Space News reports that a new name has emerged in the NASA administrator sweepstakes: Earth scientist Charles Kennel. Kennel is Distinguished Professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, where he also served a term as the institute’s director. He is also chair of the Space Studies Board of the National Academies. He is not a stranger to NASA: he served as associate administrator for Mission to Planet Earth in the mid-90s and also served on the NASA Advisory Council from 1998 to 2006, including a term as chair from 2001 to 2005. Kennel resigned from the NAC in 2006 at the same time two other members, both scientists, were asked to leave the NAC.
Why Kennel? A source “with ties to the NASA transition team” told Space News that the incoming administration has a preference for a “distinguished scientist” to lead the agency, mirroring picks already announced for other positions, including Noble laureate Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy. Kennel would qualify as a distinguished scientist, it would seem, and would set him apart from a number of other non-scientist candidates, including one favorite from earlier this week, Charles Bolden. (Kennel, who turns 70 later this year, would also be one of the oldest NASA administrators.) Less clear is his stance on some key issues, like the exploration architecture, as well as his skills as a manager and leader.
According to the article, the transition team would like to make a selection before the January 20th inauguration, and possibly as soon as this Friday. Transition team leader John Podesta and others on the team have been reviewing candidates this week but haven’t settled on anyone so far.
Just what we need for a NASA admin. A frickin’ scientist.
Just another demonstration that people don’t understand that space is about a lot more than science, if this is really the pick.
Maybe I misunderstood the fellow’s name. Did you say President-elect Carter just appointed Dr. Robert Frosch?
A frickin’ scientist.
Science is way overrated. Humanity was much better off during the dark ages, and the life was a lot simpler when the universe was 6000 years old and the Earth was at the center of it. And who needs instruments anyways.
A scientist sure does beat a military astronaut with ATK lobbyist credentials.
Rand,
Of course, do you think a scientist is going to continue letting Ares-I suck all the air out of the room? Much more likely, if Congress and the new administration decide not to cancel the return to the Moon, a scientist would be more likely to look at lower cost options that would free up more money for the stuff they’re interested in.
I’d rather have a scientist than an engineer who thinks they know everything.
~Jon
Jonathan: As an engineer, I agree with you completely. The SMD model of having a scientist in charge with an engineer in the co-pilot seat works extremely well. Their skill sets are complementary, and let’s face it, until we start exploiting things commercially in space, the main goal is to understand what is out there. That is a scientist’s job, and it sets the top-level requirements for the mission. The engineers need to figure out how to achieve it.
If what is now feared is about to happen, in a few months the folks who have been vilifying Mike Griffin are going to look back on his tenure with nostalgia.
I’d rather have a scientist than an engineer who thinks they know everything.
So would I. But unfortunately, that isn’t necessarily the choice.
I’d like to have someone who understands what space policy is really about. I think it unlikely (though I’d like to be proven wrong) that a space scientist understands that.
I think it unlikely (though I’d like to be proven wrong) that a space scientist understands that.
I’d argue you’ve already been proven wrong. In fact, I’d argue you’ve already suggested one such person – Dr. Alan Stern.
Now, I will say that people can debate his administrative capability, but in terms of his understanding of space and space development, I’d say his cred is quite good.
Any scuttlebutt on whether a new “Earth Systems Science Agency” (ESSA) advocated by Kennell, Abbey, etc. is receiving serious consideration during the Transition? Seems Kennell would be more interested in leading this organization.
I’d argue you’ve already been proven wrong. In fact, I’d argue you’ve already suggested one such person – Dr. Alan Stern.
A single counterexample doesn’t prove that something is unlikely. I didn’t say it was impossible.
Let’s assume Kennel would want a big push towards Earth observations and science at NASA. That seems to be a foregone conclusion anyway given Obama’s space policy document and non-space policies.
