New York Times Weighs In on Bolden

That coming from some guy who just prints paper for a living.. I'm sure they give a 2 cents.

Whoever wrote that editorial is just dumb, I wouldn't pin it on the whole newspaper

Absolutely right!
NASA needs a leader, not a techie. Someone who can get the various divisions working together for a common cause. In this case the quick transition from the shuttle to Orion.
I don't know if Bolden is the right person to do that, but he shares many of the same qualities of James Webb who so ably lead NASA through the formative years.
Meanwhile I'll be watching his confirmation hearings and the upcoming Augustine panel for clues to the direction of manned spaceflight.

Good luck Mr. Bolden.

NY Times is paying homage to the Ivy League universities of
the northeast. "Lacks expertise" is code that does not mean "he doesn't have actual experience," it means he doesn't have a Phd. in a field and from a university that we approve of (AKA academic credentials).

Now, in my (arrogant) opinion, there is no bureaucracy so
badly run, that it could not be made worse by putting a person with Ivy League Phds. in charge of it.
Witness NASA ...

Please - not another "Webb wasn't an engineer and look what he did" argument. Webb had deep pockets and accomplished people working for him. The new administrator will have neither of those. He will be surrounded by incompetent politicans and totally insulated from the real experts. He will continue to have limited budget that cannot afford the insane prices charged by the Aerospace Cartel.

A new administrator will not fix NASA. It's a broken agency and nothing short of a clean sweep of management will fix it.

Let's not forget that it was the New York Times that called Robert Goddard a fool for claiming that rocket propulsion would work in a vacuum. It took Neil Armstrong walking on the moon to convince them to print a retraction.
Why anybody uses that tabloid for anything besides packing material has always been beyond me.

The NYT is bleeding readers and needs to be dragged to the tar pits so it can be rediscovered 20 million years from now as the fossil that it is.

Meanwhile I cannot wait for the Bolden confirm. hearings myself... because, between the Congress and the media, so much dumb stuff concerning spaceflight will be said that my cartoon strips will be self-writing for weeks.

Bolden calls graduates to action

...A pilot and former Marine, Bolden encouraged the young doctors and scientists to follow the principles he learned in the Corps.

“It’s our core values — honor, courage, commitment,” he said. “… Be courageous in everything you do. Don’t be afraid to stand up to someone who is about to do something wrong, because you know it’s wrong. And be committed no matter where you happen to go.”

"Sean O'Keefe - with admittedly zero technical expertise - guided the VSE from nothing to Presidential and Congressional endorsement. Yet uber techie Mike Griffin was handed the VSE on a silver platter, took the Shuttle/Orion gap, made it longer, and then fumbled by designing a rocket that is still not fully out of PDR after 3 years and in danger of cancellation."

Also, Sean O'Keefe was wise enough to cancel HSM4. Then that idiot engineer Mike Griffin came along and revived it and look where we are now.

Frank's note: You omit the fact that when O'Keefe made his decision to cancel the servicing mission, there was no demonstrated on-orbit tile repair capability for the Shuttle orbiters and there was no return-to-flight experience post-Columbia. From where he sat, as Keith and I observed, it was a prudent decision, just as Griffin's decision-made with much more data-was also the right one.

Well...the Times is (in)famous for their doubts about a guy named Goddard...

http://rocketry.wordpress.com/2007/03/17/goddard-vs-new-york-times/

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/Robert_Goddard

General Bolden lacks deep expertise in space science and engineering and his past ties with the aerospace industry will raise conflict of interest problems.

the above is TRUE,

I hope to hear Gen Bolden Answer to the Statement, then he may show leadership as one of his traits. The President had to do the same exact thing, answer questions and be honest.

Nasawatch takes the gray lady to task for a half-baked editorial. I love the smell of irony in the morning.

Interesting comparison to Webb.

Why did Webb retire when he did?

You don't get to be a MGEN, USMC, without being a leader!

Of course, if I received the New York Times, I would value its usefullness...if I had parakeet which needed a liner for its cage! Bah! Humbug!

If Gen. Bolden doesn't do well as NASA Administrator, it will be because he is hamstrung and thwarted at every turn by Congress and the President! Let's hope that both Bolden's confirmation and the Augustine Commission get done in a timely and beneficial manner!

Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

Leadership is demonstrated from the top down, and given from the bottom up.

As usual, a pin-head of a writer who knows nothing about leadership blasts away at those of us who possess a desirable and respectable work ethic.

We also fundamentally understand its easy to talk about doing something, but a far different exercise to get off your ass and successfully accomplish some thing which is discussed.

