Bridenstine To Be Sworn In On Monday
NASA Invites Media to Swearing-In of New Administrator James Bridenstine
“Media are invited to see Vice President Mike Pence swear in Jim Bridenstine as NASA’s new administrator at 2:30 p.m. EDT Monday, April 23, at the agency’s headquarters in Washington. The ceremony will air live on NASA Television and the agency’s website. Following the swearing-in, Vice President Pence and newly sworn-in NASA Administrator Bridenstine will speak live with three NASA astronauts currently living and working aboard the International Space Station.”
Best wishes to the new Administrator (educated at Cornell
MBA). Time to support the US return to the Moon and the manned landing on Mars in 2020s with the new reusable cost saving vehicles.
Has money problem, just do the annual lease for the BFS spaceship
to complete the missions as the solution from the Vice President said few days ago at Colorado Spring (Tenant vs Landlord).
I hope he examines the goals of returning to the Moon and on to Mars. Doing it the way NASA is going about it is sheer lunacy. Constellation, Apollo on steroids, and Orion are not supportable or sustainable. NASA has wasted tens of billions of $$ on a non-program that could go away tomorrow having accomplished absolutely nothing at all. They are going nowhere, have no idea why, and have no strategy for what they ought to be doing.
He’s coming into a thankless job with little authority and both hands tied behind his back.
Yea. That’s one thing I learned the hard way. Never take a job with responsibilities but no meaningful authority to accomplish them.
You mean Congress has wasted tens of billions of dollars directing NASA to continue those programs.
The President proposes the Congress disposes.. it really does not matter what the white house’s administrator wants. If congress will not fund projects that chops their pork commercial interests have to just go around NASA not through it.
Neither a landing on the Moon or manned .Mars mission is in the plan. The current plan is 1 or maybe several Apollo 8 type loop around the Moon sometime in the mid 2020s, or at the rate they are going, sometime in the 2020s. No one has said why, except maybe to test the Orion and SLS. There is no plan for Mars and it looks like that might happen around 2050. First they need to figure out what they would do there, then someone needs to design and build a spaceship.
well except for the Phase II of the LOP-G.
Lop-G = ARM. (will have the same fate)
Unless they do launch two of the propulsion hubs and put one in LEO and use the one in the halo orbit as the mars platform and communications hub relay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
The following articles may let you see better future US human space development plan.in the coming years or in 2020s.
http://magazine.gwu.edu/ret…
https://www.liebertpub.com/…
As a (now-former?) member of the House of Representatives…where funding authorizations and appropriations originate…hopefully, he “knows where the bodies are buried” and can get funding for manned missions to the Moon, utilizing commercial entities to design, develop and fly the hardware and the people! Best of luck, Mr. Bridenstine!
Ad LEO! AD LUNA! AD ARES! AD ASTRA!
Good commentary in support of Mr Bridenstine as he brings some political savvy with his military flying background into NASA. Over a whole year w/o a NASA director…. shame on the political birds. Good luck and best wishes to a good candidate.
If you support Jim Bridenstine in any way; DON’T read the responses to his selection on ‘social media’. It’s actually quite pathetic the bile and hatred that is being dumped on the man! Is he the perfect choice? Unlikely, but there is no such person as ‘perfect’. When I pointed out Bridenstine’s MBA from Cornell, his past as a decorated fighter pilot and his keenness to take up the job; some people were astonished. They were either surprised that they didn’t know these things about him; or they attacked me for being a ‘Trump Apologist’ (or worse). Sheesh – get a grip, people.
Yes, we need to somehow take back America from these crazy political parties before they destroy it. President Washington was right on target with his warnings about political parties.
Despite the lack of political parties, the election of 1824 wasn’t all love and kindness. Some of the things the politicians involved said about each other were almost up to twenty-first century standards.
