Charlie Bolden's Vision For A Happy Tomorrow

1. It sure would be nice if Bolden was replaced, but I don’t think that’s about to happen yet. He fills the role that I suspect the existing Administration likes – non-wave-making placeholder (contrast that with Griffin).

   1. I agree there are people who would be more effective as Administrator, but Griffin left the agency with a raft of projects that were behind schedule and over budget.

      1. Oh, I know. I was just saying that Griffin tended to be more outspoken.

         1. However, being outspoken requires one to think before opening his mouth and putting his foot in it, which Griffin didn’t seem to understand, for all his degrees.

            For the NASA Administrator to be effective (from NASA’s perspective) then I think, like it or not, he/she has to be a sufficiently accomplished diplomat and politician, because that’s the type of person he/she has to face off against every day.

            Putting the best engineer or even the best General up against a constantly reelected Congressman is sending a lamb to the slaughter, and always has been. Could this perhaps explain the men that have been nominated and approved for NASA Administrator time after time? I think so; they won’t approve someone who is their equal or better at playing the game.

            As I have before, I point to James Webb and say, That’s the type of person you want for NASA. He was a high-power business man, used to dealing with major politicians, and socialized in the same circles as the politicians (before going to NASA), and he had the same skills as the people he had to contend with. Lyndon Johnson understood this and convinced Webb (his friend) to take the job (he refused at first).

            If we had another James Webb at NASA, he wouldn’t be designing or dreaming anything. He’d let his scientists and engineers develop program proposals based on broad goals agreed to by the politicians, kick them around to get all of the holes out of them, and then present and fight for them with the politicians. Also, even in our enlightened age, I think a man will have more success than a woman, simply because of the intimidation factor when arguing toe to toe.

            Finding the right person is hard. Convincing him to take the job is harder. Getting the White House and Congress to approve him is hardest of all. But that’s what it’s going to take to get a strong, reinvigorated NASA, in my opinion.

            Everything considered, I’d say Bolden’s only real mistake, given his abilities, was taking the job. Since figuring out that he was trapped in a no-win situation, I think he ‘s done his best for NASA, knowing that it would never be quite enough. But unlike some of the managers under him, he works for NASA, not for his own little empire.

            1. I have heard Garver was Obma’s first choice but was opposed by people within NASA. As a lobbyist she would have been experienced at dealing with Congress, and seems more calculating in her statements then Bolden, and as a former NSS director she understands the vision of human spaceflight for a reasonable fraction of humanity, not just an elite handful. I do not think woman is at an intrinsic disadvantage in a leadership position in the US today.

            2. “I do not think woman is at an intrinsic disadvantage in a leadership position in the US today.”
               I agree. I don’t think Garver has done a bad job at all. I think some don’t like her because she doesn’t share their particular vision but that’s the way things work.

            3. I agree that Garver has done a good job, and she has a background that’s applicable to running NASA. But I still see Bolden being treated rudely and being belittled by Shelby, and others, and then in my mind I envision Garver sitting there in Bolden’s place and I can imagine the rude old boys being even more belittling with a woman, giving her even less chance to speak than Bolden gets. If certain self-centered cave men could be removed from Congress, then I think there are several senior positions, not just at NASA, that could probably be better filled by a woman. Even though it’s a hasty generalization, I think that professional women, in general, tend to react more level-headed under pressure than us hairy types.

            4. People hear lots of things. That does not mean that what they hear is true.

2. I agree entirely with you Keith. Bolden has been Obama’s stooge the whole time as NASA was being wound down and yet claiming its better than ever. He really should be replaced and NASA freed from Presidential decree.

   1. Politicizing the issue will solve nothing. NASA is already under Congressional decree, particularly Shelby and Wolf, and given the deficit and the unfortunate decision by the Obama administration to allow the Bush tax cuts to become permanent, there is no change to increase the NASA budget and little chance to even keep it where it is.

      1. Being under Presidential decree means its already over politicised. In order to move forward and have the freedom to instigate long term plans NASA needs to be out from under any Presidents feet.

         1. You’d be happy putting that much power in the hands of the NASA Administrator? I don’t think too many people would. Given the way that the budgeting system works, you’d have three power groups fighting it out instead of just two. If you managed to completely remove the White House from the equation, it would be equivalent to giving Congress absolute control over NASA, which they almost have now, and would gain nothing.

            It seems that all proposals for freeing up NASA only result in giving Congress more control over NASA. That is the problem you have to fix, not the Presidential involvement. As long as the members of Congress continue to treat NASA as something they can control for their own ends nothing is going to change. The people at NASA are still, in the majority, working towards a rational space program. Congress, although they claim to be doing the same, are not. And the President has become little more than a spectator in the whole affair.

            1. And it clearly works having that much power in the hands of a President that has no interest in space travel. Another way has to be found.

