Slashdot Mirror


Does Obama Have a Problem At NASA?

MarkWhittington writes "Has NASA become a problem for the Obama transition? If one believes a recent story in the Orlando Sentinel, the transition team at NASA, led by former NASA Associate Administrator Lori Garver, is running into some bureaucratic obstruction." Specifically, according to this article NASA Administrator Michael Griffin made calls to aerospace industry executives asking them to stonewall if asked about benefits to be gained by canceling the current US efforts to revisit the moon; we mentioned last month that cutting Aries and Orion is apparently an idea under strong consideration by the Obama transition team.

25 of 479 comments (clear)

  1. I hate to be an ass... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... but if I were Obama, Michael Griffin would be so fricken canned.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:I hate to be an ass... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

      He can't do that. Peter Griffin has rockets that could be converted into makeshift missiles and used to bombard Washington.

      Then Griffin would declare the US disbanded, replaced by a Galactic Empire with Griffin as Emperor.

      I say give him the cash to keep him quiet. Better that than we all end up slaving in the Uranium mines on Pluto.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:I hate to be an ass... by roccomaglio · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the article: Michael Griffin, noting that no one on Lori Garver's team has any engineering expertise, suggested that Garver was "not qualified" to judge the Constellation program. Garver will not comment about the conversation, but has hinted that there will be a new administrator chosen at NASA shortly and that there will be change to NASA policy."

    3. Re:I hate to be an ass... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 5, Informative

      Toeing. Not towing. Much less work.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    4. Re:I hate to be an ass... by MpVpRb · · Score: 5, Informative

      IANAAE (I am not an aerospace engineer) but to me, Ares looks silly. Solid rocket boosters do not burn smoothly, they have a big problem with thrust oscillation. The designers actually worry that these vibrations will incapacitate or kill the crew.

      To quote a real expert...also known as Resonant Burning - described as vortices that shed within the solid rocket motors during combustion due to the shearing of internal flow at propellant discontinuities - the issue relates to when the frequency of thrust oscillations is coincident with the acoustic modes of the motor cavity.

      Solids work fine when grouped together with liquid stages, but a single solid booster just seems wrong.

    5. Re:I hate to be an ass... by twostar · · Score: 5, Informative

      IAAAE (I am an aerospace engineer) and Ares looks silly. Solid rockets should never be used for manned vehicles. The capsule idea is the way to go but the LV is a bad choice IMHO.

    6. Re:I hate to be an ass... by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Michael Griffin is the best thing to happen to NASA since the Apollo program. If Obama cans his ass, he will have lied about everything he said about maintaining the space program.

      Well, I will say that Obama has been quite vague on whether he'll keep NASA well funded. It seems like something he's not inclined to do on his own without pressure from the public. On the other hand, the transition team not only asked how much would be saved if the program was canned but also asked how much it would cost to accelerate it, so it looks like they're looking at all options.

      That aside, I can't really say that this kind of behavior that should be rewarded or even tolerated in a subordinate. The whole hiding of information and acting like double checking his figures suggests that he's lying about something makes it look like he genuinely has something bad to hide too. I mean, can you imagine keeping *your* job after telling your incoming boss the same thing (and even pressuring business partners to withhold info from him too)?

      Even if Obama keeps the program, which I hope he does, Griffin does need to "Go." Right out the door.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    7. Re:I hate to be an ass... by chrysrobyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're wrong, flat out wrong.

      If "Griffin is 1000% correct here", that means he's absolutely right on all accounts. You don't have to read much about the Ares program to realize there's more than a little dissent among the ranks about some of the design decisions here. You also seem to equate replacing Griffin, who silences opposition as best as he can through demotions instead of communal discourse, with disbanding the entire space program. Seriously, who makes that kind of absolute?

      If we can find a replacement who can listen to the educated engineers who think the program is too risky or that it can be done more efficiently, or if we can efficiently accelerate the whole program, why not do it? Seems to me that there's more than enough disagreement on the entire program that there's room for improvement. Nobody seems to think he's got the right compromise between all the objectives.

    8. Re:I hate to be an ass... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The space shuttle has been the most expensive and epic failure in the history of aerospace technology. Not one single rivet from that program should ever be used again.

      Don't be such a Drama Queen... The Shuttle program is a screwed up kludge, but, like many screwed up kludges (say, for example, the Internet), you can move forward instead of constantly reinventing the V2. The Shuttle (and it's attendant support programs and staff) work pretty well. Some spectacular failures - both of them directly attributable to managerial decisions gone wrong. But the damn thing actually works.

