O'Keefe to Resign as NASA Administrator

lommer writes "The Globe and Mail is carrying a story that NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe may be set to resign as early as Monday to begin a position as chancellor of Louisiana State University. On the one hand this could mean the indroduction of an administrator with an engineering background (O'Keefe is an MPA), on the other hand can we really expect NASA to effect serious changes and find a focused direction with leadership changes every 4 years?" An anonymous reader adds a link to this Florida Today article (also carried by Space.com) which says that "the retired director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency tops a list of five men that President Bush is considering to take over the space agency."

Comments

Re:Last Administrator!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not until Netcraft confirms it!

Damn! He was the only reason I voted for Bush!

[tjstork]

I thought O'Keefe's aggressive reinstatement of the Prometheus project, his commitment to the CRV, were all right on the money.

The Administrator is leaving

[nounderscores]

Does that mean that this whole show will now be run by the G-Man?

Re:The Administrator is leaving

[Anonymous Coward]

I, I don't have a whole lot of time. Um, OK, I'm a former employee of NASA. I, I was let go on a medical discharge about a week ago and, and... I've kind of been running across the country, I don't know where to start, they're, they're gonna, um, they'll triangulate on this position really soon.

OK, um, um, OK, what we're thinking of as, as aliens, they're extradimensional beings, that, an earlier precursor of the, um, space program they made contact with. They are not what they claim to be. Uh, they've infiltrated a, a lot of aspects of, of, of the federal establishment, particularly NASA.

The disasters that are coming, they, the military, I'm sorry, the government knows about them. And there's a lot of safe areas in this world that they could begin moving the population to now. They are not. They want those major population centers wiped out so that the few that are left will be more easily controllable.

Re:The Administrator is leaving

[Random Chaos]

Perhaps now we will get a space shuttle mission to service Hubble...O'Keefe seemed to be the biggest blocker of this.

It's refreshing to see someone leave for money...

[dj42]

I was getting tired of all these people using the old tired "for family reasons" after being pushed out and/or not desiring to be under the recently re-elected Bush regime.

Go NASA!

[steveyT]

I'm English so my taxes don't contribute to NASA, however I'm a big supported of the work they do. Personally I think it's really important to be conducting research and experimentation. I think it's a shame that it has basically come down to America to lead the world in this field, as competition often leads to better results.

I really hope this isn't going to be a backward step for NASA, but instead a positive move.

Re:Go NASA!

[tjmcgee]

I have to say that I think you are wrong about the faster, cheaper, better philosophy being horribly wrong. It may not have been executed exceedingly well, but it did have some huge payoffs. If it weren't for faster cheaper better (smarter?) We probably would have only had one other Mars probe since the viking missions. Instead, we have a couple of orbiters and 3 mobile landers. The cost of these together has not even come close to the cost of one viking style probe. The philosophy behind faster, cheaper, smarter allowed for failures, the idea was you would spend 3 billion on a series of probes (instead of one), you can do them every two years (instead of every 10) and if you lose one you don't lose everything. I think that contrary to what you suggest the faster cheaper better philosophy has contributed a great deal to our understanding of Mars and not set us back 5 years. like this

He won't be missed

[Ars-Fartsica]

Although he tacitly endorsed Bush's Mars "plan", you could tell he treated the entire thing as an impossible lark, all talk, no action.

Lets see what happened on his watch - Hubbel was left to fend for itself, more money was poured into the money pit of ISS, and the X Prize totally stole the show.

NASA - get a mission people care about that can be realistically funded, or sign over the next twenty years to Burt Rhutan and company.

Re:He won't be missed

[eclectro]

you could tell he treated the entire thing as an impossible lark, all talk, no action.

I did get the feeling when Bush announced his Mars plan that it was all O'Keefe could do to hold back the laughter.

I really wish that he would have said "It would mean more to the American people if we sent missions to the outer planets and Kupiter belt, had larger space telescopes, and more hard science missions like gavity B, and save the trillion dollars mars would take to pay down the debt." But then that would have meant that Nasa would have had a sense of direction too.

But he seems more like a "yes man" leaving a sinking ship, which seems to be the fashionable thing to do in Washington these days.

