With Garver Gone, Who Speaks For NASA?
Outgoing NASA Deputy Reflects on High-profile, Big-money Programs, Space News
“Bolden, a retired Marine Corps major general and former shuttle commander loyal to his troops and trusted by lawmakers, had quickly lost the White House’s confidence in his ability to explain and defend administration policy. During his first week on the job, NASA abruptly canceled a long list of scheduled media interviews with Bolden after the White House took issue with his performance during a televised all-hands meeting. Among the causes for concern, current and former administration officials have told SpaceNews, was Bolden’s off-script comments about the Moon and Mars and the role NASA would play in a National Security Council-led space policy review then getting underway. “When the budget came out, they were not comfortable he could defend it,” one official said. Subsequent NASA press briefings often were held via teleconference with Bolden reading an opening statement before turning it over to Garver or another official to field questions. It is Garver who will forever be known as the champion of NASA’s Commercial Crew initiative, which aims to outsource crew transportation to and from the international space station.”
Who dives next into the grinder?
I gather that the only person who has been speaking for NASA and who continues to still is Dr. Holdren. We’ve heard for so long that NASA people have so little pull.
Ms. Garver could write a book, and I hope she does.
Washington corruption and NASA’s feudal organization has made creating and executing NASA plans very difficult. One cannot blame Garver and Bolden for the ills within NASA but NASA needs tougher top leaders to deal with these obstacles. The aerospace industry is fully aware of this NASA organizational mess, the funding chaos and low salaries of the top two positions and I think no one with the needed caliber to make the big changes is willing to step up for the job.
Eric Sterner : (Washington Post, Q&A – “Outlook: Five Myths about NASA”, July 2011)
“NASA as a whole” is kind of an oxymoron. It really does have a feudal organizational structure. Associate Administrators, usually responsible for budgetary management, are kind of like courtiers around the Administrator-king. Center Directors are something like Barons of old. It got so bad at one point that Dan Goldin–administrator in the 90s–felt compelled to launch a “One NASA” campaign. Mike Griffin came up with a management structure to sort all that out, but it’s a constant battle.”
NASA may remain rudderless until the next Presidential administration.
Sad truth is that however “rudderless” NASA was or is does not seem to concern taxayers. The American people are neither marching on the streets supporting Charlie Bolden nor lobbying their elected representatives en masse. Most members of the House or Senate do not act out of conscience unless compelled to. Case in point Syria: Obama wants Congressional approval for military action because poll after poll shows U.S. public opinion is opposed. Now if only there was as much passion for NASA HSF in American towns and cities, then the next presidential candidates would have to discuss it seriously!
Hari
Yes the people in american towns have little interest in human Space flight.
Why???
Because they have been taught that it is an unaffordable luxury.
You want to spend how many billions to build a giant rocket to look at a rock???
We need to teach them that THE DREAM is still possible.
To be fair, I think we have to recognize that in the US, and any wealthy country, most of the on-going agencies, issues, etc. — things paid for by taxes — are either treated indifferently or basically ignored by the tax payers. It’s generally only the extreme or socially controversial items, like wars or Presidential sexual indiscretions, that get the people up in arms, speaking out, and demanding action.
The same stuff that sells magazines gets Joe Public to wake up, but not much else. Like NASA, highway maintenance and economical postal service are very important to the public’s way of life, but you don’t hear people talking about them at coffee breaks or see them staging rallies. The public is interested in NASA (and most other government-run functions) only when something sensational or something disastrous happens.
Unfortunately, it seems that the only way for advocates to affect space-related activities and spending is through their elected representatives in Congress, which is like a V8 engine running on three cylinders on the best of days. Or, you could find yourself an Elon Musk or a Paul Allan…
NASA has tried to better present the end product of their (our) work – discovery & adventure – to the public. It has improved some. The night sky was a part of the average persons life prior to the light bulb. Today, hectic lifestyles don’t leave much time to imagine. There is a 1 or 2% of the population that can afford a Virgin Galactic ride. The rest are consumed with making ends meet. There is the curse of Apollo – trying to match the dreams of the 60s. There is the Rice speech that – gee, so cool but most NASA employees have 9 to 5 jobs and try not to make rock the boat. If it didn’t function as a public works program at times or design launch vehicles by committee and politics, NASA would have all kinds of funds to express their work and make life more interesting for the real taxpayers.
