Comments on: Lampson out of the running?

By: Space Politics » Lampson: not going to be NASA administrator

Space Politics » Lampson: not going to be NASA administrator — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:30:45 +0000

[…] Chronicle suggests that with Lampson no longer a candidate for the job (as noted here last week), the White House might now turn to Charles Bolden, the former astronaut strongly endorsed by Sen. […]

By: Space Politics » Pelosi endorses Lampson

Space Politics » Pelosi endorses Lampson — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:06:05 +0000

[…] former Congressman Nick Lampson may not be in the running to be NASA administrator, he has picked up an endorsement of sorts from the current Speaker of the […]

By: Doug Lassiter

Doug Lassiter — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:39:01 +0000

Generally before one makes engineering policy decisions, one tried to do some engineering to base those policy decision on. Griffin didnâ€™t do a DAMN THING before embarking on his folly.

Yes, that’s just as I said. It wasn’t the engineering that he did, or the engineering that he had done, it was the policy decision that led to engineering that wasn’t done. So your point was …?

Could well be something in the water. But it sounds to me like caffeine.

By: SpaceMan

SpaceMan — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:29:25 +0000

Griffin didnâ€™t do a DAMN THING Really attracting the people with a total ignorance of reality in this thread. the Reagan years Ah yes, the 30+ years of total delusional behavior based on ego posturing and lies. Your hero was a 4th rate puppet. Does your mother let you play with scissors ? Scary.

By: Laughable Americans

Laughable Americans — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:35:51 +0000

Mikeâ€™s failings were largely not in engineering per se, but in policy decisions about engineering.

Retardation certainly is on the rise in America. It must be all the perchlorate in the water. Let me try to explain it to you, since you appear to be crippled intellectually. Generally before one makes engineering policy decisions, one tried to do some engineering to base those policy decision on. Griffin didn’t do a DAMN THING before embarking on his folly. His idea of engineering is to scribble something on the back of a napkin, and then demand that engineers implement it at great cost and time to the taxpayer. The fact that people like this can even exist in government nowadays reveals the stark degeneration of American intellectual and scientific compentence which has transpired since the Reagan years.

It must be something in the water. Or perhaps sitting on school boards.

By: Doug Lassiter

Doug Lassiter — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:55:35 +0000

No, he certainly didn’t destroy NASA. That’s pretty shallow. NASA wasn’t that much just before him, at least with regard to human space flight. We then had (and still have) an awesomely expensive and risky vehicle used for more than a decade to just take people to a space station that’s still looking for a purpose. Yes, he tried to destroy those, and at least partially succeeded. Apologist? I thought I said I didn’t want to see another administrator like Mike Griffin. Pretty lame apology, if that’s what it was.

Mike has vastly more competence at propulsion and aerodynamic engineering than any administrator who came before, and probably also just about any inhabitant of the 9th floor. Compared to those gentlemen, I’d say an assessment of enormous competence is justified. Let’s be careful. Mike’s failings were largely not in engineering per se, but in policy decisions about engineering.

By: Laughable Americans

Laughable Americans — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:37:33 +0000

Mikeâ€™s enormous competence

Oh look, it’s another Michael Griffin apologist. Hey everybody, let’s defend the man that DESTROYED NASA, just like we defend the men and women that DESTROYED AMERICA! That will make all of our problems go away!

By: Doug Lassiter

Doug Lassiter — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:58:48 +0000

The main lesson from Mike Griffin’s tenure as NASA administrator was, I think, that an administrator who sees NASA first from the point of view of space flight architecture, and second from the point of view of a compelling vision for the nation, is toast. Mike’s enormous competence at the former blinded many people to the fact that he didn’t have that much of the latter. I don’t want to say that this was because he was a superb engineer, but just that engineering was his prime goal. From him and, I suppose, also from OSTP, who sort of kept him at arms length, we ended up with an implementation that was uninspiring and hardly compelling. Go back to the Moon! (Again.) And plant people there! (Who would work hard to basically just be there.) That’s what I call an “almost vision”. The President’s vision was to go to new places, and the Moon was a stop on the way. That was largely abandoned by NASA, though the space advocacy community tried hard to keep the flame alive through lunar dust (and perhaps He3) stained glasses.

Oh, Sean O’Keefe didn’t have either engineering competence or a compelling vision. Dan Goldin just might have had both.

So I’m not sure who I’d like to see in Mike’s place, except I’m pretty sure I know what I don’t want to see in his place. I think, as per the thoughts expressed at the beginning of this thread, we need someone who can take a ball from the White House, and really run with it, and bring passion and excitement to the effort. It isn’t clear to me that any of the good names mentioned above have that ability, at least partly in that they are firmly ensconced in a box they need to see out of.

By: Sheridan

Sheridan — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:17:19 +0000

@sc220
I think that a lot of good people are uninterested in the job of NASA Administrator. And a lot more are looking for opportunities outside of NASA too because they are tired of the continuing insanity there.

By: sc220

sc220 — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:07:04 +0000

I think Pete Worden would be the best person for the job.

Worden is a prime contender for the DARPA Director job. Unfortunately, he may be leaving NASA soon. Otherwise, he would be a good fit for NASA Administrator.