Re:He won't be missed

[solive1]

Am I the only one who thinks the Mars plan is a good idea? NASA was at its best when they had a concrete mission (the moon). If they focused on going to Mars, perhaps we would see NASA return to glory.

Re:He won't be missed

[eclectro]

If the U.S. put the money it wastes on world domination in to mars and moon missions or an Apollo class push on fusion energy there would be potential huge benefits in many areas.

I have heard more than one commentator opine that "Sept 11" is a good crisis wasted. Meaning at that moment in history with a nation circling it's wagons there should have been a major appollo type push to get us off the foreign oil drug. Because when you look at it, decrease oil consumption and you take away the money the sheiks have to give to alquaeda under the table. Not to mention the world of good it would do for our trade deficit.

Instead, we take out a ten-cent dictator. We really did not get our money's worth here. Yes Saddam was a very bad person. But the world is filled with bad tin-horn dictators.

I'm somebody who believes in taking care of their own before extending myself to others. With the money spent in Iraq they could have covered the health expenses of all the uninsured Americans (I just joined the ranks) quite easily with change (lots) to spare.

I don't believe that mars is the best goal for this nation. But by time we are done with Iraq, I bet we will have spent 500 billion on it, which would have gone a long way towards a mars mission, and we would have gotten a lot more out of it. As it is we have a large number of people in the middle east who just flat out want to see every one of us Americans die, preferably by a bomb.

So it is truly discouraging. Bush got re-elected so that at the end of the next four years can see how horribly wrong they were and that the Iraq war was a bad idea. Expensive lesson.

And that goes for the other millions of adults who didn't vote too.

At least they won't be able to play "blame Clinton" anymore as the Republicans have everything under their thumbs.

Our national priority right now should be to standardize a transparent voting machine process and make sure all the machines work by 2008.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Slightly off-topic

[halftrack]

[...], on the other hand can we really expect NASA to effect serious changes and find a focused direction with leadership changes every 4 years?

Funny you should mention that. Isn't that the period of time most statesmen around the world is elected for?

But all space missions are expensive

[mind21_98]

All space missions are quite expensive. NASA has to determine whether a mission will provide more benefits than costs. Fuel costs quite a bit, as well as the training and the parts needed to build a rocket capable of going to Mars. Any benefits? Not many. That's probably why not much has been done.

Re:But all space missions are expensive

[NardofDoom]

And why is space expensive? Because there aren't economies of scale. Because we don't have competition driving the price down. Because NASA has let us believe that space is expensive.

The Ansari X-Prize showed that, for 1% of the cost of one shuttle flight, you could develop, build, test and fly a system capable of reaching space. I'd wager that for $100 million you could send three people to orbit. Hell, Apollo only cost us $50 billion, and we actually went somewhere. Half a dozen times.

So is space expensive because it's hard, or is space expensive because we're used to going through a massive government bureaucracy to get there?

Re:But all space missions are expensive

[konstantinlevin]

Point 1: Space exploration is our only chance if we ever hope to get off this rock. Obviously, things like materials synthesis and training of astronauts are costly, but the consolation is that we may hope to come up with a solution for how to continue human life. Call me a cynic, but I consider it pretty unlikely that we humans can survive our technological adulthood while we still struggle with our social pubescence.

Point 2: This point is a little more abstract, so bear with me. I think cost should not even have a bearing on this. Exploration is one of the most important of human endeavors, just cuz it helps us make sense of our surroundings. I don't know what we hope to find. I don't really care. I just think it's important to look anyway.

In the old days, there were explorers who set out in those kickass tall ships to have adventures. It's romantic, but the romance captivated people and they went anyway.

Perhaps the best example of this is the Endurance (ship). In 1913, Sir Earnest Shackleton of Great Britan put out a classified ad announcing that he needed a crew, preferably people with specialized skills, for an exploration of Antartica that would be terrifically dangerous and unpaid. This full-disclosure ad got thousands of responses. The world was on the brink of total war, but the Queen and the British government gave the mission their full blessing and support. In 1914, the crew of the Endurance left on a doomed voyage. They got stuck in thickening ice, and the ship was crushed. Shackleton led his starving crew across 800 miles of frozen wasteland to ultimate rescue, and every last man survived. For the full story, I recommend Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage, an excellent book if there's anyone out there who still reads books.

