NASA

Griffin on Bolden, Augustine review

The Associated Press published today an interview with former NASA administrator Mike Griffin, settling into his new position as a professor at the University of Alabama Huntsville. Some highlights, starting with what he thinks of the Review of US Human Space Flight Plans Committee (aka the Augustine committee):

“This review is not, in my judgment, necessary from a technical point of view,” he said. “But it does seem to be necessary if we are going to quiet some of the criticism of what NASA is doing, and if we are going to get the new administration on board.”

[…]

Griffin said he doesn’t think the administration’s review will mean any major changes for Constellation, “unless someone moves the goalpost” away from completing the space station, returning to the moon and then sending people to Mars.

But such studies can lead to funding uncertainties and a loss of momentum, he said, and NASA underwent a “seminal change” after the Columbia disaster in 2003, one that led to the current plan to astronauts back to the moon and on to Mars.

“The space agency had its change you can believe in,” said Griffin, referring to Obama’s campaign theme. “What it needs now is to be left alone to execute well.”

Griffin also offers praise for his nominated successor, Charles Bolden—at his own expense:

Griffin was pleased with Obama’s selection of former astronaut Charles Bolden as his successor. Griffin — who was sometimes faulted for what some described as a prickly personality — said Bolden has the experience, smarts and people skills for the job.

“It would be very hard to think more highly of him,” he said. “He’s way better with people than I am.”

12 comments to Griffin on Bolden, Augustine review

  • Dale Winke

    Honesty, I really did like Dr. Griffin, but his holier than though, do not question me attitude has become way over the top old. Any program that is professed to be beyond review, is probably in BIG need of review!

  • kert

    “What it needs now is to be left alone to execute well.”
    Um, yeah, thats the only problem NASA has ever had, its never been left alone to execute well. Griffin is trying to say “dont look under the hood” in a new way here.

  • sc220

    “What it needs now is to be left alone to execute well.”

    Ain’t gonna happen. NASA has to face the fact that it’s grown up now. Going back to an Apollo era environment years reminds me of a middle-aged man trying to relive the simplistic years of youth. What you get is an embarrassment.

    NASA stakeholder base is much larger now. People have real money invested in it now, and NASA now needs to promote opening it up to more than specially selected civil servants. The environment is much more complex now, and NASA just needs to recognize it.

  • red

    Griffin: “This review is not, in my judgment, necessary from a technical point of view”

    A lot of people would argue with that, but I won’t because it’s almost besides the point. The inescapable problems with NASA’s current Ares-based approach aren’t technical. They’re about budgets, policy, politics, goals, stakeholders, opportunity costs, management, schedules, risks, national relevance, return on taxpayer investment, and priorities.

    “Griffin said he doesn’t think the administration’s review will mean any major changes for Constellation”

    He’s flat-out wrong if the review panel does its job.

    Here are the main goals of the panel:

    “a) expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS);”

    This means the goal is to speed up ISS support, presumably because the current plan isn’t satisfactory. We already know from Griffin himself that we can’t appreciably speed up ISS support with Ares 1/Orion. Whether the committee’s recommendation for solving this one replaces or stands next to Ares/Orion, it’s certainly a major change to the current Constellation plan.

    “b) supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO);”

    There’s not necessarily a change here from the status quo, barring things like technical showstoppers in the Ares plan.

    “c) stimulating commercial space flight capability;”

    The Constellation plan does this a little bit with the COTS A-C ISS cargo effort, but I doubt the Administration would make stimulating commercial space flight one of the major points if they were satisfied with that. Now there are many ways NASA could stimulate commercial space flight capability with its human spaceflight program: COTS-D or similar ISS efforts, replacing Ares 1 with EELVs, sticking orbital propellant depots into the lunar architecture, using commercial lunar robotics, using Bigelow stations or DragonLabs for HSF science and engineering, using crewed reusable suborbital vehicles for various purposes, etc … these don’t all represent changes to the Ares-based hardware architecture, but they’re all major changes to Constellation.

    “and d) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities”

    Based on estimates of Constellation costs such as the one by the CBO, and based on the actual numbers in the current budget profile, it looks like this one alone will force major changes to Constellation, which is a budget-buster. Again, the change might not be replacing Ares. Maybe it will have to do with schedules, or international partners, or things like that. Whatever it is, though, if the Committee actually addresses the point, it’s bound to be a major change to the current Constallation plan.

