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."

Comments

Heavy lift

[Mark of THE CITY]

Why build a new one, when Russia already has one?

Re:Heavy lift

[Chairboy]

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.

Top 10 floors are safe

[fprefect]

At least this guy hasn't bemoaned the very institution to which he's been assigned.

Re:Top 10 floors are safe

[Raul654]

Just to be picky - he didn't say they out to be chopped off, he said something to the effect that if the top 10 stories were chopped off, the UN wouldn't be any different. He didn't advocate chopping them off, he was pointing out that the UN has a huge bureacracy, which is true afterall (Remember, this is the same organization that added Sudan to the select human rights commission *while* it was committing genocide in Darfur) On the other hand, appointing him was another in the Bush administration's long line of diplomatic fuck ups.

Good appointment for 3 reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this is a Very Good idea for three reasons:

(1) the nominee is Not a Beancounter;
(2) the nominee is not an astronaut married to the Space Shuttle/Space Station welfare system;
(3) the nominee knws some science and engineering.

-- Jonathan Vos Post

Re:Good appointment for 3 reasons

[lecithin]

I'll give you another one:

"From an entrepreneurial standpoint, he has someone who has actually experienced what it is like to be on the other side of the table dealing with the government," he said. "We haven't had that before."

Re:Good appointment for 3 reasons

[helioquake]

Yeah, but the real skill required for a NASA administrator is this:

Let engineers be engineers.

You can replace the word "engineer" with "scientist", too. There are too much bureaucratic work at NASA. It costs some money to file document; it costs money to spend money. The facility is on the constant maintenance mode, i.e., a fix is being fixed as being fixed. The money is wasted where science and engineering doesn't get involved. Laboratories and divisions at NASA have largely been run by bean-counting civil servants who worked very hard in the Apollo days and now lucratively hold the wallet to keep his friends happy (yet unproductive). Let that change. Let the engineers and scientists be engineers and scientists! And those bean-counters should merely be there to help achieve the goal, instead of getting in the way.

Furthermore, it lacks a clear vision for the future of this institution. Since the Bush administration speaks little about the Moon/Mars project after the election. So I consider that moot. This Griffin guy needs to be questioned what he sees as the future of NASA at a confirmation hearing in the Senate. I'm sure Barbara from MD would ask if he'd save the Hubble.

Re:Good appointment for 3 reasons

[demachina]

The one concern I would have is I think he was spearheaded Bush Senior's Space Exploration Initiative(SEI) which was Bush Seniors version of going back to the Moon and Mars, and he presided over a program that dead ended. You have to wonder if Bush Junior is hoping for a different outcome the second time around, or if he doing a bad rerun of SEI meaning the current initiative is doomed.

A few noteworthy Google hits on Mike Griffin below, a hard name to Google because its so common.

I gather he invented Faster, Better, Cheaper while at SDIO, a concept that has some merit if properly done, it has a lot in common with Kelly Johnson and the old Lockheed Skunkworkds that built the U-2 and SR-71, but became much maligned when Dan Goldin tried to implement it at NASA, because NASA is institutionally and structurally incapable of doing faster, better, cheaper and have it end up being actually faster, better and cheaper.

theForce.net

Mike Griffin, a former senior NASA manager and aerospace industry executive, presented the most charitable assessment of NASA's human space flight efforts, ranking it second in priority only to building a new, more reliable heavy lift launcher.Griffin advised following through with space station, which means returning the shuttle to flight, while setting a new course that includes Mars. To accomplish this, Griffin recommends increasing NASA's budget from $15 billion a year to $20 billion.

"NASA costs each American 14 cents a day. A really robust program could be had for about 20 cents a day," Griffin said. "Americans spend more on pizza then they do on space."

