Mike Griffin Wants His Old Job Back

Frankly, I think we need some new blood in the NASA "head shed".

Regardless, it would be nice if the Administration would get off the dime and name somebody! It would also be nice if there was some resolution of what happens after Shuttle is grounded, i.e., do we live with Ares I/Orion/Ares V, or what?

Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

Wow, that rumor seems spectacularly unlikely...

He certainly knows the job and would be pleased to see that so far it seems the administration is going to retire the shuttle as per CAIB's recommendation and also give NASA some more money.

I hope this won't be "Open Season" on Mike Griffins flaws by his critics because that is getting OLD...

More likely is that this rumor is being spread to reinforce the strengths of the most recent potential nominee to make the media rounds -- Steve Isakowitz.

Editor's note: not a "rumor". It is true. Eyewitnesses and all that.

I'm not overly surprised that Mike's trying this -- "past behavior" and all that. Doesn't seem likely to work, but stranger things *have* happened. We shall see ...

now here's a Wild Idea: Let's bring Mike back and make Isakowitz his Deputy and to forge real Accountability let's get them both some real and regular access in the WH and OMB. Now that's a Dream Team - or is it a Pipe Dream?

Our new President is too busy trying to put right old messes to be bothered just now. He talks about job creation here and there for a few hundred, or a few thousand, and then he ignores the space program. Some may want to roast me for this, but this is why I said during the campaign that I was not going to listen to any candidate's space policy until they were elected to office. I like President Obama. I campaigned for him. But the hard truth of the moment is that (as usual) the space program gets caught playing something far lower than second fiddle.
And to keep this on topic, the fiddler-in-cheap's rosin boy for the last few years has been someone almost no one was sorry to see go when they gave him a quiet boot in the backside out the door. He's not getting back a job he did poorly by any standard. Not that there's a whole lot to administer these days anyhow. NASA is still scratching pennies out of the federal pavement. Just what every Superpower needs. A space program on a morphine drip. Does it really matter to those in power who changes the IV once in a while, while no one is looking, and fewer Americans than ever are caring? Ask the White House. Maybe they can ask China to make some snappy new models for us for a few Yuan, and the USA will go space crazy again. It would certainly be cheap, which seems to push everyone's buttons these days. Just a thought.
Roci

I hope Mike Griffin never comes back to NASA.

Darn it, Keith! You were supposed to wait until April 1 to "leak" this!

Bill Cowher will coach the Steelers again before Griffin will "coach" NASA again.

"now here's a Wild Idea: Let's bring Mike back and make Isakowitz his Deputy"

Probably won't happen given prior history. When Griffin became Administrator, he forced Isakowitz out of the ESMD Deputy AA position, and Isakowitz left the agency rather than accept reassignment.

"and to forge real Accountability let's get them both some real and regular access in the WH and OMB."

Not sure what WH and OMB access has to do with accountability, but Isakowitz covered NASA, NSF, and other S&T agencies at OMB for the better part of a decade. As NASA Comptroller, he led NASA negotiations on the VSE with the WH. He arguably has plenty of access.

Somehow I doubt this is true. It's simply too pathetic. Goldin hung on as long as he could, but once out, he never looked back. As much as I think it's good that Griffin left, I can't believe that he's this desperate of individual.

Editor's note: not a rumor. It is true.

As politically tone deaf as ever. It's always interesting when those with lots of learning miss the human element. Spock is done. Find Kirk, better yet Picard.

Assuming Constellation is to be the guiding doctrine for NASA for the next decade+, how much difference would it really make who is Administrator?

I think a clearly stated vision is probably more significant to NASA's accomplishment than to who is at the helm, assuming a qualified individual is chosen (of which there are many).

"It would also be nice if there was some resolution of what happens after Shuttle is grounded, i.e., do we live with Ares I/Orion/Ares V, or what?"

It would be a good time to begin development of a dark-energy Jupiter-2 flying saucer for manned space exploration.

As for Mike Griffin... perhaps the Chinese space program is hiring.

You know, it's a shame that a brilliant man like Mike Griffin couldn't have left his tenure as NASA Administrator with less of a 'bad taste in the mouth' hangover. Too many faux-pas and 'foot-in-mouth' incidents, not to mention the ongoing -- and understandable -- controversies over the choice of Constellation launchers & mission architectures, have soured what could have been an exciting period of growth and forward-thinking for America's space program.

If you read his Bio, either the official NASA one or the Wikipedia version, you can't *help* but be impressed with the man's academic achievements. Speaking personally, as someone who doesn't even HAVE a degree, I'm always in awe of anyone with multiple degrees (7, and going for an eighth!!), let alone two or three.

But it's a shame, and a sad one at that, that Mike Griffin for all his qualifications, couldn't have showed something even more valuable: pragmatism and political "street-smarts" that goes with being a good NASA Administrator. But then again, how MANY of those Administrators has NASA really had since James Webb?

