NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine ('98) says he won't serve in the Biden administration, even if asked.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/tech/nasa...index.html

Quote:"What you need is somebody who has a close relationship with the president of the United States. You need somebody who is trusted by the administration.... including the OMB [Office of Management and Budget], the National Space Council and the National Security Council, and I think that I would not be the right person for that in a new administration," Bridenstine told Aviation Week.

Kind of an admirable thing for him to say. He's putting the good of the country and NASA ahead of his personal ambitions. And he's saying you need a scientist to run NASA.

He was my favorite Trump appointee - I hope he lands on his feet with something solid (apparently he's going back to Oklahoma).

And speaking of NASA, is anyone watching The Right Stuff on Disney +? It's not as good as the film (no Chuck Yeager sightings anywhere!), and they really are portraying John Glenn as a bit of a villain, but overall, it's quite good.

Alas. The general consensus of my NASA contacts has been that he was an overall stable force at the top, and generally better at the administrating than his predecessor. But good for him.

I am interested to see who gets brought in next.

(11-11-2020 02:09 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  Alas. The general consensus of my NASA contacts has been that he was an overall stable force at the top, and generally better at the administrating than his predecessor. But good for him.

I am interested to see who gets brought in next.

Susan Rice?

(11-11-2020 02:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 02:09 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  Alas. The general consensus of my NASA contacts has been that he was an overall stable force at the top, and generally better at the administrating than his predecessor. But good for him.

I am interested to see who gets brought in next.

Susan Rice?

Charlie Bolden was the predecessor. I feel comfortable assessing that those in charge of making decisions on this front believe that Susan Rice's skills are better suited for other gigs, given that her background has little to do with aeronautics or space.

The transition team they put together for NASA (led by Dr. Ellen Stofan, who was Chief Scientist at NASA while I was working at NASA and is now at the Smithsonian; also includes another previous Chief Scientist, an astronaut, a former NASA liaison to the White House, a former liaison from NASA Science to Congress, and at least one well-respected non-NASA astrophysicist) is extremely well put-together for getting the lay of the land for both NASA's science (the independent research that NASA hosts in-house based on their missions) and the missions NASA is in charge of. I'm confident that they'll find someone who will do a good job of managing the agency.

(11-11-2020 03:33 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 02:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 02:09 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  Alas. The general consensus of my NASA contacts has been that he was an overall stable force at the top, and generally better at the administrating than his predecessor. But good for him.

I am interested to see who gets brought in next.

Susan Rice?

Charlie Bolden was the predecessor. I feel comfortable assessing that those in charge of making decisions on this front believe that Susan Rice's skills are better suited for other gigs, given that her background has little to do with aeronautics or space.

The transition team they put together for NASA (led by Dr. Ellen Stofan, who was Chief Scientist at NASA while I was working at NASA and is now at the Smithsonian; also includes another previous Chief Scientist, an astronaut, a former NASA liaison to the White House, a former liaison from NASA Science to Congress, and at least one well-respected non-NASA astrophysicist) is extremely well put-together for getting the lay of the land for both NASA's science (the independent research that NASA hosts in-house based on their missions) and the missions NASA is in charge of. I'm confident that they'll find someone who will do a good job of managing the agency.

I follow NASA matters tangentially, but are things back on track and momentum building in such a way that there is a clearly defined space mission in the future?

My understanding is that there has been a lot of flip flopping in the last decade and a half with respect to mission goals and space craft development. Isn't the SLS a giant bungle at this point? Or am I off the mark?

Rice alum Shannon Walker is a flight specialist on the next mission which is schedule to launch on Saturday morning (November 14th). I think this will be her third mission to the ISS. This is the next launch in the Space-X series.

(11-11-2020 05:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 03:33 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 02:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 02:09 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  Alas. The general consensus of my NASA contacts has been that he was an overall stable force at the top, and generally better at the administrating than his predecessor. But good for him.

I am interested to see who gets brought in next.

Susan Rice?

Charlie Bolden was the predecessor. I feel comfortable assessing that those in charge of making decisions on this front believe that Susan Rice's skills are better suited for other gigs, given that her background has little to do with aeronautics or space.