Free Republic

The final nail in the coffin of Goldin's "legacy" came when NASA published its damning critique of his vaunted "better, faster, cheaper" approach.
A couple of points on this greatly misunderstood concept..
First, FBC is not Dan Goldin's invention. It came out of the old SDIO ("Star Wars") organization back in the late '80s. At the time, the dominant paradigm in both military and civil space was big, complex, very capable spacecraft, on which any and all instruments and experiments could be accommodated.
This development model led to decade-long, multi-billion dollar missions (e.g., Galileo, Milstar). When these kind of missions screw-up (e.g., Hubble Telescope, Galileo antenna), the public and Congressional ramifications can be devastating.
"FBC" was devised as a way to deal with this problem. I believe it was mostly developed by Mike Griffin, then Director of Technology at SDIO. The concept was simple: cut costs by having a small, compact, "Skunk Works"-type development team. Fly small satellites, each with one or two instruments, more often. As you are launching smaller sats more often, you have more flight opportunities, so if there IS a failure, you can recover from it quickly. In short, the objective is the knowledge gained from space flight, not to design and fly the most capable vehicle.
It's "faster" because you don't have decadal development times as the satellites as smaller and less complex. It's "cheaper" because you're not paying a marching army of highly paid technical staff (where the true costs of space flight really are). It's "better" because for a given amount of expenditure, you get more data, more often.
You can criticize this all you want to, but the simple fact is that FBC "worked" on a lot of the SDI flight projects of the early 90s (e.g., Delta Star, MSTI), culminating with the successful space test of the Brilliant Pebble spacecraft, the Clementine mission in 1994.
Goldin and NASA (specifically, JPL) never really understood this concept. They understood "cheaper" in the sense of reducing engineering development costs, but kept the glacial JPL pace, which ran the manpower costs right back up again. The Mars Pathfinder mission, NASA's FBC "success" story, was successful o

Re:Good appointment for 3 reasons

[ktakki]

"From an entrepreneurial standpoint, he has someone who has actually experienced what it is like to be on the other side of the table dealing with the government," he said. "We haven't had that before."

Of the ten NASA administrators (actually nine since Fletcher served twice) -- from Glennan (1958-1961) to O'Keefe (2001-2005) -- seven have come from the private sector. Two (O'Keefe and Frosch) came from academia and one (Truly) came up through the NASA ranks.

So, seven of nine (heh) of the men who headed up NASA also had either engineering or administrative roles at companies such as Sperry Gyroscope, General Electric, General Dynamics, Hughes, Aerojet, Westinghouse, and TRW. All have been major defense contrators and NASA vendors.

I'm not going to go so far as to imply a conflict of interest, but I would be hesitant to uphold defense contractors as shining examples of private sector management. TRW, in particular, has had its share of cost overrun problems with respect to NASA and DoD projects.

k.

Re:Good appointment for 3 reasons

[Rei]

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).

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 :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

Re:Good appointment for 3 reasons

[_Sharp'r_]

I hate to be the one to point this out to you (ok, I don't, not really), but "while reducing tax revenues" is an incorrect statement.

I know that's the myth the Dems try to feed the public, but the reality (which is readily available from the IRS website) is that U.S. tax revenues are up over the last few years.

For example, the highest annual gross revenue the IRS collected from 1992-1999 is lower than any of the years 2000-2003. Generally much lower. (Actual 2004 numbers not being out yet, but projections suggest even faster growing revenues over the next few years) This would tend to lead me to believe that the government is currently getting plenty of revenue.

Do you realize that federal tax revenues are up almost double over 10 years ago? (1.3 trillion to 2 trillion+) Similarly, revenues doubled from the end of the Carter years to the end of the Reagan/Bush Sr. years. (500 billion to up over a trillion.)

No, the budget problem has absolutely nothing to do with not enough tax revenue. The problem is way too much spending, and that's a problem that can be laid on both sides of the aisle in Congress. It is congress that spends the money, after all.

The problem with your NSF comment is that true budgeting is about priorities, where you must take money from one lower priority to fund a higher one. Resources don't appear magically to be added to someone's pet project, the government has to forcibly take them from someone else (either now or later) to spend it themselves.

So it's at least a little bit of budget sanity to say, "Hey, if we're going to fund a Moon push, some of that money needs to come from the NSF, because we think the moon thing is a higher priority!" instead of just racking up more debt for present and future generations to pay interest on.