In life, we get few if ANY chances to "do over" a once-in-a-lifetime job like being Chief Administrator of NASA. One can only *hope* that Dr Griffin's successor has paid careful attention to the mistakes of recent years and will move to learn from them. I also hope that the successes of recent years can be really, truly built upon.

Perhaps a letter from his mother to Obama would be more effective. He needs to get his trusted sidekick, Scotty, back into action too.

But seriously, this is getting really embarrassing. Of course if he really wants to come back to NASA, he could always go to work at Stennis. I heard their Deputy Associate Director spot is open.

Considering recent budget developments, it would be a logical move on his part. However, if Dragon / Falcon 9 beat Ares-1 / Orion to the station, it calls into question the strategy of committing major funds to Ares-1 development. At least if I were in Congress, I would want to know why an administrator spent countless millions of dollars on a not-yet-ready government program when private enterprise did better. I mean that kind of Congressional thinking certainly hasn't been limited to oversight of NASA projects.

Matt Black Wrote:
"... not to mention the ongoing -- and understandable -- controversies over the choice of Constellation launchers & mission architectures"

Does anyone REALLY think that any other "architecture" would have been less controversial to the sanctimonius armchair engineers that frequent this and other space blogs? If NASA had chosen Jupiter blah, or EELV forever, or propellant depot+Musk+magic, or Shuttle-C or whatever, there would still have been SAEs railing about the Agency and Administrator's stupidity.

It gives folks a smug sense of superiority to anonymously second guess decisions and on-going development work. The fact that this is based on little or no understanding of binding programmatic constraints and rigorous engineering seems to matter not.

Here is my opinion on what is happening. First, Obama won't bring Mike back, because Mike's idea of NASA's direction with Constellation is not what Obama has in mind. I feel Obama knows exactly who he wants as administrator, but knows he cannot get that person through the approval system right now, so Obama is playing a waiting game. It might be a long wait before someone is installed.

a couple of quotes from crix and Black above: "I also hope that the successes of recent years can be really, truly built upon."
"Assuming Constellation is to be the guiding doctrine for NASA for the next decade+, how much difference would it really make who is Administrator? I think a clearly stated vision is probably more significant to NASA's accomplishment than to who is at the helm, assuming a qualified individual is chosen (of which there are many)."

Frankly folks, it isn't going to matter whether Mike Griffin, James Webb, or someone-currently-being-mentioned is at the Top, if the present budgetary plans (flat-after-inflation-adjustment) are continued, the program is going to be subject to the same do-more-with-less, no-win choices that have dogged us.

Griffin needs to face reality -- he wasn't invited back, and that was for a reason.

He *may* have had a chance, but his treatment of the transition team after the election sealed his fate. He made it clear that he would not be a team player, that his agenda was more important than any that his management (the new administration) might give him and that he was not above campaigning for it in the press.

For this, the Obama administration said thanks but no thanks....but that message seems to have eluded Griffin himself.

Matt Black - "...couldn't have showed something even more valuable: pragmatism and political "street-smarts" that goes with being a good NASA Administrator."

Amen to that! It just doesn't make sense not be partially politically attuned to the mechanics of getting things done in Washington. The US Space program just continues to flounder and I suspect with a down economy it won't be much better anytime soon.

At least we can have fun watching Inida, Japan, China, etc. etc. go to the moon......We've already been there - done that.

Personally, I would take it as an act of desperatism on Obama's part if he nominates ( I assume he would be required to go through confirmation process again since he resigned ) a person to totally decimated the very programs that Obama and Congress wants to do.

Is Griffin having a problem finding a job these days or is his ego more of a factor than salary

Griffin is "brilliant"? He's either brilliant and a liar or he's an idiot and honest. Maybe they should make him pass a statistics course before they let him come back, that way we'd know for sure which it was, liar or idiot. Hmm, well, given the options, maybe they should just hire someone else for the job. Perhaps they could find someone who wasn't already in the pocket of a major contractor who cares about our space program and has the common sense required to make it succeed.

So let's summarize this whole potential NASA administrator nominee speculation:

First we have a retired Marine Corps General & former Astronaut (Bolden) then a former head of the Scribbs Institute of Oceanography (Kennel), a retired AF Major General (Gration), a retired AF General (Lyles), a former NASA Comptroller & Deputy AA of the ESMD (Isakowitz)and now sources are dropping Mike Griffin's name?

Ok, lets assume Dr. Griffin is lobbying to be re-instated, truth is stranger than fiction sometimes and I suppose he would represent the "Status-Quo" which the recent budget news seems to indicate is the administrations direction.

Why would he pursue a comeback?

Probably because he is passionate about the program and dedicated to seeing it through....or maybe he knows something we dont?

Maybe he knows or has deduced that with all the headaches on the President's plate that he needs stability and continuity at NASA with someone who has no tax problems (Geitner, Daschle etc...) and is a 110% Shot at being confirmed. The media has called him "No-drama Obama"...

