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.
Biden Space

2021 Bill Nelson Wants To Be NASA Administrator – 2017 Bill Nelson Says He's Not Qualified

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 23, 2021
Filed under
2021 Bill Nelson Wants To Be NASA Administrator – 2017 Bill Nelson Says He's Not Qualified

Keith’s note: Rumors are starting to bubble up. Bill Nelson wants you to know that he really, really wants to be the next NASA Administrator. There is one small problem however: according to his own previously established criteria for who should – or should not – be NASA administrator, he is not qualified. Oh yes: former NASA Adminstrator Charlie Bolden agreed with Nelson’s qualification criteria. Just sayin’
Keith’s update: there was mention of this topic at the daily White House Press briefing:

Reporter: There are reports that Presiden Biden is considering former Florida Senator Bill Nelson to be the NASA Administrator. Are those reports accurate? Is he under consideration? And when do you expect an announcement?
Psaki: I do not have any personnel announcements for you or any expectation as to when we will have an announcement on a NASA administrator – or a list of potential people. But that is an interesting one.

Will Bill Nelson be the next NASA administrator? Twitter raises that possibility, Florida Today
“If Joe Biden is elected. I will give a recommendation of a handful of people that I would recommend to be the head of NASA, and my recommendation would not include myself,” Nelson explained in August.”
A politician who said politicians shouldn’t run NASA wants to run NASA, Ars Technica
“In 2017, Nelson also led the opposition to Jim Bridenstine becoming administrator of NASA. Then serving as the ranking member on the Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, which oversees NASA, Nelson said Bridenstine was too partisan and political to lead NASA. He also accused Bridenstine of not having the expertise to do so.”
What Qualified Bill Nelson To Be An Astronaut? Politics, earlier post (2017)
“Nelson overtly used his political position to force NASA to fly him on a space shuttle mission. His only professional qualification? He was a lawyer.”
Bill Nelson: Do As I Say Not As I Do, earlier post (2017)
“The head of NASA ought to be a space professional, not a politician,” Mr. Nelson, a Democrat, said in a statement on Friday.”
Rubio, Nelson blast Trump’s NASA pick, Politico (2017)
“The head of NASA ought to be a space professional, not a politician,” Nelson said in a brief written statement to POLITICO.”
Trump’s nominee for NASA administrator comes under fire at Senate hearing, Washington Post (2017)
“The NASA administrator should be a consummate space professional who is technically and scientifically competent and a skilled executive,” said Nelson, who wields great influence over the space agency, in his written opening statement. “More importantly, the administrator must be a leader who has the ability to unite scientists, engineers, commercial space interests, policymakers and the public on a shared vision for future space exploration.”
Bolden Throws Bridenstine Some Shade, earlier post (2017)
“He would not have been my first choice because he’s a politician. And he is the first person, to my knowledge, ever selected from political office to become the NASA administrator. I don’t think it’s healthy for the agency to have someone who’s a partisan in that position. The position calls for somebody who can carry out the president’s agenda to the best of his ability but do it in a nonpartisan way and be able to work across the aisle. And I think his history is such that he may find some difficulty in working across the aisle.”

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

17 responses to “2021 Bill Nelson Wants To Be NASA Administrator – 2017 Bill Nelson Says He's Not Qualified”

  1. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    I’ve heard his (unofficial, behind his back) nickname at NASA when he used is political influence to get a ride on the space shuttle as a Payload Specialist was Ballast.

  2. Bob Mahoney says:
    0
    0

    I had heard he left the toilet running more than once on his space flight, setting off the cabin depress alarm. I was unable to verify.

  3. Todd Austin says:
    0
    0

    Considering the derogatory comments made by many on this site about Bridenstine before his confirmation and the support he had here when he resigned the position of administrator, perhaps the “common wisdom” that the NASA administrator must be a space/aerospace professional could do with some updating.

    Bridenstine’s success makes a strong argument that, while associate administrators may need to be those subject-matter specialists in the various subfields, the subject matter of the administrator’s role is navigation of the political landscape in a way that generates sustained support for the work of the agency.

    For the first time in decades, there is bipartisan consensus around support for crewed missions beyond Earth orbit. The administrator while that idea changed from dream into organized multi-national project was a politician. Is that a coincidence, or effect?

    I don’t intend to cheer lead for Mr. Nelson here. But I do think we need to look beyond the usual aerospace suspects when considering who should lead the agency over the next 4-8 years.

    • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
      0
      0

      What bipartisan support for beyond LEO? Did you see how little they have lunar lander in FY21? Just cause they continue to shovel $3+B into the SLS and Orion money pits doesn’t mean they support beyond LEO other than apollo 8 repeats 50 years later. The sunk cost fallacy keeps sls and Orion going as budget anchors but actual cislunar exploration is still getting pennies.

