Pretty sad commentary when a person relies on surrogates to beg to keep a job. But it seems like some of these surrogates may just want to keep theirs- a mutual employment pact.

Keith- in the interest of fair and balanced as Fox News would say, perhaps there should be a companion petition for replacing Griffin

Many points in Horowitz’s petition are just factually untrue:

“Under his [Griffin's] direction:
•The Constellation Program was started, and is currently designing, developing and testing hardware to execute exploration missions”

Not true. Assuming their designs can actually be closed, Ares I and the current version of Orion would only be capable of transporting astronauts to the ISS. NASA has no actual exploration hardware (lunar-capable Orion, Ares V, EDS, Altair) under development or testing.

“•There is International support for NASA’s Global Exploration Strategy”

Not true. There are no foreign commitments, in terms of funding or hardware, to the Global Exploration Strategy. It’s a set of principles for talks about potential future commitments. It’s a plan to get to a plan.

“•The Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS) program was initiated and the first commercially developed rocket has flown”

Not true. Griffin cut the O’Keefe/Steidle budget for the program that was named COTS in half to pay for the Ares I/Orion start.

Moreoever, if the phrase “first commercially developed rocket” refers to Falcon I, that vehicle has flown without NASA funding or support. It’s supported by a combination of DARPA and private Space-X (Elon Musk) funding. Griffin (or NASA) can’t claim any credit here — Space-X’s launcher for the NASA COTS program, Falcon 9, won’t fly until next year.

“•Earth Sciences funding has been increased to new highs”

Earth Sciences received a small increase in the last NASA budget, but the program is well off its highs, with much of the decrease used to keep Ares I/Orion going after the VSE budget projection was not realized.

“•Fundamental Aeronautics research was restored”

The annual Aeronautics budget at NASA is about half what it used to be (~$500 million versus $900 million), with much of the decrease used to keep Ares I/Orion going after the VSE budget projection was not realized.

Griffin does deserve partial credit for the following items, but it’s important to point out they were well underway before he came onboard:

“•The Space Shuttle successfully returned to flight”
“•The International Space Station is approaching completion”
“•The James Webb Space Telescope project has been put on track”

Griffin gets full credit for the following items, but given all the issues with ESAS and the questionable costs of HST servicing versus replacement, it arguable whether they constitute good management:

“•The Exploration Systems Analysis Study (ESAS) was completed”
“•The Hubble Space Telescope repair mission was reinstituted”

Needless to say, internet petitions sponsored by retired astronauts and failed AAs is a new low for the corps and the agency overall.

Here is the first "Mike Griffin Has To Go" Petition:

Dear Mike:

Just go.

GO NOW.

PLEASE.

Dear President-Elect Obama:

Please do not choose a leader at NASA who will burn the remainder of our ships in the harbor of America's history.

Thanks.

Someone needs to make a counterpoint petition at that free website, for at the very least it will allow these contrary opinions to be read. Who knows, maybe it will get more support too, and completely pull out the rug from the keep mike one.

When Mike Griffin was first appointed to be the NASA administrator, I had great hopes for him, as I perceived him to be an enlightened, tough-minded, and thoughtful "scientist-administrator," rather than a business-oriented accountant. Alas, my hopes were dashed, and I was shown to be wrong! Mike's "I don't do people" and "Do it my way" attitudes, and his deep failure to respect and value the expertise of his in-house staff, both at NASA Headquarters and at the various centers, profoundly weakened his tenure as the leader of the Agency.

It was not until very recently (and only after it was too late to really matter) that Mike finally acknowledged that the chasm between budgets and missions was continuing to widen, and that - with the resources that were made available to the Agency - he couldn't get NASA to accomplish all that we were tasked to do.

Despite my profound misgivings, however, someone with Mike's broad background (and with fewer of his flaws) is deeply needed by the Agency, and I sincerely hope that the selection of the next NASA administrator will take these needs into account.

Kieth - You can't tell me you have never removed postings to NASA Watch.

Editor's note: Not 1 out of every 4 posts- as Doc has been doing. My delete (non-post) rate is usually 1 in 100 - or less - and only because of obscenities or overt off-topic personal attacks. Doc is simply afraid of posting anything that runs contrary to his parallel universe where Mike is supported by everyone. Its his website, but he is slanting it far more in one direction than I ever may have done so. Oh well. This will be a moot point in a mater of weeks.

"What a sad way to spend your Christmas holiday - checking on a website to purge anti-Mike commentary."

I find this comment very ironic. One could also say, "What a sad way to spend your Christmas holiday - checking on a website to see if the Mike smear is still posted."

At least Doc's intent is consistent with the holiday spirit.

Merry Christmas, Keith!

Doesn't Doc Horowitz have the right to remove from his own website any comments that he wants? Why would he want to leave anti-Griffin comments on a pro-Griffin website?

When I was in the Navy, we had changes of Command. When the PCO (New commanding officer) came aboard, even though he was not yet the Captian, we extended every courtesy to him and if he asked to "Look under the hood" We enthusiastially opend the hood and were willing to explain anything he might not understand.

You don't arrogantly spit in the face of your new boss or his agents sent to you in order to check things out. You do so at your peril.

When I was in the Navy, we had changes of Command. When the PCO (New commanding officer) came aboard, even though he was not yet the Captian, we extended every courtesy to him and if he asked to "Look under the hood." We enthusiastially opend the hood and were willing to explain anything he might not understand.

My father was in this position several times. You are exactly right. In fact, anyone who behaved with the immature arrogance that Griffin has displayed would be relieved of command, pronto. I understand that the incoming Administration has no official authority to do this until January 21. But if they don't give Griffin his walking papers by that time, it would indicate a very real weakness on the part of the NASA Transition Team. Keeping Griffin on would be tantamount to succumbing to his intellectual bullying and machinations through his underlings.

Keith,

It seems there is some confusion here between a petition and a poll.

The purpose of a petition is to show support for a particular position on an issue, and the signatures on the petition are supposed to represent those who support that position. A petition is not a poll of how many agree or disagree with the position.

Therefore there's nothing wrong, and in fact it's correct, to remove from the petition any signatures (or anonymous entries) that by their associated comments clearly indicate that they *do not* agree with the petition statement.

