Slashdot Mirror
Obama Taps Charles Bolden To Lead NASA
viyh notes that President Obama has named former astronaut Charles F. Bolden Jr. as NASA administrator. Obama's campaign space adviser, Lori Garver, will be Bolden's deputy. Bolden flew four shuttle missions, two as commander, as well as 100 combat missions over Viet Nam. If confirmed, Bolden will take over an agency uncertain of its direction. The shuttle Atlantis's landing will mark the end of the servicing era — it was the last planned mission to repair any satellite. Some inside the agency are less than happy about how NASA's future looks from here.
I thought NASA was pretty damned certain of where they were heading over the next few years, the only uncertain part was what the next NASA administrator would try to change.
Used to be, back when I was in high school, that we listened to Kennedy's speeches about space and dreamed of becoming astronauts. NASA, in those days, was something of a heroic world where the best and brightest grouped to find ways to get men to the moon and return them safely to Earth.
We looked at the Alan Shepards, Louis Armstrongs, and Buzz Aldrins as supermen. They were our Sanjaya back then. The right stuff, they had it, and we wanted to have it too.
But now, NASA is just a sad shadow of what it used to be. The agency is hamstrung by lack of funding, but more than that, in the decades that have passed since I was a boy, educational standards have dropped to such an extent that even if we were to increase funding to reasonable levels, that we'd need to bring in foreign contractors just to make up the intelligence gap.
The average American doesn't care about space. They care about what is directly in front of them. Their car, their job (if they still have it), and their bellies. The curiousity and hunger for space is gone except in a scattered few.
It'll be another 12 years before any kind of rehabilition can take place. Until the next generation of kids passes through schools that encourage thought, discipline, and creativity and not just feel-good, everyone wins, it only matters if you try "education".
Where the hell did this comment come from, and why is it being modded up? To whose ignorance are you referring? Why is it particularly cool that the NASA administrator and the president are the same color? Would it be less cool if he were some other color? Can you rank for us the various color permutations in order of coolness?
Don't Bogart the fish sticks
I've had the distinct pleasure of working with Jim Wetherbee, the man who has commanded more NASA shuttle flights than any other.
During that time I asked him why he left NASA. And I don't want to put words into his mouth, but suffice it to say I think he felt like the country's support of NASA is terrible and he decided he wanted to go somewhere that he could make a difference (because he no longer felt that way in NASA).
It's sad really. The space program, while expensive, has resulted in many great technological discoveries and inventions. And yet do you even know how small of a percent of our GDP goes towards it? It's pathetic.
I only hope this Bolden is something like Jim Wetherbee. If so, there may be some hope yet.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Why don't we use robots? Well, we do, and frankly all the good exploration comes from robots, not from people.
Sample #15415 would disagree with you...
Have you read your first link? Besides, have you ever seen the cockpit of a fighter before? let alone the space shuttle? He was a damned test pilot, his whole job was to fly questionable craft at ridiculous speeds, i'm sure he knows how to spot and fix technical problems. Now he's piloting NASA, i think he'll do fine.
The last guy, Griffin, had 7 degrees and i think everyone was unhappy with him. So we gave an academic a shot, now let's try someone else.
Selected by NASA in May 1980, Bolden became an astronaut in August 1981. His technical assignments included: Astronaut Office Safety Officer; Technical Assistant to the Director of Flight Crew Operations; Special Assistant to the Director of the Johnson Space Center; Astronaut Office Liaison to the Safety, Reliability and Quality Assurance Directorates of the Marshall Space Flight Center and the Kennedy Space Center; Chief of the Safety Division at JSC; Lead Astronaut for Vehicle Test and Checkout at the Kennedy Space Center; and Assistant Deputy Administrator, NASA Headquarters. A veteran of four space flights, he has logged over 680 hours in space. Bolden served as pilot on STS-61C (January 12â"18, 1986) and STS-31 (April 24â"29, 1990), and was the mission commander on STS-45 (March 24, 1992 â" April 2, 1992), and STS-60 (February 3-11, 1994).
