Mike Griffin Update

Mike you on Steriods?

I think the Dr. Griffin is (perhaps deliberately) missing the point. Under the 'commercial' paradigm NASA will not be out of the business of conducting HSF. NASA will still run its own missions.

However, the amount of hardware that it designs for itself will be reduced, having to put its equipment onto commercially-designed and -supplied spacecraft. Commerce has no real interest in deep space exploration at this time. Any BEO designs they produce will be to meet NASA mission requirements.

It is interesting that Dr. Griffin only wants to talk about the "larger issues" now. When he was in charge he deferred such talk by saying that it was his job to "build the rocket".

Mike Griffin has probably succeed in building two rockets. It is just that the Falcon 9 and Taurus II are smaller than the ones he had in mind. ;)

Tuscaloosa, Hardaway Hall

Sometimes I wonder about the crowd posting here.
As usual Mike is spot on.

Hi Aerin

Being I actually work for ESMD. Humm
You may find this interesting
Marshall (George C.) Institute
Dr. Laurie Leshin, NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration, gave the keynote address at a discussion on commercial human spaceflight. She laid out the agency's plans for commercial spaceflight. Following her remarks, panelists talked about the plan's implementation, and strengths and weaknesses

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/292791-1

Mike is a spot on the carpet that we need to remove!

Hey Dr.Griffin !

Remember when Lori Garver was looking under the hood ? Well, guess what she found... "an agency that often has done missions somewhat in isolation of what is going on in the Nation".
Maybe NASA did Phoenix or HSM-4 in isolation behind your back, Mike.
Oh, and... Mike ? Forget your focus on the larger issues.
Here's the NASA focus now: poverty, hunger, jobs, world peace, societal advancement and the future of planet and humanity (hint: "planet and humanity" does not equal a Moon base; nor has anything to do with planet Mars).
P.S. Mike thanks for that NASA NESC and the people from CxP that are now working to solve the Toyota avionics malfunction.

Finally, some straight talk out of Mike Griffin. Its not about the architecture, its about the goal. Abandoning the Moon will have huge long term negative economic consequences for the US.

Marcel F. Williams

Even if we assume the Administration gets reelected in Nov 2012, that only leaves until Nov. 2016 for 'Human Commercial Space' to prove it can live up to its claims. Beyond that it's doubtful there will be interest to continue funding Soyuz flights to ISS or sustain its operations beyond 2020 (which will require building and launching additional space station hardware costing many tens of billions).

That's not a lot of time for you guys to show you can deliver.

Hi not confused

At the same Marshall Institute event, Dr.Andrew J. Aldrin (United Launch Alliance) in his "What is Commercial Crew?" presentation defined a balanced government/commercial program like this:
+
Ownership = Contractor ownership, Government indemnification [bless you]
+
Investment risk = Government pays non-recurring [!]
+
Performance risk = Development: modified CPAF [of course], Operations: FFP
+
Market risk = Non gov services sold at marginal price [you betcha !]
===========
Now, given "The President’s budget, should it be approved by Congress, will enable NASA to align with the priorities of the Nation" [Garver] must we expect not only "commercial crew" but many other interests [carpet cleaning ? off-shore drilling ? health services ?] to seek the sweet balanced NASA/commercial programs ?

Dr. Griffin would do well to emulate the example of his Deputy Administrator Shana Dale, and his predecessor Sean O'Keefe and SHUT UP.

"Despite the concerns of those – emphatically including myself – who worry about the gap in human spaceflight between the retirement of the Space Shuttle and the availability of the new Constellation systems, Orion and Ares, we must stay on our present course and retire the Shuttle in 2010, if there is to be a future for human spaceflight." [Mike G.]
http://aviationweek.typepad.com/space/2007/03/human_space_exp.html

I would also query his assertion
"because commercial airplanes exist does not mean the government does not have its own airplanes, because commercial shipping exists does not mean the government doesn't have its own ships."
Yes but does the government build them or do they get COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES to build them for the government? The only conclusion I can draw is that the ULA USA and other contractors are actually state run enterprises. Rather like the Apollo not on Steroids program.

Revisionist!
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=revisionist

Frank, you're kidding right? Last time I checked we haven't amended the Constitution to repeal the First Amendment.

