Comments on: Astronomers’ bold visions clash with limited budgets

By: Hiram

Hiram — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 01:54:35 +0000

“itâ€™s who you know, and what you support; and do you know legistlatorsâ€¦”

Well, Grunsfeld knows a whole lot of people, and he supports what Charlie wants to support. He works for Charlie. As to knowing legislators, you should know that doesn’t make a whit of difference. If the SMD AA goes on a lobbying expedition to the Hill, or even initiating contact with the Hill, he’ll have Legaff, and probably the General Counsel on his tail.

By: Hiram

Hiram — Wed, 08 Jan 2014 19:29:19 +0000

“Because someone is willing to listen this qualifies him to run a $5B Organization?
Iâ€™m willing to listen? Can I apply?”

Well, your qualifications as a skilled human space flight hero with deep scientific credentials would be up for review. It’s not the ear that’s qualified for listening. It’s the background and purview of the brain behind it.

“So while heâ€™s listening … … …”

At least he knows how to use periods, and how to write focused sentences.

Certainly, Grunsfeld has some big SMD problems, and it’s not clear that listening to HEOMD is going to help him with any of those problems. But that’s exactly what Charlie hired him to do. Yes, it is likely to be a short conversation, but it’s probably a conversation that needs to be had. The real question is whether Grunsfeld can muster his courage, and admit that HSF really doesn’t offer science a whole lot of value.

By: James

James — Wed, 08 Jan 2014 03:45:25 +0000

The Criteria for being a senior leader, well, manager at least, at NASA HQ is partly how much you are willing to give up your life, free time, to be at the beck and call of those around/higher up than you.
That’s not a talent oriented criteria. Another criteria is, can you get results using the methods (which are outdated and aren’t serving NASA anymore)that those above you used to acquire their perch. If you play the game like that,if you act like them, you can move along. And senior managers tend to be optimists too. That helps when Congress comes a budget chopp’in! And like I said in a post below, it’s who you know, and what you support; and do you know legistlators…

By: James

James — Wed, 08 Jan 2014 03:36:50 +0000

“What he- Grunsfeld – may be successful at is managing SMD as an organization that will at least listen to the entreaties from the human spaceflight community, which desperately needs a rationale for existence, and which sees science as a powerful rationale that it would love to attach itself to.”

Because someone is willing to listen this qualifies him to run a $5B Organization?
I’m willing to listen? Can I apply?

Look, I know that most of these guys are picked not because they know anything about leadership, management, organizational development, stuff like that, but because of who they know and who they support (including what ideas they support); and if they are well know to legislators. I get it.

So, with that criteria, one can see why Grunsfeld is a good fit. And like Weiler, he’s an astronomer.

So while he’s listening to the entreaties from human space flight, SMD has some serious organizational problems, like: sustaining its core capabilities (See planetary, astrophysics – other than IR, thank you JWST, helio-physics in a few years?, or keeping up with decadal recommendations – see Earth Science) as budgets sink like the Titanic and mission costs continue to increase at a rate that is far outpacing inflation; he has some serious problems understanding the dysfunctional phenomena between HQ and the Field Centers that continually spawn overruns on large missions (JWST, MSL, ICESat-2, take your pick), which destroys the other science communities (who don’t want to rock the boat lest they get attacked when its their turn), as budget overruns result in the stretching out of decadal implementation plans; like how to pay for the federal and contract employees and CMO at the field centers – or how to reduce the burden of the Centers on SMD.

Is anything happening to address all that? Anyone?

So while the Titanic sinks, he’s listening to the Human Space Flight crowd who are attempting to sell the capacity of SLS. Too bad Dr. Grunsfeld doesn’t have any money to do anything about it – it should be a very short conversation.

By: Hiram

Hiram — Wed, 08 Jan 2014 01:33:28 +0000

“If prices fall enough you wonâ€™t need the high priests of space- the astronauts â€“ to turn your screws for you.”

Please understand. We don’t rely on the high priests of space to turn screws because they’re so good at turning screws. We have them turn screws because they’re high priests, and human spaceflight desperately need high priests. So it’ll be a while before we send Jack-the-plumber up to fix a cooling pump.

By: Fred Willett

Fred Willett — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:21:54 +0000

Hiram said
So I suspect astronomical missions are not going to change that radically, though they may get less expensive.
You may be right, but it all depends on the degree to which prices fall. One of the things about main frame computers was that they had specialist attendants to do everything for you. You, a mere scientist weren’t allowed to even enter the sacred presence. You handed the data to the attendant and waited cap in hand for the high priest of the computer to give you the results.
Nowadays even my grand-daughter drives her own computer.
If prices fall enough you won’t need the high priests of space- the astronauts – to turn your screws for you. You’ll jolly well get out there and turn your own.

By: Hiram

Hiram — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 17:00:50 +0000

Thank you. I know that Grunsfeld stated simply at the recent H2M meeting at GWU that ARM was *not* a science-driven mission. That’s different than saying that SMD isn’t supportive of human space flight. He also is on record as believing that the target identification part of ARM has value for planetary defense. At the Asteroid Initiative Industry and Partner Day at HQ this last summer, Grunsfeld expressed scientific enthusiasm about asteroids, but I believe was uncommittal about at least the HSF part of ARM. That sure wouldn’t have been the venue to express lack of support HSF goals.

By: guest

guest — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 15:51:37 +0000

He was referring to ARM in a meeting at NASA HQ.

By: Hiram

Hiram — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 15:33:12 +0000

“I thought one thing that was quite notable was Grunsfeld saying that his science organization was not supportive of othersâ€™ (exploration and HSF) goals.”

Do you have a reference for that statement? I can’t believe he would say such a thing. It is a fact that SMD has no formal responsibility to fulfill goals of other directorates, but Charlie didn’t chose Grunsfeld to lead an organization to be unsupportive of human spaceflight. Grunsfeld was put there not to spend SMD money on human spaceflight, but to look openly for cooperative opportunities that would benefit both directorates. He has respect from both communities. Ed Weiler, while in reverence to human spaceflight for the HST fixes, was simply unwilling to look openly for those same opportunities, and had little respect from the human spaceflight community.

Grunsfeld is a smart guy and, unlike much of NASA top management, has some real insight into the popular appeal of science and NASA, and is a very media-capable spokesperson. NASA needs leaders like that. That being said, I have to suspect that his effort to look for cooperative opportunities of value won’t be that successful. What he may be successful at is managing SMD as an organization that will at least listen to the entreaties from the human spaceflight community, which desperately needs a rationale for existence, and which sees science as a powerful rationale that it would love to attach itself to.

By: guest

guest — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 14:56:00 +0000

James-I think you have hit on something that some of us have been seeing for many years. The NASA management now in place, and this includes not only astronauts like Grunsfeld (who at least has a PhD in an applicable field from a respectable university with a little bit of pertinent experience) but several others like the NASA Administrator, and several other AA’s and many others in the top ranks of NASA management with no advanced degree, no training or education pertinent to their responsibilities; they seem to not have the appropriate background or training for their positions; they seem to be politically naive, disconnected from the idea of NASA developing or supporting a space exploration program, a plan or a strategy. NASA is failing and perhaps we are observing the reasons. I thought one thing that was quite notable was Grunsfeld saying that his science organization was not supportive of others’ (exploration and HSF) goals. You would think that at the least the NASA management might get together and establish a position? They ought to be leading the development of a position industry-wide and across the supporters but instead they are not even establishing a position amongst themselves.