Still Waiting For Bridenstine
NASA Heads Back to Space Leaderless, Bloomberg
“NASA observers, including some Democrats with ties to the agency, contend that Bridenstine’s political background would be beneficial to a NASA administrator, who must navigate the shoals between the White House and Congress, which appropriates the agency’s budget. “I’m still fairly bullish on what Jim Bridenstine would do for the agency,” said Phil Larson, a former senior adviser in President Barack Obama’s Office of Science and Technology Policy. “The main point now is NASA needs a leader as soon as possible, and leaving a nominee in question–I don’t care what side of the aisle you’re on–leaving a nomination open as these types of policies and questions and meetings are being hashed out helps no one.”
It’s hard to tell if this WH is tone deaf or brain dead but they didn’t have the votes to get Bridenstine in before Luther Strange left the Senate and they certainly have fewer now – and November’s election is unlikely to help. If NASA really were a priority for Trump, they would nominate someone else but, despite all the high power attendance at the Space Council meetings, the pathetic flat NASA budget shows they really don’t care about NASA. Hopefully, after Trump is indicted and convicted, impeached or resigns, Pence will change things but for now, expect NASA to keep twisting in the wind; Make America Great Again – what a pathetic joke!
Thanks for the case study in Trump Derangement Syndrome. How about considering the possibility that if just a few democrats in the senate would quell their anti-Trump hysteria for a day, we could finally get Bridenstine installed as administrator and get NASA’s agenda fully up and running. This foolish and irrational hyper-partisanship going on in this country since last November needs to chill and getting Bridenstine confirmed would be as good a place to start as any.
If you haven’t noticed, the Republicans have a Senate majority and Mike Pence to break ties; if he can’t get through, don’t blame the Dems.
If you hadn’t noticed, Dems are ignoring what’s good for the country and are content on obstruction.
The republicans could make this nomination happen easily – if they all supported the nominee. No dems needed.
Who are some good alternates that would be less contentious, at least to the GOP?
For reference, I think Bridenstine would do a good job. One of the most plausible appointees to come out of Trump’s Administration.
The real problem is extreme partisanship, such as this comment demonstrates.
That IS what’s good for the country. The GOP played the obstruction card to the hilt while Obama was president – and it was good politics to do so. If the Dems didn’t do the same they would be negligent to their electorate.
Wonderful. Obstruction is good and compromise and forming a consensus is negligence. If that really is true, then I’m afraid Lincoln was wrong and the great American experiment in democracy really is a failure.
In the course of business I deal with various sorts of associations, mostly the much-maligned Homeowner Association.
And here’s the remarkable thing: exceptions aside, these folks try to make inclusive decisions. They listen to each other, and they seek solutions that satisfy the generalized community sensibilities,
Somehow, someway, when ordinary people are given responsibility in Washington they acquire some sort of patina, an out-sized sense of who they are and what they are trying to do; this exacerbates the importance of every single decision they make.
*****************************************
I am having trouble managing these long threads; I follow them with interest, but there has got to be a better way than simply sorting by ‘Oldest’ or ‘Newest’. I haven’t seen how Disqus can be helpful and wonder how others (who often respond even when comment threads are >40+) manage them?
I’ve tried searching for ‘hour’, which should send me to new comments that are made within the past day, but alas Safari isn’t reliable on these on-page searches.
When it comes to Homeowners Associations versus elected officials in Washington, I’d say the difference is a personal connection. When it affects your own neighborhood, if you can’t get along, make things work and get things done, you have to personally live with the results. If you’re in the Capitol, and can’t do the same things, it’s usually someone else who has to live with the results. That may be an argument for more of a local rather than national government role in things. Or maybe my syndicate anarchist leanings are showing.
As far as reading long threads on this site, I just go to the nasawatch.com URL and click on the comment link to each article. That gives a threaded list of comments (i.e. a comment is followed replies to it, which are indented), although the order of each thread is a bit random. I think I’m getting some mix of sorting by the date and number of responses. (I use Chrome on my laptop, but I don’t think that makes a difference.) That’s also a bit awkward once more than 50 to 100 comments are involved, and it is easier on my laptop than on my smartphone. But I haven’t found anything better.
