Jeff Hanley Removed From CxP Management

Finally!!!! Heads starting to roll!!!

Bolden is starting to see what is required to usher in change at NASA...

I read this as:
Bolden's done putting up with Hanley working against him. Jeff was given every opportunity to get on board with the new plan or make his own exit, having done neither it was time to move him out of Constellation.

Yes, because, lord knows, you don't want anybody working to try and maximize the return on the investment already made!

I love how people outside the program are such experts on what's going on......

Until Congress approves the BO space policy the is NO "new direction" !!! And that ain't goin' to happen !!! Thank God !!! Constellation is the direction and will be the direction !!!

I didn't know JSC does strategic planning.
Good luck Jeff!

RocketScott,

Sometimes when you have a bad investment, the best way to "maximize return on investment" is to wash your hands and start over. CxP was one of those cases.

~Jon

This is long overdue. Congratulations to General Bolden.

Robert G. Oler

And Barack Obama's plans have a snowball's chance of being approved anyway, so what's the point of this?

Bolden, I'll see your firing of Jeff Hanley and raise you continued appearances by Neil Armstrong calling Obama's little scheme a fool's errand.

Anyone remember when this country thought following through with an established consensus was worthwhile? Maybe the next Republican President and Republican Congress should "retool" (kill) Obama's health care reform just to make a point.

"Jeff was given every opportunity to get on board with the new plan..."

It was not Jeff's job to "get on board with the new plan". It was Jeff's job to execute the Constellation Program of Record which is the law of the land. If he had abandoned this responsibility and switched direction without Congressional approval he SHOULD have been fired. But he didn't and was fired anyway. Nice.

I hope the spineless HQ types sleep well tonight.

Wrong.
Constellation was underfunded.
NASA is overtasked for the meager amount of the half a penny it gets of federal discretionary spending. Obama of course is spending magnificently large amounds of money that dwarfs years of NASA budgets.

NASA is as critical to this nations future as GM or some damn bank. Critical to the entire human race. Yet it gets chump change!

And it pulls off miracles with that chump change.

The Obama plan is a dead end. God forbid this nation embraces it.

It was Jeff's job to execute the Constellation Program of Record which is the law of the land.

I dont agree...but even taking the notion that "jeff's" job description was how you state it...did that include trying to make Constellation "evolve" to some other effort?

If Hanley's job was to do the program of record I am still trying to figure out why he had all those folks trying to come up with "the new Constellation"?

In the end, in my view, Hanley should have been fired with his last long public memo. Charlie gave him the "O-6" chance a couple of times to come back onto the ranch.

Robert G. Oler

Let's face it, everything Jeff Hanley did recently has been essentially undermining Administrator Bolden's authority. He has been betting heavily on either Congress coming to a consensus and passing their own budget in support of CxP or them getting so annoyed with Bolden and Garver that they force them out. In essence, he hoped to outlast Bolden, Garver and the FY2011 plan.

Basically, he has been defying Bolden to stop him continuing work on Ares-I. He has been stopped. Expect CxP's remaining operations to now be wrapped up double-quick and Congress be presented with a fait accompli: "Gee, we'd continue with the project like you asked, but we've closed all the files, put them in storage, disbanded all the teams and either reassigned or downsized all the personnel! Illegal? It's only illegal to use federal funds to close doown CxP. We've used termination letters to get the contractors to pay for it instead!"

Regardless of how you personally feel about the Constellation Program (of Record) or the Obama proposal, we should all recognize and respect the dedication, commitment and hard work that Jeff Hanley (and his staff) has contributed to this Nation's space program.

Jeff's leadership has been extraordinary, as has been the way he has constantly managed to keep the Nation's human space flight program moving forward despite constant neglect (across the board) by both this and the previous Administration.

Whether CxP was the right way to go forward or not was not for Jeff to decide - this was decided by President Bush, Administrator Griffin, and several Congresses (both democratic and republican). Regardless of how you feel about the long term vision of CxP, the work done on the program has significantly advanced technology and capability in many areas - and I hope the useful elements (systems, technologies, or otherwise) are incorporated by NASA's future programs as well as those of NASA's commercial partners.

While there will be a lot of hateful comments and vitriol out there (with much of it on this forum), I for one am grateful that Jeff Hanley has been there to champion the vision of human space flight for the past five years.

Thank you, Jeff.

Folks:

Ding dong, the stick is dead,
the stick is dead,
the stick is dead,
Ding dong, the wicked stick is dead!

...and now the stick wielder has been shown the door!

To be fair, Jeff Hanley is a consummate professional (if misguided) or he wouldn't have been where he was. Let's hope he doesn't waste the opportunity Charlie Bolden has given him.

Solid rocket boosters are just so TwenCen and I'll be glad to see them (and ATK) go. The future is recoverable liquid fueled boosters and there's no reason not to use them for human space flight and heavy lift vehicles.

Studies have already been done on Delta IV versions with as many as seven common core stages. With cross-tanking the payload exceeds 100 MT. An empty Delta IV common core stage weighs a fraction of an empty Shuttle solid rocket booster so recovery should be possible. I'd put the parachutes on the bottom though to help protect the RS-68 from the water impact.

Let's face it. The Space Transportation System was designed in large part by politicians. Let's not make the same mistake this time. Give rocket scientists the room and money to do the job right!

Wishful thinking the way things are going though.

tinker

Here is a question. What if Congress passes a law saying the FBI or CIA can't use certain torture methods on suspected terrorists. But then the President and FBI director tell their agents to ignore Congress and do it anyway. What is the agent to do?

Laughing

Capt save a program is PROMOTED!

Yin Yang Cx is waning!

It is of no surprise that oler would not agree in light of the fact that obama's program is not approved and Jeff Hanley was working on a program that is approved. Apparently the word law is of no concern to those who follow the dear leader.

What do you call a company where you spend months championing a lame duck project which has lost support from the board of directors and instead of being fired you simply get reassigned?

Government.

Amazing how many bad strategic decisions you can get away with and survive when you have a "constant" revenue stream via a tax base.

The good news- money will continue to be burnt at the same rate no matter what the results!

No Shuttle?
No Constellation?
No Commercial?

No Problem! Let's spend a decade making the same amount of money and arguing about what to do next instead! Sounds fun!

Jeff Hanley was incompetent for the job he was given. This man had ZERO program/project management experience and he was put in charge of the biggest program in NASA's history. He was a flight director, and probably a damn good one. But that does not mean he can manage a program. Early emails I saw from him indicated he had no knowledge of NASA policies related to PM and he actually stated that everything he ever knew about project management, he learned from his deputy since taking the job. Bottom line, he is one of the primary reasons this program failed. It was not canceled, it FAILED.

The fault is certainly not all his. Many of his project managers, and indeed, much of NASA's senior managers at the Centers have just as little experience in the positions they are in.

