"This has been elephant in the room at the last few meetings. It was downward directed. NASA is in awkward position – hard to say that they can't do it. Likelyhood of making landing by 2024 is remote. Not sure what a recommendation to Administrator would do or what he'd do w/ it"
It is painfully obvious that some of these NAC HEO committee panel members do not understand that news media are listening. They are shooting holes in NASA's #Artemis#Moon2024 plans and then trying to come up with a way to cover up that consensus to make it sound less bad.
The NAC HEO committee is now engaged in an all out battle over what space architecture is best with/without Gateway going to Moon and/or Mars – and they are doing this minutes after criticized NASA for doing more trade studies.
1 – What is NAC? Not all of us readers know all the acronyms 2 – I’m SHOCKED, SHOCKED that the organization that is managing James Webb and SLS could possibly not be able to land on the moon in only four years. 😉
Just the tonic that both Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos need to move forward faster. Nothing motivates an innovator more than telling them something is impossible. Hopefully Elon Musk will move on from Tesla and return to Boca Chica to push the Starship. I wouldn’t be surprised if a test version without a crew beats the SLS to lunar orbit. ?
Raise your hand if you already had your doubts…not that NASA, in partnership with Commercial Crew could do it, but that SLS and/or Congressional funding would hold up their end.
Also I think that Jim B. already knows but doesn’t care because he’s using the momentum to get Commercial Space to the Moon and Mars anyway.
So, the big brains of the NAC blew up over the 2024 lunar deadline? Yet they ignore the white-elephant in the room? The SLS? They haven’t blown up over the freaking money-pit SLS?!
Still can’t see the point of gateway. Can’t Orion and it’s service module just go to moon orbit and dock with the Ascent/Descent Vehicle?
Then as a follow up go full commercial and compete the whole or parts of the architecture. They could be setting out how that could be done now instead of talking nonsense.
Well just thinking about it now. The gateway makes perfect sense politically it means that the Ascent/Descent Vehicle could be put on the back-burner forever so SLS and Orion keep flying back and forth to the gateway while eating the rest of the budget.
If the Ascent/Descent Vehicle are ever developed then the need for nasa made rockets is over! it’s all just a con to keep the pork flowing!
only a few orbits Orion’s SM can get in and out of, plus what do you do with the two crew that stay in the Orion while the other two are walking on the Moon. at least in Gateway you could have them do some experiments or telerobotically control some surface rovers. not much space in the Orion for the two crew loitering to do much more than play cards for 7 days. plus gateway allows for storage of supplies, EMU spares and other stuff that you might be able to reuse or not be able to bring up on Orion given it’s limited storage capacity.
Orion Service Module has less than half the propellant supplies the Apollo SM had; this is a depressing design hangover from Constellation’s silly Ares 1 which – amazingly – has not been corrected or altered.
Not surprised at all, I just hope that the NAC gets visibility so that Congress knows that there is lots of skepticism. The Artemis program has always been a very long shot – Jim Bridenstine just wants to stay NASA Administrator as long as he can so he can go to meetings and enjoy the perks. Either trump will get mad and throw him under the bus (it is very crowded under there) or possibly when a new President comes in Jim will rapidly pack his bags.
Where does the anti-Administrator view come from? Is this more of the same old crap that any governmental employee is just living it large on the federal dime? Or?
“Jim Bridenstine just wants to stay NASA Administrator as long as he can so he can go to meetings and enjoy the perks”
What? Start with this: assigning motivation without factual evidence isn’t very useful.
A few things he’s done come to mind:
Lots of people wondered if the Administrator would become another rigid iconoclast that we see in, for instance, Stephen Miller, and so many others. But anyone actually paying attention however will quickly come to understand that Jim B. is a bit of a ‘sleeper’.
He’s deftly managed the SLS program into a box where it will fail by dint of obvious comparison with the alternatives, and he’s done it with no personal exposure; I’d say that’s success.
On the lunar lander, he’s managed to support wildly different approaches while sidestepping Boeing; even with recent issues that was certainly a delicate dance.