Yes, that was because the old Federalist Party collapsed so there was one very dominate party that broke into two fractions, one leading to the modern Democrats, the other to the modern Republicans. And they have been fighting over “stolen” elections ever since. 🙂
It was actually a five-sided election (although Calhoun dropped out before the vote and made himself Vice President.) As far as I know, Clay’s and Crawford’s factions never amounted to much after the election. Calhoun’s was arguably the predecessor of the Confederate States, so that was another messy fight which followed. I do like Clay’s comment about Jackson, something to the effect that his only qualification was killing a few thousand Englishmen in New Orleans, and that wasn’t really enough to make someone President.
Yes, John Calhoun’s party was a big factor in South Carolina’s attempt at succession in 1832 because of President Jackson’s tariff policy. But Henry Clay negotiated a settlement that prevented a Civil War from starting. President Jackson already had Congressional authority to use the military to keep South Carolina in the Union.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/progr…
The parties were really out of control then. It was only after the Civil War they became more moderate. Both parties seem headed in the same direction today given that even space has become bipartisan.
But hopefully they will be able to work together to pass the legislation needed to create an expand legal framework for space commerce and integrate with NASA’s return to the Moon goal.
I think you meant to write that space has become partisan, not bipartisan. But with that correction, I agree.
I am genuinely concerned about partisan politics in the United States. The origins of the American Civil War aren’t things people pay a great deal of attention to, and even fewer people think about the origins of the Spanish Civil War. Partisan politics were a major issue in both cases.
In 1860, Lincon was very clear that he was not going to end slavery if he was elected. He felt that the Constritution did not allow the federal government to do so, and despite his hatred of slavery, he felt that obeying the Constitution was even more important. But things had gotten so devisive that the Southern states weren’t buying that, and they decided that succession was the only way to maintain the status quo and their “pecular institution.”
And in Spain, in 1936, things had also become so devisive that neither side was willing to accept the results of the general election. The winning party had even announced, before the election, that they should start a revolution if the other side won the election. They felt there was no hope of an acceptable compromise if they did not win the election. The other side felt the same way, and when they lost the election, they initiated the failed coup which strated the civil war.
This is really getting off topic for a space forum, but partisan politics going down to the level of the NASA administrator worries me. If our elected representatives make that a partisan fight, how far are we from the divisiveness which led to the tragedies of 1861 or 1936?
Yes, I meant partisan. And I agree, especially as folks in California are talking about secession.
I do recall reading recently about a republican wanting to split CA so it would be more, er, helpful for republicans… not so much about CA seceding. I also think I recall folks in Texas talking about secession in the 1990s… people in large states thinking they can do it on there own is nothing new.
I believe John Adam’s VP, Thomas Jefferson, who was in a different party than Adam’s, leaked criticism against his friend and President to a newspaper. That was probably one of the things that drove the US to have the President and VP from the same party and elected together (originally, the person in second place became VP).
It was far worse than that. Jefferson hired James Callender to put together a phony dossier of lies about Adams and leaked it to the press to undermine Adams’ presidential campaign. Adams won anways. Eventually Adams forgave Jefferson and their correspondence towards the end of their lives proves that. Abigail Adams, however never forgave Jefferson. When Jefferson became president, Callender was denied a job as postmaster by Jefferson so Callender exposed Jefferson’s relationship with Sally Hemings. Dirty politics is nothing new. We think things are unusually bad now only because we forget our history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
Some of the letters exchanged between the two after they retired has some real gems in them..
“Your university [of Virginia]is a noble employment in your old age and your ardor for its success does you honor but I do not approve of your sending to Europe for tutors and professors. I do believe there are sufficient scholars in America to fill your professorships and tutorships with more active ingenuity and independent minds than you can bring from Europe. The Europeans are all deeply tainted with prejudices both ecclesiastical and temporal which they can never get rid of. They are all infected with episcopal and presbyterian creeds and confessions of faith. They all believe that great Principle which has produced this boundless universe, Newton’s universe and Herschell’s universe, came down to this little ball to be spit upon by Jews. And until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.”