There are a lot of ways to fire someone. Let's hope future firings aren't so ugly that we hear about them in a congressional hearing, and see them on NASAWatch, before those of us in the Program get the word.

Hanley was hand-picked by Griffin, despite his non-existent program management experience. IMHO this was done so that Griffin could control the program from behind the curtain. That was pretty egotistical on Griffin's part.

Griffin took Hanley from Mission Operations, where he was a flight director. I'm hoping we have now learned that flight directors (like astronauts) rarely have the experience and expertise needed to successfully manage large organizations...especially development programs. Regardless, taking the job was a pretty gutsy move on his part, and it did not pay off. Despite all of this, Hanley was dedicated and hard working. He thought he was doing the right thing.

On the other hand, all of the civil servants ultimately work for the President of the United States. We are certainly entitled to state our opinions (albeit anonymously if we don't want to endure management's backhand), but when we actively work against our ultimate boss, we will be removed from our position. I would not be surprised if the White House requested this one.

oler said:
If Hanley's job was to do the program of record I am still trying to figure out why he had all those folks trying to come up with "the new Constellation"?

Because to execute the program of record requires a re-structuring. As a responsible manager, Hanley was evaluating options to get the program of record back within the funding constraints he has been given. Cutting scope, re-evaluating management philosophies and requirements, etc. He should've been given this action in the first place instead of being told forget the whole thing.

Some of you people are so clueless. And strange (not confused).

Personally I like Jeff. It has nothing to do with how I feel about him personally.

He was the Program Manager.When Orion came in with unreasonable size and mass requirements, it was his job to send them back to the drawing board. When Ares turned out to have inadequate capabilities it was his job to tell Cooke, Griffin, the President and the Congress that the system could not be successful, and to make the necessary changes.

There were a lot of options available. Jeff maintained his focus on only one.

If the program was short funded, then it was his job to tell the program and his superiors they would have to focus on what was required now and defer all future work.

The buck stops somewhere and that guy is called the Program Manager.

It is unfortunate that Jeff had an Administrator who was running on hope and not logic or intelligence. But Jeff's responsibility was to tell the emperor he had no clothes. Not to lecture everyone else that one day the program would succeed.

Jeff still has a job in management and leadership and gets to keep the same paycheck. The way in which he filled the Constellation ranks caused a lot of people who should have had great jobs to have to look elsewhere. Many of his friends that he placed in Constellation had no relevant experience. If he had surrounded himself with competence, then likely he would have heard and recognized the technical truth. That happened over the last 5 years.

Now, most immediately there are a lot of people losing their jobs because of the horrendous situation that Constellation became.

In the long term, American human space flight is a big question mark. No one has a clue of how it will end up but it does not look good. Fifty years of launching Americans into space, and now we have given up that capability.

. But then the President and FBI director tell their agents to ignore Congress and do it anyway. What is the agent to do?

what FBI agents did, follow the law. It is very simple, if you dont follow the law, you can be held to it.

The "only" possible exception is a direct (and written) Presidential order.

Robert G. Oler

"I dont agree...but even taking the notion that "jeff's" job description was how you state it...did that include trying to make Constellation "evolve" to some other effort?"

Absolutely, because Congress habitually underfuned the Program that was originally laid out and agreed to. Cost, schedule, content. Something has to give. When the agreed-to funding doesn't show up, it is the Program Manager's job to figure out how to restructure the Program to preserve the characteristic(s) the stakeholders value most. It's his job to "evolve" the Program given changing circumstances.

Is that really that hard to understand?

Absolutely, because Congress habitually underfuned the Program that was originally laid out and agreed to. Cost, schedule, content. Something has to give. When the agreed-to funding doesn't show up, it is the Program Manager's job to figure out how to restructure the Program to preserve the characteristic(s) the stakeholders value most.

there are many reasons Hanley needs to go...and you just stated the main one after disloyalty.

I dont agree that Constellation was underfunded...its spent 10 billion dollars and not a lot to show for it...it has spent more then Atlas/Delta/Falcon 1 and 9 combined so its hard to say that we are getting value for the money...

But anyway...as the funding for the program did not materialize the TIME to reevaluate the program was not as the program was on the block; but awhile back. Constellation hasnt gotten the funding people like Hanley said it needed so when that reality became the "trend" someone (and Hanley was the man) should have gone to Mike Griffin (then administrator) and said "I cannot execute the program you tasked me with, with the funds that I am getting".

There is no evidence Hanley did that. Indeed the result was the typical NASA dance of stretch out with dates being the flexible item.

The time NOT to do it; is when the person one serves as a Federal Employee (the POTUS) was changing course and that course clearly did not involve Constellation. And the way not to do it was how Hanley did with memos here and there.

I have always wondered why Hanley didnt "rethink" the program (or the Administrator order it) in say 2007. From a political standpoint it was clear that there was going to be a new administration AND that money was tight, the "gap" getting longer and the odds were good that there was going to be a new administrator.

Then in 08 as things continued to worsen I am again surprised that to save his job Griffin didnt try some "thought experiments" himself.

My guess is that they were both pretty sure that Griffin could survive and Constellation was on the old gravy train.

But opposition to Constellation inside of NASA just died...driving by JSC tonight one could clearly (metaphorically at least) see Hanley's head, on the gate. Shock and Awe.

Robert G. Oler

For the record during Congressional testimony this morning, Bolden first tried to deny any knowledge that Jeff Hanley had been removed from his position, saying he was unaware of it. Then when pressed he said that any decision on that was up to Doug Cooke, I believe when pressed further it came out that Hanley had in fact been removed and "promoted". I was told all of this happened around 10:45 central time. (Disclaimer: I should note, I have note seen or heard the testimony, this was told to me at about 10:50 a.m.) We received the email posted here right around 10:55 am central. So for all of you applauding Bolden for firing Hanley and "manning up", he denied he had anything to do with it and tried to deny it to Congress. The man clearly cant take responsibility for anything, what kind of a leader is that exactly? Maybe he didnt even know Hanley was removed until they asked at the hearing.