It seems to me that such a push would be more likely to be beneficial to commercial space than the Constellation/ESAS answer to the VSE call, anyway. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it would definitely help commercial space, since there are all sorts of clever ways to drain useful characteristics out of a program. However, there are a lot of opportunities for economic usefulness that would be hard to miss.
If the push happens at the low end (inexpensive missions), it could involve lots of NASA use of commercial suborbital missions, small satellites, and small orbital launchers. That’s where a lot of the entrepreneurial innovation is in commercial space now.
If it happens in the traditional class of Earth observation missions, there are opportunities for hosted payloads on commercial satellites, as well as commercial business for traditional launches and satellites (EELVs, Falcon 9’s, etc).
If it happens at the high end, it could involve a new mission for astronauts – servicing of new types of Earth observation satellites in preparation of similar efforts beyond LEO. This could be good for COTS D type launches, Bigelow stations, and new commercial infrastructure like tugs and propellant depots (plus the commercial launches to fill those depots). I could imagine such a path being chosen if the VSE is cancelled outright (which I don’t advocate – I like the VSE, just not NASA’s current way of trying to achieve it). Fortunately it would build the infrastructure that would make exploration more achievable and affordable later.
However it happens, there are also business opportunities adding value to the data like AccuWeather or any number of similiar businesses.
This type of program also strikes me as being easier to perform than the Constellation VSE approach in a way that’s useful to national security (same type of launchers and satellites the military and intelligence agencies use), international cooperation (hosting instruments across countries is done all the time) and of course science – the other central VSE goals.
It also seems easier to do in a sustainable, cost-effective way (the individual missions should be cheaper and smaller with no need for a vulnerable critical path). Results should be returned much faster than with Constellation. With lots of Earth science academic disciplines involved, as well as the engineering disciplines to do the launches, build the satellites, and processing and analyze the data, there are lots of opportunities for educational involvement, too. Finally, companies like the value-added ones as well as DigitalGlobe and GeoEye show that this type of work can be commercialized to allow NASA to move on to the next thing. When the data isn’t marketable, NOAA and USGS can make the successful NASA research missions operational, again allowing NASA to push ahead.
I don’t know Kennel’s position on commercial space, but it would take really thick blinders to miss all of these opportunities.
Anyway, his resume seems to be a lot broader than just Earth science.
A single counterexample doesn’t prove that something is unlikely.
That should have been “disprove.”
[…] of James Earl Carter, who gutted NASA to the point where it has never recovered: “…Space News reports that a new name has emerged in the NASA administrator sweepstakes: Earth scientist Charles Kennel. […]
Since Lori Garver heads the NASA transition, the likely candidate is going to be supporter of the Constellation program. Garver is on record as supporting America’s return to the Moon.
Since Lori Garver heads the NASA transition, the likely candidate is going to be supporter of the Constellation program. Garver is on record as supporting America’s return to the Moon.
Constellation is not identically equal with America returning to the moon. There are many ways for America to return to the moon. Mike Griffin chose a particularly bad one, called Constellation. I think that Lori understands that.
What is overlooked is the single main reason Kennel might possibly be considered: his appointment would be 100% consistent with Obama’s other appointments in terms of a resolute focus on earth science/climate change as a clear national priority. Obama’s head of White House OSTP; his head of NOAA; his Secretary of Energy; his Energy and Environment Czar (sorry, “Coordinator”!) in the White House – climate change seriousness is the common ‘thread’ among his science and technology appointments; a thread so big it is essentially a a 1-foot diameter rope.
That, alone, is reason to take the rumors of a Kennel appointment seriously; it would fit right in with all previous appointments.