Leaving those entries on the petition and presumably having them counted would actually have the effect of inflating the number of people who support the petition.

Doesn't Doc Horowitz have the right to remove from his own website any comments that he wants? Why would he want to leave anti-Griffin comments on a pro-Griffin website?

So why bother making it a petition which, since the site invites comments, is nothing more than a forum site that he's decided to moderate. Just make a website that he controls, put uber-complimentary stuff on it, tack on a bunch of names, and be done with it. This way, he's pretending the complements that he leaves there really represent a consensus.

this is going out to people in industry now...

-----Original Message-----
From: Rebecca Griffin [mailto: DELETED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 9:54 PM
Subject: petition
Folks,
Yes, once again I am embarrassing my husband by reaching out to our friends and "imposing" upon them. Sigh, what's new? The number 1 fan is a role I have earned, because I know how hard my husband works, how honest he is, and what a positive difference he has made at NASA in just three and half short years. So, I couldn't think of an easier or better way to let you know about this true "grass roots" endeavor that was set up by former astronauts to encourage the incoming Obama administration to consider keeping Mike Griffin on as NASA Administrator. If you are not interested, please delete this email and accept my apologies for bothering you. If you are interested, just log in to the web site shown below. And, if this is inappropriate, I'm sorry.
Merry Christmas,
Becky

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/KeepMike/

what's the griffin count now? noticed youve not updated you count of 8 ...

Editor's note: DUH it is not my count - I am quoting another article written by the editor of FreeSpace written the other day.

We can thank Doc for changing the CxP design for ATK then bailing for his payback with ATK. Thanks Doc for your ethical decision to use a design that wasn't the best choice for the CxP architecture but for your own gain.

To be frank this is surreal. Never seen anything like this before in relation to an official appointed by President. It'd be like Cheney petitioning to keep Bush on.

Or is it normal now to solicit sympathy through Internet petitions by your office buddies (and didn't Horowitz former of ATK, and all the "yes, sir" astros benefit from Griffin staying on)? Can this really get traction?

Personally, NASA needs a personable administrator, not a 'Spock' tech nerd like Griffin (or like me) Adminstration is about people, not rockets.

I haven't visited the Keep Mike website, nor do I plan to do so. While it's true that the owner of a website has the right to remove any material he doesn't want on said site, it's also true that sort of decision making is symptomatic of something plaguing NASA. In this case, that something is the free and open exchange of ideas.

For NASA to return a leading position in science and engineering, it needs that free exchange of ideas and opinions. That exchange is dynamic and pulls people in, fostering, in them, excitement, motivation, creative thought, and confidence. Removing uncomfortable and contrary opinions from his website dedicated to the status quo? That limits the pool of potential solutions in just about any area, and it guarantees that the status quo will remain the status quo. Is the status quo working for NASA? I don't think so.

From the age of 4 until recently (I'm 44, now), I've been a raving NASA fan and supporter. Watching launches and reading anything NASA I could find inspired me to go into science, and I know I'm far from being the only one. Now NASA's ability to inspire has been blunted....and by more than just a little bit.

Mike Griffin? I can't say whether or not he's ultimately qualified to run NASA, but given the current state at NASA, it's definitely the wrong time for Mike.

REVISION TO MY REMARKS LISTED ABOVE:

Dear President-Elect Obama:

Please do not choose a leader at NASA who will burn the remainder of our ships in the harbor of America's history,

OR

that will have his wife publicly beg for a seat in your government. Mike Griffin's behavior has now reached a new and unacceptable, low.

If this latest example of pathetic professional behavior is representative of a desirable characteristic in our country's space program leadership, then we are, indeed, doomed.

Thanks.

Can we keep Griffin if we just change to family guy's Peter Griffin??

Couldn't hurt...

Mike himself is behind all this. His wife and his astro-toadie have both petitioned the public to keep him: not exactly unbiased sources.

And on Christmas eve?
At 9:54 P.M.?

Go respectfully, Griffin. Be classy. Even McCain was.

Something tells me your number-crunching days will have left you a little less able to dodge shoes.

Excuse me while I open another window to check the spelling of
Pathetic. Yes, that it. Pathetic.

Keep Griffin?

Not going to happen.

And while others are wasting time and effort on this sort of rubbish, thanks to all this noise, a non-story (as in have a snicker along with your morning coffee) has become bigger and louder than it ever ought to have been in the first place.

Honestly folks, with so much to do, and so many people at stake,isn't there something else we ought to be jaw-jacking about?

Keith, I know this is your barbecue, but this kind of gear grinding is taking away from other things, political and people-wise that others need to know about as we get ready for a world change.

For instance, rather than concentrate on a failure, why not let's start a healthy (and hopefully civil) discussion about who ought to come next and why. Let people who like Griffin have their forum. That's fine. But let's us work on tomorrow, because tomorrow is where our future's happening.

Roci

Jim Webb must be spinning in his grave...

Bob Shaw

If Obama only wants NASA to focus on human spaceflight, then retaining Griffin is a reasonable option...Obama can get credit for engaging a Republican and Dr Griffin is certainly focused on this part of NASA's mission...

...however, if Obama wants executive leadership excellence in addition to engineering excellence from the NASA Administrator, and if Obama wants a leader who will manage the entirety of NASA's mission, not just human spaceflight, then Griffin is not the guy.

It's just that simple.

Robin Seibel is dead-on right. But, in addition, Why hasn't anyone questioned how "Doc" got his ESMD job in the first place? Gee, let's see he was a senior corporate official of the company promoting a shuttle booster solution for the CLV and "presto"! Griffin chooses said design, awards a multi-billion dollar no-bid contract to the same firm and then HIRES the same "Doc" who was promoting the idea to run that part of the agency that contracts with industry (his former employer) to build the vehicle. Had this sorry record been FEMA there would have been dueling Congressional investigations in both the House and the Senate.
And now poor old "Doc"-awarded for a time a NASA consulting contract after he left NASA-has organized a web site to urge that Obama reappoint the one man in all of the federal system that has publically questioned his transition team?
"Doc" should be grateful Santa didn't bring him a summons to testify before a federal grand jury.
Sure, there are many people who want Griffin reappointed-and nearly every one of them is scared of losing their federal largess from the Constellation money pot.
All these people care about is there fat paychecks, not either NASA or the future of the space program. I hope SpaceX makes the future of the large space contractor moot. Now, that's change we can believe in!

