I worked for a major NASA contractor at Kennedy 2006-2008. February 2006 NASA responded to that (W Bush) Administration's vilification of scientific findings and fact by revising it's Mission Statement, and...'the phrase "to understand and protect the home planet" was quietly removed' (www.ucsusa.org). About a year later; however, we office drones received an email from NASA Director's office ordering all personnel to refrain to speaking or reporting to and inquiries from the Bush Administration that was not coordinated through that office. Since we only received retirement and holiday greetings from the Director, this was surprising to my other lowly co-workers, who wouldn't be talking to the White House about anything anyway! We often ran into logistical snags in our operations BECAUSE scientists and engineers were the primary decision makers, but now it seems the pendulum has swung back to a more nefarious side of ??? Although I have had to leave the area, and 10,000 of my neighbors, in search of better job opportunities, I could not dispute the decommissioning of the Shuttle due to the fact that NASA and USAF contractors had been systematically "stealing" profusely from NASA's coffers every savvy business way they could manage. Now it seems those very same types of thieves are being placed in NASA's head office, so I really am not surprised.
5
“Well, he’s no fan of L.G.B.T.Q. people. Calling the Supreme Court ruling that made marriage equality the law of the land “disappointing,” he’s also on record as describing the Obama-era executive order supporting transgender students as “lawless federal bullying.””
I agree that NASA is lost. They are spending untold billions on the SLS rocket, which is essentially a jobs program, when SpaceX’s BFR rocket will be just as capable plus reusable and thus much cheaper.
But not sure what this has to do with LGBTQ views. The vast majority of the world, including many Americans, disapprove of LGBTQ for longstanding moral, cultural and religious reasons. Some people may be more open minded but there’s no reason to criticize a NASA administrator for a common religious view that has little to do with his job.
7
There's something else that hasn't changed in 50 years. The New York Times is still normalizing sexist language like "manned." And, no, "manned" is not "gender neutral." You are literally saying "man." Try "NASA's crewed space program."
1
Somehow the phrase “ Danger danger, Will Robinson” seems to apply to everything these days,
6
What qualifications does an English professor at Barnard College possess that entitles her to criticize this appointment? I notice that Mr. Bridenstine is a former Naval Aviator, a profession from which at least one space shuttle pilot has been chosen.
1
What a mess of an article. This idea of people going to Mars is a distraction to milk money from tax payers for military contracts. At this point, the world has been pacified to believe anything they see on tv is digitally created anyways. Sure, turn the Moon into Disney land, but a "Space Force" is ridiculous. The space will be ruled by tourists and robots.
2
I got mad at Maureen Robinson when she went on her rant against Don West and "reminded" him that a mechanic had cleared the Challenger for flight before it exploded.
Do the writers on this show really not know the history of that disaster? Concerns about the O-rings had been raised by the engineers doing the hands-on part of the job. But reports change and evolve as they get pushed through the upper layers of engineering management. It was during that process that those concerns voiced about the O-rings disappeared.
The writers need to do better research on the safety and quality assurance issues between mechanics and engineers vs. engineering management. Don West should have been able to stand up to Maureen and pushed back against her blaming mechanics for the Challenger. That was very wrong and both of them should have known better.
Bridenstine sounds like a disaster. I bet he doesn't know better either.
6
It is more than hard to know where to begin. Much of our nation's greatness came from the response to Sputnik. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo. The moon landing, the Hubble Telescope. Who can forget the Christmas Eve circumlunar navigation, the reading from Exodus and the picture Earthrise. Who can forget"The Eagle has landed" . Who can not acknowledge the beauty of the images of Hubble. I must in the same breath remind that the WH occupant wants a military force in space (against international agreements of long standing). This is a travesty of the first order.
6
Please do not infect the universe with our destructive ignorant species. We are well on our way to planetary destruction with over population and our use of our oceans as a toilet.
Its a failed experiment lets just do one honorable thing and stay in our corner.
3
This hire is inexcusable, but so are Carson, Perry, Pruitt, DeVos et al.
They're all unqualified, Trump-loyalist bigots determined to torpedo government responsibilities for the health and welfare of our people and our planet (and now other planets!)
9
I work in cybersecurity for U.S. Air Force space systems.
The author of this article watches too much TV.
Generally speaking, manned space flight is dumb. Attempting to live at the bottom of the Marianas Trench, or the pop culture media concept of "terra forming", for instance, of the Sahara Desert, would be significantly less absurd than a manned Mars mission.
3
I am not a fan of Mr. Bridenstine for all these reasons, but it is unfair or unnecessary to give him all these headlines (I have seen quite a few) like "can you believe a non-scientist has been named NASA administrator". In fact, most if not all NASA administrators were not scientists and many have definitely been climate change deniers, such as Michael Griffin (2004-8). Before him was Sean O'Keefe, who wasn't all that bad, but had absolutely zero connection to the space program before he came in under Bush. I'd like far better as our administrator but at the very least, from what I know, Bridenstine does possess knowledge about space operations. We'll see. Remember that it is not his job to decide what NASA does, only to oversee it. Congress recently defied the White House and not only upped NASA's budget (a shock), but restored the earth science/climate related missions that the White House requested be canceled completely.
