NASA

A newspaper endorsement for Griffin

At times, the effort by supporters of NASA administrator Mike Griffin to keep him in office has the flavor of a political campaign: petition drives, email appeals for support, etc. Now add another element to the mix: editorials in major newspapers. Saturday’s Philadelphia Inquirer features an editorial about Griffin, arguing that he should be retained, at least for limited time, by the Obama Administration. The editorial notes that Obama “may be siding with critics” of Constellation, and cites as an example Sen. John Glenn, who has argued with keeping the shuttle flying until a replacement is ready rather than have a multi-year gap in US government access to the station. The Inquirer argues that Glenn is “a bit off target” because of the high costs of keeping the shuttle flying while working on its replacement as well as that fact that, since it’s the International Space Station, the US should have no problem cooperating with Russia.

The paper’s endorsement of Griffin comes out clearly in the editorial’s final paragraph:

Griffin has done a good job. He has replaced NASA’s failed safety culture with one that works. Unlike his predecessor, former Bush budget officer Sean O’Keefe, Griffin is not a bean counter; he’s a real rocket scientist, with seven degrees. He has the ability to make Bush’s goal, stated in 2004, to send a manned mission to Mars within 20 to 30 years, more than a pipe dream. Obama would be wise to keep Griffin aboard – at least in the short term.

9 comments to A newspaper endorsement for Griffin

  • chance

    I think there is an assumption by many, reasonable on its face, that the heads of large organizations should be experts in whatever that organization does. I agree to an extent, since someone completely clueless about his or her new area of responsibility will face steep learning curve. When dealing with large, complex organizations however, it is really more important to have a set of excellent executive managerial skills, a knack for politicking, be a sound critical thinker, and have good judgment. Having never worked for the man, I can only go by what I’ve read. And from what I’ve read, he has many fine qualities, but politicking isn’t one of them, and there are some serious questions about his judgment.

    Even if all the critics are wrong, and his supporter are correct that he has been a fine administrator, I find his clumsy drive to stay on distasteful at best. If you want to argue that it is his supporters and not he who is leading a drive, I have to argue that many (most?) of those supporters wouldn’t be trying at all had he not publically expressed a strong interest in staying.

  • sc220

    …He has the ability to make Bush’s goal, stated in 2004, to send a manned mission to Mars within 20 to 30 years, more than a pipe dream.

    And why would the Obama Administration give a whit about this? It has absolutely no obligation to continue the current course. In fact, by justifying Griffin’s retention to enable a VSE goal, the Philadelphia Inquirer is actually contributing to the case against Griffin. The new Administration needs a NASA that will work for them, not the dying echo of an incredibly unpopular Presidency.

    If people want Griffin to stay, he has to be sold as a versatile leader, one capable of working within the context of small or even large changes in policy. His statements over the last few months indicate that his not at all interested in this. Therefore, he needs to go.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Unlike his predecessor, former Bush budget officer Sean O’Keefe, Griffin is not a bean counter; he’s a real rocket scientist, with seven degrees.

    Not to spend time defending Sean O’Keefe, but James Webb, who capably led our last human space flight vision out of low Earth orbit, had no technical or scientific degrees and was, in fact, a federal “bean counter” before becoming NASA Administrator.

    Just as then, what is needed most now is indeed leadership, managerial skills, and political acumen. A new Administrator might well also want to have at least seven degreed rocket scientists at hand whose opinions he can capably judge.

    Of course, what Jim Webb had that Mike Griffin does not is loads of money.

  • red

    “He has the ability to make Bush’s goal, stated in 2004, to send a manned mission to Mars within 20 to 30 years, more than a pipe dream.”

    Bush’s goal stated in 2004 is not to send a manned mission to Mars, so the Inquirer editorial bases its support on something that isn’t there. Here’s the VSE goal:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/space/renewed_spirit.html

    “The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.”

    To achieve that, NASA is supposed to make an affordable and sustainable exploration program that promotes commercial and international participation, and develop innovative technologies and infrastructure.

    As far as destinations are concerned, it’s the Moon, not Mars. Mars and other destinations are for later, and based on the Constellation development schedule and the NASA plans to build a Moon base, it’s safe to say a human Mars mission would be much much later under Griffin’s plan. I’d also say that “a Mars mission” would go against the VSE goals and would not be worth the cost. A humans-to-Mars program would need to be a sustained series of missions and infrastructure development used to deliver economic, science, and security benefits both to fit the VSE and to be worth doing.

    In the meantime, the Mars robotics program has had major cutbacks, cancellations, and cost overruns under Griffin, so I’d hardly consider Mars a strong point in his favor.

