Oh dear. The word from the Orlando Sentinel is that Mike Griffin is being, shall we say, less than cooperative with the Obama transition team.
NASA administrator Mike Griffin is not cooperating with President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team, is obstructing its efforts to get information and has told its leader that she is “not qualified” to judge his rocket program, the Orlando Sentinel has learned.
In a heated 40-minute conversation last week with Lori Garver, a former NASA associate administrator who heads the space transition team, a red-faced Griffin demanded to speak directly to Obama, according to witnesses.
I can only hope that this is not true, but I suspect that it is, given that the Floridian reporters have their ears very much to the ground on space policy issues.
I can understand not enjoying the process of outsiders coming into an organization you’re devoted to, and scrutinizing all the details of your work. However, as the parent of a particularly feisty four-year old, I find myself wanting to calmly tell Griffin in my best infinitely-patient-mom-voice to “make good choices”. NASA, like the country, needs the grown-ups to be in charge right now.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Griffin is a disaster. Time for the grown-ups to take over, absolutely.
I’d be happy to support your candidacy, Julianne. Between experience with space-based astronomy and experience dealing with four-year-olds, you’re the perfect candidate.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
[...] NASA’s Hissy Fit | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine NASA administrator Mike Griffin is not cooperating with President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team, is obstructing its efforts to get information and has told its leader that she is “not qualified” to judge his rocket program, the Orlando Sentinel has learned. [...]
December 11th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I’ve applied for the NASA administrator position…primarily as a mechanism to define a “feasible and realistic” strategic plan to get NASA back to contributing to the nation’s economy and prestige. There is no doubt that the Constellation Program will not survive in the Obama administration. However there must be a plan to replace Constellation that keeps NASA’s budget revenant…I’ve proposed that a technology development program is the direction NASA should take and have been seeking support from the aerospace community and congress (see below) for this plan.
I am concerned that we will again get an administrator that will not be able to make the technical and culture changes needed at NASA. I would like to see and would welcome a public debate on how best to direct NASA’s future in the Obama administrator.
Don A. Nelson
See proposed plan at; http://www.nasaproblems.com
===================
Letter to Congress
Defending NASA’s Budget
NASA’s $230 billion Constellation Program for developing transportation vehicles to support a 7 day lunar mission will not survive in the Obama administration. The prospect of spending billions more for foreign launch services to space station while our unemployment numbers increase in record numbers is indefensible. It can be expected that unless NASA’s direction is changed their budget will be a target for significant reductions.
To prevent these devastating budget reductions NASA’s programs must be redirected from those of bailout candidates to ones that create economic stimulus.
To that purpose Congress is being requested to support the NASA technology plan outlined on the: http://www.nasaproblems.com webpage. The plan proposes to transfers the Constellation funds to technology development programs which benefit future space programs and have spin-off technologies for other industries. It also removes the space shuttle from NASA operated to the public sector and redirects that saving to technology development. In addition the plan addresses the NASA management problems that have plagued the agency for decades.
Technology is a key factor for economic recovery…NASA must be a key player. NASA must change and the technology plan is the roadmap for that change. Your support is urgently requested.
Don A. Nelson
Aerospace Consultant
Note: Mr. Nelson has applied for the NASA administrator position as a mechanism to promote the NASA technology strategic plan to the Obama NASA transition team. Again your support is urgently requested.
December 11th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Mine!
My Precious!!!
December 11th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Is it possible, that at somepoint in the lifetime of a culture, the necessaries to survive outweigh the delights of the high-life?
I propose spending 230 billion dollars on solar energy research, etc. Let the ISS crash into our overheated atmosphere…
No spin offs, just do it directly.
December 11th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Mike Griffin looks just like The Mayor from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
I think this article is further proof that he could turn into a giant snake and cause NASA to explode at any moment.
December 11th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Griffin has been an terrible obstructionist against space science.
As for Constellation program, without a clear science/engineering reason for putting men on the moon, eg humans can deploy facilities etc, the whole thing should be scapped. To be honest I am far more interested in the LISA program than I am with any plan to put men back on the moon.