Doc Horowitz belongs in jail. Look at how the Are-I made it into the ESAS architecture and tell me that there was nothing funny going on. Doc knows that his ATK stock is going to go the direction of SpaceHab stock when Shuttle and Ares-I are canned like they should be. He does not care about Griffin he only cares about himself. They lie and cheat to get what they want. Look at Doc's list of 'Mike's' accomplishments and you'll see more lies and ass kissing. Kill the Ares-I death trap before it kills astronauts.

It's interesting how e-community discussions like this spiral out into personality assessments, like much of our politics (and dare I say it? ) our our personal lives.

This is a diverse group. Can Keith's readers agree on anything? Perhaps the question should be "What is the Process by Which a NASA Administrator Should be Selected?"

There will never be agreement on whether this rocket is "better" than that rocket. Better for whom?

Global warming has been in the news for the past several years. Griffin once got into "trouble" for comments he made about climate change. But he was really misunderstood. Among the things he told me is that people have different ideas of what the "ideal" temperature of the planet should be. He is keen at defining the parameters of problems.

IN my eye, the question before Obama is a simple one: Who shall speak for us, who shall chart the path in space?

Well, I just do not know

I like Crazy Dan again for admin

Lets rock the house

I feel that by Mrs. Griffen sending these emails to NASA employees, she is putting undue pressure on these people to respond with positive comments about Mike, even if they feel he should leave. I'm sure to many people, not to respond may be considdered as non-support and they may fear it will effect their careers, should Mike stay on.

the phrase “first commercially developed rocket” refers to Falcon I, that vehicle has flown without NASA funding or support. It’s supported by a combination of DARPA and private Space-X (Elon Musk) funding. Griffin (or NASA) can’t claim any credit here

One would have to be equally honest to say at least a small fraction of the original COTS funding probably was applied to the fast track Merlin 1C propulsion development effort, and the post failure integration efforts, which were fairly recent, and certainly required a considerable amount of cash. He did come up so short that he needed a small hedge.

But since COTS is an award, and that award comes along with application benchmarks, Mr. Musk in the end is allowed to do his own final accounting. One thing that can be learned here is that conventional rocket design and production on any medium to large scale requires startup funds on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, and now with some $3.5 billion dollar worth of contracts, billions of dollars in order to attain some minimal operational status. That's not necessarily bad, compared for instance to the shuttle costs, and is on par or better than current EELV costs. But it does suddenly make the shuttle and EELVs operationally attractive again should the money become available to operate these systems simultaneously, and in a complementary manner in the future, and it now sets the bar for any future true second generation SSME based launch vehicle development operations.

>>>One would have to be equally honest to say at least a >>>small fraction of the original COTS funding probably was >>>applied to the fast track Merlin 1C propulsion >>>development effort, and the post failure integration >>>efforts, which were fairly recent, and certainly >>>required a considerable amount of cash. He did come up
>>>so short that he needed a small hedge.

I am sure you can prove all this, right?

I'm confused, not having either the experience level or personal knowledge needed to accurately assess the issue. What is the charge docket against Griffin, and what are the things in his favor?

Mere program trouble with Ares would not automatically qualify one for the chopping block, since they are to be expected (after all, DT for Apollo killed 3 astronauts), whereas using political factors to quelch legitimate engineering discussions would, since it can only lead to badness.

On the other hand, on any given NASA issue there are fifty gazillion opinions on what the right way to go forward should be. I'm personally a "build the infrastructure/develop X-15 type vehicles" man myself over immediately going exploring--at current technology levels, that is--but I'm not sure that politically anything other than Project Constellation was going to get support in 2003, and then the question was--can you make it both "developmental" (i.e. incremental leap in capability that one day--*eventually*--will make space routinely accessible: X-15, X-33, OSP, etc.) and "operational" (i.e., actually do something with technology you can develop within a decade, even if it is somewhat of a dead-end as far as space exploitation goes: Apollo, Orion) at the same time, with the technology, budget, and time available? I feel the answer is "no, you can't", and I think Griffin may have made the right choice back then. Someone had to make a call on which path to go on, and going developmental over operational wouldn't bring you the bucks in 2003--and we had the ISS hanging around our neck also, driving the need for operational over developmental. Let's not act as is Griffin has always been a free actor, or as if he has the political support to do as he chooses. He doesn't, and no administrator ever has--Webb had a once-in-a lifetime chance to shape a program, and we are still within that lifetime, and he really only had a two-three year window (1961-1963) to get things set in stone, within boundaries fairly well defined. I refuse to dock Griffin for making choices constrained by the practical world of politics.

Now, as far as details of the Ares/Orion developmental path to date and whether or not Griffin has been the right man, I do not feel qualified to judge. This is where the prosecutions and the defenses need to come forward.

It would be interesting to know what Computer ( govt or personnel ) current NASA Employees are using to sign this petition. Maybe the IG should take a look

How embarrasssing for Doc Horowitz and Mikey G. They have both publicly humiliated themselves in front of the entire world. And now Mikey G's wife is involved?...hoo boy.

What is it with NASA and public meltdowns?

And how about a new thread topic? Top ten places Doc and Mikey G can stick that Ares rocket once it's cancelled...HO HO HO, Merry Christmas!

Did somebody say Peter Griffin for President of Space?

Bob Shaw

You know, if you don't like Mike, then don't bother signing the petition to retain him.

Reading what his wife supposedly sent out makes me wonder how low someone can go...is the job market for ex-NASA admins that sparse nowadays? Has he become so enamored of the Beltway life that contemplation of anything else is horrid?

Much like a popular band, Mike was the right man when he took the job; however, like a popular band, the times have passed him by. To many of you, he has become irrelevant and still, for some reason, he wants to cling to this job by whatever shreds of his credibility remain? Perhaps this "captain" has no clothes, and other than a close-knit group of syncophants who tell him what he wants to hear, much like a rock star, everyone else is laughing at him.