This is missing from our culture these days, and I would like very much to see this spirit of adventure returned to the dollar-chasing monotony of daily life.

Re:But all space missions are expensive

[drix]

Economies of scale.

Actually, the space industry is subject so considerable economies of scale. Burt Rutan spent ~$20 million in R&D for SpaceShipOne. If you think of his product as "rides into outer space", it certainly ain't gonna cost him another 20 mil. produce another. That was the whole point of the X-Prize: build something reusable that was cheap to fly. Hence, the average price of rides declines with every new one that gets completed: textbook definition of increasing returns to scale.

I guess you could argue that NASA, because of its porky nature and idiot bureaucracy, realizes a lot less returns to scale than it should. But the fact remains that the (hundreds of) billions they've spent in R&D over the past four decades has made it much cheaper for them to do the things they do. Everybody loves to bag on NASA, fine, but don't forget they are freaking parsecs ahead of the nearest US competitor. Literally--they're the only ones to send stuff outside the solar system, visit other planets, hell, even putting someone is orbit is their sole domain and will be for a long time to come. No way in hell a private firm could accomplish even one of those on their own? Why: initial costs several orders of magnitude higher than any quantity of funding they could rustle up.

It can be shown mathematically that a single, monopolistic producer actually generates higher surplus than would a competitive market with increasing to scale. Thus the term "natural monopoly". Think pharmaceuticals, microprocessors, cars--anything that takes of a lot or R&D--or infrastructure, in the case of phone/electrical/sewage/cable TV services--will tend towards monopolization. Space exploration, I'm sorry to admit, fits right with those, which is why this (pardon the pun) nebulous idea many have of a vibrant, competitive market for space travel has always seemed like a quixotic load of economic bollux to me :) Maybe it shouldn't be government run, but one key player is going to dominate this industry for a long time to come. If I could buy stock in NASA I would.

Re:But all space missions are expensive

[tmortn]

Not to argue with most of what you have to say but NASA is not the only organization with the ability to put people into Orbit. Especially ironic considering that the only way currently people are regularly getting to orbit is the Russian Soyuz platform. China also recently joined this rather elete brotherhood.

Re:But all space missions are expensive

[Rei]

No, fuel is not expensive. Fuel is cheap - depending on the rocket, tens to hundreds of dollars per kilogram of payload. The main cost is in part fabrication for disposable rockets and in maintainance for reusable rockets.

I agree with you about Mars, though. We need to improve the tech first. Going to Mars with today's tech would be like Genghis Khan making it a priority to reach the North Pole. Yes, eventually you need to "just go" - however, we really need to reduce costs first (and to all the Zubrin nuts out there - noone with experience who's given his numbers even a cursory glance buys them. He wants to fund an entire Mars mission for the cost of developing just the nuclear reactor that he wants to generate the power)

Re:But all space missions are expensive

[Rei]

First off, the requisite Why SpaceShipOne Never Did, Never Will, And None Of Its Direct Descendants Ever Will, Orbit The Earth

Now, to address some specific points.

1) "For 1% of the cost of one shuttle flight": They carried 1/80th of the payload to 1/6th of the delta-V of a minimal orbit and plan to sell this for 1/500th of the cost. Lets just be nice and pretend that costs will scale up at merely an O(N^2) rate (in reality, scaling up an SS1-style design to orbit is all but impossible); that's almost 6 times worse a deal.

Don't like the assumptions about the scale-up rate? Then discuss a *Real Spacecraft*.

2) "I'd wager that for $100 million you could send three people to orbit.": The shuttle's cargo mass is about the same as 240 people plus their share of life support (assuming ~100kg). At this rate, if the shuttle were a passenger liner, it would carry them at a rate of 3.75 million dollars for 3 people, not 100 million.

3) "Apollo only cost us $50 billion": In 1968 dollars, 24 billion dollars. In modern dollars, that's 130 billion dollars. That's about NASA's entire budget for the last 8 years. Unfortunately for us now compared to the past, back in the 60s, we actually cared about spaceflight, and budgetted accordingly.