    “The space agency had its change you can believe in”

    Well, yes, that was the Vision for Space Exploration. Then in 2005 the space agency had another change that’s a lot harder to believe in. You can see some examples of how different Griffin’s Constellation is from the Vision for Space Exploration at this post:

    restorethevision.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-far-is-esas-architecture-from.html

    Until we fix or remove Constellation, we’re stuck with, as a recent Space News editorial title put it: “Constellation vs. Everything Else”.

  • yg1968

    Dale,

    Griffin is simply saying that the review isn’t necessary from a technical point of view but he understands that it may be necessary from a political point of view in order for Obama to be able rebrand the moon program as his own program. This is exactly what is happening. So Griffin is right in saying this.

  • Major Tom

    “Griffin is simply saying that the review isn’t necessary from a technical point of view but he understands that it may be necessary from a political point of view in order for Obama to be able rebrand the moon program as his own program. This is exactly what is happening.”

    No, despite Griffin hoping otherwise, it’s not what’s happening. The White House press release on the Augustine review makes clear that the review will be a technical one examining “ongoing and planned development activities” and assessing “a number of architecture options”. The release goes on to state that “among the parameters to be considered in the course of [the] review are crew and mission safety, life-cycle costs, development time,” etc., etc.

    The review is being undertaken from a “technical point of view”, not a “political point of view”. (Whatever that would be.)

    “So Griffin is right in saying this.”

    No, as usual, he’s not.

    FWIW…

  • richardb

    Major Tom, I think certain key lawmakers don’t see things your way.
    See http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1393/1

    “We are supposed to believe that a $670 million cut—a year-long time-out for a three-month review—is actually unprejudiced support of human spaceflight. Using this logic, if a budget cut equals support, then a budget increase must mean opposition. NASA could stop worrying about cuts if only Mollohan could be persuaded to oppose human spaceflight.”

    Griffin knows whats going on and its not a technical review of Orion, CLV, et al. Its pure politics and the politics are already inflicting serious Nasa budget cuts under the Obama Administration.

  • Major Tom

    “Major Tom, I think certain key lawmakers don’t see things your way.
    See http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1393/1

    I’m not sure what Mr. Huang’s article about the House cut to the Constellation budget has to do with my statements about the goals and terms of the Augustine review? Just because appropriators are using the Augustine review as an excuse to make minor (see below) cuts to NASA’s human space flight programs doesn’t mean that the Augustine review won’t be a technical one.

    The Augustine review is not tasked with delivering a political or policy assessment. It is tasked with delivering a technical assessment of (again, per its terms of reference in the OSTP press release) “ongoing and planned development activities”, including “a number of architecture options” and “parameters” like “crew and mission safety, life-cycle costs, development time”, etc., etc.

    Augustine and his fellow panel members are not politicians or policy wonks. They’re managers and technicians of various flavors. They’re the wrong type of professionals to ask for an op-ed or paper in the journal Space Policy. They’re the right type of professionals to undertake a technical assessment of various architecture options.

    I don’t know why this is so hard for some folks to understand, especially when it’s spelled out so clearly in the Augustine review’s statement of task, reflected so clearly in the panel’s composition, and so clearly following in the mode of prior White House blue ribbon panels.

    “Griffin knows whats going on…”

    Evidence? How do you know?

    Griffin was let go by the Administration now in power. No one on the Augustine panel is a Griffin confidant. And Griffin is now a professor at a third-tier aerospace engineering program halfway across the country in Alabama. Let’s use some common sense here. Do we really think Griffin still has an inside line on what the Obama White House or the Augustine review are up to?

    I mean, c’mon, this is the same ex-NASA Administrator that still complains loudly about being repeatedly outmaneuvered by lowly OMB civil servants in the Bush II White House complex. If Griffin couldn’t get an inside line on the Bush II White House that he served, do we really think that Griffin can get an inside line on the Obama White House that decided to let him go?

    I’m not commenting here on Griffin’s judgement, which you may or may not find sound. (I, for one, don’t in most cases.) But to pretend that Griffin is by some miracle in the current White House loop ignores multiple facts to the contrary.

    “its not a technical review of Orion, CLV, et al.”

    Again, evidence? How do you know?