      NASA should work on a next gen system that doesn't use recycled Shuttle components. But that's a long ways away. Orion / Constellation is (are) a reasonable interim solution.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:I hate to be an ass... by karlwilson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well at least back up your reasons for dismissing the Ares vehicle as "silly." I'm an aerospace engineer too, but that doesn't necessarily qualify me to opine on the subject of solid rockets.

    10. Re:I hate to be an ass... by evanbd · · Score: 5, Informative

      As YAAE, I think it looks silly for several reasons. The first and most important one: you can't actually test fire the engine you're going to trust your life to! You can inspect it, and you can test the process, but you can't test the actual article. Furthermore, the propellant grain is susceptible to handling damage and manufacturing defects, so there is reason to want to test it. There are cases where solids in proximity to humans are reasonable -- small solid motors for ballistic parachutes, for example. Or signal flares. In those cases, you can reasonably test two or three orders of magnitude more devices than will be tested for Ares (mostly because they're smaller). The other cases where solids are better is where readily storable propellants are required, like for most missiles. That doesn't apply here. (There are plenty of other reasons as well, but I won't bother going into them.)

      The mistake that leads to thinking solids are a good choice is comparing them to the SSME and other engines like it as if that was the only alternative. It's not. The best design to compare it to is probably LOX/Kerosene running at a modest chamber pressure, with a pump feed (gas generator cycle) where the pump and its drive system are heavier than they could be, but simpler in design and with more margin (and hence more reliable and cheaper). It doesn't need to be a turbopump -- piston machinery works too. For a large system, though, the turbopump is probably enough lighter to be better, but it should really have more resemblance to industrial turbomachinery than conventional rocket machinery. Yes, that won't hit the maximum possible Isp or mass ratio for the stage. But that isn't as important on a first stage (or really, anywhere you'd consider using a large solid -- even the low-performance LOX/Kero rocket will beat the solid). What is important are things like design cost, manufacturing cost, and reliability.

    11. Re:I hate to be an ass... by Taibhsear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously? You wiki link to a dodge? Minus the glaringly obvious choices of Aries the astrology sign, Aries the constellation, Ares the fraking GOD, or the tiny tidbit that there is, in fact, another rocket named Aries. Your wikifu is weak young one.

  2. Obstruction == Fired by fprintf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is with the entitlement mentality within government? I am sure the article blows what actually happened way out of proportion, but if there *was* any sort of conversation asking industry partners to stonewall, resist, camoflage or otherwise derail the effort to understand the risk/reward of future space efforts, everyone involved within the government should be canned. If I did anything of the sort at my place of work, I'd be out on my ass so quickly!

    --
    This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    1. Re:Obstruction == Fired by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Massive inefficiency is just how the government works.

      This (or a perception of it) is a phenomenon specific to the US (and, apparently, a few other countries such as UK). Governments seems to work quite efficiently in a lot of other countries around the world. Maybe you should fix whatever is wrong with yours, instead of whining about how it's too inefficient to trust it with anything (why even bother having it at all, if it's always counterproductive?).

    2. Re:Obstruction == Fired by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US Federal Government was _designed_ to be inefficient, counterproductive, and gridlocked. It's a theoretical safeguard against tyranny.

  3. The original articles by Angostura · · Score: 5, Informative

    For some reason the submission goes to a site that mentions the original articles appeared at the Orlando sentinel, but doesn't link to the articles. So here they are:

    December 11: NASA chief Griffin bucks Obama's transition team

    and

    December 12: NASA chief insists he's cooperating with Obama's team

  4. Lets get it straight here by falcon5768 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obama has nothing against NASA. He has EVERYTHING against Mike (global warming is a myth) Griffin, a known Bush lackey and a incompetent manager. Ask anyone in the know about Orion and Ares and they will tell you while it WILL work, it is horribly designed and way over budget for what it is and its DIRECTLY contributed to Griffin, unlike other unmanned programs that where running before he took over and lost funding due to him and Bush's "lets get a American on Mars without spending any more money" ploy.

    Griffins job is canned, he's just drawing out the hanging right now and trying to wrap it in a Obama hates NASA spin, not a Obama hates incompetent Bush republican flunkies spin.

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  5. No Money? No Problem! by zentec · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is unfortunate that we've come to this point in American history, but the truth is probably that we can't afford a grandiose space program right now.

    NASA will still exist, but the bureaucrats running it need to go.  NASA will have a chance at manned space flight, but they need to figure out a way to do it cheaper.  The rest of the nation has tightened its belt, the rest of the nation is concerned about the ballooning debt, NASA isn't exempt from the changes.