If you really think that the NSF should get another 100 million, I presume that would be by cutting NASA 100 million? Or where else would you get the money?

Correcting some info...

[TroaIzwhoot]

Griffin currently heads the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University

Correcting some info: Griffin currently heads the Space Department at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, not the entire lab itself.
Press Release: http://www.jhuapl.edu/newscenter/pressreleases/200 4/040419.htm

One question.

[teamhasnoi]

Can he understand his little brother, or what? And what's with the talking dog?

Re:Time?

[Quantum Fizz]

As a hiring manager, I would be automatically suspicious of anyone who spent that much time in school. Sounds like he's trying to avoid real work.

Real work? Like heading the Space Department, a group with more than 600 people, which is the 2nd-largest group at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory?

As for your doubts that he actually built stuff, according to that first link above he helped design the Delta 180 missile components of the SDI program. He was also SDI's deputy of technology, associate administrator for exploration at NASA, and COO of In-Q-Tel (a private CIA-funded group to invest in relevent technology companies). He also had leadership positions at Orbital Sciences Corporation, and tech jobs at NASA JPL and Computer Science Corporation.

Regardless of whether you agree w/ SDI and the other jobs, you cannot doubt the fact that he has had both engineering and management positions, and apparently been rather successful and has a buttload of experience.

So back to your quote above, 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.

Impressive resume

[daveschroeder]

Prior to being at JHU's APL for the second time, Dr. Griffin was also the "president and chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, a private, non-profit enterprise funded by the Central Intelligence Agency to identify and invest in companies developing cutting-edge technologies that serve national security interests."

Some may be familiar with In-Q-Tel as the CIA's private venture firm.

He had just rejoined APL last April. He was with APL in the 1980s, and left to become the technology chief for the Strategic Defense Initiative.

To expand a bit on what the summary said, "in addition to a doctorate in aerospace engineering, he holds master's degrees in aerospace science, electrical engineering, applied physics, civil engineering and business administration, and a bachelor's degree in physics." He is also the president-elect of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).

There's no question he is not only a skilled academic with a clear appreciation for space sciences, but a competent administrator and manager as well, and experienced with Washington politics to boot. Let's hope he does well for NASA.

Nasa Scared Shitless?

[Goalie_Ca]

Time for nasa to get off its scared little ass and start realizing that space is a new frontier and there will be accidents and mistakes.

Re:Nasa Scared Shitless?

[RebelWebmaster]

I think NASA is well aware of that. It's the public that needs to learn that lesson.

Re:Nasa Scared Shitless?

[halltk1983]

I second the motion. I spent some time at NASA, (paid visit to look at ideas), and the astronauts accept the risk. Engineers minimize the risk. But citizens don't seem to like the risk at all, they want it 100% safe

Re:Nasa Scared Shitless?

[swillden]

What is NASA doing to educate the public on that aspect of space exploration? Or is it expecting the public to just figure that one out on their own?

I suspect NASA realizes that (a) it would be an extremely difficult PR campaign to carry off successfully, since many would perceive it as an attempt to justify their failures, rather than understand that those failures are inevitable and (b) they would receive even more criticism for spending hard-earned taxpayer's dollars on advertising and PR, when they ought to be spending that money on making the space program safe and effective.

All in all, such an education campaign seems nearly guaranteed to fail and 100% guaranteed to draw fire.

At first...

[ErichTheWebGuy]

At first glance, I thought that the story read:

... holds degrees in physics, evil, electrical, and aerospace ...

But I wonder if a degree in evil would be such a bad thing?

Re:SDI?

[r00t]

If nothing else, SDI encouraged the USSR to run themselves out of money.