Of course from what I can see Steve Isakowitz would pretty much fit the bill also as he was last confirmed with no votes against him.

Then again if you were Steve Isakowitz would you want to leave DOE for NASA? Although many people seem to think he would be a solid choice --- Maybe he has already said NO......

So if all the above candidates either are unlikely, unacceptable or just done want the job and Mike Griffin is unpalatable to "those who could have kept him on the job"... then that leaves who?

Of course I have an idea :-)

I have no idea if Dr. Alan Stern would want the NASA Administrator job although imho, I think he would be very inspiring and good for agency morale (which is an aspect we never talk about)....

I hope Lori Garver & John Podesta at least recommend him to be on the new National Space Council

He is the best man to finish the job of going to the moon. The fact that he didn't listen to all the naysayers/alternate rocket guys and kept the program ou course is a tribute to his determination to keep the moon objective on target.

The more I read these NASA blogs / website, the more conviced I am that their is a space industrial complex. Griffin was likely a victim of the infighting in the space industry. Every company that was not chosen by NASA to build a rocket somehow has strong issues with the Ares I rocket. They usually have better plans that involve their own idea being built by the company that they work for.

The Shuttle people want to hold on to their job as long as possible, so they obviously favour shuttle extension and a rocket that ressembles the shuttle. The fact of the matter is that a large part of the funding for Ares I will come once that the shuttle is terminated.

Griffin has a lot of ennemies, mostly from people that are refusing the changes involved in a transition from the shuttle to a rocket that will eventually get us to the moon. Whether Griffin comes back or not makes little difference, the new adminsitrator and president will have the same difficult decision to make that Bush and Griffin did. It's impossible to please everyone. A choice had to be made in 2005. The choice was made in 2005 and it's time to live with it.

Obama seems to be sticking with the Griffin/Bush plan and he deserves credit in realizing that changing course mid-way is expensive and destroys the credibility of NASA over the long term. This doesn't mean that Ares I and Ares V can't be improved but the plan of going to the moon by 2020 is sound.

Maybe Roci, you can explain to your president he had better start paying attention to NASA. A nasty rock just passed inside the moon over the Pacific and we are just now are finding out about it. It makes all the problems the money managers steal from the hopper pale in comparison.
The show stopper rock is somewhere out there and we still spend more on potato chips in this country than he spends on NASA's budget. We can't expect the DOD to shoot it down because that budget is being slashed.

In response to Dr. Prunesquallor's comments:

Under Mike's tensure:

1. Agency has the most expensive sub-orbital rocket (Ares 1)...it requires CEV to inject into orbit!

2. Agency got an open check for Exploration upgrades--and the Agency did and continues to do so.

3. The CEV is such a mess, even project staff can't decide on the requirements.

4. Constellation spent billions (go read the budget submits) and has really cool power-point charts to show for it.

Mike stood was determined and stood his ground (kind-a-like Bush on Iraq, analogy made on purpose).

I hope Mike Griffin does come back. NASA needs his solid credentials. Far too much attention is given to bloggers with personal agendas on this site.

I hope Mike Griffin does come back. NASA needs his solid credentials. Far too much attention is given to bloggers with personal agendas on this site.

Amen, Dr. Prunesquallor, Amen!

I have no idea if Dr. Alan Stern would want the NASA Administrator job although imho, I think he would be very inspiring and good for agency morale (which is an aspect we never talk about)....

Wherever do you get that? My sources at NASA tell me exactly the opposite. Alan is a great guy, and an inspired leader, but he really burned some bridges at the agency.

BTW, your cheerleading for him is getting tiresome. You haven't said anything new about him in months.

Stern couldn't be on the Space counsel unless he is the NASA Administrator:

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Space_Council

Keith:

I know you won't post this, and I would in some measure support not doing so, but we have a description of this situation that I unfortunately find appropos, back home:

'This guy is like a booger you can't get off the end of your finger.'

Merci.

@yg1968:

It's not so much that Shuttle workforce folks want to keep Shuttle jobs going per se, everybody was initially enthused about the return to moon concept.

But they've seen 1st hand how screwed up CxP is, people, process, and technical from the top down, and CxP just seems like a an excrutiatingly miserable & unsuccessful way to spend your days at work.

After working on a successful program for years and years with folks that do know what they're doing, albeit with 2 senior mgmt failures, CxP work is perceived as the lowest of the low - at the bottom of the pits.

Hey Keith,
Where do so many space "experts" commenting on this, and your other postings, come from? Seriously, how many have actually ever WORKED or currently work in the space business on a legitimate contract? (no, reading internet postings and watching sci-fi movies doesn't count) If it was easy, everybody would be doing it.

"1. Agency has the most expensive sub-orbital rocket (Ares 1)...it requires CEV to inject into orbit!"

