Bolden's Take on The Media

With all respect (duly deserved) to Mr. Bolden, while I consider many folks at NASA to be my friends, particularly those in the PAO offices around the country, those who are in the media are not employees of NASA. While it is true that we try to tell the story of NASA as best we can and enjoy reporting on the successes most of all, we are not contractors to Public Affairs. It's dangerous to objective reporting when the press gets too close to the subject of which they are supposed to be reporting - both the positive and negative aspects. You can see the effect in its extreme form by looking at the blind, over-the-top hero-worship disguised as reporting that comes out of the White House briefing room. I would hate to see the cadre of space reporters become similarly mindless lemmings. I personally think NASA is one of those rare organizations where we can be completely objective and still succeed at telling the story in a way that captures the imaginations of generations around the world. Being "friends" or showing bias - while it can help to get interviews and the like by sucking up - isn't necessary for reporting the story of space exploration. In large part, it tells its own story and we merely package it for public consumption.

Matthew Travis

“The American people deserve to know that they're not just watching the administration's spin on their local newscasts -- they're paying for it, too.” Senator John Kerry

“People in the media say they must look at the president with a microscope. Now, I don't mind a microscope, but boy, when they use a proctoscope, that's going too far.”
Richard M. Nixon

“We are so cleverly manipulated and influenced by the media and establishments on both the right and left, that the truth has become hopelessly lost in semantics.” Jules Carlysle

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/29/narrow-escape-onlookers-nasa-balloon-crashes-oz/

http://chattahbox.com/science/2010/04/29/nasa-science-balloon-packed-with-multi-million-dollar-equipment-crashes-in-australian-outback/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/giant-space-balloon-launc_n_556779.html

I still think the primary problem for Bolden & Co. is that the only starting point for the BO space policy was: "we're going to kill Bush's program (a.k.a., Constellation)". No one understood what that meant; no one had a rationale for the decision (that was the purpose of the Augustine committee - cover). And now they're just ad-libbing a space policy; hence, one day Orion is nuked, the next it's back as a lifeboat, which makes no sense at all. Just making it up day-by-day. Hardly Kennedyesque!

Well, it' time to hear from the loyal workforce your about to put the screws to Mr. Bolden. At no time do you try to stymie free speech of private citizens or the media....that is a constitutional guarantee. I'm off duty and I will voice my opinion as I have numerous times to my representatives and Congressmen and will continue to do so with out threats from you (Bolden) or anyone else in the NASA org.. This ill conceived plan, still without detail (making it up as you go) is to become a feeding trough for the commercial sector and when they find out just how much Human Space Flight cost...they will be coming back with their hand out for more of our tax dollar. We will spend years on the ground while Russia and China/India colonize the Moon and beat us to Mars. This snails pace will die on the vine before we get back into space. Yes, we have been to the moon but just what did we do....we kicked a few rock around and planted a flag and left....nothing more! And now lets support Russian with MY tax Dollar and let them get a leg up on us. I can not believe this song and dance that the Administration is giving the American People. The President is supposed to be fostering ground work to put the economy in drive, not reverse and putting sectors of our economy
in dire straights (NASA Centers) while the Car companies and Walstreet are bailed out and multiple countries are getting financial benefit
while our people are loosing jobs and cedes it's leadership to the rest of the world. I will continue to write and voice my opinion and don't tell us or the media to stand aside while you and the president take us for a ride down a slippery slope because I'm not going there. A very concerned Citizen,
( NOT A FRIEND).

I interpreted this plea in a much narrower way: asking reporters to be VERY careful in fact-checking at this time. I probably got there from reading so many comments here on NW which quickly went beyond the facts to sometimes wild and psychedelic imagination; and a few news stories Keith has linked to and criticized for errors. I also am aware that mainstream news organizations have drastically cut back on fact-checkers and crusty editors that used to keep stories close to the truth. IMHO bloggers as a class have never had that discipline, and some, present company excepted, have reveled in that. I though this was mainly what he meant.

There's a gray area touching that, though: whom you talk to, whom you quote in your article, how you strike balance, and how your reputation for "balance" (by some standard) might influence your future access. I didn't see Bolden specifically touch that here, but I can understand your nervousness about it. It's the core of serving the public good vs. the public official's good.

RIGHT ON!!