And that's a sad commentary in and of itself.

Some of this IS his fault...communication is a two-way street, and his "my way or the highway" attitude is something I would not expect from someone who calls himself a true scientist. Heck, even his "Spock" character was willing to listen to the viewpoints of the rest of the crew. I would expect that he would know the following phrase, garnered from Andromeda's "Harper 2.0" episode:

"One head cannot contain all wisdom"

Take it from me, Mike...your time at NASA, and your true mission, is complete. You were there to oversee the Return to Flight effort, and to get the ISS moving again. You've done well.

But now it's time, like it or not, to turn the reins over, and to do so with a certain dignity and grace. Let the newcomers see what it's really like trying to squeeze dollars out of Congress, and let the aerospace community continue to fight amongst itself over which is the one "true" system, while nothing gets built.
NASA's motto will morph from "Failure is not an option" to that old construction site chestnut:

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done."

There is life after NASA, Mike. Really, there is.

See you out there...and thank you for your service.

Speaking as a complete outsider (I only knew 2 guys that worked for NASA & they didn't talk about it much... they did mention something like 'the bureaucracy is killing the creativity of the new talent').

Reading through these comments two things stick out...

1.) "What is it with NASA and public meltdowns?"

All the public hears about in general is astronauts going crazy and drops in NASAs budget. What is the plan now, besides showing more videos of guys in the ISS? The Mars rovers were cool, saw some pictures, the end. In the long run it might as well have been family photos of a visit to Arizona.

Sending another guy to the moon seems anti-climactic (not that I was alive the first time around, but it sure feels like it after 25 years of watching the same footage), unless he's going to live there for a week w/ a video feed. NASA seems to need to get in touch w/ the public more. As much as I want to like the NASA channel, the only stuff I've seen screamed 'early 90s'.

Really 'the big thing' for NASA (in the public eye) was landing on the moon, but that song's been massively overplayed. Even on NASA.gov all I see is 40th anniversary for Apollo, NASAs 50th b-day, and 10 years of ISS (probably with novelty videos of stuff floating). Instead of rehashing old stuff, why not show plans on the new stuff and how it's coming along? It really doesn't take a genius to make rockets & space sound cool...

2.) "Doc Horowitz belongs in jail."

Isn't this type of 'mutual backscratching' illegal? This is a federally funded agency right? Civilian or not... How come I didn't read about this in the news, yet it seems to be common knowledge?

If he does stay, can NASA please get a better pic of him. Maybe one where he doesn't look like a friggin moron?

Is that pic on NASA.gov supposed to be an inside joke or are the PR people really that bad?

One thing all this clearly indicates is that Mike wants to stay. One would have figured he might want to, but he never really let on. His retention would, of course, put the kabosh on any rejiggering of Constellation. He probably thinks that he could even skirt around a revised Vision and continue to play his own game. If the new administration continues with the present Vision (unlikely), or turns away as deftly from a new one as the present White House did from theirs, he might just get away with it.

My vote: Please go, go now, don't hesitate just go. Please hire an administrator with vision and communication skills to bring excitement back to NASA.

"Doc Horowitz belongs in jail."

Valid. How does one go about doing that, per se? What charges would one bring...I'm sure there are some.

Editor's note: NASA's OGC has signed off on Doc's NASA-related activities as far as I can tell. They may seem to be overt conflicts of interest, but in Doc's defense, the proper legal hoops where jumped through, so to speak.

You know it is a sad day when people are nostalgic for the Dan Goldin era NASA. That tells you all anyone who follows NASA needs to know about the current administrator.

The reason Mike Griffin should resign is not his failed Ares architecture choices, bad as they are. The reason he should resign is his actions relative to the Obama Transition Team. He has disgraced his agency and himself in his actions, which to my knowledge is the only federal agency to have challenged the transition review teams now at work in the government.
This example of high handedness poorly serves NASA, both to the upcoming administration and to the public at large.
Lastly, concerning "Doc" I find it unbelievable that there has not been one wit of concern that of all the Ares 1 architecture the booster was selected without benefit of a bidding process, and that Griffin chose the corporation that won the contract's chief advocate to manage those subsequent contracts. I have little faith in this NASA IG, so any true review of these facts would have to come outside this agency. The end result of Mike Griffin's temper tantrum is to further deepen the depression and morale problems of those who work there. Now he clearly believes he and he alone can save Constellation-shades of Dan Goldin! But even Goldin didn't dishonor his agency. And those who are clamoring for him to be reappointed each has a financial stake in maintaining the Orion-Ares contracts. Doesn't it strike you as just a tad bit transparent when the AIA, Boeing, Lockheed, ATK and other top corporate execs petition Obama to retain Griffin? I mean, it's their contracts that they want to retain. They are terrified of losing them to a new outside review brought on by new leadership. And that is what is at the heart of all of this "keep Mike" foolishness.

I signed it. I hope Griffin stays. I can't believe the haters on this site.

One last point I will add:

My wife does not have to petition, via e-mail or other communication format, the rest of my company's management team to request the favor of allowing me to keep my job. I strongly believe the vast majority of respondents to this posting would not rely on their wife's e-mail correspondence to maintain their employment.

I do keep my job the old-fashioned way:

I EARN my job by bringing REAL and TANGIBLE VALUE to my company, every single day.

This whole ridiculous and juvenile episode is reflective of Griffin's entire shtick.

GRIFFIN HAS TO GO, AND GO NOW, for the sake of NASA, and our country's space program. Asking for him to resign has nothing to do with "hating" anyone.

Griffin sets no standard that anyone at NASA can bear, nor any example that anyone can follow. His latest example of dysfunctional personal and professional behavior should be the final nail in his professional coffin.

TO MIKE GRIFFIN'S ATTENTION (and those that read NASAWatch for him):

Mike Griffin, you have severely disappointed all of us that truly believed your tenure would turn NASA around, and save our country's future as the premier space-faring nation on Earth.

All of us in flyover country and industry believed you would set a standard and example that recapture, recreate, and foster the can-do spirit that was the hallmark of NASA during and through the halcyon days of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo.

