Slashdot Mirror
New NASA Admin Griffin Cleans House
Doug Dante writes "Michael D. Griffin, the new NASA Administrator, has given 20 senior NASA officials their walking papers, in a first purge that can see as many as 50 loose their positions, reports the Washington Post. Included are Associate Administrator for Space Operations William F. Readdy, and his deputy Air Force Maj. Gen. Michael C. Kostelnik (retired)."
Will the be bringing in real engineers? Real engineers, rather than bureaucrats, are the only way that NASA can be revitalized.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
biotch
gods editors, at least TRY to look for basic spelling errors
This makes me wonder to which extent the bureaucracy is to blame (or attribute) to "entrenched" managers or the whole system. In this case, it is apparently believed that the top layer of people keep an inefficient system intact. The question is: can one change the nature of a system by replacing the managing people in that system?
see a Text Widget
"in a first purge that can see as many as 50 loose their positions"
I hear they are looking for replacements, that know the difference between the word "loose" and "lose".
The new, "tighter" jobs are said to pay much less, however.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
For the love of God, learn to spell English. It's "lose", not "loose".
LOSE.
Surely NASA should bind and gag you before strapping to you the back of a just about to be launched rocket if they were firing you.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
loose - Not fastened, restrained, or contained: loose bricks.
lose - To be unsuccessful in retaining possession of; mislay: He's always losing his car keys.
This was a public service announcement.
gay
How about you get thru the current Mars & Cassini missions and GET THE SHUTTLE BACK UP before you sack the leaders of those three programs - two of which are very big loud & public successes (in NASA-land anyway) and the third had better be or else you'll be looking at barely enough authorization funds to make with two large-ish slingshots.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
That the Daddypants account is ignored. I emailed saying that Loose isn't the same as lose, and that they should probably change that.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
n/t
Senior NASA officials and congressional and aerospace industry sources said yesterday that Griffin wants to clear away entrenched bureaucracy, and build a less political and more scientifically oriented team to implement President Bush's plan to return humans to the moon by 2020 and eventually send them to Mars.
So, essentially, we're just throwing out the folks who might have some misgivings about our upcoming pissing contest with China?
This purge will clear the way nicely for NASA to refocus its science on the Earth. By developing the infrastructure for a bankrupting, warmongering, nonfunctional Star Wars space weapons system.
--
make install -not war
first you can't understand metric and now you can't spell ?
i guess it's understandable when 50% of you are mentally ill.
http://www.fatkidsong.com/
Right after he smoked the nuclear bomb in a crack pipe? This has NASA written all over it.
"... see as many as 50 loose their positions ... "
Can't anyone around here figure out the difference between loose and lose. It's illiterate and sad to see on the front page.
Some examples:
I'm going to lose my keys.
Your mum is very loose because she is easy.
I'm really shocked that Slashdot "editor" CowboyNeal didn't catch that.
decrease the spread of Weapons Of Mass Destruction.
Have a marijuana-induced weekend,
Kilgore Trout, CEO
Does anyone have the political affiliations of the people who were fired?
[o]_O
I am not writing to agree or disagree with Sen. James Sensenbrenner. What I have to say, however, regards Sensenbrenner's decision to distract attention from more important issues. Let's review the errors in his statements in order. First, his concept of team play is sideline sulking.
He is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens his creature comforts, he throws principle to the wind. He argues that he is omnipotent. To maintain this thesis, Sensenbrenner naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that this is the best of all possible worlds and that he is the best of all possible people. I am cognizant that he makes so many laughably unprofessional statements, it boggles the mind to think about them, but inequality does not beget equality -- and Sensenbrenner knows it.
I recently overheard a couple of foul, viperine amnesiacs say that neopaganism is the only alternative to barbarism. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Sensenbrenner-induced era of slogans and propaganda. Like I said, by balancing the theoretical untruth and nonsense of his nostrums with the reality of this phenomenon, we can see that his cock-and-bull stories turn the stomachs of those who know even a little about the real world. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that, so let me assure you that he presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. Sensenbrenner is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors manipulative cadgers. And here we have the ultimate irony, because while we do nothing, those who cultivate an unhealthy sense of victimhood are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we lend support to the thesis that I am inwardly repelled by the pettifogging phraseology of Sensenbrenner's whinges and the counter-productive, haughty style in which they are expressed. We can divide Sensenbrenner's precepts into three categories: intransigent, splenetic, and demented. As our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the classes of people Sensenbrenner preys upon.
I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for his subterfuge. I'm thoroughly stunned. Because of Sensenbrenner's tracts, our schools simply do not teach the basics anymore. Instead, they preach the theology of insolent isolationism. On a more personal note, Sensenbrenner is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul. In keeping with all of their inner bookish brutality, his lackeys shackle us with the chains of cynicism.