Obama's Plan is really to KILL NASA in total and give all the money to his 'social' redistribution of wealth programs!

Editor's note: You are a CLASSIC case of what Bolden was referring to. You are posting form 128.xxx.xxx.xx - a NASA IP. Your comments have absolutely zero basis in reality - indeed they border upon being irrational. Yet that does not stop you from posting them. And you just used taxpayer-funded resources on taxpayer-funded time to do so. Get back to work on my space program, please.

Now there you go. Illustrating my point, you just made up a "fact":

that the only starting point for the BO space policy was: "we're going to kill Bush's program (a.k.a., Constellation)".

That's not a fact, that's a purely political hand-grenade, an assertion. It certainly can't be proven, and I firmly believe that it's false.

Here's the other thing. If you were face-to-face with Bolden or Obama and wanted to convince them to change course, would you start off by insulting them and denigrating their motives? So by being this lazy with facts, you isolate yourself from the solution.

Science reporting is rife with inaccuracies and it will continue to be so. It's just part of the territory of taking complex ideas filtered through the various communicators and attempted to simplify for the 5th grade reading level desired of most new articles. Stuff will get lost, twisted, etc. They ain't trained in science or engineering most of 'em, facts are hard to check when you don't understand what those facts mean.

My translation of the Generals remarks. It sure would be easier for me to execute this new policy if you in the press would stop rousing the rabble. This implies some truths about America that we as a nation seem to want to look the other way at. 1 that the press has become a presidential news service, and 2 that in order form them to be friends of the administration they need to further and propagate the message of the administration. I suggest a new mandate to NASA from the Congress, oh wait, maybe it should come from the President. NASA serves the purposes and furthers the interests, both stated and unstated, of the office of the president. That's leadership in the modern USA.

I agree, the challenge to reporters is steep, and their news organization provides little or no support -- like mentoring or education or even staying on the beat until you get the hang of it. The problem is that newspapers and TV don't/can't invest what they should into covering a tough beat like this and doing it well. The result is the national debate descends to shouting. You see it here.

andrew.tubbiolo, I see how you get there, but I wouldn't go that far. There are many valid points on each side of the HSF issue, and we need to have that debate. What doesn't help is shouting, and "rabble rousing" in my mind means stoking the shouting. We have a hard time finding just plain reporters today, because there are too many columnists/pundits pretending to be reporters. It seems like people can't tell the difference any more.

A capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with -- Lenin

Keith,
thank you for all of the years on reporting on NASA Media issues, I for one have to admit I do not usually follow them, for one they seem to my eyes to be parochial and my interests are more of a broader policy issues, yet it seems to me that as I have used Lori Garver's NASA face book account to express my views under, "discussion" it reminds me of your frequent coverage of this issue!
indeed you have, Kieth, have reported on Lori's facebook yet I find myself a lone poster there.why would this be?

http://www.facebook.com/board.php?uid=109555615732469&status=512#!/board.php?uid=109555615732469

I am a citizen who for the last 40 years have had a deep passion for social justice and human exploration of the inner solar system, these two things do not mix well at NASASPACEFLIGHT.COM
I believe that there are deep passions on these issues over at UNMANNEDSPACEFLIGHT.COM not the social issues but the conflict between the funding for science and human space flight and this may be a missed opportunity to join in common cause with the congress and the international community.

Papa,

No! Not a good idea to challenge anyone's motives when you're trying to persuade them one way or another. But I'm not in front of either and Keith has generously provided a forum for an honest exchange of opinions.

I can only infer from BO's actions what motivates him. And his actions are at best ad hoc and most probably indifferent to HSF - despite the gratuitous pro-HSF rhetoric.

Strangely, I wouldn't be so opposed to the BO space policy had he left the permanent settlement on the Moon intact. That was the MOST important piece of Constellation. But that would have required a well thought out plan, with details and a schedule. None of which is present in the BO space policy.

Papa,

No! Not a good idea to challenge anyone's motives when you're trying to persuade them one way or another. But I'm not in front of either and Keith has generously provided a forum for an honest exchange of opinions.

I can only infer from BO's actions what motivates him. And his actions are at best ad hoc and most probably indifferent to HSF - despite the gratuitous pro-HSF rhetoric.

