Lori Garver Is Leaving NASA
Departure of NASA Deputy Administrator Garver, NASA
“While I am sorry to be losing such a talented and passionate co-pilot, I am happy that Lori is continuing to pursue her dreams and make her mark in the aerospace industry. Her last day at NASA will be Sept. 6, and she assumes her new role at ALPA on Sept. 9. I will personally miss her candid and sage advice and good humor. Lori will always be a great friend to me and to our agency.”
– Statements on NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver’s Announced Departure, NASA
– Deputy Administrator, Lori Garver leaving NASA: Champion of NASA’s vision, workforce and U.S. aerospace to join Pilot’s Union, IFPTE
– CSF President Michael Lopez-Alegria Statement on Lori Garver’s Departure from NASA, CSF
– Congressman Fattah Statement on the Departure of NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver
Keith’s 5 Aug 5:25 pm note: Sources report that NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver will be leaving the agency in a few weeks to take a non-space job in the private sector. A formal announcement is expected tomorrow (Tuesday). No word yet as to who will replace her – or if a Deputy Administrator will even be named. Dan Goldin managed to do without a formal “Deputy” for a decade.
I am not certain that the White House would want the distraction of a confirmation hearing right now – one where any question about NASA would be fair game for the nominee. Its more probable that they will leave the position empty or make someone (like NASA Associate Administrator Robert Lightfoot) Acting Deputy Administrator for the time being and punt on anything formal. Stay tuned.
Keith’s 5 Aug 6:00 pm update: Sources report that Lori Garver will be heading to the Air Line Pilots Association.
Keith’s 5 Aug 8:00 pm update: The following email was sent to a large number of people by Lori Garver:
“After quite an extensive decision process, I have decided to make a career change. I will be resigning from my position as NASA Deputy Administrator, effective September 6 and have accepted a new position in the private sector outside the space industry. NASA will be sending out a formal announcement tomorrow with all the details. It has been great working with you all these years and I’m sure that our paths will continue to cross. As you know, I’ve been a long-time aerospace community member, but I am also excited to take on this new challenge. This change comes at the same time David and I are starting a new chapter personally, with our youngest headed off to college in a few weeks – so big changes ahead. There will definitely be time for a “proper” goodbye sometime over the next month. Until then, thank you for always being there for me and for a better future through space development.”
Not sure what she added except for her ego and divisiveness.
I love it when people resort to name calling without using their real names.
It will be years before it is known what Lori did to help hold the ship of NASA together and point it away from the past.
The past, as in returning to its roots, is very much where NASA needs to go.
How so? There are alot of things about NASA that have not changed since its inception (i.e. roots) that should.
See excellent post by reader k6mfw in this thread from last week:
http://nasawatch.com/archiv…
I see. I assumed you were referring to the Apollo years of NASA in the 60’s and 70’s, not the NACA era.
If you are referring to the fact that NASA has a broad mishmash directorate with no focus unlike the NACA (aeronautics research). I wholeheartedly agree. But I don’t think it would be good for the nation to go back to a time when it was not funding the building of “things”. In NASA’s case “things” being space telescopes, satellites, rovers, stations, and space craft. Notice I did not put launch vehicles on there; NASA should not be competing with the launch industry it should enable it, although a lot of this has to do with corrupt and archaic contracting practices.
To be perfectly honest we will never solve any of the problems that NASA has until the root problem(s) are solved, even if it was re-structured to be more like the NACA. Of course one of these root problems is not just NASA’s but the entire nations; a political process corrupted by idiotic campaign finance where the will of the dollar is more powerful than the will of the people.
You should have put launch vehicles in there. Notice that the ‘new space’ players (or anybody else) have not managed to expand the launch market beyond what the ‘old space’ players have already established. The technology of Earth to orbit transportation has yet to advance to a point that enables commercially sustainable operations. There may be a glimmer of a very small niche market for commercial launch of a hand full of high value communication satellites, provided the launch vehicle development is heavily subsidized either directly or indirectly by government expenditures. As for anything more ambitious, such as human transportation, even just to LEO, the operational costs of current systems and those presently being developed remain so high as to be accessible only to government funded users, even if development costs are still written off as a public expense. In order to foster a commercial launch industry, NASA needs to look to its roots and return to focusing on technology development and dissemination of same to industry rather than monetarily subsidizing the launch industry at a level of technology which is not self-supporting. Earth orbital transportation technology should be an even higher priority than the other “things” you mentioned, since none of those things can be done without launch systems and they can not be affordably sustained over the long haul without fundamental improvement to the economics of current and projected launch systems.
