The Orlando Sentinel reported this afternoon that NASA administrator Mike Griffin is planning on leaving office on January 20, on the assumption that his resignation will be accepted by the new Obama Administration when it takes office that day, along with other Bush Administration political appointees. How serious is he planning his departure? He “has already started taking stuff out of his office back to his house,” the Sentinel reported. Recent efforts by some to lobby to keep Griffin has backfired, sources tell the paper, as even backers of keeping Griffin temporarily, like Sen. Bill Nelson, “saw the lobbying as craven”.
Griffin would be replaced, on an interim basis, by current associate administrator Chris Scolese. (Recall that the agency’s current No. 2, deputy administrator Shana Dale, already announced her plans to resign on January 17.) As for a permanent replacement, the Sentinel claims that former astronaut Charlie Bolden “stands out above the rest” of the candidates, although doesn’t specify why Bolden is the frontrunner. Other candidates included in the report include Scott Hubbard, Sally Ride, Wes Huntress, and Alan Stern. Lori Garver, currently heading the transition team, would be in line to succeed Dale as deputy administrator.
If Bolden is a leading candidate to succeed Griffin, though, he hasn’t been informed. This afternoon Bolden participated in a live video chat organized by the Conrad Foundation. During the chat, someone asked him to comment on the report. “The only comment on that story I can offer you is that nobody has talked to me in an official capacity,” he responded. “I have not visited with the transition team or anybody from the Obama administration. I’m incredibly honored that my name would be floated around but those are things I haven’t been approached about yet so I can’t offer you an opinion or anything.”
One other tidbit missed in the Sentinel report: back in early 2002 Bolden was nominated to become deputy administrator shortly after Sean O’Keefe took over as administrator. That nomination was later withdrawn, though, after Congressional concerns about having an active-duty military officer (Bolden was a major general in the Marines at the time, having returned to the service after leaving the astronaut corps in the mid-90s) serving at NASA while the nation was at war. Fred Gregory became deputy administrator instead, and Bolden retired from the Marines a couple years later.
Also: NBC News is reporting that Bolden is a “lead candidate” to succeed Griffin and adds, through a spokesman, that Sen. Nelson considers Bolden a “top-notch individual”.
There was a comment at my web site (for whatever it’s worth) that Bolden and George Abbey are BFFs…
Whether Charlie Bolden is a good nominee depends on which Bolden you believe would show up as NASA Administrator.
Bolden was special assistant to JSC Director George Abbey and was later sent to NASA HQ by Abbey to serve as Assistant Deputy Administrator. It’s hard to say how beholden Bolden may or may not be to Abbey or Abbey’s management style and viewpoints. Regardless, returning NASA’s human space flight program to Abbey-esque leadership runs the risk of stagnation in LEO, aversion to technical and commercial innovation, and multi-billion overruns. One can only hope that Bolden, who has led a whole Pacific Marine Expeditionary Force among other achievements, is his own man and takes no cues from the disgraced former JSC Director.
As Mr. Foust points out, Bolden was also Sean O’Keefe’s first pick for Deputy Administrator. Although the Columbia accident and the VSE didn’t come along until later, to the extent that Bolden follows the mold of any prior NASA leadership, one can only hope that Bolden would share some of O’Keefe’s views about the need for cost control and procurement reform and greater technical innovation in human space flight.
Of the entire slate, Scott Hubbard and Wes Huntress offer the greatest potential for positive change. Both have a history of building innovative yet achievable space science programs, both have served on the boards of “newspace” companies and advocated for COTS-like approaches to human space flight, and both have led independent efforts to strategically examine new approaches to space exploration that echo many of the key features of the VSE.
For all his apparent dedication to cost reform and attempts at small commercial initiatives while NASA Associate Administator for Science, Alan Stern is arguably too unstable a manager, too lacking in strategic thinking, and a little too duplicitous to take the Administrator’s helm. While AA for Science, he repeatedly picked fights over tiny cost increases on high visibility programs, eventually resigning after only a year in office in protest over a lousy few million dollar mission extension for the MERS rovers (of all things). Before becoming AA, Stern’s New Horizon mission circumvented scientific selection processes to lobby Congress for earmarked funding. And since leaving NASA, multi-ten million dollar cost increases on New Horizons get no mention in Stern’s editorials on the need for better cost controls at NASA.
Sally Ride is the wild card. She clearly has the capacity to generate new strategic thinking, but it’s been 22 years since the Ride Report (“NASA Leadership and America’s Future in Space”) and she’s not been in a position of influence or opinion on the civil space program since that time.
My 2 cents… FWIW.
Anonymous…Many of us couldn’t agree more with your statement about Hubbard and Huntress. Both of these gentlemen are pragmatic visionaries who would instill true change in the Agency.
Remember Rand, just do the right thing….
And as for anon and sc220, now I know you don’t know the conteders, but I read your posts with great interest anyway.
I go along anonymous.space’s opinion!
