I have some questions for Lori Garver, and answers, over at Popular Mechanics.
[Saturday morning update]
I should clarify the nature and history of this.
Some people have accused me of throwing her softballs.
Guilty as charged, mostly (though be aware that PM edited some of my questions, though not, of course, her answers). I am unapologetic. And I am pleased to have nauseated Mark Whittington (if I really did, given as he is to hyperbolic exaggeration). That, to me, is always a sign that I’ve done something good.
I make no pretense to be a “journalist,” at least in the hypocritical journalism school sense, nor do I make any pretense of objectivity, at least on this subject. I do, however, unlike many of the hysterical critics of the new policy, adhere to reality. I support this policy, and have never tried to hide that. While it’s not perfect, I think that it’s far better than anything that has come before, going all the way back to the beginning of the space age. While Lori and I have often had our (friendly) differences, I think that she has been unfairly beaten up and slandered for the past few weeks (if not longer) and my purpose was to elicit her views, on the record, and put them into a widely-read popular venue. Not to mention get a little money.
As for the issue as to whether I “let her get away with” things, it should be understood that this wasn’t a back and forth, with follow up. I wanted to do that, but PAO said to submit a list of questions, and she would answer them. I could have followed up on this result, but that would likely have delayed publication for more weeks (it was about a month between when I submitted, and when I received these answers). I thought that it was more important to get this out there now, when I had it, prior to the upcoming event on Thursday, than to delay it further.
[Late evening update]
I just realized (I missed it when I first saw the piece on line) that I get a little overedited. In the phrase, “Can you talk about how much curvature in the wake we’ve seen over the past ten years to provide some context for where we are now relative to the “golden years”…it was submitted as “Goldin years” (i.e., a reference to the administrator when she was an AA). The PM editors probably missed the reference, and thought that I’d just misspelled it. I’m trying to get it fixed.
It bothers me that NASA sees a large part of its role as inspiring the flock. Can we not just go to space instead of being “inspired” by NASA?
Just curious. As a NSS director in the 1990s, what did Garver say about Clinton’s lack of leadership concerning America in space? Any comments about him basically ignoring NASA for 8 years? She didn’t light any fires then, and she ain’t doing it now.
We’re supposed to be dazzled with the “in 5 years” or “in the future” comments. We had a program to get us back to the Moon. And now… we have a program of demonstration projects that may get us around the Solar System someday in the nebulous future? Here’s an idea. How about saying we’re going to do the demonstration stuff, leading to America being on the Moon, or a NEO asteroid, or Mars by 2018?
Mark me down as unimpressed with Garver. The good news is… Obama, and Garver, have 2 more years on the job. And then, NASA starts it quest beyond the shuttle all over again.
Jim,
[[[And then, NASA starts it quest beyond the shuttle all over again.]]]
The question is will there be enough left to rebuilt with once the workforce spread to the four winds with Kennedy a ghost town and the Shuttle just roosts for pigeons.
The one difference is that previous presidents at least left their successors with a core foundation to rebuilt from instead of a collection of make work technology programs.
Tom
Acknowledging that it may simply be political tripe, this:
is my favorite part of the interview.
Frankly I found the interview awful on a number of levels. It consisted of a lot of softball questions answered by spin and downright falsehoods. It was frankly gag inducing.
It was frankly gag inducing.
Considering the source, that must mean I did a good job.
The administration’s 2011 space budget being prassed around by Lori Garver is flawed as noted by Congress . As a space reseacher and writer I view the possitive aspect of commercial spcaec development and tgyhe veil of VASMIR development,
Buyt the utter lack of distinations and goals out of LEO is an outrage. Boldin and Garver alonmg with Holdren the national Science advicer are taking the nation down the wrong patrh. Holdren is a radical of the climate change far left. Garver is a political pupit.
The country needs a craft to fly a crew of 6 to 8 to LEO like the Dream Chaser. And a Delta IV with 6 strap on stages for Heavy Lift . We can park cargo in lunar and Mars orbit at that point
Those of us in the NAR or TRA go out and actively teach students, and in my 41 yeatr engineering career, the Obama agenda inspires no one. WE hope Congress will correct this President who is flawed more than Jimmy Carter was.
Bold steps into deep space nbeed solid planning. Lori Garver doesnt get it.
