While the statement by the bureaucrat Luedtke was pretty direct, he isn’t NASA. When employees of NASA make statements, they only give an impression of what NASA itself endorses.

It’s perfectly correct to say that the impression that NASA places corporations above citizens is not desired. It says nothing about the nature of the statement made by one NASA employee, only that said statement should not be used in constructing an impression of what attitude NASA as a whole supports.

That said, personally, Im going to cut Griffin a break. As the head of a large organization, he identifies with the organization. As a result, I imagine that the public perception of NASA is a significant issue in his mind, and he regrets that the public has gotten an impression that does not reflect well on the organization. Thats not to say that the public should not have gotten that impression from Luedtke’s comments. But Griffin doesnt believe that it is an accurate picture of NASA, so he regrets that the public has been given that “impression.”

Finally, hes being diplomatic because you dont say in public of your employee of 20 years, “Hes being an ass and is dead wrong.”

1) Methodology. From all accounts Battelle is very good at what they do. However, on the face of it, all that really promises is the honesty of what THEY report. Who devised the survey? Was it a true random sampling, or was it voluntary response (as suggested above). How were the questions worded? Was any evidence (date/time/location) gathered as part of the survey? Is there any coroboration of these incidents?

If voluntary response, the whole survey is essentially meaningless.

*IF* (and at this point in time, I rather doubt this) Mr Griffin is unaware of the details of the methodology, then he is right to .. um.. waffle.

Yes, personally, I think by the time he got in front of Congress he should have known *exactly* what was done and by whom. But, of course, I have no proof.

2) I have decided that his comment that he regrets the “impression” actually makes sense. He’s talking about the perception the public has of NASA, not what, specifically, Luedtke said. It’s a rather diplomatic (overly diplomatic) way of saying “Look, Luedtke is a jerk. NASA does NOT put the interest of this industry over the safety of the public”. He’s not saying that Luedtke didn’t give us that impression – he did. He’s saying he’s sorry Luedkte opened his yap and GAVE us that impression. (this is using a couple definitions of impression: 1) effect producted by agency or influence 2) notion or belief )

I just wish he’d not been so politcally correct and just said flatly that Luedtke was wrong.