Plus you have to understand that SDI is only part of a many-layered defence. All layers are weak, and some have already failed. Some layers have not been implemented; this is terribly irresponsible. The layers can include at least:

• nuclear non-proliferation treaty (mostly successful, but note India and Pakistan among others)
• economic ties (you wouldn't nuke your trade partners)
• foreign aid
• export of culture
• revenge ability
• border crossing and port inspections
• monitored airspace
• spys and pre-emptive strikes
• early-stage ICBM take-down (airborne laser, high-speed rocket in nearby area, long-range gun in nearby area...)
• space-based mid-stage ICBM take-down (X-ray laser, smart rocks, chemical laser, rail gun...)
• late-stage ICBM take-down (high-speed rocket, long-range gun, various laser systems)
• bomb shelters

Every single one of these layers can fail. Relying on just a few layers is foolish.

Expect an article pretty soon

[Man in Spandex]

about oil discovery on Mars.

Re:I am glad. But NASA hiring rules are the proble

[haluness]

and millions of IQ scores show (see the Bell Curve book data)

using the above reference pretty much makes your argument a troll.

The arguments made in that book have been pretty well repudiated (Gould, Pinker etc).

As another reply has said, get some balls, and stop whining

Re:Time?

[pla]

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".

Not the first time...

[ktakki]

Griffin was on the short list for the job after Richard Truly left in '92 (Truly, by the way, was the only astronaut to head NASA).

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:

(Griffin) ...We think $400G is way beyond what can, needs to, will be spent.

Hall (committee chair): Can do it without sacrificing safety?

Griffin: We think so.

Hall: Can lower to under $100G?

Griffin: Industry estimate, we'll be enlarging, confirming over next 2 years. Suggests missions to Mars are not only feasible but quite robust.

Hall: Where are folks who did $400G estimate? Gone, in a nursing home?

Griffin: Different mission. I liked BMW a lot more, but Toyota gets me back and forth.

Hall: I'd prefer if you drove a Ford.

Griffin: My latest car is an Oldsmobile.

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.

Re:SDI?

[Rei]

The whole "SDI helped break the Soviet Union" thing is a myth. About the only things SDI could be responsible for would be additional programs for MIRVing warheads and other countermeasures. That's hardly a budget busting line item there.

The whole "military buildup helped break the Soviet Union" might have some truth to it, but countermeasures for SDI cost a tiny fraction of the cost of SDI. It's only good against newly emerging nuclear powers.

Of course, even the notion that the military buildup was the big issue is wrong; many people had rightfully predicted far earlier that the internal contradictions within the soviet system would destroy it. One of their biggest flaws (which is still around, BTW) is the fact that people often (rightfully) felt that they would be better off by hiding damaging information than admitting it. We got a nice taste of it, for example, after the Kursk accident. Factor in the failed collective farms and other failed social experiments, and it's not surprising that so many people saw this one coming.

You can't factor out the military buildup; however, crediting SDI is pretty unrealistic.

NASA is over

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Time?

[Manan Shah]

NASA doesn't need someone who can build a rocket engine. As chief, he wont be building anything himself. His job is to MANAGE and LEAD. And he has the knowledge and experience to do just that.

Re:SDI?

[good soldier svejk]

The whole "military buildup helped break the Soviet Union" might have some truth to it... You can't factor out the military buildup; however, crediting SDI is pretty unrealistic.

Not really. You pretty much can factor out the military buildup. The Soviet military budget grew at a steady 1-1.5 percent anually from 1975 to 1988. There was no change in the growth rate under Reagan. Furthermore, Soviet spending on weapons procurement didn't rise at all under Reagan. Then in 1988 Gorbachev cut the overall military budget back to 1980 levels. All this while they were fighting a hot war in Afghanistan. When exactly did the USSR go "bankrupt" anyway? It was political bankruptcy which killed the CPSU regime, not economic bankruptcy. The economy was in decline, but it was far from collapsed. That came later under the Russian Federation.

Re:How about 100% failure

[mbrother]

It's a problem, sure, but an engineering/physics problem that will have solutions. One such solution is dramatized in Kim Stanley Robinson's well researched Red Mars.

Re:Time?

[Mukaikubo]

Let me get this straight. Because he has more advanced degrees than you or I will ever have, and because he's held a lot of fairly responsible jobs on technical projects, he's a creationist. ...ye gods, sign me up for the God-loving, if this is what it gets! Seriously, are you just trolling?