I take your point, but made mine poorly, which is this: that there’s a natural tendency among us to find a way forward that satisfies the most people.
I do the same thing on comments. Haven’t found a better way; the trick of searching the site for “hour” is effective if you see the site daily and if you don’t make spelling errors (cough, cough).
They learned obstructionism from those who are the very best at it.
Don’t you think it says something when not one single Democrat is interested in crossing the aisle?
There are several who’d be inclined to vote for Bridenstine but Bill Nelson has gotten them all to say now with Sen. Schumer’s support. That said if republicans could get their own flock t behave they could confirm Bridenstine without any need for Pence or democratic votes.
Well, Bridenstine’s a tea party extremist on many topics so I can see why Dems are hesitant even though I wouldn’t hold non germane issues against him. As for Dems being obstructionists, stopping this insane clown of a President is exactly in the interest of the country; Pence would be much better!
If Bridenstine cannot get the numbers for his own nomination, what on earth makes you think he will be able to wrangle Congress into changing any of it’s priorities to meet a new NASA agenda ?
Assuming that’s not a rhetorical question, let me share a thought (or hope?) about it. I believe the confirmation standoff is just a foolish hyper-partisan act of obstruction by Senate democrats for purely political reasons (plus a couple of republicans with emotional problems about Bridenstine). But if just a small handful of those in obstruction will be willing to end this Mexican stand-off and get him confirmed, then future dialog between Administrator Bridenstine and Congress can proceed on the merits of whatever policies and priorities NASA brings forward. In other words, it becomes more about NASA business than about Bridenstine the man. This assumes that asinine hyper-partisanship will not forever plague everything the Senate does for the duration of the Trump administration. Perhaps I am being hopelessly naive and optimistic. But if I am and this particular form of childish governmental impotence continues, then we Americans have bigger problems than who becomes NASA administrator.
It wasn’t rhetorical – the “hyper-partisanship” you decry was a reality for eight years under Obama, and it’s a reality now. It’s the new normal, and it’s not ending any time soon.
Again, if Bridenstine cannot get the numbers for his own nomination, what on earth makes you think he can do anything else that needs moving Senators and Reps from their current positions ?
Stay tuned on the nomination thing ….
I’m pretty sure I already answered that question above, but let me try a rephrase. Obstructing Trump nominees is currently a popular sport among the democrats. But if just a handful of senators (democrat or republican) will sober up long enough to confirm Bridenstine, then the forthcoming engagement between Bridenstine and Congress can become about the message rather than the messenger, so to speak. Of course this assumes that the obstructionism among democrats is not so pathological that they would oppose any sound policy simply because it was articulated by a republican-nominated administrator. I could be wrong but NASA has historically enjoyed bipartisan support. Again, this is a hope, not a prediction. But if you would care to make the case that democrats are not capable of being reasonable, I am prepared to listen.
If Pence does become President, he’ll have plenty of other things to worry about besides NASA. This is kind of the reason vice presidents often appear to care about NASA more than presidents. It’s simply because it’s not so important for the president to really worry about.
And either way, our space program and country suffer due to wasted time, resources and people’s careers (and who would want to start careers with such tentative futures – thus leaving a bigger gap in expertise and waste for the future). It all quite sad if you look at the big picture.
True though his interest in space goes way back to his time in the House; it doesn’t take much time to tell OMB to give NASA more money; Trump is either too busy ranting at Alec Baldwin on Twitter or he just doesn’t care. Probably both.
And what would NASA do with more money other than waste it faster?
Yep – you’re right; if we just eliminated NASA we’d be colonizing the solar system in a decade.
And exactly how much of the nearly $20 billion NASA gets is spent on space settlement? It almost all goes to either keeping the centers open, projects like ISS and SLS to keep the workforce busy with what is left over going to searching for ET or studying global warming.
FH shows that the public is still able to get excited about space, it’s just not excited about NASA.
Yep – without NASA everything would be great!