The NY Times is represents another organization that would burn our ships in the harbor of history, happily, then criticize anyone who sat on the sidelines while the ships are set ablaze.

I am pinning this observation on the whole newspaper, for the very reason articulated in the first sentence of my post: NY Times leadership approves and supports editorial content, therefore demonstrating its leadership to the writers that have given the NY Times the leadership role.

This is another example, IMHO, of an obsolete, socialist organization, bent on driving mankind back to the cave, instead of supporting and encouraging an effort to earn our inheritance of the stars.

I think the Times made some good points re: conflict of interest, but I disagree re: his lack of engineering experience. True he may not be a trained engineer, but Griffin was, and IMHO, he was not a good administrator....

Let us not forget that it was the NYT who mocked Robert Goddard into seclusion and secrecy by offering their wisdom that the premise of a rocket working in a vacuum with nothing to react against was absurd, and thus Goddard "seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily to high school students."

Most of their other assessments down through the years have been just as informed...and as helpful.

While I think Bolden is a terrific choice as an Administrator, I do appreciate the NYT's emphasis that his prior ties need to be examined. If only someone had questioned the ties Scott Horowitz - former ATK VP for Business Development - had before being put in charge of ESMD when the stupid stick (aka the "Scotty Rocket") was chosen.

I am certain that Bolden will be confirmed since his involvement with Aerojet & ATK were limited but more importantly because he is a patriot and a believer in the human space program who would not put his or a former employer's interest ahead of NASA and our nation. Good luck to him - and Lori Garver; they have a lot of challenges ahead of them.

I was General Bolden's instructor on several occasions. I can assure you from first hand experience he is VERY capable of handling the technical aspects of the job. He is very capable of recognizing and not tolerating technical double speak that is alive and well at NASA today.

Danny Deger

It was James Webb, a former Marine pilot with a law degree and Washington insider. He wasn't an engineer and yet he managed in his seven year tenure to lead NASA at its most critical time.

This, actually, is NASA's most critical time.

Regarding O'Keefe and Griffin on the Hubble mission, my recollection is that while there wasn't a shuttle repair capability, that was discussed in the Columbia report. O'Keefe thought it too dangerous even with a repair capability and canceled it. Griffin thought the risk acceptable and proceeded. Griffin reversed the decision before the repair capability had been demonstrated, although it was dependent on it suceeding before the final go ahead was given. My impression was that O'Keefe's lack of technical knowledge may have led him to not weigh all of the risks correctly.

Other than the Hubble mission decision, I generally liked O'Keefe.

"Frank's note: You omit the fact that when O'Keefe made his decision to cancel the servicing mission, there was no demonstrated on-orbit tile repair capability for the Shuttle orbiters and there was no return-to-flight experience post-Columbia."

I agree. O'Keefe made his decision based on no info. I trust that Gen. Bolden’s decision-making skills are more akin to Griffin's.

I think anyone that worked for NASA (astronauts included), then the private sector, would have made some ties to an aerospace contractor during that time in the private sector. What do you expect they'd do when they leave NASA? Open an Arby's?

At least these ties are known about up front. If there is anything that hints at favoritism during his tenure, I'm sure there will be plenty of Times reporters and NASAWatch editors on the case!

There still is NO *demonstrated* on-orbit tile repair capability for the Shuttle orbiters. Unless one did re-enter after repair? Which one?

@Frank's note: "who cares what they think anyway?"

Hmm. All the NYT readers?

I understand the frustration so let's hope, if I dare say "hope", that Bolden+Garver+Augustine+WH+Congress do a fine job. Or... Well... There may be NO "or".

People who know Charlie know that he is a man of integrity; however, it’s understandable that most people take that statement with a grain of salt as they should after countless examples of Washington and NASA insiders that only look out for their interest (great example: What Horowitz did is criminal in the mind of person with ethics and morals) I understand peoples concern about his affiliation with ATK and GenCorp. The only lobbying I know he did for ATK was when he explained to members of congress the shuttle technologies that would be used by ATK—this relationship was very minimal. To restrict him from making contract decision regarding the next generation of rocketry would render him useless on Constellation as an administrator. As far as GenCorp, I believe his relationship here should be taken a little more seriously, and I am sure it will be. But I feel restricting his activities with GenCorp would not degrade his duty as NASA Administrator. In fairness to him, what is out there career wise for retired Generals and former astronauts; he needs to continue to work and this field he knows best. The only option to maintain a zero perception of conflict of interest is to pick someone who has never worked for NASA or a NAS A Contractor. Again for those of us who know Charlie, he was instrumental behind the scenes in supporting and lobbying members of Congress to save the Hubble Telescope with a manned mission versus an unmanned mission. And for real, this last mission in my eyes was the only good publicity and science that we have received from the Shuttle Program in many years. So does this preclude him from being involved with activities surrounding the Hubble Telescope and the many contractors that support it and benefited financially from Hubble? I think we should all be fair and not use the words lobby and work too loosely as to imply that was his prime job and goal. Lets put his activity into true context. Plus, I have never met a person that displayed integrity and work ethic as Charlie Bolden does; hopefully, all his supporters and critics will be able to see this in the future. I do agree that his success is directly linked to White House and Congress support of NASA—time will tell. Charlie can implement and recommend changes within NASA, but he cannot personally change NASA.