I would agree in some alternate reality where our government wasn’t a corrupt cess pool (thank you supreme court for multiple rulings making corporations people and money equating to free speech). Because we are not in that alternate reality I think our best bet is to turn all of our launch services over to milestone based contracts much as we have done with COTS and CCDev. Sure it may not be perfect, but it is our best hope to actually get launch prices under control.
I am kind of bias here due to the fact I am a ‘new space’ fanboy…specifically SpaceX, but these new organizations are starting to force a lot of the old players in the market to do things different (especially since SpaceX is soaking up a lot of the satellite launch market)Obviously the holy grail of space transportation is $100 a pound to orbit. But if SpaceX can get grasshopper and its fully re-usable family of Falcon’s to $1000 a pound or less than that should be enough to jump start a commercial market (outside of communication satellites). If a successful market comes from this than the $100 per pound to orbit could be reached due to economies of scale with a larger market and many more launches taking place.
In any case I think the approach shown above is the best bet we have considering congresscritters are not going to change NASA back into something like the NACA (at least for a good long while) and the fact that the ball is already rolling in favor of ‘new space’. Of course I might be wrong about ‘new space’ and we might see that they are no better than ‘old space’.
Aside from the folks going it completely alone, such as the Virgin Galactic and Armadillo types, the only real difference between ‘new space’ and ‘old space’ is the names and faces. Unfortunately, it’s looking like the fully independent guys can’t muster the resources to address more than very limited niche markets at best and most of them eventually give up even on that.
Grasshopper is mildly interesting, if it can be made to work, but I’ve not seen anything to indicate that it will offer any economic improvement over Falcon’s failed parachute recovery scheme, which itself was offering operational economics that still fell short of what is needed to enable a self-sustaining industry. (Even with the most optimistic cost projections of recoverable Falcons, everyone in the ‘new space’ game still planned to rely on government subsidies / contracts to operate.) Mere ‘economies of scale’ can not make the necessary leap either.
Orbital transportation is the foundation of almost all space flight and the unavoidable truth is that current technology is not capable of achieving sufficiently efficient economics to make it sustainable without government subsidy at a loss as the primary source of funding in one guise or another. Of course, government subsidy is only sustainable as long as there is the political will to do so. Trying to avoid the technology gap by playing games with government contracting models and players is just more ‘shuffling the of deck’ that has no hope of creating a fundamentally new game.
For space flight to become a truly healthy industry and break out of political dependency requires fundamental advancements in the technology of orbital transportation focused on dramatic improvements in operational economics. Unfortunately, very little effort is being put towards that goal and it appears that private funding sources are, so far, either unwilling or unable to sustain the necessary investment risks to achieve the required technical breakthroughs. Fortunately, there do appear to be a number of hypothesized technologies out there with promise for achieving these goals. Addressing such technology gaps with public funding that can be risked for the long term where private funding is unwilling to go is precisely the core purpose for which N.A.C.A. / NASA was created. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, NASA has not been addressing the orbital transportation technology gap in a meaningful way for quite some time and does not so far appear to be correcting this failure, which is one of the fundamental problems with NASA at present. The good news is that they do not need a significant increase of public funding to address this issue, but merely the will to focus on their core purposes.
It took about 15 minutes after Griffin’s departure before many on this site wrote in to condemn him. And we have to wait years before assessing the genius of Garver?
And please don’t tell me she started the commercial effort – that was the hated Griffin.
—John
No one is all good or all bad in government. Griffin did not start COTS, it started out before his tenure as alternate access to station but he did support it, for which many have said that this is his best legacy at NASA. However, you need look no farther than ESAS and SLS to see the enormous damage done to exploration in general. That damage was and is immediate and open for all to see.