I’m too far away from the US (I’m form Portugal) to give any strong and definitive opinion about this, but I follow all NASA and US space program and have a direct link to a US space organization (TPS)… from my point of view, and knowing a little bit about those name mentioned, I do believe that We Huntress would be the perfect choice as someone who understands the political, social and economical dynamics of the US space program. Furthermore, I also believe that he knows how to get society to look again for US space program. He would be a very good pick, I think…
Regards!
Remember Rand, just do the right thing…
Could you elaborate?
There was a comment at my web site (for whatever it’s worth) that Bolden and George Abbey are BFFs…
This may be part of the source:
George W.S. Abbey and Charles F. Bolden Jr. Join American PureTex Water Corporation
George W.S. Abbey has been named Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of American PureTex Water Corporation and PureTex Water Works. He replaces George Ingram III. Abbey recently retired from NASA after a highly decorated aerospace career and serving as Director of the Johnson Space Center. “George helped to shape some of NASA’s most difficult programs and missions as a true innovator and pioneer. Through out his imminent career, George distinguished both himself and the agency. He leaves behind a legacy of excellence and dedication that the hard working people of NASA will follow for years to come”, said NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe.
In addition, to Abbey being named as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Charles F. Bolden Jr. has been named President and Chief Operating Officer of American Puretex Water Corporation and PureTex Water Works. Bolden retired as a Major General from the United States Marine Corps on January 1, 2003. He most recently served as the Commanding General of the Third Marine Aircraft Wing. Bolden also served as as an Astronaut flying four missions in space, and flew more than one hundred (100) combat missions in North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School at Patuxent River, Maryland and has logged more than seven thousand (7,000) hours of flying time.
“Both Charlie and I are excited about our new positions. Water is a critical resource and being able to contribute to the effective management of this essential resource and to help provide water to the community is a rewarding and worthwhile endeavor. Charlie and I view this as a challenge and an opportunity to continue our public service in the private sector”, said Abbey.
“And as for anon and sc220, now I know you don’t know the conteders, but I read your posts with great interest anyway.”
I actually have had prior working relationships with some of the candidates from the Sentinel article and could vouch for them. But as an anonymous blog poster, my vouchsafe isn’t worth much. So my earlier post above is based on publicly available information about the prior activities of each candidate.
FWIW…
Apologies Rand, was being overly cryptic. ‘Just do the right thing’ was apparently a favorite refrain of George Abbey. Unfortunately for NASA, the right thing almost never happens by default…anyone know why that is?
On second thoughts, I think I do know why that is, but it’s probably a job for Nancy Killefer.
Not only that, but it’s not always obvious, or there’s not always a consensus (see, e.g., Constellation/ESAS) what the “right thing” is.
I am disappointed with many of the names listed. I also don’t believe that they are the “list”. Somebody has an agenda here.
CHARLIE BOLDEN: I agree that Charlie is a rock-solid A-1 guy that has a good head on his shoulders. But a key fundamental is missing here — we need a “change agent”. I have zero evidence that Charlie is a change agent. In fact, I have a lot of evidence that *suggests* that Charlie is an agent of the status quo.
1) Charlie is a Georgy Abbey-acolyte and a long-time friend of George. George is almost certainly part of the campaign supporting Charlie. Recently Georgy Abbey published a white paper proposing to stop the termination of the Shuttle.
This is completely status quo.
2) Senator Nelson is an agent for the status quo. Senator Nelson is obviously lobbying for Bolden. (It is obvious that Bolden has not been selected, as he has not been called yet by the transition team. But Sen. Nelson is talking to the newspapers about Bolden. Thus Nelson is publicly lobbying for Bolden.)
Senator Nelson would love to keep flying the Shuttle longer.
3) Charlie is a Shuttle astronaut. This is evidence of status quo.
Picking somebody because they are an “astronaut” is a really bad idea. As a general rule, being a Shuttle astronaut should be seen as a evidence against any candidate being a change agent.
We have been to this story before with Dick Truly. Admiral Truly ended up refusing to take direction from the White House, and getting fired, because he was completely native to NASA. In Truly’s book, his job was not execute White House policy, but to save NASA from the White House.
Since Charlie has not made clear what he would do as Administrator, this is a big concern.
I can only add up what I know –> Abbey friend + Nelson friend + Shuttle astronaut = status quo.
If anybody has any hard evidence that Charlie will be a change agent, I would love to hear it. Please be specific. If you can source it, even better.
Examples:
– “Charlie Bolden worked SpaceX/Blue Origins/Bigelow/XCOR/SpaceDev. Read URL here.” )
– Charlie Bolden made a speech saying “I love _____. I think we should do _____.”
– Charlie Bolden told me “_____________”.
FWIW,
– Al
“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”
It would be nice to have Scott Hubbard head up the Department of National Aeronautics, Spaceflight and Astrosciences. Aeronautics would include the FAA except for the Office of Commercial Space Transportation which would be under spaceflight. Also an air & space “DARPA†could be created under this structure. It’s just a dream.