Regardless of what he seems to believe, it's time to step things up a notch and hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties. Vandalism can be deadly, but Sensenbrenner's diatribes are much worse. It is pointless to fret about the damage already caused by Sensenbrenner's incoherent manuscripts. The past cannot be changed. We must cope with the present if we hope to affect our future and wage war on interventionism. A recent series of hearings, lawsuits, and media reports demonstrates that an armed revolt against Sensenbrenner is morally justified. However, I assert that it is not yet strategically justified.
His claim that the Earth is flat is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind. Yes, you heard me right; Sensenbrenner's forces tend to fall into the mistaken belief that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem, mainly because they live inside a Sensenbrenner-ge
While its certainly pleasant to see altruism be attempted, if the funding comes from the feds, not private sector, politics/bureaucracy must be involved. I wish the new administrator well, but I hope he's not so naive to think he can rid NASA of the dead weight of politicos and entrenched senior bureaucrats. No way in hell NASA will ever be free of fed interference when it relies solely on fed money.
Bet you this guy as facial hair. I worked at the Space Science department of the Rutherford-Appleton Labs in Oxfordshire. All the people their had beards of mustaches. Even the women.
I wonder what Griffin, as a genuine no nonsense space scientist would make of the rants that appear on slashdot from time to time among space enthusiasts. If any of the folks who run slashdot can score an interview with him, I have a ton of questions I would like the head of NASA to address. Hey, it's possible right? As a public official, public relations are an integral part of his job. I believe he would have to regard a high profile mob like slashdot as a sort of "constituency" he needs to take seriously.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
Perhaps this cleaning of the administration is being done in order to facilitate a more military-centric NASA. There has been much speculation (see References) that the US military will begin to weaponize space. A NASA that is less interested in scientific discovery will of course be beneficial to the Pentagon, as they have the capabilities and know-how to design, implement, launch, maintain and control this upcoming space-based weaponry.
e =technologyNews&storyID=8522373 0 0000e2511c8.html
References: http://www.reuters.com/audi/newsArticle.jhtml?typ
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a4a4e198-c8cf-11d9-87c9-
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7896613/
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
I would, if I were getting shitcanned from NASA. Oh, and FYI: there shouldn't be a comma between replacements and that.
-- Let him who is without spelling error ignite the first flame --
You know... "Lose" and "Loose" are not even one of the more challenging mix-ups. I don't understand how people do it.
If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.
Are you new here?
Catching that error would require that CowboyNeal a) read the submissions. reading is hard and b) give a fuck.
Nasa is changing. It must make way to private enterprises to compete in space. Therefore don't look to NASA for anything big in the future, a few moonlandings will be about all there is left for it.
I think it's a serious problem that unmanned and manned space exploration are so intertwined.
Unmanned exploration is science and should be funded as such. It shouldn't have to compete with politically motivated "manned exploration" projects.
In fact, ideally, I think NASA should leave manned exploration to the private sector. NASA should be turned into an agency dedicated to unmanned exploration: remote sensing, robotics, and new propulsion technologies.
Why won't NASA simply fortify its competitive prizes? Do we really need for central planners to decide what numerous competing teams nationwide could if only more of NASA's $16 billion dollar annual budget went to incentivizing them through prize offerings? NASA has $10 million allocated and congressionally approved for competitive prizes this fiscal year, and yet less than $1 million has been allocated thus far. Even DARPA's Grand Challenge in October (autonomous robotic roving) is worth $2 million. Isn't it obvious that the bureaucrat statists and / or the pork barrelers in Congress FEAR this long overdue reform? For more details about this badly needed STRUCTURAL change at NASA: http://www.spaceprojects.com/prizes
NASA stops stealing money from hard-working Americans for their lies. Moon landing, especially with the technology of 35 years ago? Don't make me laugh.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
I fail to see how otherwise intelligent Slashdotters could fall for this obvious crock of shit. It's even worse than creationism!
Well, it's too soon to say what the intentions are, but I do believe that NASA was long overdue for a shake-up. Although I disagree with the Bush administration on just about every other issue, I have been pleasantly surprised by their space policy. I strongly support a return to manned space exploration. If this shake-up clears the way for manned missions to the Moon and Mars then it is a positive. Manned exploration of space is about returning NASA to the glory days of the Apollo missions. Bold goals will produce great science. That was the experience of the Apollo programs. Also, manned missions inspire the public in a way that robots never can. Speaking personally, it was my love of the Space program that made me choose engineering as a profession. That said I do have a lingering concern that this purge could be clearing the way for the militarization of space. I don't want to see NASA become a branch of the Pentagon. NASA is a civilian agency dedicated to the peaceful exploration of space to benefit "All mankind."
The phrase "pissing contest" is used by the left to descibe a male-oriented competition which is designed to feed the ego rather than do something useful. The idea of calling it a "pissing contest" is to denigrate and belittle those who undertake this kind of competitive behavior, which is meant to instill pride in the winner and motivate the loser to do better next time.