In fact, with the current performance margins, Ares I probably could put Orion all the way into a stable orbit. (I say "probably" because I haven't seen it explicitly evaluated.) We don't want the upper stage to remain in orbit as orbital debris. We want it to come down in the ocean without completing a single orbit so it's disposed of safely.

"2. Agency got an open check for Exploration upgrades--and the Agency did and continues to do so."

Oh my. That is so wrong, I'm speechless. NASA hasn't received anything close to a blank check since the 60's."

"3. The CEV is such a mess, even project staff can't decide on the requirements."

At this stage of development - middle of the PDR design cycle - every project I've ever seen still has requirements changes. If Orion can get through PDR this year, and they probaly will, they should be in good shape.

"4. Constellation spent billions (go read the budget submits) and has really cool power-point charts to show for it."

Well, I especially like the charts with all the hardware pictures on them: Pad Abort-1 test flight hardware, Ares -IX hardware, segments for the first 5-segment booster ground test firing (called DM-1) all loaded with propellant and soon to be ready to go to the test stand for assembly. Also, long-lead parts for the first J2X engines, as well as manufacturing facilities at KSC and Michoud now being prepared to begin Orion production, and lightning towers at KSC, a new test stand at Stennis, VAB mods, MSFC dynamic test stand mods. I could go on....

First of all, I doubt he seriously wants his job back. I think he is probably too proud. He should not have resigned in the first place, in my opinion.

Secondly, the guy lacks diplomacy (in all situations), even with all of his book smarts. Book smarts can take you a long way though.

Hopefully President Obama will not essentially sideline NASA for his other beliefs. NASA is one of the top contributors to the success of The United States of America.

Lets help Obama get the next NASA administration rolling.

Even though I would like to see Mr. Griffin return to NASA, it just isn't going to happen. A famous diarist on people in general, and politicians in specific, once commented that, "in politics it doesn't matter if your right, just that your not wrong." These people are physiologically incapable of admitting to an error in judgment. The last president that could do that was Lincoln or perhaps T.R.

It's a shame, because I think he had the skill set and tenacity to keep the project on track and get it done.

to TinyCog:

I've been at NASA 25 years, all in human space flight. Been a technical expert, a project manager, program manager, etc. I know CxP very well from inside out. So, my comments are not arm waving. Please recognize that my comments reflect management of the program; not the technical staff.

"1. Agency has the most expensive sub-orbital rocket (Ares 1)...it requires CEV to inject into orbit!" "In fact, with the current performance margins..."

After nearly 4-years of design, CxP says the rocket can "probably" reach LEO. And, this is the rocket that is being designed on proven hardware. To put it bluntly, this is sheer incompetence and ignorance.

"2. Agency got an open check for Exploration upgrades--and the Agency did and continues to do so." Oh my. That is so wrong, I'm speechless. NASA hasn't received anything close to a blank check since the 60's."

As I re-read my earlier comment, I realized it could be misinterpreted. By saying that under Mike's tenure Agency got a blank check, I meant that Mike gave Agency a blank check to do whatever within Exploration Agenda. He took the money from everywhere and put it in CxP blindly. All CxP had to say was that it was needed for safety and poof--money would show up at the expense of other projects.

"3. The CEV is such a mess, even project staff can't decide on the requirements." At this stage of development -...

After 4 years and a 2+ billion dollars later, CEV is still at "this stage of development"!! C'mon, don't you see the irony here. CEV is a mess because project staff can't figure out the requirements while the prime contractor keeps charging, while CEV folks at JSC keep reinventing the wheel.

"4. Constellation spent billions (go read the budget submits) and has really cool power-point charts to show for it." Well, I especially like the charts with all the hardware pictures on them...

All good examples. And they reflect the hard work of technical staff. My hat off to them. As for the program level, what has been accomplished so far is largely kiddy stuff.

Mike Griffin is the best America has.


Reappoint Mike Griffin!

to scotty re: ""1. Agency has the most expensive sub-orbital rocket (Ares 1)...it requires CEV to inject into orbit!""

to follow up on Tiny Cog's effective rebuttal to this statement - by noting that it is a design feature that Ares I does NOT reach orbit on 2nd stage engines in order to dump the second stage in the drink safely: is not it also true that Shuttle has the SAME design feature - since the shuttle system design insures that the tank does NOT reach orbit, the Shuttle itself does NOT reach orbit on its main engines either. So, scotty, I am somewhat puzzled that you are not complaining about shuttle, which for your consideration, actually would be the most expensive sub-orbital rocket around...

Moonlady wrote:
"After working on a successful program for years and years with folks that do know what they're doing, albeit with 2 senior mgmt failures, CxP work is perceived as the lowest of the low - at the bottom of the pits".

If by "successful program" you mean Shuttle, I am dumbfounded:

1) Rocket engines BLEW UP in the test stand during development
2) Specified performance levels were NEVER achieved.
3) Fourteen crewmembers and two shuttles were lost. Challenger and Columbia rank in the top twenty most expensive engineering disasters of all time.
4) Commercial satellite delivery by the Shuttle was cancelled due to the perceived danger and unreliability of the vehicle.
5) DoD satellite delivery was cancelled and a second launch site was mothballed due to the perceived danger and unreliability of the vehicle
6) The Shuttle has a less than 50% on-time launch record.
7) Due to the preceived danger of the vehicle we are now in a situation where we are afraid to launch to LEO without a backup way to get people BACK from LEO!!!
8) Pound for pound, the Shuttle is currently the most expensive delivery system to orbit.

I would submit that your years of work have NOT resulted in a very successful program. I would also submit that your and others' perception of Constellation are due to the fact that your "successful program" is going away.

Puzzled is technically correct that STS uses 2 OMS to do final insert and circ burns. The OMS engines are about 6klbf engines (I forget exact number). But, using about 12klbf to maneuver a heavy bird like STS does not equate to orbit raising of much lighter vehicle like CM.

just for the record folks...sorry if I sounded like I am complaining. I was stating facts to show how poorly managed the exploration agenda is and how Mike (as technically competent as he is) failed to rein in the costs, the unwarranted technical complexity and the in-fighting.

Scotty wrote:
"So, my comments are not arm waving".

Well, yes they really are.

"After nearly 4-years of design, CxP says the rocket can "probably" reach LEO".

You once again have missed the whole point of this and have misinterpreted TinyCog's comment. Ares 1 is NOT DESIGNED to inject Orion into orbit without an Orion service module burn. This was done for the reasons TinyCog stated. What he then said was with the current performance margins, Ares 1 COULD do this - even though it was not designed to nor would we do it operationally. Get it now? Ares 1 has plenty of performance for the mission it is designed to do.

"All CxP had to say was that it was needed for safety and poof--money would show up at the expense of other projects".

OK, state specific examples please and document it showing that money was redirected to Constellation from other programs. Armwaving.

"After 4 years and a 2+ billion dollars later, CEV is still at "this stage of development"!! C'mon"

Please review where the Shuttle was four years into development (1976). Engines were blowing up in test stands.
Armwaving.

You also seem to draw a hard distinction program and "technical staff" whatever that means. The technical staff works at the direction of the program. All the "good examples" you site were the program/project decisions on how to procede with the development programs.

OK, state specific examples please and document it showing that money was redirected to Constellation from other programs. Armwaving.

H&RT went poof. That was a quarter billion dollars right there.

Please review where the Shuttle was four years into development (1976). Engines were blowing up in test stands.

The Shuttle had engines on the test stands, where are the J2X's? Also in 1976 the Enterprise first flew in drop tests, which means that the manufacturing of the first Orbiter had already happened (along with computers, software, APU's and everything else that goes into building an orbiter) with a production apparatus in place for the other three orbiters. Flight hardware.

Where is the Orion today? Are we even to PDR successfully yet?

You also seem to draw a hard distinction program and "technical staff" whatever that means. The technical staff works at the direction of the program. All the "good examples" you site were the program/project decisions on how to procede with the development programs.

We do. It is like a football team with a lot of talented players but with the worst coaches in the league. No matter how good the players are, without good coaching, the team sucks. That is where we are at today and there is no bench out there to bring other coaches in, unless you change the underlying premise of what the team should be doing.

Your response is symptomatic of the problem with the leadership of CxP today.

@ Dr. Prunesquallor

Seems like to the day-to-day working folks, shuttle "success" means launching astronauts & returning them to earth safely.

Astronaut lives are the top priority & as complex as launching people is, the workforce feels personal responsibility in their work to prevent bad things from happening.

Sr. mgmt failure 2x was extremely traumatic to all. Mgmt culture was supposed to have been fixed after Challenger. And now mgmt is fixing it again after Columbia.

CxP mgmt culture seems to be much worse than both of those accidents & they haven't even completed design yet.

@Cog:
"Well, I especially like the charts with all the hardware pictures on them: Pad Abort-1 test flight hardware, Ares 1-X hardware, segments for the first 5-segment booster ground test firing (called DM-1) all loaded with propellant and soon to be ready to go to the test stand for assembly. Also, long-lead parts for the first J2X engines, as well as manufacturing facilities at KSC and Michoud now being prepared to begin Orion production, and lightning towers at KSC, a new test stand at Stennis, VAB mods, MSFC dynamic test stand mods"

Wow, all those nifty hardware pictures are all developed hardware & built hunky dory? They've been designed and thoroughly looked at under the hood, properly reviewed, checked, inspected, tested, & certified for production/launch use? Well that's just great.

"Commercial satellite delivery by the Shuttle was cancelled due to the perceived danger and unreliability of the vehicle.
5) DoD satellite delivery was cancelled and a second launch site was mothballed due to the perceived danger and unreliability of the vehicle'

Both are incorrect. Commercial satellite delivery was not canceled for those reasons neither was SLC-6

@concerned citizen - you say: "... Also in 1976 the Enterprise first flew in drop tests, which means that the manufacturing of the first Orbiter had already happened (along with computers, software, APU's and everything else that goes into building an orbiter) with a production apparatus in place for the other three orbiters. Flight hardware."

Sir or madam, Enterprise was not a flyable shuttle at that time; it was used only for those drop tests. It was NOT flght hardware at that point - I seem to recall that it could have been turned into flight hardware at extreme cost, but I'll leave discussion of that to others...

Let's face it, in terms of real work output, Constellation is moving at a snail's pace. They have yet to clear a fully successful PDR of the Ares I system. Delta PDRs and the like, stretched out over a year's timespan, is not something many would associate with progress.

I have to agree with "Doug"- armchair quarterbacking of the U.S. (or any nation's) space involvements with no experience or worse yet- vicarious experience based on or through fictitious or 3rd person situations doesn't cut it.
Griffin ruffled feathers, yet here was a space engineering type that knew from where he spoke. Unlike Goldin, he was actually wanting to return this nation's space endeavours and the agency to a stance reflective of it's 1st golden age. And Constellation, the hopeful follow phase of getting to the Red Planet, has been an attempt to regroup and get the hell going forward again. Griffin championed this. In this day and age of instant gratification the outsiders, though they may be spaceflight fans and supporters, simply either don't remember or haven't done their homework on the trials involved with launch vehicle and spacecraft development. My personal thoughts on Ares I is to do what our new Chief Executive's administration has recommended: go to one of the EELV vehicles (I'm biased toward Delta IV as it is essentially man-rated, but Atlas V inserts a tad more safety factor for pad ops, being a hydrocarbon based 1st stage [we do have LH2 pad ops down though, thanks to STS]. EELV use allows us to go with now proven yet essentially current technologically machines, allows use of newer pad infrastructure and will give business to a group of talent that the country needs and could use the work: ULA. Spaceflight requires dedication- on a scale of career lifetimes, and fortuantely- at least at the major NASA centers including launch heads, the Government contractor teams are generally "lifers". It's intense work, and rewarding on so many levels- it's a joy to work with people aligned in their desires for success, and the joy- I don't care how many times you witness it, of seeing your launch vehicle go uphill is indescribible. But it's full of details never brought out in movies or even the avergae news reports, and those detials have to be worked by specialists- expert specialists. Many years ago the STS system was pushed as capable of "airline turnaround" operations. That idea now is as it was then- something from a movie. Spacecraft are not airliners- never will be. For any of you that want to find out what the space experience is like- get aboard. Accept the challenge and go contribute. It's almost certain you'll change your minds about some opinions, and quite possibly get the bug. Ultimately it's the spaceflight community moving humanity into the cosmos. If it were easy, we'd have been there long ago. But- we are going, flight by flight.

Sir or madam, Enterprise was not a flyable shuttle at that time; it was used only for those drop tests. It was NOT flght hardware at that point - I seem to recall that it could have been turned into flight hardware at extreme cost, but I'll leave discussion of that to others...

Do you seriously want to debate the relative status of the hardware for STS vs CxP at the same time in the process? Do you not understand that to get to the drop tests that the bird had to be completely functional for atmospheric flight and not just pretty viewgraphs and a few boilerplate models?

I hope and pray that you are not on the CxP team.

@ Clint

"He should not have resigned in the first place, in my opinion."

He was required to submit his resignation. It wasn't his choice. This is per the to-the-victor-go-the-spoils policy the executive branch operates under when a new President is elected. All political appointees submit their resignation letters and wait. That's just the way it works. Built-in inefficiency of our democratic government.

In the meantime, the dedicated career civil servants across this nation do their best to keep the trains running on time. And those who are now better politically positioned than before attempt to get another chance to make their case and muscle up to the trough. I fear we are increasingly incapable of any long-term strategic thrusts owing to this whipsaw effect and so, patient and determined nations like China and India surely and steadily progress toward increasingly ambitious goals while we infight and second guess ourselves. Once steady and sure in our resolve, we have somehow regressed to selfish and insecure teenage-esque behaviors.

Spaceflightengineer says:
"I have to agree with "Doug"- armchair quarterbacking of the U.S. (or any nation's) space involvements with no experience or worse yet- vicarious experience based on or through fictitious or 3rd person situations doesn't cut it."

I disagree with your statement. You have to remember that the government is working for the prople, so arm waving is welcomed and even desirable. I prefer arm waving from space enthusiasts that wining and dining by space industry lobbyist.

There is a reason that the NASA Administator is a political appointee. Because he has to obey the will of the people. You may have the best rocket in the world but if you are not able to convince Congress and the President to support and fund it, you are out of luck.

Furthermore, you could argue that anybody that is arguing for or against a specific rocket is kind of arm waiving a political appointee, the NASA Administrator. The only people that are nor arm waiving are the elected official and their political appointees as they have the authority that comes from being elected. If you diagree with elected and appointed officials, you can either get elected or do some arm waiving on a NASA blog...

Is there anyone reading this blog that doesn't have as much experience designing a rocket as Griffin? I mean, since he has designed exactly NONE, how big a challenge is it to equal or exceed his qualifications? Would you pick a dentist that had filled as many teeth as Griffin has designed rockets? This guy is a joke. He always was a joke. He always will be a joke. 300 million people in this country and they can't do better than him? We are in trouble.

concerned citizen: it would seem that all YOU were being asked was to be factual...
how can you possibly suggest that we are at the "same time in the process" by comparing the epoch of drop tests for shuttle Enterprise with the current state for Constellation? Are you implying that clock-time since start of program is what defines "same time in the process?"

First, let's be factual: Enterprise drop tests did NOT occur at ANY time in 1976. The big dedication ceremony with Roddenberry, et al did, but there were no flights until late winter/spring 1977 (first were attached to the carrier) AND no drop tests until well into summer 1977. Not knowing what you mean by "same time in the process, it's hard to seriously address your questions.
Nonetheless, if you want to consider the 1976 time-frame in shuttle development as equivalent to now in the Constellation schedule, then maybe we should look at the overall planned program development time: one might point out that the first shuttle launch and flight, STS-1, did not occur until April 1981 or about five years after your 1976 date. If one were to be a wag, one might add 5 years to today's date and get, oh my, 2014. Isn't that around when the first Ares I / Orion flight is planned?

Of course, the salient point is that the development profiles (in time and in fraction of planned budget spent) for the two programs are not comparable at all. Due to the long-term funding aspects dictated by the "sand" diagram for the whole program (and large monies still being spent on STS and ISS, a substantially smaller portion of total development activity has been conducted for CxP than for shuttle at a point roughly four years in.

Lastly, as pointed out elsewhere, Enterprise was hardly a flight-capable vehicle at that time; in fact it NEVER was, although it served many useful purposes in the testing program. Sure it could glide like the real thing, but it had no heat shield, no engines, in fact you could not even mount shuttle engines on it the way it was built - to be fair, it could have been modified to be flyable - indeed that was considered at least twice in the life of the program, but it never was.

It's perfectly reasonable to discuss quantitative comparisons between the programs or to consider perceived inadequacies in the current design state, but to have a meaningful discussion we all need to bring accurate input to the comment block.

to scotty:

"I've been at NASA 25 years, all in human space flight. Been a technical expert, a project manager, program manager, etc."

My own description is similar. >25 years at NASA, engineer, supervisor, project manager, etc.

"He took the money from everywhere and put it in CxP blindly."

Well, your explanation does put your comment in a different light. I will concede, microgravity is no more, the science budget hasn't gone up as much as was once planned, and aeronautics just isn't what it used to be. However, you can't say that CxP has received all the money it wanted. Lack of funding has been an issue. Maybe the $400M stimulus funding and the money from the omnibus budget bill will improve the situation. We'll see...

"After 4 years and a 2+ billion dollars later, CEV is still at "this stage of development"!!"

I'm really not going to defend Orion. They should be farther along. However, I would like to offer a couple of points that may serve to put Orion in a softer light:

First, I've heard the contracts people tell me more than once that it was much easier and quicker to get a contractor selected and on contract in the 60's and 70's than it is now. Procurement laws and regulations passed in the 80's and 90's have made this much harder. Just getting all the contractors under contract has been a major accomplishment. If you've been a project manager before, you should understand this.

Secondly, if you've read any history of the Apollo Program, then you know the Apollo 1 spacecraft was a terrible mess in the months before the fire and should never have been stacked on a rocket. It took the fire and the deaths of 3 astronauts for the Apollo Program to wake up and get it's act together. Maybe, just maybe, we are getting our turmoil over with in the design phase and will produce good spacecraft from the beginning. Time will tell...

For those who talked about how quickly the Shuttle Program built Enterprise, I think it is more telling how quickly, or slowly, the Program launched Columbia the first time. Remember the news video of the 747 taking off with Columbia on its back and tiles were falling off? Wasn't that one of our shining moments!

Tiny Cog:

Thank you for your comments. Here is a big problem with CEV when discussing contracts. LM has been on contract for what 2 years now (20 months?). Before that, it was all FTE's doing the planning, tech development, etc. This contract was let without clear cut requirements and they were changed soon after the contract was let. In addition, there are a lot of FTE's on CEV--what exactly have CEV FTE's been doing before the contract and post contract? Yes, good engineering, long hours. To rephrase football analogy from earlier post--good teams with bad coaches do not reach superbowl. And, that is what we have across CxP at the program level and at the project level (Ares 1 is a little better than other projects).

Griffin was right in trying to reduce CxP head count--but, he did not succeed as Administrator (that is viewed as one of his management failures). When he was lied to (I will not provide more details), he did not fire CxP team; another management failure. He imposed his technical know-how into the projects--he should have been the lead systems engineer and not Administrator; another failure. When costs grew uncontrolled, he did not succeed in cost-control (but robbed other projects).

You say that CxP does not have enough money. That is correct; it does not given the current approach. So, lets change the approach because there isn't any more money coming. Why not use technology from other centers instead of building in-house, why not change the paradigm to see what can be accomplished within budget--it can be done, but not with the current coaches.

Mike Griffin is the best America has.

Bush administration supporters and apologists are the worst Americans that America has.

I hope and pray that you are not on the CxP team.

Hope and prayer is what makes cultures, nations and technology fail.

Tiny Cog's comments about the AS-204 being a mess before the fire are absolutely true. There were a great many people, astronauts included, who felt that CSM-012 was fatally flawed and should have been either shipped back for re-engineering or dropped into the ocean not to be seen again. In fact, the famous comment by Grissom of hanging a lemon inside CM-012 encapsulate feelings quite well.

Keep in mind that the mission was late, that NASA had Go Fever and that they were worried about the competition beating them to their goal. Fortunately, the CEV has only one of those pressures -- the fact that it is late.

Better late than never, though. A fire inside a CEV in a launch sim that claimed astronauts would probably kill the program in these times of hyper-media.

Um--American Dissenter, Griffin was the only good guy who came out of the Bush admin because he was an actual engineer.

You see, Bush politicized everything else--but really didn't care about space. So when folks got a belly full of Goldin and O'Grief, the Bush admin decided to put a man in charge of NASA who actually wrote a textbook on spacecraft design. They did the right thing--even if it was the wrong reason. They had no care for NASA one way or the other.

Now--Griffin wanted gov't to have an independant LV fleet, and wanted NASA to have in house capability rather than have the ULA types force feed LVs that were never designed to fly depressed trajectory.

The EELVs are worse for manned spaceflight due to black zones, disposal issues, etc. And no--these issues aren't something ATK invented--they are real!

The USAF has had to carry the weight of EELVs that aren't quite as promised, and with pro-ULA men like Lyles--who I understand worked with Druyen--I see more evidence of NASA being sub-serviant to AF/DoD under Obama than I ever saw with Mike Griffin--who stood up to the blue-suiters and wanted an INDEPENDANT NASA with in-house expertise, rather than relying of salemen who want to fit a mission to a product, rather than fitting a product to a mission as Griffin has done.

If you are a real dissenter who is suspicious of businessmen trying to pull a fast one--then you should support Mike Griffins return.

Ares V is a blue state rocket, and I don't think Shuttle-C is legit as I explain here:
http://www.bautforum.com/space-exploration/85154-shuttle-c-another-bait-switch.html

EELVs are RED State rockets. So if you want one state to provide all large LVs to NASA, thus having Alabama do to rocketry what they almost did with the tanker contract--you go on Griffin bashing.

Not only should Mike Griffin return--he should be NASA chief for Life.

The problem with Presidents having new faces every 4-8 years is that--right in the middle of a porject--hardware gets mothballed and a new direction started--which another administration nixes--and so on. Then the alt.spacer frauds spew their nonsense, which I debunk here:
http://www.bautforum.com/space-exploration/69370-ares-i-design-faces-serious-technical-difficulties-6.html

http://www.bautforum.com/space-exploration/85298-arguments-manned-missions.html#post1444903

I see Mr. Wright has brought his anti-Lyles smear campaign to this thread...

Almost everyone working a major program in the Air Force "worked with Druyen [sic]." She was, after all, in charge of Air Force acquisition.

Mr. Wright's gratuitous and uneducated slanders do little to enhance his overall credibility.

Of course, some of his other ridiculous assertions, standing alone, would be enough to compromise his credibility--even without the Lyles slander.

Looks like a whole lotta politicking going on.

Besides Griffin being a poster-boy for NASA's infamous management culture.......

A naive academic type is lunch meat for politicians & lobbyists & contractors & program/project internals who all have their own agendas - as all of those folks can be slick & slide under the radar with setting the stages to fit their own particular agenda.

Senate & House politicos are politicking the admin pick to favor their own situations for the 2010 elections, hmmmmm just when Shuttle's supposed to be mothballed.

Retired mil for admin is not particularly objectionable, as long as most work doesn't turn into classified work & all the hassles that go with that, and the military is a paying & contributing customer rather than a classified controlling overlord.

Does seem to be a consensus that Goldin or O'Keefe associated retreads are not wanted by the workforce. Even the dems felt overworked & overtired due to overzealousness in the faster, better, cheaper plan. Recycling the worst of the worst = not a good plan for either Reps or Dems.

Nelson initially supported Griffin apparently because he thought he had him on board with steering Shuttle replacement jobs to KSC. Nelson might consider getting some new advisors.

Like I've said before:

If we must have a Griffin at NASA I'd prefer Peter Griffin!