Meanwhile, Musk himself has.praised Apollo 11 as his insitpiration and he’s admitted that the tech the F9 is based on is from NASA. Thinking that NASA is a problem is Tea Party nonsense (sorry for the redundancy!)
If NASA spending was a priority for either party, they have had plenty of chances when they controlled the Congress and White House to increase it. They haven’t. The conclusion to be drawn is that they are happy with the status quo of about 0.5% of the budget.
More to the point the NASA Congress Critters are getting the pork flows to their districts at the level that the rest of the Congress is OK with, as long as the pork flows to their Districts are also supported. Yes, the Swamp is the Swamp. And you think your Jaded? 🙂
Apollo 11 was 49 years ago, and the NASA technology SpaceX used was mostly developed decades ago. Where has most of NASA’s been going in the past quarter century?
Really? So developing and operating a Space Station with 6 crew members from around the world 24/7 for nearly 2 decades doesn’t count? How about the Hubble space telescope which has revolutionized our understanding of the universe and a new one (JWST) that’s just about to launch? How about probes to the outer parts of our solar system that have given incredible insights into Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto and the asteroids and spacecraft to study Mercury, Venus and the sun or a fleet of spacecraft deployed to Mars that has helped us understand that planet in incredible detail while also developing an incredibly precise understanding of the Earth and how human greenhouse gas emissions are screwing up the planet. Yeah, I guess you’re right – NASA really hasn’t done anything in 25 years but boy, did SpaceX launch a cool advertising mission! Now that’s what’s important!
Interesting observations. But the dates don’t quite prove your point. ISS was mostly designed when they launched the first elements a bit over 19 years (not necessarily the final design, but they weren’t exactly making things up as they went along.) HST was launched over 25 years ago.
Galileo was actually a 1970s spacecraft (with a massively delayed launch due to the Shuttle program) and got into orbit around Jupiter in 1994. Except for flybys, Juno is the only mission to Jupiter in the past quarter century. Cassini was launched in 1997. Except for flybys, there have been no US Venus missions since Magellan in the 1980s. In general, Discovery and New Horizons missions (such as MESSENGER to Mercury and New Frontiers to Pluto) aren’t designed or built by NASA. That’s contracted out, and the people who are actually in charge are not, most of the time, NASA employees.
I guess that leaves heliophysics, JWST (with its cost overruns and late schedule), the Mars missions (with _their_ cost overruns and late schedules) and Earth science.
I’m not saying SpaceX has done anything comparable. They have, however, improved and advanced the state of the art tremendously in under a decade. NASA’s continued to apply largely unchanged or gradually improving technology to, with enough money put into it, continue a relatively slow but steady rate of progress. That’s nothing like the pace of what NASA did in the 1960s.
I think the fact that SpaceX designed, built and launched a reusable heavy lift vehicle for less than NASA has spent on the mobile platform for the SLS shows a lot of progress. Especially since NASA gave up on reusability years ago and SpaceX has made it seem easy.
Seem easy — and I can’t help but add they’ve done it largely transparently.
Indeed. It’s not useful, really, when assessing relative contributions, to simply add up the mass of launched hardware.
SX’ chief contribution is in the realm of policy. And given what they’ve done with hardware that is one hell of an achievement.
Both telescopes were years and years behind schedule and with huge (400%+) cost over runs. Nothing to be bragging about, especially as the JWT has broken its price cap again.
The ISS is what you would expect from an international design committee, a bunch of modules hung together with no plans to apply any of the lessons learned. But then NASA never had a mission for it.
The spacecraft are about the only part of the old NASA left. And they are getting further and fewer between because of the costs associated with them.
NASA does do good planetary, earth, and astrophysical science.
What it’s been doing with human space flight for the last few decades, however, is something else.
Not to say there’s no good science being done on ISS (I think AMS has turned in some valuable data), but its real value at this point is bootstrapping a commercial space industry. Otherwise, I’d say splash it now, and put all the HSF money toward planetary science and tech research.
The NASA of Apollo is not the NASA of today. They were willing to be bold and take risks. The NASA of today is so afraid of risk they will have astronauts operate rovers from a Lunar space station rather than have them walk on the Moon, which is just too dangerous.
