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)."
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.
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
I'd go a step further. Bring in REAL engineers as well as entrepreneurs. Get guys with some ambition and a sense for getting a goal completed. Triage your remaining senior staff and fill it up with young MIT grads.
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."
I swear that is the most misspelled word on the intarweb.
It really doesn't matter what school they graduated from. As long as their background is in engineering, rather than political pandering, then things will improve at NASA. Real engineers practicing real engineering will prevent probes from being lost on a routine basis, and space shuttles from blowing up every so often.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Will the be bringing in real engineers? Real engineers, rather than bureaucrats, are the only way that NASA can be revitalized.
William Readdy, the first person named in the story, is an aerospace engineer. Michael Kostelnik, the only other person specifically mentioned, is a mechanical engineer. Why do you (and a lot of people) assume that NASA is run by bureaucrats, or that engineers can't BE bureaucrats, or that engineers are somehow wiser, nobler, and better able to run the agency than non-engineers?
Kennedy made it the goal of the nation to land a man on the moon and return him safely by the end of the decade, knowing that someone else would be in the White House then.
It looks to me like Griffin has decided that whether or not the president's new goal was diversion or eagerness, he's going to do his best to get it done.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Does anyone have the political affiliations of the people who were fired?
[o]_O
Actually, they're getting rid of the managers that Slashdotters like to complain about. You know, the ones that don't understand the technical end of things, and as a result end up setting unrealistic deadlines and promising impossible accomplishments. They're getting RID of the political bureaucracy and replacing it with scientists. Oh the shame!
Of course, since you can attribute it as another negative of the Bush Administration, you will. And most of Slashdot will agree.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
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.
I assure you, politicians don't build probes nor space shuttles.
... accidents happen. People make mistakes. it's all part of being human.
Real engineers worked on these amazing technological feats, and
ranting about it, or making ridiculous claims like, no real engineers working for nasa, just discredits any of your other, possibly correct, claims.
Sigs are for the weak.
Um.. did you read the post above that said that both of the officials named are both enginners? (Aerospace and Mechanical)
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
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.
Too bad google is probably hiring the ex-nasa/real engineers.
Yes, anytime somebody in government says that upfront that an action is not political or intended to remove politics, it's really about removing the opposition's politics and installing their own brand of politics.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
According to engineers themselves, they have to go through an accredited education program then they have to go through a special certification program.
The certification means that engineers are qualified and infallable.
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 --
No they'll outsource it to the lowest bidder.
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.
I assure you, politicians don't build probes nor space shuttles.
politicians may not make the space exploration vessels but they do have a huge hand in making sure they are made with the lowest quality materials while lining their pockets with the excess funds.
I'm pretty sure the bulk of Google's hiring is with computer scientists, not engineers.
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.
May I reccomend you read the book "To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Succesful Design" by Henry Petroski? Engineers most certainly make mistakes. Whether the NASA problems are the result of engineering errors is a different kettle of fish...
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
More of a problem in project management.
Not all accidents just "happen". These are by in large very preventable engineering and managerial failures.
Launching a shuttle well below the temperature at which the component manufacturers warn against is no accident. Not running an impromptu check to see if damage occurred during the takeoff after they noticed something wrong isn't much better. Even if they didn't have anything they could really do about it, they could have tried, contemplated a rescue (soviet or otherwise) or had time to make peace. Only the worst of what goes on makes it to the press. These types of problems don't just appear at the top level. You'll find these kind of decisions going on all the time just without the coin landing tails.
You can't leave people in power that put their careers ahead of safety and the lives of their heroes. They need to get more people in there that don't just ignore problems/dangers because they're high risk or could have a negative impact on their job. Yes there is inherent risk in the what they do, but to simply push off serious problems and say FEH, just a little more risk is unconscionable.
Some young blood might be good, headstrong people whose morals still outweigh their lust for their careers. The workforce would still have to be tempered by experience and some neighsayers though.
I'm not saying everyone getting canned is a bad person or just doesn't care, but it would appear there's some bad blood in NASA and I'm very happy to see the administration trying earnestly it getting ousted. (even if they're just trying to keep their jobs)
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."
It is a bit more problematic than that. If you look closer at the specifics of what he wants to do, he's assuming certain technical decisions. He is expecting CEV to weigh in over 50k pounds. He is putting shuttle derived tech into the mix.