And on the 2024 issue, recent moves indicate that the deadline will sink or swim based on merits but without throwing cooties all over NASA.
Pres. Biden would be advised to retain this Administrator.
From having seen Bridenstine’s performance, he has avoided blame on several things – this is not something to build a legacy from.
He accepted the move from a Lunar landing of 2028 to one scheduled for 2024 – the justification was phony. He has accepted enormous additional risk to our people from schedule pressure (when have we seen that work out well?). We are pressing ahead on the Artemis program with little hope of actually making it. If Jim had expressed skepticism he would not now be Administrator.
Now plenty of civil servants also are making a show of going along but they just hope to outlast another Administration and President.
By the way I also saw LOTS of mistakes that Charlie Bolden made and I respect him tremendously. I worked with Charlie and he has qualifications that far exceed those of Jim Bridenstine. Charlie Bolden should have resigned when President Obama so fumbled the Constellation “cancellation” or switch or what ever that was.
If we get a President Biden he needs to accept Jim’s resignation right away.
As a NASA employee I was highly skeptical of Bridenstine coming out of congress. He’s made a believer out of me and many others. I have great respect for what he’s trying to do and it might keep NASA relevant and inspire others in the process. Fear of failure is not a model to lead.
That said I am also skeptical we will get there by 2024, but it will be a lot sooner than otherwise planned.
I have an opposite view of Jim B. He is the first politician to be NASA Admin, that is a good thing. Of all the bad astronaut managers in NASA, Bolden took the cake as the worst in my opinion. At least Dick Truly did not cry at meetings…
Few astronauts are able to be effective managers, Charlie actually is pretty good at it. He is a guy who feels deeply but that is a good thing. He greatly fumbled the Constellation cancellation but he is a good guy to work for. He did help the transition to commercial cargo and commercial crew.
NASA just needs to get out of the way and let the commercial operators (SpaceX, Boeing, etc) get to work. They will make mistakes (as NASA did) but that is how mature systems work.
Precisely, Michael. =) Thank you. Before he became head of NASA, I watched Jim B. in several congressional hearings about Space Shuttle, Station, etc. It impressed me how well he understood the technical issues and then I found out he was a Naval Aviator with a science degree. He seems like a perfect fit at this time. NASA has had several astronauts as center directors and administrators. Most all of them have been awful. NASA is such a political minefield, it takes a clever and astute leader who can deal with the necessary politics. I hope he stays atop NASA after the election, whatever the results are. It would not be the first time a NASA administrator works for 2 different administrations, Red and Blue.
Mike Griffin stayed at NASA when Obama took office. On the other hand, if Trump wins again, NASA and the Moon effort will stay the course, which is a good thing for space fans, politics aside. I’d keep Jim B. either way.
Right you are. I looked it up. Chris Scolese Acted Admin until Charlie Bolden was selected by Obama several months after the inauguration. After Senator Bill Nelson lobbied hard for it. Bolden turned out to be a super nice guy but not the leader NASA needed.
No way NASA could ever sustain Artemis using the Orion as designed or either Orion or S LS as expensive as they are. Space X, Dragon and the Chinese have now demonstrated a lunar capable capsule. NASA lost that race. Falcon Heavy has been demonstrated. Maybe Starship will come along quickly enough. Right now a lander and a mission design using Falcon Heavy and Dragon is the only hope for the next man and first woman on the Moon. It might be doable by Musk by 2024.
For sure SpaceX has all the elements, except a lunar lander. If he was interested in the moon at all, Elon could build a lander and duplicate Apollo program with about two landings on the moon.
is it better for NASA to set an aggressive and bold goal like 2024 and come up a year or two late or take the foot of the gas and just muddle along and get there when they might get there say in two decades from now. without the pressure of a near term goal the agency has a tendency to expand schedule to fill a vacuum. not only does the budget balloon but so does the chance of another pivot from congress or president. I say full steam ahead and let’s see what they can do as the more laid back approach has seen them stuck in LEO for about 50 years. Fortune favors the Bold!
