U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transporation Challenges and Opportunities in the NASA FY 2011 Budget Proposal Testifying: Charles Bolden, Robert "Hoot" Gibson, Michael Snyder, Miles O'Brien, Thomas Young 253 Russell Senate Office Building, 2:30 p.m.
posted 02-25-2010 08:49 AM
Mr. Bolden says a lot and says nothing. He actually is very astute, in that sense, to try to deflect some criticism. I am usually disappointed with most NASA adminstrators, they don't do enough "cheerleading" for their cause, and they wind up like most political appointees.
cspg Member
Posts: 6347 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
posted 02-25-2010 09:15 AM
Would it be possible to have an administrator oppose the President, without being fired or asked to resign immediately? Probably not. They're here to administer, do what they're told. A not-so-enviable job.
posted 02-25-2010 10:42 AM
Oh I agree. Thomas Paine resigned around 1971 primarily because he disagreed with Nixon's space policy. However, I would think that when you are interviewed for the job, you get a sense of where the Preident stands and agree with his policy for the most part or you wouldn't take the job. I would say that while Bolden was being considered for the position, he was told by somone in the White House that a new moon effort was highly unlikely.
StarDome New Member
Posts: From: Registered:
posted 02-25-2010 02:15 PM
When I met Charlie Bolden here in the UK, it was prior to his appointment as NASA Administrator. I was fortunate to listen to a rousing speech of his on motivation and moving forward and afterward I had a few minutes with him.
I asked Charlie when we would see him as NASA administrator, he laughed and gave a wry smile but when he replied he told me this. He said he didn't really want the job as:
He didn't like Washington, and
He didn't like politics.
Now the first was maybe tongue in cheek but his second point about politics, I now seem to understand a little more.
So, from Charlie having said he didn't really want the job, his parting comment to me was "If the President asks me to do it, it will be very difficult to say no."
I like Charlie Bolden; I just think he is getting a lot of flak at the moment for things that maybe aren't all his own doing.
However with all the discussion going on about the future of US manned spaceflight, the issue at hand remains, once the shuttle retires, the US, for a longer period of time than I think we all expect, will have NO way of launching its own astronauts for some time to come. I find that sad, but not unexpected.
Maybe the private sector will come through, I certainly hope so, but personally I see a long hiatus between shuttle retirement and a new US manned launch program on US soil. A lot longer than the break between ASTP and STS-1, I fear.
What the US has achieved in space is without rival and that's not in dispute, what a record it remains. However, it's true that if China gets to the moon they will find six US flags already there, that's not the point, the point is that the Chinese have momentum on their side and who's to say that they will just stop at the moon.
I think it's this capability more than anything else with any other nation involved in space that worries the US the most.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 03-11-2010 01:13 PM
Fifteen members of Congress have asked NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden to report in 30 days on how, under the FY2011 budget, the U.S. could maintain uninterrupted manned access to the International Space Station and beyond.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 03-16-2010 11:07 AM
March 18, 2010
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Science and Space Subcommittee Assessing Commercial Space Capabilities Testifying: Thomas Stafford, Bryan O'Connor, George Nield, Malcolm Peterson, Michael Gass, Frank Culbertson, Gwynne Shotwell 253 Russell Senate Office Building, 2:30 p.m.
Posts: 1372 From: Chester, Cheshire, UK Registered: May 2001
posted 03-17-2010 09:08 AM
What I'm enjoying most about this whole miserable NASA 2.0/FY11 budget/bold vision saga is how just when I think it can't get any worse it of course does.
The administration attempts to cancel Constellation so Congress attempts to resurrect - the space shuttle? Great work, fantastic lowest common denominator vote-chasing wins the day once more. Would it be that hard to make a pitch that those same jobs could be protected just as fully by a commitment to Constellation? Look - I just managed it in a sentence! I really should move into PR and make my millions.