Nasa is too big with little work. A RIF might be an idea to get the size down and restructure!
As I recall, it was a RIF at NASA that lead to the forerunner of NASA Watch, so clearly some good might come from a RIF.
On the down side, an awful lot of money has been spent in recent years to keep people working for NASA and the contractors employed. Enacting a RIF now would be effectively throwing all that money away.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done (and I’m not saying it should), just that the money already spent maintaining the jobs program combined with the severance pay, buy-outs and pensions, means that a RIF would initially come with a huge price tag. Only if the paid worker count stays lowered for at least a decade or more would the bottom line cumulatively come out ahead.
It’s a tough call and it’s sure to meet with a lot of opposition. One would have to run the numbers — the real numbers — carefully to determine what the price tag will read before an informed decision could be made.
You have a long memory. This website began as “NASA RIF Watch” in April 1996 specifically because of heavy handed threats made by NASA against its workforce. I dropped the “RIF” when the threat of mass layoffs passed.
It’s some what ironic that as a result of layoffs you ended up working harder than ever. I’m just glad you’ve stuck with it all these years. Thanks Keith.
I have said from the start Bolden was all about his own ego and now more than ever should leave.
James, I see things quite differently.
If you or I had to fill his shoes for as little as a week we might see things differently. He’s got a thankless job that nobody in their right mind would take on. But somebody has to do it, and after the second appeal to him to take it on he broke down and agreed.
He probably knows exactly what his own strengths and weaknesses are, and probably knows he’s going to be banging his head against the wall on certain issues before we even hear about them. But we can’t all be supermen.
To his credit, his dedication to NASA caused him to take the job that no one else wanted (except a couple of egoists who had previously held the position). If you think it through, anyone who wanted his job is exactly the wrong kind of person to give it to, and anybody capable enough to do the job really well is both too smart to get involved and probably already doing what he or she wants with their career.
James Webb was an exception, brought in at a time when the motivations were every different. Since Webb I think we’ve had a succession of “good enough” NASA Administrators. which realistically is all we can ever expect to have.
Instead of dumping on Bolden, we’d all be better off doing and saying constructive things that would assist him and his staff in doing better at an impossible job, which would be to everyone’s benefit.
Anybody can criticize, even those who know nothing about NASA and the powers it has to go up against. It takes intelligence and making an effort to instead propose beneficial suggestions that would help improve NASA’s situation and performance. Blaming one man, even the man at the top, for all of NASA’s ills is unrealistic and lazy.
Bolden, and Garver, too, as well as all of their predecessors, recognized that someone has to take the political garbage out, and simply did it instead of whining about it. The one exception would be Michael Griffin, who was just a kid in a candy store who knocked over all the displays.
Hari
The public concerned about human space flight??
Today I told a coworker about the 14th.
I said on the 14th something great might happen. I briefly told him about spacex’s attempt to recover their first stage booster. I told how currently spacex is ten percent cheaper than everybody else. I told him that for year’s and years congress and big business have been getting together turning our space program into one big ripoff. I had no time for details. I said so if they pull this off it will mean the beginning of really getting us up there cheap enough to one day start getting resources from space. That caught his interest. He said yeah we are really burning this place/earth up. We need to get up there.
What if each and everyone of us engaged an acquaintance each and everyday and let them know that a REAL affordable future in space will so be possible. WE could get people interested again!!
This guy took out a pad and wrote down spacex and how to find a grasshopper video and said he wanted to show this to his kid.