SO the question is, why would someone want to denigrate those who engage in this kind of behavior? If you look at socialist ideology, the answer is clear. Socialist ideology stresses cooperation instead of competition in achieving goals. I think history has shown that competitive paradigm produces results far more than the cooperative paradigm. The reason for this that competition more closely mirrors Man's true nature, in which self-preservation of the individual is paramount. By tapping into the strongest possible motivating factor (self-preservation) those societies that encourage competition will succeed more (as long as the destructive nature of self-preservation is held in check).
So "pissing contests" are very important because they motivate achievement in the most fundamental way. And (whether the parent poster realizes it or not) they do produce real results, just look at cold war race with the Soviets and the achievements driven by DARPA. The list of accomplishment is staggering.
So the phrase "pissing contest" is used to support socialist ideology, which boils down to make everything the Right does look foolish, which boils down to simpleminded ideas like "Bush is Eeeevil!!!!!" or "Bush is Hitler!!!!!!.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
If it had been some other government agency, or some private company that "cleaned house" this way, like the energy or the defense department, or like Adobe or Microsoft, would this be news on Slashdot? What makes NASA so special?
I couldn't agree with you more. NASA has $10 million allocated and congressionally approved for competitive prizes this fiscal year, and yet less than $1 million has been allocated thus far. Even DARPA's Grand Challenge in October (autonomous robotic roving) is worth $2 million. Isn't it obvious that the bureaucrat statists and / or the pork barrelers in Congress FEAR this long overdue reform-fortification? Why won't NASA simply fortify its competitive prizes? Do we really need for central planners to decide what numerous competing teams nationwide could if only more of NASA's $16 billion dollar annual budget went to incentivizing them through prize offerings? For more details about this badly needed STRUCTURAL change at NASA: http://www.spaceprojects.com/prizes
Sorry, there is no payback in this. It's not like a class action suit, where you put up $1-$2M in real money with a pretty good chance of getting back 20-30X your investment. Space exploration really is hard, and bigger projects are very unpredictable. Nobody is going to spend $100-$500M on a project, possibly competing with several other companies, for a $200M prize (or even $1-2B prize for that matter). These things take years, and Wall Street is going to expect some returns buy the end of the fiscal quarter.
No, those prizes are for rich folks with nothing better to do and corporations who have a few million in pocket change they'd have to pay taxes on, so they "fund a team" and hope for some good press.
NASA needs to go back to its roots. If you look at the real technical departments at Goddard, some of the smart folks are still there. So is the atmostphere. That spark thats left is going to need a lot of oxygen and some carful tending to earn back NASA the "rocket scientist" moniker, but I think it can be done, and I think Griffin has a chance.
By the way - Griffin has been a Mars mission fanatic for a LONG time. Heck, it was part of the final he gave when I took my graduate class in space vehicle guidance an navigation from him a decade ago. He's one smart guy (and a PITA as a professor, though a nice one). Given enough time, I think he's got a good shot at turning NASA around. If he can't do it, there's not much chance of it happening.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Oh, fuck, another ESR
fanboy. Why don't you and Eric spend some quality time pissing on
each other, or whatever it is you alpha-fags do exactly, and leave
the rest of us in peace?
There's about as much evidence for your assertions as against them, thereby reducing your post to a trolling crock of shit that someone should mod down.
The reality is that in a world of 6 billion people we are going to have to learn cooperation over competition as a way to live. Or would it not bother you if I killed your family and robbed you of your earthly possessions? Survival of the fittest and most fucked up, right? Is that what you want?
Do you want the law of the jungle or the law of civilization? Choose wisely, because so far you seem like a fucking idiot.
I'm not familiar with the PITA acronom. Please enlighten me? But as for: >>>Nobody is going to spend $100-$500M on a project, possibly competing with several other companies, for a $200M prize (or even $1-2B prize for that matter).>>These things take years, and Wall Street is going to expect some returns buy the end of the fiscal quarter.>>No, those prizes are for rich folks with nothing better to do>> and corporations who have a few million in pocket change they'd have to pay taxes on, so they "fund a team" and hope for some good press. Would you prefer they simply keep over-subsidizing the Super Bowl for that same desired effect? Prizes tend to leverage around 40 times their amount in terms of collective expenditures pursuing them. If you work at NASA or a NASA contractor, you're selling your chances short by around 1/40th by bashing prizes. Don't you want to get to make more money and more of a difference?
More? Most of what NASA does is research for the Air Force (missiles, planes, etc), and the Shuttle was used primarily for lofting spy satellites.