-Ben, NASA & space program worker
7
I can envision Dr. Smith walking into the Oval Office right before trump's grilling by Mueller and proclaiming "Never fear, Smith is here".
1
And you are in a position to judge his competence - because? Please explain..
I find Ms Boylan to be consistently tiresome and this is more of the same. Don't like this administration and it's picks? Vote in 2020. But all of this "resistance " is bringing government to a halt. All you have to look at is the smearing of Ronny Jackson by " anonymous" sources to understand the techniques used to disparage candidates. I used to be a liberal - not any more.
3
Bridenstine may be a horrible choice, but we don't necessarily need a scientist to run NASA. Frankly, the best engineers and scientists I've worked for/with were horrible managers. NASA needs a leader, one that can facilitate great work and articulate its mission to Congress for funding. Bridenstine is incapable of that.
I can't imagine working at NASA and having such a scientifically ignorant "leader". Talk about demoralizing!
4
" in 1967. “Lost in Space” was on television.
This week — a generation later —"
I am aware of people living longer and getting children later
but '50 years = generation' is ridiculous ...
2
The first thing the contributor thinks to write of when analyzing the qualifications of the new boss at NASA is his perspective on gay people getting married and gender confusion? His complete lack of relevant experience in the field doesn't tell the complete story? Can the Times not give the gender confusion topic a rest for even one solitary day?
5
The inmates are running the asylum.
5
Although having an unqualified ignoramus like Bridenstine lead NASA is just one of many events marking the end of America's former lead in all things STEM, there is still China out there to pick up where America has left off. I weep for America, but simultaneously realizing that the entire planet has not given up on the future of the planet.
5
I’ve worked with Congressman Bridenstine’s staff over several years - on a variety of space related topics.
They, with some chagrin, took limited responsibility for his incredibly inaccurate writings ...we used to kid with our space programs colleagues about how - and I use the word carefully - since it sounds like something that everyone is saying about trump - that Bridenstine is just ignorant.
However, when presented with various facts about space based weather programs, both processing and the actual satellites, Bridenstine still was ignorant. So, he is actually stupid - and we all knew it.
Perhaps he is so ambitious, and such a suck up, that he can’t see that he and his new boss - are - well - stupid.
Sigh.
11
We haven’t been “recovering” from the 1967 Apollo 1 disaster: after it we landed a man on the moon and we had subsequent moon-landing missions, the shuttle program, the space station program and a number of probe and unmanned missions. But for well-over a generation we HAVE been largely grounded, due to shifting priorities for funding. Has to do with the vastly increasing cost of our social safety net since LBJ’s Great Society programs really made us all about feeding the multitudes and providing their healthcare – not about exploring the cosmos at other than a snail’s pace.
Whether or not Bridenstine is the perfect choice for director of NASA is irrelevant: no NASA director is going to manufacture a budget sufficient to launch men (and women) into space again; not while entitlements and other social welfare programs consume over 50% of our national budget and discretionary spending continues, every year, to be squeezed more than the year before. Due to the repeal of tax deductions and exemptions, as well as the immense rise of state and local taxes over that period from fractions of what they once were, we’re now at a point at which much of America just won’t tolerate higher taxes at ANY level; and higher taxes was never a particularly popular option. If we want to place a greater emphasis on manned space exploration, it will take a great deal more than finding a highly qualified NASA administrator: it will take a paradigm shift in how we view social priorities.
4
If NASA’s budget magically doubled tomorrow, the agency could provide detailed plans for spending the money immediately, with or without Bridenstine. That’s not about to happen soon; and, since we’ve obviously made a choice to remain grounded to pay for band-aids, it may never happen again, at least not in America. Given this reality, Bridenstine is a mere caretaker and one doesn’t select a rocket scientist to be a caretaker.
Then, if I were looking for an intelligent or even a relevant opinion regarding LGBTQ rights, NASA’s director wouldn’t be my first go-to solon, or even my fiftieth, regardless of his or her background.
I get it that Jennifer doesn’t like Bridenstine, possibly mostly for his ill-advised and irrelevant convictions regarding non-cis identity and behavior. Whether because Gawd tells him to despise the non-cis, or because he’s no longer relevant as caretaker of an agency that we have so degraded and starved that it just doesn’t matter much anymore, she would be more productive as an observer by just ignoring him.
Just as America has abandoned manned space exploration, it has abandoned NASA. Will Robinson and his family won’t be coming home anytime soon.
2
I notice that it is "entitlements and other social welfare programs" that are at fault, not our bloated defense budget or the trillions we are committing to spend over the next several decades updating our nuclear arsenal. Do we really need to have a military in over a 130 countries to feel safe?
8
What percentage of the federal budget does NASA claim? It is down to less than half a percent, which I’m sure you can verify; at the height of the space race it approached 5%. I am approaching 35 years in the aerospace industry, an astronautical engineer by degree, and ground support veteran of numerous NASA missions, both manned and unmanned (as well as DoD, NOAA, and commercial ventures). We tend to disagree on many issues, but I respect your opinion regarding most; in this case, however, I will claim hard-earned expertise, and declare your commentary utter nonsense.