1 – What is NAC? Not all of us readers know all the acronyms
2 – I’m SHOCKED, SHOCKED that the organization that is managing James Webb and SLS could possibly not be able to land on the moon in only four years. 😉
NASA Advisory Council. It has existed for decades.
Just the tonic that both Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos need to move forward faster. Nothing motivates an innovator more than telling them something is impossible. Hopefully Elon Musk will move on from Tesla and return to Boca Chica to push the Starship. I wouldn’t be surprised if a test version without a crew beats the SLS to lunar orbit. ?
Raise your hand if you already had your doubts…not that NASA, in partnership with Commercial Crew could do it, but that SLS and/or Congressional funding would hold up their end.
Also I think that Jim B. already knows but doesn’t care because he’s using the momentum to get Commercial Space to the Moon and Mars anyway.
Is there a recording or transcripts we could read/listen to? Sounds spicy. Thanks.
No. NASA doesn’t really bother to do that. I asked (again) about that today.
At Least we’ve got your tweets thanks Keith.
They do put the slides online, however.
https://www.nasa.gov/direct…
Nobody in their heart of hearts believed we were going back to the moon in 2024. They were just being realistic.
So, the big brains of the NAC blew up over the 2024 lunar deadline? Yet they ignore the white-elephant in the room? The SLS? They haven’t blown up over the freaking money-pit SLS?!
D’oh!
Still can’t see the point of gateway. Can’t Orion and it’s service module just go to moon orbit and dock with the Ascent/Descent Vehicle?
Then as a follow up go full commercial and compete the whole or parts of the architecture. They could be setting out how that could be done now instead of talking nonsense.
Well just thinking about it now. The gateway makes perfect sense politically it means that the Ascent/Descent Vehicle could be put on the back-burner forever so SLS and Orion keep flying back and forth to the gateway while eating the rest of the budget.
If the Ascent/Descent Vehicle are ever developed then the need for nasa made rockets is over! it’s all just a con to keep the pork flowing!
only a few orbits Orion’s SM can get in and out of, plus what do you do with the two crew that stay in the Orion while the other two are walking on the Moon. at least in Gateway you could have them do some experiments or telerobotically control some surface rovers. not much space in the Orion for the two crew loitering to do much more than play cards for 7 days. plus gateway allows for storage of supplies, EMU spares and other stuff that you might be able to reuse or not be able to bring up on Orion given it’s limited storage capacity.
Orion Service Module has less than half the propellant supplies the Apollo SM had; this is a depressing design hangover from Constellation’s silly Ares 1 which – amazingly – has not been corrected or altered.
Not surprised at all, I just hope that the NAC gets visibility so that Congress knows that there is lots of skepticism. The Artemis program has always been a very long shot – Jim Bridenstine just wants to stay NASA Administrator as long as he can so he can go to meetings and enjoy the perks. Either trump will get mad and throw him under the bus (it is very crowded under there) or possibly when a new President comes in Jim will rapidly pack his bags.
Where does the anti-Administrator view come from? Is this more of the same old crap that any governmental employee is just living it large on the federal dime? Or?
“Jim Bridenstine just wants to stay NASA Administrator as long as he can so he can go to meetings and enjoy the perks”
What? Start with this: assigning motivation without factual evidence isn’t very useful.
A few things he’s done come to mind:
Lots of people wondered if the Administrator would become another rigid iconoclast that we see in, for instance, Stephen Miller, and so many others. But anyone actually paying attention however will quickly come to understand that Jim B. is a bit of a ‘sleeper’.
He’s deftly managed the SLS program into a box where it will fail by dint of obvious comparison with the alternatives, and he’s done it with no personal exposure; I’d say that’s success.
On the lunar lander, he’s managed to support wildly different approaches while sidestepping Boeing; even with recent issues that was certainly a delicate dance.
And on the 2024 issue, recent moves indicate that the deadline will sink or swim based on merits but without throwing cooties all over NASA.