To compare the power of the NASA administrator to the deputy is to not understand how the agency works.
“Behind every good NASA administrator is a woman…”
I’m a conservative libertarian and its rare that I like Democratic appointees, but Lori is a class act, has the religion, and deserves accolades and awards for starting the slow turn of the Behemoth. Someone will write the book soon….
It is about 2 years to the end of Obama’s reign, why did she jump now?
Maybe you should read her post a little more carefully. Why do people have to work through an entire term? Few do.
Child going to college. She is NASA Deputy Administrator not a part time temp in the typing pool.
You clearly live on some other planet. NASA employees have families too.
Right. And do you think that maybe, unlike a temp in the typing pool, they just might be offering her a little bit more money in the private sector? Ya think? Who says you have to work for the government forever?
“reign”? We’re a representative republic, not a constitutional monarchy.
Lori seemed to do a very good job under very tough circumstances. I wish her continued success at her next job.
Ms. Garver was always well-informed and accurate in her statements. She believed in working to advance the future of spaceflight, and she even had the support of the administration. However many of the old boy insiders did not like her, as she was an outsider, a Democratic appointee, and a woman. Although it perhaps wasn’t obvious at the time, she would have been an excellent administrator, but perhaps fighting the system finally wore her down.
I wonder if this is related to the reported friction between her and Bolden.
Bob Clark
Can you elaborate on this please? In a nice way. I never cared for Ms. Garver. Thought she was too much of a mouthpiece for Democrats… but I think she did a decent job as deputy administrator. Surprised she made the career jump out of space… I wish her well.
For someone of her generation/age the space program, at least significant new missions are about over and at best she probably doesn’t have more than maybe 10 years left to make her millions. I see a lot the senior managers leavng while they have hope of a future elsewhere.
I was referring to this:
Critical Decisions Loom For U.S. Space Program.
By Frank Morring, Jr.
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology
December 31, 2012
<quote>
…the agency comes up for reauthorization again in the new Congress that convenes in January, and there are hints in the ongoing power struggle between Administrator Charlie Bolden and his deputy, Lori Garver, that the White House may try another push to end government development of the SLS in favor of commercial crew funding. Bolden is seen as a backer of the traditional approach, and there have been fairly transparent press leaks from within the agency that the White House—or at least Garver—wants to get rid of him. Watch the budget request for the outcome on that one too.</quote>
http://www.aviationweek.com…
That was the most interesting part of the article to me. The rest I already knew. But I was surprised by the suggestion that Garver wanted Bolden out.
Bob Clark
Thank you, Bob. Interesting.
Yep, but she was not the captain, just the first officer…. And then there are the admirals, and then the contractors that hire the admirals after they retire so that the admirals can help them get contracts . Then there are the Senators that pick the contractors pockets and sit with the admirals while everyone slaps each other on the back at the Space Foundation conference in Colorado Springs while the ship is headed for…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…
Awesome analysis Dennis!
Maybe there’s hope that NASA can save the real vomit comet now that she’s gone and cannot award contracts to the company she also sits on the board for. Who, by the way, have no business trying to fly zero-g for NASA.
Hadn’t heard about this one but I’m not surprised in the least. Suck ’em dry when you have the chance.
What do you have against a private company, certified by the FAA, flying zero-g missions? Besides, the deal with ZERO-G Corp was completed before Lori came to NASA.
I don’t have a problem with the private sector’s involvement with NASA. The successful ventures have turned out great so far, but not this. Was the contract signed for 6 years? Doubtful, so why renew it when they under perform consistently… Griffin may have started the initial deal, with the hope of it being productive. But, after the first year, it was pretty clear it wasn’t. Garver was a big reason it’s still around. Look, it’s just my opinion. I love NASA, I want them to be awesome. In my eyes they are doing the wrong thing chopping up the real iconic weightless wonder and letting it sit in a desert when it is a way better alternative to what is flying for NASA now.
By the way, I’ve flown multiple times as a NASA researcher and I only get my information from people involved with the flights, from both sides.