So no one's left fighting Constellation's corner in Washington. How very sad.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 03-17-2010 09:14 AM
quote:Originally posted by Matt T: Would it be that hard to make a pitch that those same jobs could be protected just as fully by a commitment to Constellation?
Constellation's workforce requirement is far smaller than that of the space shuttle. Before the President's plan was announced, some 7,000 jobs were slated to be cut at Kennedy Space Center alone, with more at Johnson Space Center and across the agency.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
Update: Due to votes, this hearing has been postponed until April 22.
DChudwin Member
Posts: 1121 From: Lincolnshire IL USA Registered: Aug 2000
posted 03-24-2010 10:13 PM
This prepared statement by NASA Administrator Bolden from his testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Appropriations fleshes out NASA's proposed budget plans for the next fiscal year.
posted 03-25-2010 10:25 AM
My frustrations are several -- there is no specific plan, no timeline, the idea of having a national space agency which is losing one of its key function (manned exploration), the loss of assets like the Johnson Space Center, and the feeling that once again an Administration is downplaying the role of the space program. I always get the suspicion that this is an attempt to end the whole thing. I do want a role for the private sector, Falcon and the like, but the National Government must lead. I am also surprised that Mr. Bolden wants to sacrifice the manned aspect of his agency with the exception of the ISS.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 03-25-2010 10:30 AM
quote:Originally posted by Fra Mauro: Mr. Bolden wants to sacrifice the manned aspect of his agency with the exception of the ISS.
I don't think you can support this statement based on Bolden's own remarks. From his speeches and testimony, he is clearly passionate about wanting to see Americans on Mars in his lifetime. So if you feel you must criticize him, then fault him for his ideas on how to do that, but his desire for a bold manned space program is on the record.
quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: NASA has always paid companies to design and build spacecraft -- or in other words, it has "let someone else do it."
I am all in favor of the private companies building the spacecraft and the hardware. "Can do" means in terms of goals and leadership and believing that we need a strong space program, manned and unmanned, public and private.
posted 03-25-2010 10:35 AM
The words are fine but where are the actions. I think he loves the program down deep, I just think he wants the private sector to do it. Since Mr. Bolden is 64, I hope he has a timetable.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 03-25-2010 10:43 AM
quote:Originally posted by Fra Mauro: I hope he has a timetable.
posted 03-25-2010 12:33 PM
I am also concerned because I don't see any thought of compromise by the Administration on this plan. To hear that there is no plan B, means to me, that it's this or nothing. That is unreasonable and narrow-minded, and gives the appearance of arrogance. While I would like a Moon-Mars program with Constellation, I can listen to and accept alternatives.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 03-25-2010 12:37 PM
Bolden has repeatedly said he is open to hearing alternatives and adjustments, as is the President, but he will not task a team to devise a "plan B." And he's right for not doing so -- it's not NASA's job to come up with alternatives to its own plan. Others need to come to the table with compromises (not replacements) and then they can be discussed -- which is part of what the April 15 conference at Kennedy Space Center is intended to accomplish.
SpaceAholic Member
Posts: 5246 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
posted 03-25-2010 05:47 PM
quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: And he's right for not doing so -- it's not NASA's job to come up with alternatives to its own plan.
Any good organizational manager worth his/her salt will produce and consider alternative courses of action - these would have been developed in the process of responding to the Presidents original request for a recommendation and in anticipation of challenges resulting from political resistance. Bolden being a career military officer and JTF commander cut his teeth on the crisis action planning process which heavily leverages COA development. I have no doubt he either has already in his hip pocket or initiated alternatives plans for presentation should the current Presidential initiative fail.
posted 03-25-2010 11:41 PM
Politicially, it is better to propose a compromise that have one imposed on you.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 05-11-2010 07:53 AM
May 12, 2010
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transporation The Future of U.S. Human Space Flight Testifying: John Holdren, Charles Bolden, Neil Armstrong, Eugene Cernan, Norman Augustine 253 Russell Senate Office Building, 2:30 p.m.
apolloprojeckt Member
Posts: 1532 From: Arnhem, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2009
posted 05-11-2010 08:35 AM
I look forward to the results of these hearings in the company of first and man last on the moon...
