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.
TrumpSpace

Support For Bridenstine Solidifies (Update)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 21, 2017
Support For Bridenstine Solidifies (Update)

NASA nominee promoting ‘consensus’ agenda for space program
“Sean O’Keefe, NASA administrator during George W. Bush’s first term, applauded Bridenstine’s objectives. “I think he’s picked a pretty good selection of priorities to pursue that will establish cohesion, bring aboard folks to support it, all the kinds of cautionary things that are appropriate in pursuing this,” said O’Keefe, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University.”
Bridenstine Wins Shelby’s ENdorsement, Identifies Key NASA CHallenges, Space Policy Online
“Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) endorsed Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) to be the next Administrator of NASA today. Shelby chairs the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds NASA, making his support quite significant. Bridenstine also has submitted answers to questions posed by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee in preparation for his nomination hearing. They lay out what he sees as the key challenges facing the agency. … Bridenstine also has been criticized for his views on climate change based largely on a statement he made on the floor of the House in 2013 asking that President Obama apologize to the people of Oklahoma for spending more money on climate change research than weather forecasting and warning. “Global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago,” he said, which is incorrect. While temperatures have fluctuated over the centuries, he argued, that is due to natural forces, not humans. … More broadly, Bridenstine made his mark in space circles through introduction in the last Congress of the American Space Renaissance Act (ASRA), which he referred to as a repository of provisions that could be inserted into various pieces of legislation as appropriate. They dealt with a broad range of civil, commercial, and national security space issues.”
Space Florida backs NASA nominee, but senators aren’t so sure, Orlando Sentinel
“Space Florida, the agency leading Florida’s efforts in reviving the space industry at Cape Canaveral, praised President Donald Trump’s new nominee to lead NASA, but Florida’s two U.S. senators aren’t embracing last week’s pick. Space Florida CEO Frank DiBello called Oklahoma Republican U.S. Rep. Jim Bridenstine “a dedicated student of the industry and a passionate champion in Congress for the maturation of the space economy.” “He will no doubt apply the same knowledge, dedication, and passion to the leadership of NASA, for the benefit of all space stakeholders,” DiBello said in a prepared statement. “New leadership at NASA, combined with the regeneration of the National Space Council and passage of the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017, will provide the guidance and stability necessary for NASA to continue to explore new frontiers, advance technology and sustain U.S. leadership in space.”
Trump’s pick for NASA lays out agenda and answers critics, Ars Technica
“Although Bridenstine is a politician, there are likely few people in Congress more qualified to lead the space agency. As a Naval aviator, he flew missions off of aircraft carriers and combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a member of Congress, Bridenstine immersed himself in space-related committees and policy decisions, seeking to reform US aerospace efforts in both civil and military space. The conservative has previously outlined broad goals to modernize the US spaceflight enterprise with his American Space Enterprise Act.”
Keith’s note: The confirmation schedule has been a little uncertain. For a while it looked as if there would be a confirmation hearing on 27 September. But nothing has appeared on the Senate Commerce Science and Transportation Committee hearing calendar nor is any mention made on the nomination status page. That said, hearing preparations are already underway at NASA HQ. The support for Bridenstine’s nomination offered by Space Florida’s Frank DiBello is likely going to soften the stance taken by Rubio and Nelson.

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

22 responses to “Support For Bridenstine Solidifies (Update)”

  1. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    The unstated question is who else is there who is even interested given the current politics in Washington?

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      That’s a commonly cited reason why Goldin kept the job for nine years and through three administration’s. They couldn’t find anyone who was both qualified and wanted the job.

      • BigTedd says:
        0
        0

        No way to find someone Faster , Cheaper and Less expensive !

      • muomega0 says:
        0
        0

        Its baffling why the search is limited ‘to Congress’, “there are likely few people in Congress more qualified to lead the space agency” since he has already demonstrated he is not qualified for an entry level position with his inability to understand the basics of climate change and policies that will cost us $Ts.

        Mr. Speaker, global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago. ….changes, when they exist, correlate with Sun output and ocean cycles.”

        The toe of the hockey stick is best explained by subtracting out solar, El Nino, and volcanic activity (See Fig 3) to arrive at the human contribution: temp. is increasing and at faster rate.