Pres. Biden would be advised to retain this Administrator.
From having seen Bridenstine’s performance, he has avoided blame on several things – this is not something to build a legacy from.
He accepted the move from a Lunar landing of 2028 to one scheduled for 2024 – the justification was phony. He has accepted enormous additional risk to our people from schedule pressure (when have we seen that work out well?). We are pressing ahead on the Artemis program with little hope of actually making it. If Jim had expressed skepticism he would not now be Administrator.
Now plenty of civil servants also are making a show of going along but they just hope to outlast another Administration and President.
By the way I also saw LOTS of mistakes that Charlie Bolden made and I respect him tremendously. I worked with Charlie and he has qualifications that far exceed those of Jim Bridenstine. Charlie Bolden should have resigned when President Obama so fumbled the Constellation “cancellation” or switch or what ever that was.
If we get a President Biden he needs to accept Jim’s resignation right away.
As a NASA employee I was highly skeptical of Bridenstine coming out of congress. He’s made a believer out of me and many others. I have great respect for what he’s trying to do and it might keep NASA relevant and inspire others in the process. Fear of failure is not a model to lead.
That said I am also skeptical we will get there by 2024, but it will be a lot sooner than otherwise planned.
I have an opposite view of Jim B. He is the first politician to be NASA Admin, that is a good thing. Of all the bad astronaut managers in NASA, Bolden took the cake as the worst in my opinion. At least Dick Truly did not cry at meetings…
Few astronauts are able to be effective managers, Charlie actually is pretty good at it. He is a guy who feels deeply but that is a good thing. He greatly fumbled the Constellation cancellation but he is a good guy to work for. He did help the transition to commercial cargo and commercial crew.
NASA just needs to get out of the way and let the commercial operators (SpaceX, Boeing, etc) get to work. They will make mistakes (as NASA did) but that is how mature systems work.
Precisely, Michael. =)
Thank you.
Before he became head of NASA, I watched Jim B. in several congressional hearings about Space Shuttle, Station, etc. It impressed me how well he understood the technical issues and then I found out he was a Naval Aviator with a science degree. He seems like a perfect fit at this time. NASA has had several astronauts as center directors and administrators. Most all of them have been awful. NASA is such a political minefield, it takes a clever and astute leader who can deal with the necessary politics. I hope he stays atop NASA after the election, whatever the results are. It would not be the first time a NASA administrator works for 2 different administrations, Red and Blue.
Mike Griffin stayed at NASA when Obama took office. On the other hand, if Trump wins again, NASA and the Moon effort will stay the course, which is a good thing for space fans, politics aside. I’d keep Jim B. either way.
Mike was replaced rather quickly.
Right you are. I looked it up. Chris Scolese Acted Admin until Charlie Bolden was selected by Obama several months after the inauguration. After Senator Bill Nelson lobbied hard for it. Bolden turned out to be a super nice guy but not the leader NASA needed.
He is indeed a good and nice man, as I have personal anecdotes to prove it.
No way NASA could ever sustain Artemis using the Orion as designed or either Orion or S LS as expensive as they are. Space X, Dragon and the Chinese have now demonstrated a lunar capable capsule. NASA lost that race. Falcon Heavy has been demonstrated. Maybe Starship will come along quickly enough. Right now a lander and a mission design using Falcon Heavy and Dragon is the only hope for the next man and first woman on the Moon. It might be doable by Musk by 2024.
For sure SpaceX has all the elements, except a lunar lander. If he was interested in the moon at all, Elon could build a lander and duplicate Apollo program with about two landings on the moon.
is it better for NASA to set an aggressive and bold goal like 2024 and come up a year or two late or take the foot of the gas and just muddle along and get there when they might get there say in two decades from now. without the pressure of a near term goal the agency has a tendency to expand schedule to fill a vacuum. not only does the budget balloon but so does the chance of another pivot from congress or president. I say full steam ahead and let’s see what they can do as the more laid back approach has seen them stuck in LEO for about 50 years. Fortune favors the Bold!