            2. No matter which way you approach it, it always comes back to being Congress who’s throwing sand in the gears and opposing/denying both the President and NASA. Certain members of Congress use NASA as their private pork generator and most of the rest of Congress just lets it happen. Blaming either the President or NASA is a waste of time. Congress is the culprit and it’s certainly not just NASA that they’re screwing around.

   2. I have never called Charlie Bolden a “stooge”. And I never will.

      1. And I never said you did.

3. Sadly, it’s the same old grouphug, go team go speech. As long as the Congress and the Administration cannot agree on the process of compromise for governing the country, NASA will not be that important.

   1. While I don’t disagree with you Chuck, it seems to me that compromise is poor second second place to a common consensus of what is best for the country. Both Congress and the Administration are, in theory, elected representatives of “the people,” and therefore should really have the same goals and no need to aim for compromise.

      1. “In Theory” if both the congress and the administration share the same goals. In reality, they do not and thus a “compromise” is required. I say the same is true when both parties are setting priorities for health care, national defense, immigration, etc.

         Steve, I believe that if both Congress and the Administration really shared the same goals, our good ole USA would not have the problems it has now. Anyway, enough said.

4. As a general argument, it’s usually a lot easier to criticize another man’s shoes than to walk in them.

5. I get confused when I read these comments. Seems what is good NASA may not be good for getting us off this rock. Not sure what NASA’s goal/job is????
   Under Bolden and Obama I have seen more progress than ever before. And real steady progress unlike the apollo program. Watch the latest grass Hopper test again and smile.

   Under Bolden, Bigelow maybe able to general contract the building of the moon railroad while Spacex builds a railroad to Mars and NASA may yet fulfill that old NACA role.

   Human Space settler

   Looks. Like a steady hand on the tiller to me.

   1. Unfortunately NASA currently and for many years has been led by fly-boys and engineers. Neither ever proved themselves as competent program managers in big innovative programs prior to taking on the mantle of leadership. NASA has not had a big innovative and successful manned program sine the 1980s. Mainly the engineers seem to care about building things to spec. The fly-boys like to fly the things the engineers build. Neither are particularly political; neither know anything about marketing. Neither really know anything about leadership. Go back to the great NASA leaders-someone like James Webb. He never viewed his job as a technical one.

      1. An yet you nominated a fly-boy in your post above.

         I think there is an inaccurate assumption in many of these comments that all you need is the right person for NASA Administrator, but it’s not that simple. Whoever is in the job, his/her efforts are going to be constantly hamstrung by the current collection of (Sub)Committee politicians, who see the NASA Administrator as nothing more than an errand boy to do their bidding, until they’re looking for a scapegoat and then suddenly the NASA Administrator is made responsible for everything. The unfortunate reality seems to be that even the most capable person in that job is going to get a raw deal.

         1. The right kind of person needs a lot of experience beyond just coming out of any one category, like flyboy. There seems to be a lot of people especially in the NASA HSF ranks who think that if he was an astronaut (or flight director, or engineer….) that person is automatically qualified for some significant position. As you go up the ladder you need a lot of bona fide successful and applicable experience which someone like Chilton has. Bolden did not have it. If the individual is not a first class statesman and politician, then the person will have serious problems dealing with the committees and subcomittees and the DC politicians. Bolden had one guy in his camp-Nelson of FL. Didnt really help; he had held a relatively minor league corporate position for awhile; he was a Marine officer but in a long established organization that wasnt doing a lot of growing or changing; he’d never had a significant program management role. Chilton on the other hand was leading a big and expensive technical organization in which major technological growth was a critical function-and he had the NASA program management experience too and he was an astronaut besides. Lets find some of those types as candidates for the job.

6. I agree there are people who would be more effective as Administrator. But they would need to be proven and effective technology leaders, innovators and managers. Griffin was not one and he left the agency a disaster. Bolden is not one. Remember he got in there as a political compromise by Obama with the Senator from Florida who had flown with Bolden. There are some people out there who would bring as much expertise to bear as could be. Kevin Chilton who led the USAF strategic command would be great. He was an astronaut who in watching him close-up took command of his missions and his people. He was fair and honest; no shrinking violet; who rose to high ranks in the space program before going back to the air force; he had opinions and you could respect them. He knew how to think on his feet and how to speak intelligently. He knew enough to listen to multiple viewpoints before making decisions and taking actions, and yet he always took action instead of sitting idly by while the program collapsed. No doubt there must be some others out there who could also be counted on though I do not know who they are. I never had those kinds of feelings of confidence with Charlie Bolden from the very start. He was a nice guy; but he never led a technological program. His Shuttle crews had some serious problems as noted by the difficulties with Wake Shield on his last mission (and his crew was integrally involved with the design and operation). Bolden’s reign as Administrator are about as I anticipated when he started.

7. Just curious, who is talking about his replacement? I’m not remotely in any NASA, space industry, or government circles besides reading up on web sites.

Comments are closed.