SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President Trump has nominated Representative Jim Bridenstine as NASA's next administrator, to replace the acting administrator Robert M. Lightfoot:
Representative Jim Bridenstine, Republican of Oklahoma, will be nominated by President Trump to serve as NASA's next administrator, the White House said on Friday night.
Mr. Bridenstine, a strong advocate for drawing private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin more deeply into NASA's exploration of space, had been rumored to be the leading candidate for the job, but months passed without an announcement. If confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Bridenstine, 42, would be the first elected official to hold that job.
[...] Although NASA has little presence in Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine, a former Navy Reserve pilot who is now in his third term in the House [of] Representatives, has long had an interest in space. Before being elected to Congress in 2012, he was executive director of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum and Planetarium from 2008 to 2010.
[...] Mr. Bridenstine has supported a return to the moon, a departure from the Obama administration's focus on sending astronauts to Mars in coming decades.
Florida's Senators Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson blasted the choice. Nelson said that "The head of NASA ought to be a space professional, not a politician."
NASA statement. NASA Watch analysis.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @11:33AM (27 children)
My initial response was disdain. Not only a politician, but an MBA. But then I got to thinking about Charles Bolden. Bolden is exactly the sort of person you want on paper. An engineer who turned to the military and eventually became an astronaut with multiple missions to space. On the other hand, he was a failure. Under his watch NASA was marginalized. All their major programs were cut, and they've been left to cheerlead for the SLS, which is now draining the lion's share of their resources even though it's unlikely to ever achieve anything other than filtering money to a handful of congressmen's districts. Things like Kepler were achieved purely in spite of Bolden's failings. Bridenstine seems to be a boyscout, both literally and figuratively, and his funding records [opensecrets.org] on OpenSecrets seem positive. His top individual donations come from the space industry, which is pretty rare.
I do think Trump is genuinely interested in space and likely sees achievements there as a way to lay a legacy for himself analogous to JFK, though presumably with a happier ending. There's an enormous amount of cronyism and corruption in the current space system and so I think ideally you'd want somebody that's big on space, big on private industry getting involved in space, and clean. He seems to hit all the checkmarks. Rubio, the embodiment of much of what's wrong with congress, coming out vocally and strongly against him is another checkmark in my book.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday September 04 2017, @01:08PM (7 children)
Rubio isn't just what's wrong with the Senate, he's the embodiment of all that's wrong with politics. Saw him give a speech to a group he didn't care about once, saw that flash of "oh crap, how am I going to snow these people" go across his face before he lit up the smile and turned to the crowd to give the speech. Saw him ride off into the sunset and never look back at a single promise he made to this group and 99 others just like it.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday September 04 2017, @04:46PM (6 children)
Not only that, but he is a homosexual.
And by the type of homo I mean, the "Go wild!" type. There are pictures of him dressed like a Chippendale's dancer in attandance of foam parties -- gay foam parties.
He looks like a bottom.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @04:52PM
Takes one to know one! Can't say I'm surprised, all that trollish anger is coming from somewhere.
(Score: 4, Touché) by HiThere on Monday September 04 2017, @05:54PM (1 child)
Why is that important? Does it mean he'll have trouble getting a budget passed? Does it mean he won't support a radio telescope on the backside of the moon?
Seriously, I'm not sure it's not important, but I don't see any reason to think that it is.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Tuesday September 05 2017, @06:01PM
I'd say it's important because he's a Republican. Remember, they're the party of social conservatives, and are generally opposed to homosexuality, so when they turn out to be closet homosexuals, like Senator Larry Craig, it exemplifies their hypocrisy.
For Democrats, it wouldn't be a big deal, because as a party they never have anything bad to say about homosexuality. But strangely, they never seem to be outed as homosexual either (except for the ones who are openly gay of course).
(Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday September 04 2017, @07:36PM
Eth, the problem is his OWN dick in his mouth, not someone else's. He's a walking, organic Klein bottle.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @08:43PM
Are we to take it that you search for these sort of pictures?
