Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Publications & Multimedia
  Escaping Gravity (Lori Garver)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Escaping Gravity (Lori Garver)
Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 48594
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 12-14-2021 10:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Escaping Gravity: My Quest to Transform NASA and Launch a New Space Age
by Lori Garver
When she rose to second-in-command at NASA, Lori Garver was determined to do more than just break a glass ceiling. She set out to break the self-interested system of government-controlled space exploration run by Congress, the aerospace industry, entrenched bureaucrats, and hero-astronauts trying to protect their own profits and mythology.

In Escaping Gravity, Garver recounts her fight for change from inside the space agency and how it put her in the crosshairs of established interests who viewed her as a threat to the trillion-dollar government contracting system that has centralized power in the United States since World War II. Garver's hard-won victories paved the way for a new era of transcendental change at NASA in collaboration with her "space pirates" — Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson. Working to unleash the potential of these visionaries, Garver pried spaceflight from the tight grip and the aerospace/military industrial complex and helped create a more peaceful, inclusive, and meaningful space age.

Including previously unpublished conversations and insights on the epic battles that have transitioned space access to private interests for a fraction of the cost of previous NASA programs, Escaping Gravity offers a blueprint for how to drive productive and meaningful government change.

  • Hardcover, ‎304 pages
  • Diversion Books (June 7, 2022)
  • ISBN-10: ‎1635767709
  • ISBN-13: ‎978-1635767704

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 48594
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-21-2022 06:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
collectSPACE
Former NASA deputy reveals story behind Apollo 13 astronaut's medal of honor

Less than a month after "Apollo 13" opened in movie theaters in June 1995, then-President Bill Clinton met with mission commander Jim Lovell to present one of the highest awards an astronaut can receive — the Congressional Space Medal of Honor.

Joined in the Oval Office by former medal recipients Charles "Pete" Conrad and Senator John Glenn, as well as by Tom Hanks, who portrayed Lovell in the hit film, Clinton noted that because of the movie Americans now knew why Lovell was deserving of praise more so than they did in the 25 years that had past since the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission made it safely back to Earth in 1970.

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 5099
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-22-2022 11:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From Politico:
Lori Garver is blasting her Washington tell-all into an orbit all its own.

The NASA veteran who rose to be the agency’s No. 2 in the Obama administration doesn’t hold back in a new memoir out on Tuesday recounting her battles with unscrupulous contractors, near-sighted bureaucrats and self-dealing politicians.

And she eviscerates NASA leadership for being resistant to space entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk who offer the prospect of more innovative and less costly alternatives to their prized programs.

328KF
Member

Posts: 1358
From:
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 06-22-2022 11:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for 328KF   Click Here to Email 328KF     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks to Politico (of all sources) for such a lengthy, thorough review and saving me some money. This sounds like a story of grudges and retribution against former colleagues, and I’m not sure who the target audience might be.

David C
Member

Posts: 1349
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012

posted 06-22-2022 12:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for David C     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
People who want to hear all sides of the story? I can see how she met resistance though, with her lack of hard qualifications for the job (hardly a unique failing).

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 1729
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 06-22-2022 12:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
This sounds like a story of grudges and retribution against former colleagues...
I wouldn't say that. Yes, she was a political animal but she was pushing the right (correct) agenda and it would have not led to the mess that exists.

328KF
Member

Posts: 1358
From:
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 06-22-2022 12:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 328KF   Click Here to Email 328KF     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What “mess” is that? The evil SLS that one “side” wants to be canceled or the Commercial Crew program that resulted in nine years of us funneling billions to Russia for crew transport, yet has still only resulted in one operational vehicle?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 48594
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-22-2022 01:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It probably helps to read the book (if you are so inclined) before assuming you know what is said in it. Case in point, the story recounted in the article published here about Jim Lovell's Congressional Space Medal of Honor had nothing to do with grudges or retribution.

