http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html

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.

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.”

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?

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…

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.

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.”

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.

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.