328KF Member
Posts: 1388 From: Registered: Apr 2008
posted 05-12-2010 09:37 PM
Pretty scathing remarks today from two gentlemen who know what they are talking about:
With regard to President Obama's 2010 plan, I have yet to find a person in NASA, the Defense Department, the Air Force, the National Academies, industry, or academia that had any knowledge of the plan prior to its announcement. Rumors abound that neither the NASA Administrator nor the President's Science and Technology Advisor were knowledgeable about the plan. Lack of review normally guarantees that there will be overlooked requirements and unwelcome consequences. How could such a chain of events happen? A plan that was invisible to so many was likely contrived by a very small group in secret who persuaded the President that this was a unique opportunity to put his stamp on a new and innovative program. I believe the President was poorly advised.
As I examine the plan as stated during the announcement and subsequent explanations, I find a number of assertions which, at best, demand careful analysis, and at worst, do not deserve any analysis.
It was asserted that by buying taxi service to Low Earth Orbit rather than owning the taxis, "we can continue to ensure rigorous safety standards are met". The logic of that statement is mystifying. Does it mean that safety standards will be achieved by regulation, or contract, or by government involvement? Does it mean that the safety considerations in the taxi design, construction and test will be assured by government oversight? The Augustine Committee report is quoted as follows: "Thus, the Committee views any commercial program of crew transport to ISS as involving a strong independent mission assurance role for NASA." The cost of that government involvement will be substantial and that cost must be acknowledged in the total cost of the service.
The private company spacecraft, to my knowledge, have not been as rigorously analyzed for safety as have existing rockets, Ares and shuttle derivatives, but it must be noted that Ares 1 enjoys, by a significant margin, the highest safety rating of the configurations studied.
We have recently heard a lot of eloquent verbage about the exploration of space - landing on an asteroid, circling Mars, and at some time in the future perhaps landing on the Red Planet. There is talk about a decision yet to come of building a large booster which might ultimately take us anywhere we want to go into the far reaches of the universe. There are, however, no details, no specific challenge, and no commitment as to where or specifically when this exploration might come to pass.
"Hope is not a destination, nor is it a management tool."
We (Armstrong, Lovell and myself) have come to the unanimous conclusion that this budget proposal presents no challenges, has no focus, and in fact is a blueprint for a mission to "nowhere."
Based upon my background and experience, I submit to this Committee and to the Congress that it will take the private sector as long as 10 years to access LEO safely and cost-effectively. A prominent Russian academician is quoted as saying in order to bring a craft to the standard of quality and safety for piloted flight, the United States will be dependent on Russia until at least 2020. The Aerospace Corporation estimates an initial cost of 10-12 billion dollars, plus the added cost of modifications required to launch vehicle ground systems. Should such a commercial venture run into insurmountable technical problems, business venture concerns, or - God forbid - a catastrophic failure, it would leave the United States without a fallback program, unable to access even low Earth orbit for some indeterminate time to follow. In any event, under this proposal the United States will be abandoning its 50 billion dollar, 25 year investment in the ISS, leaving us hostage to foreign powers.
To simply put the best and the brightest in a room and tell them to develop breakthrough technology that could or might or may be useful in the future is a naive proposition. Exploration drives technology innovation - not the reverse.
Also in the proposal is the possibility that maybe, at some time, perhaps as far down the road as 2015, the United States would decide to develop a heavy lift booster. This is a very vague proposition that will likely never be funded to fruition. Coincidently, Constellation has a heavy lift booster, Ares V, not only on the drawing boards but in component test today. Why do we need a new decision in 2015 for one already in development today?