Did you really think that we lit off the Shuttle just to take a bunch of plants and gerbils from 4th graders to space to see how they grow? Not quite. The military is known for doing all sorts of trickery, including deployed structures and whatnot to hide what satellites look like from telescopes and other satellites. One of the first steps towards covertness was the whole "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" routine, with silly little useless experiments from school children and whatnot (spacelab provided much of the data we needed for long term effects of weightlessness in space on people, btw).
Please help metamoderate.
Selling Science to the this Congress and the bush administration, that's a losing cause. You need to tell them that Jesus is on Mars. Then they will open the spigots of money. If you think I am kidding watch the people they replace these guys with. Can you say Doctorate in Theology?
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
This is news because SPACE matters much more. Here's why... First of all, we could probably repay our record high $8 trillion dollar national debt with the benefits resulting from less inefficient colonization efforts on the Moon and Mars. Such breakthroughs would pertain to energy production, the biotech sector, robotics, mining, chemistry, and telemedicine, etcetera. One also cannot overlook explorations exciting ability to potentially inspire students to eagerly embrace math & science like they did during the Apollo Era when folks like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Amazon.com's Jeff Bezos initially fell in love with such subjects. We could even learn to increasingly view others as fellow Earthlings, not enemies, while we struggle together against the shared hardships of the unknown. But we need structural (not personal) reforms at NASA to realize our potential: http://www.spaceprojects.com/reforms
Ah, boys, here we go.
A few weeks ago we were wondering about NASA's new direction.
I posted that the money would never show up for whatever Bush is selling nowadays about the manned space program.
This is the first shot. As in so many other programs, he will say one thing and do the Orwellian switch, with no one bothering to note the discrepancy. Education, environment, energy policy, on and on. Say something thing positive, then defund and kill.
He will make brave speeches, then move to cut the budgets and starve the governmental beast that firstly, he hates, and secondly, won't have the budget to support basic science like NASA because we've jacked all the cash, no - correction: borrowed the cash to jack into tax cuts for the wealthiest.
With a quarter of all federal tax revenues going into simply paying the interest on all the money we've borrowed for the last quarter century to finance tax "relief", we'll have no spare cash to spank a cat, much less fund NASA. The people making trillions are those being paid that interest. And we lose space for another couple of generations.
And this is exactly on-topic, for the smile-then-backstab tactic is exactly why the admins are being axed. Those admins ARE the engineers. They will be replaced with MBA's, or with no one at all. As much as we dislike management, it takes savvy bosses to navigate the halls of power. Killing the administrators off will decapitate NASA's ability to keep funding alive. You don't kill a beast by shooting it in the hands. You kill it by carefully shooting it in the brain.
I don't know where my answer went(?) but it mentioned (in detailed fashion) Paul Allen, Elon Musk, Burt Rutan, Jeff Bezos and John Carmack as being entrepreneurs who pursue space prizes of one sort or another that are worth considerably less than the amount they invest in pursuit of them. Prizes are part of the compensation, but there's also commercial potential (tourism, mining, technology spinoffs that can be patented, etc.). Even Wall Street is forgiving where delayed gratifications seem worthwhile (as Intel's embracing of WiMax wireless broadband technology well before a payoff could come about, demonstrates). And in conclusion, I said: would you prefer that publicity-seeking corporations and the like simply keep over-subsidizing the Super Bowl for that same desired effect? Prizes tend to leverage around 40 times their amount in terms of collective expenditures pursuing them. If you work at NASA or a NASA contractor, you're selling your chances short by around 1/40th by bashing prizes. Don't you want to get to make more money and more of a difference?
I am so glad they newly appointed Mike Griffin is gutting the old regime, and I was expecting this for weeks. Not only is he a scientist, he has an MBA and common sense.
:
:
:
Common sense is something missing from NASA and NASA's hiring practices, contracting rules, and even grant administration.
I hope my own bosses get the axe too.
Failure plagues NASA ever since NASA embarked on an astounding gender and race based hiring and advancement program a few years ago. Many of the female led programs have had resounding failures, and the waste and delays from SBIR (ethnic third party procurement rules) and other racist programs have destroyed NASA in many ways.
There reason the MAJORITY of recent mars missions failed is gender and race bias in hiring and promotion against whites and asians.
Vital FACT! Nasa switched to forced female hiring in most of the recent Mars failures.
For the first time ever ONLY WOMEN called the shots on the largest mars mission that failed. read
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/04 1899nasa-women.html
(remove spaces if needed, Slashcode ads them)
for the first time ever all three KEY positions of the failed mars missions were female
Sarah A. Gavit = the mars project manager
Suzanne E. Smrekar, 37, the lead mars scientist
Kari A. Lewis= the mars project's chief engineer
Current hiring rules from the new top level NASA female administration dictate this new female forced hiring policy.
NASA has hiring policies that try to hire women DESPITE IQ or experience. In fact they now PREVENT job related award honors and bonuses based on how many females you hire and how many females and black contractors you hire!!! This is a fact!
