This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
TrumpSpace

Bridenstine Gets A Thumbs Up From Sean O'Keefe

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 26, 2017
Bridenstine Gets A Thumbs Up From Sean O'Keefe

Jim Bridenstine is the leader NASA needs, op ed by Sean O’Keefe, The Hill
“Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.), the president’s nominee for NASA administrator, is facing criticism regarding his qualifications for the job. These concerns seem to be rooted in a clear preference instead for a nominee possessing skills or experience as a scientist, engineer or technologist. Perhaps most critically, some have dismissed Bridenstine’s experience as inadequate given that he is an elected politician. But if history is any guide, technical skills are not necessarily requisites for success leading this storied agency. While several previous NASA leaders were credentialed or experienced in such disciplines, this was not a clear determinant for success. And contrary to the critical view, Bridenstine arguably has the best qualifications for success given the challenges ahead.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

17 responses to “Bridenstine Gets A Thumbs Up From Sean O'Keefe”

  1. Moonman1969 says:
    0
    0

    I hope Bridenstine will work out. I agree with O’Keefe, a technical degree is not a requirement. Far more significant is political acumen and leadership skills, which by the way includes a requisite for followership-someone who will listen to the technical underlings and make the appropriate choices. NASA has no shortage of technical competence. I think they are lacking in some of the other skills like leadership and political acumen. BTW Sean O’Keefe, in my view one of the best Administrators after James Webb. He knew how to balance NASA’s roles, missions and priorities. I hope the next Administrator can do as well.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Yes, if it wasn’t for the bad luck of the Columbia Accident, and that ice chunk could have damaged any orbiter on any launch starting with the first one, he would have guided the OSP to a down select and NASA wouldn’t be in the sad shape we are today. But President Bush had to replace him with an engineer, Dr. Griffin, who had the perfect designs for rockets and didn’t care about politics or reality.

      • Moonman1969 says:
        0
        0

        Dr. Griffin had the perfect design for rockets and a capsule that did not match. His rockets were not powerful enough and his capsules were (1) capsules and (2) they were too big and too heavy for the needed missions.

        It really does not say much to support naming another physicist/engineer in the position. He might have been more effective if he’d had his managers and engineers analyze what was needed and then design to the requirements. It also does not say much positive about the top ranking NASA managers; instead of speaking truth to power, they acted like lemmings and followed their misguided lead. A lot of them have now left NASA but many of them are still there.

        No one needs another Apollo-it sidetracked the long term goals of humanity the first time and proved unsupportable. No reason to think a series of sorties in throwaway capsules that orbit or even land on the moon will be any more supportable this time.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Thanks, I corrected it.

          More likely since Dr. Griffin had designed a similar Mars strategy for the Planetary Society he just refused to listen to them.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Minor correction: The loss of Columbia involved foam insulation, not ice. Ice, as a source of foreign object damage, was investigated as a possible factor in the loss of Challenger. It wasn’t, but the Rogers report did make recommendations to pay attention to ice issues in the future.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Correct. I was thinking of the cycle of freezing and melting that weaken it. But that is one of the weaknesses of side mounting spacecraft and a problem they never solved.

    • Michael Kaplan says:
      0
      0

      Remember JIMO? What a debacle!

    • savuporo says:
      0
      0

      If O’Keefe and adm. Steidle would have stuck around instead of Griffin, something resembling VSE would probably actually have been implemented, instead of the massive boondoggle that Constellation became.

  2. DP Huntsman says:
    0
    0

    Only in arenas where folks don’t know anything about NASA or space issues would Sean O’keefe’s endorsement be considered a positive. He was a terrible NASA administrator; and implemented ‘policies’, if you can call them that, that led directly to the Columbia accident. Bridenstine should be considered on his own merits – and, demerits – regardless of an endorsement from someone like O’keefe.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Typical NASA person response. Someone who held the job endorses the nominee and does so invoking yet another NASA administrator – and you sit in your cubicle and complain.

    • Moonman1969 says:
      0
      0

      I cannot imagine how O’Keefe had anything to do with Columbia. That was a known problem for years and as one NASA Shuttle manager said, every Shuttle manager that let it go without even thinking about the problems shares the blame for Columbia. Some of those people who share the blame are still with NASA in high positions today.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Wait – you are blaming O’Keefe for Columbia’s loss? Really? Show me the report that substantiates your claim. You are really going off the deep end on this one Dave.

      • DP Huntsman says:
        0
        0

        Negation. CAIB -which promised beforehand not to use the word ‘blame’ applied to anyone- was, thruout, absolutely clear that the sole focus on schedule, with absolutely no regards to any consequences, or what the system could actually handle, was a major contributing factor; it can even be interpreted as the contributing factor. That source of schedule Uber Allen while he was in the White House was Sean; and making sure that relentless unforgiving push on schedule was the main reason he was made Administrator. Not deep end, Keith; history.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          Now you are interpreting. Show me where Sean O’Keefe was listed – by name. And if you are going to interpret then look back at who set the schedule that O’Keefe inherited from his predecessor. That schedule was set by the ISS program long before he even arrived. for a vehicle that had made over 100 flights. Also, O’Keefe was not picked to run NASA based on schedule pushing. I wrote a book on this. You are just making things up.

        • Moonman1969 says:
          0
          0

          O’Keefe was selected because he had control over the budget, something NASA did not have and which cost some people their jobs as ISS program manager. The only way in which O’Keefe had an effect on schedule was to actually make some progress in getting ISS assembled in orbit, and that began prior to his term. Remember also that O’Keefe had a Vision, which became the VSE, which was derailed by his successors.