Amen!

just for fun, if anybody wants some background
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/01/jeff-hanleys-latest-update-from-the-denial-zone.html

and for continuous JSC dysfunctionality in particular - Hanley is recieving a taste of their own modus operandi treatment and this NSF link has some interesting info in retrospect:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3027.0;wap2

And my fav comments from it:

I have to admit I really find these events troubling. I know exactly what Camarda means when he talks about how the future leaders are chosen at JSC. When I began here it seemed that decisions were made mostly on solid engineering judgement. That was when shuttle was the only game in town. Then ISS came along and all of a sudden a lot of people were thrown into some very important jobs with not very much experience or engineering background. It just seems that over those years a huge good 'ol boy/girl network has formed and decisions have been made more on who you know than what you know. Even worse, those who do present solid engineering are kind of squeezed out because they might make others "look bad". After the accident it got even worse. The Return to Flight "clique" could rival some college sororities in terms of poltics. There still are a few of the good guys that make it through and keep their values , ala Wayne Hale (the guy is a genius and as straight forward as you can get). Unfortunately we have been losing a lot of very good people over the past few years because either they have become fed up or they see the 2010 end of the road and are getting out while the getting is good. And don't even try getting one of the contractors started on civil servant hiring (basically you either have to be a college co-op or buddy up and work yourself into the "network" to get a civil servant slot).
I had the same perception of JSC from the "outside" as a college student a few years ago. The "JSC uber alles" attitude and the tales of a lack of technical work done by other students there really soured me on that center. It's for this exact reason that I chose a co-op at KSC rather than one in Houston (well, that and the surf is better

and

Seems JSC managers who speak up are getting reassigned pretty easily this year...

This sounds like a pretty similar story to John Muratore's unexpected "demotion" from his Shuttle Engineering and Integration prosition to an inneffectual position elsewhere in NASA after he disagreed vehemently with Wayne Hale over STS-121's readiness for flight

and

If they really become an issue they get promoted out. Look at the guy who managed the horrific ISS flight software. He did so bad they promoted him to manage the whole vehicle.

where was congressional personnel micro-management back then?

It sure is easy to criticize someone's performance from the outside.

Hanley had a lot of forces to reckon with, something I doubt many of us have had to deal with on this scale. Instead of celebrating his removal, I say show some respect for the effort he put in and some humility by asking yourself if you would have done any better.

As for his 'lack of experience as a program manager', who would you have picked to lead CxP? This guy just got a world-class education in program management. He stood up to the job.

Hmm, Goldin fired the Space Station Freedom leaders becuase they were dong their jobs; Griffin fired some Shuttle, ISF, and ESMD top managers for doing their jobs, including my boss who worked in ESMD; and now Bolden does his thing. This is typical NASA, typical Washington politics. One day you're a hero and the next day you're a bum. All of the folks I mentioned above got tranferred to some BS "future planning" function.

I have never met Jeff Hanley and I never heard that he was not working the program of record. Finally, Constellation never met its expected major goals because it was always underfunded. I know because I was there.

"One day you're a hero and the next day you're a bum. All of the folks I mentioned above got tranferred to some BS 'future planning' function."

Which is, ironically, what happened to von Braun in the end. Sigh...

Oh well, General Bolden, "Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee...." Your time is coming soon - and that worthless plan of yours is already DoA.

ISF??? Whats that?

"Constellation never met its expected major goals because it was always underfunded."

While the funding might have been one issue for the overall program, the program received adequate funding to get Orion and its launch vehicle (not necessarily an Ares 1) off to a good start. It took nearly 5 years to complete PDR and yet a lot of people still wonder how close to PDR being completed the program really came. After 5 years, the basic architecture still does not close. The capsule is too big and the booster not powerful enough, assuming the upper stage ever got developed.

Some of you people are so clueless. And strange (not confused).

Now now wookie. It takes a bit more then this to be promoted.

He should've been given this action in the first place instead of being told forget the whole thing.

So no action was his own and only his own, now was it?

When you start being Capt-Save-a-Program, the end it near.

To understand Charlie Bolden and what he says (the Congress people do) you have to understand Marine Speak.

When a Senior fires a subordinate as far down in the feeding chain as Hanley was...the most "damning" thing the senior can do is say "It was a routine personnel matter taken care of by a subordinate". Charlie has, since he took the chair, treated Hanley just as he would have a wayward O-5 or O-6, as the subordinate was given chance after chance to "get with it" and then finally shown the door.

When Marines are releaved from command the phrase is "(insert person here) no longer has confidence in (blanks) ability to command". The civilian equivalent of that is "you're services are no longer needed".

Bolden knew, he pulled the trigger, the final "ditz" was how he handled it. Charlie is POed.

Robert G. Oler

"To understand Charlie Bolden and what he says (the Congress people do) you have to understand Marine Speak.
...
Bolden knew ... Charlie is POed."

One minor problem. NASA is not a Marine rifle battalion. You may be thrilled at what he did, the people inside NASA... not so much. Yeah, that's the way to motivate them to go out and work hard. NOT!

Not to worry, Bolden is not long for that job... once Congress formally rejects his DoA budget.

President Obama really doesn't have the interest in the space program to fight Congress on this. And no Democrat in Florida or Texas is going to commit political suicide supporting the Obama plan.

Congress will pass it's own plan on this issue, not the President's plan and probably not the Constellation plan either.

But the President's current plan is both politically and financially unsustainable.

Marcel F. Williams

Now we have Jay Rockefeller joining Huthison in calling for the IG to investigate NASA. This is very bad news for NASA and will now just be a bigger distraction. The bottom line is that Bolden lied to Congress. First he plays coy about replacing Hanley until the Chair presses him then he admits to Doug Cooke doing the move. That is bogus. Then in his testimony he claimed that he could not afford to have 20 NASA guys watching 1 contractor. Again this is a huge lie and he knows it.

Bolden and Garver need to resign. It is obvious that they will no longer have the confidence of Congress. They are either lying about Hanley in which case they cannot be trusted to execute the POR per the law or they are lying about the numbers for their new program.

Either way, it is time for a new leader. And I do not want to hear from anyone about this is how Generals do things. NASA is NOT the military. It is a civilian agency subject to Congressional oversight.

As long as the incompetency reigns at NASA HQ, OSTP, and OMB NASA will never accomplish anything. It's sad, there as so many talented people who desperately want to contribute.

We don't need PM's getting OJT to meet their position requirements, we need them to have that experience when assigned to the job. Try applying for a job in the real world and telling them, "I can get the experience while doing the job." You need to have past experience on your resume, Hanley did not. As for as how I would have done put in a similar position, I would have refused the job and told those who offered it to me they were stupid for considering me. If I were offered a promotion to do an important job that I felt I was not qualified for, I would not accept. Of course you have to seek out these types of opportunities, they aren't just offered out of the blue. Only a self-serving ego maniac would pursue a job they are not qualified for and this agency is top-loaded with them.

For the record I watched the testimony live but just to be sure I was on the same planet I watched it again. Just now. Twice. Then became so angry that I watched a third time this time taking a transcript. May I merely say that you are totally wrong in that characterisation of events. It may have been what Rep. Giffords would like to have happened or what she might have been trying to imply. But Bolden corrected her and gave her the facts.
Mind you he had to correct many of the assertions of the Committee. Does Congress have the equivalent of Hansard? Or would that be too embarrassing.