O'Keefe's Hubble repair decision was one of his toughest and wisest. The risk to the crew was only part of the trade-off. The totality of the risk involved risk to:

a) the crew;

b) the entire shuttle program;

c) ISS completion;

d) all future US human spaceflight.

Every shuttle mission involves these, but the difference between the HST repair and ISS assembly missions is that the ISS missions contribute directly to the forward direction of the over-all program, i.e., completing ISS before shuttle retirement per stated WH (VSE) policy.

Launching the shuttle to fix the HST put the entire program at risk while NOT furthering this stated primary objective, i.e., finishing the ISS so we can move on (and afford) Constellation...all in the context of there being other assets available (computer-enhanced ground observatories now, JWST later) to provide much the same data when the HST finally died.

"Spending" the risk inherent in a shuttle mission merely to repair Hubble was reckless, no matter how pretty the pictures are and how impressively executed the mission was. The specific scientific data that will be gathered during HST's remaining life in no way will balance the greater, larger-context risk that was taken, even if it were to miraculously include definitive evidence of an alien civilization somewhere. Why? Because that same data would have been gathered by other instruments (ground-based or JWST) soon enough, and those other avenues would not have put the entire US space program at risk.
Frank's note: While I would not consider Griffin's decision reckless, as Keith and I can attest, Sean O'keefe was deeply traumatized by the loss of Columbia and did not want to risk another accident on his watch. Given what he knew at the time, it was a wise choice indeed, IMHO.

The New York Times has an abysmal record concerning space exploration. It has almost always been critical of NASA. We should take its latest pronouncement with a grain of salt.

While Bolden's ties to industry are a fair matter for discussion, almost anyone in aerospace has industry ties. Bolden has proven himself to have integrity, character, and independence. As others have noted, you do not become a Marine Corps Major General without leadership skills.

The real question is whether he can muster the support of the White House, Congressm and the public to re-invigorate a timid, risk-averse NASA.

The NASA of Apollo chose the path of "all up" testing and to send the first manned Saturn V around the Moon. Would today's NASA have taken those steps which were vital to meeting Apollo's goal?

The decision to launch, or not, Shuttle will ALWAYS be traumatic. How could it be otherwise? Griffin was LUCKY nothing happened as we saw again recently that might happen. O'Keefe obviously more concerned about VSE canned the mission. Griffin was "right". Good for him. Yet Griffin wants to retire Shuttle ASAP. So they BOTH know the risks, they just interpreted it differently. HST is a good public relation tool as everyone agrees to its purpose and returns. Leaders are necessary to make "tough" decisions. But as it goes in movies: They were both right and wrong, just for different reasons.

Webb would be just another administrator without the technical expertise of Werner Von Braun. I think the real question is, will the next NASA administrator be smart enough to hire and listen to the right technical people? Will he have enough business sense to put an end to NASA's fiscal incentives to suppliers that reward dragging out development and causing costs to soar though learned incompetence? If he continues to do things the way they've always been done, it should come as no surprise that he'll get similar results.

Frank's note: Can you give specific examples of contractors doing as you state? Which do you consider incompetent-and why?

Let's see... General Bolden is "disqualified" because he's military (some hate that idea); he not an engineer (but he had enough "technical expertise" to fly modern supersonic jets, and the Space Shuttle, as well); he has ties to industry (as someone said, what was he supposed to do after "hanging up the (space)suit, and the dress blue one, too, flip burgers at Arby's???).

Well, who does qualify? Webb wasn't an engineer. O'Keefe wasn't one either, but "administrated". Griffin WAS an engineer who couldn't "administrate" either.

I've been out of the aerospace business for 20 years now (seems like only yesterday 3500 of us got "doorknobbed" by Martin-Marietta), but have run my own business for that long. Does that qualify ME for the job? (I don't really want it, thank you very much, though it would be nice to be asked!)

In other words, who would satisfy everybody's "qualifications"?