They are afraid to take risks because if something happens, they will be pilloried on CNN, FOX, and in Congressional hearings. Kind of like society overall nowadays…
Boots on Moon cost money, which, for all his talk, Trump hasn’t shown yet.
They’re not risk adverse in this case — they’re just too cheap to build a lander.
In the case of a lander (or most other things) it’s both. They can’t afford to build a lander which would be sufficiently low risk. A very high risk lunar lander would be dead cheap. Well, perhaps tens of millions rather than billions. That’s more than I can afford, but relatively very cheap. If you insist on getting known risks below a tenth of a percent, then tens of billions might be a plausible cost. So cost and risk posture are tied together.
Spend 10 or 20% of the extra money on something useful? Possibly more, since the current budget already covers “maintaining the workforce” in the appropriate states.
The fact is that no US President is going to support giving NASA boat loads of cash. It’s not been the political reality since about 1965/1966 when NASA’s budget began to be cut (development of Apollo/Saturn V was winding down at that time). Most people don’t remember that their budget was cut several years before the first successful manned lunar landing, which marked the “winning” of the Space Race by the US (at least from the point of view of US politicians who were “done” spending vast amounts of money on NASA).
Nobody in their right mind would expect Apollo levels of new spending on NASA – but the amount they proposed is laughable – meanwhile Trump is asking $18B for his stupid wall that experts say won’t work and even a majority of his supporters don’t agree with. Couldn’t he have asked for $1B more for NASA and just sought to waste $17B on the Wall instead?
That’s not how politics work. The “stupid wall” was a campaign promise and President Trump still believes in it, so he’s going to keep fighting for it. And yes, I believe the wall is stupid too. The wall can be defeated with some very high tech devices called ladders.
What I find interesting is that so few folks recognize that the Border Wall is really nothing more then fully implementing the Secure Fence Act of 2006….
https://www.bostonglobe.com…
“The law flew through the Senate with a vote of
80 to 19. (One senator, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, was not present. John Kerry, the state’s other senator, voted against it.) In
the House, the measure passed 283 to 138, with 64 Democrats supporting it. (The Massachusetts delegation was split.) From there it went to then-President George W. Bush, who signed it 12 days before the 2006 mid-term elections.”
“Trump specifically cited the law in the first sentence of Wednesday’s executive order authorizing the wall.”
Funny how folks forget what they agreed to. But we are off topic here…
I’m not sure which is worse. Posturing and saying you’re in favor of a bad idea and then not following through (in the hope no one will notice) or posturing and saying you’re in favor of a bad idea and then actually trying to do it.
As far as the practicality of a wall, I note the Israeli border around the occupied territories. Tunnels are an effective way to get around (well, under) walls. I expect people smuggling illegal imigrants to be as creative and motivated as nationalists.
I take it you don’t live/work on the border. I do. You won’t stop everyone, but you will slow it to a trickle from the current flood.
Well, I did live for a hair under ten years in San Antonio (not as close to the border as you are probably thinking of) and three years in Ann Arbor (quite close to a border, but not the one you’re thinking of.) I’ll note that a bit over 40% of the people in San Antonio grow up speaking Spanish, about 70% percent of the people there are fluent in both English and Spanish, and (much to my discomfort) most of the monolingual population are the people who grew up speaking English.
In any case, I think the key issue isn’t if, or how well, a wall would stop illegal immigrants. We can debate measures and countermeasures for smuggling forever. I think the real issue is whether or not we should do so. In another thread, you noted that “lots of those mining jobs go begging as well.” If the current citizens of the United States don’t want those jobs, I strongly suspect there are Mexican citizens who would be very willing to immigrate and take them. Why not let them? I’d think that would be good for the US economy overall.
The former because it emphasizes the lack of confidence we have in our ability to do things together (AKA an effective government).
Only a few years ago, I was making the case that “boatloads of cash” were needed if we wanted to see actual progress in the HSF realm. Those were the days when the NASA Way was the Only Way.
But things changed, and with them my own views changed.