I thought it was a good interview, and I think the new plan is a lot closer to the right plan
Those of us in the NAR or TRA go out and actively teach students, and in my 41 yeatr engineering career, the Obama agenda inspires no one.
In contradiction to your statement, I think you will find that the majority of people on this forum are inspired by the development of disruptive new technologies that help bring down the cost of space and bring it to the masses (propellant depots, tugs and insitu resource mining, etc.). And that they are very uninspired by expensive and unsustainable flags and footprints stunts that do little to develop such technologies to economic viability and advance the rest of humanity into space.
Commercial companies will provide multiple, redundant opportunities for access to low Earth orbit, not only for NASA, but for other government agencies and customers and nascent space agencies across the globe.
In other words, the “commercial market” is not space tourism, nor is it people accomplishing economically viable tasks in space that could plausibly be privatized. It will be just as it has been for the last fifty years, government space agencies using taxpayers’ money to pay the full bill, flying astronauts for the sake of flying astronauts, but this time we are going to call it “commercial”. Just as taxpayers recently became “customers” of the IRS. Gee, now all we have to do is get the DMV to call itself an “enterprise” and all of a sudden the long lines will disappear and the clerks will be friendly.
Rand did throw one hardball, and Garver swung and missed:
Q: …what do you think about the general notion of government “five-year plans”?
A: A caveat to begin: the agency is still planning its mission sequence and goals. With that in mind, within five years, I would expect to see…[the traditional centrally planned “next logical steps”, but now “commercial”]…NASA will be, at that time, developing our state-of-the-art heavy-lift vehicle that will take us into deep space for missions to a variety of destinations throughout the solar system…That exploration will include the government leading a return to the moon…
The reference seems to have flown over Garver’s head…unfortunate but alas not unusual that government officials are so ignorant of even recent history.
Government will “lead us to the moon” like it “led us” to LEO with the Shuttle and ISS…i.e. it will be on an economically fantastic path of its own that real commerce has no wish to follow.
You know, I’m becoming a big fan of Lori. If there was anybody that could bridge a gap in communication between the Apollo(on steroids et al.) crowd to the implementation of a broad spectrum approach to tackling near and far space goals — it would be her!
A technology development approach recognizes that NACA did not design the P51 Mustang, but rather the laminar flow airfoil that helped make it great. The NACA cowling helped all aviation as opposed to a NACA airliner that would have done nothing to open the skies. Properly handled, tech development will do more good than the biggest rocket or especially the fanciest power points.
Considering the source, that must mean I did a good job.
This isn’t intended as a personal shot, but no, no you didn’t. Politicians, and I’d include Garver in that, are expected to give non-answers, but if you’re going to pretend to do journalism, you have to at least ask hard questions. You have eight questions in your interview and all but one are softballs.
You seem to want to cheer lead for ObamaSpace and that’s all great and fine, but if you’re going to pretend to be critical, at least acknowledge that Garver is still giving the same sort of non-answers that she gave when she was on Kerry’s team in 2004. Non-answers that signaled that HSF was going to go nowhere under a Democratic administration.
I think you will find that the majority of people on this forum are inspired by the development of disruptive new technologies that help bring down the cost of space and bring it to the masses (propellant depots, tugs and insitu resource mining, etc.).
Worthy goals which FY2011 will hinder because those very same companies capable of developing disruptive new technologies are to be brought in the NASA collective.
To extend a metaphor used by Charles Miller, would the Wright Brothers have succeeded if they were federal contractors working under a government contract?
It will be just as it has been for the last fifty years
No, it will be very different because there will be different competing suppliers operating in parallel, which is very different from the single source culture of the past. Just like some of the starry-eyed enthusiasts you are overstating your case. If the new policy is implemented the situation will be very different from what it was, but not necessarily fully commercial. If Bigelow succeeds and achieves the flight rates he is hoping for, it can turn out to be mostly commercial. If not, then the new situation will be roughly half-way between fully commercial and single source government run, differing from each in about equal measure.
In either case it will be an enormous improvement over what we have today.
I’ve long said that a cultural shift is necessary at NASA and, indeed, through aerospace and possibly even other parts of the tech world.
NASA has for a very long time been a top down, command and control organization. While this organizational type is indeed appropriate for something like the Apollo era race to the Moon, it is a poor way of developing new industries. Bottom up, more democratic than authoritarian approaches work better at this. Just consider that the Wright brothers succeeded where Langley failed. That’s just an easy to pick example.