Strangely, I wouldn't be so opposed to the BO space policy had he left the permanent settlement on the Moon intact. That was the MOST important piece of Constellation. But that would have required a well thought out plan, with details and a schedule. None of which is present in the BO space policy.

Keith,

In regard to fcar's post. I would ask you show a little compassion to space workers. Right now we have no direction. A few short months ago we were working on a known program with known problems and goals. Then we are told it's all over and we won't be building any rockets. Then we are told to put the pencils down and start wrapping up what we are working on to put it on a shelf. The next day it's full steam ahead and we are going to launch more Ares I's as test flights. (Jeff Hanley's e-mail) using 2010 money.

So what I am saying is the average worker is in the dark. When you say get back to work I would love to do so. What should I work on? I have no idea. I'm sure in the months ahead as things get defined and we are given our tasks moral will improve. But right now it's terrible.

Papa,

Your replies here seem to imply that politicians do not play loose with facts. That they are always forthcoming with the truth, the whole truth, and the unadulturated (not politically-spun) truth. I have a feeling you do not believe that, as that would be naive of the political process; however, it is what I infer by the omission of this fact from your replies.

Every political appointee by the POTUS is also a politician, as much as we would like to believe otherwise. Their mission is to enact the President's will and sell his political program. Part of the job of the media is to attempt to dissect the political spin from the underlying themes that go unstated, because of politics being what it is. This is a difficult task, and there are not many tools available to do that, because of the poltical spin-doctoring of messages. Sometimes, rabble rousing is the only effective means.

The fact that this plan was unveiled before even the most remote of details were in-place tends to lead suspicious people to the conclusion that there is more politics in this decision than there is genuine wishes for NASA to excel. It smells of a predetermined direction, and now the presidential charges are simply trying to cobble together a plan to prevent it from looking that way.

Charlie,
I will not be joining you on the remainder of this journey. I committed to Constellation. With that thrown away, I cannot begin again from scratch.

Good luck with finding your silver technology bullet. A suggestion: technologies that simplify are the winners. A lot of R&T out there is just another layer of complexity. And it is the overhead of dealing with complexity that kills us, every time. I can picture in a few years time after the R&T has been dismissed, the mantra will be 'back to basics, learn how to build'.

I do hope I am wrong and HSF has a successful future.

Mr. Bolden, your problem is not the media. It is not the divergent views within the agency. Your problem Mr. Bolden is Barack Obama. Many people in this country are seeing the writing on the wall and they do not like it. Your agency is unfortunately caught up in the middle. Your challenge, should you choose to accept it Mr. Bolden, is to see that NASA survives the inept and politically motivated administrations attempts to degrade everything we charish and everything that makes America exceptional. Good Luck Mr. Bolden.

What the heck a quote from John
A capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with -- Lenin
LOL
In the NASA army AIRCAV unit it takes more courage to retreat than advance.
Joseph Stalin

Change is good my friend, this is not the USSR, keep us laughing D please do so.

Keep up the good work Gen Bolden

bkbirge, there is that comment of yours that has some meaning,but the reporting by Kieth tells us a more complex picture, the union that represents the researchers and scientists supports the presidents proposed budget with some previsions,and the union that represents the technicians trashes the idea( IAM).
why?
I use to work for a labor union, and it represented the low skilled workers on the west coast.Janitors and security officers in big downtown buildings and a few of us worked at west coast nuclear reactor facility's.Back in the 1970's and 80's we had our fights, why would a labor union that represented nuclear reactor guards care about Hispanics or old retired military personal who guarded downtown high rises?why would the interests of these folks converge?
they do on occasion but only when their ,oxen is being gored.
in the present argument we have these two unions( IAM and the engineer union) and a whole lot of posters on many forums fighting over not only policy but stating that there launch system is so much better then over another.And this argument will forever prevent us from reaching compromise.

for those of you who are from "RED" states, who post hateful comments about those of us who believe that all Americans should have health care and yet some of us believe that we should colonize the inner solar system. Well.................why would our politicians rescues you?(or your jobs?)
to many of my blue state politicians are not aware of these issues and when I lobby them to support human space flight they may want a trade,

Bolden to Press: I know I'm right even though the majority of the most scientific, intellectual, space minds in the country work for me and tell me I'm wrong. It doesn't matter what the Congress says because I work the for the president and in the military, what the general says, goes. So, that's that... What? This isn't the military? Ahh, so what... I'll treat it as such. I rolled out my plans to the troops and I'm telling you what it is. I might have said I needed to learn how to do things better but, I don't need to compromise. I'm right!

