It's Time To Play "Guess The NASA Administrator"
Will Trump pick an “agent of change” or an insider to lead NASA?, Ars Technica
“Probably the leading contender among the outsiders is a US Republican Representative from Oklahoma, Jim Bridenstine, who since being elected to Congress has quickly become a darling of the commercial space industry. … Not only does [Scott] Pace presently work at a university in the nation’s capital, he has also served George W. Bush on space policy and was 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s chief space adviser.”
Keith’s note: FWIW the rumors here in DC suggest that Mike Griffin is looking for a position in the defense sphere. Mark Albrecht says that he’s not interested in going back to government, Bob Walker notes that his lobbyist stance makes him (probably) ineligible, and Eileen Collins annoyed the Trump people when she suddenly backed out of the endorsement that they thought they were going to get.
If I were betting on horses it would be Bridenstine and Pace. Pace worked at NASA Headquarters for a number of years and has experience in the running of a large government agency with tens of thousands of employees and a multi-billion dollar budget. Bridenstine ran a small air & space museum and now has Potomac Fever and wants to stay in Washington when his self-imposed term limit expires. Pace is measured and deliberate with a deep understanding of space policy whereas Bridenstine is all fired up and motivated to enable change in the way that we explore and utilize space. It would be nice (for once) for a President to pick someone to run NASA with actual experience in running big things. It would also be nice to have an energetic advocate for space promoting NASA’s efforts to a broadening audience.
Alas, as that song at Trump rallies often reminded us “you can’t always get what you want”. Stay tuned.
I vote for the “energetic advocate”. I’d like to see a guy in there who sees the value of public/private space development and streamlined commercial regulations, and is passionate about them. The career NASA people are fully capable of keeping the doors open and the paperwork flowing.
You forgot to add to the wheel: Lose another decade of advancement or Dont go to Mars for 30 years….!
This ^^
Bridenstine for Administrator, Pace for Deputy Administrator, keep Lightfoot and Leza. This would be a formidable team to move NASA forward. Bridenstine works Congress & Whitehouse, Pace works down and in.
Another go around with Mike Griffin would be a TOTAL disaster. Why not Steve Squyres?
Lose a Turn… Go Back 47 years to the Moon!
An aside- I wonder if NASA is gonna drag out that Constellation funded moon buggy thing that they used in the the 2009 inaugural parade? I’m sure the new NASA admins will love them some moon buggy.
Sad to think NASA really has not advanced beyond that rover in the last 8 years.
But they have such nice graphs for the Journey To Mars 🙂
Seriously, I see President Elect Trump wanting things to brag about by the next election, not view graphs, so look for a return to the Moon.
No, leap forward decades by avoiding the 40 year old Mars detour and returning to the Moon to Stay!
I would think Pace would be more suited for the W.H. Office of Space Policy.
An good outside bet would be Pete Worden.
Yes!!!
Pete is too smart to say yes. Besides he has his own space program that is fully funded – no Congress or White House to deal with.
That would be a great choice! He is a proven scientist, military man and administrator, with White House roots going back to Reagan’s time, yet he is a true innovator who has been associated with the most active drivers of change (e.g. Ansari Prize).
NASA needs someone who is well known, can explain (sell) NASA’s importance to the uninitiated, and appeals to the young. I vote Neil Degrasse Tyson.
If Tyson is going to be out selling NASA who will actually be back at NASA running the agency? What is the largest number of people Tyson has actually managed? I suspect is is a very small number when compared to NASA.
I agree with MoeJoe. I would vote for NGDT for NASA Administrator. Let the Deputy run the agency, using the military equivalent, Executive Officer who runs the unit while the Commanding Officer makes the decisions and is the face of the unit. NDGT is an excellent communicator and showman. In the information age of President Trump, I see no one better. =)
He might be an excellent communicator but have you been to the Hayden lately? The public face is about as dumbed down as one can imagine – a real disappointment.
I only went to the Hayden once, over 40 years ago, so I’ll take your word for it. But, I have seen his NatGeo TV online show, Star Talk & liked it a lot. Regardless of who is selected, I like the renewed emphasis on the Moon. If we stay “20 years from Mars” while China lands more equipment, and eventually people on the Moon, I expect a strong response and outcry in this country. We had the high ground but abandoned it. Soon, other nations will go and stay. I hope that private companies will pick up where NASA left off and realize the moon colonies, mining operations and hotels I’ve been dreaming about.
He would never make a good administrator but he could be a good PR person when NASA resets it’s goals.
Fewer professional entertainers in government, please. I’d no more want him in there than Bill Nye.
NASA needs someone to explain its mission. Congress and the President are uninterested and it’s PAO office does a terrible job of making the science relevant to the taxpayers. If it means having someone like Tyson to sell the missions and a administrative wonk to handle the bureaucracy, so be it. It may be the best combination. What has been happening since I started at NASA 16 years ago as a young engineer is not working. I don’t think you can compare Tyson to Nye.
I was in D.C. at Goddard talking with a project manager of the way way way over budget Webb telescope who compared the cost of the Webb to the money Americans pay for potato chips every year.
I told him, yes, but Americans like potato chips.
They will love the pretty pictures, too.
In that case, JWST may be a flop. The instruments are first rate from a scientific perspective. But, in terms of pretty pictures, I’m not sure if they will provide the esthetic or artistic quality you are used to from Hubble. Of course, I could be wrong. With some work, you can turn a long-slit spectrogram into very fine abstract art…
I think NASA has lacked a mission for a long time. It has enabled breathtaking science over the years – earth, planetary, and astronomical – but science is now a four letter word. The declining few who actually pay taxes have no more voice in NASA’s direction than they do in the DoD’s or any other agency. More PR won’t do a thing to change that.
The choice is now between science and pork and it is looking grim for science.
Why can’t we do both – The Moon and Mars? We can go to the Moon, land there, work some of the kinks out of building a permanent habitat on the moon like performing remote construction using robotics. Even before a permanent habitat is complete, we should have gained sufficient knowledge and have prototypes to ensure the success of a Mars habitat.
That’s always made more sense than direct-to-Mars. A direct-to-Mars mission has too much potential of becoming an one-off. A one shot wonder.
We need to establish a permanent presence on the Moon to demonstrate that life off earth is possible. And it’s doable now.
Because it makes too much sense.
More likely it costs more money. Hard enough to fund one thing.
The implication would be to drop the Mars thing.
The challenges however are to develop an affordable long duration (6 months vs 3 days) inspace transportation system based on reuse–lunar will abandon reuse. The challenges also demonstrate the crew and hardware can function in the proper environment (microg and full gcr), can land heavy objects through an atmosphere, lunar dust, while at the same time increase the science, increase market potential.
Rather than look for a needle in a haystack, seek the resources near Mars and beyond, the asteroid belts, significantly more potential at less costs than lunar.
CxP showed the world that a lunar only focus resulted in a unaffordable architecture. Any plan that includes lunar brings back SLS/Orion and ISS splashdown to begin the incredibly expendable return. No thanks. Cents not sense.
The best person would be one that is an administrator and can work with the President and Congress to get things funded and accomplished. Many times an astronaut is picked, but that’s probably not the best pick.
What is Donald’s caddy’s name?