Let’s also consider two visionaries of the 1940s and 1950s. Wernher von Braun was clearly more authoritarian than Arthur C. Clarke. von Braun saw a few people on the Moon as a great goal. Clarke noted the possibility of communication satellites and the possible benefits to humanity. von Braun saw putting people on the Moon as a great feat. Clarke gave birth to a significant industry. von Braun did not.
I will end with a personal note. I was as fascinated by Apollo 11 as were most Americans. I don’t even remember the rest of the Apollo missions. By December 1972 I had decided to leave the field of physics because of conflicts in grad school and the lack of paying work. So much for inspiration. I only got reinterested in space because of Jerry O’Neill and his vision of colonies in space that would benefit humanity in multiple ways. That vision turned out to be premature, but it — along with people like Clarke — is more attractive than “flags and footprints”.
Bill,
[[[To extend a metaphor used by Charles Miller, would the Wright Brothers have succeeded if they were federal contractors working under a government contract?]]]
Good point and in fact that is what the Wright Brothers became before WWI, one of the reasons the U.S. was behind Europe in aviation was they focus on getting government contracts because of the revenue potential.
The other reason the U.S. was behind Europe was that in order to protect their government contracts from competitors, especially Glenn Curtis, the Wright Brothers sued anyone else who tried to build an airplane without paying them royalties. A major reason that the NACA was set up was to solve the patent mess by being able to buy and license the technology as well as developing technology all firms could have access to.
Hi All,
One problem with applying the NACA model to NASA is that the NACA disappeared when NASA was created. Although NASA’s roots are in the NACA and the NACA culture lingered for a while afterward at isolated locations like Dryden, its basically gone today. NASA is basically a different organization, created for a different purpose and the NASA culture forged to accomplish that mission, first during Project Mercury and then Apollo, of focusing on a single unifying goal and due date replaced the NACA culture completely. The small population of NACA veterans and their culture were basically overwhelmed by all the new entrants into the agency during that period.
That is why the Aerospace Commission’s Report in 2002 recommended the creation of a New NACA, instead of turning NASA into one, because it would be easier to create a new organization then try to transform NASA into something so far in its past that its just a dim cultural memory.
NASA has for a very long time been a top down, command and control organization.
All organizations are top-down. Bosses boss employees everywhere. The alternative is to split the organization up into a real market of many customers as well as many suppliers, paying with their own money. But alas, we can’t privatize an economic fantasy, we can only shut it down when people get tired of subsidizing it.
Let’s also consider two visionaries of the 1940s and 1950s. Wernher von Braun was clearly more authoritarian than Arthur C. Clarke. von Braun saw a few people on the Moon as a great goal. Clarke noted the possibility of communication satellites and the possible benefits to humanity. von Braun saw putting people on the Moon as a great feat. Clarke gave birth to a significant industry. von Braun did not.
This is well said and bears repeating. I might add that the U.S. military had already launched prototype comsats and that the private AT&T Bell Labs was already developing one for their communications customers when NASA joined the fray. Quite unlike von Braun’s economic fantasies which no practical users of space have or are pursuing, despite how the followers of this cult keep touting their “infrastructure” which they hallucinate will “lead” the way for commerce to follow.
I like the interview, Rand, and have forwarded it to quite a few friends, in fact.
I just wish you asked why Lori (and her bosses) were against “re-stacking” existing tech (SSMEs, SRB, ETs) into SDLV. And what do they all say to those who argue that we’re throwing away our launch infrastructure yet again (similar to the Saturn V situation).
I wanted this question asked, not so much because I support such a SDLV endeavor, but because it’d be nice to hear an official rebuttal to DIRECT propaganda.
“I support this policy, and have never tried to hide that. While it’s not perfect, I think that it’s far better than anything that has come before, going all the way back to the beginning of the space age.”
Huh. Even the 2004 VSE policy? (prior to Griffin screwing things up) You do know that the current Obama/Bolden plan fully endorses HLV, right?
Who knew that all it would take for Rand to love HLV, is more support for commercial HSF? (Just kidding Rand!)
In all seriousness though, there is too much heat and not enough light in the current debate. And the supporters of the new Obama policy are just as guilty of that as the critics.
Huh. Even the 2004 VSE policy? (prior to Griffin screwing things up)
Yes. The original VSE was too specific (and wrong) for me. I want to maximize technology development and minimize NASA development of operational systems, at least until we know what we want to do with them, and have affordable ways to do it.
