Did y'all see who the new NASA director's gonna be?

[Kernel Kraken]

Did y'all see who the new NASA director's gonna be? Jim Bridenstien: a congressman who has no experience with the going to space/ rockets/ science part of NASA'S job.

But I digress. What do y'all think?

 

Edited April 21, 2018 by Kernel Kraken

[Bill Phil]

To administrate an organization, you want someone who's good at administrating, not necessarily a scientist. Having a passion for science and space would help quite a bit as well, of course.

[LordFerret]

Gleaned from Wikipedia...

From Ann Arbor, Michigan, High School graduate.
Rice University,  majors in Economics, Psychology, and Business
MBA from Cornell University
former executive director of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum & Planetarium
Naval Aviator in the United States Naval Reserve, flew the E-2C Hawkeye, former Navy / Air Force Lieutenant Commander (active)
Oklahoma Air National Guard, Lieutenant Commander
is an Eagle Scout
State of Oklahoma record holder in the 200M long course freestyle relay

 

Sounds pretty qualified to me. We could do far worse.

Edited April 21, 2018 by LordFerret

[YNM]

Eh, better than nothing.

 

(also, inbefore someone finally put on that padlock.)

[tater]

6 hours ago, Kernel Kraken said:

Did y'all see who the new NASA director's gonna be? Jim Bridenstien- a guy who has no experience in space- related activities. 

In my opinion, it ain't a great idea to put a politician in charge of a scientifically focused organization, but hey, any government controlled organization is gonna end up being controlled by the government.

NASA is a STEM jobs program. The great science they do is an awesome side effect. Their job is to spend money, ideally in as many Congressional districts as possible.

I think he'll be fine. He has a real interest in space, and is very friendly to commercial space, which in my opinion will do more to move us forward in space than NASA ever would alone.

Edited April 21, 2018 by tater

[Kernel Kraken]

26 minutes ago, tater said:

NASA is a STEM jobs program. The great science they do is an awesome side effect. Their job is to spend money, ideally in as many Congressional districts as possible.

I think he'll be fine. He has a real interest in space, and is very friendly to commercial space, which in my opinion will do more to move us forward in space than NASA ever would alone.

 

3 hours ago, LordFerret said:

Gleaned from Wikipedia...

From Ann Arbor, Michigan, High School graduate.
Rice University,  majors in Economics, Psychology, and Business
MBA from Cornell University
former executive director of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum & Planetarium
Naval Aviator in the United States Naval Reserve, flew the E-2C Hawkeye, former Navy / Air Force Lieutenant Commander (active)
Oklahoma Air National Guard, Lieutenant Commander
is an Eagle Scout
State of Oklahoma record holder in the 200M long course freestyle relay

 

Sounds pretty qualified to me. We could do far worse.

-both good points. 

It could be someone, like say, me. I can't manage money, and I definitely ain't an eagle scout. 

Just kind of worried, like the climate change comments he made a few years back kind of made me question his qualification, but I should follow my own philosophy on complaining about people: if they're better at their job than you are, then they're definitely more qualified to do that job than you are, so stop yelling at the TV, grandpa. Kevin Durant ain't going to take your advice on how to play sportsball.

 At least he ate his words about the climate change thing, that gives me a bit more hope.

Edited April 21, 2018 by Kernel Kraken

[GoSlash27]

1) His views on climate change have no bearing on his ability to effectively manage NASA.

2) His views on climate change is are a political matter, which is not to be discussed on this forum.

Best,
-Slashy

Edited April 21, 2018 by GoSlash27
Typo (thanks LordFerret)

[kerbiloid]

Does he have KSP ribbons?

Which KSP ribbons does he have?

Edited April 21, 2018 by kerbiloid

[LordFerret]

11 hours ago, Kernel Kraken said:

Just kind of worried, like the --- comments he made a few years back kind of made me question his qualification,

 

30 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

1) His views --- have no bearing on his ability to effectively manage NASA.

2) His views ---(are) a political matter, which is not to be discussed on this forum.

Best,
-Slashy

 

Perhaps he knows better, perhaps he knows something others don't. You don't attain such a position being a crackpot. Peer review groups are to be likened to belonging to a popular school girls group; They have an agenda, they're backed by that agenda, and you're easily thrust out when the others gang up on you because they feel you don't belong (or are told you don't belong), which doesn't make them or what they believe right... and that applies to anything.