    I do agree with the article that Griffin has done a good job with the Shuttle – flying it safely so far and fighting to make sure it gets shut down as soon as possible for safety and cost reasons.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Bush’s goal stated in 2004 is not to send a manned mission to Mars, so the Inquirer editorial bases its support on something that isn’t there. Here’s the VSE goal:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/space/renewed_spirit.html

    Bush never mentioned a schedule for human expeditions to Mars in the VSE, but long range plans for such an eventual expedition to Mars after return to the Moon are quite explicit there. You may have the opinion that a Mars mission “would go against the VSE”, but the VSE itself certainly assumes it. By Presidential directive, a long range objective of humans on Mars is “worth doing”. Very fair to argue with whether or not it is really worth doing (and the next President may well say that it isn’t), but not to suggest that it isn’t part of the Bush VSE.

    Also, to pick a nit, such plans for Mars in the VSE have nothing to do with a “Moon base”. Many feel that the establishment of a lunar outpost would just delay a human expedition to Mars.

    There is nothing in the Inquirer editorial that would suggest that the Moon isn’t understood as a nearer term destination. In fact, what the editorial does suggest is that an eventual human expedition to Mars would be a more engaging accomplishment than the nearer term objective of returning humans to the Moon.

  • Bob Mahoney

    I wish that folks would stop accepting the media’s selective interpretation of the VSE as the VSE itself. It was never about choosing between this or that destination, it was always about enabling ALL the destinations. The most logical path, as presented rather clearly in Bush’s original introductory speech, is to start with return to the Moon so that we can there develop many of the technologies (and the operational knowledge set, and potentially the resources) to make getting to the other places (asteroids, Mars, etc) easier. The Moon is only 3 days distant and 1.5 communication light-seconds away; Mars is months distant and tens of communication light-minutes away.

    As someone above posted, VSE was originally supposed to be about developing the infrastructure to open up the entire solar system, not just getting back to the Moon or flying some people to Mars. Before Griffin came on board, NASA’s initial work toward enabling the VSE (under the hands of the aforementioned bean-counter) included the targeting of specific far-ranging technology breakthroughs like nuclear propulsion, competitive fly-offs of spacecraft designs, long-term closed life support systems, and pursuit of in-situ resource utilization. It was Griffin himself, with his heavy-handed marionation of ESAS (including its presumption to reinvent, at considerable expense, launch vehicle capability) and the pathetic public presentation thereof (“Apollo on Steroids”), that helped shrink NASA’s efforts into nothing beyond a return to the Moon—certainly as far as the public is concerned.

    If folks think that this de-scoping, from opening up the entire solar system for human exploration and development to merely reinventing two budget-busting launch vehicles and minimal disposable spacecraft, is the way to go for our nation’s space program, then, by all means, let’s stay the current course and retain the hyper-degreed rocket scientist.

    Regardless of that choice, I must say that this entire effort to keep him as the administrator strikes me as pathetic and embarrassing. With my apologies to one “segment” of our society, I’ve seen so-deemed white trash act with gobs more self-respect and professional decorum.

  • red

    Doug: “Bush never mentioned a schedule for human expeditions to Mars in the VSE, but long range plans for such an eventual expedition to Mars after return to the Moon are quite explicit there.”

    Although I may not have worded it well, I agree with this. That’s what I meant here:

    “As far as destinations are concerned, it’s the Moon, not Mars. Mars and other destinations are for later,”

    Doug: “You may have the opinion that a Mars mission “would go against the VSE”, but the VSE itself certainly assumes it.”

    What I meant in particular is the Inquirer’s phrase “a manned mission to Mars within 20 or 30 years”. I was objecting to the singular “a”. I’d argue that any human Mars program needs to be a long-term (possibly permanent) series of missions to have a shot at addressing the VSE’s goals.

    As far as my personal opinion on destinations is concerned, I really don’t have a preference among LEO, GEO, L-points, Moon, Mars, Mars moons, asteroids, or whereever for NASA’s human spaceflight program. I just think that regardless of the destination, it needs to be done in an affordable way. Also, to be sustainable, it needs to return substantial benefits in a reasonable amount of time to the taxpayers (such as the VSE’s goals of security, science, and economic benefits, or other rewards in areas like health, energy, environment, education, and so on).

  • Doug Lassiter

    Red, that’s well put, and I agree entirely.

    I wish that folks would stop accepting the media’s selective interpretation of the VSE as the VSE itself.

    If you’re referring to the “within 20 or 30 years”, and the media focus on Moon and Mars, that’s certainly correct. The Presidential directive that was announced as VSE was much broader. That’s what made it attractive to many. It was an umbrella under which different implementation plans could be discussed. The “Moon, Mars, and Beyond” slogan didn’t help matters much, in this regard. That slogan was interpreted by the media as the complete set of viable destinations.

  • I wish that folks would stop accepting the media’s selective interpretation of the VSE as the VSE itself. It was never about choosing between this or that destination, it was always about enabling ALL the destinations.

    Until Mike Griffin took over…

Leave a Reply to Doug Lassiter Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>