The transition team they put together for NASA (led by Dr. Ellen Stofan, who was Chief Scientist at NASA while I was working at NASA and is now at the Smithsonian; also includes another previous Chief Scientist, an astronaut, a former NASA liaison to the White House, a former liaison from NASA Science to Congress, and at least one well-respected non-NASA astrophysicist) is extremely well put-together for getting the lay of the land for both NASA's science (the independent research that NASA hosts in-house based on their missions) and the missions NASA is in charge of. I'm confident that they'll find someone who will do a good job of managing the agency.

I follow NASA matters tangentially, but are things back on track and momentum building in such a way that there is a clearly defined space mission in the future?

My understanding is that there has been a lot of flip flopping in the last decade and a half with respect to mission goals and space craft development. Isn't the SLS a giant bungle at this point? Or am I off the mark?

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/...363016001/

The one comment is interesting as well.

WRT the SLS ...

https://spacenews.com/weather-and-techni...-run-test/

(11-11-2020 07:25 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 05:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 03:33 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 02:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 02:09 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  Alas. The general consensus of my NASA contacts has been that he was an overall stable force at the top, and generally better at the administrating than his predecessor. But good for him.

I am interested to see who gets brought in next.

Susan Rice?

Charlie Bolden was the predecessor. I feel comfortable assessing that those in charge of making decisions on this front believe that Susan Rice's skills are better suited for other gigs, given that her background has little to do with aeronautics or space.

The transition team they put together for NASA (led by Dr. Ellen Stofan, who was Chief Scientist at NASA while I was working at NASA and is now at the Smithsonian; also includes another previous Chief Scientist, an astronaut, a former NASA liaison to the White House, a former liaison from NASA Science to Congress, and at least one well-respected non-NASA astrophysicist) is extremely well put-together for getting the lay of the land for both NASA's science (the independent research that NASA hosts in-house based on their missions) and the missions NASA is in charge of. I'm confident that they'll find someone who will do a good job of managing the agency.

I follow NASA matters tangentially, but are things back on track and momentum building in such a way that there is a clearly defined space mission in the future?

My understanding is that there has been a lot of flip flopping in the last decade and a half with respect to mission goals and space craft development. Isn't the SLS a giant bungle at this point? Or am I off the mark?

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/...363016001/

The one comment is interesting as well.

WRT the SLS ...

https://spacenews.com/weather-and-techni...-run-test/

Thanks - the Florida Today article was a good primer. It looks like momentum has been building and is likely to continue.

Hopefully the incoming admin continues with the mission plans that have been started under the Trump admin.

(11-11-2020 09:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 07:25 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 05:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 03:33 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 02:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Susan Rice?

Charlie Bolden was the predecessor. I feel comfortable assessing that those in charge of making decisions on this front believe that Susan Rice's skills are better suited for other gigs, given that her background has little to do with aeronautics or space.

The transition team they put together for NASA (led by Dr. Ellen Stofan, who was Chief Scientist at NASA while I was working at NASA and is now at the Smithsonian; also includes another previous Chief Scientist, an astronaut, a former NASA liaison to the White House, a former liaison from NASA Science to Congress, and at least one well-respected non-NASA astrophysicist) is extremely well put-together for getting the lay of the land for both NASA's science (the independent research that NASA hosts in-house based on their missions) and the missions NASA is in charge of. I'm confident that they'll find someone who will do a good job of managing the agency.

I follow NASA matters tangentially, but are things back on track and momentum building in such a way that there is a clearly defined space mission in the future?

My understanding is that there has been a lot of flip flopping in the last decade and a half with respect to mission goals and space craft development. Isn't the SLS a giant bungle at this point? Or am I off the mark?

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/...363016001/

The one comment is interesting as well.

WRT the SLS ...

https://spacenews.com/weather-and-techni...-run-test/

Thanks - the Florida Today article was a good primer. It looks like momentum has been building and is likely to continue.

Hopefully the incoming admin continues with the mission plans that have been started under the Trump admin.

Agreed!

(11-11-2020 03:33 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  Charlie Bolden was the predecessor. I feel comfortable assessing that those in charge of making decisions on this front believe that Susan Rice's skills are better suited for other gigs, given that her background has little to do with aeronautics or space.

I still have to congratulate the Obama team for their choice of Susan Rice to make the Sunday morning TV rounds to peddle the video cause of Benghazi. She was perfect. She had a title that sounded authoritative--UN Ambassador--but that also meant she had no knowledge of the facts. So she could be fed a narrative and then go out an peddle it, with plausible deniability. And she played the role perfectly--say just enough to leave the listener with the obvious conclusion, but never actually say it. The whole event was a masterpiece of deception.