4) "So is space expensive because it's hard": Go try to strap yourself to a virtual bomb made out of the lighest materials you can get your hand on, and start igniting the bomb's chemicals, have them burn hotter than the boiling point of iron, push your flimsy craft upwards at several Gs, with a vibrational load that will rip most materials to shreds. Rocketry is bloody hard - it's amazing that we're able to get off this huge atmosphere-covered gravity well at all, and those who actually pulled it off - not posers who ride up to a vaccuum in an airborn rocket sled without dealing with the technical problems of *real spaceflight* - deserve all the credit we can give them (not just NASA, but ESA, China, Russia, Japan, India, Brazil, etc).

A new NASA director probably can't do a lot

[multiplexo]

for our space program.

NASA is a bunch of chairwarming hacks who want to sit around collecting government paychecks until they're able to retire and sit around collecting government pensions. There are exceptions such as the scientific part of NASA that directs unmanned missions but since so much of NASA's funding is commited to the Shuttle and ISS the agency is effectively paralyzed and sclerotic. The fact that no one lost their job over the Columbia disaster is prime evidence that the agency is terminally fucked.

In order to be effective a new administrator would have to make drastic changes, such as immediately cancelling the shuttle program and ISS and closing down some of NASA's research centers and redirecting the money thus freed up into innovative research programs to lower the cost of access to orbit. Unfortunately this isn't going to happen as it would piss off too many congresscritters and the aerospace contractors who fund them.

So, unless the new director has cojones grande a real mandate for real change from Congress and the Administration and carte blanche in managing operations this change is going to be about as significant as spray painting a turd.

Re:A new NASA director probably can't do a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

and redirecting the money thus freed up into innovative research programs to lower the cost of access to orbit.

Every "innovative research program to lower the cost of access to orbit" since the early 80s has turned into an exorbantly-expensive, generally ineffective boondoggle that serves to extract billions of dollars from NASA into aerospace contractors with little or no benefit. Most of NASA's problems in the 90s came because all the agency's research money was tied up in the X12 project, leaving the groups doing meaningful and useful space exploration to subsist on a shoestring.

How would it be ensured that new "access to orbit" initiatives wouldn't meet the same fate?

Re:A new NASA director probably can't do a lot

[ToshiroOC]

The ISS has a political significance totally separate from whatever minimal scientific value may be claimed for it, and the shuttle program is an extension of this political program. The ISS is there soley to foster cooperation with the Russians; we have NASA engineers working in the same room as Russian engineers in Moscow controlling the ISS, and as long as that is happening, we keep pouring in money and we keep cooperating. The ISS could fail to do anything but continue to exist, and we will continue the program, because failing to do so would be a catastrophic collapse of US-Russian relations. That said, we're starting a new space race with China and India; China wants men on the moon soon and are already sending manned flights into orbit, and India is taking a different track in similar directions. What do we do to outdo China on the moon? Americans on Mars! Right? Guys? ...Guys? A new director would have to figure out a way to balance these sorts of international relations issues with getting real science done, and I think NASA does a decent job of it now by keeping unmanned science moving forward with JIMO/Prometheus and manned politics in the right place with ISS. If NASA is supposed blow off the Russians and focus on science, then their current strategy isn't the right one, but the fact remains that NASA cooperative projects remain a cornerstone of international politics (not to get into pork barrel considerations) and will remain such for the forseeable future.

NASA Copout on Prizes

[Baldrson]

The stories that NASA wants to pursue prize awards in a big way but just can't because of Congressional resistance is a copout.

Every single time NASA puts out a request for proposals it sets the criteria for awarding the contracts. It can set the criteria for awarding the contracts to be objective criteria such as "2 manned launches with the same vehicle within the same week" or whatever.

The only reason NASA doesn't do so is it would take power out of the hands of the people doing the contract awards and put the power in the hands of mother nature and those who know best how to coax her to perform as desired.

Re:NASA Copout on Prizes

[RSwan]

Apparently, you have never heard of FAR. No not the Federal Aviation Regulations, the Federal Acquisition Regulations. These regs set up how the government buys things. From multimillion dollar jets to paperclips, if you work for the government you got to follow those rules. And if it ain't in the regs, you can't do it unless you get a waiver. Who decides who gets a waiver depends upon how much money gets spent. The more money is spent, the higher up the food chain you got to go to get the waiver. And in regards to money, Congress, not the President, is king. So the prizes NASA would like to offer are probably in the area where Congress likes to play and NASA, nor President Bush can change that. So if you really want NASA to be able to award these prizes, convince your congressman.