Bolden was the first person to ride the Launch Complex 39 slidewire baskets which enable rapid escape from a shuttle on the launch pad. The need for a human test was determined following a launch abort on STS-41-D where controllers were afraid to order the crew to use the untested escape system.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Obama wants to combine efforts with the the Air Force, which has a MUCH larger space program and a proven launch capability (Delta IV, Atlas V) already in hand. We will get to the moon faster and cheaper adapting the Airforce's existing technology, rather than letting NASA continue to flail and fail with the Ares I. Choosing Bolden has less to do with his background as an astronaut and more to do with the fact that he was a former general in the US Airforce. Obama wants to "To boost cooperation between NASA and the Pentagon," by, "reviv[ing] the National Aeronautics and Space Council, which oversaw the entire space arena for four presidents, most actively from 1958 to 1973." - including during the original missions to the moon! Insiders at Nasa, including former chief Michael Griffin are extremely resistant. They want to build and control their own technology (this should be familiar to anyone who has ever managed developers). âoeNo one really has a firm idea what NASAâ(TM)s cost savings might be, but the militaryâ(TM)s launch vehicles are basically developed,â said John Logsdon, a policy expert at Washingtonâ(TM)s National Air and Space Museum who has conferred with Obamaâ(TM)s transition advisers. âoeYou donâ(TM)t have to build them from scratch.â And thats the key. All quotes taken from: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aOvrNO0OJ41g
This is very true, but it isn't the same issue as NASA's relationship to the politics surrounding Apollo. There was no pressing scientific or technical reason to push for a lunar landing before 1970. JFK made a credible political case for it. Lots of emotion, lots of handwaving, lots of Red Baiting. It just happened to be in a sphere the US is / was pretty good at (high tech).
Since then, NASA hasn't had the high profile testosterone producing issue to follow the lunar landings. Mars? A bit too far away to sustain the hype. ISS - an interesting case. It certainly has increased our ability to do long term grunt work in space - maintaining a manned station in a hostile environment, fixing said station without pre planning every bolt twist for five years, dealing with the myriad of details to do this without killing anyone and with significant budget constraints. That sort of thing doesn't get everybody's panties dropping even if it's more important in the long run.
Nope, we need some some of external challenge to get the gingiosm and the dollars flowing. If we can't find any helpful aliens, maybe we can cut a deal with the Chinese?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
While I agree we need to explore our vast oceans more extensively, I completely and utterly agree space is empty and boring. There are so many things we don't know and haven't discovered (just like in the oceans). In fact, I would go so far as to say there's a whole universe out there we haven't explored. You're statement that space is boring and empty is highly suspect at best and downright wrong at worst.
And as for the space station, at the very least it gives us good data on how humans and possibly other living organisms can survive in space
There are a number of valuable aspects to space exploration.
First and foremost, there are more and better accessible resources of nearly every kind to be found in space. Contrary to detractors of this issue, the problem isn't getting the stuff to the Earth, but rather getting there in the first place with enough equipment to obtain those resources in the first place.
By resources, I mean heavy metals (gold, silver, platinum, iron, copper, aluminum, uranium, and much more) and energy that is available in such staggering amounts that it boggles the mind to even comprehend what is available. All of these can be obtained using existing technologies, or with technologies that have at least had some minor demonstration projects that aren't really exotic or different from what we are already doing on the Earth. Indeed, reducing iron oxide to pure iron is much, much easier to do in space and even beneficial for its "pollutants" (mainly oxygen).
On top of all this, these minerals and resources can be obtained with a much more minimal impact on the environment here on the Earth. If you genuinely are concerned about global warming, trying to figure out how to feed a growing global population, learning how to predict and avoid natural disasters like tsuamis and hurricanes.... all of this demands a strong and growing presence in space.
If that weren't enough, the countries and peoples that "control the high ground" will also have the military advantage in any future conflicts. Simply put, if the country you are in doesn't have a strong presence in space (or have a strong ally in space), you are screwed and doomed to be invaded or destroyed as a nation. The economic rationale is a strong one and has a huge and more immediate impact, but this military issue is all that more important to remember, and ultimately the one that got America and Russia into space in the first place. Worries about weapons in space are misplaced.... they are already there and have been deployed there for decades, regardless of what governments may have said in the past.
In addition to all of the above reasons, whenever people get into a new situation and have to work on solutions for new problems, that knowledge gained from living in that new environment can be adapted to other situations back in more familiar territory. Just being in a new situation will allow neural synapses to be organized in a new configuration within your brain, meaning that you are literally going to be thinking differently than others who have not been in that situation, such as being an astronaut in space. This is going to give a diversity of experience that will ultimately enrich all of humanity just simply by being there at all. For this reason alone, it is a pity that more people have not been to the Moon than the dozen men that went there.... we certainly don't have a female perspective of what it is like to walk on the Moon.
The scientific, political, and cultural knowledge that can be gained by going into space is something that is literally immeasurable. If we don't get into space and stay there... and expand our presence in space, humanity is doomed to extinction. It will have also been a waste of life for us to not get there.
Now as to if NASA is the best way to accomplish the task of going into space for Americans, that is something of a much more worthy debate. The key to unleashing the potential of space exploration is to drastically reduce the cost of getting up there in the first place. Common ordinary citizens need to have the ability to go up there and become prospectors, settlers, amateur explorers, and artists... and do so without having a government hand-out to get there.
NASA has supposedly been trying to reduce the cost of going into space with multiple vehicle prototypes like the Space Shuttle, Venture Star, DC-X, and so many other vehicles that it is nearly impossible to name all of the vehicle designs that have been proposed and in many cases had some initial hardware built for those designs. It
his whole job was to fly questionable craft at ridiculous speeds
He'll fit right in with the other drivers on the Beltway (I-495.)