When someone hires engineering staff based upon preconcieved technical solutions, that is just politics wearing a different mask for the day.
Ah, but the word "loose" was spelled correctly. Used incorrectly, mind you but the spelling was impeccable.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
Your arguments are indeed true, so you would probably agree to that getting "better" engineers into NASA, as the grand-parent propsed, won't solve the problem.
Assigning these engineers to managerial positions might, though.
Sigs are for the weak.
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?
Really, I'm not completely sure better is even a problem per se. I'm not working on the shuttle project or anything, but I don't really thing that the things aren't getting brought to the attention of people in charge.
Really, I say, swap out for better decision makers and let loose anyone that can't be deprogrammed from the don't tell the king bad news, it pisses him off mentality.
If you could take an objective non-engineer and graft them physically to a stone cold righteous logic wielding geek in the know, I think it would all work out in the end. Any engineer in a management position for a succifient period of time will eventually slip down the dark side of bureaucracy .
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
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?
But politicians are the one who still said "go" after the engineers complained that it wasn't safe.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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
I could easily see a situation where someone with significant experience at management would know how to shout in ways that the upper management would listen/understand, while an engineer might not. I'm not saying that's what happened in any of these situations at NASA, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
He may be out of power, but we will not be able to afford to go to the Moon, let alone Mars. A country must have the ability to fund such ventures. That takes a good tax base with a solid budget.
.5 trillian deficit a year. Combine the deficit with Regan's monster debt and you have a nation that will shortly be incapable of funding such loft goals.
We are losing our tax base and already run a
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
First of all, Bush isn't defunding NASA. He is, infact, doing the opposite. He increased NASA's budget 5% last year, and plans 2 more 5% increases in the next 2 years. Far more than Clinton can claim.
Bush's budget request for Project Constellation, the product of his "brave speech," is $6.6 billion over the next 5 years.
The CEV, part of Project Constellation, will have the concepts from the major contractors completed and sent to NASA by the end of this summer.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-13 -bush-nasa_x.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/14/tech/mai n593063.shtml
I would like you see your source on that these men were engineers and that they're being replaced by businessmen. I would find it hard to beleive that a man with a doctorate, 5 masters, and 1 bachelor degree in sciences and engineering would purposely sabotage NASA.
I recommend you get your news from a source other than democraticunderground.
What do you define as 'the wealthiest'?
I know that my family saved quite a lot of money thanks to these cuts, and we are by no means 'wealthy'. These tax cuts don't just benefit the rich. It's just that those who are rich, who PAY MORE TAXES get money back as well.
As for NASA, they suffer from a lack of good publicity. Most of what reaches the average person's ears are their mistakes and failures. People, including those who affect funding, are probably looking for some results. Results that they might be able to use in a re-election campaign or might see as not being a waste of money.
If you want more money for NASA, write to people who can make those decisions, don't complain about administrators who LOSE (I can get it right sometimes) their jobs. Because whether they deserved it or not, it won't change now and they probably didnt have the same funding impact as certain influential senators.
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.
Yes, that would be what some of us call a grammatical error.
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.
Ahh money. Let me tell a little story about money. First, Moon-Mars is not a brainchild of bush, it is a brainchild of the previous NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe. It was just embraced by the Executive idea, so please don't give them credit for such a crappy idea. So why is it a crappy idea? No money. When the presidential directive came out it included no provisions for additional appropriations. NASA was just supposed to "figure it out." Since it arrived within shooting range of the next eleciton, everyone at NASA (most of which thought the "manned" at least was foolishly machismo and excessive) did their best to stall, praying someone else would land in office. After the reelection, NASA has been forced to rearrange their existing budget to shoot for a goal they know will NEVER happen without more money. What they've done as a good-faith effort to fund this on their own coin is axe the entire Earth and Planetary Science office. That means all global-warming, remote-sensing based etc... academic research funding has been chopped unless it can spin a Mars connection. That's where I come in. As a grad student studying Cold Region Processes (and influence on global climate) who like most of my colleagues relied on funding from this source, I have been hit particularly hard. I can now thank Manned Moon-Mars courtesy of our hero Bush for my current credit card debt. So I take it a little perosnally. As an administrative move though, thank god they got rid of O'Keefe. He was NOT a scientist, and he wanted to scuttle Hubble because he was paranoid about risking Astronaut safety (which, incidently, the astronauts who would be risking their lives were desperate to save it, so really his motivation was political fear of another PR disaster). I'm no Astronomer, but that would break even my heart to see that beauty burn. I like the idea of a new shuttle and all that stuff, but for god's sake don't axe good programs, just add more money.