(Score: 2, Informative) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday September 04 2017, @09:27PM
Nice! [jezebel.com]
High heeled boots even! [esquire.com]
I approve! [towleroad.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by richtopia on Monday September 04 2017, @05:27PM (7 children)
Perhaps he will be effective at finding funding, however he also will set priorities. And naturally Trump selected someone who does not accept the scientific consensus on global climate change. NASA is the last government organization that should ignore global warming; most of the research is derived from NASA measurements and much of it is done by NASA directly. I am seriously worried about this selection.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday September 04 2017, @05:58PM
I don't expect to like the politics of anyone Trump selects. But it would be nice if they were competent. One of NASAs problems is lack of long term funding for specific projects. Would this guy be better than the current at obtaining this. Another problem is goals that are unfeasible under the operating constraints. Would he be better at that?
I don't seriously expect Trump to select anyone competent, but he *has* occasionally done so. A politician and an MBA as head of NASA isn't really unreasonable, pre se.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday September 05 2017, @02:58AM (4 children)
So, quit sending up those "sciency" satellites for 3 years and get the juice for some manned missions going. Once the manned missions are launching, a single constellation booster stage (or the funding to build one) can launch dozens of science satellites. After the 2017 hurricane season passes $100B in damage, I think NOAA will get all the funding they need to continue good coverage of storm track prediction.
Yeah, we're being run by bigger idiots than usual this cycle, but it can be good to push the pendulum to a bad extreme so it can start to swing back the other way, instead of stalling out by constantly pushing in the "good" direction all the time.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 05 2017, @05:15AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_costliest_Atlantic_hurricanes [wikipedia.org]
Sandy caused $75 billion in damage, Katrina caused $108 billion.
Even if Harvey, Irma, and the rest collectively cause $200 billion in damage, the public's memory is short and Congress can easily get away [opensecrets.org] with doing nothing. There's still talk [cnbc.com] of a government shutdown (the ultimate "doing nothing").
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 05 2017, @07:48AM (2 children)
And if you applied that same logic to the Earth's climate? Maybe pendulums don't always swing back?
As to hurricane damage, let's not subsidize it first. Below cost, public flood insurance is the big problem here.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday September 05 2017, @01:06PM (1 child)
Hey, I'm all for private pay for flood damage - what segment of the population do you think owns most of the property value along the coasts? Hint: it's not the working class, anymore.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 05 2017, @10:35PM
Seems to be a common theme with such handouts. They might be intended to benefit the poor in flood-prone areas, but as usual, the wealthy can take better advantage of flood insurance than the poor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2017, @05:03AM
I feel that congress is attempting to turn climate change into another gun ownership or abortion. Both sides make token gestures on these issues, but their overall action is more or less identical - perpetuation of the status quo.
Obama was, visually, strong on climate change. Yet his achievements? His "landmark environmental treaty" with China allows them to increase their pollution levels as high as they want until 2030 where they're then supposed to decrease their emissions. If they choose not to, there are no enforcement mechanisms. What that treaty effectively did was let China ignore any international pressure for the next 15 years. His actions on coal are even sillier. He did strengthen the rules against coal and coal operated plants. However, he only did so after it was 100% clear the industry was already going to die thanks to natural gas becoming cheaper than coal - making the rules completely pointless.
The reality is that we have a government that worships business. They need donations to get elected and those donations come from the very companies that would be hurt by any meaningful action on climate change. It is simply not going to happen. It's the same reason that most of the world is passing privacy legislation from the GDPR in the EU to even India that recently had their supreme court rule [indiatimes.com] that personal privacy is a fundamental right. Yet the US? Privacy interferes with the religion of business.