PS people do realize that what we are doing on earth is unsustainable and that we need to learn to live and work/SETTLE SPACE!!!!!e
This is indeed laudable, although shouldn’t the mainstream news media be informing Joe Public regularly? The last time ISS hit the headlines was when Italian crewman Luca Parmitano almost drowned during the last U.S. spacewalk. But barely any mention thereafter of two successful Russian EVA’s or Japan’s HTV-4 mission. I’m sure Cygnus will get a ton of exposure, however, and rightly so.
Actually, anything new, or any event happening for the first time, seems to get 11:00 news mention, but repeat performances do not, which I think is reasonable. To people not intimately familiar with the ISS hardware, one EVA is same as any other, and therefor generates little interest. The first HTV and ATV both made the news, but the second of each looks exactly like the first one and means nothing to Joe Public.
Who speaks for NASA?
Shouldn’t that be US???
Bolden is a pilot/astronaut. If you give him a checklist he could probably follow it.
But the idea he will come up with the plan, or that he will do the political legwork to be able to do the salesmanship???
Why does anyone think these folks can do things they have zero experience at?
Bolden got the job on merit (only the second astronaut ever to become administrator), so we were entitled to think he would be able to speak without fear or favor. Can’t fault him for wanting Mars to be the end game unlike his political masters. Alas, we now know better which is why I also fear for the future of NASA.
Bolden does not possess the experience or skills required to lead an org like NASA. it is as questionable if Truly did either. To run an Agency like NASA effectively you need someone with the skill set of James Webb, along with the President and political environment that existed at the time of Apollo. We have not had that “perfect Storm” in 4 decades and am not holding my breath for it to occur in the next half century.
I thought he got the job because Senator Nelson forced him onto this Adminstration, because the President was going to appoint an airforce commercial first guy. Nelson wanted a pro monster rocket guy.
That is correct. And every time he has made mistakes and lost their confidence, Nelson makes calls to the West Wing and tells them he has to keep him or he won’t support this or that Administrative priority.
I thought Obama wanted Garver as administrator. Arguable she would have been more effective.
This administration shows little to no interest in NASA … social engineering is more their thing.
Leaving Bolden to peddle the nonsense of using an asteroid mission as prep for a Mars mission certainly meets the definition of quixotic.
As for Garver, why did she peddle the same nonsense when in NASA and leave throwing grenades behind her as she walked out the door?
—John
Since NASA began we’ve had social engineering Presidents, foreign policy Presidents, and economic Presidents. I’m not sure we’ve had a President who showed real interest in NASA since Eisenhower. But we have had a few who would try to appoint competent leaders and give them at least some support for funding requests. If Obama wants to focus on other areas, that’s his prerogative as POTUS, but he at least needs to hand NASA over to someone who can/will lead it where it needs to go. I don’t care whether he’s a space geek, but put a leader in place and get out of his way.
That’s reasonable as far as it goes, but you didn’t mention Congress, and, right or wrong, they’re in the driver’s seat when it comes to putting a NASA leader in place and getting out of his way. I’m reminded of a line from the novel Dune, where Paul says, “He who can destroy a thing controls it.” That perfectly describes the hold that Congress has over NASA and its appointed Administrator.
“Since NASA began we’ve had social engineering Presidents, foreign policy Presidents, and economic Presidents.”
Little do they know that some of these foreign, social, and economic issues that they focus on can be solved (or at least partially solved) with expanding our economic sphere to include space. But that is what happens when our space policy is thrown into a 2-4 year election cycle that is devoid of any long-term vision (outside of feeding the pork to special interest).
This forum has been a great place to talk space ideas and well…b**ch about NASA considering the vast array of personalities and skillsets. But one thing I notice is that alot of the conversation is devoted to pointing fingers as to whom is to blame for our problems vice actually solving them. This brings me to ask, does anyone commenting here have any viable solutions and/or ideas to solving these problems short of a revolution or a national con con that restructures how our government works?
I doubt those were “grenades” as much as airing a bit of frustration with the situation. I’m guessing the grenades are yet to come and I’m sure there is a lot of nervousness about it at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue – and at 300 E St. SW.