Slashdot Mirror
New NASA Administrator Named
CheshireCatCO writes "The Bush Administration has nominated Mike Griffin as the new chief administrator of NASA. Griffin currently heads the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University and holds degrees in physics, civil, electrical, and aerospace engineering and aerospace science, as well as an MBA. (How did he ever have time to do anything else?) He was also part of the Strategic Defense Initiative in the 80s."
He was also part of the Strategic Defense Initiative in the 80s
Given how much of a waste of money the SDI program was (or should I say is), I hope his work at NASA is better. Otherwise, we might end up with an planetary defense system on the moon to protect us from Martian terrorists.
--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox
Wired article as proof
Russia's biggest operational booster is the Proton, which has equivalent delivered cargo capacity to the US shuttle.
Before you yell ah-ha! and trot out the Energia, note that I said 'operational'. In all likelihood, no Energia stack will launch again. You might as well count the Saturn V if you're optimistic enough to think the DE will fly again.
I think NASA is well aware of that. It's the public that needs to learn that lesson.
Real work? Like heading the Space Department, a group with more than 600 people,
Management - Doesn't count.
he helped design the Delta 180 missile components of the SDI program.
Yeah, but so did I, through my tax dollars. You can get away with stretching reality quite a bit on a resume by saying you "helped" or "contributed to" or "had involvement with" a project...
He was also SDI's deputy of technology, associate administrator for exploration at NASA, and COO of In-Q-Tel
Management, management, and... management.
He also had leadership positions at Orbital Sciences Corporation
Do I need to say it again?
and tech jobs at NASA JPL and Computer Science Corporation.
Okay, that could mean something. Or it could mean he worked a help-desk. Too vague...
I'd say you'd make a pretty lousy hiring manager if you just judged their time in school without putting their work experience into context.
I agree completely. But as you have so kindly put Griffin's work experience into context... I'd say we have a real winner here, boys! Seriously over-educated in the sciences, yet he's never held an actual job? waaaaaaay too suspicious. I could almost forgive the education (I hope someday to have a list like that myself) if he had some real work experience, but NO ONE with an interest in the hard and applied science proceeds to jump to the dark side and work as a manager their entire career... They might accidentally end up there, but only after a fairly long career doing "real" work.
Let me know when it comes out that he believes in creationism, and only went into aerospace to disprove that whole pesky heliocentric "theory".
While googling around for some background on Griffin, I found a rough transcript of a House Subcommittee hearing concerning NASA FY '93 appropriations on sci.space, which has an interesting exchange concerning a manned mission to the Moon and Mars:
Obviously, $400G is $400 billion, not $400 grand.
He goes on to champion the "lighter, cheaper, smarter" ethos, mentions nuclear propulsion as a possible option, and at that time regarded the recent collapse of the Soviet Union as presenting the sort of opportunity similar to the one that brought Von Braun to the US (acknowledging their current lead in heavy lift capability). He even says "I'm not too proud to ride a Russian vehicle if it gets us there".
As for Griffin's private sector experience, that's been the rule rather than the exception for NASA's ten former administrators. Frosch and O'Keefe came from academia, Truly from the military (and NASA). The other seven had served as either engineers or administrators for aeronautics- or space-related companies.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
I really hate to have to ask this, but is Mr. Griffin a deeply religious christian like so many of Bush's appointees? I'm not trolling nor am I saying being a religious person is a bad thing. But a number of Bush appointees are very religious, and seem to have no problems pushing the christian agenda in their government jobs.
That was my initial reaction, so I researched this guy (and submitted an article to slashdot that had a lot more links about his history, but this article was picked instead).
:P ) - even at his "private industry" job where he was a manager at Orbital Sciences (the company that makes the Pegasus - a nice rocket, BTW, even if it is expensive per kilogram because its payload is so small). If he's any sort of hack, he's a military hack. But, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Can't be worse than O'Keefe. :P
He doesn't seem to be a political hack, although he clearly has significant Republican leanings. Calling him a scientist as a lot of news reports have is pretty misleading, too - his history is management. Once nice thing about him is that he wears his heart on his sleeve; he's made lots of public statements about what he wants in the past. Here's what he wants:
* More NASA funding. He's called for 20B$/yr several times, pointing out that this is only 20 cents per day per person - less than the average person spends on gum or pizza. He wants to use the funding so that we can launch "big programs" (like Mars, the moon, etc) at the same time as keeping all of our research and exploration.
