By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 8 at 7:58 pm ET Space News reports that a new name has emerged in the NASA administrator sweepstakes: Earth scientist Charles Kennel. Kennel is Distinguished Professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, where he also served a term as the institute’s director. He is also chair of the Space Studies Board of the National Academies. He is not a stranger to NASA: he served as associate administrator for Mission to Planet Earth in the mid-90s and also served on the NASA Advisory Council from 1998 to 2006, including a term as chair from 2001 to 2005. Kennel resigned from the NAC in 2006 at the same time two other members, both scientists, were asked to leave the NAC.
Why Kennel? A source “with ties to the NASA transition team” told Space News that the incoming administration has a preference for a “distinguished scientist” to lead the agency, mirroring picks already announced for other positions, including Noble laureate Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy. Kennel would qualify as a distinguished scientist, it would seem, and would set him apart from a number of other non-scientist candidates, including one favorite from earlier this week, Charles Bolden. (Kennel, who turns 70 later this year, would also be one of the oldest NASA administrators.) Less clear is his stance on some key issues, like the exploration architecture, as well as his skills as a manager and leader.
According to the article, the transition team would like to make a selection before the January 20th inauguration, and possibly as soon as this Friday. Transition team leader John Podesta and others on the team have been reviewing candidates this week but haven’t settled on anyone so far.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 8 at 1:58 pm ET NASA administrator Mike Griffin was the speaker at a Space Transportation Association breakfast on Capitol Hill this morning. (The speech is now available online.) I’ll provide some more details later, but some highlights:
- This was not really a valedictory or farewell speech by Griffin. Instead, it was a lengthy (about 40 minutes) address focused almost exclusively on defending why NASA is implementing Constellation the way it is, rather than going with an alternative architecture.
- In the speech he addressed several of the alternatives, including using EELV-derived vehicles, relying on commercial providers for ISS access instead of developing Ares 1, extending the life of the shuttle, and using dual Ares 5 launches for lunar missions instead of Ares 1 and Ares 5. All of these alternatives, he argued, fail to meet the goals of national space policy as effectively as the current architecture.
- He also briefly addressed issues like reports that Orion is overweight (“I have never – never – worked on a space project that did not have weight issues,” he noted, unless they ran into volume or power problems first) and the Ares 1 thrust oscillation issue. NASA, he noted, is now effectively “doing engineering design in public” and has to do a better job of communicating what it’s doing on these programs to non-engineers in the public.
- In the Q&A session that followed, Griffin was asked about Scott Horowitz’s petition to keep Griffin in office. Griffin went through a mix of emotions: “I was embarrassed, of course, when it was conveyed to my attention,” he said, but also said he was was “very honored” that Horowitz would do it. He noted, though, that the petition generated some negative reaction. “How do you turn it into a negative?” he asked. “Why did we all in the Washington community cringe when that came out? Because we in the Washington community are all so damn cynical that we knew that something like that will backfire… So how do we get to a place in Washington where somebody doing something nice for you is viewed as ammunition for your enemies? How does that happen?”
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 8 at 5:29 am ET The news that Mike Griffin’s tenure as NASA administrator may be coming to an end has triggered various reactions in the editorial and op-ed pages:
“It’s high time for him to go,” argues the Orlando Sentinel in an editorial Thursday. The paper claims that Griffin’s implementation of Constellation has been “my-way-or-the-highway”, defending the Ares 1 in particular “with single-minded stubbornness”. “Coupled with his cavalier attitude toward chronic cost overruns in other programs, Mr. Griffin has become the wrong man to steer the agency forward,” the paper argues. “His impatience with criticism is a troubling throwback to the days when dissenting views at NASA were suppressed, with disastrous consequences.”
On the contrary, claims Gene Kranz in an op-ed in Thursday’s Houston Chronicle, “Griffin has been the leader NASA needed at a critical time in the agency’s history”. Griffin, Kranz argues, has the respect of people at all levels of the organization as well as members of key Congressional committees. Kranz strongly argues that Griffin should be retained by the new administration, but if not, he does describe the attributes his replacement should have:
While there are competent candidates from whom to choose for the role of NASA administrator, of critical importance is that the candidate must have unquestionable leadership attributes. The candidate must be a respected leader, a strong and effective program manager and a technically competent engineer or scientist who understands the stakes for our nation, the program and the workforce who engage in these high risk, high profile NASA missions. The NASA administrator cannot lack in any one of these attributes; they must be firmly developed in all.
