NASA Administrator Apprentice Update: Change Agents
Rep. Jim Bridenstine: Why Trump Won, Frontpage Magazine
“And then who was campaigning for Donald Trump? Donald Trump and Mike Pence. And I got so frustrated. By then Hillary Clinton also had Al Gore and all these others, and I got so frustrated I sent a tweet. Ha! And it got a lot of attention. And in the tweet I said: “Given the stakes of this election if Paul Ryan is not for Donald Trump then I am not for Paul Ryan.” It is true that Donald Trump has not been in the political arena nor has he been in the politically correct arena. He lives in a quite frankly vulgar industry – the entertainment industry. And I will also tell you that he reflects that.”
Keith’s note: Bridenstine has been spending a fair amount of time on space policy over his first two terms and many of the things he has talked about resonate with positions taken by Trump advisors Newt Gingrich and Bob Walker. The Trump cabinet nominees announced thus far run the range from prior supporter to prior opponents. And most of them have no government and/or agency-related subject matter experience. In this case Bridenstine was loyal when it counted- even if he’s not exactly complementary now (as quoted). But he has been eager to learn and try new things (it would seem). So … comments like this may hurt and/or help Bridenstine in his quest for the NASA (USAF) job. Who knows. But he does appreciate what Twitter can do. Welcome to NASA Administrator Apprentice.
.jpg)
“And this is what it looks like when Republicans fight back. That’s what it looks like when Republicans fight back. And for the first time in a long time we had a Republican that actually fought back using the same tools as the left.”
//CONCUR//
What tools are you speaking about? It wouldn’t be valuing power more than fair elections or fair districts.
Manipulated data: No proof of the alternative. Lower the bar.
The 2000s Congress cast aside depots to retain shuttle derived by adding 3 flaws to the VSE. The 2005 ESAS study included flaws provided by special interests: rendezvous risk and the effect of solids on LAS mass. The flawed AR&D risk forced “must be less than 3 launches.” A lunar sortie=130mT/1 or 2 = 130 or 70 mT LV. QED. SRBs increased LAS mass from 4 to 10 mT: Ares I could not get off the ground. Black zones also eliminated the DOD fleet. *Not* the scientists.
Meanwhile, internal NASA studies show that for the same mission set, the DOD fleet was $57B cheaper. The just say no Congress, trying to close the gap by 2009, underfunded c. crew – may launch in 2018? The expendable architecture excludes DOD and IP fleet. J2X mothballed–>Congress.
This Congress blames the current POTUS for cancelling CxP. The current 2017 senate bill literally says “that SLS/Orion is the most practical approach for reaching the Moon, Mars, and beyond” failing to recognize once again that “the moon does not prepare NASA for Mars” because of the long term deep space travel in ug and full GCR + fallacy lunar ISRU benefits.
The admin tried to give SLS/Orion a mission, dusting off a decades old stepping stone to Mars to visit an asteroid, but the rocket and capsule for Mars could not do the job.
The just say no Congress constantly blames everyone else for their failed program. They rail on about the USG employees being incompetent, and ‘everything is better in the private sector, write requirements and get the hell out of the way’, but appoint folks with no experience or knowledge. Worse, “there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.” Oh really? They rely on false news stories spread by their minions..Wait..for.. it. Congress and ‘the kids’ spread false news in Congressional Bills! on how ‘practical’ their rocket and capsule to nowhere is (not).
Links:
“that SLS is the most practical approach to reaching the Moon, Mars, and beyond”
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/p…
ARES – “Together, these two vehicles combine to provide America a practical, affordable, and achievable means to realize missions to the Moon and Mars.”
https://web.archive.org/web…
“When NASA proposed on-orbit fuel depots in this Administration’s original plan for human space exploration, they said this game-changing technology could make the difference between exploring space and falling short. Then the depots dropped out of the conversation” 57B cheaper
http://www.spaceref.com/new…
“The shuttle concept that would fit the budget was nowhere in sight…The analysis showed that at the lowest level of activity, averaging 28 flights per year, the Shuttle would barely compete with the Titan III”
http://www.nss.org/resource…
“The mistake we made on the solid rockets, it was a major mistake” Max Faget, shuttle designer
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/his…
“We started shutting down the shuttle four years ago. That horse has left the barn”
https://blogs.nasa.gov/wayn…
“For future, sustainable exploration programs, NASA requires cost-effective vehicles that may be reused, have systems that could be applied to more than one destination, and are highly reliable and need only small ground crews” 2005 VSE
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55…
“The mission uses essentially all expendable rocket and vehicle components, and does not leave any useful components in low Mars orbit or Earth orbit for use by the next mission. Thus, there is no advancement in safety or capability from one mission to the next. The architecture would require the design, development, and construction of at least 10 different types of expendable vehicles during the decade before the first mission”
http://www.thespacereview.c…
“The U.S. House of Representatives on May 10 approved a 2013 NASA budget of $17.45 billion that would force an immediate restructuring of the agency’s Com Crew Program”
http://spacenews.com/commer…
“NASA and the White House had originally planned to put off a decision on a heavy launch capability until 2015 or so – and then fully compete the selection process based on an architecture that would define what was needed and when. But Congress – specifically the Senate, decided to mandate (in the NASA Authorization Act) what the solution would be before the problem or need was defined.”
http://www.spaceref.com/new…
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
This rant reminds me of long cross country night drives when I’d turn on George Noory’s Coast to Coast radio to help me stay awake and entertained.
For those who want to understand how to make informed decisions going forward, details matter, especially when there is a long history.
“As was said in 2010 when Obama canceled Constellation, his “new” plan was a mission to nowhere and that’s where we are today.” — Neil.Verea –> The 2000s Congress created an architecture that required $3B/yr for their unfunded mandate. Garver said SLS should not be built, because the two launch LV24/25 lost out CxP, which is $57B more expensive than the alternatives…its make work.
For those who don’t want to make informed decisions or do not have facts on ‘their side’, i guess they a) listen to radio to have folks tell them ‘what to believe’ and b) stay entertained, c) tweet false news, and d) support folks to be admins who are not qualified for a entry level position to carry out policies geared to special interests. google george carlin American Dream — quite entertaining as well, but it does not make America a better nation.
The last credible roll of the dice for Shuttle Derived was John Shannon’s actually pretty good Side-Mount heavy lifter touted in 2009 – would have used MOST Shuttle facilities, infrastructure and manufacturing as-is, getting 80 tons into LEO per time and with a flight rate very similar to Shuttle. The main expense long term would have been manufacturing new RS-25 engines and the payload ‘strongback’ and fairings.
And then Orion and other payloads would have been the ‘long pole in the tent’. And the J-2X would not have needed to be shelved, either. But lately, I’ve come to strongly believe that Commercial expendable and reusable launchers working in concert with Propellant Depots and maybe some Solar Electric Propulsion is the path to enabling future Exploration on a flexible, sustainable budget. NOT an expensive and underfunded monster that will only fly once or twice per year!! 🙁
A great post.
Oh no! actual history!
Excuse me, but as a card carrying leftist I would like to know what “tools” you are referring to. Could it include claiming that global warming is a Chinese plot and asking for the “names” of NASA personnel who have researched it, apparently so they can be purged?