    If I had my choice, I'd much rather see the billions spent on a shuttle launch go toward turning children into future aerospace engineers.

  6. Re:No Money? No Problem! by Octorian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And the problem is that NASA/etc. focuses so much on inspiring the 3rd graders, yet don't seem to care so much once those kids get to high school and can actually develop that interest into something useful towards their future.

  7. Re:Who would have thought? by Kentaree · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The USA defeated the communist Soviet Union by outspending them in the specific industry of aerospace technology.

    Wait, what? Did I miss a piece of history somewhere along the way where the Soviet Union was "beaten", rather than fizzled out?

  8. Re:Who would have thought? by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The U.S. didn't "defeat" the Soviet Union. It was just an unsustainable system from the get-go. If the U.S. had never developed any sort of space program beyond launching satellites and ICBM technology; the Soviets would have beat their chests, bragged about their great victories in manned flight, rubbed it in with a few more advancements, then eventually realized that it was a waste of money with little potential and abandoned it. It didn't make any real difference in the end. It was all Korolev could do to get funding for the program in the first place, and he would have lost it quickly if the Americans had simply refused to play ball.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  9. Re:No Money? No Problem! by kid_oliva · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you spend billions on a shuttle launch you ensure jobs for people who want to go into aerospace. Take the money away from that so you do not have any shuttle launchings and you have pretty much removed it from most people's minds. I remember growing up in the 80's and the shuttle launches were a big thing. Now it hardly receives any coverage. It would be great to have a president with a mind for the future like JFK. Granted he wasn't perfect but it is better than a rehash of FDR ideas that have put us in the place we are in. That's my $.02. Go ahead and mod me down now.

    --
    I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
  10. Nasa is chump change. by miffo.swe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If i was an American i would be much more concerned with military spending than with NASA. The various spy organizations and domestic surveillance programs alone makes the NASA budget look like weekly allowence. Add the military spending and NASAs budget is just silly in comparison.

    If there is one area where money is spent for nothing its in the military.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  11. These aren't the rockets you're looking for... by Dawn+Keyhotie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Griffin is dead-set on Ares because it is his pet project. He brought it with him from the university think tank that Bush pulled him from. It is not a good architecture, and even now NASA engineers are fighting basic laws of physics to get the thing to fly.

    The ESAS committee rubber-stamped Ares because that's what Griffin wanted. It is not the best approach. Especially when they decided to drop the Space Shuttle Main Engine in favor of the RS68 engine due to cost. The RS68 is cheaper, but much less efficient than the SSME. Once they dropped the SSME, they should have convened another committee to re-evaluate all options using the RS68 numbers.

    The DIRECT project is where we need to be. Check it out, check the numbers. NASA has been sitting on this for almost three years now. It's ridiculous.

    www.directlauncher.com

    --
    "The only good windmill is a tilted windmill."
  12. His alleged behavior is inexcusable by wisebabo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Griffin may be, as you say, 100% correct here but telling contractors and others to "support Constellation and not discuss alternatives" as well as demanding "mid-level executives from not meeting with the transition team" is INTOLERABLE (from TFA). Considering this comes from an accredited journalist from a reputable news organization (at least I've heard of them previously), their claims of having witnesses, documents and e-mails to back them up should be taken seriously.

    Perhaps Griffin is one of the few Bush appointees who isn't corrupt, incompetent or so politically/religiously biased as to commit criminal acts (justice department I'm looking at you). On the other hand considering the absolute disasters this administration has led us into regarding war, international relations, energy policies, the economy, the environment, civil/human rights, politicization of science, corruption of the judiciary, (oh and did I remember the war on terror?) I think anyone with half a brain would look upon anyone Bush would pick with extreme skepticism.

    The shuttle HAS been a disaster for the last 25 years. If his plan has decent merit hopefully it will be allowed to continue. Hopefully Obama's team will consider not just the plan itself but the costs of any delay/change to a new one and will make the best choice accordingly. Of course there is a risk that they may not but we did not elect the president of NASA, we elected the PRESIDENT OF THE USA to make these decisions for us. Even as an avid space buff I have to respect that there ARE things more important than NASA. Considering Obama's top level appointments so far I have confidence that they'll do a good job.

    If Griffin's plan is good, he will always be known as the one who got the ball rolling and pushed it through difficult and uncertain times. (Maybe he feels so entitled at NASA because under Bush everyone around him WAS an idiot). IF THE ALLEGATIONS from the newspaper ARE TRUE though, he, with his resorting to tactics reminiscent of his other Bushies, has proven that he does not have the character to lead NASA. Let Ares go without him.