Florida Today, in an editorial Thursday, appears to believe that Griffin’s says are numbered, but argues that his replacement needs to stick to the current exploration program. Suggestions that the Ares 1 should be replaced with an EELV-derived vehicle, the paper believes, “would open a large can of worms and should be dropped.” In particular, the paper seems concerned that the Atlas 5 or Delta 4 would not be as safe as the Ares 1, “a point Griffin reportedly made with vehemence to the Obama team.” Extending the shuttle program is also a non-starter because of cost and safety, the editorial adds. “Navigating NASA from the shuttle era to Constellation will be as dicey as traversing an asteroid belt,” it concludes (perhaps not realizing that the asteroid belt isn’t nearly as dense as you might think from sci-fi movies.) “That makes it imperative that Obama choose the right person to carry America’s future in space on his or her shoulders.”
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 6 at 6:12 pm ET The Orlando Sentinel reported this afternoon that NASA administrator Mike Griffin is planning on leaving office on January 20, on the assumption that his resignation will be accepted by the new Obama Administration when it takes office that day, along with other Bush Administration political appointees. How serious is he planning his departure? He “has already started taking stuff out of his office back to his house,” the Sentinel reported. Recent efforts by some to lobby to keep Griffin has backfired, sources tell the paper, as even backers of keeping Griffin temporarily, like Sen. Bill Nelson, “saw the lobbying as craven”.
Griffin would be replaced, on an interim basis, by current associate administrator Chris Scolese. (Recall that the agency’s current No. 2, deputy administrator Shana Dale, already announced her plans to resign on January 17.) As for a permanent replacement, the Sentinel claims that former astronaut Charlie Bolden “stands out above the rest” of the candidates, although doesn’t specify why Bolden is the frontrunner. Other candidates included in the report include Scott Hubbard, Sally Ride, Wes Huntress, and Alan Stern. Lori Garver, currently heading the transition team, would be in line to succeed Dale as deputy administrator.
If Bolden is a leading candidate to succeed Griffin, though, he hasn’t been informed. This afternoon Bolden participated in a live video chat organized by the Conrad Foundation. During the chat, someone asked him to comment on the report. “The only comment on that story I can offer you is that nobody has talked to me in an official capacity,” he responded. “I have not visited with the transition team or anybody from the Obama administration. I’m incredibly honored that my name would be floated around but those are things I haven’t been approached about yet so I can’t offer you an opinion or anything.”
One other tidbit missed in the Sentinel report: back in early 2002 Bolden was nominated to become deputy administrator shortly after Sean O’Keefe took over as administrator. That nomination was later withdrawn, though, after Congressional concerns about having an active-duty military officer (Bolden was a major general in the Marines at the time, having returned to the service after leaving the astronaut corps in the mid-90s) serving at NASA while the nation was at war. Fred Gregory became deputy administrator instead, and Bolden retired from the Marines a couple years later.
Also: NBC News is reporting that Bolden is a “lead candidate” to succeed Griffin and adds, through a spokesman, that Sen. Nelson considers Bolden a “top-notch individual”.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 6 at 12:46 pm ET No, it’s not a reference to the Joseph Farah editorial (although it fits), but instead last week’s odd Bloomberg article about alleged NASA-DoD cooperation in the Obama administration. As earlier noted here, the story gets some key issues confused. Now Rand Simberg thoroughly debunks it in a Pajamas Media piece, saving the coup de grace for the end: a comment from “someone familiar with the transition team’s activities”:
This story is very strange. We asked questions about EELVs; about how the DOD and NASA cooperate; and what has been discussed with China. They were unrelated questions. It seems as though the reporter tied them together for his odd conclusion.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 6 at 7:49 am ET Did you know that “The U.S. government is planning to spend $100 billion on the international space station over the next several years”? So claims Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily in an editorial today. Of course, he’s slipped a decimal point or two in his calculations: $100 billion is about six years of NASA’s entire budget at its current level, of which the ISS is just one relatively modest part. Cutting the ISS won’t save $100 billion except for sufficiently very large values of “several years”, most likely far larger than the lifetime of the station. $100 billion is far closer to the lifetime expense of the station (depending on one’s accounting), a large fraction of which has already been spent.
Farah goes on to claim that, during the Shuttle-Constellation gap, “only Russia will be able to supply the international space station – making it, effectively, a Russian project”. Right now only Russia will have the ability to send crews to and from the station once the shuttle is retired, but Europe (and perhaps Japan, depending on the development of the HTV) will be able to send cargo to the station. Moreover. SpaceX and/or Orbital may have demonstrated the ability to send cargo to the station, with SpaceX having the option for crew transfer not long after as well. So much for the case where the ISS “is entirely under the control of a foreign government.”