You have failed, miserably, and additionally, embarrassed all of NASA and your supporters to the point where very, very few of us can defend your actions any longer. It is brutally clear you are holding the match which has set afire our ships in the harbor of America's history. What remains, or, that can be saved, will only be determined after you are gone.

If you have even the slightest ounce of personal and professional integrity remaining, resign now, and save NASA and the US space program from any further decay and embarrassment.

well ok not crazy Dan again

so hows about:
James Montgomery Beggs again, lol

this should be a happy process
keep mike is a little over the top given the past months since the election.

I'm Very unclear on the NASA IG and Doc, this activity is criminal in my mind.
Take an artist painting of Ares 1 and make a rocket which keeps Doc's company funded.

Then have MSFC design an active spring for the rocket at PDR, this is so sad it is funny.

good gosh given Obama's choices thus far, I hope NASA gets a excellent Adminstrator to lead NASA forward and make discoveries that we do not already know.

Making a rocket from old design parts just does not do it for NASA as the prime objective. Why this choice was made is unknown to me.

I can't believe the haters on this site.

The words "hate" and "haters" have become so nonsensically overused over the last few years that they've lost all meaning. To think that we need a new administrator is not to "hate" him. We wish Dr. Griffin well and happiness in his future endeavors. We just think that our future in space will be better off in other hands.

" Kill the Ares-I death trap before it kills astronauts.


Posted by: Space Monkey at December 26, 2008 10:45 AM"


Hey, Space Monkey,


I'm curious.


Why do you call the Ares I a death trap?


That is a very serious charge.

I used the term 'haters' out of laziness to convey my general meaning. I don't work in aerospace and my only window into NASA has been space news websites and NASA publications. Maybe I'm just a good-fer-nuthin-kool-aid-drinkin fanboy. I don't think so though. Maybe there are some NASA engineers here that have experienced firsthand some really terrible leadership. Maybe there are a bunch of Direct/alternative architecture fanboys that don't like the guy that's not supporting their vision. And don't tell me it is not hate... there is emotion in some of these posts.



So... that's that. I support him. Ares, assuming they can make it work, is an architecture that keeps jobs, will lift a fantastic amount of payload into space, and hopefully will keep our astronauts safe. The only thing I'm bummed out about is losing ground-landing capability for Orion.



Is it wrong to expect X amount of efficiency from a government agency? Maybe I'm just cynical but the progress thus far fits nicely into my expectations.



Look at all the money that is being thrown at COTS. That is fantastic!! Mike is very much behind getting NASA focused beyond LEO but it is his duty as a civil servant to have a solid insurance policy. The man is the epitome of rationality! His speeches are as close to "perfection" if such a thing exists, that I have ever read.



I apologize if my views are truly a case of "ignorance is bliss" but from my vantage point I see a lot of admirable work being done and I believe the current path will put America in a very strong position for space leadership.

"Dr. Griffing is certainly the best man for the job. Aerospace experience, technical competence, to name but a few traits (try matching those, Garver)"

This was a quote from one of the comments of someone who signed the petition, and it sums up the main view of the petition: that technical competence is more important than leadership in NASA's top position. No one is trying to hide that opinion in their comments on the petition, and it is that opinion that should be the most blatantly obvious flaw in their argument. Some have referenced Jim Webb as a successful leader without technical experience, but one can look to an even broader level: Did JFK go in and personally orchestrate Apollo? No, but he set policy to ensure that America's goals were reached. Michael Griffin has said that he will only stay if the Return to Moon program, etc. is continued, but truthfully, that is not one of America's overarching goals. Earth sciences, perhaps? Commercial space incentives to help the economy, anyone?

The space community continues to alienate itself from the American public by doing things that are not relevant to America's goals; and in the past few decades, NASA's largest publicity has stemmed from failures and embarassments.

If Mike continues his pitiful efforts to keep his job at NASA, he will be yet another embarassing pock-mark on the face of an agency that cannot afford more disappointment.

That is a very serious charge.

I heard a Chinese emperor tried it once.

It didn't turn out well.

There is a very well-written counter-petition to fire Griffin at:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/RemoveMikeGriffinNow/.

The petition is a concise and excellent history of Griffin's underperformance versus the goals in the VSE, major technical issues with Ares I, and Griffin's embarrassing statements. I'd urge most of the posters here to sign it, even if anonymously.

Ares, assuming they can make it work, is an architecture that keeps jobs, will lift a fantastic amount of payload into space, and hopefully will keep our astronauts safe.

At a horrific (and ultimately unaffordable) cost. It's a disastrous approach in terms of sustainability (just as Apollo not on steroids was).

Is it wrong to expect X amount of efficiency from a government agency?

No, it's not. So it's puzzling why you support this program, and Mike Griffin. There is nothing at all efficient about it.

Alright folks,
I'm reprinting a link provided by a FreeSpace reader of the Mike Griffin Fan Club column. Apparently democracy IS alive and well. Here's another petition for folks who'd like to see Griffin go to sign.

Have at it:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/RemoveMikeGriffinNow/

Irene

Here's the full text from FreeSpace reader. It was posted anonymously.

There is a concise, professional, and hard-hitting counter-petition available here:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/RemoveMikeGriffinNow/

It provides a decent history of Griffin’s lack of performance versus the goals set out in the VSE, Ares I technical issues, and Griffin’s multiple embarrassing statements.

Without access to Rebecca Griffin’s rolodex, I don’t anticipate that this counter-petition will exceed Horowitz’s. But anyone who agrees should sign the petition, even if they have to do so anonymously (and they should keep their comments civil). It’s important that the voices opposing NASA’s current human space flight path are heard, too.