Maybe Obama will put the crosshairs on Griffin with another eye on a replacement.
L. C.
December 11th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Scientifically, though, there are some pretty spiffy things you could do with access to a Constellation-class launch vehicle! You can pack some awfully big stuff in them…
December 11th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I always thought it was sad the Saturn launch vehicle was cancelled along with Apollo. Sure, go ahead with the launch vehicle, then maybe if things work out put the lunar vehicle on top of a few of them.
Lawrence B. Crowell
December 11th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I’d be totally on-board with the idea of a Constellation-class launcher for an excellent cause, but as it is, it’s not clear to me why the Delta and Atlas heavies aren’t up to the task of doing space science like we’ve never seen before. From what I’ve read, the already-delayed and over-budget Mars Science Laboratory, perhaps the most advanced robot humanity will have ever sent into space, a rover weighing approx. one metric ton, will be launched on an Atlas V 541. This is a vehicle that can put almost 8 tons into geostationary orbit (I think). The Atlas V and Delta IV Heavies can put almost 13 tons into GSO (I think). Missions like the MSL seem to be breaking the bank and stretching our technical prowess as it is. Besides extravagancies like putting boots on the Moon, what is it we’re expecting to do with an Ares V? Could sample-return missions not be achieved with multiple smaller launchers, just as multiple Ares launchers might be involved in manned missions to the moon? Could space telescopes not be made of a constellation of reflectors instead of one huge reflector? Etc.
I’m wondering if it’s questions like this that make people like Mike Griffin go bonkers. What drove the HAL9000 mad? Cognitive dissonance, that’s what. Mike, sez the Prez, I wantcha put men on the Moon. Assure people it will only cost so much. And that it’s absolutely crucial for science. And national security. And Apollo really did give us Velcro and Tang, without which we’d be a poor excuse for a country, sapped of our precious bodily fluids, and suffering from a Moonshot Gap!
December 11th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Don Nelson up there, if you get in please pull the plug on that Moon-return/Mars project. Some day we should go, but the Ares rocket is having trouble and Mars is such a difficult issue with the long-term low-gravity and life-support problems. I don’t think Obama really gets it.
December 11th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Put the Beyond Einstein program back on track. I was never a proponent of manned spaceflight anytime soon.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
What America really needs is a heavy launch vehicle that is affordable and flexible enough to accomplish a wide variety of missions.
Both Apollo and the Shuttle were one trick ponies. Scrapping the shuttle infrastructure to build yet another purpose-built moon rocket is also silly. But if we had a rocket- or a heavy launch system- that could be used for assembling space stations, launching moon missions, and putting together the parts of a Mars mission, then grabbing a few of those rockets for things like 10m space telescopes and a Europa sample return mission would be pretty cool.
December 12th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Here’s footage of the interview: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc_204tXHZY
December 12th, 2008 at 5:34 am
> has told its leader that she is “not qualified” to judge his rocket program
Indeed, Griffin has 7 degrees, and how many does she have?
December 12th, 2008 at 8:09 am
NASA has three fundamental problems:
(1) At its core, NASA is an engineering/development organization, the legacy of the Apollo success. They are always looking to the “next big thing.” The Space Shuttle was a fantastic technical success, but there was no evolutionary follow-on. Now there is Constellation, the next big thing, and Shuttle is being abandoned like Apollo was. The Shuttle provided “on-orbit servicing”, something no other spacecraft can or will be able to do.
(2) There is an inherent conflict between engineering/development and fleet operations. Shuttle operations should have been taken away from NASA. After the Columbia disaster, I was appalled to hear the director of Shuttle operations declare that “Shuttle was an R&D program,” as if that explained something. After 22 years the Shuttle was still an R&D program?
(3) NASA has a neurotic obsession with finding bugs in outer space. They think that the notoriety of finding something that can be called “life out there” will gain them the public support that they lost after Apollo. (Witness the hysteria in 1996 with President Clinton and the Mars asteroid.) Instead, they should more broadly explore space so as to promote the national interest of the United States. Finding microbes on Mars would be scientifically important, but that goal should not override NASA’s mission to promote the economic, technical and political success of the USA.