or, maybe they're just going to be too busy for awhile:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nasa-sued-for-refusing-to-release-contracting-data-according-to-the-american-small-business-league-2010-04-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Interesting that General Bolden would directly address "the media". The same reporters that his handlers barred from his speech. The same reporters that he did not "reasonably" have time for at any point during his JSC visit.

from the Bolden speech "After announcement of the VSE, all of us were greatly disappointed when President George W. Bush failed to even mention spaceflight in the State of the Union Address."

Yes, but we were all very impressed by President Obama's exuberant support of Constellation and human spaceflight during his State of the Union Address this past January... oh wait it a minute, he never mentioned the words space, NASA, Constellation... Really bad choice of examples there, in an infinite sea of choices

I would love to be excited about the future but as hard as I've tried, I see none. It's been real, JSC. Thanks for the memories.

As far as Obama's NASA mouthpiece trying to tell the media what to say and telling citizens of the United States that contacting our congressmen to voice our opinion isn't helping ... human spaceflight aside - that's a scary as hell political statement.

Bolden's fear that NASA has one chance left to get it right (hence his support for ObamaSpace) is an acknowledgment of how irrelevant NASA HSF is with the American Public writ large (excluding Fla. Tex. Ala. and Miss.)

No president wants to be seen as canceling Human Space Flight, however irrelevant it is with the American public. It would look bad. Hence we get the kind of leadership President Bush brought to the table, and we get ObamaSpace - twist in the wind support.

One of these days however, it's gonna end.

I've been an intern at JSC and a contractor on two programs. I'm not giving up. My devotion is to advancing the pursuit of human space exploration, not any one particular program.

The future is not going to be what we all originally thought, but it is still there. I see an opportunity to really build an in-space transportation system, which is what we need for sustainable exploration beyond LEO. With JSC hosting the Flagship Tech Demo Program, we will be at the center of those efforts.

With all due respect, I have no problem with the naysayers leaving. If you are unable to separate your personal situation from the bigger picture and are unable, or unwilling, to adapt to the changes, then I think you do need to step aside and find something else to do.

The military and private industry deal with program and project cancellations all the time. The Army just had the immense Future Combat Systems program red-lined and it was three times the size of Constellation. What are they doing now? Focusing on mission-enabling projects for near-term needs and parallel technology development for the future. If the Army can do it, NASA certainly can.

Our dependence on monolithic programs and wistful waiting for a singular political champion, a new JFK, have been our own worst enemies. It's long past time we learn to live in the modern political and economic structure.

As far as the General's remarks, civil servants are expressly prohibited from lobbying Congress. Bolden was implicitly warning them to avoid violating the Hatch Act. He was not violating anyone's Constitutional rights. That's not scary. That's the law.

I am trying to understand where the Hatch Act is being violated, or where the good General has implied such.

If people are applying political pressure using their government offices and facilities, on government time that is a violation. That is indeed happening. But I'd wager that a lot of folks are being rather careful about this, and being active on their own time with their own resources.

The Hatch Act does not mean that if your work for the government or work on a government program that you must remain silent.

http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm#

Thank you, jkugler. I think you nailed it.

I am reassured that our future is in your hands and those of the many thousands who think like you, but do not take the time to reply to online flames.

I'm in agreement with Adam K and aj58 here. The following quote does not sit well with me:
"For you to go to members of Congress...with contradictory information about the road ahead and the need to move on beyond the Constellation Program is not helpful and detracts from our ability to accelerate the needed development programs and innovative technologies that will enable us to reach our deep space goals."

Having grown up an Air Force brat, I recognize that Bolden is showing a very "military" mindset here. It can be hard for somebody who has worked for most of their life in the military, with its rigid chain-of-command (for good reason, you don't want troops second-guessing in a combat situation), to adjust to civilian organizations, where the workers aren't necessarily required to just shut up and follow orders. It seems like Bolden's military side is showing through here.