"The space community continues to alienate itself from the American public by doing things that are not relevant to America's goals; and in the past few decades, NASA's largest publicity has stemmed from failures and embarassments."
-Perhaps the most insightful comment ever made in these posts. But who will listen? The space community remains totally clueless as to how the majority of Americans feel about the space program, which is it's nice but not particularly important to their needs. Unless you work for NASA or a contractor with NASA business, the simple stark truth is no one cares, about Mike Griffin whom most people never even heard of-until the coverage in Time and the WP of his dueling with Lori Garver. I once interviewed the author of "Dragon Fly" who told me that book , of the books he had written, sold the worst. He added that his colleagues at Newsweek once told him any magazine cover with a space subject on it (not astronomy) always sold the poorest. I'm also told that CNN canceled their science desk because a focus group anaylisis of their coverage showed them the general public had the least interest in science and space than any other topic area. That's why consumer health remains and space does not.
This does not bode well for public support of space when the gap years begin and space launches fall from the news cycles.
If you think it's bad now, just wait until 2010..

Chris Webster / anon,

I think you have the most fair assessment I've seen on this site. I do work for NASA, and I pretty much agree with you. I support Mike, and unlike most here, I hope he/we succeed.

Keith / et. al,

I may be mistaken, but I once thought that NASAwatch was a good place to go to get some insider scoop on what was going on around NASA. These days, the "Fire Mike Griffin" witch hunt has turn this site into nothing more than a space wannabe tabloid. And perhaps I was mistaken. Perhaps that's all that NASAwatch ever was. If that's the case, and if that's what you want NASAwatch to be, then that's your prerogative and I apologize. If not, I only point this out because you have lost all credibility in my eyes and in the eyes of those I work with. I realize I don't speak for all of NASA, but that is the assessment around my office.

For those like Chris Webster and myself, I would recommend checking out this source for space news. You won't find all the haters babble.

http://spaceflightnow.com/

A Former NASAWatch Reader

Editor's note: Spaceflight Now is an excellent website. By all means, please visit it - I certainly do. As for the perceived anti-Griffin bias: your comment make little sense - please explain why am I encouraging people to go to the pro-Griffin petition website - and overtly providing a link to it? I leave pro- and anti- Griffin statements online whereas the pro-Griffin site edits out any and all dissent.

the general public (has) the least interest in science and space than any other topic area.

Has it occured to you that could very well be a clear signal of the complete failure of our public (government funded) and private educational institutions? I remember a time when space and science were at the top of almost every American's mind.

That was 50 years ago. What happened between then and now?

The Keep Mike petition might be filtered, but it's not being filtered very carefully. I see some duplicate entries. Also, there are a number of entries that I find hard to believe, and others whose signature might actually discourage the Obama administration from agreeing with the petition (numbers may change if the list gets edited):

29-30 - duplicate
148 Frank Poole - fictional character
149 David Bowman - fictional character
166 Lisa Nowak - real person, but under some controversy the Obama team might be reluctant to count
173 George Deutsch - real person, but under some controversy the Obama team might be reluctant to count
214 Fred Sanford - fictional character
219-220 - duplicate
259-260 - duplicate
301 - Fairchild Morgan (Morgan Fairchild?)
302 - Marion Berry
346 - Shrub - presumably a Bush reference and not likely to be in favor of Griffin

I'm sure there are more ...

Joe: "There is a very well-written counter-petition to fire Griffin at:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/RemoveMikeGriffinNow/."

It's a pretty long and well-written petition statement, but even so it doesn't get to some of the reasons one might urge a change in Administrator.

- cut Solar and Planetary Science (the petition does mention some specific programs)
- cut Aeronautics
- cut Earth Science
- cancelled New Millenium
- cancelled NIAC
- no new Centennial Challenges funding
- expensive back-and-forth on some robotics programs (eg: Dawn)
- MSL cost and schedule overruns (quite devestating to the Mars program when combined with the cuts the petition mentions)
- Arecibo funding controversy

The petition does go into many of the areas where Griffin's lunar plan violates the goals and plans of the Vision for Space Exploration (although it's not clear how much that matters to Obama and his administration). It doesn't go much into the key statement of the VSE goals:

"The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests...".

I'd argue that Griffin's plan that postpones any science, security, and economic benefits until after a far-future lunar astronaut landing program that may never happen, and that may be too expensive to maintain if it does happen at all, is one of the biggest flaws. I'd suggested that the plan needed to either pull in the schedule considerably, or have intermediate milestones with their own benefits (which could be more lunar robotic precursors, use of EELV or commercial launchers, propellant depots, or other infrastructure, etc). I don't consider the ~2016 Ares 1 ISS capability to contribute to science, security, or economics, since it's not needed for these areas, and in fact hurts science, security, and economics by competing with alternate ISS crew options that support these areas.

I really don't mean to be critical of another reader/poster but if A Former NASAWatch Reader had taken the time to read Keith's byline under the NASA Watch heading [This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. [Important disclaimer] It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.], then maybe he'd understand that what Keith does here is provide a forum for inside scoops at NASA. I work for NASA and don't always agree with Keith's opinions but at least he allows us to tell the outside world what is going on.

Unlike the current Administrator, Keith accepts dissent. As civil servants, we are duty bound to follow the President's and Administrator's directions or we find another job. However, this does not mean that we shouldn't speak up if another, better way can be found to do something. Current management does not seem to like this. Since we are taxpayer funded, the public deserves the right to know what's going on. The fact that people want a change in management, for the stated reasons, does not make this a witch hunt - just as calls for changes in management at Wall Street financial institutions does not constitute witch hunts, either.

As for Engineering Lead's response to the lack of public interest in NASA or its activities [Has it occured to you that could very well be a clear signal of the complete failure of our public (government funded) and private educational institutions?], let me be more specific: perhaps this is Griffin's greatest failure. NASA PAO, starting at HQ, is absymally incompetant and Griffin has done nothing to fix this problem. One could argue that it's gotten worse during his tenure. Until the public understands how we are relevant and until NASA makes the effort to talk to the public without irritation or condescension, one should not expect any change in the public's attitude or lack of support.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/ is the best NASA site as unlike all the others has information and documentation direct from NASA sources.

Mike Griffin is his own worst enemy, unless he learns how the chain of command works in the next 3 weeks he is history.
If Lori wants to look under the hood then he should be there opening it for her not telling her she doesn't know what she's looking at ! It doesn't matter how matter how smart or liked he is by his friends and some colleagues a public official who doesn't obey orders from his elected superiors is someone who will be replaced. Think about it Mike, change your attitude man, if you really want to keep your job.

