizational backgrounds since Apollo, yet we’re still stuck in LEO.  I would also  strongly argue, that is because NASA didn’t have the budget to go with visions.  I can see how some would see Tyson off-putting, but using an arguably simplistic argument, is there anything more important that the NASA Administrator lobbying for money?  Tyson’s certainly a good talker for that.  From the NASA org chart, the Administrator has a CIO, a CFO, a Chief Scientist, a Chief Technologist, a Chief of Staff, a Deputy Administrator, an Associate Deputy Administrator for Policy Integration, an Assistant Associate Administrator, a Chief Engineer, a Chief for Safety and Mission Assurance, a Chief Health and Medical Office, ten Associate Administrators (incl. Center heads), a host of other Deputy Administrators, etc. etc.  Have all those people do the jobs they were hired to do.  Now go to the Hill and get more money.

          • BeauHica says:
            0
            0

             Replying to Spacer1966 here due to lack of reply link underneath his/her post:

            “is there anything more important that the NASA Administrator lobbying for money?  Tyson’s certainly a good talker for that. “

            I don’t think more money without a clear purpose makes any sense.  If Generals want more dollars for the military, they should be able to convincingly argue for it.  I don’t think more empty suits in high level positions is a good thing.

            “From the NASA org chart, the Administrator has a CIO, a CFO, a Chief
            Scientist, a Chief Technologist, a Chief of Staff, a Deputy
            Administrator, an Associate Deputy Administrator for Policy Integration,…….[deletia]”

            I think this is getting closer to the problem.  A hell of a bureaucracy, isn’t it?  Kind of like a large private contractor.  Only the private contractors are shedding workers and execs by the boatload as things get tight.  NASA needs to do the same. 

    • MaximusMars says:
      0
      0

      NdT has said (repeatedly) that he doesn’t want the job, and wouldn’t take it.  He won’t run for office either.  He understands his role as a NASA cheerleader from the outside.  Plus he has much more fun on the Planetary Society with his drinking buddies (Nye & Logsdon)….

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        Perhaps it wasn’t the best idea, but if that’s his position, I would find it disappointing.  If you really believe in something, at some point you have to step up in a capacity where you have to make the actual decisions.  Cheerleading is important, but in the end, that’s the easy way out.  Making decisions–that’s hard.  Does it always work out?  Certainly not.  But for all the mistakes any NASA Administrator makes, at least they are on the field.

        Of course, having read this and then my previous post, I seem to have a bit of an inconsistency of thought.  Maybe I should try to make a decision. 😉

    • Johnny Telescope says:
      0
      0

       I think the next NASA administrator has to have a strong vision for NASA, has to understand how both the human exploration and science sides of NASA work, and has to have experience working within a large government agency. Seems to me someone like John Grunsfeld would be a strong candidate. He’s got all of the above.

  5. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    FUNNY!!
    Obama has a vision? 
    Implementing bold policy? 

    What are they? 

    They succeeded in promptly terminating Shuttle pretty much on schedule when it could have easily been drawn out over several years to maintain ISS support and an American human launch capability.

    They failed to move the assets that had been ET and SRB into new booster production until after the prior system had been totally eliminated.

    Obama tried but failed to cancel Orion and Ares/SLS, but Congress has guided that decision.

    The two BIG major failures have been not moving new vehicle development along at a much faster pace and not getting ISS functions squared away to take full advantage of its capabilities years ago. 

    None of these failures started with Bolden though he sure did not help to move anything into hi gear. 

    The Obama-Bolden response was “”maintain an even strain” even as the program collapsed all around them.

    I don’t see a lot of daylight between Obama and Bolden. They seem like a matched set. Bolden is by job and responsibility fully an element of the Administration. Whether there is or isn’t a Vision, Leadership, or A Plan, Obama and Bolden can take mutual credit.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Brian,

      I think the important point here is not the policy/plan business, but rather the unambiguous clarification of who’s calling the shots and exactly where the NASA Administrator sits in the food chain.  I’m still convinced that anyone would have to be either brave or stupid to want that job (or both; they’re not mutually exclusive).

      But where do you find a person with the appropriate skills and experience who’d be willing to take the job?  I originally thought Bolden was a good choice because he was a General, but in retrospect, he was also an astronaut, and putting an astronaut in the Administrator’s job I think is a big mistake.