The demise of NASA has NOTHING to do with “social safety nets” and “social welfare programs” as you claim – the false equivalence of budgetary priority is sickening. NASA’s budget is a drop in the bucket, barely worthy of notice to either end of the political spectrum, and hardly the stuff of difficult decisions regarding trade-offs versus ‘entitlements’ as you so knowingly claim. Ridiculous!
The problem with NASA’s budget has nothing to do with social programs stealing funds, nor gender identity rights (how you worked that in is beyond me), et al. NASA is actually, rather famously for those who have worked for the agency either directly or via contract, a favorite whipping boy by both the left and right. The left paints it as stealing food from the mouths of starving babies, and the right as stealing opportunity from nascent private enterprise space farers – both claims are preposterous.
15
Please don't call Mr. Bridenstine a "skeptic." The man denies the fact that every professional scientific society in the world tells us is true: climate is changing and it is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. That is not being a skeptic: it's being a denier.
15
It is a fitting article. America has become a country in which the party which controls most of local and federal governments is against higher education and particularly disdainful of Science. We now can only ride in the backseat of other Countries space ships. America's slow continual decline...continues.
12
" ... NASA 'struggles with poor cost estimation, weak oversight and risk underestimation,' the GAO said." (Washington Post, 2016) I live in the Houston area, where NASA has always been a favorite. But after the stunning successes of the Moon landings, the Hubble space telescope, and some of the Shuttle flights, it seemed to become an endless campaign for more funding. We got a lot of headlines like "Only the third time a Shuttle landed on a Thursday". There was a rumor that NASA hired a Home Shopping Network executive to boost fund raising. Similar to the military contractors, NASA has a LOT of contractors whose primary goal is to extend their contracts. Which means don't finish any missions. Overruns of factors of ten and more became common. NASA is no longer primarily a scientific project, but a mostly money pit. Yes, there are dedicated NASA scientists, but the money talks.
3
An entire column about America's future in space and not one mention of Space-X, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic or Bigelow?
NASA serves an important role in space exploration, but it's clear that the future of space will be due to the entrepreneurs, not on which particular bureaucrat is in office or which rebooted science fiction program is back on TV.
2
I think entrepreneurs will be exploiting space. I'm not sure they'll be exploring it.
6
None of those companies have achieved what the Soviet Union and Yuri Gagarin did in 1961. I'm sure they will, but they are 57 years behind at this point.
1
Space based telecom systems don’t mean entrepreneurs are going to the moon ...jeez.
Space X is getting huge bucks from government contracts - it is the new basis for their business case.
2
Well the new reboot is cinematic, visually stunning, never boring (so far after I've seen the first two episodes) and yes, it has a cool robot that says "Danger, Will Robinson!"
3
Bridenstine's perceived impact on NASA programs pales in comparison to the nearly irreversible impact on the environment and public health the shenanigans of Pruitt are causing. Pruitt's danger lies in his ability to circumvent the will of the people by being able to dismantle or not enforcing regulations and establish new ones that only can be challenged in the courts. In contrast the major NASA programs need Congress' approval and oversight. Congress has the strength of the purse behind it to enforce compliance. Even this otherwise lamentable Congress has recently gone against Trump's disastrous federal R&D funding proposals for the sciences, including NASA and NOAA space projects for FY 18, and actually approved substantial funding hikes for many programs, including climate related. The sense is that it will do likewise for the FY 2019 and forcefully override Trump's fund slashing proposals for science R&D.
Hopefully Pruitt will self destruct shortly. Bridenstine may well survive his Trump administration tenure, with NASA becoming a bit more unfocused as a result of his incompetence, but with many of its programs already approved and nurtured by the oversight of Congress and its doling attitude toward space exploration.
20
Rudy:
I had vague hopes for Pruitt after seeing how hard he came down against the abusive bro culture that's taken over the Forest Service, as detailed in the NYT. I've never even seen a feminist rage that hard over the systematic harassment of women in the workplace.
But alas, expressing a determined zero tolerance stance against workplace sexual harassment appears to be his sole moral virtue. Overall, he is a hazard to the planet. For shame.
2
Another catastrophe for America! How the Senate could approve this guy to run NASA is beyond comprehension. We will certainly loose our role as space exploration leader in the world. Another terrible day for the USA. Why is it that Trump has so little regard for science and engineering in our country? To be sure the private sector will try to pick up the slack and may well do well but their incentive is to make money while NASA was science driven before Trump. As a former aero-astro nautical engineer I find this most troubling as NASA was the last bastion of scientific endeavor in the administration and America. The end of a Trump lead government cannot come too soon.
18
Fun article. The new series IS addictive.
3
I am not surprised by the choice of NASA director. The sad truth is the president is doing the best he can.
2
"Back in 1965, the Jupiter 2 blasted off in the futuristic year of 1997 because the earth was threatened by overcrowding"
Here we are in 2018 and the earth is still threatened by overcrowding. Instead of just talking about climate change, we should be having honest discussions, across all countries, about limiting population growth which is a big driver of the damage being done to our only home. We are heading towards a dismal future with too many people and not enough jobs and resources to take care of everyone.