Reform doesn't happen

[Toby The Economist]

Changes in leadership don't really make much difference.

Interal reform as such does not occur.

Reform only occurs in the face of an externally imposed crisis.

NASA will be NASA - big, publically funded, inefficient, conventional and hugely discouraging private space travel - until the day it, in one form or another, dies.

--
Toby

Re:It's refreshing to see someone leave for money.

[Lord Omlette]

I was getting tired of all these people using the old tired "for family reasons" after being pushed out and/or not desiring to be under the recently re-elected Bush regime.

If you've been following Bernard Kerik's aborted appointment to head DHS, you'd see that the "nanny excuse" is gaining traction...

*cough*

[4-D4Y]

Privatize. *cough* Give incentives out instead of doing it in-house. *ahem* Replace NASA slowly...

Re:*cough*

[Anonymous Coward]

it's so funny how people always say "privatize NASA!" without bothering to realize...wait a second, who designs and builds engines, vehicles, etc? hint: it's not NASA.

NASA does a lot of test and oversight of what contractors do...that's the core of their job...and they take all those tax dollars you say they are wasting...and PAY THE CONTACTORS!

So what you are really asking for is...eliminate the middleman. Let the contractors get their money straight from congress, with no group of scientists and engineers checking their work and gumming things up with red tape.

That's all fine...but...let's make sure we all know what contractors do without tough oversight...steal, deliver late, underperform on specs. etc...

Re:*cough*

[4-D4Y]

You're right, you'd be a fool to just jump in some contractor's shuttle. Congress would be foolish to just provide funding up front as well. Let some group of people design, build, and test their own equipment. If they get this far, have them apply to Congress for government incentives. I'd say the key is to let the contractors take the financial risks so that once a sound design materializes, Congress can step in and support that instead of paying for R&D right away. Both Congress and the contractors should have experts on hand to examine the craft as well. Taxpayer money goes to the brightest folks, who only get incentives based on the job that they do.

Bush names Ted Nugent to head NASA

[leftie]

Continuing his pattern of selections of highly qualified individuals to important positions in the Bush cabinet.

Bush sited Nugent's detailed technical work on Double Live Gonzo as proof Nugent was qualified for the position.

John Young, NASA Administrator!

[Big Sean O]

They were just waiting for his replacement.

Might as well put a guy who actually went to the moon in the top position at NASA.

I think you misunderstand NASA's mission

[casuist99]

I think you misunderstand - NASA is responsible for a large portion of research dollars in aerospace, materials, and other engineering and science disciplines. NASA should not be about how to get most easily to earth orbit at the cost of research.

Let's put it this way - we've already been in orbit for 20+ years on regular shuttle flights. What did it get us? We were doing reasearch for PERFUME companies. (ok, we were also doing surveillance satellite deployment, repair, and collection, but ignore that for a moment). The reasearch in earth orbit doesn't justify orbital flights.

Of course, despite my opinion, it is part of NASA's mission to get to space and do "stuff" there. Advances in materials and aerospace science and engineering will lead to easier access to orbit. You only get there with research funding, not by cutting research budgets.

What worries me most is that the new director could be the man in charge of the "missile defense" system. It's unsuccessful, unverified, way over budget, and fails most tests until the test criteria are re-written to make a failure a success. This is not the sort of person you want running a civilian research and scientific space agency.

Re:I think you misunderstand NASA's mission

[casuist99]

You conveniently neglect the facts. I'm not neglecting Hubble. However: astronomers will tell you that a political decision was made to place Hubble in low earth orbit, such that it could be serviced by manned space missions. This was not the IDEAL placement for the telescope - it's not totally beyond the reach of atmospheric interference, for example - but it was made in order to give our astronauts something to do.

Of course, this placement turned out to be lucky when Hubble needed an optical adjustment, but its placement was decided on a political basis, not a scientific basis. This describes the problem I was referring to - hiring a politician to do a scientific job is going to lead to more failures than successes.