Internet petitions are of course common, what struck me here is the petition by a Griffin's (former?) associate in an attempt to influence a constitutional process for the new President and his transition team to appoint a NASA administrator (otherwise why initiate it?). Griffin is a taxpayer paid official appointment of the White House.

In addition to being embarrassing to both Griffin and Horowitz the "keep mike" petition is simply a disgrace to our political process. Involving his wife in this is an additional low. Even for our pretty low on decency and integrity political process nowadays. It upsets me as a citizen.

This is unseemly, and entirely unhelpful to NASA and our goals in space. Let the transition team examine the state of NASA (leave no stone unturned!), Griffin's qualifications and suitability so far, and pick an administrator best fit to implement the new president's goals.

We can all stop the Keep/Remove Mike debate. In a way, you have to pity the Obama transition team. They wanted to be a part of determining, not just assessing, U.S. Space policy. And in doing so, they over-reached and created what is a bit of a storm.

Neil Armstrong, first man on the Moon, wrote a piece in WSJ on 12/26 asking Obama to base his analysis on America's Space program by listening to NASA and not his own transition team. In so doing, Armstrong did a nice smack-down job on the NASA transition team and implicitly stated his support for retaining Dr. Griffin as head of NASA (http://tinyurl.com/6vg8w3). Add to this Sen. Nelson's and Rep. Gorton's exhortations to President-elect Obama that he keep Dr. Griffin and what one has is a great deal of pressure being put on the President-elect to retain Dr. Griffin and the Moon effort, and all thanks to his own transition team.

President-elect Obama's NASA Transition team has gotten their boss in the position of being seen as reneging on his promise of strong support for manned Space, never mind pissing-off Sen. Nelson and Rep. Gorton, if he doesn't keep Dr. Griffin at NASA's helm. Since transition teams are supposed to assess and enlighten their boss, not box him in, I think we can collectively opine that this team has messed-up.

Sure, President Obama can go against the wishes of Sen. Nelson and Rep. Gorton--he will soon be the President and his popularity gives him that cachet. But there will come a time in politics when the support of these men will be needed by President Obama. And anyone who has heard the stories of Senator Nelson will know that he never forgets a broken promise or a slight and never lets a good pay-back go to waste. His transition team has no such clout.

Editor's note: Senator Nelson no longer cares if Mike Griffin stays - or goes. Stay tuned.

Not to offend, but it appears the Griffin support group (and the man himself?) are sounding more and more desperate for being kept on? (in the animal kingdom ticks leeches are like that) Don't you have ANY self-respect left?! (or respect for our NASA admin selection process)

I wish Griffin would speak out against this embarrassing 'petition' campaign as I still respect him (for his various science degrees, although he hasn't acomplished much in real operational hardware terms)

Mike is only a part of the problems with Ares-I and ESAS. Granted he is a much better technical person than a people person, but that is not a reason for dismissal. Mike should stay, but he needs to know who butters his bread, it is those who pay him and those who work for him. Mike needs to make his bosses feel confident about the path that NASA has chosen even if that path involves a brier patch or two. That requires people skills, Mike shamelessly lacks in that capacity. He needs to succinctly explain that you cannot push the envelope without tearing it once and while. Also a leader cannot lead if they abuse their followers and Mike seems to think that intimidation is a valid management method. It is not, but he can be retrained, and he is learning that no program and no person in NASA is immune to the whims of the taxpayers who comment here, nor those who are part of the new administration. Mike should stay, but he should take this transition as a mid course correction that every NASA mission uses to take care of errors that have developed due to unforeseen perturbations. He can use this transition to make NASA great. NASA is an organization whose goals and contributions should span generations and less aligned with national or office politics.

Despite Mike's degrees, intelligence and wisdom, the demands placed onto a NASA administrator seem to have broken down the very good man who he is, I hope that he stays, but I also hope that he listens and continues to learn from everyone around him.

It's politics, gang. If Obama fires Mike, appoints Pee Wee Herman as the next NASA administrator, then implements a new architecture that pumps additional billions of dollars and thousands of jobs into the Florida economy, Bill Nelson will proudly offer to wield the broom that sweeps Ares and Griffin into the "dustbin of history." That's the way the game works.

I fear the longer this goes on-keep Mike or not-the less actual attention will be given to the real issues facing the civil space program: will human spaceflight continue to dominate NASA's budget, or will a new direction be sought by new leaders? Will the nation fund NASA at its current level, or will there be either deep cuts or increases? That is what we should all be focusing on. While I understand a wife's desire to help her husband, Rebecca Griffin has put the entire NASA workforce under tremendous pressure in her email quest to save her husband's job. If Obama reconstitutes the space council, their first order of business should be a sweeping review-by those technically beyond reproach-of the Orion-Ares architecture. I hope that new voices will be heard about new ways to spend that $18 billion-new relationships with entrepreneurs and academia, for example, and new ways to involve students in building, designing, and flying space experiments.
The space program can and must be reinvigorated, but it will require new ways of thinking and new people to do that thinking.
Today's existing order and industry-drven approach is not adequate to the task at hand: getting America strongly behind space exploration in an age of constrained federal spending.

So far, all of Obama's nominees for cabinet-level and agency appointments have been quite well received by Congress, by the press, and by the public. So far, not one of them has come as a result of an Internet petition. Just saying...

Remember folks - With all due respect - Mike Griffin got the Shuttle program back on track after the accident and sheparded the new vision - after two sets of wishie-washie administrators (God help us!!). No matter what you think - it's the accomplishments I'm impressed with - not the admonishments from the community. Let's think sensibly here -- we are talking about regaining our leadership in space exploration.

(God help us!!).

Do you think that will work? Isn't that basically an admission that you can't help yourself?

we are talking about regaining our leadership in space exploration.

We've got spacecraft on the way to the fifth and tenth planets respectively, I'm pretty sure we're already the leaders.

A lot can happen between now and 2015, though, so hopefully God won't help the other guys more than he's helping US.