25
Unfortunately when population growth becomes an issue, as it did in China, there is a preference for boys. So, with enforced population limits, there will be many millions of men and only a few women. Hardly a recipe for a peaceful future.
1
We haven't the time or money for space. Endless War offers so many countries to exploit (we call them failed states), occupy and bomb. All the money goes to the War Dept and the wealthy.
11
When the Space Program first started in the 1960's NASA took up 5% of the US Budget. Today it is less than 1% of the US Budget. We're now having civillian Billionaires like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Richard Braonson picking up the slack.
US Defense Budget is past $800 billion/year. 7 times more than China.
5
Bridenstine needs no technical or managerial expertise. His job is to take the $20 billion that Congress is shoveling out for the Space Launch System pork-delivery project and pass it along to the contractors. And maybe sometimes look concerned about how some science project thing or other is taking too long or going over budget.
8
Thank god its not the people at the top that make the space program work, but a bunch of competent scientist and engineers.
19
Those competent scientists and engineers need good people at the top to give direction and focus, to maintain high morale, and to make sure funding is available. Without those things, the good scientists and engineers will leave, the agency will deteriorate, and nothing much will be accomplished.
2
Sorry you didn't like the 1997 "Lost in Space" movie. I thought it was very well done and was a good tribute to the original series. Yes, the Will Robinson of the movie was like Star Trek's Next Generation Wesley Crusher, a somewhat overplayed "boy genius" type, but that was the worst flaw, for me at least.
But the reason for NASA, the reason for going to space was summed up well over 20 years ago in the series Babylon 5 by J. Michael Straczynski, a reporter asks the station Commander why should we be in space. His reply, "There's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics, and you'll get ten different answers. But there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in 100, 1000, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't take just us, it will take Marylin Monroe, Lao Tse, Einstein... All of this, it was for nothing. Unless we go to the stars."
19
Only lost in the "space between its ears....."
4
One should note that in a previous incarnation, on the classic twilight zone episode "it's a good life," Mr Mumy played a four year old child who had destroyed the entire world except for one small Midwestern town which he ran with the despotic destructive energy of an amoral child. Hmm.
This entire administration should be wished into a cornfield.
31
NASA was the born the gift of Nazi German rocket scientists and Soviet Union Cold War communist science. As an adjunct of the military-industrial complex it is a miracle that any basic science was ever accomplished. Some space projects are too big and important for the private sector or any single nation. What is NASA's mission now?
7
Providing launching pad and satellite tracking services for Elon Musk’s private sector SpaceX?
I’m in Spain right now and there are a lot of 40-somethings walking around with NASA logo t-shirts so who knows what’s up with the agency?
These appointments are symptoms, not the root cause. About a third of Americans “know” that good ole country common sense is all that’s required for any job. In that world education and experience just get in the way of common sense. Anti intellectualism hasn’t sprung up recently in America. I left my Kansas family and got a PhD from a Left Coast university. In their eyes I’m now a traitor to the Real America and to my class. They respected my good grades up to when I went to graduate school.
24
You might have said Spoilers! near the top. Luckily, I watched it already.
2
Yes, "Danger Will Robinson". This article is a whole bunch of fluff with one purpose - to alarm the credulous. I note not a single quote from a NASA person. I review grants for NASA. NASA has an active research program and is solving problems that are current impediments to manned space flight. Not a mention of that. Not a mention of the NASA 10-year, 20-year, 30-year plans, which are public. The author, who is not a scientist, engineer, or NASA official, is basically unable to understand the subject that she "reports" on. What a shoddy misrepresentation of the current situation at NASA. It, as per usual these days, replaces actual reportage with tired liberal alarmism at the state of the Nation under Trump. It's very tiring to read, and very devoid of actual facts.
7
Perhaps you'd prefer the recent GAO report, which notes that "The cost and schedule performance of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) portfolio of major projects has deteriorated, but the extent of cost performance deterioration is unknown. NASA expects cost growth for the Orion crew capsuleone of the largest projects in the portfoliobut does not have a current cost estimate. In addition, the average launch delay for the portfolio was 12 months, the highest delay GAO has reported in its 10 years of assessing major NASA projects."
I've been following NASA for some time, and I recall the many slips in the SLS schedule. It looks like those will continue. JWST has slipped 19 months, to May 2020, and GAO reports in may exceed its cost cap. What happens then?
Bridenstine may be good for commercial space launch activities; we will have to wait and see. But he's unlikely to be good for NASA science programs.
As for the sate of the nation under Trump, I see plenty to be alarmed about. Sorry you aren't paying attention.
12
NASA has deteriorated because Obama basically pulled the plug on space travel and exploration by the US and slashed the budget, getting rid of engineers and others en masse. This is like blaming Trump for the technical problems the IRS has - Koskinen was the head for 8 years and watched it rot without doing anything to modernize the technology. But it's always easier to blame Trump than to think an independent thought.
So George, what do you think of your new non-scientist, problem-solving boss? Think he’ll close the store? So much for your 30-year plan. Sad.