[Mr. Peabody]

Not everyone believes in climate change. Or evolution. That doesn't make them unscientific or a crackpot. They have doubtless reviewed all the evidence on both sides and have come to their own conclusion, which they are entitled to. Early astronomers mocked the heliocentric view of the universe, that didn't make it wrong. It was later proven correct. They could be wrong, but then, so could you. Especially when it comes to areas with no real definitive proof.

Don't anyone go starting a war over my perfectly rational comment...

[MaverickSawyer]

I'll give those who are unhappy with the appointment some advice...

Mav's Rule Of Life #5: Don't criticize someone else unless you KNOW you can do the job better than they can.

Mav's Rule Of Life #8: Whatever you feel is going wrong can ALWAYS be worse.

Officer Training 101: DON'T. TAUNT. MURPHY.

[razark]

On 4/24/2018 at 11:12 PM, MaverickSawyer said:

Mav's Rule Of Life #5: Don't criticize someone else unless you KNOW you can do the job better than they can.

[snip]

If someone says "We can solve this airliner crashing by putting 50,000 kittens in a blender", I do not have to be a pilot or aerodynamics engineer to realize that it's still a bad solution.

 

Corollary: Compromise is not always a proper solution.  If you propose blending 50 kilokittens, and I propose blending none, blending 25 kilokittens is not the right answer.

 

My edit:
How are we supposed to discuss if a person is qualified, if we can't discuss what qualifications are, or how we determine if a person is qualified in the first place?!?

Edited April 26, 2018 by razark
Edited 7 hours ago by Vanamonde

[MaverickSawyer]

16 hours ago, razark said:

If someone says "We can solve this airliner crashing by putting 50,000 kittens in a blender", I do not have to be a pilot or aerodynamics engineer to realize that it's still a bad solution.

 

Corollary: Compromise is not always a proper solution.  If you propose blending 50 kilokittens, and I propose blending none, blending 25 kilokittens is not the right answer.

But, your example actually proves my point: you KNOW you can do the job better than the person who made such claims, therefore you can criticize them (and rightfully so!).

[razark]

4 minutes ago, MaverickSawyer said:

But, your example actually proves my point: you KNOW you can do the job better than the person who made such claims, therefore you can criticize them (and rightfully so!).

On the contrary, my point is that I don't have to have a better (or any) solution to point out that a bad solution is bad.

I don't have clue how to keep an airliner from crashing, but I do know that blender kittens is not going to help.

[MaverickSawyer]

34 minutes ago, razark said:

On the contrary, my point is that I don't have to have a better (or any) solution to point out that a bad solution is bad.

I don't have clue how to keep an airliner from crashing, but I do know that blender kittens is not going to help.

Well, whoever made the argument that blendering kittens would change something completely unrelated obviously doesn't grasp that, so you're clearly more capable at the job. Heck, you're even willing to admit you don't know, which, imo, is a welcome thing.

Also, note that my rule doesn't specify that you have to have a solution right off the bat... you just have to be better than the person currently in the position. 

[YNM]

2 hours ago, razark said:

I don't have to have a better (or any) solution to point out that a bad solution is bad.

Well, "not doing anything" is also an option.

 

[Kernel Kraken]

12 hours ago, YNM said:

Well, "not doing anything" is also an option.

 

The only way to win is not to play, eh?

(Why I stopped argueing in this thread)

 

[Vanamonde]

Please go back to talking about the appointee. The epistemology of job expertise is off-topic for this discussion. 

[LordFerret]

7 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

epistemology

Wow. That's a big word, even for these forums. Come now, admit it... thesaurus at hand. Right?

[Kernel Kraken]

7 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

epistemology. 

Hey Siri, what does.... Eliquiddehmology mean?

EDIT: just realised that a less than savoury version of the word 'urine' was used in the above mispronounciation. Apparently it's autocorrected to 'quidd'

Edited April 26, 2018 by Kernel Kraken

[Vanamonde]

Guys, if you know there's something you can't post about on this forum, please stop posting to say that you know you can't post about it on this forum. And keep things on-topic, too, please. 

[Chel]

In order to be the right person for the job of running a space program, you only need one thing: an addiction to coffee. 

[Bill Phil]

9 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

In order to be the right person for the job of running a space program, you only need one thing: an addiction to coffee. 

As long as it isn't Dale Cooper.

Then again...

[StrandedonEarth]

On 4/26/2018 at 9:02 PM, The_Cat_In_Space said:

In order to be the right person for the job of running a space program, you only need one thing: an addiction to coffee. 

And know when not to drink the coffee...

Spoiler

 

I don't think he's a bad choice. He doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to run the program, he just needs to know how to run the program. More importantly, how to wring money out of Congress, for the right things.