Doug Loverro, Head of Human Spaceflight, Asked to Resign and did

NASA seems to have itself something of a scandal starting.

Doug Loverro was the associate administrator for NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. This is the directorate in charge of manned spaceflight. It is also the one directed to get NASA to the moon by 2024. Loverro was the one who selected the three different Human Landing Systems to be built by SpaceX, Blue Origin and Dynetics[1].

Effectively immediately, Doug Loverro has resigned[2,3]. In fact, he was asked to resign[4]. Apparently, Vice President Pence asked him to. Rumors that Loverro and Bridenstine had a nontrivial disagreement over getting back to the moon in 2024.

However, in Loverro's resignation letter than went out to NASA he stated:

“The risks we take, whether technical, political, or personal, all have potential consequences if we judge them incorrectly. I took such a risk earlier in the year because I judged it necessary to fulfill our mission...Now, over the balance of time, it is clear that I made a mistake in that choice for which I alone must bear the consequences.”

[5]

The interesting twist, though, was the NASA Office of Inspector General had started an investigation into the Artemis Program acquisition program[6]. it makes you wonder if the head butting was not the real reason Loverro was forced out.

Houston, we have a scandal.

1. www.nasa.gov...
2. www.engadget.com...
3. www.nasaspaceflight.com...
4. nasawatch.com...
5. spacenews.com...
6. finance.yahoo.com...

a reply to: anzha

honestly doesnt shock me in the least

NASA used to be about a goal, innovation and doing what people thought could not be done.

using technology that you now would not find at good will with knowledge about space that was at best limited.

now their just another government agency that is a model of inefficiency, waste and fraud.

here is one example (of many ).

early nasa in space race developed one of the most reliable and powerful booster systems of all time .. the saturn 5 rocket.

it was reliable, dependable and showed its value up until around the design of the shuttle.

when the shuttle system didnt pan out (a discussion for another time) they wanted to go back to powerful lifting rockets.

do they take the ALREADY dependable saturn and just update it with new (lighter and stronger) materials, better control system, ect..

in short saving the taxpayer money (the r and d was already done) and saving a large amount of time

NOPE

first they claim that all information from plans, blueprints, ect has been "lost " or "destroyed".
then they claim they cant remake it (who said they should) because all the skill/expert people have retired/died.

but the rocket they are developing (and capsule system) from scratch is very similar down to the shape as the old system.

taking MORE THAN A DECADE or more , overbudget, and STILL NO WHERE CLOSE to being ready.

but a company space X started in 2011 with the concept / specs and now in 2020 has a working system .
9 years from start to a USABLE system.

as reported the launches will be one percent (you hear this right) ONE PERCENT of what NASA pays.

orion system was started in 2006 and now in 2020 (thats 14 years) isnt as ready, cheap or even entering service yet.

IMO its time for the current NASA (for lack of a better term) to be demolished and reformed.

using the nasa of the space race combined with the savy of private sector as a template.

scrounger

a reply to: anzha

It would be informative to know the particular risk of which he speaks.

Loverro resigned on Monday, May 18th, however NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine did not mention the change to Vice President Mike Pence during the meeting of the National Space Council, which took place on Tuesday, May 19th. In a memo to staff, Loverro attributes his resignation to a risk he took earlier this year, but doesn’t explain what it was. “Our mission is certainly not easy, nor for the faint of heart, and risk-taking is part of the job description,” he writes. “The risks we take, whether technical, political, or personal, all have potential consequences if we judge them incorrectly. I took such a risk earlier in the year because I judged it necessary to fulfill our mission. Now, over the balance of time, it is clear that I made a mistake in that choice for which I alone must bear the consequences.”

www.theverge.com...

First manned SpaceX launch next week. I really hope it goes well.

a reply to: anzha

Perhaps he thought that NASA should be doing science, and leaving the PR to ad agencies?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: anzha

It would be informative to know the particular risk of which he speaks.