That was a lovely rant. I do love to hear a good rant about saving NASA. I just wished it had some facts behind it. These admins being canned ARE the MBAs and accountants and lawyers and bean counters. Griffin, the NASA administrator who is doing the canning, IS the engineer/scientist with a PhD and 5 masters degrees, mostly in technical areas. I don't know who is going to fill those positions, but chances are they will be good engineers who know how to handle the technical side. In this case, I think this is the RIGHT step for NASA.
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.
Let's settle this whole MIT-Cal Tech thing once and for all. Hire Illinois Tech grads. Problem solved.
I am an astronomer, and a Hubble user, and it will break my heart too to see it burn. I'm still hopeful that it will be later rather than sooner thanks in part to the change to Griffin.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
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!"
So we go to Cornell...
It's in the middle of nowhere but we really don't care.
MIT, Cal Tech, Cornell, Stanford -- whatever. Just get some young blood designing the hardware and some young entrepreneurs coming up with ways to make space exploration affordable, efficient, and exciting!
Lol, naieve. Ford/GM are full of _real_ engineers. It matters not. Management will always bring in their own 'cabinet' one way or another.
What you want is GOOD engineers, not XYZ's brother, cousin, golf buddy, etc...
How you get integrity I just don't know.
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.
Real engineers, rather than bureaucrats, are the only way that NASA can be revitalized.
NASA already has plenty of real engineers. This is just a reorg of the top brass to make sure the current administration's manned Mars missions fantasies have a loyal following. Then the next administration will have to clean house again, and everyone will be complaining about all the money NASA wasted on pie-in-the-sky projects. Why don't people ever learn to blame the policy makers instead of those who have to follow orders?
Your wrong.
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.
With a name like yours, how can you say anything constructive? Real engineers? ANYONE can practice bad politics. Even engineers. Real engineers don't care squat about politics. They put it on the last burner and concentrate on what really matters. Thats because they are 'Hackers', 'the ultimate geek', a term that has lost its definition thanks to the media and morons.
Don't waste your time and raise your bloodpressure by getting angry at BDS victims. Work to defeat them, certainly, but don't take it personally or you will get ulcers.
Although I'm not sure of the quality of the engineers at Nasa, I can tell you this. I agree with your assertion about blaming policy makers. I will blame them right now. BLAME BLAME BLAME:D Doesn't seem like there is anyplace that can't reach with their slimey tenticles.
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.
To me it sounds as if the problem is at least as much with your media as it is with your federal government.
Who votes for the journalists?
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.
It's just that those who are rich, who PAY MORE TAXES get money back as well.
Maybe in gross amount, but not in net percentage.
Why is it that non-technical types argue that they can manage technical jobs as good as, or better, than any person of a technical background?
Would you hire an engineer to be the CFO of an advertising agency? Probably not. So why hire a sales & marketing person to run a technical organization, who has no technical background?
I'll throw out Carly F, the rube who was running Yahoo for awhile, and all the other people who have originated in Sales and Marketing to become CEOs who have failed brilliantly in their jobs.
At some point, even the person who has the "best" technical people under him or her to provide advice has to make a decisions based purely on technical data. "I don't know, what do you think" at that point is not an option.
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
Would you hire an engineer to be the CFO of an advertising agency?
Sure I would, if they could do the job. I've met plenty of people who have jobs wildly different from their background. I've met JDs in marketing, MDs in sales, and engineers everywhere.
Probably not. So why hire a sales & marketing person to run a technical organization, who has no technical background?
You're assuming that if you're not in tech, you're in sales and marketing. There are other fields that exist, and running NASA means you have to a lot more than make technical decisions.
At some point, even the person who has the "best" technical people under him or her to provide advice has to make a decisions based purely on technical data. "I don't know, what do you think" at that point is not an option.
But you're never going to find someone with a sufficient background to be able to make all the different decisions. NASA just does too much stuff.