This may be a sensitive point because I'm going to mention something about a dear friend who I have the ultimate respect for, Charlie Bolden.
Because we did have a briefing last week and it was in that briefing that Charlie expressed some concern over the potential of the commercial sector to be successful in any reasonable length of time. He indicated we might have to subsidize them until they are successful.
And I can say with authority, because I wrote this down and I put the word 'wow' right next to it, because Charlie did say it may be a bailout like GM and Chrysler. As a matter of fact, it may be the largest bailout in history.
posted 05-12-2010 11:41 PM
The two gentlemen did a fine job. It's funny to hear Sen. Rockefeller criticize NASA's "history of cost overruns." Are all agencies held to that standard? Is it me or is NASA one of the few agencies that gets penalized even when they are successful?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 05-13-2010 06:44 AM
If you missed the hearing, it can be viewed online via C-SPAN.
ejectr Member
Posts: 1961 From: Killingly, CT Registered: Mar 2002
posted 05-13-2010 07:13 AM
I think it is a real shame that national heroes like Armstrong and Cernan cannot sit back like Lindbergh did and revel in the advancement of what they accomplished but rather have to sit in front of a bunch of know nothing do nothing congressmen to plead the obvious.
KSCartist Member
Posts: 3047 From: Titusville, FL Registered: Feb 2005
posted 05-13-2010 09:04 AM
It was a powerful hearing. I honestly think there may be some additional adjustments to the new plan. My guess is that 135 will fly because congress likes to look like it is doing something. Senator Rockefeller really likes medical research, (is Johns Hopkins in his district?). I was amazed at how much the Senators didn't know. Although I was happy to see that they seemed to pay attention throughout the hearings.
Now it's put up or shut up time for Congress. You want to close the gap by extending the shuttle? You want to build an Orion/Ares I? You want to encourage private industry? Then pay for it. Norm Augustine made that point very clear.
In my opinion, Senator Lemieux is just a place holder and an obvious partisan who is ignorant about the space program. His only interest is making political hay from the situation. He's gone by the end of the year.
posted 05-13-2010 09:38 AM
At least Cernan and Armstrong still have enough passion to get involved. Just their names gets some public attention on the issue.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 05-13-2010 10:09 AM
But what is the public seeing as a result?
The headlines read that "Apollo astronauts criticize space plan." Great. That was the same headline generated when their letter was released last month.
I was hoping that Armstrong and Cernan would use this opportunity to present a clear and concise compromise or counter-proposal, after all, among the charges they level against the administration is that the President's plan is not well defined.
But they didn't do that; they repeated (passionately) their objections, which were more or less already known. To be clear, there's nothing specifically wrong with that, many do that when they are called before Congress, but for a hearing focused on the "future of human spaceflight," it sure did seem that a lot of the time was spent on the past.
Not to suggest that Bolden or Holdren did any better.
In my opinion, the entire hearing was a wash, accomplishing very little (but then what Congressional hearing does anything these days?). I think the most telling moment was when Sen. Rockefeller admonished Bolden for replying to questions with answers that were too long, explaining that it left little time for the congressmen to say what they wanted to say, because that was what was really important, giving the congressmen their chance to speak...
ejectr Member
Posts: 1961 From: Killingly, CT Registered: Mar 2002
posted 05-13-2010 12:15 PM
EXACTLY, Robert. A big show for the congressmen to impress their districts.
issman1 Member
Posts: 1106 From: UK Registered: Apr 2005
posted 05-13-2010 01:44 PM
Both sides in the debate are now so entrenched in their beliefs, I doubt NASA will ever go beyond Earth orbit.
They're even dragging out old men to justify their stance (Aldrin included).
J.L Member
Posts: 694 From: Bloomington, Illinois, USA Registered: May 2005
posted 05-13-2010 03:55 PM
quote:Originally posted by issman1: They're even dragging out old men to justify their stance (Aldrin included).