You do know that the current Obama/Bolden plan fully endorses HLV, right?
It pays lip service to it. There is no specific plan to actually build one — just to do engine development. There’s plenty of time for the body politic to realize it’s unneeded.
John Hare, you beat me to it.
[New plan] pays lip service to [HLV].”
Doesn’t the new five year plan intend to spend three billion dollars on HLV technology R&D? That’s a lot of lip service!
I think the new plan’s extension of ISS operations past 2016 (and even hinting of extension beyond 2020!) is also a foolish waste of NASA’s limited resources.
Over the past twenty years I have summarized this about Lori. Most of her talent lies in her nose and rhetoric with little between the ears. Next to Griffin I can not imagine a more incompetent NASA manager. This was way to kind to her; this exchange was not worth the effort to produce or the reading of. It was so obvious and telling to see the true intent. Get real. Commercial deserves better. Truly disappointing.
Clarke wouldn’t have had a foot to stand-on if it wasn’t for Von Braun and Redstone. Yes Von Braun had issues and baggage even within NASA in the sixties. However I will not let those issues diminish his contributions or accomplishments. Von Braun was a product of “his time”. He was instrumental in getting that first “Clarke vision” satellite up there. He saved our ass back then. Granted today things have changed and we need a new outlook. To me that does not diminish what Von Braun accomplished. Like it or not we are still living off his legacy accomplishments and contributions today. NASA purposely parted company with Von Braun in the mid seventies. NASA has been pursuing its own paths since then. Von Braun would have directed us onto Mars in the early eighties with an Apollo based archtechiture reflective of the current budgets at the time. To deny that is a deliberate attempt to reflect the focus and to bend history in the process. NASA chose to break with Von Braun. Having used him they then chose to relegate him into obscurity to pursue LEO based, space shuttle and ISS and today we can see where that got us. Now we are doing it again, LEO same old deal different players. Been there done that.
I just wish you asked why Lori (and her bosses) were against “re-stacking” existing tech (SSMEs, SRB, ETs) into SDLV. And what do they all say to those who argue that we’re throwing away our launch infrastructure yet again (similar to the Saturn V situation).
Because this technology is a dead end.
SSME uses interesting technology (staged combustion) however it is excessively complicated and expensive to build. It will never be mass market. It makes sense in a reusable but not an expendable. It is also not air startable. I have my suspicions if the ignition sequence even allows that. Which means it must be used in a parallel staged architecture with engine nozzles that must work across the entire flight envelope. With all the mass penalties of a SSTO’s engine and none of the benefits from it.
SRBs are nice for military rockets because they are storable. The military can also afford payloads which work in a more vibration prone environment. Even the military IIRC often used hypergolics in the last stage so they could do terminal maneuvering in their ICBMs. However you cannot decently stop or throttle an SRB which means it is awful for a space launcher. Even a hybrid rocket has its own issues but at least it can be throttled.
ETs have some interesting work in there, like the aluminum-lithium tanks. However these niceties are more manufacturing process, people, or facility related, than actually design or product related. I suspect you could easily manufacture some other tank design using the same materials as long as the dimensions are reasonable so the tools can work on them. These are IIRC the people who proposed to manufacture a tank for the X-33 with a completely different geometry. Given rockets are no longer of the size of a Saturn V the facilities themselves became less interesting even if the skills are as relevant as ever…
So yes I propose throwing it all away. IMO the Saturn V technology was actually more interesting than this, had it been re-purposed for building a smaller launcher.
What the US actually needs in the launch space is new engine designs. A larger cheap LOX/Kerosene first stage engine in the RD-171 class, large hybrid engines, a larger LOX/LH2 or LOX/LCH4 expander cycle restartable engine. All projects which actually were funded at a time but canned.
Without propulsion space launch is impossible. Also, it would be nice to see some staged combustion in that LOX/Kerosene first stage, given first stages love the extra engine pressure, but I fear it may be a step too far for present US rocket research. Still best of luck for Rocketdyne for getting that RS-84 contract restarted.
I have filed this article and interview away and marked to revisit in five and ten year intervals. By then we should have an inkling as to the impact of Lori and flex on our NASA MSF. I sense her comments will be very relative at that time. Time to put up and deliver on your hype Lori. Now as history unfolds we will see what you truly bring to the table.