I wonder if, as NASA administrator, she could have blamed the Challenger or Columbia disasters on videos.

Moderators - move to the Quad.

(11-12-2020 04:42 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Moderators - move to the Quad.

Or move just Owl 69's comment to the Quad. The rest of the thread seems to be informative, not political.

Hopefully Stephen Hahn will maintain his position. He seems to have done a good job with the FDA, in my view.

(11-11-2020 09:55 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 09:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 07:25 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 05:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 03:33 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  Charlie Bolden was the predecessor. I feel comfortable assessing that those in charge of making decisions on this front believe that Susan Rice's skills are better suited for other gigs, given that her background has little to do with aeronautics or space.

The transition team they put together for NASA (led by Dr. Ellen Stofan, who was Chief Scientist at NASA while I was working at NASA and is now at the Smithsonian; also includes another previous Chief Scientist, an astronaut, a former NASA liaison to the White House, a former liaison from NASA Science to Congress, and at least one well-respected non-NASA astrophysicist) is extremely well put-together for getting the lay of the land for both NASA's science (the independent research that NASA hosts in-house based on their missions) and the missions NASA is in charge of. I'm confident that they'll find someone who will do a good job of managing the agency.

I follow NASA matters tangentially, but are things back on track and momentum building in such a way that there is a clearly defined space mission in the future?

My understanding is that there has been a lot of flip flopping in the last decade and a half with respect to mission goals and space craft development. Isn't the SLS a giant bungle at this point? Or am I off the mark?

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/...363016001/

The one comment is interesting as well.

WRT the SLS ...

https://spacenews.com/weather-and-techni...-run-test/

Thanks - the Florida Today article was a good primer. It looks like momentum has been building and is likely to continue.

Hopefully the incoming admin continues with the mission plans that have been started under the Trump admin.

Agreed!

Just realized that the Spacenews article indicated the first Artemis mission is scheduled for next November - kinda crazy that we actually have a date for a mission that sets us on track to go back to the moon.

With SpaceX set to have another manned launch, we’re looking at a few years of exciting time at KSC.

(11-12-2020 06:18 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 04:42 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Moderators - move to the Quad.

Or move just Owl 69's comment to the Quad. The rest of the thread seems to be informative, not political.

Sorry, there seemed to be a discussion of Susan Rice’s skills and I was just offering my point of view on that subject.

Turns out one of the astronauts going up soon is a Rice alumnus - Shannon Walker ('87) has a lot of missions under her belt!

https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/statu...pv_W4t0NUk

edit: apparently I missed that post earlier... whoops

(11-11-2020 05:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 03:33 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 02:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 02:09 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  Alas. The general consensus of my NASA contacts has been that he was an overall stable force at the top, and generally better at the administrating than his predecessor. But good for him.

I am interested to see who gets brought in next.

Susan Rice?

Charlie Bolden was the predecessor. I feel comfortable assessing that those in charge of making decisions on this front believe that Susan Rice's skills are better suited for other gigs, given that her background has little to do with aeronautics or space.

The transition team they put together for NASA (led by Dr. Ellen Stofan, who was Chief Scientist at NASA while I was working at NASA and is now at the Smithsonian; also includes another previous Chief Scientist, an astronaut, a former NASA liaison to the White House, a former liaison from NASA Science to Congress, and at least one well-respected non-NASA astrophysicist) is extremely well put-together for getting the lay of the land for both NASA's science (the independent research that NASA hosts in-house based on their missions) and the missions NASA is in charge of. I'm confident that they'll find someone who will do a good job of managing the agency.

I follow NASA matters tangentially, but are things back on track and momentum building in such a way that there is a clearly defined space mission in the future?

My understanding is that there has been a lot of flip flopping in the last decade and a half with respect to mission goals and space craft development. Isn't the SLS a giant bungle at this point? Or am I off the mark?

That I don't have a great sense on--I was (at a very very very very very low level) in one corner of the Science Mission Directorate at one center, so most of what I dealt with in terms of space missions was the stuff that doesn't involve human spaceflight but ties directly to my science (TESS, JWST, etc.).

I remember starting out at Rice in 1965, in the middle of the drive to get to the moon, and NASA and the Astronauts were pretty huge deals then. It was really an exciting time to be in Houston.