Wednesday came and went without a formal announcement of whether former Air Force Major General Jonathan Scott Gration would be the next NASA administrator (despite one publication jumping the gun). It’s also not at all clear how certain the selection of Gration is: while initial reports indicated that Gration was all but a lock to get the nomination, the Washington Post reported that “the selection is not a done deal” but could still be made prior to Tuesday’s inauguration. The Orlando Sentinel reported that Gration is not “an automatic lock” to get the job. The Wall Street Journal [subscription required] said that no final decision has been made, but could be forthcoming in a few days, adding that Lori Garver is the leading candidate to become deputy administrator.
However, enough reports have suggested that Gration is the leading candidate to generate a public reaction from Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), and not necessarily a positive one. A Nelson spokesman released a statement to numerous publications, including the Houston Chronicle, expressing his concern at the lack of Gration’s NASA experience. “I think President Bush made a mistake when he appointed someone without NASA experience in Sean O’Keefe to head the agency,” the statement read. “I hope President Obama’s pick will have that kind of (NASA) background.”
It turns out, though, that Gration may have a bit more of a space policy background that first thought. SPACE.com reported that Gration helped draft the Obama campaign’s space policy white paper released in August. Exactly what role the former general played, though, isn’t described in detail.
Gration also got an endorsement from Hans Mark, for whom Gration worked for when the officer was a White House Fellow assigned to Mark, NASA deputy administrator, in 1982-83. Mark on Gration: “He’s a good judge of people. He’s a good leader. He knows who to listen to.”
And 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 for the job#8212;he’s keeping quiet about the topic when contacted by the Sentinel: “A rumor by any other name is still a rumor. In such a circumstance, silence is golden.”
Mark on Gration: “He’s a good judge of people. He’s a good leader. He knows who to listen to.â€
My fear is that he will know to listen to Hans Mark, who has been profoundly wrong on some key issues.
Then again Pete Worden likes him, which says a lot.
Good thing he knows who to listen to – he will spend a lot of time listening. And waiting to make fundamental decisions – while the middle level managers battle over turf.
At least this will give SpaceX and Virgin Galactic some time to prove commercial access to space, and begin to develop alternatives to the sluggish Government program.
To the extent Scott Gration is touted as having helped draft Obama’s August 2008 space policy, that enhances our ability to hold an Obama Administration to that space policy, a policy Dr. Peter Diamandis (among others) expressly endorsed.
Therefore, it would seem prudent for space advocates to study that policy paper carefully, bookmark it, and be ready to challenge those divergences from that policy that should be opposed while looking for opportunities to offer suggestions to improve that policy.
Even if Obama and Gration (if chosen) are “blank slates” on space issues, the August 2008 position paper offers points of leverage to pursue the implementation of actual policies the space community would favor.
A link to that paper:
http://obamanauts.org/obama-space-policy/
Does anyone really believe that any statements or proposed policies issued during a campaign hold any real authority over what elected officials really do? They serve only as ammunition for the press to use when they don’t like the elected officials in the first place, and are just as quickly forgotten when they are already predisposed to like (or worship) the elected officials.
Besides, a policy paper written in August 2008 may have little applicability to the circumstances we find ourselves in August 2009. Let us not forget (“Mark my words…”) that our new president will be tested internationally within the first six months of his administration…not to mention that little bit of social engineering spin-off out there called “the financial crisis” that continues to evolve daily.
Bob,
Politicians can be relied upon to say one thing and do another – all politicians, including Barack Obama. That being said, quoting their own words back at them when in a political dispute can be helpful.
That August 2008 paper is not a reason to be complacent or over-confident, rather it is a tool that can be used to advocate on behalf of COTS or ITAR reform or anything else found in that report which “we” (as space advocates) support.
MAHONEY: Does anyone really believe that any statements or proposed policies issued during a campaign hold any real authority over what elected officials really do?
Of course the statement does not hold any AUTHORITY over what they will do. Bush-Cheney had a wonderful space policy statement in 2000 (developed by a Committee led by Bob Walker and Courtney Stadd), which made lots of promises, but some small fraction of those policies every came true.
So there is reason to be skeptical.
However, the Obama space policy statement is good data point on what they are thinking of doing, and would like to do. Many pieces of the Obama space policy statement were clearly written to illustrate desires & intentions. It is clear that very few people vote (for or against) a candidate based on what his/her space policy is, so I would not leap to conclusions about them lying in the statement to gain votes.
But there is a real risk of the WH focusing on other priorities, and forgetting to do anything about a national space agenda.
Which is one big plus in Scott Gration’s corner.
Gration will have access.
– Al
“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rockets scientists do not understand politics.”
Al (and Bill) : I would offer that the space policy statement might be a good data point on what his campaign thought sounded good based on some recommendations from folks more in the know regarding space issues, but I wouldn’t give it any more weight than that, or presuppose that it represents any true substance regarding what Obama hopes to accomplish in space—if he really has any of his own thoughts on the matter at all beyond “making NASA inspirational again.”
I believe the fact that his position on VSE/Constellation changed so significantly during the campaign (moving from considering it to be a funding source to be mined to help pay for education initiatives to representing a viable program needing support but possible reassessment—how perfectly slippery) bears this out.
