Some – But Not All – Politics Are Good For NASA
Transition Fever, Lori Garver, Op Ed, SpaceNews
“The bottom line is that we in the space community can’t have it both ways. We can’t take the public’s money, but then not allow the leaders they elect to have any say about NASA’s direction. While the multi-year process of getting both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to agree on NASA programs and budgets may be frustrating, that is the “price” we pay for spending public tax dollars. These inherent challenges are part of why I believe we should do everything possible to incentivize the private sector to do more. … If we follow the path many have suggested and limit the influence of future presidents over NASA and its leadership, we are likely to see less support for the agency, not more. It would also embolden those who want less of a sustainable strategic space program in favor of parochial pet projects. NASA stands to benefit greatly from the energy of a new presidency and should be preparing to welcome the transition team with open arms and open books.”
Keith’s note: In this Op Ed Garver talks about her transition Team experiences in 2008 and how NASA was less than forthcoming with information about the status Constellation – specifically Ares V. I wonder what will await the next transition team when it comes time for them to hear the SLS briefing. Sticker shock? Buyer’s remorse? Another large rocket termination? Yet another blue ribbon panel?
In the words of Norm Augustine : ‘Will you brats stop calling me ! Fix your own goddamned mess’
Wait until someone on the Transition Team asks what the mission is for SLS, and is met with blank stares, shrugs, and “I dunno”.
It will be a horrible replay of the Ares + CEV. Launchers and capsules to nowhere are never a good idea.
Gonzo_Skeptic NASA will just give the transition team a map to the Senate cloakroom where the SLS was designed. NASA is just doing the bidding of the Senate.
A ROAD-map to the Senate…
That can only be topped by when the new administration figures out there is no Human mission beyond LEO in the Books and orders one in a “bold” move and is met with “well the Rocket we were building to enable beyond LEO Human Missions was cancelled on the recommendation of your transition team.”
Hopefully the next administration will want a program that is sustainable and provides practical benefits to our nation, not simply one that is “bold”. I think Lori is on target.
“That’s ok, we can use Falcon Heavy.”
Use Falcon Heavy to do what? Land a Man on Mars and bring them back safely?
Is that something you expect to do with SLS/Orion?
Ms. Garver is correct in her assessment of the sometimes meddlesome nature of the political process. It’s just part of the deal.
I’m reminded of a somehow similar situation ringing through the centuries:
“Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest…?”
Her comments to Dr. Mike on buying a car without looking under the hood? Priceless.
But if you don’t know anything about the things that are under the hood, does it make a difference for you to look?
Great point!
I recently bought a new Buick Enclave. When I looked under the hood I recognized exactly NOTHING! In fact nothing was really discernible. Gone are the carbs and distributer and wires and intake manifold of my boyhood.
The article was well written and had a lot of good suggestions for both sides of the transition.
I don’t think the SLS briefing will have the same outcome as CxP. Ares I wasn’t due to fly for 8 years, Ares V was even further away. SLS is much closer to flight, with actual hardware being constructed today. It will be much harder to cancel SLS than it was to cancel CxP.
If they don’t cancel SLS they will have stepped into the trap of the sunk cost fallacy. But the fact is that SLS is simply not a sustainable program. Saturn V was cancelled because it was too expensive. Congress is just repeating that same mistake with SLS.
Deliberately dropping reusable SSMEs into the ocean is insanity.
Of course there will be another blue ribbon presidential panel consisting of the usual Washington policy experts with a few token members from outside the beltway added to create diversity. Of course they will produce another report for the circular file, allowing the Congress to hold another set of hearings and of course the next President will have their Kennedy style photo op afterward with astronauts and rockets to boost their poll numbers as they give the program and rocket a new name and logo. And then NASA will just go drifting on, distributing its pork and otherwise forgotten until the next president’s administration.
Sadly that is all NASA is now for politicians, pork and photo ops. Its why I no longer see NASA or government space spending as relevant to opening the Solar System.
NASA has had such nonexistent leadership for so long that Garver is right-NASA was less than forthcoming; but I think they were less than forthcoming because NASA really does not have a plan. If they do not have a plan then they do not know where they stand. And, they are in denial about what it would take to do the job-which is often NOT more money, more people, or more resources. There are plenty of people and resources that are not used.
The NASA leadership does not know where they are going. They do not know what is wrong. and they do not know how to fix it. Remember the Augustine committee where the Constellation leadership swore Orion would be flying in 2014 and where Sally Ride said maybe 2017, but 2019 was more likely? What were the NASA leaders smoking? Why did everyone else know exactly what was going on but the people in charge of it did not have a clue? Now you have some of those people promoted into center leadership? So they fail us all and then get promoted into positions which depend upon their nonexistent organizational or communications abilities?