December 12th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Where do you guys think JFK’s vision would have ended up if Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon had decided to cancel the previous guy’s ideas, and focus on his pet projects?
Bill Clinton cancelled a lot of progress, and under him there was a lot of focus on JIMO, the Jupiter Icy Moons Observer, which would have been a great idea. It was to rely on high energy nuclear electricity, increasing scientific capacity. Under Bush II, great ideas like JIMO, and also TPF, SIM and Sofia have gone by the wayside, to focus on the ideas of appeal to his people, going back to the moon and mars, permanently.
Now Obama is going to cancel that progress, and start some new ideas from scratch, which might be very good ideas in and of themselves exactly like the Clinton and Bush II directions. And then they can accumulate some progress and consume $50 billion, and then be cancelled in 8 years by the next president whose team will pursue its own vision. Nothing will ever get done with these childish competitive attitudes.
The best bet would be for Obama to allow them to continue on their present path, and to give a marginal increase in funding to do other things.
December 12th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Why can’t NASA just find the highest mountain in the southern Rockies, and at its summit build a two-mile tall tethered “launch pylon”, with an external lift.
Then they could haul space shuttles or launch vehicles up the side (possibly with a compensating weight on the other side to minimize distortion) and launch them with the first four or five miles (of densest air) taken care of.
Even more ambitious, if the structure could withstand the forces, would be a vertical rail gun, with a detachable frame on the craft being launched, so it could achieve a high upward velocity before even igniting its engines.
I gather Cape Kennedy was chosen so that aborted launches could fall harmlessly into the ocean. But what are the chances of one hitting a populated area in Arizona or New Mexico? Even if it did, it’s just damned bad luck and no one can do anything about that.
They could also build a telescope at the top of the pylon, and take advantage of the clear air. It would need a heat-proof dome though obviously.
Is this NASA job open to foreigners? I’d soon shake up their ideas!
December 12th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I think it’s fair to say right now that people are going to have new ideas for NASA under any administrative turnover- there’s just too many avenues to take, as these comments alone can illustrate. That said, no excuse for a temper tantrum!
December 12th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
A different point of view, Time.com:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1866045,00.html?cnn=yes
“The mere fact that the story is making the rounds reflects the very real friction between NASA and the transition team — which has sparked a groundswell of support among space agency employees to keep the boss. Within NASA, there is a real concern that while the Obama campaign rode the call for change to a thumping victory in November, change is precisely what the space agency does not need.
…
“We’ve been moving in the right direction since the Columbia accident [in 2003],” says Chris Shank, NASA’s chief of strategic communications. “The concern is that we’ll lose that.” Lately, that concern appears well-placed.
The Obama team picked Garver to run the NASA transition, in part because of her deep pedigree and long history at the space agency, which saw her climb to the rank of associate administrator. But Garver started as a PAO — NASA-speak for a public affairs officer — and never got involved in the nuts and bolts of building rockets… Garver’s lack of engineering cred is especially surprising in light of the eggheads with whom Obama has been surrounding himself — most recently, Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Chu, who has reportedly been tapped to be Secretary of Energy. Garver is also not thought to be much of a fan of Griffin — who is an engineer — nor to be sold on the plans for the new moon program. What she and others are said to be considering is to scrap the plans for the Ares 1 — which is designed exclusively to carry humans — and replace it with Atlas V and Delta IV boosters, which are currently used to launch satellites but could be redesigned, or “requalified,” for humans. Griffin hates that idea, and firmly believes the Atlas and Delta are unsafe for people. One well-placed NASA source who asked not to be named reports that as much as Griffin wants to keep his job, he’ll walk away from it if he’s made to put his astronauts on top of those rockets.”