        “During the Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300 A.D.—long before cars, power plants, or the Industrial Revolution—temperatures were warmer than today.”
        Well, Temp is Beyond Those of the Medieval Times

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          Who said the search for NASA Administrator was limited to Congress? Trust me the Trump White House looked all over the place for candidates for NASA. And, by the way guess what: Bridenstine is going to be confirmed. So clearly a lot of people think he is qualified. You have already condemned the man for things he has not done yet. I think you will be surprised by what he does. Stay tuned.

          • Matthew Black says:
            0
            0

            I agree. I think Mr Bridenstine might just surprise us. I for one hope that for manned space; he pushes for a more sensible and pragmatic Lunar program, rather than the pie-in-the-sky, unfunded Mars one.

          • Michael Genest says:
            0
            0

            Amen, Matthew…and Keith. Bridenstine seems from all I can discern about him to have his head in the right place about our future in space. Most of his critics seem to be single-issue fanatics – climate change leading the list. Well, guess what, NASA is not the National Climate Change Administration. It’s a lot bigger than that. And as Keith’s earlier post made clear, Bridenstine is hardly a hopelessly close-minded climate change denier. He’ll do great…..lunar South Pole, here we come…..I hope.

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            Houbolt (“Rendezvous and keep things in orbit”) and Griffin understood the costs of gravity wells, and why to avoid them.

            All resources arrived from asteroids, so its not clear if the case will close with lunar ISRU, nor with CxP Ares I/V and Orion that went unfunded since it took 3B/yr to do Apollo again. Address climate to retain Trillions vs $Bs.

            Best of luck ‘mooning’ (VSE ->VME) which has nothing to do with solving the Space Grand Challenges nor Exploration. Houbolt, Hansen, Griffin, Garver to be ignored again.

            GWP: “Stage 2 initiates human exploration of the solar system with a variety of destinations including “near Earth objects” such as asteroids, the Lagrange points; and the vicinities of the moon and Mars. Note that human landings on the moon or Mars are not included, although landings on the Martian moons (Phobos or Deimos) could be made, as they have negligible gravitational attraction and no atmosphere…both safer and more cost effective than going directly to the planetary surfaces as landing and ascent vehicles would not be required.” –Yet part of Congress states that ARM is dead and go with the one legged lunar stool.

            GWP: “SEL2 is an excellent location for space telescopes…and these telescopes will require servicing. SEL2 is also an excellent point from which to stage missions beyond Earth’s gravitational field. Such a staging node is of no value for a single planetary expedition or for an architecture built primarily around expendable mission hardware. An interplanetary vehicle station at SEL2 is reused for many trips to multiple destinations, the energy savings achieved through the use of such a staging node are significant…and supplies can be ferried on slower but more efficient trajectories, possibly using EP.” –But Congress had to go to the moon first, skip JWST servicing, and keep everything expendable with their “acts”.

          • Richard Malcolm says:
            0
            0

            Houbolt (“Rendezvous and keep things in orbit”) and Griffin understood the costs of gravity wells, and why to avoid them.

            Alas, Griffin didn’t understand budgets or politics.

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            “Although Bridenstine is a politician, there are likely >few people in Congress< more qualified to lead the space agency.” Why add ‘in Congress’?

            Bridenstine chose to speak about the lack of warming, in front of millions, that only the sun and ocean change temperatures. Hansen, many others, decades ago, warned of the dangers of climate change due to emissions. Past actions, already done. ‘Science’ committees attacked NOAA scientists for ‘manipulating data’. Who defended them in the past or recently?

            Perhaps most disheartening, If what you say is true, is that at one time, thousands of qualified folks would have wanted to lead NASA–the ‘climate’ is indeed changing. Congrats?

          • Colin Seftor says:
            0
            0

            No, he condemned the man not for what he did but for what he said (about climate change). And I know that (some of) his actions undercut what he said. But that, in itself, is troubling.

            I hope he gets some tough questions at his confirmation. And no matter what he says, given the fact that he’s prone to say one thing only to do another, how can anybody trust him?

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          You know when he made that statement in 2013 Climate Scientists were also talking about a possible pause in global warming. From Nature.

          http://www.nature.com/news/

          US agency’s updated temperature records suggest that global warming continues apace.

          “That finding, which contradicts the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is based on an update of the global temperature records maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).”

          ““The bottom line is that the IPCC reported that the rate of warming was less in the last 15 years than it was in the previous 30–60 years,” says Tom Karl, the study’s lead author and the director of the National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina. “That is no longer valid according to our data.”

          So when Rep.Bridenstein made those statements in 2013 it was something Climate Scientists were also talking about. Indeed, it was something the IPCC itself reported. Later work, as this article reports, found the problem with the data and corrected it, but only AFTER he made that statement you are so hung up on.