Where is the proof that the contractor has underperformed? A post by someone named “Zach” falls far short in terms of proving this.
Just my personal opinion and experience, plus what everyone in the RGO and AOD says. There’s no need to name drop, but the majority agree.
Some person named “Zach” is correct, but this is the internet right? The comments on this blog concerning sensitive policy topics reflect each person’s view. I commend Garver on her tenure and accomplishments at NASA, but I disagree on some things.
Sometimes it seems to me peoples’ understanding of how government actually works reflects simplistic prejudices more than actual experience with making the messy sausage. The number of legitimate stakeholders is immense. Anyone who wants to have influence on policy needs the patience of Job, extraordinary people skills, technical skills concerning an or many areas of expertise, and a willingness to let others take credit. This is true for everyone in government from the President down.
True, let’s be clear here, it’s my opinion that the zero-g contract isn’t a good idea, based on actual experiences.
Mike Griffin signed the contract that NASA has with Zero G – not Lori Garver. Try doing a little research next time.
I wasn’t very clear in my original post, but see the reply to Alan.
The original vomit comets were KC-135s, not a little tiny DC-9.
NASA flagged 932, “Weightless Wonder VI” is still a vomit comet. Pretty soon there will be no real NASA vomit comets as VI is destined for the graveyard. Personally, I would rather be in the smaller aircraft and hold true zero-g and not bounce around in a 727 for 2 hours.
My experience is that NASA sometimes decides to contract out activities that are working well in-house (e.g. 0-G), and other times decides to do in-house work that is already being done by contractors (e.g. Armadillo). There’s no particular benefit either way, it’s just random variation. In the case of 0-G, the main driver seems to have been the idea that a company that can market parabolic flight to tourists (and they have been able to do so) could reduce cost to NASA (not so clear they did).
Maybe this blog would have a wider posting pool if the owner wasn’t so in the tank for the Dems…
Yeah, I noted the bias here. Keith doesn’t allow posts that go against his belief or the media agenda of his funding..
NASA Watch covers a wide range of topics and when warranted, criticizes both Democrats and Republicans and anyone else or organization.
Keith is an equal opportunity leg biter…
🙂
You must have Keith confused with somebody else. NASA Watch is, and always has been, about NASA, not Keith’s political opinions.
Hah. Your comments are posted and you clearly don’t agree with me …
Ohhh, anybody who knows Keith and Marc well will find such a totally unfounded, and generally completely contrary to actual truth, statement hilarious. Both of these gentleman work to express real issues in spaceflight development and have been supportive of many Republican WH-inspired efforts.
Keith in the tank for the Dems? Of all the administrators since I have been with or following NASA closely Sean seemed to be his favorite.
Yea and all of my fellow leftie Dem friends used to think I was a turn coat. Go figure. Oh and no one seems to remember the caustic commentary I had for the Clintonistas – but I voted for him both times …
I personally liked Dan Goldin because he promoted the new technology and innovative solutions, something NASA hasn’t had since Von Braun.
Bob Clark
Gosh it is so much fun to have people with made up names questioning how NASA Watch is run … it is so easy to take pot shots when you hide your identity.
Maybe we hide our identities because we like being employed?
So you are afraid to stand by your remarks? Got it.
Very easy fr you to say Keith…I’m not afraid…but I like being gainfully employed. But enough people will know who I am, and they know that I stand by my remarks unbowed and unafraid. I’m sure the JSC all-hands have been less fun without me around.
I think you are afraid to use your real name. Go ahead and stay anonymous – that’s why I allow it on this website. I just do not take your comments at full face value as a result. And don’t think that I am immune to threats, etc. made by people for what I write. I am just used to the threats.
but no one can take your job away from you since you make your living with this site, but others like tutiger87 could lose his job since he isnt a civil servant.
So … he is going to lose his job because of something he posts on a blog? Even the dumbest lawyer in the world could get him a pile of money for wrongful termination, violation of constitutional right to free speech, violation of whistleblower statutes (perhaps) etc. Since the folks at NASA and contractors know this, its unlikely that they are going to get fired. Too much paperwork. But what is it that NASA people expect – to have others fight their battles for them?
