Bill Nelson has been nominated for NASA administrator

[tater]

Title totally stolen from @insert_name who made a post for JB.

I presume the complaints about a NASA Admin needing to be a scientist will be entirely forgotten by anyone who made them a few years ago, not least Bill Nelson himself, who specifically said the position should not be filled by a politician.

He is the architect of the technical triumph that is SLS, however, so he's got that going for him, which is nice.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-commits-building-mandated-heavy-lift-rocket/

Was hoping they'd pick Lori, even if she sorta jumped the shark.

Edited March 20, 2021 by tater

[MKI]

I think Jim Bridenstine did a good job with the messaging and setting the right kinds of budgets, which makes sense as a politician in charge of a science organization. I think he might set a new precedent that will continue, where you get a science capable politician to head the agency. I hope things keep chugging along with Bill Nelson. Looking forward to SLS missions and the James Web (PLEASE do not fail!)

For me, the SLS is a disappointment so far. Its crazy expensive, and behind schedule. Neither of which make much sense for what should of been a way to reuse old parts.

 

Also I guess Bill has gone to space before though? So at least he has that "perspective" you get with that view ;D

[tater]

I said in the Bridenstine thread that being a politician was probably a plus. Bridenstine himself just said as much as a comment to Nelson's nomination, a classy response given how poorly he was treated by Nelson (who fought Bridenstine's confirmation).

I think Nelson might not be the worst choice (there must be someone worse), but he's a pretty awful choice, IMO. Lori Garver (deputy NASA Admin under Administrator Bolden) would have been a superior pick in every way. I'm sure there are others as well who could have been nominated by this administration—most any of whom would be better than Nelson, IMO.

[Barzon]

Everything I've heard is that Bill is very supportive of both commercial space and SLS/Orion. 

[Meecrob]

He's gonna have to pick one though...

NASA was "supportive" of commercial crew after all and we all saw how on-time that was due to funding.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Meecrob

[tater]

53 minutes ago, Barzon said:

Everything I've heard is that Bill is very supportive of both commercial space and SLS/Orion. 

He changed his mind once they started spending in FL.

Before that he had said that the entire 6B$ for commercial crew should just be given to SLS.

I think he'll be at best a placeholder admin. He has no special skills, no real vision. And he's ancient. Wonder how often he'll dodder to the different facilities?

[SOXBLOX]

I expect disappointment. Because reasons.

But if they mess up JWST... 

[tater]

It occurred to me that when Nelson said, "If we can't do a rocket for $11.5 billion, we ought to close up shop." I was thinking that maybe his first job at NASA would be to close up NASA, then it occurred to me that he said "we," and at the time he was in the Senate... so maybe he means to close up the Senate.

If that's the right take...

Godspeed, Administrator Nelson!

[MKI]

I don't put too much stock in what politicians say, since... they are politicians haha. 

I'd say right now, as long as Bill continues with the previous administrations goals I'd be happy. Getting people back to the moon, and getting SLS and Orion actually flying would be a nice goal that is already set in motion. Obviously the SLS isn't cheap to fly, and is a personal disappointment, but NASA and the government aren't exactly known for being the best at making stuff economical ;D

On the horizon, figuring out what to do with the ISS, and setting up the next batch of "high profile missions", such as Europa Clipper are stuff Bill will have to be responsible for. How it goes will probably only be determinable in hindsight. 

The "worse case scenarios" are sudden penny pinching, the JWST failing, or any of the big name missions getting significantly pushed back or running into failures. Obviously you can't blame everything directly on Bill, but he will take the blame if any of these happen.

The wild card is SpaceX. If Starship gets going NASA can have a possible "partner" that can blow past all the bureaucracy in the name of $$$ and memes and totally change the space game. In that sense SpaceX might be the biggest question mark going forward for NASA, especially in the next 4 years.

[YNM]

On 3/20/2021 at 2:56 PM, MKI said:

The wild card is SpaceX. If Starship gets going NASA can have a possible "partner" that can blow past all the bureaucracy in the name of $$$ and memes and totally change the space game. In that sense SpaceX might be the biggest question mark going forward for NASA, especially in the next 4 years.