    For example, the head of the Aerospace Corp. is a member of the Augustine review panel, and her team completed an independent review, at NASA’s request, of Delta IV’s capabilities with respect to Orion and Ares I, finding that Delta IV can meet NASA’s safety requirements, has plenty of mass margin for Orion (unlike Ares I), will match or exceed Ares I’s schedule (even when started today), and will save a handful of billions of dollars for other projects.

    How could technical results like these, which contradict ESAS, which NASA contracted for, which a member of the Augustine review panel has firsthand knowledge of, and which are explicitly called for in the statement of task for the Augustine review, not be considered in the Augustine review? Aerospace Corp.’s Delta IV study is exactly the sort of “architecture option”, including “parameters” like “crew and mission safety, life-cycle costs, [and] development time” that the Augustine review has been asked to assess with respect to CLV (currently Ares I).

    “Its pure politics and”

    Again, where is the evidence that the Augustine review is “pure politics”? Where does it state such in the terms of reference for the review? Where is it reflected in the composition of the panel?

    Just because an out-of-the-loop, ex-NASA Administrator wants to denigrate a technical review with labels like “political” because the review is highly likely to overturn his poor technical judgements, doesn’t mean the review is political, and not technical.

    “the politics are already inflicting serious Nasa budget cuts under the Obama Administration.”

    No, they’re not. But between the stimulus and accelerated funding in the FY 2010 budget request, the NASA budgets in 2009, 2010, and 2011 are a combined $2,001 million higher. The FY 2010 budget request for NASA is $957 million less than the FY 2009 budget request for NASA in 2012 and 2013. And the House has proposed cutting the White House’s FY 2010 budget request for NASA by another $670 million. The net is a $374 million increase to NASA’s budget from 2009 through 2013.

    While we space cadets usually prefer not to see any cuts to any space program at any point in the budget process, the reality is that no violence has been done to NASA’s budget by the new White House or the new Congress. Over five years, assuming the House cut stands, NASA’s budget actually receives a net (if small) _increase_, and the additional funding comes earlier, which makes it more valuable.

    NASA’s human space flight programs receive about $10 billion per year, or a total of around $50 billion from FY09 to FY13. Even if it was a net reduction, the $670 million House cut referenced in Mr. Huang’s article represents a little over 1 percent of NASA’s human space flight spending over the next half-decade.

    NASA’s total budget is about $18 billion per year, or a total of $90 billion from FY09 to FY13. Again, even if it was a net reduction, the $670 million House cut referenced in Mr. Huang’s article represents less than 1 percent of NASA total spending over the next half-decade.

    The question is not how much we’re spending on NASA’s human space flight program (about $100 billion or a tenth of a trillion dollars though 2020!), but whether it’s being spent wisely.

    NASA’s own estimates just for Ares I development have gone from $28 billion to $40 billion. That’s $12 billion worth of cost growth, a 43% increase, just to build an intermediate-lift launch vehicle. That $12 billion worth of cost growth is nearly 18 times the $670 million House cut referenced in Mr. Huang’s article.

    NASA’s own projected costs for Constellation through first lunar landing have risen from $57 billion to $92 billion. That’s $35 billion worth of cost growth, a 61% increase to get the first astronauts back to the Moon. That $35 billion worth of cost growth is over 52 times the $670 million House cut referenced in Mr. Huang’s article.

    The overwhelming problem with NASA’s human space flight programs is not the multi-hundred million dollar nicks that the Congress or the White House have inflicted through the budget process (while actually providing a small, net increase to the NASA budget over multiple years).

    The overwhelming proglem with NASA’s human space flight programs is the multi-ten billion dollars worth of cost growth on Constellation projects. No project or program, even a high priority one, can experience 40-60%+ cost growth, and expect to be sustained over multiple Administrations and Congresses. With this kind of piss-poor program performance and in this awful federal budget environment, the Obama Administration already has all the justification it needs to kill off most of Constellation and leave NASA’s human space flight program hitching rides on Soyuzes to ISS ad infinitum. Intead, the White House has given the agency a reprieve, a chance to get its act together with some adult supervision in the form of the Augustine review, and hopefully chart a path forward that’s actually technically and programmatically executable.

    That’s why there’s an Augustine review — not to identify a political excuse to kill off NASA’s human space flight programs (of which the budget provides no indication) but to give those programs yet one more chance to get their technical and programmatic house in order and save themselves.