TRANSCRIPT Annotations in {}
[Rep. Giffords drops her little bombshell...]
Bolden: "That is probably correct mam."
{Because Giffords did not mention anyone by name. Or because Hanley may have resigned? Seppuku!}
Bolden: "It was not an action that I took or directed. It would be an action taken by the Exploration Mission Directorate Head Doug Cook and Johnson Space centre Director Mike Coats. I have been in consultation with them about that and my understanding was that they were going to get together with him this morning."
{Sleeps with the fishes...}
[Giffords nervously still tries to make something of it. And fails. IMHO.]
Bolden: "We would replace him with someone who is incredibly competent, {ouch} I don't think I have anyone in the heirarchy of the Constellation Program or anywhere that is not competant and does not have my confidence. {double ouch} And Jeff Hanley is not leaving NASA, he is moving up to become the Deputy Director at the JSC For Strategic Studies and Strategic Plans. He is an incredibly talented individual. And you know Jeff and I have spoken for quite some time since I became the NASA Adninistrator about his future."

Rep. Giffords can just be heard trying to get a third bite of the cherry... but at this point Chair Bart Gorden interjects before Rep. Giffords digs an even bigger hole for herself!

Personally in watching and re-watching his testimony/ performance, my estimation of his capability has just gone up by at least one magnitude: Marine, Astronaut & Politician!
The difference between his demeanor and that of the 'opposition' is marked. Not so much Cat and Canary. More like Bengal Tiger and Canary!

"The bottom line is that Bolden lied to Congress. First he plays coy about replacing Hanley until the Chair presses him then he admits to Doug Cooke doing the move. That is bogus. Then in his testimony he claimed that he could not afford to have 20 NASA guys watching 1 contractor. Again this is a huge lie and he knows it."

Sorry plain wrong. Watch the testimony again. And Again. And Again! I just have.
These events do not take place as you describe.
Unless I am very much mistaken Admin. Bolden and Deputy Garver serve at the pleasure of your President not at the pleasure of Congress. Congress had the chance and approved them.

"NASA is NOT the military. It is a civilian agency subject to Congressional oversight."
Tell that to the DOD who want NASA to subsidise their Nukes! But O.K. this is the way competent Managers deal with failing companies.
I would add "oversight" is not Micro-Management.
If Congress keeps on the path it has chosen for itself it won't be a "Gap" it will be a "Canyon."

Robert,

As I stated earlier, NASA is a civilian agency not the Marines. That means the managers have to follow the law which is what Hanley was doing. I suspect he was "reassinged" because he was asked to do something that he thought broke the existing law.

You cannot have a civilian manager just determine they don't want to follow the law. What if a manager in the Social Security Agency just decided to cut everyone's payments? It would be anarchy because the every new president would just decide which laws their appointees need to follow.

So, goodbye Charlie. The Marines need good leaders like you but NASA needs a leader with a civilian background.

This is by FAR the ugliest situation at NASA I have ever seen (afer MANY years), and it is ENTIRELY the fault of the heavy-handed approach the Obama administration has taken. Everyone needs to know that NASA e-mail is being monitored from the A-Suite for "disloyalty". Employees are resorting to personal e-mail and phone calls to conduct business.

An implosion is imminent.

You may be thrilled at what he did, the people inside NASA... not so much.

it doesnt matter. The people of "inside" NASA will be thrilled at the next person, particularly if that person has a mandate to actually build something instead of just plugging at it year after year.

The Federal government, more so then private enterprise is very vulnerable to bad managers. Because of how promotions etc work in the GS system get a bad manager at the top and there is line of them being groomed to come up next. NASA has had an entire series of those and maybe Charlie is going to be able to break that.

Maybe just maybe actual performance in terms of actually doing something might count for how the selection process goes.

A good person at the top of a sub unit can have, with some difficulty the same affect; ie morale goes up and good people start doing good things. NASA like most federal agencies is filled with people who desperatly want to do "good"...they just need a structure that can do it.

There will be some more "removals" if Charlie gets traction in his revitalization of NASA. Go look at how Charlie performed at the USNA cleanup (which was as bad as NASA) and when he took over his Air Wing.

A few more heads rolling on the floor and then progress.

Robert G. Oler

"We don't need PM's getting OJT to meet their position requirements... You need to have past experience on your resume, Hanley did not.

Very well said, though in Constellation and other programs over the last decade, selecting unqualified personnel for very high ranking positions has become the rule rather than the exception.

In this case, the senior NASA management has likely caused the demise of human space flight as we know it.

. That means the managers have to follow the law which is what Hanley was doing.

we can all have our own opinions but in my view Hanley was not following the law.

Hanley had in all respects gone roque. His long email (which was intentionally leaked), his rethink of the program of record when there is no law telling him to do that...his "next administration" stuff.

He was out there on his own. And his management skills were not all that great. He couldnt make the program work on the dollars (a lot of them) he had.

Worse he started thinking that he was several pay grades above where he actually was.

The only implosion that is imminent is the implosion of the anti "new way" folks...and NASA employees dont get to make policy.

As for Bolden surviving. He will be in the office on Jan 20, 2013. What happens at Noon is up to the American people.

Robert G. Oler

Now we have Jay Rockefeller joining Huthison in calling for the IG to investigate NASA.

I don't think the NASA IG can be relied upon to conduct an unbiased investigation. I'd recommend the Office of the Special Prosecutor be brought in to take a look at how NASA has been filling civil service positions and promotions.

This is the office charged with ensuring that the appropriate rules and regulations are followed when it comes to hiring and promotion practices, when there are questions about the functioning of the Executive Agency in question.

They need to look at every position filled over the last decade.

It looks like President Obama is having a Nixon moment!

Its difficult to believe how much the President has mismanaged this issue-- especially for such a relatively tiny budget.

Marcel F. Williams

It is disturbing that vocal people here with no human spaceflight background and no engineering background constantly "correct" those of us who are working in the trenches when we tell them something because they think they know better than us, even though we are actually here, working it every day, sitting in meetings, designing the hardware, building the hardware and testing the hardware. They correct us and tell us we are wrong, because they read in some useless article or report or posting that something else is true. Try listening for a change and hear what the people who are actually working on the problems are saying, you may learn a lot more than listening to the endless clatter of substanceless opinions.

Another recent "reassignment" with no explanation was the NASA AA for Education...many of us cannot understand how this was justified...we also suspect that the AA was "reassigned' for not carrying out something that she thought broke existing laws or regulations -- this however has been swept under the rug with little or no comment

"His long email (which was intentionally leaked), "

And your proof of that is what?

"his rethink of the program of record when there is no law telling him to do that..."

Explained earlier, and at the instruction of ESMD

"his "next administration" stuff."

Pure runour from this website and Cowing's sources. I was at the meeting in question and he said no such thing.

"He was out there on his own."

Hanley constantly fed every move he was making through his bosses in ESMD who are themselves caught in the middle between what the Administration is telling them to do and what Congress is telling them to do. People are seriously concerned about going to jail because they feel they are being instructed to break the law.