December 12th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
It’s very simple: Let SpaceX deal with hauling carcasses up to the ISS, where they can do…whatever it is they do up there, scrap Constellation, for the love of Og, and start moving the govt. the heck out of manned spaceflight for good. This is a real opportunity to stop the madness. NASA’s science has never suffered so badly from presidential transitions, because unlike the ego-trip that is a presidential “vision” of humans in space, the JPL actually does things for a good reason. After we got through honoring the cold-war dream of a dead Kennedy, the usual politics of “visions” yielded the travesty that is the STS. These transitional perturbations won’t change in a place like Washington, unless maybe somebody martyrs another inspiring Executive, which I sincerely hope never happens again. Let’s get over meatware in space, already.
December 12th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Not a single rebuttal against Griffin’s totally legitimate point? Quite a disappointment given the blog I am reading.
This guy has more engineering degrees than anyone I know. If Obama wants to send a representative to talk to him, that’s fine. But that representative needs to take Griffin’s on his word. He may work for George Bush, but he is a scientist and has the best interests of NASA at heart.
Obama really ought to go talk to Griffin himself.
December 12th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Brian Mingus Says:
December 12th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
“Not a single rebuttal against Griffin’s totally legitimate point? Quite a disappointment given the blog I am reading.”
If you mean his point that his scientific expertise far surpasses Lori Garver’s, that would be relevant if she were criticizing his method of accomplishing a goal (manned spaceflight) that we all agreed was a worthy goal. Once the objective is clear, let the most qualified figure out the science and the engineering.
But perhaps what she is questioning is the value of the objective in relation to the cost. That decision involves value judgments, not technical skill.
The article claims that Griffin is interfering with the transition team’s information-gathering. I am always suspicious of this type of obstructionism. If you believe in your conclusions, I would think you would want as much transparency as possible. The more right you are, the more the facts will support your case.
December 13th, 2008 at 12:38 am
“Not a single rebuttal against Griffin’s totally legitimate point? Quite a disappointment given the blog I am reading.”
OK, how about this:
If the director of NASA is getting mired in the intricate details of rocket design then he isn’t doing his job.
He’s doing the job of his engineers, his contractors, his programmers, and the rest of his technical staff.
His job is to know the people who have all the details, and to connect them with the transition team and enough education staff to be able to translate the technical minutiae into English. His job is to co-ordinate and facilitate so that the rocket designers can design the best, most reliable and cost-effective rocket they can make without interference from him or anyone above him.
His job is to transmit the details of this work to congress and the incoming administration so that the reasons for the choices that have been made thusfar are obvious and clear.
December 13th, 2008 at 7:28 am
I tend towards Low math’s suggestion, let’s get over meatware in space. I think NASA should shift from being an astronaut corp and focus on getting actual science done. Without a clear science mission requirement for putting men back on the moon the program for that should be shelved.
Lawrence B. Crowell
December 13th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I find Mike Griffin’s response completely outrageous. He is completely accountable to the presidents advisor’s after all where does his funding come from–the American taxpayers money. All he does is make money for the government dropping payloads in space–he works for us we aren’t accountable to him–he’s probably been getting a free ride for 8 years and doesn’t want to get off the money bus!!! If I remember correctly, wasn’t NASA almost bankrupt before Bush absconded the government! He should thank his lucky stars he even has a job tomorrow–actually I think we should out him, he isn’t a team player and he’s obviously making money on the side. It will all come out in the end. That’s what we need in the 21st century, more accountability, not more greed. More science less payload!!
December 13th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Wasn’t Griffin the guy who dismissed the global-warming issue as “probably not as urgent as some people think”? Ah, yes, I found something here,http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499 :
I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change. First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.The resolution of Griffin’s issues are well-known to folks who have actually bothered to think about the issue, so I won’t waste space with them here unless someone needs an explanation.
December 13th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Oops, there should be a break between “to take.” and “The resolution”!
December 13th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Neil King,
Nobody cares about Griffin’s views on global warming, they’re not pertinent. Do you ask your garbageman what he thinks of climate change? Your hairdresser? Your auto mechanic?
What matters here is that Obama wants to eliminate all progress that has been made the last eight years, and start on new pet projects, just like Clinton and Bush Jr. did and unlike how LBJ and Nixon did.