To respond to your second statement, which interplanetary spacecraft are you referring to? None manned, certainly. And the missions to mars you've seen on the TV with the robotic rovers - those were launced via unmanned rocket from Earth. No shuttle needed. We developed orbiters and landers for the moon - but without further purpose than just GOING there. That was an engineering feat in its own right and is the essence of human aspiration, but it served no larger scientific purpose than "lets see what the moon is made of." An unmanned mission could have done that just as well. Less inspiring, yes, but just as possible. What have we used those orbiters and landers for since? Nothing? Ah. Are we going to use them again for another moon shot? Nope? Ah. Well, at least we made 'dem orbiters and landers, right?

E-Mail sent to LSU students about O'Keefe

[mrbrown1602]

The Chancellor Search Committee has invited the Honorable Sean O'Keefe,
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to
visit the LSU campus for a two-day visit (Wednesday and Thursday,
December 15-16) in connection with our ongoing search for a new chancellor.
Mr. O'Keefe is the only candidate who is scheduled to be interviewed at the
Chancellor Search Committee meeting this week. There will be an open forum
on Wednesday at 4 p.m. in the Energy, Coast & Environment Building
Auditorium, during which the entire campus community will have an
opportunity to meet and interact with Mr. O'Keefe.

The Chancellor Search Committee would appreciate receiving comments on Mr.
O'Keefe's candidacy for the chancellor's position, especially from those of
you who have an opportunity to meet with him. Comments should be submitted
to the committee electronically via the address chansearch@lsu.edu. Mr.
O'Keefe's resume is available on-line at http://www.lsu.edu/okeeferesume.

Thank you for your interest and cooperation.

Joel Tohline, Chair
Chancellor Search Committee

Meet the New Boss

[Shihar]

I would like to be excited and think that things will change in NASA, but I can't help but be a little more the skeptical. NASA is utterly obsessed with safety and conservatism. What they don't seem to realize that there are plenty of people more then happy to throw safety to the wind and risk their life, and that obsessive conservative (not conservative in the political sense) policies lead to people getting bored and not bothering to shill out money. X-Prize like adventures is what leads to breakthroughs and advancement. Just imagine the sort of things that would have been accomplished if one of the X-Prize teams had been handed a billion dollars. It would be a lot more interesting then a handful of grounded behemoths and a massive bureaucracy shaking at the knees at the prospect that someone might have to risk their life to move forward.

I hope something changes, but I have a feeling that Russian saying is more likely to offer a better explanation of what is to come:
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Re:It's refreshing to see someone leave for money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, we prefer the term "Administration." Regimes are things that have the capability to be changed. We believe we have neither the necessity nor the capacity for change.

Thank you,

The Whitehouse

NASA has competition

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also British. I'm an astrophysicist, and my work revolves around XMM-Newton, an X-ray space telescope satellite made and operated by the European Space Agency which your taxes do pay for (thanks!).

Of course, science is international so the ESA is usually a collaborator with NASA rather than a competitor. I hope this new administrator does everything possible to keep the spirit of international scientific collaboration alive, rather than playing along with a wild goose chase to Mars...

And you are wrong on top of it

[sphealey]

"effect" is correct in the sense used.

sPh

Prometheus?

[Mukaikubo]

From all reports, O'Keefe was a MAJOR backer of Nuclear Space Initiatives. I only hope that continues under a successor, because I hate to break it to you people, but nuclear- either nuclear-thermal or nuclear/RTG powered ion- is the best solution for in-space propulsion.

What the heck is an MPA?

[jordandeamattson]

What the heck is an MPA? I think you mean that O'Keefe is an MBA.

Just because someone is a professional manager, doesn't mean that they can't manage a technical or scientific organization

Remember that the Manhatten Project was lead to success by General Leslie R. Groves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Groves, who while also an engineer, who was the moral equivalent of an MBA. Yes, they wouldn't have gotten their without the techies like Feyman, Fermi, or Oppenheimer, but they also wouldn't have gotten their without Groves.