The bad news? NASA, in 2009, doesn’t need someone at the helm whose primary raison d’etre is to be a name ‘scientist’. NASA is Earth’s premier aeronautics and space leadership agency. As important – as critical – as climate change is, it is still ‘just’ one subject (but a heckuva big one). Aeronautics research; near-earth object detection and mitigation (ie, planetary defense); U.S. aerospace competitiveness, which is on the decline (and which has not been a focus under the last several administrations); aerospace workforce education and human capital growth; critically needed internal NASA reforms, including organizational reform, basic management reforms, cost management reforms (all of which have been ignored for years); and, yes, even human space exploration realignment and right-sizing! All these are just as critical for Earth’s main space leadership agency.
ONE POSSIBILITY: Let’s remember that the top NASA TEAM of Administrator, Deputy Administrator, IG, and CFO, is much more important than having any single ‘right’ individual as Administrator alone. If the right people are put in the other 3 positions – strong, experienced people that can handle the list of issues above – then someone such aas Kennel really COULD be an excellent choice, he being the person who ensures that NASA really does play a real role in the climate change issue that the new President really wants to happen.
In this example of Kennel as Administrator, then a great team would include:
– A Deputy Administrator nominee:
who knows the entire non-Earth Science rest of the Agency; AND, is a reformer, who not only understands the crying need for basic reforms within NASA, but has enough knowledge of the internal workings of this large, civil service-based, Center-centric organization, to be able to make the reforms actually happen. In short – an experienced, truly reform-minded NASA civil servant. (And yes, a few of these really do still exist; they all haven’t been killed off – yet).
– a CFO with stellar qualifications – but who already has government experience (ie, no ‘how does a Federal Agency work?” training needed), who really will do what Sean O’keefe said he’d do, but didn’t: truly fix NASA’s cost estimating, monitoring, control, and procurement systems.
– an IG who will be an active, competent, independent assessor and reporter of not only NASA programs, but the competence of the NASA organization itself. To that end, one other thing must be added: the IG needs her/his own small ‘chief engineer’s office’, reporting directly to the IG, to provide the technical and program expertise the IG’s office has almost always lacked in the past. The IG’s office is no longer just about simple ‘audits'; yet it has a technically-challenged staff that is geared towards another era. A seasoned, experienced NASA engineer heading a small but experienced team of engineers and project mangement-types would provide the IG’s office with the wherewithal to actually understand the projects it was assessing.
NASA doesn’t just need a new Administrator: it needs a new top team who will not only join the agency at the hip with the rest of the Administration (eg, the emphasis on climate change), but a team who will initiate, implement – competently- real reforms, and give the U.S., and Earth, the NASA that is needed for the 21st Century.
Dave Huntsman
Charles Kennel is much more than an Earth Scientist, his career encompasses astronomy, astrophysics and plasmaphysics. Pres. Elect Obama has indicated a great interest in climate change and ecology. Obama needs someone with the same convictions as he does and I think that Kennel fits the bill.
We have been circling the Earth in LEO for 35 years and counting. For most of that time, we have been tied to a single manned launch vehicle. NASA choice of constellation to go back to the moon is fraught with problems. Even if we were to see Costellation through to completion and the moon, I do not feel that it would be a sustainable program. I feel that Kennel will help NASA to build the LEO infrastructure we need, before we push out beyond Earth with a sustainable launch program. I feel that Kennel would be an excellent choice.
Re scientists as space agency leaders…
While I completely agree with Rand that space is NOT primarily about science, and I would prefer someone who is personally committed to space development/settlement…
one good thing about “scientists” is that they actually want to produce an OUTPUT. In economic policy terms, they care about getting a result from the hardware, not so much the hardware itself. Engineers, on the other hand, as we all know, can get infatuated with the hardware, with the INPUTS.
I would much rather have a really visionary scientist, who is unwilling to merely provide a politically correct fig leaf for stupid engineering projects, than many aerospace engineer/manager types I can imagine.
For example — while he would not have been a good manager of NASA, and probably would have botched the politics — Gerard O’Neill was after all, first and foremost a scientist.
Mr. Huntsman,
Well said. I was thinking much the same, but you said it much better than I could have. All of it.
Mr. Muncy,
I agree with you too.