I believe that the agency has been in trouble for decades. It needs an ENEMA. I would like the President to give responsibility of the agency to the USAF or USN, and maybe later turn it over again to civilians. There are major security problems when over 30% of the NASA population are foreigners and many from the Middle East. They are not required to have background investigations or clearances. The science data may not sensitive, but the U. S. Techonology, that gather it, is classified.

At the same Marshall Institute event, Dr.Andrew J. Aldrin (United Launch Alliance) in his "What is Commercial Crew?" presentation defined a balanced government/commercial

how interesting, NASA actually might listen to ULA, Dr Leshin had to depart for other meetings.

I do not work for ULA, however it appears they did have some amount of reasonable input.
I'm happy you found it of interest!

I found the CxP study group to be the least interesting! in the discussion from Dr Leshin.

That's not a lot of time for you guys to show you can deliver.
so tell me something new!
Mike stated initial capability in 2010 to boot strap CxP

we shall see what happens!

I gotta give you props.

I LOVE reading your posts...you have the art of sarcasm down to a fine art/science!

Cheers!

No Mike I'm not kidding. There is an unwritten rule of protocol that senior appointed public officials follow, almost to the letter and that is: it is considered bad form to constantly sit in judgment of your successors, breathing down their necks and rating everything they do. Notice most former Presidents avoid commenting on their successors' policies. You don't see former Cabinet members on the tube with barbs or blesses for those now in office. It just isn't done. of course, neither is having your wife campaign to save your job even when you have been critical of the new President whose appointment you'd grudgingly accept. If Griffin really disagrees with Obama space policy and can't keep still about it, write a book. Otherwise get off the stage or run for elected office to change things.

"Under the 'commercial' paradigm NASA will not be out of the business of conducting HSF. NASA will still run its own missions."
Unless it is your expectation that NASA MOD is going to operate commercial crew vehicle's (which I haven't heard proposed anywhere) then your statement is incorrect. NASA will only operate ISS (and for how long before that gets handed off to commercial as well who knows)and by the time you get to actually doing a BEO mission NASA will no longer posess the operational knowledge to do HSF, especially ascent and re-entry.

Putting a science experiment on a commercial spacecraft is not conducting HSF.

I think he is just as considerate as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were during the Bush Administration.

For all the years my now 8yr old boy has been on this earth I have been tried to aspire him to be an astronaut, myself having been awed since Apollo 8 or so as a boy. That's out the window now, so the wife wants him to be a doctor....oh, wait, that's out the window now too.

Frank, I'm no fan of Mike Griffin but perhaps this why we keep getting substandard space policies: some 'unwritten rule of protocol' where bad leaders and their bad decisions are not publicly criticized.

Griffin may very well be setting himself up never to work in the public sector again...his choice, by the way...but if Obama or his croanies can't stand the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. If he's willing to make such a drastic, unpopular and stupid space policy, he should be ready to take the criticism for it.

I think that NASA should control the missions. I don't care who owns the rockets. They have NASA TV. They have news conferences where at least some of my questions are answered. Nothing from SpaceX. The only live coverage we have gotten on Dragon is by Spaceflight Now with a spy camera shaking in the wind. SpaceX shows video and stills later. The only coverage of the first F9-Dragon launch will probably be on the Internet, not 30 different super camera views from NASA. What if staging fails? We know that Ares had a 90 excursion and can figure out a fix. SpaceX has a camera on board but last time staging failed the picture just went black. From that will NASA know what to fix for their launch in July? I would like to have seen the Astronauts practicing unloading Dragon. NASA TV did not show the work done on ISS to set up Dragon communications and the tests they did with SpaceX. Did you know that Dragon mission control is in Hawthorne? ULA and Orbital are not bad on launches. Will NASA TV be shut down? I like the tech stuff.
I do not like the secrecy. Government in the sunshine. SpaceX announces on the day they launch,the day they will launch. If you don't check your E-mail everyday? We will know more when they launch to ISS and the range dates, unless they have the ability to launch any time they want.

Well you can take the man out of NASA, but you can't take NASA out of the man. Second guessing back-stabber.