2
I remember vividly how, when the first moon landing occurred in 1969, my local paper trumpeted the event with the headline MAN OPENS DOOR TO UNIVERSE. There seemed to be an assumption that before long humans would establish a permanent presence on the moon and then would be going on to reach for a landing on Mars. But now, almost fifty years later, we have yet to walk through that door. There has been a fair amount of worthy scientific research done within the shuttle program, but the impulse for human beings to venture farther off the planet seems to have been lost. Instead, NASA has assumed an increasingly vital role in investigating what is going on with our climate. The selection of Bridenstine seems to be just one more instance of Trump appointing someone to head a department or agency with the explicit intention of undermining it's fundamental purpose. The sad part is that in turning away from research into climate issues the Trump administration may well be moving us toward a future in which the degrading of our environment will actually require humanity to seek another world to inhabit...and we will not be anywhere near ready.
8
Climate change research is vital to our long-term national interests. That should have been under a different federal agency, like the EPA (not that it would matter under the Trump Administration). Making it part of NASA made it an enemy of Republican lawmakers.
They just don't want climate change to be researched, because it might hurt the fossil fuel industry. You know, the industry whose own scientists already knew about the effects of their business on the climate 30 years ago.
18
NASA has survived so many political twists and turns while still learning and exploring, it can also survive this. When democrats regain power though, let’s not go cancelling everything just because it has GOP fingerprints on it. Let’s instead give it the thirty billion dollar budget it needs and its dedicated scientists and engineers deserve. Keep learning, keep exploring.
11
No fan of Trump's pick, but I think NASA has been adrift mostly since the Obama administration. The privatization of space, Tesla roadster notwithstanding, was Obama's main solution to the lack of real monetary and ideological commitment to NASA and space exploration.
7
And yet, despite spending billions of dollars on the SLS, we are still years away from its promised “more powerful that the Saturn V” form, and we have yet to launch even its less powerful variant. At the same time, SpaceX has not only demonstrated their ability to land and reuse its Falcon boosters and its Falcon Heavy, but is on its way to beating the SLS to the “more powerful than the Saturn V” crown with its BFR.
Initially, I was skeptical about Obama’s decision, but now it seems like the best thing to happen to American launch capability since the Saturn program.
NASA continues to excel at science missions but the cozy relationship between the aerospace industry and Congress has failed us when it comes to launch vehicles. SpaceX proves that there is a better way.
2
This article should be read in tandem with the Friedman's op-ed on the 'war' with China. With Bridenstone in charge of our most advanced technology agency we are definitely not looking to win this war
7
Growing up, Sally Ride was one of my childhood heroes. At some point, some religious figure or another told me I that I should pick a new hero because she was gay — back in the day when people still said ‘gay’ in a hushed whisper like it might summon the devil.
I remember very clearly that I looked at the person in total bafflement and was like “what does that have to do her being the first women in space?”
The more modern analogy is that religious figures have swapped out ‘gay’ for ‘democrat’. The more things change, the more they stay the same I guess?
44
It was not known that Ride was gay publicly until after he death in 2012. Highly unlikely you knew back then, as she was married to fellow astronaut Steve Hawley from 1982-1987.
The Republicans are dedicated to the destruction of learning and education, what better way to sell their "fake news".
24
Bridenstine's appointment to NASA and his attacking the very premise of NASA's mission is just another example of the dismantling of our government institutions. This White House and the unqualified Trump cabinet and agency "Ministry of Truth" appointees--Bridenstine, Carson, Pruitt, Perry, DeVos, Admiral Ronny Jackson's failed (thankfully) VA nomination, et. al.--are collectively signalling the end of the meritocracy, where ability and expertise matter. It used to be that government service was a noble calling, an opportunity to use one's knowledge and skills to advance the well-being of all citizens. Sadly, under Trump, that appears to be fading fast.
25
NASA has a long history of sending monkeys to high places. Jim Bridenstine is no exception. Hopefully, the good people at NASA can learn something useful from this experiment. I'm sure the study can't be over soon enough.
20
Trump is the barbarian who could introduce America to the Dark Ages. The age if the irrational and the religious extremist.
10
We need massive government spending on much more important missions right here on earth.
4
All of NASA's money is spent "right here on earth."
23
One of the unintended consequences of the Cold War was that it triggered a race between the US and the Soviet Union to develop the most advanced technology, a contest that persuaded even conservatives to support public investment in scientific research. This competition not only contributed to substantial advances in our understanding of the universe; it also fostered the development of technologies that have transformed our economy and society.
In the absence of this stimulus, we would have had to rely on the research of private corporations, whose need for profits dictated the kind of innovations they pursued. Bell Labs, as one reader notes, did engage in extremely valuable research without the requirement of an immediate commercial payoff, but those activities depended on the monopoly profits the mother company earned in the telephone industry.
Today, most companies face demands from their investors for a more immediate return on research. Even the entrepreneurs behind Space X envision rocket technology as as a source of profits from carrying payloads and tourists into space.
Only government possesses the resources necessary for the kind of broad research we need to expand our knowledge of the universe and to develop the technology that could re-invigorate economic growth while possibly helping us reduce the impact of climate change. Trump's contempt for government prevents him from understanding this reality.
11
One teeny tiny step for trump, one huge leap backwards for humankind. This time trump will really fake a moon landing and FOX and the Enquirer will tell their gullible audience it was real.