Gee... this is probably the last place I would expect to see someone refer to Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan as "the old men". I think a little more respect is due.
issman1 Member
Posts: 1106 From: UK Registered: Apr 2005
posted 05-13-2010 04:54 PM
Don't you think the various bickering camps should have more "respect" when they use Armstrong, Aldrin and Cernan in the manner they have?
It's like they're saying, "My Apollo legend is better than yours!"
Quite frankly it's petty and creates unnecessary friction.
J.L Member
Posts: 694 From: Bloomington, Illinois, USA Registered: May 2005
posted 05-13-2010 05:20 PM
quote:Originally posted by issman1: Quite frankly it's petty and creates unnecessary friction.
Yes, I see where you are coming from, but I don't really see it that way. I don't know about Aldrin, he pilots his own ship, but having Armstrong and Cernan front and center seems to have more of an impact on the powers that be. I think they are just trying to get across the point that there is no real exploration in the mix these days. They were with NASA when there was a sense of adventure. It has been too long since this was part of the manned space effort. Obviously that is not going to change with the budget limitations faced now.
I feel like I am preaching to the choir here. You folks know all of this all to well. Bottom line, I don't think it hurts to have the "old guard" make a pitch for a better space program. You never know who might make a difference with someone controlling the purse strings.
Matt T Member
Posts: 1372 From: Chester, Cheshire, UK Registered: May 2001
posted 05-13-2010 05:51 PM
Cernan: And I can say with authority, because I wrote this down and I put the word 'wow' right next to it, because Charlie did say it may be a bailout like GM and Chrysler.
From the same article on Spaceflight Now linked above -
Earlier in the hearing, Bolden was asked if he used the word "bailout" during the briefing for Cernan and Armstrong.
"I'm not sure I said that," Bolden said. "I'm not sure who was in the room."
Whoops - gotcha I know criticizing Bolden's sincerity hasn't been countenanced previously so I'll just skip straight to calling this what it is - a lie dressed in a very poor evasion.
Armstrong: With regard to President Obama's 2010 plan, I have yet to find a person in NASA, the Defense Department, the Air Force, the National Academies, industry, or academia that had any knowledge of the plan prior to its announcement. Rumors abound that neither the NASA Administrator nor the President's Science and Technology Advisor were knowledgeable about the plan.
So with none of the usual suspects involved it would be very interesting to know who DID advise the president.
ejectr Member
Posts: 1961 From: Killingly, CT Registered: Mar 2002
posted 05-13-2010 06:07 PM
Karl Rove...
328KF Member
Posts: 1388 From: Registered: Apr 2008
posted 05-13-2010 07:11 PM
In regard to Armstrong and Cernan being "used" in this way, I seriously doubt that either of them would allow themselves to be "used." I do not know the specifics of how one gets asked/invited to testify before a Congressional hearing, but I am sure these fine men showed of their own free will.
They were both passionate and deeply concerned over this potential detour in space exploration, and spoke their minds in no uncertain terms. I am sure many more astronauts, both from their era and more recent, would welcome the opportunity to voice opposition to this proposed policy if given the chance.
To Robert's point, it is neither their job nor their place to put counterprosals on the table. The subject of the hearing was the current proposal vs. the Constellation program, not an open forum for a myriad of other (probably superior) plans.
You have previously suggested that public opinion means virtually nothing in this debate, so what difference should it make how the press portrays it to the people? The reality is that they are now on the Congressional record as being clearly against this proposal, and that means alot more in Washington than an "open letter" stating the same.
Aldrin is full of grand ideas and support for this policy, but he's too busy doing other things, apparently. If he really wants to be heard, maybe he should clear his "Rocket Hero" schedule of dancing and wrestling and go up to the Hill.
posted 02-24-2010 11:04 AM
I know criticizing Bolden's sincerity hasn't been countenanced previously so I'll just skip straight to calling this what it is - a lie dressed in a very poor evasion. 
advertisement