Blogs / Bad Astronomy

Alan Stern is an astronomer, space scientist, and had a stint at NASA HQ as Associate Administrator of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. While he was there he was appalled when he saw cost overruns eating away at various missions, and the collateral damage they were causing other missions. He wound up resigning when he realized he couldn’t do what he was tasked to do (including controlling costs), because he was countermanded by people higher up in the NASA pecking order.

Alan wrote a scathing editorial in the New York Times today, and I must admit I find very little if anything in it that I disagree with. While I was a contractor for NASA, and all the time I have worked with NASA projects, I heard stories of missions that ran hugely over budget, and how that impacted other missions (including ones I worked with, so I saw a lot of cutbacks take their toll). NASA has a finite budget, so when one mission runs over cost, that money has to come from other missions.

What NASA needs is oversight, more accountability, and people in its management structure willing to take responsibility for these overruns.

Ironically, what it also needs is more money. The basic fact is that getting to space is hard, takes a long time to plan out, and costs a lot of cash. Of course, in general I think this is money well spent, and I will argue that vehemently, and so will others. What NASA does is important, and the money we spend we get back multiplied many times over. But that doesn’t mean NASA should get a wheelbarrow full of million dollar bills and a wink of the eye to acquiesce spending money as it sees fit.

With more money — and of course with the money it gets now, less than 1% of the national budget — comes responsibility. NASA does great things, fantastic things… and it can be doing far, far grander work. But it will take quite a bit of self-inspection and change in the status quo to get it done. Mike Griffin, the current NASA Administrator, will almost certainly be on his way out next year. I hope the Obama Administration will find someone to step in who has the vision, the plan, and the management know-how needed to get NASA flying straight.

Tip o’ the space suit helmet to SpaceWriter.

I don’t know if I should file this under "Politics" or "Death from the Skies!" Maybe both.

Or maybe just "Humor". Yeah.

PostScript: Republicans? Are you listening here? You may want to throw Governor Palin into a sack and lock her in a cellar somewhere far, far away, to prevent her from ever doing media interviews again. I’m just trying to throw you a bone here.

Last week, I wrote about NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, and how he may be replaced when Obama takes office. Given that he was a Bush appointee, I imagine he must be thinking he’s on his way out as NASA’s top banana. That may explain why he made a public statement aimed at Obama about NASA’s future.

Basically, he said that the incoming Administration needs to stick with going back to the Moon, and that backing down from such an endeavor would be a mistake. After commenting that he would be honored to continue on with NASA if asked, he said:

“Two successive Congresses - one Republican and one Democrat - have strongly endorsed the path NASA is on. I think it’s the right path,” Griffin said.

“For 35 years since the Nixon administration, we’ve been on the wrong path. It took the loss of (space shuttle) Columbia and (the accident investigation) report to highlight the strategic issues to get us on the right path,” he said.

“We’re there. I personally will not be party to taking us off that path. Someone else may wish to, but I do not.”

That’s a pretty strong statement, and makes clear his thoughts (refreshing from someone in charge of a government agency). I happen to agree with him; going back to the Moon is what NASA should focus on, as long as the science is not sacrificed.

The caveat here is the economy. If we lapse into a depression, then NASA may be the first on the chopping block. But I hope that’s not the case; NASA employs many thousands of people, and letting them go would be a huge mistake, both economically and for the future of the nation.

Also, the rockets that take us to the Moon will be capable of vastly larger payloads than we can currently loft, making solar system and deep space science easier. Look at what the Cassini Saturn probe is doing, and then imagine launching much larger probes with far more capabilities than we have now… going back to the Moon can benefit all of space exploration and science if done properly.

Personally, I think Griffin will be replaced, and I don’t have a clue who might be the person to take over. But I do hope they listen carefully to what Griffin has to say. Some of what Griffin has done in the past needs to be forgotten (or maybe even apologized for), but on other topics he’s right on the money.

With President-elect Obama coming in to shake things up — and they will get shook, don’t you fret — a lot of agencies will change. NASA is a government agency, and the head is NASA is Mike Griffin. I’ve had plenty to say about him in the past, both good and bad. I think I’ve called them like I’ve seen them.

DarkSyde over at Daily Kos has an interesting take on Griffin. Some of it is fact, other parts speculative. I know Griffin is conservative, and I know his stance on global warming is probably significantly different than mine — but I wouldn’t necessarily yell "conspiracy" without lots of evidence. However, I find a lot of what DarkSyde writes rings true.

I honestly can’t say whether Griffin has been a net positive, negative, or neutral for NASA or not. He has done some things very well, but has fallen flat elsewhere. I’ve talked to many friends in NASA, and affiliated with it, and their opinions differ about as much as anyone else’s. No help there. I guess history may tell.

I’ll add that it’s traditional that when a new President comes into office, agency heads tender their resignation. The President then decides to accept the resignation or not. We’ll see what happens with Griffin, and I expect Obama will move on that sooner rather than later.

People are speculating wildly that Robert Kennedy Jr. may be on President-elect Obama’s list of people to head the Environmental Protection Agency. If this is true, it’s a big deal. Why? Because RFK Jr. is a major antiscientist with some pretty severe dissociations from reality.

He’s an antivaxxer, which is very, very bad, and he’s the worst kind: he still thinks thimerosal in vaccines causes autism, and studies have shown conclusively — I mean 100% rock-solid literally-bet-your-kid’s-life-on-it conclusively — that thimerosal has nothing to do with autism.

Skeptico has details, but he’s also not worried: he finds no evidence that RFK is even on Obama’s radar. I certainly hope Skeptico is right. Orac has a lot of info, a lot, about why RFK Jr. would be as dangerous an EPA head as any completely unqualified anti-environmental hack Bush has appointed. Skeptic Dad chimes in too, as well as Steve Novella. Look around the blogosphere, you’ll find more.

Let’s hope Obama has more sense than that. He’s shown quite a bit over the past few months. I hope it’ll extend into the foreseeable future.

I’m kinda busy right now, but y’know, if this gets traction, I may have to free up my schedule. As an added bonus, I might get to hang out with a friend.

But I dunno, do you want these guys running the country’s Scitech?

We’ll promise bacon and a Mintie in every pot.

Sigh. I guess if I get a phone call from the 202 area code I’ll be sure to be on my best manners.

They say all politics is local. So what front page did the Chicago tribune consider last Wednesday?

Here’s the back story, for those wondering what I’m talking about. And yes, I know the picture is a joke.

Image courtesy Head Candy. Tip o’ the red flashlight to BABloggee Paul McLellan.