      • Todd Austin says:
        0
        0

        Biden had his press secretary read an explicit statement in support of Artemis and crewed flights to the Moon and beyond. The counts as bipartisan, as far as I know politics. Bridenstine’s success in getting international partners to sign on to the project ties the work to diplomacy and our international prestige, which was a wise move that also help to protect the project across administrations, regardless of what company makes the hardware. I can see the current administration admitting that SLS is overpriced old tech and pivoting to a private ride to lunar orbit, but I would be surprised at this point if the entire program was axed.

  4. robert_law says:
    0
    0

    I don’t see why he should not be considered he has a long track record of supporting the space program and probably make a good administrator.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Why should he be considered under different criteria than he held others to?

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Because, with the passage of time, perhaps something about section criteria has been exposed to the crucible? And that obvious points may be either modified or disregarded?

        I’m thinking of the Rep. Bridenstine, as a glaring example. There were lots of questions when his name was initially considered; with time, though, his political history came to be seen as a net ‘plus’.

  5. Mike Shupp says:
    0
    0

    Oh, no, the last thing NASA needs for administrator is a 78 yrsr old lawyer-legislator wedded to 20-year old notions about how spacecraaft should be developed and paid for, and with apparently no goals other than to do more of the same.

    What does Nelson think about nuclear rockets for manned flights to other planets? Is he willing or able to make a case for them in the face of much (often liberal) anti-nuclear resistence by making speeches in every venue on Earth that will let him in?

    Is he on board for mining water and oxygen on the moon? for in situ resource utilization in general, with perhaps a nod toward manufacturing in space? Should we keep ISS going in orbit as a “national laboratory” after 2030, or deorbit it and trust private industry and other nations to build one or many replacements? Or just dump the idea of earth orbiting space stations entirely as we pivot to a Lunar Gateway?

    Are we in the US going to be “leaders” in future space missions or “equal partners” with other nations? Can we accept the Chinese People’s Republic as a partner or continue to scorn the nation as an outpost of socialistic genocidal abortionists, who just happen to be our major trading partner ? Should we change US law (the Wolf Act) to make this acceptance clear? Should we do more instead with Taiwan? Or with the Republic of Viet Nam? If not now, perhaps in 50 years?

    For that matter, what’s the Senator’s opinion on splitting responsibilities in space with the US Space Force? If we can’t yet build space colonies on the Moon or scientiific outposts a la Antarctica should we eventually build military bases instead? Human occupied military bases? Shoud we share those bases with other friendly nations?

    When are civilians going to be welcome on the Moon? Non-NASA non military types who just happen to work there? Who just happen to live there, with wives and husbands and kids and family pets and maybe NSFW living arrangements? For years even, like for real lives with kids born there and oldsters buried? What’s Senator Nelson’s timescale for moving humanity into the solar system? Are there to be genuine, growing, self-supporting colonies in outer space? Will they grow to be political and economic equals of earthly nations?

    Will we reach with human hands for a place among the stars? Should we even think of making the effort? Inquiring minds want to know/

    I’m not going to to insist that Nelson or any other candidate answer these questions just as I might like. You’ll note, I’m sure. that these are largely political or at least policy issues rather than the technical ones which we often think should concern a NASA administrator. But I will gently suggest that a NASA administrator — and even other NASA employees. or those of us who simply rub up occasionally on the notion of spaceflight — should be allowed to consider such ideas, should even give time to pondering them and to consider such reflections important enough to mention to associates and constituents.

    Perhaps he harbors tastes and ambitions which simply aren’t of interest to news critters or Florida voters. but I don’t recall mention of Senator Nelson discussing such topics in his 30 years of Congressional service. And if he has no special goals as a would-be NASA administrator, perhaps the job should go to somone else.

  6. Hmmm says:
    0
    0

    Just what the SLS folks want.

  7. Oh-fer says:
    0
    0

    Dear God, no…..

  8. SouthwestExGOP says:
    0
    0

    He would be a bad choice, he took a seat from a better qualified person for a campaign rally in space. At the time it was less of a problem, we thought that teachers and politicians and entertainers were going to take seats. He is also 78 (yes I know how old President Biden is!) and we need to move on to the next generation. He has also been too much a part of the government-runs-everything system, we need someone with at least understanding of what the commercial system can do.

  9. Terry Stetler says:
    0
    0

    They may as well nominate Loren Thompson to be NASA Admin. Either way you get an old-space shill.

  10. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    Seems to me need someone that knows how to work the system like James Webb. I read he at first declined because he didn’t know a lot of science and engineering, JFK wanted him because Webb had experience running large programs. Webb also said he will accept NASA position as long as Hugh Dryden was his deputy. There have been others following him with both pros and cons. Bridenstine seems to establish programs that can continue on in a new administration, essential for many that easily last more than four years.

    We have seen some administrators with wonderful career accomplishments get bogged down in Capital bureaucracy and baggage. Maybe instead of looking at titles, see how they were able to run an organization of complex and expensive programs, particularly those with many special interests attached. Another is examine what kind of people they hire/appoint to their staff.