I’m no longer convinced that a bigger budget is required, aside from inflation adjustments. It’s a point I have made before: that the work for those of us supporting NASA efforts is now properly in the realm of policy— finding constructive ways to move the Agency towards a new way of thinking (I’m trying to make this point without the inflammatory terms ‘New Space’ and ‘Old Space’, and with difficulty).
To begin with, NASA needs to stop doing things that it can simply purchase “commercially” instead of “rolling their own” using cost plus style contracts. Unfortunately, the biggest offender (SLS) has a lot of support in Congress.
I’m hopeful that New Glenn flies successfully and offers yet another lower cost option for launch. New Glenn should have some advantages over Falcon Heavy such as its large fairing size and optional third stage. The more competition the better. With both of them flying, the supposed “need” for SLS drops precipitously. Perhaps then it can finally be killed with a wooden stake through its cold metallic heart.
The labels “New Space” and “Old Space” are a path to a major upset in the future.
I came out of the telecom industry, where “New Telecom” and “Old Telecom” and “DotCom” appeared in 1993. It created artificial divisions (new us vs old them) and led to a major collapse of the telecom/IT/dotcom market and companies in 2001. Major bloodletting all due to unnatural business practices, analysts/investors/speculators/venture capitalists edging on half-baked ideas and companies, vendors financing questionable clients and projects, and accounting inventions (Pro Forma balance sheets).
I truly hope that the government/industry/academia will not allow themselves to be baited into this marketing scheme, but instead just concentrate on space exploration and development of space commerce in a balanced step-by-step process.
A balanced, level-headed, realistic-minded NASA Administrator would be nice in this sense.
So true, but the terms seem tightly-constrained, t least for now, and are a very handy abbreviation.
“It’s hard to tell if this WH is tone deaf or brain dead”
I’ll have a little from Column A, and a little from Column B.
More seriously I’d point out that the Administration has offered candidates for about half of the positions requiring Senate confirmation. At least one reason for this is widely shared by the Right: a generalized contempt towards government (“the government IS the problem”).
This results in a self-fulfilling chain of events. DOE and EPA stand out as stellar examples.
Another reason: The US has long cherished the notion that upper level positions in government are merit-filled; this idea isn’t understood by this Administration, which offers positions to under-qualified and under-experienced people, sometimes family members, some of whom are unable to gain security clearances chiefly because the line between self-interest and public service is seen as a sucker’s bet;
And of course there is the idea that many public positions are simply cushy jobs held by people who couldn’t “make it in the real world”.
For those anxious about gaining an Administrator, I’d say that we- those of us who appreciate and honor NASA, and all it stands for- we are far better off without the glare of a WH spotlight, Administrator or not.
I’ll stop now.
“The pathetic flat NASA budget” has been pathetically flat for four decades now.
Trump doesn’t really care about space. But neither have any of his predecessors since LBJ.
Hey, NASA and several other agencies and even embassies, have ran a year without people in these positions. Maybe that proves we really don’t need those job positions anymore and the Govt can save money? Hum?
Penny wise and pound foolish, as the saying goes.
I don’t even know where to start with this.
The President’s proposed budget involved some major reorganizations. For example, the Space Technology Mission Directorate is going away (merging its functions with a new, exploration-focused body below the Directorate level.) That’s basically one one level below the Administrator. Doing that without an Administrator is on par with a corporate reorganization without a CEO.
Yeah right – like not having an ambassador to South Korea when we’re on the verge of war with the North; I’m sure that job is superfluous. Trump and his team are in so far over their heads they have no idea what they are doing. Bottom line if NASA is a priority, put an Administrator in who can get confirmed. For all of these jobs if you don’t put your own people in, the agency is run by the bureaucracy – so why did you get elected?
Technically we are at war with them. The agreement signed in 1953 was just a cease fire while a treaty was worked out.
OK, true enough – so that means we don’t need an ambassador?!
Again, it is up to the Congress to start approving the ones nominated already before adding more to the line.
Maybe if they stopped nominating rich contributors with shady finances or, God forbid, actual qualifications, they’d get through faster. Instead we get lifetime judicial nominations for lawyers who have never been in a courtroom, people with no qualifications other than being a spouse of a WH staffer and those who use their positions to get favorable treatment of their businesses by banks (I’m sure Jared is just the tip of the iceberg!)