With an anti-science trump appointee, of course America will be lost in space. And no "Space Force" will remedy that. How will he understand orbiting a flat Earth? No wonder trumplicans want to end Earth observing satellites showing us the catastrophic damage humans are causing in exchange for capital to instead look outward. I'm sure the Russians will love that!
NASA, America's crown jewel, lost to trump. I assume his base is proud of that.
Unfortunately, America is lost in a trumpian world - planet trump - a world even more bizarre than any Twilight-Zone episode ever. This is "The War of the Worlds" trump style - with radio and TV personalities to promote the farce - even Orson Welles would be terrified!
If this is not proof of the DEVOLUTION of humans, from our pinnacle landing on the moon back down off a cliff to trumpian level abyss, what is? From the Big Bang to the Huge trumpian Implosion. “Danger, America! Danger!”
12
"Are we not men? We are DEVO." They called it back in 1978.
6
Considering Rex Tillerson was Secretary of State, why is it surprising that Jim Bridenstine is running NASA?; since when do qualifications matter to President Trump? At the same time, let's accentuate the positive: Mr. Bridenstine probably won't last long in this position, either, At best, he'll be replaced by another political crony, or even more incompetent business flunky Trump seems to value so dearly. If anything else, there is rarely a dull moment with the Trump administration.
5
Has NASA dumped the new heavy-lift booster and the Orion capsule program?
Von Braun said that by pushing the technology to the limits, you could send a manned mission to the moon on the top of a single, large booster. We did that with the Saturn V and Apollo. However, to go farther, you would need to boost several components into low Earth orbit and assemble the mission in space.
I suppose the Orion capsule could be mated to an auxiliary stage with extra fuel and supplies, for a run to Mars, or for a long term presence on the Moon.
Come on, NASA, get with it. If he's that bad an administrator, you should be able to work around him, and have something to offer when a real leader takes over.
3
"What would you say about a world in which President Trump appoints this same man as the agency’s director?"
This is the kind of person Trump wants in this position, like his Cabinet appointees -- he doesn't care what happens to a given agency, he merely seeks people he can control -- people more inane and incompetent than he is.
In fairness, during the Apollo era James Webb (namesake of the space telescope) was appointed director of NASA, and he had no science background. JFK realized that the head of NASA is a policy position, not strictly a science position.
That said, we need someone who understands good policy decisions, and Bridenstine clearly does not; that's the real problem here.
81
Great column - sad though.
18
I just read "the Idea Factory" about Bell Labs, which invented the transistor, the laser, communication satellites, information theory, and two of the most productive computer languages. When asked about the reasons for its success, one of its workers said it was because management at the highest levels was required to be highly knowledgeable about science and technology.
So now we have a Republican government that prizes ignorance and stupidity. I expect the US will soon lose out to other nations who know what they are doing, at least on the technological front.
66
Every branch of government, including NASA, will come away from the Trump disaster damaged. But it will not last, and we will pick up the pieces. Or destiny belongs in the stars even as we repair the damage we have done to mother Earth. It will simply take better people than those appointed by this sociopath to do it. Get busy in November!
34
If we want NASA back, we will need another large country to get ahead of us in the space effort. Then, in the spirit of "my button is bigger than yours", we might be back in the race. You have to play this guy.
12
Ohhhhh! I get it.
This is fake news wrapped in a space story to make us read that Trump's choice for NASA was incompetent .
Maybe NASA is an anachronism and the current director is just a care taker until we can morph the space business into private hands. Maybe space was yesterdays news. We have been performing the same low orbit experimentation for 50 years, time to return the money that NASA burns doing these same redundant routines over and over and allow these private companies some subsidies to pick up the slack.
Jennifer, bad job on this misleading story.
3
Subsidize private companies? Don't you believe in the free market?
9
Too bad you've missed out on all of NASA's spectacular missions exploring our solar system for the last several decades. Check out their web site to see what you've missed.
33
Precisely which facts in the article are not true? I will also point out that the Hubble telescope and a host of radio frequency telescopes that NASA launched were neither low orbit nor redundant. These instruments have increased the inventory of known stars and galaxies by several orders of magnitude. To discount and outright dismiss these efforts is misleading and genuine fake news sir.
12
Well Sputnik caused the reaction of Kennedy's vow to go to the moon. I assume when China lands a man on the moon in about 5 years, that's when panic will set in in Pentagon and an all out effort to compete will kick start a new race.
17
"Lost in space" reflects our fears. Some choose to address those fears with denial while clinging to the past for dear life. Others find someone to blame which we're seeing with the MAGA crowd. Still others give into despair and just stop trying altogether. What we need is another leader who like JFK has a "yes we can" mentality.
As a nation we've always been strongest when we actually work together to address the issues of our time and focus on new technology in order to accomplish them. Some would argue that the space race was a waste of money yet look at the technology that entered the civilian world as a result. Hopefully the backwards thinking that this administration has ushered in will be an aberration and another wave of American greatness is just around the corner.
16
"What we need is another leader who like JFK has a "yes we can" mentality."
.
We tried that. "Si si puede."