Its probably poor manners as well as bad form to tell anyone to shut up in a public forum. I see nothing wrong at all for anyone to express opinions, especially for something as important as this. I believe that there have been members of the previous admin who have commented on many current events.

Folks:

It confounds me.

I had high hopes for Mike Griffin when he became NASA administrator. I thought "Wow! A real rocket scientist!". Now NASA would be lead by someone who really knew the hardware, could guide us through the next step to colonizing the solar system. Then I start get hints of the "new" hardware (Ares I & V) and I'm like "Hey, you don't need this kind of hardware. It's too big, too expensive, too inflexible and too dangerous (Ares I).".

Geez, what else should I expect from a rocket scientist. The biggest, bestest rockets he could think up of course.

Naive me.

But naive Mike too. He backed the wrong horse, got sweet talked by major contractors looking out for their own interests, got shunned by politicians who only saw how much over budget the new program was and failed to create a program that the public would feel inspired enough to support.

Not enough public support means no political support means no hardware.

Maybe NASA should ask the public what it wants, pick the most popular idea and go with it.

Mike certainly didn't.

tinker

I think the reason why we are getting such poor leaders in human space flight, is because the characteristics that make a good leader and manager are not at all consistent with what it takes to be a good engineer.

A good engineer is all about the hardware; he wants to build hardware that performs. Most engineers care little or nothing about people, organizations or 'salesmanship'.

Take a look at the people in the lead of space operations, exploration, Constellation, ISS, Shuttle. Most have no people skills at all. Most don't give a damn whether the American people are supportive or not. Public Affairs is an inconvenience. Most got into their organizations and have been afraid to modify the organization at all for fear of screwing something up. All of the organizations have needed some serious organizational attention but got none.

One thing that human space flight has not been good about is finding people who have the appropriate skills or experience and placing them in charge of the functions in which they have expertise. Instead, just the opposite. Years ago Alan Shepard said that he could put any astronaut in any position and expect a fine job. Then George Abbey seemed to adopt this philosophy, and would place any engineer in any position. Most recently Suffredini of ISS seems to excel at this approach. In fact the ISS people seem to want their managers to have little or no expertise in their jobs.

This approach was pretty clear in Constellation where almost no one, from the top man on down, had any prior experience in anything they were doing. They had a few people who probably did have some worthwhile expertise, and they were typically placed into positions where there expertise was not used.

The entire world is based on education and experience. In the Russian program, once you get into a specific area or function, who likely will not get out of it because the Russians pride themselves on their knowledge and competence.

NASA takes the opposite approach.

I think we can all see the effect: dysfunction and inefficiency.

As in Dr. Griffin's case, it doesn't matter how great an engineer he might have been, if he could not form an organization, manned by the appropriate personnel, and sell it to the President, the Congress and the American people, then you've got nothing.

That is exactly where we are today.

Coming from this man - and we mustn't forget his oppo: Horowitz - who engendered the current situation by choosing totally the wrong vehicle package at the behest of a greedy Contractor- ATK-I find this something of a joke: and that's being charitable. I blame them for this situation.

It was the massive costs generated by the inadequacies of The Stick coupled to major redesigns of the CLV; that gave Obama just the excuse he needed that led to this situation at all. Had it not been so, the DIRECT effort would have been quite unnecessary. This man Griffin should be ignored - or, lets bring back the Stocks so he can be pelted with rotten food as he deserves. Bad fess to him!

There are two questions that, in discussing the US human space flight program, must arise alongside any statement, such as Dr. Griffins, and a "proper goal is an aggressive program to return to the Moon, and learn how to use it".

First, is the resource to be applied to this goal limited at some number? Second, are there other goals that on balance must be a part of NASA, also in human space flight, or in other parts of the agency?

To answer "yes" on the first and "yes" on the second will inevitably narrow options. The notion there are other goals in human space flight, such as enabling R&D for broader access to space, when combined with accepting a limit on resources, means that a program should only be formed to "return to the Moon, and learn how to use it" that does so at significantly improved cost over current systems. A program that shows it's incapable of accepting "yes" on the questions is unsustainable by being at odds with a goal that is an "-ility", affordability and sustainability.