I do agree, Al, with your point about access to the president being a valuable commodity. To some extent this was one of the advantages that O’Keefe (and Webb before him) brought to the job.
And, Bill, you may be correct that the policy statement can serve as a tool. I’m just suggesting that it’s a tool possessing very little leverage.
[…] Space Politics has come forward with additional information about the choice of Major General Scott Gration. Bill Nelson is very much against him. “…Wednesday came and went without a formal announcement of whether former Air Force Major General Jonathan Scott Gration would be the next NASA administrator (despite one publication jumping the gun). It’s also not at all clear how certain the selection of Gration is: while initial reports indicated that Gration was all but a lock to get the nomination, the Washington Post reported that “the selection is not a done deal†but could still be made prior to Tuesday’s inauguration. The Orlando Sentinel reported that Gration is not “an automatic lock†to get the job. The Wall Street Journal [subscription required] said that no final decision has been made, but could be forthcoming in a few days, adding that Lori Garver is the leading candidate to become deputy administrator….” […]
Gration’s got 2 things going for him from what I can see, in addition to his obvious leadership skills:
1. His heavy involvement with writhing Obama’s space policy document puts him hands-on to its implimentation, with clear access directly to the President. A successful Administrator needs to be able to work the room in the White House and Congress. Gration can do that, while Griffin could not.
2. Being a space community outsider, he would be less likely to simply “press on” with current programs without some kind of thorough top to bottom review. That would be good for the agency, especially in light of all the cost, schedule and technical difficulties with the current project. He will look at it with fresh eyes and with no dog in the hunt. Dr Griffin is emotionally attached to Ares and that’s bad for the agency. Gration would not suffer that impediment.
Now if we match that with a Deputy Administrator that can “work the room” at the upper eschelons at NASA to keep the projects going properly, That would be a good match. I think Lori Garver would be able to do that and if so, then a Gration/Garver matchup would be good.
Dr Griffin is a good engineer. He should have been tapped as the chief engineer at NASA instead of its Administrator. He would have been perfect in that position. I hope the new Administrator, whoever is finally tapped, has a chief engineer of the kind that Griffin could have been.
Too bad. I think Griffin would heave been much happier at NASA in that position.
Whoever the administrator is the person would need to be someone that can sell space, the agency and its people.
NASA in the years that follow will be in total infrastructure building mode under these crushing financial lean years.
[…] l’altro ieri Space Politics riportava che, sebbene il nome di Gration fosse stato fatto da parecchie parti, potrebbe essere in […]
The troubling fact about Gration is that it is standard management procedure to bring in an outsider to make big cuts. An outsider is often the “slash-and-burn” person, to be followed by a “reconstruction” person who is more conspicuously wedded to a long range vision. With a military background, BRAC-like cuts could be easier for Gration to make than they might be for others.
Since Gration does not have the deep aerospace and science connections that would allow him to credibly organize some serious replanning of the agency, his nomination might lead one to assume that the new administration has pretty much already determined where NASA will go. No, I don’t think that just keeping the rudder straight is what any new administrator would be asked to do.
One wonders if Obama was looking for somewhere to put Gration, and assured him that if planted at NASA to achieve near term goals there, would be able to eventually move up to where he might really want to be. The selection of such a person by an insider-focused transition team is puzzling, however. If the transition team was, in fact, asked to scope out new administrators, they may have just been handed a list.
That Obama would listen to Gration as administrator would be certainly be beneficial to the agency, and I’m in no position to criticize his leadership potential, but I suspect that if he was nominated and confirmed, things might get a lot worse for NASA before they got better.
LASSITER: The troubling fact about Gration is that it is standard management procedure to bring in an outsider to make big cuts. An outsider is often the “slash-and-burn†person, to be followed by a “reconstruction†person who is more conspicuously wedded to a long range vision.
I have a strong suspicion that Gration is a closet space buff, and asked for the NASA job because he wants to help our nation in space.
At the same time, to be a “slash & burn” hatchetman is not the kind of job that anybody wants. It is not fun. It makes you lots of enemies. Members of Congress yell at you.
I admit this is all speculation, but human nature being what it is, and considering that Gration has many other choices, I doubt that he would want the NASA job if Obama wanted him to be a hatchet man.
FWIW,
– Al
I have a strong suspicion that Gration is a closet space buff, and asked for the NASA job because he wants to help our nation in space.
We would all hope that to be the case, but I see not a shred of evidence for it. I’d like to think more than wishfully here.
to be a “slash & burn†hatchetman is not the kind of job that anybody wants. It is not fun. It makes you lots of enemies. Members of Congress yell at you.
I’m with you there. But up-and-coming leadership entrepreneurs are not beyond putting themselves in positions where they have to make hard choices and inflict pain as a way of proving themselves for higher service. The hair-on-chest test. Or, let’s say that Obama tells Gration, “You get out there and deconstruct NASA, get out of the way for someone who can reconstruct it, and then we’ll have a look at Secretary of the Air Force for you.” Gration salutes and marches ahead, forcing a smile on his face. One might speculate that Gration was originally not at the top of the priority list the transition team made up, and those above him did not, in fact, want the job for precisely this reason.
BTW, members of Congress yell at anyone for anything, and they don’t have life terms. Gration isn’t that old, and he’ll outlive most of them.