As an engineering manager who can hack a compiler as well as I can hack an operating plan or rolling four quarter outlook, I am distressed by the number of techies who can't (and don't care they can't) understand the difference between an operating and capital expenses (and why I can't spend 10K this month on a contractor, but I can spend 120K on a new server setup that has an expected life of 36 months).

You might not like it, but finance and accounting are the way score is kept and things are communicated in the world of business. An engineer or engineering manager who can't speak this language is at as big a disadvantage as the techie who can't program.

Yours,

Jordan

Re:What the heck is an MPA?

[jalefkowit]

What the heck is an MPA? I think you mean that O'Keefe is an MBA.

No, MPA is correct -- "Master of Public Administration". It's what many undergraduate poli sci majors get when they grow up (if they are not seduced by the siren song of a JD).

From O'Keefe's bio:

Sean O'Keefe earned his Bachelor of Arts in 1977 from Loyola University in New Orleans, Louisiana, and his Master of Public Administration degree in 1978 from The Maxwell School.

Re:It's refreshing to see someone leave for money.

[ZiakII]

don't think thats exactly completally true when the same thing has happend with Clinton copied strait from cnn.com

The immigration status of household help employed by prospective high-level government officials has been an issue in the past decade, beginning in 1993 when former President Bill Clinton's first pick for attorney general, Zoe Baird, was forced to withdraw after admitting she employed two undocumented workers and did not pay required employee taxes for them.

O'Keefe interview at LSU

[Anonymous Coward]

Note: A local news station is reporting that O'Keefe will be interviewed on Thursday by LSU for the chancellor's position.

Re:Damn! He was the only reason I voted for Bush!

[Malfourmed]

don't know what O'Keefe has to do with MPA

MPA stands for Master of Public Administration as O'Keef's biography confirms.

NASA rocks.

[standards]

I worked on the ISS program. My dad worked in the space program since Gemini. We both worked for large aerospace companies.

The Shuttle and ISS are amazing pieces of technology, and much has been learned by designing them and operating them. I don't think those facts are debatable.

HOWEVER, the ISS and the Shuttle are qualified failures. Desite their amazing abilities, they are grossly inefficient in terms of dollars. The money could be better spent.

Flying to the moon and Mars is a great, super-fabulous endeavor. Hanging out in a space station for a year is amazing. But there is no point in doing it as a rah-rah feel-good exercise. Honest scientific, commercial, and military goals should be set first, and only in the light of these goals should we see if it makes sense to pursue these manned missions.

The people of NASA aren't the problem - it's the mission that Congress has given them. With nebulous goals like "let's go to the moon", congress is forcing NASA to squander the tax payer's money.

Re:It's refreshing to see someone leave for money.

[Lord Omlette]

Yes, it was reasonably rare (I think?) in 1993 but it's more common now? Then again, only other example I can think of is Linda Chavez.

If Rumsfeld drops out, guarantee it's because he had undocumented works on the payroll, and not for any other reason.

AOL keyword: excuse

[infinite jester]

True, except that in the case of Zoe Baird, her nanny problem was the actual reason for her withdrawal from consideration. For Kerik, it's a smokescreen. His real problems involve shady business dealings, a 1998 arrest warrant , and mob ties , among other things.

Re:Damn! He was the only reason I voted for Bush!

[Lord Omlette]

Prometheus

NASA's building a warship capable of going toe to toe w/ a Goa'uld mothership?! o_O

Who's supplying the hyperdrive?

Re:Great. Now what?

[xSauronx]

guys, im the candidate. I barely finished high school and i only punctuate and capitalize sometimes...

I say good riddance

[Javanista]

A classic bean counter. Did he ever believe in space exploration? Shouldn't NASA have a leader that believes in its mission?

People should consider not only that space exploration generates a lot of valuable discoveries (useful on Earth as well as in space), but also that every dollar spent on NASA recycles through the US economy many times over.

The immediate focus of NASA should be on cheap, reliable transit to orbit followed closely by on-orbit construction of nuclear-powered space exploration vehicles. Let's hope the next administrator can get focused on these goals.

Re:Damn! He was the only reason I voted for Bush!