“…all the unnumbered Worlds that revolve round the fixt Stars are inhabited, as well as this Globe of Earth.””
http://americancreation.blo…
I get that some disagree with him but when they disqualify him by some past statements and not recent actions, I tend to ignore those comments. Reminds me of when some were against JFK being President because he was Catholic.
Maybe I am naive; maybe hope just springs eternal? But, I am hopeful that the new Administrator will quickly take the reins and figure out the job and where NASA ought to be heading and make some serious course corrections. Rather than deferring to another outside special commission of people who are clueless; let’s see if he can handle the job.
Is the goal increasing access and efficiency or is the goal one-off flags and footprints unaffordable exploration missions that people will grow tired of even before they happen? Is NASA’s role supposed to be R&D or are they “operations”? Does NASA have a role in utilization of space, or is that someone else’s job? Who’s? Is there a goal for Orion or are they building it hoping they will figure out what to do with it eventually, which is the track they have been on for a decade? If resources are constrained why waste tens of billions of dollars and decades on Orion when there are two other capsules much further along in development and far more affordable, at least one of which is capable of the lunar and planetary mission Orion might eventually fly?
Bridenstine ought to look seriously into who these clowns are who have been leading NASA. How can they waste dollars and time on the scale they have been? How did they get into these positions? A few too many astronauts and operators, totally unprepared and ineffective? Its one thing if Congress has undue influence but quite another when the organization does such a poor job of implementation. NASA management needs a serious house-cleaning.
NASA’s original job, beyond the fancy language of the NASA Charter, was to beat the Soviets in space. After they succeeded in beating the Soviets they just started drifting, going in what ever directions the winds in Washington blew.
What they need to do is start serving as the NACA for the new space industry, and the “Corp of Discovery” for the space frontier. But a lot of flagship projects like SLS, Orion, ISS, wouldn’t fit making the Congress Critters from the NASA District very very angry…
HURRAY! You finally recognize the real problem: Congress!
Only partially. When NASA was formed, it included all of NACA, whose goals were preserved under the NASA Charter. The first A in NASA is, after all, Aeronautics.
The Space Act of 1958 unamended version does read different than the one you generally see when you search
https://history.nasa.gov/sp…
Perfect, a week should be plenty of time for Mr. Lightfoot to transfer all his knowledge of the agency to the new administrator.
A degree in economic psychology… Interesting. Perhaps such a different perspective (along with the knowledge of Congress’s ins & outs) may be exactly what NASA needs to revitalize. It certainly hasn’t had the greatest success with technically trained persons in the top spot (e.g., Constellation).
I am hoping for the best and wishing him Godspeed.
I think that anyone who has the guts to land a plane on a carrier deserves a little more respect than he’s been getting around most space sites.
And for all you climate “experts” out there, please show a little more humility. There is much about the science that is not settled. I’ll listen when you can personally explain the end of glacials (no, it’s not totally orbital, or they would end earlier, i.e. they typically skip several orbital triggers), the YD, the RWP, the MWP or the LIA (and yes, they ALL did happen). Just this week, we found out that nitrogen starvation might not be the “thing” that the settled paradigm would suggest. Science is a lot more complicated and messy than the self righteous alarmist blowhards who get their knickers in a bunch over Bridenstine would suggest. Just sayin’.
Which is why you don’t write legislation to prevent an agency from doing research into it, which was why Bridenstine is seen as a danger.
Like you did?
Yes, I know I don’t know everything about the climate, even though I’ve been working in the field for almost 20 years.
Can we possibly agree on a few things? For example:
The Earth’s climate is changing.
It is changing at a rapid rate, which is not unprecidented but is rare and unusual.
That change is correlated with human activity, specifically production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.
A rapid change in the climate will cause major changes in our economy and civilization.
While it is unclear what those changes will be, they will have some serious, harmful consequences.
We really need more data to understand these complex issues and their implications.
Are those basic and (I think) factual statements something we can all agree on? If so, the next question is what to do about it. Getting more data to better understand the problem strikes me as a good, low-cost option. Is there a rational objection to that?