Ultimately though, the folks working at NASA are civil servants, not soldiers, and they have a basic right of representation through their elected officials. jkugler, from what I understand, the Hatch Act does not prevent civil servants from contacting their congressmen as concerned citizens as long as it's on their own time; indeed, civil servants are explicitly permitted to "express opinions about candidates and issues." Refer to http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm

Ultimately though, I'm reminded of the loss of Columbia, where one of the contributing factors was the inability to flow information up from the people in the trenches to the people making the decisions. When Obama stated two weeks ago that "Nobody is more committed to man's space flight than I am", he unknowingly lied: pretty much everybody in a ten mile radius of him at the time is more committed to human spaceflight than Obama ever could be. These are the folks that have dedicated their lives to spaceflight: they've worked hard in college to get their degrees, they've done the hard work, and they've ultimately gotten the rockets lifting off of the pads. When a significant portion of that experienced workforce expresses concerns over the new plan, rather then telling them to shut up and fall in line, perhaps it'd be much wiser to listen and take into consideration what they have to say.

well said.

also, a lot of military people don't get the dedication to a particular program, because they seem to move from project to project and locale to locale every 2-4 years or so.

if any of the current politicians or other assorted useless DC riff-raff were paying attention - Florida Today and OS could dig up many a guest editorial from Griffin etc. preaching about CxP is the future and other such admonishments for not being on board etc. (hint-that means even Griffin knew that KSC in general didn't support CxP)

So, similar rah rah & admonishments about the Merchant 7 plan seems as bad and shallow as those guys were.

OK, I see your perspective, and I have to admit it follows from the assumptions. But here's another starting assumption that takes you to a completely different conclusion: I think Obama is such an egghead that he thinks this proposal sells itself based on its manifest logic. That when he rolled this out on Feb 1, he never expected his conclusions (clearly visible in the scaffold of the budget ;-) would baffle the reader, or be questioned fundamentally. That Obama thought everyone would sit back and say "Huh... that's interesting. Yeah, that might work out, and it clearly is a better long-term strategy." And if so, then his staff is so green it never occurred to them that a sharp turn might need a rationale and sales pitches. I'm an egghead myself, so that's why I leap to that hypothesis. But I've truly been perplexed that Obama hasn't spent more time filling that vacuum - a rationale and sales pitch. Everyone else has surely done that, their own way.

So I think the differences between you and me are not so much about naivete (I hope) so much as whom you choose to believe. During the Bush Admin, I never could stop arguing with my father about the war and our methods for antiterrorism and intelligence gathering, and it all came down to this: Dad fully trusted Cheney, and I did not trust him one bit. There was almost nothing else to wrestle over, because that was the root of our dispute.

The Hatch Act is also unequivocal that, whether on- or off-duty, government employees may not "knowingly solicit or discourage the participation in any political activity of anyone who has business pending before their employing agency".

Congress absolutely is covered under that prohibition. When I was a civil servant, it was made very clear to me that I was never to lie to Congress if called before them, nor was I to speak to Congress unless I coordinated with the legislative affairs office first.

So, while NASA employees can write "letters to the editor" and the like expressing their opinions in public, they may not "solicit or discourage" Congress from any particular activity regarding NASA. Whether on their own time or not, that would be considered lobbying on a matter with which the individual has a conflict of interest.

That's why the Go Boldly group, for example, does not have any civil servants and never recruited any to participate, at least not while I was a part of it.

I think NASA, and particularly the NASA leadership, are the ones that need to get their act together on telling and explaining the NASA story in general, human space flight in particular, and International Space Station very specifically.

These engineers really think that if they do a successful technical job then everybody will think the program is wonderful. You do not see any of the nation's big industries or companies taking this attitude. That's why there's an entire branch of management called marketing.

It was almost kind of humorous to see a technical paper being sold as the answer to why ISS is a good thing. If that is all the program has, its in deep yogurt.

Up until now, the country saw some smoke and flames every couple of months and therefore knew that NASA was on the job. That all goes away by the end of the year.

The 'new vision' has been similarly poorly described, defined or marketed. Why would anyone believe Bolden or the rest of the NASA management given the poor job he/all of them have een doing the last couple months. It doesn't need to be a huge army making substantial technical changs or inputs; all it would take a a few people producing the right words and pictures on a page.

Is the NASA management this clueless ? Really ?