NASA publicly has stated this from the woman in charge. I can't tell you about my own memos.
NASA is proud to boast 2% female active engineers minimum and that is WAY out of wack with societies norms.
The mars missions are even more than 2% female.
The average IQ of a Caucasian US Male holding a medical degree is IQ 124, but as the front page of the San Jose Mercury proclaimed in huge block letter headlines, and millions of IQ scores show (see the Bell Curve book data), the chance of a FEMALE obtaining a test score of 124 is EIGHT TIMES LESS LIKELY than an equivalent male. EIGHT TIMES LESS LIKELY. Conversely very low IQ people are almost always males. The average IQ is the same for both genders 100, but the IQ distribution bell curves are dramatically different shapes.
NASA boasts a female-minority web site documenting how not only are contractors hired by whether or not they are female or black but what state their small companies reside in! NASA apparently requires all 50 states to have minority participation in parts design and supply for the mars missions! REGARDLESS of competence! Sex and race are the prime criteria in current years. Check out NASA own detailed list of female and minority small contractors at : http://sbir.nasa.gov./ SBIR is a euphemistic acronym for small business innovation research, but as you can easily see it is actually a gender and race quota based system spearheaded by the new women helping to run NASA now.
from the female mars leader
"Women have really added to the workplace because we do come at things from a different angle," she said.
"For the same reason that cultural diversity works, gender diversity is wonderful, too, especially when you're trying to do something creative."
Also from the female mars leader Gavit:
"The fact that we're women hasn't made a difference," she said. "It's not an issue here. But it's good that young girls see that engineering and technical fields are wide open to women. That's the good thing about saying it's a woman-led team."
The
I think something of this sort was needed, clearing out entrenched and increasingly useless NASA upper management who have in the last 20 years largely robbed the program of both vision and scientific relevance.
Unfortunately with an event as large-scale as this, and given some of the other circumstances involved, I have serious questions as to whether the 20 managers axed are the ones who have been holding NASA back, or if they were selected on some other criteria...
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Why not incorporate a simple client-side JavaScript script into the Slashdot submission process that points out potential spelling mistakes like lose/loose, their/there...There aren't that many to cover and I see them soooo often.
...who can use a comma correctly.
I hear they are looking for replacements that know the difference between the word "loose" and "lose".
not
I hear they are looking for replacements, that know the difference between the word "loose" and "lose".
In previous stories about NASA, you all complain about how much bureaucracy there is in NASA, and how that led to problems like the shuttle crash. Now when they try to clean it up, you're all still complaining.
two of which are very big loud & public successes (in NASA-land anyway)
It should be referred to as the NASA, just like the CIA, the FDA, or the IRS. It is a government agency, not a private enterprise allowed to do its own bidding. It really appears as though many in the organization feel that the NASA exists for their sake, not to carry out the orders of Congress.
Its about time the organization got a shake up.
Well, unfortunatly civil servants can't be fired, only reassigned, so he's moving the bloated buearauacy engine from his organization to....where? We'll never know.
:)
Some new crew gets to work for these guys, as soon as they are "involuntarily" re-assigned. Anyone familiar with gov't ogranzations knows what kind of good ol boys club that is, I'm sure they will have thier choice of new cooshie jobs to choose from.
The place I work for is full of administrative senior "engineers" most of which should have retired 10 years ago....thier usefullness as real engineers has long since expired, but since the mob isn't great career choice, you can still be "made" as a civil servant.
I hope my offer letter shows up soon
Tweet, tweet, all id10t's out of the gene pool, open swim is over.
That is exactly the problem. So many ppl have spoken highly of O'Keefe, but he came through and put in exactly what you do not wish to see.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Now, when you say Griffin, do you mean the new NASA administrator Michael D. Griffin, or do you mean the mythological creature, half eagle, half lion?
Sorry... had to steal a Dilbert joke. I'll go hide in a corner now.
"loose" their positions?
Is that something like having a more flexible rules at work?
Geez, i would think that this was a serious article, involving people LOSING their positions... but if it's all about LOOSE ones... uuf, then it's all good.
Red Faction is the first thing I thought of when I read the title...
No existe.
here is his official military biography
a ge=1
http://www.af.mil/bios/bio_print.asp?bioID=6097&p
He seems to have a lot of history in research field of the military. Having been a test pilot, commanded the test pilot school and also been the commander of the worlds largest Air Force Base Eglin, which is mostly used test and research new arms.
Seemed to be more than qualified, considering that he has only been in the job of 1-2 year.
"Nimis exaltatus rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!"