Re the comment that "the simple stark truth is that no one cares" (about NASA, spaceflight, etc.). Unfortunately, I think Mr. Sietzen is right on the money. I also think one of the primary reasons no one cares is that there is essentially zero chance of anyone outside of NASA having the opportunity to fly into space onboard a NASA spacecraft. And Constellation will certainly not change that. Meanwhile NASA expects the public to be excited about vicariously experiencing the space adventures of an elite few civil servants and military personnel.

I'm one NASA employee who would welcome an administrator who could reach out to the public in a meaningful way (perhaps by expanding the population of people flying on NASA spacecraft), even if he/she were (God forbid!) a "non-technical" person.

Mike definitely loves what he is doing, but the nation's priority will shift after Obama is in the office unfortunately, global warming? Very likely. Maybe Mike can continue to pursue his career by joining a private company, instead of wasting time and fighting a losing battle, in my opinion.

Don't overlook the fact that the number 1 fan would be out as the First Lady of NASA position...a job she loves more than Mike...

Interesting analogy to Wall Street. When policy-makers are also scientifically adept, there's a chance for rampant corruption. As you can practically become the judge, jury, and executioner; i.e. no checks nor balances.

While the advantage of having such in depth background knowledge would normally be a full appreciation of details (and range of opinions), the disadvantage is they can sway policy solely based on the opinion of a single person (themselves) and throw up a technical smokescreen to strengthen their case.

This sort of technical smokescreen went unchecked in finance; Alan Greenspan admitted to using fancy language to keep others from questioning his beliefs (and creating/blocking policies based on them).

It probably doesn't need to be mentioned that many people believe that it didn't really work out with Greenspan either.

Food for thought.

Griffin is the loser for dissing the transition team. His wife is not just embarrassing him, but is a major embarrassment herself. Griffin is a top wastrel, but fits right into our culture of arrogance at NASA. Never admit you are wrong, cop the biggest appropriation. Forget about other American priorities. Give us a break. Cease and desist. Step down on Jan 20. We will give you the thanks of a grateful Nation purely for leaving. That is a major achievement for us all.
Happy new year, Mike. Just kidding, ya know.
Your classmate,
Jake M.

Fire the hack:

"Griffin Altered NASA Mission Statement To Remove Global Warming Reference"

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/04/griffin-nasa-mission/

President Barrack Obama,
When you ran for the US presidency position you ran on several slogans that have become words that many of us wish for you to uphold such as "yes we can", "change we can beleive in", "Hope". Through these slogans many of us put our hearts and souls into campaigning for you. We do not expect to see a repetition of the 8 years of warmonger behavior that the former president have bully the rest of the world with. Our expectations are to see changes that are not deceiving. I can reassured you that Mike Griffins and his family did not vote for you, so I hope and pray to God that you will do the right thing and give some one else a chance to take on this positions. Mike already served his time and it is time for him to go. The country need changes that are real not phony undercover changes. For Becky to even send such an e-mail to you is as disrespectful as it gets. Had the new incoming president been some one of Anglo saxon descent I do not think she would have done this appalling act. Mr. President you are capable of deciding who you wish to have that position and I hope you will not let this woman public attempt to cram this choice down your throat. The campaign you ran was outstanding and many of us trust your ability to make decisions that is why we voted for you. We do not want to see the same faces, we need change, America needs change and that is what we voted for "change". Why not get people from other backgrounds in these positions--Hindu, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Taoist, and other minority groups. These people voted for you as well and they are just as capable of filling positions in your office. Show us and the world that the bigotry that has gone on in this "just" country of ours has coming to an end. Mr President the world is watching and looking for you to produce REAL changes.

From the Orlando Sentinel (Sept. 4, 2008)--- Griffin said that whereas in April NASA estimated that the risk of losing a crew during 10 flights was one in twelve, a re-examination of the numbers indicated that the risks were actually higher: one in eight. “These are the odds. This is why the shuttle needs to be retired,” he said.“I lead the pack in wanting to retire the shuttle. I think we must stick with the current plan to depend upon the Russians. That was the plan we made. We need to follow it through. I don’t like it but it is the best plan we have at this point,” Griffin said.

With approximately 14 more shuttle flights left (before shuttle retirement) when he made these statements, what kind of confidence do you think he imparts to America? I bet the astronauts were overjoyed to hear these statistics. Also, relying on the Russians to be the major player in our space program is plain stupid. President Elect Obama, PLEASE replace this guy.

What a maroon! If the risk of losing a Shuttle, with 10 or so flights left, was actually 1 in 8, then the Program would have been retired immediately. Nobody would accept these odds. Not NASA management. Not Congress. Not the public and certainly not the astronauts. If you're going to lie to us, give us something that's at least a little bit plausible.

And did I understand correctly that Griffin leads the pack in wanting to retire the Shuttle? Then how could have the White House have orchestrated a 'jihad' for Shuttle retirement, as Griffin previously complained about?

Mr. Griffin, among many other things, this is exactly why you have no credibility anymore.

It's interesting that the media has not picked up on the fact that Scott Horowitz has very close ties to ATK Thiokol. He was employed by them, and I'm sure probably still receives consultant fees from them. ATK Thiokol stands to benefit greatly from Orion and Aries, since their boosters are primary components of these vehicles. Kent Rominger and Charlie Precourt are former heads of the Astronaut Office who now work for ATK. I'm sure they have a lot of leverage getting their former colleagues to sign the petition. They aren't promoting Griffin for altruistic reasons.

Doc is perfectly right to remove negative comments from his petition. A petition is a document to be signed by those in SUPPORT of what it proposes. Those who do not support the proposal should not sign the petition. By signing the petition, they are adding to the numbers who are seen to be supporting it! A petition is not supposed to be a discussion forum, or a sounding board for those who oppose it. I think we have quite enough of THOSE around on the internet!

[BEGIN rant:]
On another note, I never cease to be amazed by the vitriolic comments left by some posters on the internet (in general, I'm not referring to any site in particular). The cloak of anonymity offered by discussion forums is constantly abused by those who think they have the right to say anything about anyone, but forget that they are talking about a living human being who has feelings. A brief pause to consider what has been written before clicking 'Submit' would make the internet a nicer place to be. But then, who ever said that human nature was 'basically good'?

[END rant.]