It will arise then to say "no" on the first question, that we as a nation should be ready to divert more resources in a more open-ended way, to human space flight. This would place more emphasis on getting to a goal, rather than affordability, rather than ulterior industrial-economic goals furthered by government R&D.

Yet is this really an option?

I suspect as the years go by, and the staying power of NASA Watch is probably good, that the inevitable discussion will be about the many things we would like to do as a nation, at odds with so many factors working against creating the necessary wealth.

We are getting older as a Nation. By 2020 there will be twice as many people in Medicare than now. We have a federal debt that has accumulated quickly since the 60's, ramped up greatly in the 80's and continues to grow. The interest on this debt will double and triple by 2020 to become a huge tapeworm feeding off the federal budget and sapping it's strength to seek options. It's never fun paying a recurring bill at the end of the month for something you threw out years ago, but it's the reality forced by wanting something now (or then) but now wanting to pay for it all at once.

The picture may not be as bad at the total "wealth of the nation" level going out into the next decade and beyond, and there are many reasons to be optimistic the country will prosper and have many resources to address many needs. It's just that the new needs may not place NASA near the top of the new priority list for a very long time.

So this brings us back to human space flight -

Are we to be aware of the environment around us, of the challenges, and form our exploration of the universe around these realizations, or are we to whine and complain that the world around us is not the one we wished we lived in?

An effective general sees where the enemy is, and forms a strategy around this. He gathers information. He puts the dots together. He does not amass his forces to sit around, forever commiserating endlessly that the enemy has not cooperated and moved to less defensible ground. He does not deny the reality of a mountain, a need for water, or the difficulty of terrain. He understands it and then moves out - aware, with a plan, and able to win even when outnumbered.

This is leadership.

A couple of clarifications on Dr. Griffins comments too -

About extending the Shuttle, Griffin points out - "you cannot both retire the shuttle and develop something new."

This is "incomplete". NASA has been developing "something new" since 2004 called Constellation to the tune of $3B a year. Before that it "developed" Shuttle Upgrades and a Space Station. Before that it had many "new developments" etc like X-vehicles etc.

About Griffin saying - "I mean, because commercial airplanes exist does not mean the government does not have its own airplanes, because commercial shipping exists does not mean the government doesn't have its own ships." - consider this a debate tactic that evades the real point. Sound great, but scores only by being incomplete - again.

Policy has now moved to say lets detach ourselves from any low-Earth-orbit provider, as such an approach has not yielded a robust commercial launch vehicle sector. The Government wants launches to LEO for SIGNIFICANTLY less than now. This is a path, separate yourself from a "preferred provider". Then use your resources on the one thing no commercial firm would have an alternate market for (right now), heavy lift.

This strategy competes against a program (Cx) - within identical resources - that would have had no ulterior goals toward enabling broader access to space.

It is important to say "identical resources", as most of these debates are comparing apples to meatloaf; comparing a plan under current resources (the FY 10 budget and MAYBE a little 2% a year growth) to a plan under significantly more resources (an added ~ $6B a year minimally and ANY inflation adjustments, under economic/budget scenarios that never get detailed).

I think the reason why we are getting such poor leaders in human space flight, is because the characteristics that make a good leader and manager are not at all consistent with what it takes to be a good engineer.
A good engineer is all about the hardware; he wants to build hardware that performs. Most engineers care little or nothing about people, organizations or 'salesmanship'.

I have three words for you.

Wherner Von Braun

At the highest levels, the characteristics that you outline are consistent.

Dr. Griffin, whatever his talents and merits, is no Von Braun

von Braun was a people person first and salesman second.

Many of my MSFC friends have told me about how he would commit the smallest details of people's lives and families to memory, and then call the details up years later.

von Braun delegated technical work to his people, who he had organized well. At the highest level he knew how to scope the job, quantify the resources, define the requirements, and then set his people out to implement.

Perhaps his greatest failing, besides his WWII politics, was that he frequently failed to discriminate between good ideas and ideas that would be difficult to implement.