A LOT of what you posted makes sense. The only two potential objections that I might raise are: *NASA's annual budget is $16 billion. The fact that the cost of launching humans into space from the USA has gone nowhere but up over time is not particularly attributable to women as much as it is to the good ole' boys' network and the Shuttle huggers (i.e. pork-barrelers), right? *Lori Garver was the one who got NASA to propose competitive prizes to Congress (which squashed them the first time around, half a decade ago, in part because Dan Goldin didn't push the idea being the corrupt sort that he was). But upon that foundation, we have since made NASA prizes a reality. No engineer in Lori's place had previously done anything comparable. And I'm not aware that her predecessor Alan Ladwig is an engineer. I do know, though, that that Policy and Plans office was subsequently eliminated altogether. But the rest of what you said is RIGHT on the money. I guarantee you that you will enjoy this: http://www.spaceprojects.com/minority-contracts
I know for a fact one of two mentioned is a Republican.
"Nimis exaltatus rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!"
Burt Rutan told me in 2000 that prizes typically leverage 40 times their amount in investment pursuing them. And we saw that happen with the DARPA Grand Challenge, although the effect was tapered by participation restrictions. I VAGUELY recall that the prize that Charles Lindberg won for crossing the Atlantic only attracted 15 times its amount in terms of investment pursuing it. But this vague recollection's based on hearsay and is nearly a century old (before cyberspace made putting investors together with innovators in pursuit of prizes that were meant to generate publicity so much more efficient). Regardless, what's NASA's ratio? NASA has to pay to build stuff like X-33 that it never even gets. And it's not NASA's money to give to the X Prize Foundation; it's taxpayers'.
What we've lost in America is the drive to better ourselves and the human race without trying to make a million dollars at it. (at least most of us) Look how many enthusiasts write free OS's and terrific software. I've found in my own travels that people who 'CAN' offer things free or next to free have much better offerings than the profitable equivilant. Their reason for offering is because it gives them a chance to gain experience and knowledge. Obviously, THE reward for us geeks (that and sometimes a peck on the cheek). NASA has been senior staffed for decades by ex hippies that want to show the world how smart they are. Whoopie. Sure, it appears they enjoy success of their hard work but they really aren't in it for knowledge, adventure, exploration, or even for helping their fellow man. Frankly, I'd gladly see Nasa's tek rolled back if it got a better crew!! We've been pitching rocks onto the shore of our ultimate destiny for years when we could have been 'dropping anchor' at the moon and mars a long time ago. They are holding us back, along with politicians and our educational system. What are they keeping us on this planet for, so they can maintain control? Eh, this subject exposes my angst:D There is a universe of possibility waiting just outside the atmosphere but here we are.
Of course, no male dominated program at NASA has ever failed. Mars Observer Mission was a stellar example of quality, for example. As was any number of other missions.. I guess women so completely dominated Shuttle development that no one could ever recover from their core flaws..
The fact of the matter is that the Discovery Missions have been systemically flawed since they started adding elements to them. Exactly what was the success rate the past couple launch windows? 30%? Comes from taking a small budget, cramming as much stuff in as possible and leaving no budget for testing. There is a systemic flaw in NASA. It is called "Incapability to build to a budget". They keep adding features to each successive layer of a prgram to do *more* each mission rather than do the same amount, but with different objectives, because they have the *same* budget.
You're specific example is, by far, the most technically challenging task in the last round of flights. Slamming impactors into an unknown surface at orbital insertion velocities with a period of about 18 months from proposal to hardware with *zero* testing allowed for in the budget (time and equipment).. What did you expect? At least they *hit* the planet instead of mistaking how close it will flyby..
That is not a male/female issue. That is just plain bad engineering and it happens in male dominated programs as much as anywhere else.
NASA prizes were pushed through by a female. You sure you want to advocate this?
The truth of the matter is that NASA has managed a grand total of *one* piece of man rated flying hardware in the past 20 years and it took 15 years between Reagan proposing the space station in 1984 until they actually flew it. If NASA had a better track record the 20 years prior to the time you are complaining about, you might have had a point, but really? You're just blowing smoke. NASA flew a space mission once every 6 months, or so, and had variable success rate long before the hiring practices you are complaining about were implemented.
Willfully refusing to conduct experiments that would yield valuable data for ANY reason is an opposition to science.
Who said anything about "willfully refusing"? In cases where manned exploration yields the same bang-for-the-buck as unmanned probes, I'm all for manned exploration. Until then, we should stick with unmanned probes.
However, there are numerous things that they can not do and there is nothing that can do that can not be done by a human supplied with life essentials.
Most scientifically interesting missions are, in fact, only possible with unmanned probes at this point. Human missions are infeasible for many reasons: humans want to have a return trip, they need to be shielded from radiation, and they can't endure years in space, for example.
I don't know specifically about their affiliations, but if you trust the article, page 2 says:
In principle, this sounds like a very good thing. Apparently, he's kicking out people whom he believes were hired more for their political affiliations than their competance. Before taking this as it's written, however, can anyone comment on any political affiliations of Griffin himself? For all we know, and as I think you're implying, his definition of competance might be synonymous with republican.