As for taking my job away from me, NASA people have been harassing me, advertisers, people who contribute, etc since the day it went online. I just plow through and don’t talk about it a lot. It goes with the territory. But to suggest that I can do whatever I want without being pressured is to not understand how the world works.
NASA people somehow think they are some special life form that has it oh so tough that they can be fired for sneezing at the wrong time. They need to grow a pair and stand up for what they belive.
You use your real name and have done so for years. Why can’t everyone else? Maybe there’d be more honest conversation that way such as to make the need for blogs less necessary.
not everyone is as brave as me:)
I also have ended up on the front page of this site on several times (MOD social media policy, Riding the booster video, and I think at least one other time) which has resulted in a sit down with management. nothing too bad and I agree it would be hard to get fired for making a comment here.
Back in the mid 90s when I started all of this, I had people at NASA overtly investigating me mostly because no one at NASA understood the Internet. Conservative republicans in the House and the NASA IG had to push NASA PAO to give me press credentials. Back then I would have been more inclined to side with people who claimed that they could be fired for speaking out.
Today, with everything on a hair trigger onTwitter and social media such that everyone can see everything instantly after it has happened I am certain that anyone with a legit complaint about being harassed for expressing their opinion would be able to make a big stink so as to make them impervious to retribution.
But even in every day life people need to exercise common sense, restraint, consideration of others, etc when they interact. NASA people need to get over the urban myths of what can happen to them.
Mike uses his real name because as a civil servant it is a lot harder for him to be terminated.
It’s no urban myth. Contractor management is always afraid of anything that could put them ‘in a bad light’, especially in this era of ultra finite resources.
A few years ago, I wrote a letter to USA Today criticizing Mike Griffin’s ‘Shuttle was a mistake’ comments. I almost lost my job (with USA at the time) then.
“Grow a pair”? Really Keith…Those that know me will tell you that a comment as that definitely does not apply to me….
tutiger87 – I have no idea who you are or what you do or if you really work at/for NASA. Lots of anonymous people make claims here that cannot be backed up. So … by all means continue to post as “tutiger87” and have a nice day.
Nothing to do with Dems or Reps. Everything to do with commercial space, which, I would estimate, most space advocates support.
Bob Clark
Hmmm…When I got interested in space….I went and got a technical degree…When Lori got interested in space…she went and got degrees in public policy….I think much of the rank and file looked at her with the side eye becuase of this..
Rumors and innuendo about personal beefs with specific centers and/or people didn’t help either.
Now, this doesn’t mean she’s a bad person, and definitely does not deserve some of the vitriol that might be served here. But the bottom line is that in the opinion of many, she just didn’t belong.
That’s just plain wrong. In an organization of 18,000 people you can’t please everyone and you will piss off some. And to say she didn’t belong is BS. Organizations are not made of technical people only. They need people from all disciplines.
You’re right to a point. We need all kinds to make this machine go. Everybody has their place. I once had a scheduler who was very good about making sure my products and projects were always on time, but she never told me how to optimize a trajectory.
When non-technical people are making significant input into technical decisons, people look around with the side eye. It’s one thing to have a finance person providing a certain perspective into a technical decision, but they aren’t making technical inputs into architechture. Whether warranted or not, folks down here on the ground looked at her with the side eye.
We can talk about the reputed politics of her appointment later. From what scuttlebutt I hear, Lori (as welll as Peter Marquez and others) was one of the folks brought over to the Obama team after he won the primary, and had to make a deal for Hilary’s support.
Maybe her tenure at NASA will one day be looked at through a different lense. But I would bet that right now, today, a lot of the rank and file, especially at certain centers, aren’t wiping tears away over her departure.
Do you actually work at NASA? Otherwise, how would you know what people at NASA think or feel?
15 yrs..and counting…with a short hiatus elsewhere for a bit after the end of Shuttle. I loved how she would come for all hands meetings and not take questions…
What are you talking about?? Every center, every all hands and every senior staff meeting she was taking questions. Maybe you should have asked one instead of just hating someone you didn’t care to know.