I'm not saying posters should shut up, I'm saying Griffin's constant criticisms of the Obama policy is out of place. If he has serious concerns, there are other ways to go about expressing them. By proxy is one. The other is to mount a defense of his policy prescriptions in a less confrontational fashion. In a book, or a broader lecture series. How would you like to be Administrator Bolden and have Griffin constantly nipping at your heels, yet constrained from engaging in a response? I just don't think it advances U.S. space leadership. This is the same guy that clashed with the transition team-the only Bush appointee in the entire federal government to do so. I think, WADR, it's time to turn the page. Griffin fatigue anyone?

Mike Griffin had his opportunity and did the best he could with it. But his plan came up short and, due to many factors, was canceled. And while there's some noise in congress about the cancellation it's not enough to get the program reinstated. Not even close. I wish Griffin good things in his life but we the people are moving on.

His sniping will slowly wind down as his anger, embarrassment, and sadness wears off.

You realize this is an interview right? He shouldn't be able to answer the questions if he is against he plan? He should answer them "by proxy"?

I can't help but laugh at the suggestion that he should have to write a book or lecture series to speak out against against what he believes is a bad plan. He shouldn't be allowed answer interview questions if his answers are against the plan! Of course!

He has spoken very kindly of Bolden post being administrator. If Obama really can't handle criticism, then what kind of leader is he?

You have got to be kidding. It's ok to write something in a book, but not make a statement? As to advancing US space leadership, go back and take a look under the new admin we really aren't tasked with leading or winning a race. Last I read, Bolden was asking how he could engage 3rd world partners in space (Nigeria for one after the conference in South Korea) As to how would I feel about Griffin nipping at my heels if I were Bolden, I really doubt Bolden cares, then again maybe this is the reason he gets choked up all the time.

I never cared too much about what Mike had to say sometimes, but I agree completely with him this time.

I agree with some of what you say and also disagree with some. You make the same mistake some people on here make that if they had just picked someone from a different NASA organization then everything would have turned out fine. The reality is that NASA has structural problems in managing it's human capital. From barring 75% of it's workforce from competing for leadership positions (only civil servants despite blended and badge blind organizations) to the complete absence of career planning and employee development. Combined with the sporadic and incoherent development programs NASA is put in the position of not having people with the experience and training to manage large development programs. So their was no one to put into the positions who had prior experience. In both the military and private enterprise the successful organizations identify their front runners early and then develop them through education and different assignments so that when they are needed to lead an effort they are ready. Most NASA civil servants never leave their home centers.

The other problem is that culturaly NASA management is more interested in consensus then in getting the right answer. Post Columbia they pay lip service to opposing points of view but if you don't "get with the program" then you are branded as not being a team player and you pay professionally later.

Finally while I agree most government organizations are loathe to change that isn't entirely true for JSC. ISS flight control is undergoing a massive 4 year effort to change how we do buisness with the goal of reducing costs by 30% and changing to a culture of continuous improvement. NASA does deserve some credit for changing even if it occurs later then needed.

So the problem isn't the fact that their are lots of engineers in NASA. Just that culturally and structurally NASA doesn't actively manage and develop it's workforce.

I'm going to go off on my own here and let everyone know how I really feel about Dr. Griffin. He may have six degrees, yet I believe that hardly made him "The One" when it came to designing a new approach to space. When one looks back at what his approach to HSF was, one must wonder why he wanted to bring back the old Apollo style of doing business, instead of allowing true competition. Back during the Race to the Moon, NASA opened up bids to come up with a design for the Apollo capsule. Only after the designs from the bids were submitted, did NASA decide to go with a design from in-house and through the submitted bids in the trash. This was the same thing that happened with the Orion capsule, and the rest of the CxP as a whole. I cannot believe that for one moment anyone believed that the so called "stick" would work. If that was the case, why not just bring back the Saturn-I. Another thing that bothers me is why was the Ares-V was designed to be so massive, as if we had not learned from the Saturn-V, that bigger means greatly increased costs. My understanding is if you tried to build and launch a 60's Saturn-V/Apollo in today's day and age, it would cost around $3B. I also don't understand the profile selected (classic Apollo) and the robber baron style of trashing other programs for a single minded purpose. The damage that Dr. Griffin did to NASA as a whole and HSF in particular left him as one of the worst, if not, worst administrator of NASA ever. Gen. Bolden will do his best to correct the failures of Dr. Griffin, and, I believe, will try to accomplish this without wholesale removal of management personnel associated with CxP. In the end though, He will need to remove operations personnel from most management position, and let NASA return to it's leadership role in R&D. CxP is dead, Dr. Griffin is gone, and NASA is just now starting to regroup from the disaster it was in. Dr. Griffin needs to enjoy his new job and SHUT UP!

