I’d also argue that Griffin is poor at formulating and planning programs and budgets and decisionmaking on programs in development, all of which are different skill sets from engineering or decisionmaking on operational programs.

“In fairness to Dr. Griffin, this was probably a political requirement for moving forward.”

I don’t know about that. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that Hutchison or Nelson conditioned Griffin’s Senate approval on full employment (at least at their centers). But on the other hand, I don’t know of any congressman who has stated that full field center employment is a good goal for NASA’s programs or that has even talked in those terms. Only Griffin seems to.

But maybe someone will find some quotes that prove me wrong.

“Unlike many other political decisions, and however unwise it may be for the future, I don’t particularly fault the man for caving in on this one.”

Even if we agree on this point (and I don’t), there are vehicle options and paths (some of which ESAS missed) that ensure Shuttle workforce employment but that don’t waste such inordinate amounts of time and money reinventing the wheel with a duplicative, intermediate LEO lifter. The DIRECT 2 proposal and Jupiter vehicle over on nasaspaceflight.com is one good example.

FWIW…

I have no knives out. I said, and I meant, that I sincerely hope I am wrong. But, unfortunately, I stand by the analysis.

Anonymous: Griffin has promised full employment at all NASA field centers, even though people need to be coming off the Shuttle program now, pushing all the pain of these workforce decisions onto his successor and jeopardizing future operational savings from Shuttle’s retirement.

In fairness to Dr. Griffin, this was probably a political requirement for moving forward. Unlike many other political decisions, and however unwise it may be for the future, I don’t particularly fault the man for caving in on this one. It’s the relatively easy decisions that he’s caved in on (SOPHIA) that hurt.

— Donald

I heard a few weeks ago from someone who speaks to Griffin that Griffin would like to pull a Goldin and stay on as NASA Administrator well into the next Administration (regardless of which party occupies the White House).

But that was before Griffin’s global warming slip and the public distancing by the White House (Marburger) from Griffin, which has obviously had some impact on the man.

“fantasy introspection into Mike’s emotional state and dreams”

It’s not fantasy. Griffin has been apologizing rather abjectly to JPL personnel (among other NASA employees) for his remarks. The man has obviously been taken down (and taken himself down) a notch.

“How about dealing with the facts for a change?”

Sure. Here’s some facts:

— Griffin’s decisions have more than doubled the post-Shuttle human space flight gap, from two years to five.

— Griffin’s decisions have pushed the development of actual human lunar hardware so far into the future that it is no longer up to the Bush II White House whether their human exploration initiative will start or not.

— Despite duplicating their lift capabilities, in terms of development cost, Griffin’s chosen solution for LEO transport is about five times more expensive than existing, comparable military systems and about eight times more expensive than comparable commercial systems under development.

— Griffin has promised full employment at all NASA field centers, even though people need to be coming off the Shuttle program now, pushing all the pain of these workforce decisions onto his successor and jeopardizing future operational savings from Shuttle’s retirement.

— Griffin has set NASA science on a path to decrease from 7-9 missions per year to a rate of 2 or less missions per.

— Griffin has cut the budget for NASA aeronautics research nearly in half.

“Griffin has succeeded in transforming NASA”

Transforming NASA for the worse? Yes, Griffin has arguably succeeded at doing that.

There are some things that Griffin does well. For example, he has made some very good technical calls on STS return-to-flight and on ISS. Griffin can arguably run operational programs well.

But to claim Griffin has been a successful agent of change, “transforming” NASA for the better in the 21st century through properly studied, well planned, and conservatively budgeted programs, is rather laughable in the face of the evidence.

“Griffin has succeeded in transforming NASA and is struggling with a self serving, largely scientifically and technically illiterate media and Congress.”

That’s an interesting statement given the number of researchers who have accused Griffin of being illiterate and self-serving on the science of global warming.

“Griffin is not the problem.”

As long as we ignore budgets, costs, progress on programs under development, workforce issues, political sustainability, flight rates, and political sensitivities, sure, Griffin is not a problem.

Needless to say, I sincerely hope (with my own sense of increasing frustration and desperation) that I am wrong with every word above.

— Donald

Griffin’s recent behavior has been disturbing, both with IG and global warming. Not only the content of his comments but the the timing of the remarks. Bizarre. I keep wondering if he’s somehow realizing what a mess things have become and he wants to get out. Maybe not consciously.

— Donald

There’s plenty of time to fight over implementation, but when the Vision is reduced to a soundbite (Bush’s Humans to Mars program) and then Humans to Mars-focused R&D is proscribed by law as a slap at Bush, that has much more negative impact on space exploration than it does the political fortunes of this President or any potential Republican successor.

Which is a tragedy, IMHO.

Yes, and sadly (and irrationally) that’s apparently sufficient reason for many to oppose it. Pure, unadulterated Bush Derangement.

Although undoubtedly true that some people oppose it for this reason, this is really the least of the Vison’s problems. The problem lies with the way Bush has implemented it. It would be more productive to focus on that.