Let's ALL just sit here and try to pick the "right" candidate, and by the year 2199, we will be able to find a NASA administrator...who can speak CHINESE!

@Trailrider (Jim):

I for one would like to see NASA distance itself from DOD. As NASA's mission is no longer that of the Cold War. HOWEVER, I can easily see why a military person, and a General in particular, MAY have all the necessary prerequisites for a leadership role. The most important trait of a good leader is its ability to listen, to communicate. Some reported he excels at it. We'll see.

The sad joke that is the New York Times cannot go out of business fast enough.

Grey Lady Down will be a good thing.

Interesting picture of Webb and JFK. The JFK audio tapes suggest strongly that early on JFK was the main impetus behind putting Apollo on the fast track. Webb was more cautious and favored unmanned science probes. It is not clear to me in a similar debate between Bolden and Obama who would come out on top.

The "second guessing of experts" that Mike Griffin is credited with by NYT is known by a less flattering name of "Micromanagement." When things are being micromanaged the morale plummets because nobody feels like they have any responsibility and therefore, nobody has any feelings of accomplishment.

As someone who works for NASA, I can tell that this is exactly what has happened with Mike Griffin's "second guessing." VSE is not going anywhere because our work was derided by not fitting into what Mike Griffin's vision was. The same "expertise" that NYT touts, matched to the wrong temperament, can lead not so much to leadership but to obstinacy which is what Mike Griffin had.

The job of NASA's admin is to listen to what his experts have to say and figure out what the best course of action is. He also has to be able to secure funds from Congress and approval from the President for NASA while making sure that the tasks for which NASA is requiring funds are not in conflict with the mission that NASA has been assigned to do by the politicians. Finally, the NASA admin needs to communicate clearly to NASA employees what the politicians and by extension, American people expect of them. These do not require detailed technical expertise. Rather, they require strategic thinking, political acumen, good communications skill and a smattering of technical knowledge. Given what I have heard of Gen. Bolden, he seems to fit the bill.

@Trailrider (Jim)
No, DOD is happy to be with the FAA, DOI, TSA with a host of others with NASA, it is called TEAM WORK.

Flying is everywhere, get to it.

It saddens me that so many at NASA Watch (editors and readers) are so supportive of O'Keefe and have such a visceral hatred for Griffin. I feel compelled to at least proffer another view.

I'm over 50, and have spent most of my career at NASA. I know a bunch of people at NASA now, and the majority of them thought O'Keefe was little more than a mouthpiece for the WH. We avoided his "all-hands" meetings, because no admin in history could spout meaningless rhetoric for such a long time.

NASA is struggling to pick out the gems in bushII's hallucination of a conquest of Mars on an unfunded mandate, aka "VSE". Accepting VSE is hardly an achievement that O'Keefe should be proud of.

And in spite of all the hateful discussions about Griffin, most of my colleagues felt that at last there was an Admin that spoke their language and shared their vision. Griffin inherited bushII's unfunded mandate, so there was no doubt he would eventually face the paradox an unfunded mandate presents. For all his controversial decisions, I think he did a decent job, considering the no-win situation he faced.

Especially in the earlier years, his talks were often engaging and inspiring, a welcome break from O'Keefe's meaningless, rambling rhetoric. That alone went a long way to repairing the broken morale that O'Keefe left behind.

Charlie Bolden will face some very difficult times. There will be plenty of Monday-morning quarterbacking focused on the hard decisions he will have to make. But Charlie is like Mike Coats, I've never heard anyone, whether on an SMS team or in management, speak ill of him. I hope the quarterbacks will give him more slack than they gave Griffin.

NASA needs a strong leader, and it doesn't need the fickle second-guessing that's eroding confidence in its work. Constellation isn't perfect, but scrapping it, or re-targeting it to some random asteroid will all but end the US presence in space for a generation. The criticisms I read in some of the comments here remind me of the oft used engineering motto "better is the enemy of good enough". Destroying Constellation and starting over will end the careers of a lot of NASA's talent, proving once again that the US is too fickle to maintain a long-term exploration program.

@ JSCguy,

I had forgotten about O'keefe's ability to talk for hours and say absolutely nothing. I used to watch him just to see how good he was at this.

I would also think a money guy would have rejected the notion of going to Mars on the current NASA budget. This was a really dumb thing for him to do.

I think Griffin's big mistake was to not man rate an EELV to save money and drastically reduce the gap. Killing Ares I will not kill Constellation. I think it will save Constellation. Thrust oscillation still has a lot of problems, maybe problems that basically don't have a solution.

Danny Deger