NASA has always had a very difficult time, due to lack of funds, at being able to do both R&D and missions at the same time. Mike knew this. He also knew that if he didn't get 'hardware flying' during his tenure, Cx was going to be dead, hence his raiding of anything resembling R&D, to get stuff up and developed enough to make it difficult to kill.

He was stuck with bad choices and made the best of them; just like Obama is/was stuck with bad choices and is making the best of them, given his self interest.

Now we find ourselves with an abundance of R&D, at the expense of 'mission'.

This is Mike's point. No Mission, No NASA.

And last time I checked, the 'freedom of speech' holds for folks with bad 'protocol' as much as it does for those with a sense of protocol

Time will tell if he is correct.

Sorry posters, but I stand behind my statements. The protocol for former Presidential appointees is and has always been not to attack the policies of your successors contemporaneously but memoirs are the traditional way of defending, while reiterating, your policies. Even Nixon avoided criticisms of his predecessors but wrote 11 books suggesting other policy pathways. Yes there are exceptions-there always are exceptions. But it is rare for a former cabinet-level appointee to mix it up over the present administration canceling the policies of the previous. Note I said rare and not never...As far as his answering interview questions, don't submit to these kinds of interviews...

> Maybe NASA should ask the public what it wants, pick the most popular idea and go with it.

Omg. Look around. You are the problem.
Leshin's background is in meteorite studies. How is this a solid background for making National decisions on space programs.
You want leaders who will sell you on a program. That's a joke.
If commercial space ever gets going, and I wish them luck, you can bet they will shut out this sort of destructive commentary. At least the government space program had relative transparency. You got to see what was going on. Some of you chose to misuse this and spend your energies on bringing it down.

The president of the United States is the leader of the space program. And so far, all he wants us to do is to spend $100 billion dollars over the next 5 years studying the problem while he continues our LEO on steroids ISS program.

Bolden, on the other hand, says its perfectly OK if other nations return to the Moon before us and then goes to Israel and says that we might not even need NASA astronauts anymore.

The problem is not NASA, its the administration and all of the previous ones since the late 1960s. Nixon decommissions our only heavy lift vehicle so we couldn't put a base on the Moon, Bush terminates the X-33 space plane program, and now Obama terminates the Constellation program. Its easy to terminate things!

So nothing has really changed except for the fact that no future president can terminate Obama's program-- since he doesn't have one!

Marcel F. Williams

Hi Aerin
The Stick is DEAD!
***
Omg. Look around. You are the problem.
Leshin's background is in meteorite studies. How is this a solid background for making National decisions on space programs.
You want leaders who will sell you on a program. That's a joke.
If commercial space ever gets going, and I wish them luck, you can bet they will shut out this sort of destructive commentary. At least the government space program had relative transparency. You got to see what was going on. Some of you chose to misuse this and spend your energies on bringing it down.
***
OMG Leshin(A Scientist) was a manager in the CxP organization in the Lunar and Planetary Exploration Office. At the very least some people in CxP have found productive work, LOL!

@Aerin: Dr.Leshin was selected for her present post probably because she is very energetic and enthusiastic about what she is doing as well as a fast learner. She also served on the Aldridge commission; so long ago someone saw something in her that they felt was needed for the job at hand. Her rise through the ranks probably has a lot to do with her energy level, her intelligence and her ability to articulate policy/goals, etc. Often the AA and Deputy AA positions go to astronauts for similar reasons.

@ Frank: .
Former officials write memoirs because they can make money at it. I don't think any former NASA administrator has written a memoir, have they?

He was stuck with bad choices

The bad choices were Mike Griffin's own choices.

He was NASA's nominal boss, therefore he should have had some say-so in the choices that were made.

So why was Dr. Griffin stuck with bad choices?

> Maybe NASA should ask the public what it wants, pick the most popular idea and go with it.