And then, a bunch of outsiders come in and want to understand the complexity that is spaceflight, and none of the NASA leadership is able to explain it to them because, I firmly am convinced, that the NASA leaders are clueless; because the management in NASA is basically a bunch of hangers-on, who have gotten ahead mainly just by keeping their mouths shut and surviving-and who either truly have no clue about what they ought to be doing, or are in denial about what they could be doing, should be doing, out of fear.
There are plenty of us-many did depart out of frustration in the last couple of years- who do know what is wrong and what it would take to fix it but we are not in a position to have a voice,
NASA leadership needs to be swept clean. If they don’t want to give the leadership to proven, experienced, capable, bold, visionary leaders, then they would be better off to promote in some 30 year olds who are naive enough to make some serious changes.
Read some of Gert’s comments, specifically where he talks about juggling, for a better sense of what it is like to run an agency like NASA and what it means to have, as you call it, a ‘plan’.
I am pretty familiar with Gerst and his comments. I do not see Gerst as part of the solution. He is one of those hangers on who never had the appropriate background or ability for the job in the first place and who has stayed in place by keeping his mouth shut and making no bold moves. Gerst was fully supportive of Constellation, as designed. Gerst was fully supportive of shutting down Shuttle long before we had a capability to replace it. Gerst had the wherewithall to get people working on technical fixes for Shuttle, and he chose to do nothing. Gerst has had the ear of Administrators and Congress and has chosen to say little. Worse, Gerst has been responsible for putting a lot of the other incompetent managers, like those Constellation managers, into their positions and keeping them there long past the time when everyone had seen they did not have a clue. Gerst put in place most of the ISS people who have failed to put together a coherent plan to get science on board. He has kept those same people in place for 15 years. A competent Administrator would watch as things do not improve, and take some matters into his own hands to make some changes. I do not regard Gerst as someone with a solution. In many ways, he is the epitome of what is wrong with NASA. Unfortunately, if Gerst were to leave, I don’t know who might replace him-he has surrounded himself with a lot of people in high places who do not have any better handle on the situation than he does himself. In earlier periods, like Mueller and Webb, the AA would comb through the NASA, DoD, and industry ranks to find competent experienced people to put into critical positions. Gerst just promotes his lackeys.
Until NASA gets uncoupled from the political process, it won’t matter who’s in charge.
I disagree. Politics has always been part and parcel of government, including NASA. Competent Administrators worked with the Administration and Congress to make things happen. Incompetent Administrators have waited for it to happen to them. We’ve been suffering with the latter since O’Keefe left. O’Keefe, in retrospect, was the last Administrator who orchestrated the Administration’s and Congress’ support.
Yep. De-coupling anything the government does from politics is a mistake.
It’s not a mistake, it’s just difficult and sometimes impossible to accomplish.
Yikes.
Points taken and all true and I should have been more specific; I think he has a realistic sense of how difficult it is to manage an agency when the goal post keeps shifting and at anytime someone shouts “why aren’t you scoring?”
Belatedly,
This isn’t a thing which happens. Please stop regurgitating this stupid myth. Major NASA programs rarely get cancelled by new administrations. On the contrary, trying to cancel bad programs is nearly impossible.
The Shuttle lasted from Nixon to Bush Jr, over thirty years, in spite of never meeting it’s intended goals. The space station lasted from Reagan’s second term until 2024+, again over thirty years, in spite of not being useful for its original purpose and going more than an order of magnitude over-budget and over a decade behind schedule before the first module launched. JWST is a decade late and nearly five times over-budget, and can’t actually replace the HST.
And, of course, Ares V & Orion persisted as SLS/Orion in spite of a new President very deliberately trying to set NASA on a new (better) path, resulting in NASA being trapped with another $3+b/yr failed program for another two decades.
So many bad programs have persisted across multiple Presidents, in spite of clearly failing to even come close to fulfilling their intended purpose, in spite of some Presidents even trying to push NASA in a new direction. And so many good programs have been killed (or never get funded) in order to prop up the larger bad programs.
This myth exists for one purpose, to justify giving more control to the very people in Congress who have trapped NASA into developing bad programs for decades. In order to give more funding to primary contractors who have failed to ever deliver on their promises.
Definitely the military-industrial complex, Lockheed and Boeing, screwing over the American taxpayer and holding the US space program hostage.Shuttle flew for 30 years with no significant upgrades or improvements. ISS is far larger than was ever needed; right now out of a crew of 6 we get 35 hours of utilization time; with one more crewman, they hope to get an additional 35 hours, except that the Station is aging and as it gets older even more time will be required for maintenance. And we have management that ‘forgot’ to plan for utilization until just the last couple of years. Amazing just how bad the management is and how stupid they appear. One of the committees a year or so ago said ISS is on the cusp of failure as a research facility. Its not improving as fast as it is aging. I won’t take issue with SLS as heavy lift will be needed someday-not necessarily this cost ineffective booster. Orion, however, they do not even have an idea of what to do with it. Amazing how far NASA and US space has fallen, even in just the last 10 years. Cross your fingers for Elon Musk. He is the US spaceflight leader.