Making The Big Decisions at NASA

and Washington lobbyist Lori Garver

They boldly point out her former lobbying, but no one wishes to point out that, once again, Obama is breaking his promise about lobbyists. No doubt she was promised this position even before she started her transition team work. Yep, that's just the way DC works. So much for change.

Lori Garver has a Masters degree in space policy studies from George Washington University. She has been writing papers about space policy for 20 years; she has spoken at academic and other conferences on space policy for 20 years now. She spent several years in the Sean O'Keefe era as a NASA Associate Administrator for Space Policy. She has been an advisor on space policy issues to John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, and Barak Obama during their presidential campaigns. She's been a consistant advocate of manned space programs.

Mr. Shupp,

It was the article itself, was it not, that described her as a lobbyist. The issue isn't with her, it's with the Administration being caught...again...in hypocrisy.

President Obama is the one who got himself elected in part with the pledge to not have lobbyists in his administration, so as to bring change and not be like all those former evil corrupt administrations.

But as Ray notes, the President's actions and choices are demonstrating that the more he brings "change" to DC the more things remain the same...

@ Mike Shupp

While I AGREE with your sentiment, I do not agree with the way in which you expressed yourself. I do not dispute that it is your right to express yourself as you see fit(or NASAWATCH's choice not to censor). But it is my right to point out that discussions on this form are better served by the use of passionate - but respectful - language.

I, for one, am not a prude and enjoy a lively debate. I respect you opinion, even when I do not agree with it (As I said, I do agree in this case).

However, NASAWATCH is a special resource and I believe that it's readers, staff, and the issues discussed deserve more respect that the language used in your post. Language does matter.

Please do not construe this post as an attack. I merely felt I needed to express my feelings on this matter.

Thanks

Aawhhh ... go ahead and attack if you want. I'm fairly thick skinned.

Let me make the point, however, that I had REALLY flown off the handle there wouldn't have been those nice little
protective ****'s in the words you object to. Let me make another point, which is that I damned well wanted to suggest those naughty words I wasn't using to add a little stress to the message I wanted to communicate, and I'm more than a bit sorry Keith chose to eradicate them.

Let me make a third point -- perhaps the first one I should have raised. If Lori Garver had a reputation amongs people who have worked for her as being stupid, lazy, or simply inconsiderate, I could understand people objecting to her nomination. If people disliked her view of various space policy issues (COTS vs ARES, robots vs humans, Mars vs Moon by 2020, etc), I could understand the objections.

What I'm actually seeing here is that people oppose her nomination because .... because .... because ... she's somehow hateful. She votes for Democrats. She doesn't have the sort of science or law or business degree necessary to properly cow engineers. She's got the wrong sort of tackle between her legs. Or something. And those are [DELETED] reasons.

Yeah, she is real champion for human exploration....

Lori Garver: "Exploration is exciting, but it isn't the only thing we get from space. Sending a few people to Mars (maybe) isn't the most inspirational thing that we can be doing."

Here it is

It cannot be worse then Mike and Shana, no way no how.
If the President makes a decision to review a NASA program for sanity sake as it just about killed science in physics and biology also cripling aeronautics and spacescience.
Then so be it. I only hope the complete CxP management team is replaced and this is done quickly. Only certain NASA center need be concerned and they are not Code R centers.

With Hubble now running nicely again and the ISS almost built with no big problems with the SSP, NASA can do better then the current CxP effort. CxP should not be managed from a field site and the idea of Centers fighting Centers for funds with ITAs and not releasing work to the agency.
Lets do a review of the corrupt manned space effort within NASA
SSP
ISS
CxP

Happy Happy
Soon these certain centers will be a thing of the past when the FAA regulates commercial Manned spacecraft that are launched from sites across the country. The United States can begin to explore the solar system with Humans and Robots starting a scientific mission with NASA leading the effort in Science Discovery, Aeronautics and Space exploration.

Bob Mahoney got the point. It is not as much about Garver as it is Obama and his promises. So Keith wants to split hairs, but yet he still admits she was a registered lobbyist. Hey Keith... how can Science Magazine be "wrong" in calling her a lobbyist if she actually had been registered as one? If she had never been a registered lobbyist then I could accept they got it wrong. OK, so let's put Garver aside and talk about Mr. Bolden's lobbyist past. Clearly his activity is much more recent and much more questionable than Garver's from a conflict of interest perspective.

Once again, I ask: This is change? Looks like more of the same political cronyism. I hope Obama and Bolden work out for all the NASA supporters. I've previously predicted here what I think is going to happen to NASA under Obama. So let's see how it turns out.

I for one liked Shupp's post. Refreshingly blunt.

For what its worth, those words were "naughty", but a lot of what's said about Garver is just plain mean.

Once a lobbyist, always a lobbyist. You sell your soul to do the devil's work. You don't get it back.

Ray;
You said "Obama is breaking his promise about lobbyists". You are not correct because she is not a lobbyist. Science Magazine screwed up and you just swallowed it. She was a lobbyist for the National Space Society for ONE year, in 1988. She is not now and has not been a lobbyist since then, over 21 years ago.
Chuck

Go Lori...it seems her passion for space has awarded her position.

Dear Mr. Bolden and Ms. Garver:

Congratulations.

Let’s support the CHANGE We CAN BELIEVE IN.

The following is the change options requirements for the national interests and the good international relations and the benefits of the return to the moon for your consideration.

Change Options

1) The NASA’s STS program shall complete the retirement in 2015. Each STS’s Orbitor was designed for 100 flights, as of today none of them over 50 flights yet.
2) The International Space Station (ISS) program shall complete the retirement in 2015.
3) The transportation vehicle for the Return to the Moon shall be designed as a single booster for each mission flight to the Moon as the good Saturn program did in the 1960s.
4) The NASA’s new Return to the Moon architecture shall cover the new human flight system and the new lunar base or lunar village for NASA and the partners.
5) The second human wave return to the Moon shall be set before 2020.
6) The NASA’s budget on the human space flight shall be allocated STS 15%-25% (2 flights per year), ISS 15%-25%, and VSE- Return to the Moon 50%-70% in the period 0f 2010-2015, then 100% to VSE from year 2015 on.

The “Return to the Moon” benefits are shown in the following:

Benefits of Second Human Wave Lunar Exploration:

New world for mankind
New economics
New business
New industry
New careers and work
New house and home
New hotel and spaceport
Lunar science research on-site
New Earth observatory on the surface of the Moon and can be repaired by human over there
New space observatory on the surface of the Moon and can be repaired by human over there
New space systems
New base for the Mars trip
Tourist travel
Others

God bless you, God bless the Human Space Flight.

Best wishes,

H. S. Chen