This is exactly what NASA should have done long ago, except that NASA doesn't come from a tradition of popular democracy. NASA comes from a tradition of patronage politics. First, von Braun's group took the German military as it's patron, followed by the US Army. Then Webb, von Braun, and LBJ built a patronage system in Congress to support NASA.

The NASA attitude toward the general public has always been patronizing. The political bosses decided what they wanted to do, then made up whatever justification they thought they could sell to the public. No one ever asked the public what they wanted.

One exception is a paper by Thomas L. Matula and Karen Loveland, "Public Attitudes toward Different Space Goals: Building Public Support for the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE), 2006, that reported on surveys they did in 2002 and 2005. Here is the percent support they found for different goals:

2002 2005
32% 35% - Build satellites in Earth orbit to collect solar energy to beam to utilities on Earth
23% 17% - Develop technology to deflect asteroids or comets that might destroy the Earth
13% 10% - No opinion
4% 10% -- Send humans to Mars
6% 7% --- Build a human colony in space
2% 7% --- Search for life on other planets
3% 6% --- Develop a passenger rocket to send tourists into space
5% 4% --- Build a base on the moon for humans to use for exploration of the moon
11% 2% -- None of the above, we should stop spending money on space
1% 2% --- None of the above

This survey has flaws, but it's all I know about. You can see why the NASA of 2006 paid no more attention to it than they did to 3/4 of their mandate from VSE!

Really don't see the difference between writing a book and making statements. In the modern world, communications is instantaneous and seamless and the lines between them are no longer relevant. If you did write a book, what do you say during your book signings ;). Maybe those who don't understand that should, NAW.

> Dr.Leshin was selected for her present post probably because she is very energetic and enthusiastic about what she is doing as well as a fast learner... Her rise through the ranks probably has a lot to do with her energy level, her intelligence and her ability to articulate policy/goals, etc.

I'm sure she is intelligent and capable for many responsible positions. However, do we really want a 'fast learner' on this. We are casting aside the grey beards/hairs in the hope that fresh blood will find faster, better, cheaper ways. Space travel is not easy; the laws of nature are not bent by persuasion. I read many naive posts here by the green, untried/untested; by the jaded and disillusioned; and by those who never had the right stuff.

The NASA attitude toward the general public has always been patronizing. The political bosses decided what they wanted to do, then made up whatever justification they thought they could sell to the public. No one ever asked the public what they wanted.

So, if an opinion poll showed that the American public's top priority for NASA is "Dancing With the Stars" performed on the ISS with new contestants every week, MC'd by former Apollo astronauts, and broadcast live to Earth, then you'd be all for the public's choice, would you?

One of Laurie's great strengths is her ability to communicate. This has been missing from NASA management particularly in human space over the last several years.

That she is a geologist with knowledge of the smaller bodies of the solar system is also potentially pretty helpfui since those are very possibly going to be the next target for space flight, before the moon or Mars.

She has been present at NASA, at Headquarters and at GSFC, since the first lunar architecture team convened. But detriments might be never having worked a real human space flight program, or having only a few years within government.

In many ways, denigration of experience, faith in unspecified technological progress, embrace of risk, change-for-the-sake-of-change is just part of the approaching pattern of the whole society as the Baby Boomer generation gives way to Generation X and on.

or:

In many ways, the reduced value of old experience (due to the rapid technological progess of our times), the need to take greater risks (to complete programs before something smacks us out of left field), and organizational change to keep things interesting (so we won't have to change jobs after 3 years), is just part of the ongoing pattern of society as Generation X and on takes over from the Baby Boomers.

(Sorry for the length of the second version. As a tail-end-baby-boomer, I can express the first viewpoint more clearly and succinctly than I can the alien one.)

OMG Aerin
***
I'm sure she is intelligent and capable for many responsible positions. However, do we really want a 'fast learner' on this. We are casting aside the grey beards/hairs in the hope that fresh blood will find faster, better, cheaper ways. Space travel is not easy; the laws of nature are not bent by persuasion. I read many naive posts here by the green, untried/untested; by the jaded and disillusioned; and by those who never had the right stuff.
***
Your writing shows you have no idea of what your talking about!

as someone noted earlier that appears to know what is correct:
The science data may not sensitive, but the U. S. Techonology, that gather it, is classified.