1
Perhaps more to the point: NASA will be another soup kitchen for corporate welfare. Its mission: to make sure the CEO's of Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Raytheon etc are able to explore and seek out new gargantuan mansions so as to install life on uninhabited tropical islands.
10
America gets the government it deserves.
5
Whatever it was, I promise to never ever do it again!
9
But why did they leave Earth? Did too many of some desecrating species foul the Earth--the mother ship?
2
At home and at work, I drink my regular coffee from a Victory mug. If you know what that is and have actually used one, you are old enough to remember the original "Lost In Space". That was a quaint tv show about future travels in space.
.
It reflected the primitive rules of 1968 diversity. Humans. All white. 3 men. 3 women. A teen boy and a robot. Why a teen boy and not a girl? No doubt the male writers knew all of the potential draw backs of being trapped on a distant planet with a teen queen, that had no access to a phone, makeup, new fashions and no other teen girls to gossip to and about. Teen boy, problem solved.
.
Today, most everyone I know, drinks coffee or some version of coffee, from a $40 Yeti cup or an appropriately logo'd stainless steel mini-drum. And, as coffee cups have moved into the 21st century, so have our space cadets. The actual travelers and their media clones will have their identity bill-boarded. What ever skill they bring to the venture, will be preceded by their skin color(not White), their sexual identity(not binary) and their preferred sexual partner(all of the above).
.
If you are confined to one of the coasts and live in a protected liberal enclave, you may be surprised to learn that Trump voters might watch this show for a laugh.
.
"Hey, did you guys watch that space show on Netflix, last night?"
"No, Carl, we all have the Directv All Pro Sports Package and we were watching Belgian Electric NASCAR. See this? It's a B/E NASCAR Victory mug."
1
" All white. 3 men. 3 women. A teen boy and a robot. Why a teen boy and not a girl? "
They were all white because it was a single family that did not happen to be multiracial-- not because NASA independently chose 6 white people. There were 2 girls, Penny and Judy Robinson, in addition to the boy, Will Robinson. The girls were apparently invisible to "Mike".
This is an example of how ridiculous "identity politics" can get, when they look for something to complain about.
One might wonder why NASA would found a single-family colony that could not produce another generation except by engaging in incest, but that's another problem.
11
You are correct. I forgot about Penny. That Netflix catch phrase, "This is Us meets the Martian.", should help bring in more eyeballs.
The year was 1965. This was not "identity politics". There were no other "identities" on television. The Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, for reference. You may also find it diverting to consider that the only black person with a prominent role on TV that year was Bill Cosby, who played Scotty in the series "I Spy".
1
This article is an absolute piece of trash, it is unclear what point Ms. Boylan is trying to make other than to personally attack Bridenstone. Mr. Bridenstine, like any other American, is entitled to his opinion on gay marriage, and he is far from alone in his view that it was a disappointing development. The reason liberals are losing, and will continue to lose, is because they treat people who disagree with them like they are bad, evil or stupid, this is not consistent with our democratic ideals and it is not the way to win hearts and minds. The major point that Boylan misses is that many people don't want NASA in the climate change promotion business. If it weren't for Obamas decision to delay development of new space hardware, we would already be back in the manned space business. He chose to focus NASA on "education", many people are deeply skeptical of this mission. If this were a serious piece of journalism Boylan would have to acknowledge this important ideological disagreement. To many very intelligent and well informed scientists, NASA's adjusted climate data is the leading edge of a specious argument about what we really know about climate change and what is causing it. The public is badly misinformed on this topic and many of us feel that NASA is largely at fault. Of course one can't publicly share this view without being ridiculed, derided and overlooked. As long as this continues people like Ms. Boylan will insure that our society makes no progress.
5
Looking at the long arc of history, I would say that liberals are winning. It has been a very uneven path though. For comparison you could look at global warming (average over our entire planet). The long (century+) trend definitely shows the planet heating up. You can look at particular decades and try and draw a different conclusion, but you'd just be whistling past the graveyard. Perhaps this is what Mr. Wilson means by liberals losing.
11
Thus you contend that 97% of climate scientists worldwide are in error. As well as every county in the world, they all signed The Paris Accords, that is, all of them but the U.S. Also the U.S. military has climate change as a top priority. If you had 97 doctors telling you you had cancer, and three denying it, you would go with those three?
9
@NM Prof
Tricky to say that liberals are winning. More accurate to say that science is winning . Scientific knowledge has expanded vastly over many different fields. As but one example, science can explain how the earth's climate changes due to natural causes (e.g., cyclical changes of earth's orbit, variation in solar radiation) and how human activity is causing warming to increase at an alarming rate.
What makes the statement regarding liberals so tricky is that liberalism has changed since the '60s. 21st century liberals largely support scientific research on space and the climate. Contrast to liberals of the '60s, who were split on the space program. Some liberals of the '60's considered the space program to be a waste of valuable resources that were better spent on earth on the poor and needy. Kind of what Trumpsters want now, except that they want to spend on the wealthy instead of the needy.
America is now a country sadly led by people who do not believe in science and have no interest in dreams or exploration.
If NASA was able to show the moon was a place filled with gold, our administration would be there in a heartbeat.
17
Too much gold then. The price would drop like a reentry rocket.