I think it is worthy to note that he also achieved the rank of Major General (two-star general)... in of all things the U.S. Marine Corps. That is also by itself an impressive accomplishment in a branch that is loathsome to do promotions of any kind... at least compared to the other military branches. If it were merely for his accomplishments as an astronaut, he should have been merely a full Colonel, as it typical for most retired astronauts.
This also indicates a level of leadership skills, showing that the Marine Corps would be willing to trust him with a group of Marines at least as numerous as the number of employees that can be found at NASA. The NASA administrator and a division commander (often a Major General) could be considered quite comparable in terms of responsibilities.
Why this might be a point of contention to show a lack of qualifications boggles my mind.
What's uncertain is how well an experienced pilot with very little technical knowledge [wikipedia.org] can run a huge agency that has extremely complicated technical problems.
This is a popular meme amongst the technically-inclined (a group in which I include myself), but when it comes down to it, a NASA administrator with a high level of technical expertise is largely what got us into the current mess we're in. Nobody would dispute that the prior administrator, Michael Griffin is a technical expert, with several masters degrees (aerospace, civil, and electrical engineering) and a PhD in aerospace engineering.
Unfortunately, as often happens with us technical types, he ended up getting obsessed with a particular technical idea and ended up blocking out potentially-superior alternatives. In Griffin's case, he designed a novel shuttle-based manned rocket (using a solid rocket as a first-stage) prior to becoming administrator, and once he became administrator he put NASA's weight behind his pet design and clamped down on engineers who raised concerns. According to some recently-leaked NASA documents, the supposedly-unbiased ESAS study which selected NASA's current rocket design in fact gave safety exemptions to Griffin's pet design while unfairly penalizing competing designs. Fast forward to the present, and it's looking like the issues with Griffin's design (now called the Ares I) are fundamental design problems with costs ballooning skywards.
While technical proficiency is nice, it's not the most important thing in a manager of a program like NASA. Far more important is the ability to judge things in an unbiased manner, and being able to listen to your subordinates when they voice concerns.
The notion that children need longer in school is pc and daft! And the idea that you can teach a cohort of children for 15 years, as is now done in the UK is ludicrous. First children differ hugely in ability and are profoundly affected by their environment, here in Switzerland most 10 year olds are tri-lingual, because, in this tower of babel it is easy to become so. Since we stream and have different types of school, as do Germany and France, kids get the type of schooling their minds need and become satisfied and succeed at what they are asked to do, and when they leave, go on to higher education or ON THE JOB training.
Kids leave Berufschule or Ecole Artisanel at 17, reasonably numerate and able to read and write, normally in two languages.
The academic kids go to University or one of the Federal Technical Highschools eg ETZ Zurich. There they can do a first degree or PhD as fast as they can, or more slowly.
The US system has stopped working since it seeks to achieve equality of achievement, not equal opportunity, which leads to endless erosion of standards since no one can fail. Thus you have a politicised school systems in which I pity the academically bright student.
You need to get your priorities right, get the bright kids out of normal High School and into somewhere where they can progress as fast as they can. In my view, 5-6 years in school is enough for anyone, two years for basic numeracy and literacy in two languages, two years maths and another one/two years in science. Before some of the teaching profession jump up and pontificate about History, Geography, Religious Studies and Social Sciences I say the kids can do RS on Sundays and pick up most of the rest as part of coursework, your kids should read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, ours UDI at Ruetli Field (1291).
Finally you _do_ need to teach maths first, you cannot understand science otherwise.
a huge desert from which nothing profitable can come from, not even Helium 3
And your basis for this sweeping declaration is ... what, exactly?
there were things to extract, sell, harvest
The Great Plains were once called "the Great American Desert." And with the technology of the time, they were; it took a significant portion of the 19th c. to develop agricultural technology that made farming in, say, Kansas a viable proposition. Once that technology was in place, the "desert" became the breadbasket of the world.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
No, they won't. Companies are not necessarily interested in advancing humanity, but getting ahead in the next 1-5 years. There is very little incentive for a private company to spend 15 billion dollars a year on anything that won't pay off in a decade. (If you don't believe me, start your own company sometime!)
Governments can fund BIG projects with uncertain but (if successful) huge outcomes. America became a world superpower (in part) because it's not afraid to fund such things. I would rather have the government triple NASA's budget rather than buy a couple more golf balls for GM execs...
Unfortunately, as long as the average techie in the USA has this myopic pseudo-libertarian "if it's worth doing some private company is going to do it" attitude, our children will only dream of the the glory days when there were Americans who walked on another heavenly body. By then, the expertise (and the infrastructure) to do such things may have been irretrievably lost.
[The best thing Obama or any other leader can do is to inspire a clear and concrete vision for the next 10 years and put in the framework to support it. But this boils down to general political will, which is sadly lacking].