FWIW,
– Al
“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”
Just what we need for a NASA admin. A frickin’ scientist.
That’s a remarkably prejudicial comment. It’s curious how an engineer can be deemed qualified to lead an agency that includes science in its charter, but a scientist can be considered unqualified to lead an agency that includes space transportation development in its charter. Pretty nasty what a PhD does to someone, eh?
No reason why an engineer can’t have deep respect for scientific research, and a scientist can’t value the strategic and cultural importance of sending people to new places.
If the transition team was really stupid enough to recommend a scientist for Administrator who didn’t value human space flight, then you might have a point. I see zero evidence that this is likely to happen.
What NASA needs at the top is someone who can make a compelling case to the American public how a vision for space benefits them, and how dollars are being spent wisely to make that happen. That calls for leadership, technical astuteness, and a healthy dose of common sense and political acumen. Those are the metrics by which a candidate for NASA administrator should be judged. Not by whether or not they happen to have a PhD in science.
Let’s be worried about a “frickin'” candidate who doesn’t stand up by those metrics rather than by what diploma they happen to have hanging on their wall.
“Just what we need for a NASA admin. A frickin’ scientist.
Just another demonstration that people don’t understand that space is about a lot more than science, if this is really the pick.”
I wouldn’t be nearly so quick to dismiss Kennel in particular or scientists in general in the NASA Administrator slot.
For eight years (1998-2006), Kennel was the director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, a sizable and largely privately funded (although affiliated with the UCSD) ocean exploration institute that fields its own fleet of four seagoing ships plus a stationary platform. I know little about Scripps or ocean exploration, but Kennel has run a human exploration organization that is probably orders of magnitude more efficient and effective than NASA’s human space flight program.
That’s no guarantee that Kennel will bring any lessons from Scripps to NASA, but as Mr. Muncy notes, there’s probably a greater chance for reform and innovation under someone with Kennel’s background than an Administrator who is primarily interested in playing Apollo-era systems engineer.
Here’s links to Scripps and their fleet (add http://):
http://www.sio.ucsd.edu/
shipsked.ucsd.edu/
Two of the other candidates, Scott Hubbard and Wes Huntress, although scientists, have surprising “newspace” and human space exploration credentials. Both served on SpaceDev’s board. See (add http://www.):
thefreelibrary.com/SpaceDev+Adds+Wes+Huntress+and+Paul+Coleman+to+Board-a055080879
and (add http://):
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200711/ai_n21097578
Scott Hubbard in particular is very commercially oriented. His PhD is in solid state physics, he was the Ames manager for Lunar Prospector, he led a Stanford Business School study of commercial space markets, and he writes articles with passages like:
“Some of us will be busy extracting ‘Sutter’s gold’ from orbiting bio-tech laboratories or near-Earth object minerals; some will be developing a second home for humanity on Mars…”
See (add http://):
aviationweek.typepad.com/space/2007/03/fifth_years_on_.html
Huntress led an IAA study on new approaches to human and robotic space exploration, and based on that, has given testimony to Congress with statements like:
“The challenge for NASA is to throw off the yoke of the Apollo program legacy…”
See (add http://www.):
globalsecurity.org/space/library/congress/2003_h/031029-huntress.htm
Heck, Huntress has even written articles that are actually titled “Human Space Exploration Is About More Than Just Science” (add http://www.):
sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/301/5634/771
Bottom-line: I think we need to dig more deeply into these individuals’ backgrounds before dismissing them just on the basis of their career titles.
Personally, I’d take the odds on any of these three, results-driven scientists with broad thinking on human exploration and commercial space exposure over, say, an ex-astronaut with past ties to George Abbey and ATK lobbying. Charlie Bolden is undoubtedly a top-notch leader and hopefully a critical thinker when it comes to the future of human space activities. But I think the risk of NASA’s human space flight program continuing to tread water is much greater under his leadership than any of these three scientist candidates for NASA Administrator.