I disagree with Lori over her position about the SLS; now that it exists, I think it should be used to its full potential, but the cost overruns and delays associated with commercial crew were largely due to Congress underfunding the program from the start, a problem that existed because of well-meaning but misplaced loyalties among some members of the Apollo generation.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 1729
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 06-24-2022 10:22 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
...the Commercial Crew program that resulted in nine years of us funneling billions to Russia for crew transport, yet has still only resulted in one operational vehicle?
"Funneling billions to Russia for crew transport" was a result of cancellation of OSP, a late start (2011) and under funding by Congress (by SLS proponents).

And regardless, the few billions sent to Russia is much less than the tens of billions flushed by the evil that is SLS. And still throwing good money after bad money.

Many are finally seeing the light after what they see on Roberts Road and 39A at KSC.

328KF
Member

Posts: 1358
From:
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 06-24-2022 08:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 328KF   Click Here to Email 328KF     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
OK, so I see now which "side" Jim is on. SLS evil. Got it.

The reality is that politicians who didn't care two cents about space exploration happily canceled Constellation and any U.S. — based manned launch capability at a time when no commercial options actually existed.

Commercial Crew was a huge risk, and in my opinion it didn't pay off in the short term. Musk didn't have the capability to deliver In 2010, and took almost a decade to get there. Boeing inexcusably failed to deliver, and is still unproven. That's not because of a lack of government funding, but rather a resistance to acknowledge limitations and a lack of good program management. That's where we are now, 12 years later.

But NASA managers who oversaw this debacle got promoted, and others are now trying to retroactively claim credit for some foresight that was more a crystal ball of hope at the time.

I got to see SLS on the pad at KSC up close. It's spectacular. I've seen all of the commercial development going on too. It's all complementary and very exciting. I want to see all of them succeed... none at another's expense.

We learned a long time ago that putting all of your space eggs in one basket was a bad idea. We've had to re-learn that a few times over. The next lunar landing will be a great gov't/commercial collaboration, but only if neither partner overpromises or underdelivers.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 1729
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 06-25-2022 07:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
...canceled Constellation
It was the correct decision. The OSP cancellation earlier is what caused the problem. Griffin's ESAS version of Constellation was too expensive and provided unneeded capabilities (Ares I).
quote:
...it didn't pay off in the short term.
Because it was not started earlier and even when started, it was underfunded.
quote:
...got promoted
Quite the opposite. The Constellation managers got promoted with the Ares I debacle.

It was not a "crystal ball of hope." OSP had legitimate solutions to the issue and CST-100 legacy is part of it.

quote:
It's all complementary...
They are not "complementary." The government does not need to have its own launch vehicle to manage. It is an unnecessary waste of money. History shows that many money pits were "spectacular." That doesn't legitimize them.
quote:
We learned a long time ago that putting all of your space eggs in one basket was a bad idea.
The government does not need to be one of the baskets. There are plenty of baskets on the market. There are ULA, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Northrop Grumman, etc. NASA doesn't need to have an in-house capability anymore or operate a vehicle. Launch vehicle expertise now resides in industry vs. at NASA (government). The way it is like any other transportation system. NASA's role for space transportation now should be like NACA was for aircraft.

I am not talking as a interested observer, I am talking about my place of employment for the last 20 years. Plus add in nine of military space and nine more in commercial space, all involved with launch services.

328KF
Member

Posts: 1358
From:
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 06-25-2022 06:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 328KF   Click Here to Email 328KF     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Those are all valid opinions, but opinions nonetheless, regardless of where you have worked. I’m not trying to be insulting or anything...I appreciate your perspective. I just disagree with your conclusions.

As mentioned above, SLS exists so we should use it to the best of its capability. If there were a viable commercial alternative right now to return us to the moon, then maybe one could argue against that, but there isn’t.

But having seen what happened the first time with Commercial Crew - a nine year manned flight gap and only being at 50% of the contract met - I don’t see how anyone could argue that sending SLS to the scrapyard, stripping the meatball off and putting the VAB up for sale on Zillo is a smart path forward.

If commercial can do it better, by all means let them. I hope they can! In the meantime, I’ll be taking a trip to see the big launch later this summer. I hope to get to Texas to watch Starship go too. It’s all good!

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2022 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement