I for one don't think it was a "parting shot," only a heads-up for what is to come after his resignation -- which I'm very sorry to see. Griffin is an earnest, educated man who juggled varied priorities under intense scrutiny, knowing all the while that he couldn't please everyone. He broadly outlined possibilities and ramifications, and I personally think this is a better strategy than ducking out silently, whereby his unforunate replacement might step slap-bang into a huge flame of layoff criticism?? IMHO that would be much worse. (Besides, it seems like everyone is announcing a layoff during this media-hyped "recession," why would the NASA family + contractors be any different?)

Demonstrates a lack of class in my opinion

Griffin is simply strongly stating his perception of the inevitable consequences of the perceived change in direction for NASA following his departure. Strong reactions go hand in hand with strong attachment. If you want an administrator that wouldn't desire to state his dissatisfaction on the way out the door, then make sure that the next administrator doesn't care about his job.

Griffin tells it like it is. He doesn't suguar coat it. If it needs to be said to prevent job loss, it needs to be said. That's what matters here. Nobody cares who gets invited or not to this press conference.

yg1968:

>>> Nobody cares who gets invited or not to this press
>>> conference.

Ridiculous! You'd better care or you'll soon be left in the dark.

My God man, get some perspective.
Even if this was a parting shot, why are you more concerned of the fact that he chose to warn us about this on his way out, instead of the fact that contractor employees are in danger of losing their jobs?
We're in the middle of a recession, and all you care about is "scare tactics" made by a guy you obviously hate? Talk about bias.

Editor's note: Hmmm information on job loss always appears on NASA Watch before NASA admits things. As such wouldn't you want me to know things as soon as possible - especially as far as you folks at ARC are concerned?

Hey come on........ He is advocating for the agency, the guy is doing his job in a shrewd way and laying down a marker for the new administration to fund Nasa properly, which I for one agree with.

Anyone who thinks obama will keep NASA funding at current levels is a fool. It can only go down, the NASA budget is the lowest priority in the national fruit cake. Mike is right, whoever voted for obama at NASA cut their own lifeline. This is what these guys do best they take the most important things and cut them to give them to the unimportant. Whatever is right is wrong and what's wrong is right, we saw that in carter and in the clinton years. It is a sad fact of life if you look at the track record of these modern day donkeys. They will say what they want to get elected.

This does sound like a petulant kid on the way out. The original plan for Constellation is on the "sand chart" and shows the overall budget for NASA growing sharply to pay for exploration. Was that ever realistic? NASA has had a flat budget during the good times and can expect that at best. In the hard times - the budget is gonna go down.

We could soldier on with a flat budget - slowly paying for the programs as we go. There would be no need to lay off, just that the delivery times would be far in the future and Constellation would turn much more into a jobs program.

There is no need for Griffin to "warn" us about anything - as long as you can read.

I wish that he had made the difficult decision to live within his budget instead of insisting that a fictional future of bounteous budgets was coming again.

And Obama should "properly" fund NASA as soon as they decide what they are gonna do - within reasonable limits.

Reminds me of Dan Goldin's ISS $4 billion overrun reported to congress the day after the election in 2000.

Hmmm. Track record of "donkeys." Let's see now...

Apollo started by Kennedy (D), continued by Johnson (D), canceled by Nixon (R).
MOL started by Kennedy (D), continued by Johnson (D), canceled by Nixon (R).
STS started by Nixon (R), continued by Ford (R), continued by Carter (D), continued by Reagan (R), continued by Bush I (R), continued by Clinton (D), canceled by Bush II (R).
ISS started by Reagan (R), continued by Bush I (R), continued by Clinton (D), continued by Bush II (R). TBA...
Constellation started by Bush II (R). TBA...

Hmmm. Programs cancelled by R = 3. Programs cancelled by D = 0. Gosh! If Obama makes history by being the first "donkey" to cancel major space programs, he can cancel both ISS and Constellation, then the donkeys will be only one cancellation behind the elephants! What an opportunity!! Maybe he can start a new program and then cancel it right away!!!

Commen sense wrote:
"Ridiculous! You'd better care or you'll soon be left in the dark."

This is likely how it works. The Space Foundation invites Griffin to speak at a breakfeast. He accepted their invitation. The Space Foundation most likely sent out the invitations and invited various people including some people from the media. Organizations are allowed to organize breakfeasts and obviously can't invite everyone.

Editor's note: They selectively invited some media - and not others and when the media who were not invited called up and asked they were told that they could not attend. see Space Foundation Correspondents Breakfast with Mike Griffin"

No such thing as a free lunch or in this case a free breakfeast...

Only if you consider "sharply" to be synonymous with "growing at national inflation rate" or about 3%. And many suspect that the aerospace inflation rate is higher.

I thought Administrator Griffin said just some days ago at the STA breakfast as follows - quote -

"“The programmatic implementation of the Constellation architecture fits within NASA’s budget projections. Further, it is designed to accommodate funding reductions – which have totaled nearly $12 billion future dollars over just the last four years – by slipping schedule rather than by making technical compromises with which our successors would have to cope for decades."

So...which is it? Do you have a plan "designed to accomodate funding reductions" or not?

Question: How much margin is there in the plan? When a plan has negative margin it won't achieve as promised. This could be schedule, weight, funding or in general planning margin. By far the most important is planning margin, that is being able to quickly, internally, implement fall-back options precisely because the plan was not based on only positive assumptions. The negative is assumed and was used to develop the plan.

So...which is it? "Designed to accommodate funding reductions" or not? These are inevitable in a 15 year outlook that sees health care skyrocketing and reinventing as demographics shift, as debt has already been used before and it's future uses are limited, and as fewer workers per retiree continues downward.

So again...which is it? "Designed to accommodate funding reductions" or not? Or predicated on optimism, hundreds of optimistic planning assumptions one upon the other?

"This is likely how it works."

Are you saying you don't know how it works yet you think we should not care whether or not Keith gets invited? And also if you don't care, huh, why are you reading NASAWatch?

I do care for one. Because whatever Griffin is saying during a change might affect the upcoming NASA Administration. I also think that as someone else put it, if you can read...

Also, maybe had the Administrator been more politically savvy, he'd know more on the upcoming "stimulus" package and would be able to say something other than "lay-offs are coming". Just maybe. Or maybe he does know and there is nothing for NASA in the package. You sure you don't want to know or care?

"As such wouldn't you want me to know things as soon as possible - especially as far as you folks at ARC are concerned?"

Yes, I agree that we should be getting this information as soon as possible. While it is regrettable that the information isn't getting out in a timely fashion, the point I'm getting at is that you're more concerned about "bad timing" as opposed to the real problem: job losses. Instead of digging at this single administrator, why don't you worry about the bigger problem.

When you make those petty comments about "parting shots," I get the impression that you only care about discrediting this man you hate, not about worrying about the actual problems.

Editor's note: (sigh) I do not "hate" Mike Griffin.

Who are we kidding here? Griffin projected layoffs regardless of NASA's budget. Doesn't anyone remember?...Constellation was SUPPOSED to utilize less people. Griffin has told us for years that THOUSANDS of KSC contractors would be let go simply because the Ares/Orion vehicle would not need the infrastructure support that Shuttle currently carries. It was only last year that he revised his 7000-9000 or so reduction down to around 5000-6000. Thanks for the hot tip, Griffin.

As for the timing of him once again bringing it up, I don't know the man's intentions. Nobody does. However, it does appear on many levels, to me, to be simple petty politics of him throwing this out as a parting shot intended as retaliation for his rocket not being chosen.

What makes you believe that Ares I will be cancelled?

There is no indication of that actually happenning (other than the transition team asking some expected transition questions).

Editor's note: who are you talking to?

Sorry my comment above was to JAFO concerning his comments about Griffin being bitter that "his rocket was not chosen".

Apollo started by Kennedy (D), continued by Johnson (D), canceled by Nixon (R).

Johnson cancelled Apollo. Nixon's only sin was failing to spend the money it would take to restart it.

MOL started by Kennedy (D), continued by Johnson (D), canceled by Nixon (R).

Do you fantasize that a Humphrey administration would have continued MOL?

STS started by Nixon (R), continued by Ford (R), continued by Carter (D), continued by Reagan (R), continued by Bush I (R), continued by Clinton (D), canceled by Bush II (R).

Carter (Mondale) cut the fleet from seven to five.

Hmmm. Programs cancelled by R = 3. Programs cancelled by D = 0. Gosh! If Obama makes history by being the first "donkey" to cancel major space programs...

He can't. As I said, Johnson ended the Apollo procurements in 1967, as budgets became tight with Vietnam, and it was becoming clear that we were going to beat the Soviets to the moon. The rest of the program ran on the fumes.

This is really a dumb argument. Space policy is a bipartisan disaster, and has been forever.

I stand corrected on both points. Ares I has not yet been cancelled. ...just anticipating. I do expect at least a major redirection or revamp of the Constellation program. However, without anything other than simply watching Griffin over the years, I expect him (and others) to take any redirection or cancellation as a personal rejection of the design 'they' chose. Just my opinion.

Rand Simberg stated, "This is really a dumb argument. Space policy is a bipartisan disaster, and has been forever."

I don't think this could be more accurate. People should consider everything that is going on around them right now. Best estimates of when the new rocket could come online is either late in Obama's second term or the first term of a new president. My opinion is that Obama will not - cannot - increase NASA's budget for something that will not benefit him during this first term. If no increase in budget, the gap will most surely grow longer with each passing year.

Obama has also stated that we're gonna see trillion dollar deficits for years to come. Up to this point, I've not heard one person who makes public policy use NASA as an example of where deficit money should be spent to either keep jobs or create them. That doesn't mean that it's not on the list. At best, it just means we don't get mentioned very much.

Do I believe that Congress is just stupid enough to let the US fall from the space leadership role? Yes, I do, given that this same Congress believed that the banks would do the right thing with the $350B TARP money already given to them and imposed no stipulations on how the money was to be spent - and we've seen how this turned out.

If Obama has to choose between building bridges, green energy alternatives and road improvements versus a viable space program, I see him choosing the former. Don't forget that this is the person who first wanted to delay Constellation by 5 years to pay for childhood education. This was only last year. Any person who could come up with this plan and publicly state it is no supporter of the space program. It is my opinion he changed direction only for the benefit of potential Florida votes.

Do I like this? No. Do I want this? No. Do I see our space future spiraling down the toilet? Yep. So, I surmise Obama will be forced (whether or not he wants to) to think of alternatives to Ares simply on cost alone.

Rand Simberg stated, "This is really a dumb argument. Space policy is a bipartisan disaster, and has been forever."

Yes that's something that everybody can agree on. But every now and then something inspiring gets done. I am just hoping that a mission to the moon, mars or a near-earth asteroid gets done during my lifetime.

William Barton convieniently forgot that clinton cancelled the R sponsored Space Station Freedom and made us hostage to the russians. Also JFK would be rolling over in his grave when the bad bama cancels NASA.

My husband works on Orion project as system integration engineer and he is being laid off along with other system engineers. It already has started. We have been told more will come. Our group has been told to take off unpaid time-off or take all our accrued vacations. So Griffin is not making this up.

Rand,
"Nixon's only sin was failing to spend the money it would take to restart it."

I couldn’t disagree more. Nixon is the reason why the shuttle is the way it is and why the Ares will be the way it is. He cut the development cost of the shuttle and the budget for NASA "as much as politically possible" (p22 par 1). In 1971 NASA told the White House it could build a fully reusable two-stage system for $10 billion, and the White House said NASA could have $5 billion. To cut development cost, strap on solid fueled SRBs were selected (p 22 par 7). Yes it cost less to design, but it increased the operation cost by seven times the original prediction ten years latter (p24 par 4).

Nixon did terrible things to NASA that affect it to this day. The point I want to make is that when you don't give them the time there will be design errors. I believe this is what Griffin was trying to say last week when he said he would rather have a timetable slip on the development of Ares because he didn't want a rushed development period. Let the gap happen and give NASA the time to do it right. There will be budget cuts and it will take longer; we just have to live with that.

Source CAIB Report
http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html

SD. Clarke,
What center do you work at and for what subcontractor? What did they give as reason for the layoffs? Was something done lately with a budget cut for Orion? Strange...

I couldn’t disagree more. Nixon is the reason why the shuttle is the way it is and why the Ares will be the way it is.

I meant his only sin with respect to Apollo. I wasn't defending his space policy (or any of his policy) in general.

By the way, I found a fascinating interview with Bob Frosch that indicates the first thing on the Carter administration's NASA agenda was to figure out whether or not to cancel the Shuttle. It was actually quite a close thing.

Jerr,
Correct me if I am wrong...blaming Nixon for Ares shortfalls is a bit over the top. I do believe the man died in April of 1994. Ares was not conceptually conceived until 10 years later. Reminds me of the Bush bashers that are desparate to make a point.

Reply to Steve at January 14, 2009 12:44 PM:
The reason: Funding issues, lack of money.
Center/Subcontractor: Main contractor. That is all I can say.

Rand, wow that was a long interview. Thank you for the link.

ArtL,
I’ll correct you ;-)

The STS has SRBs because the budget was cut by Nixon’s OMB. NASA had to drop the two-stage design and collaborate with the Air Force to continue. The Air Force had several requirements that changed the design of the orbiter and the lift system.

By cutting the design cost and collaborating with the Air Force we eventually got the two SRBs and the tank. This is the foundation for the Ares.

I support the Constellation program by the way, and I totally agree that the shuttle needs to be retired. Read the report and it will break your heart at how wrong it went because the R&D was cut so early.

This seems more like a "parting shot" from you Keith. I've read your site for years now and know that you have a bit of an axe to grind with NASA, but I think you have shown your disdain for Dr. Griffin far too brightly and often for my taste. I just hope you don't post a video of you dancing and doing cartwheels on Dr. Griffin's last day. He is a good man and a good administrator for this organization. He has had more concern for what is best for our country and NASA than I have seen you exhibit lately on your site.

My question for you sir is; Are you a space journalist Keith or someone that just gets his kicks throwing rocks at organizations and people that are actually out in the world doing something productive?

Please start showing some more objective reporting and leave your venom at home or you will lose another long term reader.

Editor's note: I doubt I will ever live up to your standards. By all means find another news website that is more to your liking. Best wishes!

I feel Keith's perceived hatred for Griffin is just that, perceived. Griffin gets negative and positive coverage on NASA Watch depending on Keith's interpretation of whether something is good for NASA or not, in his opinion. After all, it is his website. I'll admit that it's probably mostly negative. In my opinion, that is justified. Griffin has set this Agency back by 4 years with his poor leadership. We'd have been better off with O'Keefe. We would be test flying OSP by now as a replacement for Shuttle with no gap. With Griffin's personal pet rocket, which looks more like a corn dog than a rocket, Constellation will fail. This vehicle doesn't even pass the giggle test.

As for Griffin's layoff scare tactic, I think Keith is correct. This is a never-before-mentioned parting shot by a bitter Administrator who sees his (and Scott Horowitz') pet rocket on the chopping block. This is not the normal "thousands of layoffs in Shuttle workers at the end of the program" that Griffin is talking about. He is saying that if the FY09 budget gets a Continuing Resolution for the remainder of the year, this constitutes a budget cut that will result in Constellation layoffs, not Shuttle layoffs. Remember, we do not have a budget for FY09. The 110th Congress punted the budget for six months by passing a CR before the election, which is only good through March 6. The 111th Congress can either pass a budget for the remainder of the year or pass a CR for the rest of the year like we had in 2007. In the latter case, we would not get the planned budget for Constellation and layoffs would ensue for that program, not Shuttle. Shuttle would, in effect, get a budget increase in a CR because their budget was slated to go down and a year-long CR would fund them at last year's level.

I'm not asking you to live up to my standards Keith, but to live up to the standards of your profession which is journalism. Being flippant with me and your other reader/customers does not help when all they are doing is giving you feedback about your "product".

I've been a faithful reader to your site for years now and have even submitted a story or two. When you learn to live up to the standards of your chosen profession once again, then I will be your reader/customer once again.

Good luck.

Too many people using the "pundits" vocabulary: "hatred"??? How about "anger"? But then again some people seem more interested in the political mumbo-jumbo rather than looking ahead and helping the Space program. Those are dragging us behind and will always live in the past: He did that, no wait "he" did that blahblahblaah Nice way to advance the cause for Exploration, I am sure it will work. Some are even accusing the upcoming Administration of their current problems! And what about the shortcomings of Constellation? How about you asked back then the current Administration to actually do their job? Oh but yes I forgot it's Mike Griffin's fault. I hate that! It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

Its true that system engineers on the Orion project are already starting to be laid off and more layoffs are expected to come in other areas also. Its wise now to start taking the accrued vacations. Griffin already knew this was inevitable that NASA will have to make major cut-backs with the state of the economy heading into a worse recession in 2009. Without stating which area my husband works, his supervisor told his group that there will be major layoffs in Spring of 2009 in several areas. Time to update those Resumes now.