"And his management skills were not all that great."

What do you know about it? Did you ever work for him?

"He couldnt make the program work on the dollars (a lot of them) he had."

And what purely management change would you have made to do better?

"Only a self-serving ego maniac would pursue a job they are not qualified for and this agency is top-loaded with them."

I disagree. That's a harsh assessment of anybody who responds to an opportunity.

You care to comment on Obama's qualifications to lead one of the most powerful countries in the history of the world? Tell me about that. How about Ms. Clinton? Being first lady makes you qualified to be a Senator for a state she never lived in? And just to make it balanced in case you're fearing my political affiliation -- what makes a star college football player qualified as a US Rep? A comedian to become a political commentator? A nominee for supreme court who's never been a judge?

"Even worse, those who do present solid engineering are kind of squeezed out because they might make others "look bad". After the accident it got even worse. The Return to Flight "clique" could rival some college sororities in terms of politics."

Thank you for writing this. Many of us who were here when Station came to Houston have been trying to pinpoint what caused JSC to change so dramatically during this time. Where once people, for the most part, worked together toward a common goal, Station ushered in an age of ruthless politics and unethical behavior. Aside from those within NASA who were undeservingly promoted, Station (and NASA) also became the retirement home for ex-fighter pilots.

Lacking experience and expertise, the senior Station mangers did not want to be surrounded by anyone bold enough to tell them they were missing garments...hence the cliques. I saw many qualified managers pushed aside during this time, because they had the fortitude and integrity to speak up. It was stressful and ugly, and is one of the reasons it continues to be career limiting to contradict a senior manager at JSC.

It is because of this culture that we lack the ability to implement a program without significant engineering issues that go unsolved and huge cost overruns. As Program Manager, one of the things Hanley should have done was stop the money that was hemorrhaging into Alabama. Marshall has a huge jobs program. If you want to turn a bolt there it takes 20 engineers, plus admins to update the documentation. However, this was good politics…until the administration changed hands. IMHO it is one of the reasons Griffin landed in Alabama.

And Backwaters...sorry for having to be the one to tell you that Hanley was not qualified for the job. Unfortunately, he is just one of many. We have loads of high-level managers at JSC who are unqualified and continue the cliques. Who would I have selected? I would have looked for an individual with program management experience in a successful large development environment...not a fully qualified ops guy. If I could not find that within the agency (and the odds are slim), I would have looked outside.

I agree with possum...It would be refreshing to see NASA employees turn down jobs for which they are not qualified, unfortunately their arrogance prevents them from doing so.

"It is disturbing that vocal people here with no human spaceflight background and no engineering background constantly "correct" those of us who are working in the trenches when we tell them something because they think they know better than us, "

to paraphrase an historical quote. "Space is to important to be left to those with a pecuniary interest in it"

If the recent rallys are any indication the people who are employed in the programs slated to be axed have an understandable interest in the program that is more personal then national.

The nation needs a space program that creates new industry, that sparkles innovation, and that summons the future; not one that keeps the past going.

Robert G. Oler

"Pure runour from this website and Cowing's sources. I was at the meeting in question and he said no such thing."

First to the above quote. What Cowing posted is no more or less rumor then what you post about the emails etc being monitored. I've seen some of Hanley's musings that are not public, but I wont post them in fear of axing the folks who gave them to me. Who are they? My next door neighbors, associates, people who I go to church with, fly with etc.

You were at the meeting?

then a few points.

First Hanley had no real "requirement" to Congress or to "follow the law" etc. That is just simple rhetoric leaked to try and deflect those who do not understand how the federal government works.

Hanley serves (as is obvious now) at the pleasure of the administrator in his post. Congress cannot prosecute ANYONE for anything really (some modest ability to deal with lying to Congress, but even that must go through the AG or a special). The only way Hanley would be liable for "violating the law" is if the administration pursued something through the attorney general...and that is absurd.

If Hanley thought he was being told to violate the law then he needs to produce the memo trail to back up his complaints. All he was doing was going rogue on his own interpretation of what he thought his duties were. And how he saw the program and politics going forward.

As for being a good or bad manager. One doesnt have to work for him or in the program to observe the results.

A program whose dates are slipping and performance dropping...having spent 10 billion dollars to barely relive the Mercury Redstone days (and I am being kind).

For 10 billion dollars he managed to do a suborbital pop to what 3X nautical miles and toss a hunk of steel into the ocean? Not once until the program was on the chopping block did he say "wow we have to have a rethink here"?

to paraphrase a General from another time "more victories such as this and we are finished".

What management change would I have made? Another post with another thread perhaps. It is not that hard...rocket science is really just good management...as Mr. Musk is eventually going to prove.

Robert G. Oler

It is unfortunately all true.

Most of the Apollo and Shuttle development era people abandoned the program by about a decade ago and its taken about that long for the new politics of organizational arrogance to have their way in the JSC program environment. We see it clearly in ISS. We saw its traumatic effect during Columbia.

What we are now witnessing is the end of NASA human space flight as we knew it. It was brought on by the people, most of whom are currently running the show.

Very well said, though in Constellation and other programs over the last decade, selecting unqualified personnel for very high ranking positions has become the rule rather than the exception.

In this case, the senior NASA management has likely caused the demise of human space flight as we know it.

Agree & maybe there's been a method to the madness towards hsf demise all along?

This is a most excellent article - applicable to CxP over-reliance on an escape system, ULA & Delta/Atlas over-reliance on past successes, etc. etc:

Drilling for Certainty
Second, people have a tendency to get acclimated to risk. As the physicist Richard Feynman wrote in a report on the Challenger disaster, as years went by, NASA officials got used to living with small failures.

Success in the last round is not a good predictor of success this time. Nonetheless, as things seemed to be going well, people unconsciously adjust their definition of acceptable risk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/opinion/28brooks.html?src=mv

"Congress cannot prosecute ANYONE" Hmmmm...contempt of Congress is a prosecutable offense. Furthermore, we have seen impeachment proceedings which are in fact Congressional prosecutions. Now of course you are correct that the Attorney General may decide not to enforce the law which this Attorney General seems bent on doing for various political reasons.

Gentlemen,

Having read your comments, all reasonable, I am forced to conclude that America is not going back to manned space flight in our lifetime, if ever, for the following reasons:

1. NASA has become politicized and polarized. The goal of
administrators at the agency is about turf and agenda
not goals and objectives.

2. Money,... manned spaceflight is not cheap. If you want
to pull up a chair and play a hand you have to put
the money on the table. If you have to spend 10 billion
to get to the moon than you have to sign the
paper authorizing it. John Kennedy making a speech on
the space program "this will be the largest payroll ever
sent into space." He mean'nt to say payload. When he
realized the mistake he laughed and acknowledged he
probably had it right the first time.