I can remember at least one all hands she came to JSC and we were told before there would be no questions asked.
Not every center my friend…..When I was at JSC she was always ushered very quickly out the door, with security escort rivaling the Secret Service. I had a question that I have been burning to ask. Alas, I never will….
“Not take questions” Huh? She always took questions. If you have a specific date/place where she did not, then please share.
Not at JSC…she was ushered out of the side door at Teague like she was the President and someone was firing shots…On two occasions that I remember specifically….
With the hostility of some towards her, it wouldn’t surprise me …
Bob Clark
I am sorry, but
“It’s one thing to have a finance person providing a certain perspective into a technical decision, but they aren’t making technical inputs into architechture.”
Really? In many other industries, and arguably the rest of the world, there isn’t 1 penultimate technical solution, and “only technical people” make the decisions.
And frankly, like it or not, that attitude is dangerous to NASA and our space enterprise
Dangerous? I would submit that the other way around, where non technical folks have too much input, or make decisions without adequate technical rigor or rationale is more dangerous.
You want dangerous? Dangerous is the effects of politics on our enterprise.
I suspect that many posters would disagree with your technical-people-only viewpoint, but won’t bother to respond because it’s obvious that you won’t be swayed from your limited perspective.
Time and time again in many industries a technical person was promoted to technical management and it didn’t go well, because management and high-level decision-making require a different set of skills and experience than those with a technical education only generally possess.
Technical people in management positions all too often try to continue doing technical work and decision-making instead of managing their people and programs.
In the case of Lori Garver, and many others, forget what education they had many years ago and look instead at their acquired experience over the years since finishing school.
Experience doing what? Drafting public policy? Writing papers? It pales to my experience as an engineer and a console operator.
If you say things like that, believe me you don’t have a clue about how to actually make public policy, and it demonstrates that why technical know-how really doesn’t inform the issue of broader strategic goals.
If console operators are so smart, why can’t they figure out a mission of greater practical value to the nation than “Apollo on Steroids”? (I was also a console operator, but i’m not convinced it makes me a genius.)
The console operators aren’t making the so-called “strategic” decisions. if they were, we’d be on Mars by now.
Limited perspective? Not hardly. A good leader is a good leader, Something the Agency hasn’t had in place for a long time.
And I would have to disagree with you just a bit regarding what skill sets are needed, Technical people can acquire those certain managerial skills rather easily, and can become good leaders and good managers of people. On the flip side..I would submit that it was quite easier for me to become a good manager,writer, etc..etc..than it would be for some business person or political hack to acquire technical chops.
wow – I am sorry, but the arrogance of that statement is all the wrong kinds of impressive. I’ve seen far too many people who were technically inclined, who in no way could be good managers.
I will give you that…I also have seen a good number of technical people who, when put into managerial positions, failed miserably. It is a matter of being humble enough to acknowledge the ‘soft skills’ that you need to cultivate.
Unlike many of my technical peers,many of my experiences outside of the technical arena (I did 2 yrs as a football GA, for example) helped to cultivate the skills that so many of my peers just dont have.
Excellent point. Witness Griffin.
Bob Clark
How did we get from the Deputy Administrator’s qualifications to “good leader”? As for your second paragraph, like I said, limited persepctive. And that’s as much as I’ll say on the matter since, in the other comments below, every time you’re challenged you jump tracks to a different topic, which only prevents discussion.
1) We’ve had politics on our enterprise for a long time. Space people have liked to believe that space policy is non-political, but thats really not an accurate view of teh world.
2) The reason its dangerous is very simple. Space, and NASA, do not belong to only the people at NASA, or only the technical people. THEY BELONG TO ALL OF US. When you forget that, you end up with an organization that is not serving the people, and you end up believing that your special, and then when you lack support, you wonder why.
“organization that is not serving the people”
reminds me of this, “On Self-Licking Ice Cream Cones” by S.P. Worden, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/f…
Regarding NASA Adminstrator, I think the Admin should be a business/politico/beancounter that knows how to work the system, his/her deputy should be the technical person. i.e. James Webb/Hugh Dryden.