[demachina]

"his commitment to the CRV"

I'm guessing you mean CEV. The CRV (Crew Return Vehicle) was insane and was cancelled. They were going to spend millions and millions to build a new mini Shuttle whose sole reason to exist was to sit on the ISS and serve as a lifeboat in the event of an emergency. Only thing it did was make it possible to get the ISS manning up to 6-7 people so they could actually do research instead of just maintain the bloody mess. Could have been done way cheaper with an extra docking port and a second Soyuz capsule. It was just another sign of the sickness that is NASA's manned space program.

As for the CEV(Crew Exploration Vehicle) it is a better idea than CRV but I am willing to predict Boeing or Lockheed will win the contract, they will spend billions and billions of dollars, on one design after another(like ISS and space planes), the schedule will drag on for ever and the program will be cancelled around the time they have to start bending metal or launch something. The proposed schedule is already ridiculously long. They are just building a glorified new capsule like America and Russia have been building for decades and it will take longer and cost more money than Apollo did before its done.

Again, please, please, just let Burt Rutan build it. He is competing for it through T/Space but its a given a giant consortium lead by either Boeing or Lockheed will get the contract and they will just transfer huge sums from tax payer pockets to their bottomlines and not build anything worth a damn.

Delta IV Heavy

[Artifakt]

The Delta Four launch scheduled for Saturday had to be postponed. The good news is the next window isn't 2 months away, it's Tues. afternoon (the 21st) if they decide to go for it. The D4 Heavy version is the first version of the D4 to use three main booster rockets, forming a booster theoretically capable of servicing the ISS at much less cost to orbit than the shuttle. While the "multi-barrel" design is just becoming operational, regular Delta IVs with the same engine have entered successful service in 2003.
The Delta IV Heavy is staged from Nasa's pad 37B, which last saw service as the launchpad for the Saturn 1B Apollo missions.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/d310/041201del ta4heavy.html/

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/de lta4/delta4.htm/

The Delta 4 Heavy supports payloads of up to about 50,000 pounds to low-Earth orbit (i.e. the International Space Station). It can put about 29,000 pounds into Geosyncronous orbit 22,300 miles above the planet, or 22,000 pounds to the moon, or about 17,500 pounds to Mars.

The IV Heavy's possible successors, clustering more first stage rockets, include a 7 tube design with MORE lift than the Saturn 5.

conspiracy angle

[beaverfever]

"the retired director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency tops a list of five men that President Bush is considering to take over the space agency."

How does this fit in with the supposed parallel goals of Bush's long-term space-defence plans and his statements regarding putting a man on Mars?

Engineering background required?

[XNormal]

"Well, do bear in mind that NASA Administrator is basically a political job. Jim Webb didn't know diddly about the technical issues, but he was still probably the best Administrator NASA ever had, because he knew where the bodies were buried in Washington."

Quoted from the the one and only Henry Spencer (1993)

Save Hubble

[scharkalvin]

Maybe the new director won't have his head up his rectum and will see the sense in saving the Hubble telescope. The robotic mission isn't a sure thing and would only extend Hubble's life by a few years if it worked since it would render future servicing impossible. The risk to the astronauts in servicing Hubble isn't much greater than in going to the ISS, and even the ISS isn't safe (what with air leaks and roaches eating all the food!). Face it space ISN'T 100% safe and the astronauts know the risks and accept them (much the same as fighter pilots, ground force troops, policemen, mine workers, etc). SAVE HUBBLE!

Re:Great. Now what?

[quarkscat]

So O'Keefe is on his way out of NASA. Great!
Never has a bean-counter done so much for the
devolution of a government agency. He spent
tens of millions of taxpayer dollars at NASA
on video conferencing equipment, but wouldn't
spend the 1/2 million dollars for an independent
safety study regarding the deblating of shuttle
foam insulation. And so risk averse that he
would rather send an untrained robot to do an
astronaut's job (- repair Hubble Space Telescope)
at the cost of billions directed to defense
contractors. Of course, in the grander scheme
of things, the DoD would much prefer advancing
robotic technology, rather than the "pure space
science" that the HST represents. I fear that
NASA's days as a civilian space agency are truly
numbered.

I will be curious to see how quickly O'Keefe
can run LSU into the ground, judging by his
track record. IMHO, just more proof that the
"Peter Principle" is still alive and well.