      What we all want to see is someone who knows what’s best for NASA, but as this Sentinel piece illustrates, that’s not the NASA Administrator’s job; rather it’s to implement the “policy put forth by the president and his administration.”  So it’s a no-win game.

      Steve

  6. H-man says:
    0
    0

    Charlie just like you did with your recent Director moves….the White House
    has just used ” inside sources ” to hint to you to move along my friend.

    No one has to really wrack their brain for who Obama would then trust as
    its obvious that he would just let his gal Lori G run it on a temporary basis
    that turns out to be most of his 2nd administration.

    Do people forget how long the position was in an acting status while they
    searched for Bolden?  Obama could go a year or more with Garver and then
    suggest to Congress that she has proved herself and earned the job on a
    more permanent basis….

    The only vision for NASA will be future budget cuts….to programs and payroll both. 

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Obama proposed increases in the NASA budget even when most budgets were declining; Congress consistently cut administration requests, seriously delaying commercial crew, our fastest route back to human launch, where the Administration requests have been cut in half. The difficulty is that Congress has a different agenda; underfund the agency and force NASA to expend most of its resources on SLS/Orion, which has little chance of ever approaching a practical cost. 

  7. Tom Sellick says:
    0
    0

    Awwww I look at his picture and want to sing:
     
    You get blue like everyone
    But me and Grandpa Joe can make your troubles go away…
    Blow away…
    There they go…
    Cheer up Charlie, give me a smile …

  8. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    The shots are called at OMB

    What are you talking about?  Define “shots.”  OMB is responsible for budget amounts (not allocation details) and process oversight, both as directed by the President.  OMB has absolutely nothing to do with planning or managing NASA’s activities.

    Here and below you interject comments that first tell a poster that they’re wrong, and then presume to “correct” us with statements that clearly show that you don’t live on the same planet as the rest of us.

    If you can’t get your facts straight, at least try to be a little bit polite about presenting your fabrications.

    • Fred says:
      0
      0

       Steve you really don’t have a clue as to how government works. Much less what the role each agency plays in budget formulation. You  probably think the president (current and former) loses sleep thinking what he needs to do with NASA. Hate to be the one to break it to you but half the presidents since NASA’s inception didn’t even know what the acronym stood for.

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        Fred: can you name which Administrators Presidents “didn’t even know what the acronym stood for” ? That’s the only way you can make the goofy claim you’ve made. Of course you can’t. You just make this stuff up.

      • Fred says:
        0
        0

         Keith you need to read a little more carefully before making goof claims. I didn’t say administrators I said presidents

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        My apologies to one and all for my ignorance.  We somehow shifted from what the NASA Administrator’s job is/isn’t to what happens through the White House.  Although I’ve followed NASA for many years, obviously I’m not in touch with the realities of US government.

        I’ve spent time on the OMB web site, and it shows a NASA budget with total allocations for Science, Exploration, Aeronautics, Space Operations, Space Research and Technology, Education, Cross Agency Support, Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration, and Inspector General.

        To find any details of the breakdown of each of the above, I had to go to the NASA web site and look at the NASA-prepared budget estimates.  I would appreciate it if someone could lead me to the documents that show the details of how NASA’s estimates/requests for each of the above categories got turned into the OMB allocation amounts for 2013.  All I could find was the before and after totals, with no breakdown of how those totals were arrived at or how they were intended to be spent on a program basis.

        Perhaps I have different definitions of “planning” and “managing.”  I realize that the OMB oversees the financials, procurements, and information technology of government agencies, as well as preparing budgets for submission by the Administration, but what planning and/or managing do they do of NASA’s tasks?  (NASA’s tasks was the context of my statement.)

        I have maintained all along that the President (and his organization, which includes the OMB) decide NASA policy and mandate the major programs to be executed by NASA whenever some poster has blamed NASA and/or the NASA Administrator for not doing these things.  It was my understanding (from the Congressional Act that created NASA) that once the programs have been decided and the budgets allocated, it was the job of the NASA Administrator and his team to “plan” and “manage” those activities.  This was the intent of my response to gpurcell’s ambiguous “The shots are called at OMB,” which doesn’t connect in any way with my comment to Brian that I can see.  I asked him to define “shots” so that I might understand what he meant, but received no clarification.

