Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Monday September 04 2017, @10:54AM   Printer-friendly
from the up-in-the-air dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by richtopia on Monday September 04 2017, @05:27PM (7 children)

    by richtopia (3160) on Monday September 04 2017, @05:27PM (#563500) Homepage Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday September 04 2017, @05:58PM

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 04 2017, @05:58PM (#563508) Journal

    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)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday September 05 2017, @02:58AM (#563641)

    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

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday September 05 2017, @05:15AM (#563662) Journal

      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)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 05 2017, @07:48AM (#563684) Journal

      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.

      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)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday September 05 2017, @01:06PM (#563742)

        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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 05 2017, @10:35PM (#563958) Journal

          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.

          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

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2017, @05:03AM (#563658)

    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.