“The Earth’s climate is changing.”
Agreed.
“It is changing at a rapid rate, which is not unprecidented but is rare and unusual.”
This is demonstrably not true, even if you believe HadCrut4 (a stretch, given poor global coverage), the rate of temperature rise in the first half of the 20th century is identical to the rate of rise in the 2nd half. In fact, the null hypothesis would be that we are still slowly coming out of the LIA and the warming started in the first half of the 19th century.
“That change is correlated with human activity, specifically production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.”
Partially agree, but the case for land use change might be better than for CO2. In fact, if you check CO2 records over the yearly and decadal time frames since we have good CO2 data (Hawaii), CO2 lags temperature. The correlation is not very good if you apply it to the whole 20th century, especially if you use “unadjusted” temperature data.
“A rapid change in the climate will cause major changes in our economy and civilization.”
Maybe, but one must allow for the possibility that the change will be beneficial. Our experience throughout history is that warm times are good times (Minoan, Roman Medieval, Modern) and cold times are bad times (Bronze age collapse, dark ages, LIA). I would also argue that mitigation is many orders of magnitude cheaper than attempted prevention, especially with our rather poor understanding of CO2 sensitivity and the size (and sign!) of some feedbacks.
“While it is unclear what those changes will be, they will have some serious, harmful consequences.”
Maybe, but see above. We have to allow for the possibility that some will be beneficial. Cold kills many more people than heat.
“We really need more data to understand these complex issues and their implications.”
Yes, but let’s make it real data. Not modeled or adjusted or tortured data. And let’s make it accessible to all researchers, not just a friendly little clique. NASA, NOAA and EPA have tended to not be friendly to this idea in the past. I have some hope that data transparency might become the new norm.
“Are those basic and (I think) factual statements something we can all agree on? If so, the next question is what to do about it. Getting more data to better understand the problem strikes me as a good, low-cost option. Is there a rational objection to that?”
See above. I do not agree with all of your statements. I definitely agree that we should study the climate. In particular, we need to be able to account for natural variability, which is much greater than can be accounted for by current climate models. Until climate models can do things like predict ENSO and account for millennial scale variability, I definitely do not want them to be influencing policy, especially policies that can cost trillions and cost many millions of lives.
Finally, I’ve often seen people invoking the precautionary principle to issues regarding the climate, but their prescriptions are often much more expensive than the disease. It’s like taking out an insurance policy on a $100,000 house with premiums of $1,000,000. It makes no sense.
There are a few questionable assertions here, but I will just focus on one point (I have to work). You claim that NASA and NOAA data are not readily available, or that are not transparent. In my experience all NASA data are available and the methodologies are documented. This is SMD policy. NASA , NOAA and ESA even collaborate in broadcasting each others data.
Some groups are more efficient than others in broadcasting data, but I have not seen evidence of the “friendly little clique” that you claim. Can you point out a particular data set from NASA or NOAA that you cannot access?
Now, I admit that I do get somewhat annoyed when people who have never collected a datum in their life go around cherry picking and criticizing things they don’t understand. However, I still share the data.
C.
Another example, Dr. Crary, of lowering the bar. And for what?
Call a spade a spade: a climate denier is a climate denier. Those with that predilection my or may not wear the distinction with pride. Their call.
Or an example of trying to find a consensus. If someone doesn’t believe climate change is, at least partially, anthropogenic, I’m not likely to convince them otherwise. Instead of letting that be an obstacle to doing anything, I’d rather something we do agree on (e.g. getting more data) and make some progress. That isn’t ideal, but gridlock is worse.
Where do you publish?
C.
I agree with you that the science is not settled. Consequently Mr. Bridenstine should consider his personal beliefs to be irrelevant to NASA policy. Accurate scientific modeling of the Earth’s climate is critical to forming policy. Accurate data is critical to scientific modeling.NASA resources are critical to the collection of accurate data. Climate science is not about promoting a belief. It is about determining the truth.
So many ad hominems, so little science…
C.