December 13th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Does Obama want to eliminate progress, or eliminate dead-end projects that are sucking the life out of other important missions?
If Obama was dead-set against manned spaceflight, he wouldn’t have bothered to “look under the hood”
You don’t look under the hood of a car that is being sent to the wreckers.
You only look under the hood if you want to fix something.
A more important question is this:
Is the NASA director so wedded to the Ares I rocket that he is willing to jeopardize the entire VSE to keep it? Ares I will be the 3rd US 20-35 tonne system available, if it is developed. Its underperformance has already delayed the development of the rest of the Constellation program, by requiring weight reduction measures and redesign on the orion capsule (including elimination of terrestrial landing capability and other safety systems).
So the willingness of the transition team to be interesting in the details of the program is probably a good thing, making the director’s alleged opposition all the more baffling.
December 13th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Typo:
I meant 20-25 tonne
As for people on the Moon, consider this:
Sometime between next week and next decade, the first terrestrial planet in the “habitable zone” of another star will be discovered.
As soon as that happens, the number one scientific question around will be, “is there life there?”.
In order to answer that question intelligently, we need to understand how terrestrial planets form. And in order to understand terrestrial planets, we need to go back to the moon.
In the time frame of the next decade, humans will still be better field scientists than robots. So sending humans to do the field work will be the most robust way to get this done.
December 14th, 2008 at 6:12 am
I wonder if what is behind this is that many in and out of NASA do not like the Ares I and V rocket program and prefer the Direct 2.0 program. Direct 2.0 would have one booster not two, and that one would rely more on existing technologies making it cheaper and available sooner than the Ares boosters.
December 14th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
David Nataf,
I don’t agree with you: The views of the chief administrator of NASA should reflect the best current science.
Inasmuch as there is an exobiological component to NASA’s work, I would also be concerned if the individual in that role were a creationist or “Intelligent Designer”.
If he’s got an agenda motivated by anti-scientific or economic ideology, or wants to preserve an atmosphere of opacity, he should go – regardless of what Obama wants to do. It’s not necessarily about Obama: Griffin can succeed at being unqualified without further assistance.
December 14th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Ah, Garver looks pretty qualified to my untrained eye…
December 15th, 2008 at 2:29 am
NASA is a very large organization. At any given time, it will be doing the right thing in some places and going badly wrong in some other places. Review of programs by the transition team is a perfectly legitimate activity. Obama is not under an obligation to continue everything that NASA is doing now just because. He is very unlikely to globally cancel everything and start new projects. The Administrator should be able to defend the current course of NASA to an outside review. If something can’t be defended to an outside review, it’s often because there is something seriously wrong.
The views of the NASA administrator on global warming science are potentially relevant because (a) it’s science and NASA should be on the mainstream side of science issues; (b) NASA is not only a rocket shop – NASA supports climate studies and there have previously been instances of political interference with NASA scientists on this issue. FWIW, my guess is that Griffin was being politically careful wrt the Bush admin, and that his personal views on global warming are unknown. However, he can’t play politics and then demand to be above review when the new boss comes to town.
December 16th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Our space program does good things at the micro level, but is incoherent at the macro level. It is important to realize that even a small fraction of the stimulus programs being envisioned would be large sums for space exploration, so there should be some cash to get things done.
If I was in charge of NASA among the things I would do would be to
- Cancel the Moon part of Moon/Mars and re-evaluate the Mars part.
- Fund and fly experiments like Samuel Ting’s for the ISS. The ISS is eating much of the space budget, and yet is itself starved for cash to run experiments, some of which are already built and waiting to fly. This is incoherent.
- Focus more attention on asteroid exploration, as that can be done relatively easily by humans and machines, and promises a potentially large economic payoff. If we can’t go to NEAs, we can’t go to Mars, so we should do this first.
- Look at a number of the recently canceled or delayed projects such as SIM, and see if it would be cost effective to resurrect some of them.
- Put more R&D money into futuristic transportation ideas such as space elevators, space tethers, etc.