Worden presciently points out that part of the problem is that the real power controlling the entire NASA budget is one man, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee with authority over NASA. That would be, today, the frequently bizarre Frank Wolf from a rural district in Northwest Virginia.
On the other hand Griffin had technical degrees from head to toe and still gave us one of the decisions ever in the Constellation program.
Having the degrees is no guarantee of making good decisions.
Bob Clark
Do you actually work at NASA?
I’ve already answered that…
No you haven’t.
Yes I did…Look a few comments above..15 yrs and counting…
Watch out… You have fallen into a liberal hornet’s nest. Most of the folks on here have tunnel vision.
Uh huh – And you seem to think you are a character in a redneck TV show …
I’m a NASA employee (civil service) and a liberal. Lori is quite possibly one of the most hated people at this agency. There are parties everywhere this week.
And, as is often the case with NASA employees, you are only willing to make insulting comments about someone – and only do so if you hide behind a fake name.
Exactly. Because of the fear of retribution by people, like, Garver. Have you met her in person. Ever? Spent a real amount of time with her in a professional setting? Ask anyone who has.
Yes I have “met” her. I have lost track of the number of times I have talked/met with her since I have known her for more than 25 years. What’s your point – seems to be an imaginary one – at best.
If you are suggesting the support for Garver is only by “liberals” you are FAR from correct. The support for her is overwhelmingly because she was a strong proponent of commercial space. And most people on this forum support commercial space.
Raises an interesting question: are most space advocates supporters of commercial space nowadays? I would say yes, most. There are still some who think, for example, that Constellation was a good thing, but they are a smaller proportion.
Bob Clark
ALPA is as technical an organization as today’s NASA can at best hope to be. Why do you think that they wanted her? Robert G Oler
Name recognition, perhaps? Political connections? Given the career bio of the present president, seems that the position is more suited to lobbying.
Tutiger87-you bring up a good point. I don’t necessarily agree with it.
I think if you take a look at the CEOs of most technical organizations you will find they are led frequently by non-technically educated people. But they bring specific kinds of expertise that raise the value of that organization’s leadership.
Usually they bring to their leadership position the knowledge and skills required for the organization to remain successful (profitable in the case of commercial industry).
One of the problems I have seen in NASA over 35 years is how little value is placed on education, experience or demonstrated ability. This seemed to start in the last 20 years. When I saw top level managers until around 1990, I knew what their backgrounds, experience, education, were all about. Whether I always agreed with them or not, I respected them because of what they brought to the table in the way of experience and expertise. That was true of people in leadership, people in management, people in the technical ranks….
What I saw starting in the 1990s and its worse than ever today was suddenly any one who came out of specific groups-good examples: the astronaut corp or the flight director ranks; they could do no wrong. Those two groups in particular were automatically qualified to do anything. They were not the only groups that got preferential treatment-for awhile you had the Marines in charge. Everybody who was placed in any high level position was a Marine. These ‘supermen’ could be named Administrator or AA in charge of any function or program manager…anything NASA was doing. These preferred groups were really just friends of the people in charge; they usually had no special talents; usually they had less experience or education than others; they could be placed in charge of systems design and development even if they had never designed or developed anything. They could be named a top level manager even if they had never managed people.
Civil service regulations say that they are supposed to compete the positions and select the best person qualified. But suddenly talk of succession planning identified who would be promoted into positions and those people were selected long before the jobs opened or were competed.
That explains a lot of the people in charge of NASA today. It also explains a lot of the problems NASA is now and has been experiencing for some time.
Constellation and Orion is a prime example. It was designed too voluminous, too large and too heavy. They cut it back in size several times and ultimately had to half the crew size because of the parachute weight. Why? Well they never did the analysis that showed what size would actually be required. The managers didn’t even realize that NASA had trained and experienced experts in things like anthropometrics or human systems or vehicle design. Why the Constellation and Orion managers not know? Afterall, why would you need experts in these areas when other ‘technically trained’ but inexperienced people could make off-the-cuff decisions on what would be needed? How much critical time and expense has this cost us?