Re:Time?

[Quantum Fizz]

So you criticize this guy for having too many management jobs, and then use that as the argument for why he's unfit for the top management job as NASA?

You also criticize a guy that loves science for jumping to the 'dark side' of management. But just what kind of manager are you looking for at NASA anyway? Someone that doesn't like science?

More info; what to expect

[FleaPlus]

Hm... I went through three rounds of rejected submission attempts earlier trying to submit this story, several hours before this version was posted. In any case, here's my version of the submission, which has many more links:

NASA Watch, New Scientist, and Space Ref report that Dr. Michael D. Griffin has been nominated as the next administrator of NASA, to replace Sean O'Keefe. As NASA head, Griffin will be tasked with implementing the Vision for Space Exploration. Griffin is currently head of the Space Department at the Applied Physics Laboratory at JHU, is president-elect of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and has a doctorate in aerospace engineering. He's noted for being passionate about space exploration and having strong management experience. His nomination has been praised by a number of groups, including the Planetary Society, the National Space Society, and House Science Committee Democrats and Republicans. In the past, Mike Griffin has testified to Congress on the future of human spaceflight, the vision for space exploration, and the danger of asteroid impacts. He was also rebuked in the early 90s for pointing out problems with the space station's review process.

As for my own thoughts, I think Griffin is an excellent pick. I'm amazed that they were able to find somebody with as much technical expertise as him who also has such a large amount of experience with managing large organizations. According to the space.com article, Griffin can be expected to make maximum use of the emerging commercial spaceflight industry.

In the past he's also said the following, which I approve of highly: "What is needed is to retire the Shuttle Orbiter, and its expensive support infrastructure," Griffin wrote. "It simply does not serve the needs of exploration and it is too expensive, to logistically fragile, and insufficiently safe for continued use as a low Earth orbit transport vehicle."

In the past he's been highly in favor of the government constructing a new heavy-lift launch vehicle, which I somewhat disagree with. Such an endeavor could easily end up being a bottomless money pit. Hopefully SpaceX's low-cost launches in the coming months will help raise awareness of frequently-launched smaller vehicles.

Re:Nasawatch has great coverage

[FleaPlus]

In synopsis, Griffin has been willing eschew political expediency and stand on principle.

Yeah, I thought this quote from NASA Watch was particularly telling:

Editor's personal note: In 1993, during the redesign of Space Station Freedom, many of us felt that the books had been cooked by NASA HQ such that the SS Freedom configuration (Option B) was deliberately handicapped and that the other two options A (MSFC) and C (JSC) were given an unfair advantage. Hardly an apples to apples review. Mike Griffin, who led the Option B effort (headquartered at LaRC) wrote a letter for the record at one point, standing squarely on principle and pointing out the discrepancies and inequities in that review process. That letter received wide circulation - and Mike's NASA career suffered as a result. He was promoted to some pointless job by Dan Goldin and eventually left the agency. I can say from personal experience, that Mike Griffin has demonstrated personal integrity - and did so in a public way that was rather career adverse. I expect he will bring that same integrity to the job of NASA Administrator. As such, yes, at this point, I am biased in this regard.

List of questions Congress and NASA need to ask

[FleaPlus]

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?

One problem...

[RayBender]

There is one thing that bothers me a great deal about this guy: he apparently was big into SDI in the 80's. That makes me doubt his judgement. Anyone with a decent amount of technical knowledge at the time knew that SDI would never work against a full Soviet onslaught. Either he held his nose and did the work for the money (like a colleague of mine), or he was blinded by ideology, or he just wasn't thinking very clearly. None of those alternative speaks well of him.

Re:Heavy lift and BIG EXPLOSIONS

[EatingPie]

Ever seen the satellite imagery of Energia's destrictive power when blows up on the pad?

Oy, those Rooskeys ain't brave... they CRAZY!!

And we complain about Shuttle safety. NASA PR needs to just start advertising Russian "safety" and people will lay off. Bigtime!

-Pie