        Again, my apologies to one and all for my ignorance, and to gpurcell and Fred for my not having a clue.

        Steve

      • Fred says:
        0
        0

        Keith Do you believe the presidents know all of their agency’s spelled out acronyms? I seriously doubt it, furthermore NASA’s brand is its acronym and  not “NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION” so I stand by my statement. I know us space cadets think everyone is in tune with NASA, but it is way outside the presidents and the people’s radar in objective reality.

        Keith’s note: read your original post. You said 50% of the President’s didn’t know what NASA stands for. You can’t name which presidents did and didn’t so you have no basis for your 50% claim and now you are morphing your comments post facto to include all agencies. Goofy.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Steve I suggest you come down here to the U.S. and do a little studying on just what OMB’s role is. They have their fingers into everything – all the time – including how agencies such as NASA do things – often down to minute details.

    • npng says:
      0
      0

      Steve, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this entire thread and to see everyone’s perception and discovery of what the facts and realities are.  It’s neat to see a group jointly reveal who’s really running the blankity blank ship.

      As for defining shots:  If it has to do with money and budget, OMB calls the shots.   If it doesn’t involve money, OMB probably isn’t involved and doesn’t care either.  Sure, approps and the eop and congress get in the mix whenever and in all ways possible – I mean congress of course invents the stuff to spend money on – their legislative gig, and so on.  I suspect that janitors, clerks, interns and area tourists and pets on the mall would want “in” to the control of money too, if they could.  Frankly, I think most of the 7 billion humans on the planet would tend to be magnetically drawn to opportunties to control trillions of dollars too. 

      The OMB guys that control the money valves for NASA have been there a long time, for ages.  They’ve seen most every tactic and game played.  Not to be fooled much at all.  They don’t simply get a spreadsheet of dollar values and say “Oh, I like that $375M amount on that page, so let’s fund that!” without knowing what the money is to be used for.  They see line items and descriptions with those dollar values.   So if they saw an entry that said:  One Round Trip to Mars,  Cost: $236B and you’d probably see the hand gripping on the money valve as they read the entry.   Do they do the planning in or for a NASA or other civil agency?  Heavens no, crispy critter number crunchers wouldn’t be caught dead doing such stuff. Yeck.

      There is one thing that perpetually fascinates me about OMB.  They manage budget and control money flows and directions.  But all of those activities use tools and make decisions on the cost side (only) of the financial equation.

      If you move to the value or benefit side of the equation, it seems to be like watching a David Copperfield show, there’s smoke and then poof!  the activity and tools and analytics vanish into the mystical magical intangibles dark forest. 

      I’m not saying this glibly, I’ve had years of discussions with them on this matter.  So the frightening news is, there is probably a terrifying lack of the tools needed to properly identify and define optimal money flows and use, on the value side.  That said and perhaps hearteningly, the guys there seem to be good Americans with … generally… good intentions, so even absent essential tools, they wing-it with what they have, in the best interests of the Nation.

      By the way Steve, did you ever happen to notice that there really isn’t any agency in the U.S. government that has the specific and distinct responsibility to accelerate and grow the U.S. economy?  Nada.

      Certainly most would instantly say that that is the job of the private sector and sure, it is.  But other nations have agencies with the charter to do that, we don’t.  Then again, maybe since our govt is only skilled at spending money, it’s better we don’t have an agency to attempt it – there’s the humor for the day.

      • Fred says:
        0
        0

         Excellent summary!

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Keith/Marc: These super-skinny replies are really ugly.  Any chance of making use of space to the right after the boilerplate at the top of the page is completed?  Just a thought.
        ———————————————————————
        npnp,

        Thank you very much for taking the time to explain this to me.  One of the main reasons that I’ve been coming to NASA Watch all this time is that whenever I got something wrong, there would be someone with better knowledge who would take the time to show me where I was wrong and explain the correct facts, as you have.  This is great, because this is how I learn, which is important to me.  On other topics where I have experience, I have done the same for others.