Just speculating, but maybe he signed off for NASA on the December 2019 Boeing CST-100 Starliner launch (which was NOT completely successful due to software issues) while possibly knowing that there were potential issues.

Again, I'm speculating. I'm just considering recent failures. That might have been a Boeing engineering failure, but it is also a failure for the entire NASA human spaceflight program.

originally posted by: scrounger
a reply to: anzha

honestly doesnt shock me in the least

NASA used to be about a goal, innovation and doing what people thought could not be done.

using technology that you now would not find at good will with knowledge about space that was at best limited.

now their just another government agency that is a model of inefficiency, waste and fraud.

here is one example (of many ).

early nasa in space race developed one of the most reliable and powerful booster systems of all time .. the saturn 5 rocket.

it was reliable, dependable and showed its value up until around the design of the shuttle.

when the shuttle system didnt pan out (a discussion for another time) they wanted to go back to powerful lifting rockets.

do they take the ALREADY dependable saturn and just update it with new (lighter and stronger) materials, better control system, ect..

in short saving the taxpayer money (the r and d was already done) and saving a large amount of time

NOPE

first they claim that all information from plans, blueprints, ect has been "lost " or "destroyed".
then they claim they cant remake it (who said they should) because all the skill/expert people have retired/died.

but the rocket they are developing (and capsule system) from scratch is very similar down to the shape as the old system.

taking MORE THAN A DECADE or more , overbudget, and STILL NO WHERE CLOSE to being ready.

but a company space X started in 2011 with the concept / specs and now in 2020 has a working system .
9 years from start to a USABLE system.

as reported the launches will be one percent (you hear this right) ONE PERCENT of what NASA pays.

orion system was started in 2006 and now in 2020 (thats 14 years) isnt as ready, cheap or even entering service yet.

IMO its time for the current NASA (for lack of a better term) to be demolished and reformed.

using the nasa of the space race combined with the savy of private sector as a template.

scrounger

NASA needs to get out of the space launch part of space exploration. Leave space launching to private industry and concentrate on what it does best: scientific investigation.

originally posted by: Scapegrace
NASA needs to get out of the space launch part of space exploration. Leave space launching to private industry and concentrate on what it does best: scientific investigation.

They also engage in aeronautical research of the terretrial kind. For example, they are currently doing reseach into "low boom" supersonic aircraft. What they learn from this reseach will ostensibly be available to aeronautic companies to develop fure supersonic passenger airlines that can be flown over populated areas without causing a sonic boom (or create only a minimal boom).

That's what big government research should be about -- i.e., doing the cutting edge (and expensive) research that later becoame available to all companies who then take the fruit of that research to develop the next generation of consumer products.

a reply to: Scapegrace

I personally dont think they should get out of space launch , colonization, bases or even exploration

we need to get the GOVERNMENT MINDSET out of the agency or better put back to its roots.

where their job was to take each advancement (be in equipment or mission) and master it. then build off that to the next one, the next one, ect.

take multiple goals and mesh them into each new challenge/mission.

the didnt worry about which "contractor" they have to please, which mission they have to fight for over the other, which person needs to protect their position, budget, ect.

along with ADVANCING their tech to next level.. not abandoning it for something else, then go back and in essence re-invent the wheel.
all the time bitching why people wont give them more money while at the same time going over budget , over target dates, and not getting what we are paying for.

today we have seen private industry can (and sadly does) outshine nasa and the ONLY REASON they are using them (instead of the past attitude you give us what we want and you stay out of it) is they have botched it so bad they have zero choice.

they should go back to mission goals and whatever is most economical and efficient do it.

but sadly NASA is just another bureaucratic mess.


scrounger

All of this controversy over something that is going to be tossed in the trash can as soon as a new budget comes out. Just look back at the history of all of the US attempts to return people to the moon. I get it. Politicians love their JFK moments. And they want to keep their aerospace engineers employed so they don't get work at Brand X. But the way everyone always goes along so enthusiastically with the fantasy is very entertaining.