Your nothing more then fishing for comments.

I have spoke to Mikey many time in the past, He clearly know what he is doing and accepts the mistakes he has made!

I agree with Frank S...what I have yet to hear Mike G do is offer some sort of viable alternative other then to go back to the way he was running things.

It is important to recognize that some substantial bad choices were made under Griffin's watch and that the decisions which were made were implemented so badly as to put us in the fix we are in today. Griffin if he is going to offer his views, should in my opinion offer up some explanation why things are as they were when he left the office and how he thinks that they get back on track (since he wants to stay on the same track). Otherwise...he can say what he wants but why is he being listened to?

Robert G. Oler

What are you talking about? I never said a word about ITAR/SBU.
You are so dim I very much doubt Griffin would have 'confessed his mistakes' to you. You've probably never even heard him speak. What a laugh.

LOL

You are so dim I very much doubt Griffin would have 'confessed his mistakes' to you. You've probably never even heard him speak. What a laugh.

Well at the very least, I know Mike quite well. Yes, what happened to CxP, this was not a confession just letting me know he was not correct in some decisions.

Keep on fishing Aerin!

Editor's note (sigh) *anyone* posting here anonymously can make claims such as "I know Mike quite well" ....

The only NASA Administrator to publish a memoir was the first, T. Keith Glennan ("The Birth of NASA")

So, if an opinion poll showed that the American public's top priority for NASA is "Dancing With the Stars" performed on the ISS with new contestants every week, MC'd by former Apollo astronauts, and broadcast live to Earth, then you'd be all for the public's choice, would you?

In a word, yes. Here are three points about the issue.

First, your hypothetical perfectly illustrates the typical aerospace opinion that the voting citizenry is a mob of ignorant, frivolous "Joe Sixpacks." God help the NASA budget if the voters catch on to that attitude, because Congress won't. The public can be very sensitive to that kind of snobbery and their reaction is not kind to the perceived snobs. That reaction is one of the central roots of the Tea Party movement.

Second, why come up with a hypothetical that is directly contradicted by the evidence at hand? "Develop a passenger rocket to send tourists into space" ranked seventh on the list of goals. (BTW, I agree with them. Passenger rockets are a job for private industry, not NASA.) Solar power satellites and planetary protection ranked one and two. I think that reflects more mature and sensible values than I've seen at NASA prior to now. What does it say about NASA that they are spending close to nothing on the public's top two values? And don't gripe about feasibility; that's for the engineers. This is a values question and I'm with the public on those.

Last, did you think about what your hypothetical would require? Weekly trips to and from a massive broadcast studio? If the public voted the money for it, I would give it to them as an addition to a research and exploration program - just tack on the next five goals.

The weekly trips would allow researchers and their samples to get up and down often enough to enable effective research programs. Revolutions in materials and biomedical science would result. The infrastructure investment and volume of traffic would send unit costs through the floor! Commerce would boom. Trips to Mars would become affordable, and so on.

What's not to like? What we have to do is get off our arrogant high horses and ask the people what they want. Is that really so hard?

Second, why come up with a hypothetical that is directly contradicted by the evidence at hand? "Develop a passenger rocket to send tourists into space" ranked seventh on the list of goals.

I assume that your opinion poll, like many other so-called polls of public opinion, was slanted and crooked-- a "push poll" designed to elicit the answers the poll designers wanted.

The general public's top priority for NASA is to develop solar power satellites? I doubt it. Probably only a small percent of the general public has any awareness of such design proposals.

Your push poll probably phrased the matter in a very leading way, such as:

"Agree or disagree, to cure global warming, NASA should concentrate on development of low cost, Green, alternative energy sources from space?"

Other questions on your poll were probably restricted and slanted, such as:

"Do you agree that NASA should continue to spend billions of dollars trying to put astronauts on the Moon, considering that Americans have already been to the Moon?"

Here's a question I'll bet was not on your poll:

"Agree or disagree. NASA's budget should be cut, and the money saved should be given back to hardworking Americans as tax rebates?"

Please show us the questions that were on your opinion poll. And who answered your poll's questions -- a fair sample of the general public, or a restricted set of students and faculty at your U.?