3. Objectives. NASA does not have a plan as to where it
wants to go and what to do when it gets there. Go back
to the moon and do what? Getting back to the moon is
not the issue, that's been done. If NASA wants to get
the moon quick and cheap. Reconfiqure the shuttle
for low orbit refueling and replenishment. They can be
used for trans lunar transport. They can flown back for
life cycle maintenance and returned to the ISS to be
used for lunar flights.

Maximum effort should be placed on developing
habitat on the moon. Space medicine and psychology.
We have done enough research to know now what resources
are on the moon and it's composition. The questions
should be how to get at the material, process and getting
it back to earth or using it on the moon.

Manned space flight to Mars can wait. The planet isn't
going anywhere. Being first is not important staying
there is. To put it simply driving by the house you want
to buy without being able to get inside to see it,...
and eventually move in is a waste of time and resources.

In conclusion, it does not matter whether it was right
or wrong to remove Jeff Hanley. The project was so badly compromised that even if the vehicle and engines were completed I can't imagine any astronaut wanting to fly the machine because of questionable reliability.

The senior NASA management has likely caused the demise of human space flight as we know it...
Agree & maybe there's been a method to the madness towards hsf demise all along?"

I believe they did not intend it. It was all just a mistake.

But I think it was time that something needed to change; we were...are...wasting too much of the taxpayer's money with nothing to show for it.

So perhaps it will be for the best after all.

Agree and Hanley's removal was long overdue anywy:

NASA Safety Panel Expresses Constellation Concerns
Tue, 12 Aug '08

Says Program Suffers Lack Of Direction, Morale
NASA's Constellation program is besieged by a lack of morale, money and direction, according to the space agency's safety panel.

The Associated Press reports those were the findings of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel's 143-page annual report, released Monday. Overall, the report is generally impressed with NASA's safety programs... but the safety panel also cites "surprising anxiety among NASA employees" about many aspects of Constellation, particularly -- and, perhaps, most troubling -- in areas related to astronaut safety.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=755e34d2-4dad-4686-b4c6-1b4666c8f3d1

Now, with the above Safety panel report and the Vibration issues charts, why is it that congress is claiming that they are unaware of CxP technical issues? Any why is Cook and Coats still around for that matter?

Yes it *is* disturbing that there could be some individuals (engineers or otherwise) who are prepared to post any old rubbish to prove a political point. However it is up to the reader to separate the wheat from the chaff and occasionally, when one is able, to point out that the wheat is in fact barley!

However what is even more disturbing is that certain Engineers can get away with statements like: "not obeying the laws of physics..." and more to the point that NONE of your political class have the wit or wherewithall to challenge that proposterous statement either during or, after a little research, after the event.

Whilst the ignorance of politicians is a given; after all they have civil servants and staffers for that sort of thing, for scientists there must be a higher regard for Truth. Alas scientists and engineers are all too human and fiddling the figures part and parcel of the process.
Hence the need for peer review.

I would merely add that the lions in the trenches may be in a position where it is best to keep one's head down rather than stand up on the parapet to get a look at the general picture.

But as far as this untrained eye can see it's not a pretty one.

"Try listening for a change and hear what the people who are actually working on the problems are saying, you may learn a lot more than listening to the endless clatter of substanceless opinions."
Spaceboy, to my knowledge unfiltered output from inside the walled garden that is Cx always was minimal and since RocketsAndSuch went off air the silence has been deafening.
All that us armchair astronauts have is sites like Keith's and other more, ahem... technical boards. If you have good technical news tell us.
Perhaps that way you can salvage something from this Mess.

Folks:

It's a feeding frenzy!

Unless something changes, there will be no US space program (human or otherwise) left to speak of.

Message to the Congress and Senate. Give NASA enough money to do a good (great!) job and then back off !

The Canadian Space Agency is a good example to learn from. They have done amazing things with a small budget and minimal political oversight.

The Democrats should create a law that puts more fiscal power into NASAs hands, not less.

Write to your politicians and tell them to let the professionals do their job or you will end up with another Space Transportation System.

tinker

"Hmmmm...contempt of Congress is a prosecutable offense. Furthermore, we have seen impeachment proceedings which are in fact Congressional prosecutions. "

Nothing you said changes or makes incorrect what I said. Contempt of Congress is a prosecutable crime if the AG decides to prosecute it. The Congress can claim a crime was committed but even if they claim it a person accused of it still has to be indicted by a Grand Jury and convicted by a petit jury.

Hanley, who many claim "is following the law" has no such defense...because he cannot be charged by Congress for "not" following the law. Contempt of Congress can only be alleged in essence of testimony.

Hanley has a valid defense if the Congress were to say (and I dont know how they would say this, maybe a "sense of the Congress" ...and now we are off into the absurd) "Jeff Hanley is not following the law by doing what the administrator/administration is telling him to do so we want him prosecuted". His defense is that he was following lawful orders of his superiors.

But of course he wasnt. He wasnt just executing the program of record (and that would be OK) according to well even Jeff Hanley he was planning Constellation "new" (my word) which has nothing to do with the program of record.

Nor as best I can tell is Hanley's job description include running hours on employees to figure out how to make Constellation "work". If he has been told to do so by someone now would be a good time to leak that memo.

this "Hanley was following the law" is on par with "the new program makes us dependent on the Russians for transport to the station" ...its rhetoric masquerading as an argument.

Hanley has been rogue for sometime. Bolden capped him.

Robert G. Oler

For all of you Obama/Bolden/Garver groupies, you miss the point. This is no longer about whether he technically broke the law. That is highly unlikely. What this is about and what only matters is that Congress has no faith in NASA leadership and this plan to nowhere. If they did there would at least 1 committee chair or subcommittee chair who supports this. I have seen none of that. The other thing that should worry you groupies is that Jay Rockefeller is a big time democrat and for him to cosign that letter asking the OIG to investigate is huge.

So enjoy your little make believe story that Obama gets what he wants. But it is not going to happen. The best that you will get is cancellation of Ares I (probably not a bad idea), some extra money for commercial crew (but not 6 billion). The rest will be given to accelerating a heavy lift and some technology development.

Now in order for Congress to even approach the above compromise, their egos must be fed. That means Bolden better get some data and a plan to them fast. Otherwise, he will be gone. That would be great for NASA since it is increasingly clear that he is a yes man for Garver.

All you groupies have a nice weekend, but you might want to back off of the Kool_Aid intake when you go to picnics. It is not healthy for you.

"The best that you will get is cancellation of Ares I (probably not a bad idea), some extra money for commercial crew (but not 6 billion). The rest will be given to accelerating a heavy lift and some technology development."

Obama will get better then that, but this is the essence of the "plan". Cancel Ares1 and the entire backbone of Constellation dies. As there are no more shuttle flights the SDV goes into viewgraphs forever...and the heavy lift that emerges looks alot like Delta and Atlas (sorry just cannot resist ) "on steroids".