2
Don West was a military officer with the rank of major in the original series, but in the current one he seems to be some sort of technician with a smuggling sideline (at least though episode 6). So, it would seem to be incorrect to say "Major West" smuggled scotch aboard the Jupiter.
1
Mr. Bridenstine does have one admirable trait evidently. He is loyal.
1
Not to that previous company that he embezzled from .
5
Maybe he should have made Roseanne Barr the head of NASA, that would really excite his base. The GOP base sees science, not as a provider of hope, of discovering new ideas and ways to look at things and yes, do things, but as a threat, the same science that created the medicine that saved a family member's life is a threat because it also points out that using petroleum products is killing the environment, that the cheap fast food and processed food that is making people obese is making medical costs soar, and that science, based on facts and observation and experiments, erodes 'deeply held beliefs' ie the prejudices and narrow religious views they want to cling to.
I would bet if polled 70% of republicans would say NASA should be disbanded, that 'private industry' can do what they do, cheaper. While I agree that space flight should be in the realm of commercial companies, NASA (and its predecessor, NACA), have been responsible for most of the major changes in flight that happened over the past many decades, everything from research into space flight to more efficient jet engines to automated control systems and so forth, happened under the auspices of NASA/NACA. What the idiot set and the GOP refuse to understand is commercial companies don't do basic research, and a lot of research that ultimately leads to new products is of itself 'not useful', something to make a beancounter cringe.
44
Absolutely. The private sector is good at commercialization. You want NASA to do the research.
6
Trump is a pied piper leading us away from progress on every front, from climate/environment to world standing/diplomacy (don't tell me he deserves a Nobel, please) to race relations and social harmony. November can't come fast enough.
9
In many ways, putting men on the moon looks to be the high-water mark for American achievement. Everything since then seems to be devolving and crumbling: our infrastructure, our institutions, the rule of law, our sense of national unity.
In response to the greatest threat to mankind yet to date - climate change - our leadership is in denial even as the glaciers melt and the seas rise. Worrying about nuclear annihilation - also making a comeback - is a more immediate threat, but the oncoming damage already baked in from climate change is going to happen regardless.
The space program pulled together the best of America and built on our strengths: investments in basic research, technology, and the people who made it possible. For the first time we got to see ourselves as one planet, looking back from the moon. We were united by it, and while naysayers grumbled about costs and pointless competition, all that money was spent here on the ground, creating jobs and whole new industries.
If I recall correctly, America spent more on cosmetics every year than on the Apollo program.
What we are seeing now is the triumph of greed. All that social and technological capital, all that achievement has been squandered to enrich the few and empower the corrupt.
Forget about being lost in space. For a lot of us in the Age of Trump, we feel lost in America. Or is that Amerika?
53
While we're on this subject of sending men to the moon, let's remember what Americans used to mean when they talked about sending a *woman* to the moon. As in, keep it up, Alice, and you're going straight to the moon.
If NASA did go back to the moon, I think they should leave a small memorial to Alice Kramden, a brave lunar voyager, at least in the eyes of many American women.
1
There was a much bigger cultural icon happening in TV sci fi that year.
Star Trek was in its second year. Its messages of inclusivity, science, tolerance, optimism, and humour were and are way more lasting than any other TV show.
We could use a bit of Trek wisdom and forbearance now. I’d like to think we’re on the road to the Federation, but if so, we seem to make halting progress at best.
81
Live long and prosper!
4
Live long and prosper. Think about it.
5
And if you look at the new Star Trek, it has abandoned the original message you aptly described and replaced it with too large amounts of savagery and violence. All its characters participate unquestioningly in waging war regardless of sex, race, creed, or planet of origin. Sigh.
9
Thanks for the allegory. Making America great again was never intended to deal with real issues that threaten humanity's health and well being. Rather, MAGA uses creative speaking (surely a fine synonym for lying) to convince people that the climate precipice is nowhere near, that mocking the disabled is admirable, that every mob of "conservative" or religious bullies has only the best of intentions.
Large swaths of our nation have succumbed to magical thinking. However, before a Gerrymandered minority elected our current grabber in chief, there was hope. Those who now refuse to read the writing on the wall are probably guilty of the same magical thinking.
Lost in Space follows the voluntary exile of a family; MAGA is about the voluntary exile of a country from the world and reality. For Trump and his supporters (including the curiously employed Bret Stephens), there is no joy in a Paris Agreement that suggests mutual sacrifice; there is no joy in an Iran nuclear deal that prevents a rogue administration from making war on what will surely be described as an alien life form (the "mullahs"); there is no joy in safeguarding the lives and dignity of transgender members serving in our armed forces.
Many of those Americans inhabiting this mortal plane already have one foot in heaven, a distant planet where deviation from the mean is immediately met with Hadean exile.
The other foot might arrive there sooner than they think. Along with those of the rest of us.
70
Your inclusion of Bret Stephens feels like a cheap shot to me. If he was representative of the current Republican party, the discussions/arguments we would be having would be more akin to a graduate seminar than a kindergarten class.
4
"before a Gerrymandered minority"
Oh, you mean the constitutionally mandated Electoral College.
She lost. Stop crying and deal with it.