Congressman Dave Weldon (R-FL) spoke at a Space Transportation Association breakfast Thursday morning immediately preceding the FAA/AST conference in downtown Washington. Weldon is (was?) a member of the VA-HUD subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, but he is not sad to see to go. “I personally think that’s good news for NASA,” he said. He also approved the decision to move NASA into the same subcommittee as the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State. “I think that’s a competition we have a much better shot of winning each year, and winning each year will become critically important. We’re heading into what I think going to be a tough long season for our budgeting process” because of the growing cost of programs like Social Security and Medicare. “It’s going to be a hard slog.”
Weldon said that he expected an announcement later that day regarding who would be assigned to what subcommittees. (I haven’t seen an announcement yet on this.) He wants to be assigned to the new Science, State, Justice and Commerce and committee to keep oversight of NASA. However, he said that is the second most competitive appropriations subcommittee, after the defense subcommittee, and there was no guarantee he’d get a seat even if the subcommittees are enlarged somewhat.
Weldon was asked about who he thought would (or should) succeed Sean O’Keefe at NASA. He said that he “bumped into” O’Keefe the other day and asked him what was going on with the selection of his successor. “All he could tell me was that he gave the White House… three names: an insider, an outsider with space experience, and an outsider who was not necessarily a space person but who was an innovator and could bring a fresh perspective.” Certainly there’s been plenty of speculation in the first two categories (NASA associate administrator Bill Readdy sat next to Weldon at the breakfast; draw from that what you will), but less so on the third. But, hey, I hear Carly Fiorina is looking for a new job, and she did serve on the Aldridge Commission…
I was impressed by Carly Fiorina’s performance on the Moon-Mars Commission (*). In particular, Carly was able to put her finger exactly (IMHO) on the correct justifications that will keep the Moon-Mars program supported in the long term. Namely the military implications of nosedive in the state of the aerospace industrial and scientific base.
In trying do something about this, an essential step is to encourage students to enter jobs in technical fields rather than moving to other jobs with a more attractive work environment and perhaps better pay (the finance sector being a very popular choice here at Caltech).
Carly is to my knowledge the only person who has tackled the students head-on about this. She gave the graduation address at Caltech last year, daring to solicit input from the Students before her address.
I think she was genuinely shocked with the broad-based bitterness and disenchantment of the students’ responses about their futures in the technical workforce. I remember one student in particular said they “did not want to become a mindless automaton” among other searing comments that rang true to many of those present. Carly tried very hard to persuade the students to stay the course with science and engineering after graduation, saying:
” Dare to dream, Dare to believe in what is possible
And stills in others the same sense of possibility.
It will take daring, because optimism is a choice
And cynicism and disengagement is an easier path.
So do more than dare to explore or discover, Dare also to lead.”
– Carly Fiorina (Caltech Commencement 2004)
She’s a tough lady and I think she would slice out NASA’s management dead-wood like a machete if given half the chance, making it a more attractive employer for graduates; a place where they can do what they were trained to do. Pay alone is not the solution to NASA’s recruitment problems. Working conditions and an atmosphere of success are more important.
On a completely different tangent, I should imagine it feels pretty weird to be Carly Fiorina right now. Leaving HP early in the week and becoming a wanted NASA admin candidate by the week’s end. Moving from HP to NASA would be a heck of a culture shock in a short space of time.
(*) This being said I also believe Pete Worden is far and away the best candidate for the NASA Admin job (**). Pete Worden’s DC-X program created the faster better cheaper approach, which Goldin’s NASA failed to emulate successfully. Worden’s Clementine program discovered water on the Moon. In short, Worden has proven he is able to make visions a reality, something that could become NASA’s life-or-death test in the next few years – a time in which the deficit looks set to squeeze all non-performing discretionary programs (and agencies) out of existence.
(**) On second thoughts, why not have both; Pete Worden as Admin and Carly Fiorina as Deputy Admin – that would be the dream team. Maybe if I wish hard enough… If not, I’ll write out 50 times “I will not become cynical and disengaged”.
I would vote to hire someone who would look forward and cut programs rather than backward and keep divisions that are underperforming.
I think the White House should take its time. I don’t remember how long this process has taken in the past.
I like Pete Worden too. However, he hasn’t shown the charisma of recent NASA Administrators which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Pete is very import to NASA and its success and I look forward watching him at upcoming hearings. It would require very little time for him to come up-to-speed.
Carly, I’m not so sure about. She may be strong but she may also be stubborn and unwilling to admit mistakes. After all she was forced out of HP, she has lost all trust with Wall Street regarding predicting profits. I would much rather have Sara Lee’s Brenda Barnes who is actively cutting cost and trimming the company. I would vote for James Cameron over Carly too. In his closing keynote speech at the 1st Space Exploration conference he had a clear vision. he has also managed tight budgets and led science expeditions.
1st Space Exploration Conference Webcast Archive
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=521
I disagree with Kevin Parkin — she seems like an inspirational speaker (I unfortunately missed her talk at Caltech last year), but she’s generally regarded as an atrocious CEO. Her stepping down wasn’t voluntary — it was a forced move by the board, althoug she got $21 million in severance pay. Under her leadership, HP had become a shadow of its former self. It’s also interesting to note that shares of HP jumped about 9% on the news that she was ousted.