Hanley has done a service to The Republic...he killed Constellation.

Robert G. Oler

Obama will get better then that, but this is the essence of the "plan". Cancel Ares1 and the entire backbone of Constellation dies. As there are no more shuttle flights the SDV goes into viewgraphs forever...and the heavy lift that emerges looks alot like Delta and Atlas (sorry just cannot resist ) "on steroids".

Robert, that has not been the plan and you know it. From day 1, the plan has been the end of HSF for the USA. It was an ill conceived idea straight from OSTP and Mr. Holdren.

If "the plan" really was what you stated then Congress would have been on board and NASA would have given them some info to go on.

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid and believing in your Hero-in-Chief, Obama.

"From day 1, the plan has been the end of HSF for the USA."

If you are a conspiracy theory nutjob you should just start and end with this. Save everyone some bytes.

"Robert, that has not been the plan and you know it. From day 1, the plan has been the end of HSF for the USA. It was an ill conceived idea straight from OSTP and Mr. Holdren."

no I dont know that. And neither do you, there is no evidence of it. Increased budgets, reliance on commercial ops...Look I voted for McCain, I contributed money to McCain, I dont like Obama's stimulus, policy in Afland, I dont think he is doing well in the oil spill...the list is endless...

But to me his space policy seems obvious (My piece in the July issue of The Weekly STandard 1999 more or less nails it).

To me human spaceflight as NASA does it HAS TO END.

To many people on the ground, to few people in space doing almost nothing of value to cost...there is no involvement of free enterprise, there is no hope for something different; just 6, 4 or 3 astronauts on the Moon after another 20 years of NASA viewgraphs.

Nothing in the US that takes that many federal dollars works like that. Nuclear subs are crewed mostly by 20ish somethings, oil rigs by people without PhD's, South Pole (nothing like HSF)...NASA HSF has built this "docking at 17,500 mph space is hard" mystic that has to end.

Congress is mostly on board...the only peeps one hears is from the pork people who like the technowelfare in their districts.

I see Obama changing HSF. I see Charlie Bolden trying to evolve it to something that has a future. I see most of the POR supporters saying "technowelfare forever". Sorry I dont have your fears of either Obama or Bolden.

An American future in space is more important then all the jobs that NASA HSF supports. It is that simple.

Robert G. Oler

You sort of have it right Spacedout and Cessna Driver has always been 100% correct in his statements but; the plan from the beginning has been to first and formost, dismantle the existing NASA contracts to free up the money to make it available to a few who were not selected in the original contract award, specifically a Rahm Emanuel supported, Chicago backed company that stands to increase their lot from two 800M$ contracts to several contracts over a billion. That Chicago based company is Boeing. Follow the money and you will see that most of it will find its way to Chicago or Liberal causes like global climate studies and non-technical educational grants. Follow the money.

As to Charlie, we all (those of us who know him)had high hopes and then he sold us out. He lied to Congress about what he said about bailing out the commercials (Thank you Mr. Cernan for pointing that out), he lied about having a plan, he lied about what HE did to Hanley and tried to blame it on Doug. Charlie has sacrificed his values, his honor and the morale of the NASA Team to defend a President who is as incompetent as he is corrupt and devious. Charlie should resign. NASA workers no longer support him. He no longer leads. For us, that is sad. He has been corrupted.

By the way, Oler, you haven't gotten it right yet and "not confused", well maybe not in your dimension, but in mine you are very confused wrt the actual facts about the current success of CxP with what we have done so far and the forward plans in place. Yes, upper management wasted huge sums of money on ridiculous travel with 150 folks at a time, sensless and excessive "non-decision making meetings", and never letting a final decision be final. And yes, it was time for Jeff to step aside, but not like that and not first. Charlie and his Queen Bee (no I did not forget your hand in this dear Lori B.) should have led the way.

Watch the money funnel to Chicago and no HSF chance for Space-X since they do not have a clue if they think they need that much less time with less experience. BTW, Ares I was good for a few test bed flights but we should have gone straight to V.

No, Congress is not the calvalry for CxP. It is going to let us bleed to death and will come in with the defribulator 5 minutes too late and the battery will be dead.

There's no profit in commercial besides government subsidies. No market + no profit = no good. NASA and the Military are two entities that need to be Federal. Everything else, works as private.

So, we need to start working toward a good compromise, call a spade a spade, and get a substantive, Mars Development program on the Moon 3 day out testbed, and get down to business.

Well according to Keith, Hanley's work on restructuring Constellation was at the request of Coats and Bolden. So either Keith was wrong on that bit of information, Coats and Bolden are about to be fired as well, or Bolden threw Hanley under the bus to placate Garver and Holdren and protect himself.

Thing you have to remember that the ISS program office was the dumping ground for people who couldn't make it elsewhere at JSC for years. Since people expected it to be canceled at any moment (and it came awfully close) nobody who was good at what they did and ambitious would willingly go to the ISS program and management was unwilling to encourage or force talented people to help get ISS up and running. So ISS ended up with the cast offs and they became entrenched and know you have the culture that you do where getting along is more important then actually being technically competent.

I hadn't picked up on the Boeing/Chicago connection. Thanks for pointing it out. I will watch with great interest where this goes in the future. There was a big reason Lockmart got the Orion contract and it is directoy tied to Boeing's horrible performance on ISS. I personally hope they don't ever build anything for HSF again until their managment changes their culture. Maybe forcing Lockmart to eat the termination causes is their way of sabotaging Orion for even the CRV role. The can placate Colorado voters in the fall by presenting the illusion of keeping Orion knowing full well that they wll cancel it later once Lockmart falls behind schedule because they had to layoff a big chunk of their workforce.

"Hanley has been rogue for sometime. Bolden capped him."

You are being naive if you think firing Hanley was Bolden's idea. The order came from much higher. This will become abundantly clear when Bolden himself is "capped" in about a month, two tops.

*From day 1, the plan has been the end of HSF for the USA. It was an ill conceived idea straight from OSTP and Mr. Holdren.*

Unfortunately, I fear you are right on the mark, except I would put the origin point in OMB rather than OSTP. They have wanted to do away with HSF for years and they finally found an administration that would go along with them.

For those who state "but there is MORE money going to NASA", you have to appreciate the Maciavellian nature of "the plan". Congress has never supported purely technology development goals for NASA. In the unlikely event that "the plan" were enacted into law, the first thing that would happen would be that Congress would underfund it. Since there is no near-term goal requiring the technology, the question "why must this be funded THIS year" has no answer, and the funds go elsewhere.

To Robert Oler and RC,

I am not some big conspiracy nut job. I just believe you should listen to the first thing out of a politicians mouth. For Obama that was when he said during the campaign that he would cancel Cx and use it for education. His actions match his words. Which is good if you do not believe in HSF.

