Transition Update

So how does this transition review compare with transition reviews of the past? Not to be nasty in any particular way -- it sounds like something very sensible -- but I have Never Ever Heard of such a thing for NASA or any of the science agencies when new Administrations took over Washington in the past. Usually DoD gets the lions share of attention, and there's a smidgin of witch-hunting ... er.. house-cleaning ... at State.

-ms

I think what we see here is a little bit more of the transparency caused by the web (and Keith). Where in the Mainstream Media are you going to see this? You're not. But specialized outlets like NASA Watch can keep tabs on it and spread the news regularly.

Griffin's comment is interesting though "He requested that everyone remain a NASA team in the next 6 months"....after that, they can revert back to their bickering and backstabbing, though. ;)

This transition will probably be bloodier than any in past memory since the country is demanding change.

Karen --

The bloodiest, or at the least the most angst-torn, turnover, rather than a transition, would have been in 1970-1971, when Thomas Paine and Von Braun and many many other senior officials bailed out when the Nixon administration made it clear that NASA was going to drop dead and forget its post-Apollo ambitions. The country, after all, demanded change!

Robert Frosch's departure, in the early stages of the Geaorge HW Bush Administration, may have been reasonably traumatic. I'll leave this to actual NASA people to remember. (Frosch was always sort of an odd man out, as a former commercial aerospace guy, memory tells me, so he didn't really have a batch of loyal subordinates who left the agency when he was forced out.)

-MS

Hard to understand what all the fuss is about. The job of a transition team is to review major agency policies and programs and think through options and alternatives for the incoming administration. A successful transition effort will insure that the new president doesn't get blind-sided by unanticipated problems or major budget issues.

The questions noted in Keith's posting above aren't all that different from inquiries made during previous transition teams. An information gathering exercise does not equate to a campaign to cancel programs and doesn't mean there is a vendetta against the current management team, be they political appointees or civil servants.

In case anyone wasn't paying attention, President-elect Obama has placed a high value on transparency and full disclosure of how public funds are managed. If NASA managers are upset that they are being asked to respond to basic questions about their programs and their individual accountability, maybe they should pursue another line of work, because it seems clear more questions will follow after January 20th.

Clifton --

I don't know that this is any sort of "fuss." As far as I can tell, the questions being asked by the transition team are entirely reasonable, and the whole exercise sensible. I'd actually like to believe this is routine behavior when a new President settles in, which for some reason (lack of an internet?) has escaped my attention in previous years.

OTOH, I've a gut feeling that this is actually sort of exceptional, in that SOME previous administrations have basically ignored NASA (and military space) issues for quite some time even after taking office. Specifically, I point to Jimmy Carter, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W Bush.

So what are your thoughts?

As Mike Shupp points out, these are reasonable and sensible questions to ask.

In fact, these are necessary questions, if the new President is to make educated decisions. It will be good to have a President that is doing his homework and taking an interest in NASA.

These ARE reasonable questions, however is their purpose reasonable? As several posters have pointed out, NASA has typically been off "the radar screen" of most incoming new administrations for a while. One can argue that we are at an important juncture with the Shuttle/Constellation gap looming, and "a detailed look at authorized budgets vs actual appropriations (including un-obligated funds...)" touches on something that those on the inside worry about all the time (that is, way too many missions authorized with way too little funding). The concern is rather how will all this be handled? Will good data be acquired in the transition, and sound policies implemented, or will it be just a different brand of politics for the coming years?