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)."

37 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. people or system? by moz25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:people or system? by HardCase · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shame on me for not RTFA, but in any government agency, it's customary for a new director to request the resignations of senior managers. It doesn't mean that he accepts them (or accepts all of them), but it's customary to submit them. The fact that it's NASA makes it newsworthy to /., I guess, but it happens in virtually every government agency, from the feds right down to your city's offices.

      Changing the management probably won't have an immediate effect on the programs, but every agency director wants people in senior offices who match up to his standards of performance and trust. It does make it easier to introduce change when the people on your team are, well, on your team.

      -h-

    2. Re:people or system? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The question is: can one change the nature of a system by replacing the managing people in that system?

      Yes, one can. In fact, it's probably a necessary step; the nature of an organisation is effectively defined by how it is managed.

      (Before anyone chimes in with the obvious counter: if the grunts are poor but the management is good, then it is already in the nature of the system that the grunts will be improved or replaced, it just hasn't had time to happen yet. In fact, this is quite likely to be the situation you're in immediately after replacing poor management with better.)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:people or system? by Feztaa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      it's customary for a new director to request the resignations of senior managers. It doesn't mean that he accepts them (or accepts all of them), but it's customary to submit them.

      What the hell, is that like some kind of neo-feudal way of pledging allegiance to the new King? Like acknowledging that he does in fact have the power to fire you at any time?

  2. Begins the glut of spelling nazis at NASA by saskboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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.
    1. Re:Begins the glut of spelling nazis at NASA by SilentChris · · Score: 2

      What I want to know is why people keep misspelling "lose". It seems like I see this every day. And it's not even phonetically correct (it's easy to see "loose" would be pronounced "looce").

    2. Re:Begins the glut of spelling nazis at NASA by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting
      as many as 50 loose their positions
      Cry havoc! And let loose the jobs of war!

      To those who correct spelling an grammar on the net, you are the unorthodox ones. The language of the net is broken english and your dictionary does not apply beyond your border.

  3. Walking papers? by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
  4. Re:Will they bring in _real_ engineers now? by Shafe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Baby & bathwater... by jpellino · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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."
    1. Re:Baby & bathwater... by Edward+Ka-Spel · · Score: 2, Informative

      These people really have little to do with the detailed running of these programs. I'm sure that those efforts will continue on just fine. BTW: The article didn't mention it, but most of the people named have only been there for a year or two. The were all put there by the previous administrator, O'Keefe. It's not like Griffin is destroying decades of experience. Many of these people were bean counters, appointed by a bean counter.

    2. Re:Baby & bathwater... by vsprintf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The shuttle is one of the biggest wastes of money and manpower ever.

      Your numerous arguments and evidence are compelling, however, I'll disagree. Like most of the space program, the shuttle has been a successful experiment, and much has been learned. There have been a couple of missions that supplied us with innovative earth observation data, and without the shuttle, the ISS wouldn't exist. You may not consider that worthwhile, but I do. Hindsight is a wonderful thing that can be used only after you've been taken to a position where you can look back.

  6. Re:Will they bring in _real_ engineers now? by CyricZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  7. Re:Will they bring in _real_ engineers now? by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  8. Re:Political motivation behind firings by Martin+Blank · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  9. zerg by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does anyone have the political affiliations of the people who were fired?

    --
    [o]_O
    1. Re:zerg by palfrey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given that the new Administrator is a politicial nominee, and given that he's the one hiring/firing here, people being shifted by a politicial nominee might well have political reasons for their change in state.

      Of course, this might not be the case, but given the current US administration's track record of replacing good people with duckspeakers, it's a good idea to check their backgrounds.

      --
      Beware the psychokinetic mimes!
    2. Re:zerg by lawpoop · · Score: 3, Funny

      Probably Terran or *possibly* Protoss. Very rarely do Terrans ally with Zerg, unless...

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  10. Re:Political motivation behind firings by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  11. Politics by nnet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  12. what are your thoughts on..... by tloh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  13. Re:Will they bring in _real_ engineers now? by HateBreeder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I assure you, politicians don't build probes nor space shuttles.

    Real engineers worked on these amazing technological feats, and ... accidents happen. People make mistakes. it's all part of being human.
    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.
  14. Preparing for a more military-centric NASA? by CyricZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    References: http://www.reuters.com/audi/newsArticle.jhtml?type =technologyNews&storyID=8522373
    http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a4a4e198-c8cf-11d9-87c9-0 0000e2511c8.html
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7896613/

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:Preparing for a more military-centric NASA? by GileadGreene · · Score: 2, Informative

      Highly unlikely. NASA is a civilian organization, tasked with civilian space missions. The DoD maintains its own space operations (the Navy through SPAWAR and the Air Force through Space Command). The military side of space is quite distinct from the NASA side. Yes, many of the same contractors (Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed) work both kinds of projects. But the management and direction is done by quite different entities.

    2. Re:Preparing for a more military-centric NASA? by sunwolf · · Score: 2, Funny
      There has been much speculation (see References) that the US military will begin to weaponize space.
      ...there's also rumors that they might even begin to to breaderize toasters, or childrenize the playgrounds.

      Come back when you learn English.

      *looks up "weaponize" on Dictionary.com*

      Oh. Damn.
    3. Re:Preparing for a more military-centric NASA? by Edward+Ka-Spel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Make NASA more military-centric? Most of the people being canned are ex-military generals. The stated plan of Griffin is to make NASA more engineering and science driven. If anything, it sounds the opposite.

    4. Re:Preparing for a more military-centric NASA? by BDew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Mod parent up!

      Leaving - Sean O'Keefe: Former Secretary of the Navy.
      Adm (Ret.) Craig Steidle.
      Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Michael Kostelnik.

      Most of the military folks O'K brought in are being swept out by Griffin.

      --
      "Fifty million Americans can't be wrong," said Rep. Billy Tauzin. Gore - 50,999,897 Bush - 50,456,002
  15. Re:Lose, Loose by gbpuckett · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Shouldn't that be '"Lose" and "Loose" is not even one of the more challenging mixups.' ?

    Ironic, ain't it.

  16. Re:FIRST SPELLCHECK POST by rah1420 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ah, but the word "loose" was spelled correctly. Used incorrectly, mind you but the spelling was impeccable.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
  17. NASA's competitive prizes remain too small by NASAWatch.INFO · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

    1. Re:NASA's competitive prizes remain too small by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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. 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? How about 20 or 30? Now, take all profit motivation out of that equation 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.

  18. Re:Why won't NASA fortify its competitive prizes?? by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?
  19. Re:Will they bring in _real_ engineers now? by meatspray · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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 .

  20. how could they get "more military"? by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Perhaps this cleaning of the administration is being done in order to facilitate a more military-centric NASA.

    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).

  21. Re:No Astronaut Left Behind by scavok · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This was painful to read it's so stupid, and full of misinformation and lies.

    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.

  22. Apparently they "politically affiliated" already by jesterzog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does anyone have the political affiliations of the people who were fired?

    I don't know specifically about their affiliations, but if you trust the article, page 2 says:

    Instead, the sources said, [Griffin] expressed dismay that NASA over the past several years had put a lot of people in top management positions because of what one source described as "political connections or bureaucratic gamesmanship -- not merit."

    Several sources spoke of a corps of younger scientists and engineers, including Griffin, who had been groomed in the 1970s and 1980s as NASA's next generation of leaders only to be shoved aside during the past 15 years. They said Griffin hopes to bring them back.

    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.

  23. I will be damned. by Catbeller · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.