        More recently, it seems we’ve picked up some new regulars at NASA Watch who aren’t interested in interacting in this manner.  They’re quick to criticize, even insult, another poster, but offer no explanations or corrections to support their criticisms, even when asked for clarification. And also, in my opinion, there is no room for rudeness on a public blog, especially considering that the web site belongs to someone else (Keith).

        If I now understand things more correctly after your explanation, as far as NASA goes, OMB controls the money — total budget and allocation details — before the fact, and then monitors/ oversees NASA spending activities over the rest of the year/program.  As far as “planning and managing the actual NASA tasks” goes (the execution of the programs, not the deciding of which programs get done and their scope), you’re saying OMB does not involve themselves with that (which was what I thought before learning that I was clueless).

        For reference: “The National Aeronautics and Space Act” in “Sec. 20112 Functions of the Administration” in the first part “(a) Planning, Directing, and Conducting Aeronautical and Space Activities” says,  “1) plan, direct, and conduct aeronautical and space activities;.”

        Further, in the same Act, in “Subchapter II—Coordination of Aeronautical and Space Activities” in “Sec. 20111 National Aeronautics and Space Administration” it says, “The Administration shall be headed by an Administrator, who shall be appointed from civilian life by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Under the supervision and direction of the President, the Administrator shall be responsible for the exercise of all powers and the discharge of all duties of the Administration and shall have authority and control over all personnel and activities thereof.

        Throughout this entire Space Act (as it is commonly called in some circles), by which Congress created NASA, there is no mention of, or inference to, the OMB.  The Act underwent some revisions fairly recently by which Congress gave themselves some additional oversight, but these amendments have no relevance to this discussion.

        The above legislation is the basis of what I thought I understood about NASA management, and to me it has much more in common with what you’ve described, npng, than the terse statement, “The shots are called at OMB, always have been, and to a lesser extent the appropriations committees.” that I was given yesterday.

        So I face a learning dilemma — do I willingly believe your detailed explanation, and the legal wording in the relevant legislation, about who runs NASA (recalling that planning and managing NASA’s assigned tasks was the context of my statement, not budget planning), and about who is supposed to run NASA, which are both in accord with what I thought I understood — or do I accept at face value the assertions of gpurcell and Fred that I don’t understand any of it?

        You know, this used to be a lot more enjoyable.  Thanks again, npng, for your time and knowledge; I appreciate it.

        Steve

        PS: Note to Fred.  Sorry this is so long; I know you don’t like long posts.  But some of us consider it kind of important to actually make sure our communications are complete and understandable, unambiguous and actually clear.

  9. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    No or almost no stimulus money went to most of the agencies/country.  So what?  The stimulus was spent on those recipients who were in serious trouble, those who created the (perceived) need for a stimulus in the first place.  It was a calculated bailout to preserve essential industries, not Christmas.

  10. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    CD,

    Actually, I suspect it would play out much like a Keystone Cops movie.Better still, Administrator Gingrich would be Oliver Hardy, and he’d need a deputy to be Stan Laurel.Yep, it would be interesting for sure.

    Steve

  11. HyperJ says:
    0
    0

    Wow, so I guess the strong support for Commercial Crew providers must have been a dream.  But now I know better, I guess…

  12. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    According to this compilation NASA got about $1B in stimulus money.
    http://projects.nytimes.com

  13. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Where in the “drink” would I find the ISS? I do remember hearing in 2004 that it was to be abandoned, but I think Obama got that rescinded.

  14. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    In reply to vulture4,

    True enough, but then again it was for: “Pay for climate research and researching environmentally responsible airplanes” which, I believe, were tasks newly added this year by the President, and therefore, I would say, not relevant to comparing this budget with previous ones.  The stimulus was therefor allocated to a newly created cost item, so not really an “increase” for NASA in my mind.

    When you add this $1B to the budget reduction (compared to previous years), do we have a net gain or a net loss?

    I guess a better question would be how does the NASA budget change — on a percentage basis — compare to other agencies/cost categories at this difficult financial time?

  15. David_McEwen says:
    0
    0

    I suspect Bolden is likely going to be around for another term. In Obama’s first administration, he had a hard time filling the NASA admin position. Bolden was not his first choice. I imagine the desirability for the Administrator’s position by someone who would be qualified is even less now than it was back then.