          BTW here is another article in case your forgot it, or never heard of it.

          https://www.nature.com/news

          Climate change: The case of the missing heat

          Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.

          Jeff Tollefson
          15 January 2014

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            “We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming.”

            The point of the article you reference and its references is that there can be periods when the added heat flows almost entirely into the oceans and the atmospheric temperature changes little, but the total heat content of the atmosphere and oceans is continuously increasing. All the articles support the finding that the overall energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere of about 1 watt per square meter remains constant. The palnet as a whole is getting warmer. If the variation in atmospheric temperature increase were due to a process that affected the planetary energy balance such as solar forcing or reflection from atmospheric aerosols, it might be reasonable to say that the long term rate of temperature increase were in doubt, but this is not the case.

            Unfortunately some politicians make the claim that the reduced rate of atmospheric warming from 2000 to 2009 was an indication that global warming is not ocurring and CO2 release should continue unimpeded. This is untrue. The Earth is warming and the heat being taken up by the oceans

            Moreover, the “hiatus” ended in 2009 and warming has returned, as expected, with a vengance. https://climate.nasa.gov/vi

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, but what is key his statement that it had leveled off in the last decade was consistent with what was being reported at the time. So it was not as incorrect at the time as folks are trying to make it sound.

          • Colin Seftor says:
            0
            0

            He’ll have his chance to clarify his stance and what his view is. A lot of people will be watching and listening.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            If he is even asked about it. Some of the Democratic Senators may bring it up to score brownie points with the environmentalists, but I expect the Senators will be far more interested in his level of support for SLS/Orion and his views on HSF to the Moon/Mars, the role of space commerce at NASA and space exploration because all of those determine the money flows to their states. They also understand, unlike many posting here, climate policy decisions will be made far above the level of NASA Administrator.

          • Colin Seftor says:
            0
            0

            It won’t be to score brownie points, it will be to do their job; they will ask him because they will truly want him to explain himself. Isn’t that what a confirmation hearing is for?

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Washington dosen’t actually work the way they taught in civics class. Confirmation hearings are mostly a kubaki dance to generate sound bites for the Senator’s stakeholders. The real work is done behind the scenes by their staffs and the decision, including the vote trading, usually made before the hearing is even scheduled.

            That the process has gone this far means that Rep. Bridenstine is effectively the new Administrator.

          • Colin Seftor says:
            0
            0

            I don’t doubt he’ll be confirmed. But grandstanding has it’s purposes. One senator (or two, or three) are going to ask him tough questions, if for no other reason then to placate their constituencies and to get the sound bites. And there are people that will be listening, for no other reason than to really figure out if this guy is two-faced or not. And I have the sinking feeling many of us won’t like the answer.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            A lot of people

            Sure. Everyone already in the choir.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            what is key his statement that it had leveled off in the last decade was consistent with what was being reported at the time.

            On the contrary, as Daniel noted, his statements were already inconsistent with what he was being told… by NASA.

            (And was deliberately deceptive even prior to that. Not only was the average for the decade after 1998 was warmer than the decade before, it was deceptive talking about “ocean cycles” when NASA and other researchers would have carefully explained that the “cycle” during the 2000’s was La Nina dominated, ie, a sharp cooling cycle. Yet the temperatures were higher than the previous El Nino dominated warm cycle in the ’90s. The cool cycle was warmer than the warm cycle. Hmmm, almost like there’s an underlying warming, isn’t it?)

            Instead, his statements were based on lobby material prepared by professional climate-change Deniers. (As with Cruz’s and other deniers that litter the “science” committees.)

            He specifically regurgitated anti-science material to try to misrepresent and disrupt the findings from the US’s primary Earth science agencies. He has specifically pushed legislation aimed at undermining climate research. And his stated goals for NASA are consistent with those prior behaviour and statements.

            Given that he listens to paid lobbyists over researchers, what are the odds he won’t do the same as NASA Administrator when it comes to any other issue?

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Nice talking points but they are misleading.

            If you read the link you would see it was in the 2013 IPCC report which NASA researchers contributes to. And if read further you would have found the answer was in the ocean handling of the extra heat, not El Niño, but a different one. There are other cycles than El Niño in the oceans, many far more important for climate – El Niño main importance is not on climate but on weather. But the error in the models wasn’t identified until 2014, After he made his statements.