Ambassadorships have been used as payoffs to big donors since the 1800’s. How do you think Joe Kennedy got to be named Ambassador to the UK at the start of WW II? Nothing new there.
True. The real work is done by career folks; a dispassionate view of these positions would describe the current state as decimated.
I’d point out that State has dozens of positions that require Senate approval. There’s lots of ways to tell folks how much you appreciate them:-)
Yep, you just need someone who dresses well and knows how to act in high society. And follow the script they are given.
It just goes to show how much of Washington runs on autopilot. All you need is someone to sign the papers.
Sure – let in elected and unaccountable bureaucrats run everything – what could go wrong?!
Except they have probably been doing it all along with the appointees just being figure heads. Kinda like the steering wheel you use to give to kids to make them think they are running things…
Is there someone knowledgable to run a federal agency without a lot of political baggage? It seems must be at least one knowledgable non-partisan person out of 300 million.
The answer is no.
In this environment it doesn’t matter who Trump appoints to most positions, they won’t be approved. There are at least 75 appointments in limbo. Senators can put holds on any appointment for any reason. No Democrat is going to vote for Bridenstine. Marco Rubio objects to Bridenstine because he doesn’t think SLS is the only rocket we should be using. With Thad Cochran’s health issues getting enough Republicans in the room for a vote is a problem. https://www.politico.com/st…
It is the perfect storm. In the mean time all these nominations sit in limbo, not just for NASA.
Democrats and Republicans are obstructing. The advice and consent function of the senate is nothing more than voting on a bill anymore.
Reagan and Clinton had fierce battles but appointments rarely had problems. Ever since Bush 43 and Obama its been hell up here.
Confirm the man already!! What the heck are they waiting for? Get on with it… (says the foreign guy who isn’t even an American voter)
The fundamental problem is that Rep. Bridenstine has a new space background (rocket racing) and sees NASA as a agency that should be focusing on space exploration, economic development and space settlement to benefit America. This goes directly against the Pork driven take no risks special interest (Old Space, Old Flagship Science) agency it has become. This is why so many special interests oppose him.
What President Trump needs to do is just find another tired old retired astronaut to be the NASA Administrator and then create a new Space Development Agency in the Dept. of Commerce with Rep. Bridenstine running it to lead America back to the Moon and economically develop space using New Space assets like SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace, Moon Express, etc. NASA Ames would be transfer to the new SDA. The other Centers would stay with NASA.
NASA could then keep its Old Space toys, ISS, SLS, Orion, JWST and its dreams of Mars and just be abandoned in place, a 1960’s relic.
Why Ames?
The folks there seem to be more open to doing things the New Space way being in Silcon Valley.
To do what you suggest requires modifying the NASA Charter, doesn’t it? What support would a move like you suggest have?
Other than sponsoring legislation that never went anywhere, what’s his space-related background that you cite?
Since you will need to have Congressional legislation to create a SDA it would be easy enough to transfer Ames. But there is no need to change the NASA Charter as there is nothing in it that gives them a federal monopoly on space.
He has more then James Webb had since he was involved in Rocket Racing.
Or, perhaps, Waiting for Godot.
Let them eat carrots!
“And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber. And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself. And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own Midwest. And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil. One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear. And terror possessed me then
And I begged, “Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?”
And the angel said unto me, “These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust.”
And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared, “Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!”
Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus”
(from a song by Tool)
This is the most ridiculous thing i have seen from the USA. almost 18mths with no head of a major government agency. You so need to change the laws so government can run and not walk !
There’s a lot of this sort of thing going on around the world: Italy and Germany stand out; and the Swiss have a related issue. Lots of turmoil.
An important difference is the relationship between the executive and legislative branches. In Germany or Italy the head of the executive branch is, almost by definition, the head of the party or group of parties which have a majority in the legislature. (That’s normally true in the United Kingdom, although that’s not exactly the case at the moment.) So, once they do manage to form a government, they don’t have problems with gridlock and obstruction.