SpX is still on the whim of it's owner though pretty much. If he dies or something so will the rest of it...

Would say that Gateway is already way too far into the commitment, so anything that can be named as "in support of Gateway" won't be axed either. Honestly I can see a win-win solution between ISS and Gateway - ISS would be relegated to commercial development, Gateway would be the new ISS for the governments.

[Flying dutchman]

Spoiler

How about Willy Nelson?

 

[tater]

11 hours ago, YNM said:

SpX is still on the whim of it's owner though pretty much. If he dies or something so will the rest of it...

Would say that Gateway is already way too far into the commitment, so anything that can be named as "in support of Gateway" won't be axed either. Honestly I can see a win-win solution between ISS and Gateway - ISS would be relegated to commercial development, Gateway would be the new ISS for the governments.

ISS can be continuously crewed, but Gateway will only get used a couple weeks a year.

Gateway exists because That's all SLS/Orion can do, get to Gateway. The Moon has far more international interest than Mars, however, so it's a good goal. Would be nice if other space programs spent as much as NASA does per citizen, however. The combined GDP of the ESA member states must equal or exceed that of the US, yet they spend almost nothing on ESA.

[YNM]

25 minutes ago, tater said:

ISS can be continuously crewed, but Gateway will only get used a couple weeks a year.

Given we already have resupply mission from JAXA planned for it sometime in 2024 (this document, this page) I think it'll see continuous manning much like ISS currently does.

25 minutes ago, tater said:

Gateway exists because That's all SLS/Orion can do, get to Gateway. The Moon has far more international interest than Mars, however, so it's a good goal.

Plus neither Ariane 6 nor H3 can loft anything substantial to LLO anyway...

Honestly I think that SLS won't be the one that seen to take the spotlight in the end, it'd mostly be remembered as something that helped put a few stuff up but beyond that it's all commercial/near-commercial. SLS launch cadence now does look very silly but back when we're flying Shuttles 3/4 times a year, expending what's basically an ET and two SRBs to loft payloads was already the routine anyway. The only real pain in the back was RS-25 which had to be cost-reduced because RS-68 won't fit. (SLS is really close to Ares V in all but engines, as well as upper stage where they doubled down from the J-2s.)

 

Anyway this isn't the thread for it, I apologize. Godspeed Bill Nelson.

Edited March 23, 2021 by YNM

[SOXBLOX]

1 hour ago, tater said:

The combined GDP of the ESA member states must equal or exceed that of the US...

*Checks Wikipedia*

By nominal GDP, the US is $21 trillion, while the EU is $15 trillion. But by Purchasing Power Parity, the EU is $19 trillion, and the US $21 trillion. So, they roughly equal the US. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the EU doesn't levy a direct tax, and instead takes "contributions" from member states. I bet that sort of screws with the budget for ESA.

[tater]

31 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

By nominal GDP, the US is $21 trillion, while the EU is $15 trillion. But by Purchasing Power Parity, the EU is $19 trillion, and the US $21 trillion. So, they roughly equal the US. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the EU doesn't levy a direct tax, and instead takes "contributions" from member states. I bet that sort of screws with the budget for ESA.

Don't you need to add the UK and Norway to that? Still, that only gets the GDP to ~18T$.

[SOXBLOX]

5 hours ago, tater said:

Don't you need to add the UK and Norway to that? Still, that only gets the GDP to ~18T$.

Didn't think of that... 

[tater]

I'm kinda hoping Nelson gets savaged and they need to pick someone better...

^^^

Kathy Lueders rocks.

[wumpus]

On 3/19/2021 at 4:17 PM, Meecrob said:

He's gonna have to pick one though...

NASA was "supportive" of commercial crew after all and we all saw how on-time that was due to funding.

NASA was somewhat supportive (I'm sure they preferred micromanaging all the details), Congress was responsible for the funding issues.

[kerbiloid]

On 4/18/2021 at 12:06 AM, tater said:

I'm kinda hoping Nelson gets savaged and they need to pick someone better...

On 4/16/2021 at 8:41 PM, sevenperforce said:

 

Starship fails - Kathy wins.

That was easy.