If you get past these blunders, Farah does ask some interesting questions: should taxpayers “only be asked to support projects of vital national interest” instead of “international feel-good plans”? Given the development of commercial ISS resupply services, “why not just turn the entire business of space exploration over to private industry?” But then he asks “What are NASA’s goals for the future?”, apparently ignorant of the Vision for Space Exploration.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 4 at 1:55 pm ET When President-elect Barack Obama announced last month the nomination of New Mexico governor Bill Richardson as Commerce Secretary, many in the space industry cheered, given comments in the fall about making sure the Obama Administration would be pro-commercial-space. However, in a stunning development Sunday, Richardson has withdrawn his nomination, citing an unspecified investigation into a company that does business with the state. Richardson told NBC News that while he believes the investigation will find no evidence of any wrongdoing by him or others in his administration, “the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process.” Richardson will remain New Mexico governor.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 3 at 9:21 am ET At times, the effort by supporters of NASA administrator Mike Griffin to keep him in office has the flavor of a political campaign: petition drives, email appeals for support, etc. Now add another element to the mix: editorials in major newspapers. Saturday’s Philadelphia Inquirer features an editorial about Griffin, arguing that he should be retained, at least for limited time, by the Obama Administration. The editorial notes that Obama “may be siding with critics” of Constellation, and cites as an example Sen. John Glenn, who has argued with keeping the shuttle flying until a replacement is ready rather than have a multi-year gap in US government access to the station. The Inquirer argues that Glenn is “a bit off target” because of the high costs of keeping the shuttle flying while working on its replacement as well as that fact that, since it’s the International Space Station, the US should have no problem cooperating with Russia.
The paper’s endorsement of Griffin comes out clearly in the editorial’s final paragraph:
Griffin has done a good job. He has replaced NASA’s failed safety culture with one that works. Unlike his predecessor, former Bush budget officer Sean O’Keefe, Griffin is not a bean counter; he’s a real rocket scientist, with seven degrees. He has the ability to make Bush’s goal, stated in 2004, to send a manned mission to Mars within 20 to 30 years, more than a pipe dream. Obama would be wise to keep Griffin aboard – at least in the short term.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 2 at 7:33 pm ET Space News is published every Monday, but the preceding Friday they post some of their top stories online. And it looks like Monday’s issue will have some interesting items: [subscription should not be required for these links, but the links will only be good for a week]
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 2 at 8:24 am ET You might think that the New Years holiday might be a quiet period for space policy, but there are a few items of note this morning:
As you’ve likely already heard, the lobbying effort by supporters of current NASA administrator Mike Griffin has gone to new heights (or new depths, depending on your point of view), with an email by Griffin’s wife asking recipients to sign a petition asking President-elect Obama to retain Griffin. Also noted is the recent publication of a book of speeches by Griffin, sent via priority mail by a “cash-strapped NASA” to an unspecified number of recipients. (I am sufficiently unimportant that I received neither Mrs. Griffin’s email nor a copy of the book [see update in the comments].)
Worth noting: As of Friday morning the “Keep Mike” petition had garnered over 2,275 signatures. While initial signatures were heavy with astronauts and other space industry officials, it’s now spread to a more general—and perhaps less sophisticated—audience: a couple of recent signatures heaped praise on “Dr Griffith” and “Mr. Griffen”.
According to the Hunsville Times, the new administration’s space priorities won’t be clear until the FY2011 budget submission in early 2010, or over a year after taking office. Scott Pace, head of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington Univ. and a former NASA official, said he expected a “flat” budget in 2010. One complicating factor not mentioned in the article, though, is that NASA doesn’t yet have a final FY2009 appropriation: the agency, like much of the federal government, is operating under a continuing resolution through early March. If the FY09 budget is that late, that would seem to imply there’s flexibility to make changes for FY2010 rather than wait until 2011, if the administration so desires (and Congress is willing to go along.)
Finally, it seems like Bloomberg tried to get on the bandwagon of articles about the incoming administrations’ potential interest in replacing elements of the existing NASA exploration architecture with EELV-desrived vehicles with this article, but didn’t do a good job. “President-elect Barack Obama will probably tear down long-standing barriers between the U.S.’s civilian and military space programs to speed up a mission to the moon amid the prospect of a new space race with China,” states the article’s lede, adding that “Obama has said the Pentagon’s space program… could be tapped to speed the civilian agency toward its goals.” I’m not familiar with any statement made by Obama himself on this issue, and if you read the article the Pentagon is actually interested in getting NASA, which already is a major EELV user, to help pick up a bigger part of the EELV tab if the administration decides to pursue an EELV-based exploration architecture. Mixed into all this are old claims that China will land humans on the Moon before 2020, which also gets tied somehow into claims China is developing space-based anti-satellite technology.
|
|
