It is hard to believe the leadership in Houston and Washington is tone-deaf when it comes to this decision. The overt and unapologetic political burrowing by someone with absolutely no strategic communications experience, NASA or otherwise, is astounding. Not to mention the clear Republican partisan politics involved in her hiring. Everyone involved in this process should feel either ashamed or used.

Conners' career is built on running a federal agency as a presidential appointed head. One wonders how a battered former agency lead will adjust to being a lowly SES division director who has to take orders from civil servants.

"But I know George Bush!" will not mean much when negotiating with a Space Shuttle or Constellation program manager. It will mean even less after November 4. Both Coats and Conners should work hard for a GOP victory in November. If the Democrats take the White House, neither will likely have a long-term future at JSC.

Whether senior leadership here in Houston realizes this or not, there are big fences to mend, but Coats & Co. could care less.

I feel sorry for the External Relations staff. I know many are simply working in stunned disbelief. If nothing else, this is a not-so-subtle reminder that NASA is a member of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government with limbs that easily stretch from Washington to Houston.

I don't know why anyone would be ashamed or used in this situation or why you would think that the leadership is tone-deaf. Don't forget, one of the most critical things that Constellation needed to do in order to establish itself was to ensure it communicated its mission and its plan in a believable manner.

What we got was first an astronaut who's skills at communications were nonexistent, and then a scientist who had never demonstrated any such skills. At the same time, some of the program's best communicators quit.

This selection of unqualified people is the norm in recent years. Take a look at any of the people in the human space flight programs communications and you'll find the same, and most of the people in the external relations/public affairs organizations are no better.

Its an acute situation-at a time of big changes when communications expertise is a prime requirement for maintaining support, lead positions are handed out to unqualified individuals; maybe the program management thinks its some kind of reward - give out the easy, high-ranking, most highly paid jobs in the cases - like communications - where they figure its non-technical, and it doesn't matter. They are badly injuring the programs.

A better question is where is personnel law that demands that individuals be selected for positions based on qualifications, experience and past performance. Law apparently does not apply at JSC.

To the editor,

You have serious issues on your one sided bias. You may be doing more harm to the agency than you think.

Not backing Bush or her, just pointing out that your overt leaning detracts from your street cred. No wonder you constantly complain that the HQ and others won't take you seriously.

You may think they fear you. They might just think you are an extremely biased person of no value to a balanced discussion.

My thoughts.

Post it or not - don't care.

Editor's note: Yawn. Overt Politicos - planted by Clintons, Bushs, or otherwise- are bad news for NASA. Period. This person has zero experience relevant to this job. She is "burrowing" from a political appointment into a permanent job based simply upon her political connections.

h.l., that is the problem. Constellation has NO responsibility to communicate its mission. Constellation should be building spacecraft!

Mr. Coats has talked about the need to SELL Constellation to the American people. Neither he nor NASA should be SELLING anything.

NASA has financially starved its corporate communications group for so long Constellation and other missions feel the need to convert program dollars and engage in activities the Agency cannot afford, and they do it with people who are simply unqualified. It is a mess.

WTF, the issue here is not Keith's bias. This is about political patronage. Mr. Coats and Mr. Griffin decided to hire a former Bush political appointee who needed a job. It is the worst kind of nepotism, which is favoritism based on relationships rather than an objective evaluation of ability.

I bet neither of them would do the same if this were a science or engineering position. It was simply a bad call that we will pay for until someone steps in and takes corrective action.

The cart is before the horse. If there needed to be an industry-wide makeover, then E. E. Conners would also have the persuasive ability to market whatever matrix that "personnel" decides are the appropriate transferrable skill set(s) necessary, to enhance the public's perception, that doesn't just "box" engineering out to only the richest investors, but allows some flexibility with a more massive lift program!

No one can say just yet that "Constellation" is the code word for pure Ares I type lift, or they'd be whitewashing Americans with purely earth-bound, envirophobic consequence!

(Bush may be hated by many, but at least he's out in the open with it)

SR

JSC LIS;
No you are wrong - every bit as important as creating its hardware and flying it is the responsibility to communicate what its doing - its written in the NASA Charter. The Program Manager is responsible for the success - or failure - of his program - and its not just about hardware; its about the people and the expertise and the plan and making sure people inside and outside know why it needs to be supported. I saw in Von Braun's office at MSFC a banner that read "Late to bed, early to rise, work like hell, and advertise". Von Braun sold the concept of spaceflight using Colliers and Disney. Look at the Space Station Program over most of its history - a poor job of relating what it is and what its about. It has barely hung on and most people don't know it even exists. That is another program that needs some expertise applied. Surely there must be some expertise available ? HL

Keith is right on this one, no matter if NASA management feels the need to ignore or feels threatened. There is no place in NASA and especially JSC for this type of burrowing. Heck, look at her track record! What can she do to benefit External Relations, create more animosity? No, she needs to be identified, exposed and eliminated by the next President for what she is and what she has done. Let her "burrow" at "USA" or "Boeing".

Ellen is a cat with nine lives (referencing her endearment to felines). She got the job because of her excellent connections - unlucky for those at JSC --- but lucky for those who have worked most recently with her; we no longer have worry about her zealous commitment to prove us wrong at every turn.

My advice to those now under Ellen is to be strong, and don't let her walk all over you!