My 2 cents… FWIW…
It’s curious how an engineer can be deemed qualified to lead an agency that includes science in its charter, but a scientist can be considered unqualified to lead an agency that includes space transportation development in its charter.
Did I say I thought we needed another engineer? [Rereading what I wrote, carefully.]
Nope, I didn’t.
If the transition team was really stupid enough to recommend a scientist for Administrator who didn’t value human space flight, then you might have a point. I see zero evidence that this is likely to happen.
My understanding is that the transition team isn’t making recommendations — they are merely gathering data.
Those are the metrics by which a candidate for NASA administrator should be judged. Not by whether or not they happen to have a PhD in science.
Let’s be worried about a “frickin’†candidate who doesn’t stand up by those metrics rather than by what diploma they happen to have hanging on their wall.
I didn’t say anything about PhDs or diplomas. I’d be perfectly happy with Pete Worden, who has a PhD in astronomy. I was just referring to what Jeff described — Kennel has no obvious record of interest in human spaceflight or space transportation issues, and the goal of the administration was to have a “distinguished scientist” as head of the agency. I strongly disagree with the notion that being a “distinguished scientist” is either a necessary or sufficient condition to being a good NASA administrator.
Have you run out of straw yet?
SIMBERG: Kennel has no obvious record of interest in human spaceflight or space transportation issues, and the goal of the administration was to have a “distinguished scientist†as head of the agency.
I think that Kennel is likely to be better than some “distinguished scientists” having been involved with the NASA Advisory Council for many years, having been its chair for 4 years, and having served on other scientific review bodies. These all provide an opportunity to learn about “politics” and “policy”. But as they say “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink.”
While Kennel has had an opportunity to learn about critical space policy issues, and how to be politically effective, what we don’t know is pretty important, including:
1) Whether Kennel disdaines politics (like Griffin has for many years), or whether he has been a student of politics, and has at least a basic understanding of the key role of an Administrator in executing the requirements of the WH and/or Congress.
2) What are Kennel’s views are on reforming the human spaceflight part of NASA? What does he think of COTS-D? What does he think of using the Orion+EELV? What does he think about propellant depots? What does he think about reusable launch vehicles? What does he think about prizes? What does he think about buying services from commercial industry? What does he think about think about partnering & encouraging commercial industry in general.
SIMBERG: I strongly disagree with the notion that being a “distinguished scientist†is either a necessary or sufficient condition to being a good NASA administrator.
I agree with this, just as I agree that being a “distinguished engineer” (perhaps with six degrees) is a necessary or sufficient condition for a being a good Administrator. I have been making the point for well over a year that the Administrator’s job is to be outward focused on the WH and Congress and the public, rather than inward focused on science and engineering. It is the basis of my signature tag-line.
But there is clear evidence that the Obama administration wants a distinguished “scientist or engineer” who has expertise in an area that directly supports Obama’s expressed agenda.
Rather than complain about “what is so”, which is quite ineffective and a waste of electrons (in my opinion), we should address our energies to finding and promoting candidates who Obama might like.
FWIW,
– Al
“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”
Major General Jonathan Scott Gration Emerges as Possible Obama Choice for NASA Administrator
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/01/major_general_j.html
Sources report that The Obama Transition Team has circulated a name for vetting for the job of NASA Administrator: Major General Jonathan Scott Gration. The name may not ring a bell, but Gration was an early Obama supporter and has been advising him on things since the start of Obama’s campaign.
[…] what about Charles Kennel, the Earth scientist who attracted attention a week ago as a potential candidate for the job? While Kennel’s prospects have apparently faded—if he was, in fact, a serious candidate […]
Great. Now maybe the new Administrator can begin using CFR-1275; Investigation of Research Misconduct filed by NASA in the federal register during the Bush administration. Since Griffin had very little incentive to use the law we can start with a new slate and move forward.
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html