What is it about stories on NASA that brings out the tin-foil hat brigade? Are they having a special on half-baked conspiracy theories?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
counts for more with Bushco than technical expertise does. Same thing happened at the CIA and just recently with a group of telecommunications experts sent to South America to represent the U.S. People who had made campaign contributions to Kerry were purged.
Climatology, simple chemistry, pharmacology Ethics, Mathematics, Economics, Archaeology, History, and the list goes on and on. The guy is a Luddite.. If he could read I would get him a copy of Jesus on Mars by Philip José Farmer
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Thank you for the reply. I insert your comments in asterices and reply afterward: ***Read Mike Griffin's "internal memo" to NASA posted on spaceref.com or nasawatch.com. He (rightly so) believes that private industry does not have the resources or drive to implement the kinds of multigenerational missions that space exploration requires.**** In the absence of adequate competitive prizes, YES, that's less untrue. But we've got a lot more high tech visionary space lovers out there now who are willing to make the commitment (and are doing so). Can you imagine how much better it would be if only NASA offered adequate competitive prizes? Again, think: Musk, Bezos, Carmack, Paul Allen, Rutan, etc... ***Getting to Mars will take decades (not the trip itself, but the planning, building the vehicles, and implementation). When was the last time you saw any corporation plan more than 10 years out?*** Tire companies have successfully lobbied to keep metro / subway systems from being built in certain parts of our country even though they'd take as much as a decade to complete. Meanwhile, Microsoft designed the internet explorer a decade ago around how Bill Gates figured the internet would be a decade later (and beyond). There are other examples but who says it must take as long as you say for us to go to Mars? NASA contractors and their bureaucratic ilk do, of course, because they still profit from saying so. Taxpayers deserve better, especially given our record high $8 trillion dollar national debt and aging population. *** How about 20 or 30? Now, take all profit motivation out of that equation**** It's unrealistic to do so in this era of space tourism and potential private property rights in space. ***and how many of them are left... purely scientific and research oriented undertakings by a corporation that took decades to bring to fruition. A government organization is the only kind of organization that will be able to span that timeframe without breaking apart.*** NASA could offer different prizes for different endeavors and alliances would naturally emerge between the best launchers, the best life support system designers, the best ....
Projects like the Jupiter Icy Moon Orbiter, James Webb Telescope (Hubble's replacement), and the Terrestrial Planet Finder are gone.
In their place are empty flag-waving execises (let's go to the moon!!) that will not increase our knowlegde of the universe or solar system at all.
Fundamentalist religous types are discomfited by the idea of finding life elsewhere (Europa's oceans) or finding Earth Analogues, or of seeing back in time more than 5,000 years. Programs that would do this are being shut down.
Remember to wave as those brave astronauts lift on on their taxi journey.
Thank you for the reply. I insert your comments in asterices and reply afterward:
....
***Read Mike Griffin's "internal memo" to NASA posted on spaceref.com or nasawatch.com. He (rightly so) believes that private industry does not have the resources or drive to implement the kinds of multigenerational missions that space exploration requires.****
In the absence of adequate competitive prizes, YES, that's less untrue. But we've got a lot more high tech visionary space lovers out there now who are willing to make the commitment (and are doing so). Can you imagine how much better it would be if only NASA offered adequate competitive prizes? Again, think: Musk, Bezos, Carmack, Paul Allen, Rutan, etc...
***Getting to Mars will take decades (not the trip itself, but the planning, building the vehicles, and implementation). When was the last time you saw any corporation plan more than 10 years out?***
Tire companies have successfully lobbied to keep metro / subway systems from being built in certain parts of our country even though they'd take as much as a decade to complete. Meanwhile, Microsoft designed the internet explorer a decade ago around how Bill Gates figured the internet would be a decade later (and beyond). There are other examples but who says it must take as long as you say for us to go to Mars? NASA contractors and their bureaucratic ilk do, of course, because they still profit from saying so. Taxpayers deserve better, especially given our record high $8 trillion dollar national debt and aging population.
*** How about 20 or 30? Now, take all profit motivation out of that equation****
It's unrealistic to do so in this era of space tourism and potential private property rights in space.
***and how many of them are left... purely scientific and research oriented undertakings by a corporation that took decades to bring to fruition. A government organization is the only kind of organization that will be able to span that timeframe without breaking apart.***
NASA could offer different prizes for different endeavors and alliances would naturally emerge between the best launchers, the best life support system designers, the best
everything else "isnt rocket science"
wakeup.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Flamebait? I will be damned. Listen: the reason why the people are being canned at NASA is because the budget is shrinking, and because Bush says one thing while he does another: No Child Left Behind, in which he dumps the funding onto the individual state; Clear Skies, in which pollution controls are dismantled or the enforcement defunded; Healthy Forests, where the lumber companies are given carte blanche and free roads; pumping up patriotism for the armed forces while cutting funding for their retirement, their wages, and their medical care; disassembling bankruptcy laws while declaiming concern for struggling families... the list can go on for hours. Not that Americans hear anything about it on the news.