What I'm getting at here is that in reality you can focus on the actions you see as being most important, yet if progress is not realistically possible - you are completely wasting all your efforts. I think you need to pick fights that you can win. So long as democrats and republicans control our government, you're never going to see meaningful action on climate change - regardless of their rhetoric. However, private industry in space, colonization of Mars, asteroid mining, and all of these other revolutionary technologies are kosher under the religion of business. And so these are areas that we, and more specifically NASA, can actually make progress. And on top of this, Trump has expressed an interest in centralizing climate research to NOAA. While it's obvious that he's doing this since it's easier to 'contain' a single body, I also don't think it's a terrible idea. Multiple disparate agencies, each individually strapped for funds, working on the same topic is rather an inefficient use of brain power and what economic power is available.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Monday September 04 2017, @05:33PM (3 children)
I'm inclined to agree, as you say, tentatively.
Anything thing helps us get beyond flying in circles in LEL is a plus.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 05 2017, @04:55AM (2 children)
LEO or KEK?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Tuesday September 05 2017, @11:10AM (1 child)
Sorry, meant LEO. Got my OSHA twisted up with my NASA.
(Score: 1) by terryk30 on Wednesday September 06 2017, @01:13PM
Careful, or you'll be put on KP [youtube.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2017, @02:55AM (6 children)
NASA has long been about pork, but Obama's NASA pick went beyond that. NASA got used and abused for Muslim outreach, which is pretty damn crazy for a supposed space agency.
https://www.space.com/8725-nasa-chief-bolden-muslim-remark-al-jazeera-stir.html [space.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 05 2017, @05:07AM (4 children)
It sounds like he was just tailoring his message for his audience. He was speaking to Al Jazeera.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2017, @09:58AM (3 children)
He said specifically that the president gave him three directives as director of NASA. That's hardly tailoring his message.
I think the reality is that I think most of us are denial about Obama. It's difficult to look at his actions (and lack of) contrasted against his message. A message that was delivered in the most genuinely authentic, compelling, and charismatic fashion possible. I've no idea what Obama's goals as president were. Whatever they were, they absolutely were not what he said they were. And that realization is unpleasant.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 06 2017, @04:02PM (2 children)
And why isn't that tailoring his message? Telling the audience things that they would want to hear? Let us note that "outreach" is a really public thing. So where is all this Muslim outreach? If it's a real thing, shouldn't there be more to it than a seven year old statement?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 06 2017, @06:12PM (1 child)
Bolden had high profile and highly publicized globe trotting affairs in the Mideast organizing agreements with Saudi Arabia, Israel, the UAE and more. And that's of course just the tiny fraction that receive media coverage. I've been unable to find a complete list of NASA's Space Act Agreements (SAA), but I was able to find this [nasa.gov] which is, somewhat coincidentally, helpful. That's a scathing audit of NASA's usage of SAAs from the Office of Inspector General. It provides a few interesting datums. It shows exponential growth in "international agreements" from NASA with a total of 539 agreements made from 2008 to 2012. Japan, Canada, and the EU accounted for 38% of all international partners. The organized and public list of all SAAs should be publicly available and quite informative if you can find it.
It's easy to forget that just because something doesn't show up on facebook or our preferred headline aggregators doesn't mean it's not happening. Bolden was undoubtedly instructed to keep things more quite following the press that event received. And the press, at large, rarely went against our last political regime.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 07 2017, @12:53AM
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2017, @05:14AM
I think this is a good example of the issue. Bolden seemed to be very content to play ball. At some point, you need individuals that will take a stand. When the president tells you the goal of the space agency is:
- Inspiring kids
- International relations
- Muslim outreach
I think that's the point you take a stand. Obama was charming and Bolden probably felt like he'd need the president's support to achieve what he wanted to accomplish in space. But in the end, people and especially politicians are exploitative. If somebody never draws a line, they're going to get pushed further and further back until the next thing you know - they look back and that position they originally stood on (and I do believe Bolden initially had nothing but the best of intentions and goals for NASA) is nowhere to be found. It's the analog of working in a corporation and a well intentioned lower executive trying to change things with 'baby steps'. It doesn't work. Those 'baby steps' are appeasement to make you feel like you taking half a step forward is an acceptable compromise for each 10 feet you are sent backwards.