It seems most of the publically published short lists have seldom contained the person to eventual get the position.
Aeronautics would include the FAA except for the Office of Commercial Space Transportation which would be under spaceflight.
That would be a policy disaster. The last thing we want is for NASA to be involved with regulation of either aviation of spaceflight.
…errr…that would be “…aviation orspaceflight.”
I would totally agree under the current NASA but I was thinking a completely restructured NASA. Where air transportation, space transportation and sciences are managed separately. However, The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is independent of the Department of Energy. Maybe we could have a FARC.
Some one suggested this person to me. Seems to be mostly free of political ties; OK, as much as one can be and be effective.
Bryan D. O’Connor
Don`t know him and don`t have strong feelings one way or another but I did think it interesting in a “stir up the pot” way. Just because you think he doesn`t have a chance doesn`t mean anything unless you are Mr. Obama.
Now back to your usual squabbling over trivial stuff. Proceed.
Miles O’Brian is looking for a job.
Why not? They’re going to make Sanja Gupta Surgeon General.
I find it interesting that most of these posts don’t offer up effectiveness as a a gov’t agency administrator as a primary, essential quality. I too would love to see major changes in how our national space effort is conducted, but first and foremost the leader of NASA needs to be able to effectively manage the workforce under them, through effective leadership, inspiration, and just plain simple people skills. This must be coupled to effective Washington insider skills, i.e., how to work ‘the system’ so that the agency’s proper goals can be achieved.
I would offer that we were much closer to this convergence of abilities with NASA’s most recent previous administrator. While Mr. O’Keefe didn’t have the technical depth that so many believe he needed—he was first to admit what he didn’t know in that department—as others have pointed out elsewhere, neither did Jim Webb, and he put together the Apollo program.
But Webb had strong 2nd & 3rd team members in Robert Seamans & Hugh Dryden. I would offer that if Garver (not the strongest technically based on what I’ve seen printed about her) lands in the 2nd position under an effective administrator (note the lower-case ‘a’) there better darn be one heck of a strong scientist or engineer in the 3rd position.
It appears that Charlie Bolden is an attempt to save Mike Griffin’s Scotty Rocket.
Gen. Bolden was a registered lobbyist for ATK, and has personally lobbied Congress for the stick. When asked about this by the Washington Post, he said he was happy to do so.
– FYI
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/24/AR2005082402015.html
Astronauts Turn to Lobbying
…
It seemed like a natural fit: pairing a company that manufactures space shuttle booster rockets with astronauts. That is just what ATK Thiokol Inc. has done.
According to their lobby registrations, retired astronauts Daniel Barry , Franklin Chang-Diaz , Thomas Jones , retired Marine Maj. Gen. Charles Bolden, retired Navy Capt. Daniel Bursch and retired Air Force Col. John Blaha will help ATK Thiokol “with an education campaign on the design considerations of the next generation NASA launch vehicles, in particular the shuttle-derived concepts through visits with members of Congress and other key decision makers.”
“They, more than most experts, have a clear understanding of the need for safety and simplicity in our vehicles and propulsion systems,” Mike Bender, an ATK-Washington Operations official, said in an e-mail response to questions about the lobby registrations.
…
Bolden and Barry said they were happy to help when asked by Scott Horowitz, a former shuttle commander who is now an official of ATK Thiokol.
Bolden said it was easy to support the company and its rockets because “we lived it. It is systems we know and feel comfortable with.”
Al: “I have zero evidence that Charlie is a change agent.”
I don’t know much about him, but here’s something to consider:
http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2009/01/bolden-no-contact-yet-on-nasas-top-job.shtml
“If I would have any conversation with the transition team, I would plead for continuity — if not in people, at least continuity in execution,” he said.
“Now does that mean we don’t change anything right now in the Constellation system?” he asked. “No, it doesn’t mean that. But it means let’s take a look at things and get to the moon and Mars.”
Personally, I’m all for taking a look at things, but I suspect that Constellation needs more than a look and what sounds like minor changes if it’s going to do what it’s supposed to, which isn’t simply a return to the Moon or a Mars trip, but rather is *supposed* to be a cost-effective, sustainable exploration program that returns significant economic, science, and security benefits (heck, I’ll take 2 out of 3) on a reasonable schedule with reasonable safety and chance of success using commercial space and international participation. It needs to do that while at the same time leaving sufficient budget for Obama’s other priorities identified in his space policy, including Earth observation, aeronautics, and education.
I’d say that Constellation in its current form is pretty far from achieving those goals, or even a good percentage of them, even if it does manage to return astronauts to the Moon.
On the other hand, I think it’s promising that Bolden was just, as Jeff pointed out, participating with the Conrad Foundation/Conrad Awards, which are now separate from the X PRIZE Cup as student business/innovation competitions in lunar exploration, personal spaceflight, and renewable energy fields. That might be an indication that he has what I’d consider favorable views on innovation prizes, competition, entrepreneurial innovation, and education.