DO NOT USE YOUR MOD POINTS, BUSHITES, TO SHUT PEOPLE UP.
NASA is being defunded and beheaded by Bush and his brain trust. I doubt very much Bush even knows about the process, being who he is and limited as he is in capacity to understand detail.
Modding this as "flamebait" is like saying a man forced you to riot, rightwingers. If the truth upsets you, too bad, but mod points are for keeping people on topic and legal, not for smothering the voices telling you the truth.
This is what happened to ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. Everyone is terrified to mention obvious truth because the right wingers are ready to Ratherize anyone who defames the Leader or points out that their worldview is bullshit. And BTW, Rather's report was correct: Bush bugged out, never got sent to Vietnam as a normal punishment, and walked away whistling, his Daddy's friends cleaning up after him. It's the Texas Way. Deal with it.
A slightly ignorant question:
What is NASA doing? I mean that literally... I would think their goal is space exploration. Probes are launched here and there but I'd like to know where the billions go.
(Given that we are decommissioning Hubble, that we have errant probes and remote vehicles scattered about the neighborhood)
Can someone state, equivocally, what their most important pursuit is?
That question posed, I'm glad that someone's thinking that something has to change.
You are basically saying that there is some mysterious effect which makes competitions attract investment. It exists to some effect, but that money is quite limited (just try to start up a DARPA GC team). By NASA standards, that amount of money is miniscule. Trust me, nobody will compete in a contest to make a space shuttle replacement if it takes $2 billion to do that (even with a $50 million bounty).
*DARPA had to TURN AWAY competitors, last time. Universities have the money and want the fame. So do some companies and individuals. Granted, money doesn't grow on trees even if NASA wastes it like it does. *I don't agree that it would take $2 billion to restore the USA's ability to send humans into space, nor do I agree that NASA should be able to get away with offering merely a $50 million prize like the private sector one offered impressively enough by Robert Bigelow. But as it stands, NASA offers NADA in terms of launching correct?
I work at a medium sized, (mostly) defense related company as a Sr. maintenance tech, ~6K employees worldwide.
One of the things that I LOVE about this place is the it has an (almost) excruciatingly SHORT food chain//chain of command.
There are (at last count) 4 layers between myself (layer zero) and the CEO.
I'm not thinking of job progression here... I'm thinking communication. IMHO THAT'S NASAs issue.
Where I work, when there is an "issue", it gets dealt with at the lowest possible layer, and QUICKLY. If it doesn't happen quickly, it progresses quickly.
(Sort of like the military is supposed to (and occasionally does) work)
So, somebody's cutting out jobs. Is this "fiscal responsibility" (i.e., downsizing Big Guvmint), or does it have something to do with a leaner, meaner NASA, or is it just peeling off a top layer of brain cells nobody needs because the fiefdoms in question are due to be slashed and set ablaze? Hubbard as tip of the iceberg sort of thing. Why not decommision NASA outright, and privatize it like the Post Office? Have all those shuttle flights accomplished anything, except to demonstrate the feasibility of shuttle flights which work well in space but occasionally kill people taking off and landing? At least, when NASA flew to the moon, it took our minds off the Tet Offensive. And it came back with Teflon.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
Illiteracy - it's what's for dinner!
I worked at a NASA center briefly as a computer technician. The high level bureaucrats had plush carpeting, receptionists, potted palms trees, and $20,000 sparc workstations to check their email with. While the engineers in the basement actually designing a *&(* satellites would come and asked me what type of computer I could acquire for them with their discretionary fund of 50$. I scrounged around and they were the new, proud owners of a 386sx with a yellow screen (monochrome!) that noone else wanted (I'm dating myself here).
There was plenty of lower middle management that had engineering backgrounds, which you'd think would be a good thing (i.e. being able to communicate with subordinates and translate to superiors, etc). Thing was, ones I met were ex-engineers who were lucky enough to be civil servants. If their project failed miserably, but not so miserably to cause an inquiry, they got reassigned to lower management. Civil servants have tenure and are hard to fire, so obviously contractors are preferred. Which means all your talent leaves the moment a project ends and then the next project doing the exact same thing has to re-learn everything the last guys figured out.
It also doesn't help that between the space station and the space shuttle (neither of which can be lowered any more due to politics), and salaries for 10 levels of bureaucracy, thats already 90% of the entire budget. AFAIK the only thing keeping any science alive is the Jet Propulsion Lab. Caltech is still attracting young talent away from industry instead of vice versa.
you are saying there are only 50 SESers at the Agency? I thought there were closer to 350 or so.