The cynical among us believe that no president, perhaps since Kennedy, gave a rip about human exploration of space. There is a strong case to support this. Actions of subsequent presidents have often been analyzed to be politically motivated. Given the shallowness of the BO plan, one can draw that conclusion as well. Mr. Bolden is stuck defending some political decision without having the technical backing to support the claims so he has to try to suppress dissent the good old fashioned military way, reporting embargoes and censorship. Sorry Charlie - that won't fly, not anytime soon.

Here's a scenario I've heard suggested that seems to fit why the president is showing keen interest in space. The BO plan effectively annihilates jobs at KSC while increasing NASA's top-line funding. If one were to examine why Mr. Obama would dislike the space coast, all one has to do is look at the voting record of Brevard and other counties with KSC contractor employment. It's quite a Republican stronghold in a very, very tight swing state. Scatter the red voters back to their solidly red states due to no jobs at the cape, Mr. Obama makes serious election gains in the 2012 election. Seems quite the opposite of what Mr. Bush was doing with Constellation, with the large infrastructure build-up. We tech types don't think this way but the Chicago and Carl Rove politicos sure seem to.

It's hard to believe that any president or his advisors would be so callous as to sacrifice US primacy in space exploration for electoral gains but I've yet to hear another explanation of why the BO plan makes sense to anyone. It's surely not that the NASA will get cheaper, more reliable rides to space while riding with a wave of space tourists. Since airlines lose money taking many passengers to where they actually need to go, joyriders taking million dollar vacations seems like an unlikely plan. Yet that's where the BO plan proposes to go. Hmmmm.

pretty much everybody in a ten mile radius of him at the time is more committed to human spaceflight than Obama ever could be. .../

nope.

they are committed to their version of it. I would argue that they are very committed to it...but the salient fact remains that as long as they have a job...they will be very committed to whatever that project is that keeps their job.

In other words if all of a sudden Constellation was going to do "X" that would be fine with all the people who work on the program.

There is no doubt that the people both contractor and federal who work on the program are for the overwhelming most very dedicated.

But to say or imply that this dedication goes above and beyond the dedication shown by federal employees anywhere or the contractors on other programs is ridiculous.

As is to imply that their perspective is something that a "leader" should listen to in formulating policy. Here is an example. All in all most of the people who are in Afland probably think that the fight has a lot of value and they are paying the most (in terms of sacrifice) the most for it.

Having said that, the entire effort needs to fit into the larger theories of what the US should do overseas and that should be a national decision; not limited to just the people who are "in the fight".

Same with space.

Robert G. Oler

Your opinion. Mine is that the last adminstration has already done everything you claim this one to be doing. We are now trying to recover from the worst administration in our nation's history. But don't worry, you will get your wish. The SCOTUS has guaranteed that all 3 branches of government will be controlled by Republicans for the next generation. They'll still be blaming Obama and Clinton for America's problems 20 years from now.

Contrary to popular belief, Bush was no fan of NASA. He slashed the ISS configuration by canceling CAM and Hab thereby eliminating any meaningful researh from a $100 billion investment. He drew a line in the sand for US Core Complete which directly resulted in the loss of Columbia. Then he decreed NASA's dream mission to go back to the Moon, but on our existing budget, setting us on a course of self-destruction. Basically he fed a starving dog a steak laced with shards of glass. The idiots running this Agency gladly picked up that ball and carried it over the cliff just as predicted. He canceled Shuttle knowing there would be no replacement because he didn't fund said replacement. In the process, he decimated our science and aeronautics capabilities. And now that his plan to kill NASA is coming to fruition, everyone is blaming his successor. This same modus operandi worked for the wars in the Middle East and the economy, thrown into ruins with the blame laid at the feet of the enemy. Too bad Bush's enemies weren't foreign instead of domestic.

The Hatch act refers to 'political' activity, not 'legislative' activity. That means that aiding or obstructing a congressperson's political goals in trying to influence legislation is a violation of the Hatch Act.

The mere insistence that your legislator hear your wishes and follow them is not political activity in the sense you are reading into the act. If you look at the prohibited activities listed at the Hatch Act website, you'd think soliciting your legislator for your interests as a citizen would be there. It isn't. Even in the context of saving one's federally-funded job.

If NASA officials, or by extension contractors, are pledging bribes or similar quid-pro-quo, sure, I'd agree that's dead wrong. I don't think that's what we're talking about, though.