We can have a whole other conversation about how folks are put into leadership positions that they aren’t ready for/deserve. I totally agree with you there.
And James Webb was an accountant. What does a person’s education and previous employment prove in terms of what to expect when it comes to leadership?
James Webb was an Oklahoma oilman who’s biggest attributes were that he was buddies with LBJ and knew how to work congress. We went to the Moon during his tenure as administrator.
Look at the lasting damage the last technically qualified administrator did…
Jim Webb knew well enough to leave the technical decisions to Kraft, Kranz, & company…We can talk about Mike Griffin and the ATK mafia another day…
Sorry, but that’s not true. Webb always asked for advice, suggestions, possibilities, recomendations, etc., then he made the big-picture, high-level technical decisions himself. The one exception was Mission Control, where he knew better than to interfere with on-going operations. The lower-level, day-to-day technical decisions he didn’t make; other people had those responsibilties. And, no, I wasn’t there, but there are many documents, books, etc., both NASA stuff and independent, that make this very clear.
Kraft maybe, Von Braun definitely, but, Webb knew his way around programs. He took all the apollo budget estimates went to the white house and told the President it would cost 2X. They barely made it. Pity, I think if Webb had stuck his head in and forced the team to come up with an architecture that would have worked on the Saturn IB, we might have had a sustaining program. the S-V was gorgeous but unsustainable.
Well said.
Bob Clark
I’d raise a toast to her, for the effort and work she put in
Having some years ago made a speech at a national NSS gathering arguing for Lori Garvers resignation I feel that I can approach this from a fairly balanced perspective
Garver in my opinion probably did at NASA as good as anyone in her position could do given the political state of both parties, the dysfunctional interrelation of the space industrial complex and NASA, and the utter inability of human spaceflight in the last three decades to find any obvious value that justifies its cost. There is an utter lack of incentive to fix the issues at DoD and NASA which are driving both groups into technical and managerial incompetence..and that incentive has to come in any event from the political class.
To her ever lasting credit, she had recognized the potential of “new space” and while she was unable to allow it to prosper, at least kept it alive ….and that alone seems to have made some trend lines if not inevitable, but at least likely. new space is new thinking in a world of “fatbergs” and she did at least help keep that going.
ALPA is a superb organization which while contributing to a large faucet of aviation has at its core advancing the state of the art in a coherent way, not preserving old edifices. Change there is visible and rewarding not snail pace and painful. ALPA is a good group and Garver is a fine person…they both should be a good fit Robert G Oler
Pleased to see she is moving as she wasnt an asset for NASA
Cessna
Sometimes when you don’t have a big stick, you walk softly and get what you can get done, done.
She was very effective advocate for the policies of the gentleman that nominated her, but she left NASA weaker than she found it, which I assume was the point of those in charge. Then again as a supporter of SLS & Orion I’d be expected to feel that way. NASA’s problems didn’t start with her…and they won’t disappear now that she’s gone. The guy I feel sorry for is Administrator Bolden. I can’t imagine that he’s happy about the direction things have gone. Ugh! If I had been forced to implement this current “vision” the ph in my stomach would be measured in negative numbers. There wouldn’t be enough TUMS in the drug store to cope. Good luck Ms. Garver.
This post on Parabolicarc.com gives more insight why most space advocates supported Garver:
Garver’s Departure Leaves NewSpace Without its Highest Ranking Advocate
Posted by Doug Messier on August 6, 2013, at 12:01 pm in News
<quote>The announcement of Garver’s departure has already caused consternation among her supporters in the NewSpace community, who are losing their highest ranked advocate at the space agency at a critical time when Congress and the White House are at loggerheads over the space agency’s funding and direction.
The prospects of Garver being replaced — even temporarily — by Lightfoot will not sit well with that group, either. Lightfoot is former director of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., the lead center for the space agency’s heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS). NewSpace advocates see SLS as a giant pork barrel project sucking up massive amount of NASA’s resources that will be too expensive to fly more than once every three or four years.</quote>http://www.parabolicarc.com…
Still, history will not treat kindly anyone whose actions may lead rival nations to claim the moon in our absence.