* A heavy lift vehicle based on SSMEs, SRBs, and the shuttle main tank, so that we can take advantage of over two decades of research using these systems. This might be a hard sell - there will be efforts to have either Atlas V or Delta IV be the core.
* Mixed feelings about the shuttle and ISS. If it will take no longer than 2010 to get the last pieces of ISS up, he wants to use the shuttle. If it will take as late as 2014, he wants to get a heavy lift vehicle built first, and launch them with it. He wants the shuttle replaced with a more modern vehicle (and has specifically pointed to the maintenance costs as the biggest problem), but sees the necessity for using it in the short term.
* A major supporter of establishing a moonbase. He seems to have spoken about this more than Mars, although he has spoken in favor of manned missions to Mars as well.
All in all, his plans sound pretty reasonable. On the other hand, his history leaves something to be desired. He's worked almost exclusively on military-related projects (including SDI
Pinkypants -- my favorite!
Actually, this appointment is irrelevent. As someone who works with people at NASA (on the science end), I have seen up close and personal the Bush strategy for NASA. A more telling story appears in today's Washington Post concerning NASA job cuts. NASA expects to cut 15% of its workforce by 2006. The excuse given is that they need to streamline to go to Mars. The real reason is that Bush wants to turn NASA and other government agencies into organizations which convert govt. funds into private contracts. So how do you do that? Cut the permanent staff and put all NASA projects up for bids. We are currently in the "passive cut" phase. NASA employees nearing retirement have been offered a $25,000 package to just go away. For some centers, most of the staff have been offered such a packacge. NASA/Ames for example had 1400 of its 1470 employees receive such an offer. Since you can't do science through bids to private entities, this means that NASA is done with science (and no...sending man to Mars has very little science associated with it). People bitch that NASA has had no direction for the past 25 years. NASA has been the crown jewel of US science from Hubble to Spitzer to Galileo but that is just not sci fi enough to capture the imagination of the American public. Almost all similar projects that were on the drawing board are now gone. What's left of NASA's staff after the passive cuts phase will be absorbed by universities as all NASA scientists must pay themselves (or at least justify) their salaries through their grants anyway at this point. NASA is fast becoming a 16 billion dollar kickback to Big Biz. They will not be going to Mars any time soon if ever.
In congressional testimony he gave last year, Michael Griffin outlined a number of questions which he felt Congress and NASA need to ask. This list was pretty interesting, because many of them are the sorts of things which NASA is notorious for ignoring. It's refreshing to know that these questions are at least on the radar of NASA's new head:
(bolding mine)
# Why does spaceflight - human or robotic - cost so much more than other comparably complex human activities, and what can be done to remedy the situation?
# Is a serious program of human space exploration sustainable, given the "cost of doing business" presently associated with the enterprise?
# What incentives can be offered to proven and well-established aerospace contractors to devise innovative and cost-effective, yet safe and reliable, approaches to building a new human spaceflight infrastructure?
# Where and how does NASA intend to engage the entrepreneurial high-tech culture which has made our nation the envy of so many others, in so many areas other than aerospace? What can we do to bring the engine of capitalism to spaceflight?
# What is the proper role of prizes, or of pay-for-performance contracts, in stimulating and encouraging the high-tech community to devote its attention to aerospace?
# Can or should the Congress establish prizes for specific accomplishments in spaceflight, independently of NASA?
# What is NASA's proper role in the development of new space systems, beyond setting requirements to be met through competition in industry?
# What is NASA's proper role, as an agency of the U.S. government, in the conduct of future spaceflight operations?
# If the exploration of new worlds requires technologies and skills beyond those presently available within NASA - and it clearly does - how are the skills of other agencies and laboratories to be used effectively in the service of the larger mission? How will the overall effort be directed?
# Given that we as a nation will spend a certain amount each year on civil space activities, what would Americans prefer to see this money used for? What vision for space exploration excites people enough to cause them to believe that the money they spend on it is well spent? Can a reasonable consensus even be found? How do we know?
# Is the United States interested in leading an international program of space exploration? Which nations might be competitors, and which might be partners? How and in what role do we view our potential partners in the enterprise? What do our potential partners think about this? How do we know?
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?