    FWIW…

  • NoZealotsPlease

    RICHARDB: “Its pure politics …”

    While it is true that politics is involved, the politics is on both sides (think Senator Shelby). Meanwhile, the Augustine review is going to be founded on “FACTS”.

    Mr. Augustine has made it clear that he does not want “zealots” on the review commission. A zealout is somebody who is not, and can not be, persuaded by the “facts”.

    Some relevant facts (that Augustine will need to reconcile) include:

    1) We have huge projected budget deficits ahead of us, caused by the growth of Medicare and Social Security, and NASA is unlikely to get a budget increase.

    2) Congress is beginning to adopt an attitude of deficit reduction. Still not there, but it is predictable that this is where Congress is going.

    3) The White House has told the Augustine commission in writing to come up with possible solutions WITHIN the current FY10 budget proposal.

    4) Mike Griffin has personally stated that the current ESAS strategy does not work WITHIN the current budget. One story reports that Griffin states that NASA needs another $3 Billion per year to execute the existing strategy. In other words, Griffin has publicly condemned his own strategy to the Augustine commission and the White House.

    IF — and I emphasize the “IF” — the Augustine review commission executes the job given to it by the White House, and focuses on the facts as Augustine says they will do, I predict that the Augustine review commission will …

    A) Conclude what Griffin has already publicly concluded — that the current ESAS strategy can not be executed within the current budget.

    B) Make recommendations consistent with their stated task for how we can achieve our national agenda in space, within the current NASA budget profile.

    SUMMARY: A+B = Change

    Now, the Augustine commission may also provide an “addendum” recommendation — that if NASA was given more money than the current budget profile — about what NASA might do. Several Members of Congress (e.g., Sen. Nelson) have asked Augustine to do this.

    But based on the “facts”, including …

    * the huge projected federal deficits, and

    * the repeated failure of congressional champions of NASA spending to deliver significant NASA spending increases, even when opportunities for large NASA spending arise (think the stimulus bill),

    It is unlikely that Congress or the White House will go along with any Augustine review recommendations for increasing NASA’s budget.

    I admit that there is one possibility for changing the NASA budget dynamic. The Augustine commission might recommend doing something completely different for NASA, which effectively refocuses NASA in some way to address one the President’s top stated technology or R&D priorities.

    You can the President speech about his science & technology priorities here:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-the-National-Academy-of-Sciences-Annual-Meeting/

    You can watch the President’s speech on this subject here:
    http://edg1.vcall.com/video/nas/launch.asp

    FWIW,

    – Mr. NoZealots Please

  • richardb

    I don’t think this is too complicated. As we know Obama has waffled on Nasa support in the run up to the election, he’s many things but a space advocate isn’t one of them.

    As for facts, we know trillions of new spending and borrowing are planned for the stimulus and health care reform while cutting Medicare, almost a fourth rail in American politics. Even before the A-Team started, OMB targeted 3 billion reduction in Nasa’s topline during the next few years (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1391/1)

    More recently Peter Orszag has been running drills asking each agency for 5 significant program terminations, Nasa included.

    With this budget drill underway Nasa will have to fight it out with such heavy weights as noted above and Nasa will lose every round, if not by KO. A-Team will not offer a plan that defies political common sense, and Obama directions in forming this committee, and will be forced to offer a solution that recognizes Nasa’s topline has a negative slope for years to come. They will hear how Nasa has been short changed since 2004 and can’t possible execute the VSE by 2020 under any circumstances without significant budget increases. The end result I predict is the A-Team will recommend deferring or cancelling VSE and stick to ISS manned missions. The technical fight will be which booster to use for US crew transport. Soyuz, Delta IV, COTS, Ares I.

    That I think is the main problem the A-Team will attempt to solve as far as manned space is concerned.

  • […] Griffin was and is interested in keeping NASA in the forefront of space exploration. And, although he praised Bolden’s character and qualifications for the position, he was dubious of Bolden’s support for a review of NASA’s manned […]

  • […] The other, though, is far more interesting: former NASA administrator Mike Griffin. Back in June Griffin expressed some opinions about the Augustine review, saying it wasn’t necessary, in his opinion, from a technical standpoint but “does seem […]

Leave a Reply to sc220 Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>