Plus you're missing the main question of my post, which was "why do you think the engineers aren't in charge now?"
Moderation -1
40% Troll
30% Informative
30% Overrated
TrollMods: you might not like the insight, but how is that post a "Troll"?
--
make install -not war
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
Here's hoping that the private sector initiatives boldly go where no govie has gone before.
For every problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong.
Why is it that non-technical types argue that they can manage technical jobs as good as, or better, than any person of a technical background?
Would you hire an engineer to be the CFO of an advertising agency? Probably not. So why hire a sales & marketing person to run a technical organization, who has no technical background?
Because a business is not a technical organization. It is a business. CEOs are decision makers and they get paid to make correct decisions more than incorrect ones. Unfortunately, many CEOs make poor, irresponsible, decisions because of lack of information - or bad information.
At some point, even the person who has the "best" technical people under him or her to provide advice has to make a decisions based purely on technical data. "I don't know, what do you think" at that point is not an option.
Actually this is flat out wrong. Differing to an expert is a decision. Problem is that many a CEO doesn't have the foresight to hire people capable of making decisions - and when they do hire right, many still don't have the humility and dignity to differ to someone under them.
-- $G
What is there to go on about his record? He early in the campaign that Kerry's war record was better than his. The swift boat guys may or may not have had a point, and may or may not have had a better record, but they are not Bush. (In any case even if everything they said about Kerry was true in the worse light, Kerry's record is still better than Bush's and Bush would agree)
Of course Someone has to be ready for local problems at all time, even though they are highly unlikely. It is no accident Bush was that person, but it wasn't something you can blame him for - his family was powerful enough that no general in his right mind would all Bush in a likely line of fire, so all the dangerous jobs (like Kerry was one) were out. Bush could have sat in Korea (though that war just cooled, so perhaps not), but not in Vietnam. Even democrat general in charge would make sure that nothing happened to young Bush that could be prevented.
Or are you referring to the lies CBS tried to pass off as truth? Get over it if that is the case - they were forgeries, and now even if true versions would show up nobody would believe them.
NASA has always been about powerful politicians getting the pork home. Doesn't matter who was in charge, that has always been the first priority. Science has always been a backseat. Beating the Russians (Now it is the opposite - keeping Russian rocket scientists from trading their skills for food to someone evil) was important for a while, but even then the pork was what counted more important. Don't blame Bush, both parties do it, and always have. (Well you can, but quit trying to make it seem like something different)
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.
Adjusted for inflation? And how much for Star Wars or the laser cannons or the new nuclear weapons programs? 6.6 billion is horseshit. NASA is getting defunded by atttrition and inflation. Paper raises in funding mean nothing.
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_
I wouldn't count on it. If you can learn, and muck around with numbers, Google want you.
And don't forget the moonbase!
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
I would rather it be someone that knows the correct spelling of "Caltech", personally. Like-a moi :)
(Signed, someone who went to Caltech and works at NASA)
.signature? Why, I haven't heard that word since before the Clone Wars
I am leaning towards very stupid. No vehicle in the stated CEV performance range has ever weighed more than 10k. The Apollo CM was only 5k. A Service module for LEO would be only another 5k, or so - even with a cargo hold.
When you see an engineering statement "this vehicle in this range will weigh X amount" and then research the issue and find the no other vehicle in history operating in that performance range has been in that weight range, then there is something else driving the engineering.
I was leery of CEV when they specified EELV in the specs as there are other launch vehicles available in the correct launch mass range that could have been used. It should have been an open spec with the design teams making proposals based upon a) cost b) safety and c) performance. Design to a spec. I am even more leery now that they have gone to the trouble of putting "shuttle-derived" back on the board with the SRB's as their choice of derivation. Those were designed for lateral loads, not vertical loads. They are not throttable. They are not startable/stopable and nearly every single failure mode is "loss of crew".
I do have more hope in things like SpaceX. If they can deliver their vehicle at the cost/performance they seem to be leaning towards, then there are a number of companies who can build an additional manned component. It is a much lower barrier to entry. Multi-billion projects? You're right. No one out there to do it. But, a series of $10-$100 million projects aimed at leveraging off existing hardware is doable.
Illiteracy - it's what's for dinner!
fill it up with young MIT grads
But MIT Kids drive people crazy.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.