I am all for getting out of LEO and there are some positive aspects of the plan. Thinks like advanced in space prop research, etc. are good. The problem with this plan is that it replaces a similar plan that front loaded the manned portion with something that is not integrated and instead front loads the research portion. That means Congress will kill it as soon as they need money.

In addition, there is no integration between the research and the mission that they support. Heck they even have the funding in different directorates (ESMD and SOMD) so you can bet there will be problems with money and schedule. Unless one person oversees the budget and schedule they will never meet. Trust me, I have seen this before on projects. ESMD will have their pet projects. SOMD will be busy with commercial crew and 21st century stuff. It just is a mess.

Now if NASA ever comes forward with a real integrated plan with costs and schedule maybe I will be proven wrong. Right now all we hear is "tranformative" or "game changing" technologies. That is just powerpoint BS that any entry level engineer can put on paper.

And Congress is NOT on board. If they were, then we would not now see the OIG investigating NASA. They are ticked off and it is all Bolden's fault for mismanaging this.

He and Garver must GO for us to get anything approved. I am as libertarian as you can get when it comes to government vs. free market. But this plan does not help us as a country, so that takes precedence over my desire to see a private launch business. There is NO company that will sign a fixed price contract to deliver crew to orbit so we will be left with NO access to even LEO. A bad situation for a once great country.

"To me human spaceflight as NASA does it HAS TO END."

Whether this is a good goal or not is another question. To believe that we must instantly purge this from NASA and wait for some commercial company to develop this capability is foolish.

As many of us have stated, spaceflight with our current technology is difficult. We've learned a lot, but human qualified parts are not a off the shelf item. An example is how long SpaceX has had to wait for their flight termination hardware to be qualified and approved for flight.

Once there is a high demand for HSF, perhaps things will be simpler and there will be several companies with good competition. We're not there yet and it's probably going to be many years until we are there.

"We're not there yet and it's probably going to be many years until we are there."

where we differ is in my view we are there. The Delta launch in my view (along with Atlas) proves that private companies have the "lift" equation down and human spaceflight vehicles are in reality no more difficult then high performance military fighters, nuclear subs or even high end commercial airliners.

What makes it "hard" is the leadership of NASA HSF who has, in my view entered into a closed loop of "lets make human spaceflight safer by making it more complicated" in large part to justify a bureaucracy that has no value for the cost.

What we need in HSF is a way of doing things that is more like everything else done in America and less like a NASA HSF redoubt where (to listen to the PAO and the astronauts) "docking occurs at 17,500 mph"

We will never get to someplace else as long as all the money spent by the federal government goes to maintaining NASA HSF. And NASA HSF does nothing in my view that makes the rest of the nation better off.

When the final "wheels stop" occurs on the orbiter its time to bury 50 years of HSF run by mission control and start doing it more like well we fly airplanes. (Musk problems with his FTS are a symptom of this) .

Robert G. Oler

"The order came from much higher. This will become abundantly clear when Bolden himself is "capped" in about a month, two tops."

do you have any proof that it came from "higher up"?

As I have noted here Hanley should have gone a year or so ago for letting the project get out of control...

and I know that it is very important for many to believe that Charlie really isnt in control...but he is.

When Bolden is still NASA in three months...will you have the courage to admit that you dont know what you dont know?

Robert G. Oler

Transparency: Cernan brought up something that should be reviewed, and that is "transparency" questions.

Cernan says "With no transparency, one can only conclude that this proposal was most likely formulated in haste by a very few within the Offices of Management and Budget (OMB) and Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), with the alleged involvement of the NASA Deputy Administrator, and by his own admission, with little or no input from the NASA Administrator himself. Neither did NASA’s Center Directors, nor senior NASA management throughout the agency, nor program managers have any input. If that is indeed the case, the originators quite likely were promoting their own agenda rather than that of NASA and America’s commitment to Human Space Exploration as directed by Congress in the Authorization Bills of 2005
and 2008. "

Armstrong was a little gentler with a similar comment:
"This issue facing this meeting has produced substantial turmoil among space advocates. So many normally knowledgeable people were completely astounded by the President’s proposal. Had the
announcement been preceded by the typical review, analysis and discussion among the Executive branch, the agency, the congress, and all the other interested and knowledgeable parties, no member of this committee would have been surprised by the announcement of a new plan. In this case, a normally collegial sector of society was split in many fragments, some focused on contracts and money, some on work force and jobs, some on technical choices. All because a few planners, with little or no space operations experience, attempted an end run on the normal process. It has been painful to watch. "

Somehow, folks, there is a signal about lack of transparency and Open Government, Open NASA? Is this being by-passed and overlooked in these discussions?

Folks, Obama is supposed to be representing the need for more Open Government and transparency? Reading between the lines in NASA watch you see articles on Open NASA to work with Open Government? As a citizen watching on the outside, I'm asking about this whole issue of transparency and openness?

Yes, I agree with Hutchinson and Rockefeller's request for an OIG investigation on this very matter, maybe even an Office of Special Investigations (external) review?

BTW: Did anyone here noticed that Whitesides went back to Virgin Galactic? I wonder, who else was in and out of the hen house, with appearance of influence on the White House transition team?

When reviewing all of this, we must take care not to forget Heinlein's Razor:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

In my opinion, what we are seeing is not the result of some sort of deliberate, planned attempt to sabotage NASA HSF, so much as the fallout of an incredibly botched roll-out, rushed planning, and the desire for quick, cheap fix. In a lot of ways, the promise of commercial crew is a repeat of what was originally promised with the Space Shuttle in the '70s- cheap, reliable, frequent spaceflight. It is easy for me to imagine how that might be enchanting to those in the OSTP who may not be that familiar with space policy.

Now, of course, whether commercial crew has the capability to bear that out remains to be seen- they probably will, one day, but it may not be as soon as we'd all like.

Furthermore, even if Obama is not particularly interested HSF, you must remember that, even with all this noise about him being some sort of radical left-wing crypto-Marxist, while liberal, he is above all a pragmatist. The savings of canceling the HSF program would be minuscule, particularly given the political and economic fallout. Even if it were for ideological reasons, he'd have a lot more luck scoring points with that particular wing of his base, and saving real money, by going after 'wasteful' military projects instead- which is exactly what's happening with the F-35 alternative engine (granted, he also has the support of the Pentagon, who don't want to have to fund an extra engine, either).

So, while this may turn out to be a bad idea, or even a good idea badly executed, it is my belief that those who presented it honestly thought it was the best way forward under the circumstances.

"Armstrong was a little gentler with a similar comment:
'... a few planners, with little or no space operations experience, attempted an end run on the normal process.'

My thoughts exactly - except I would have replaced "planners" with "policy 'experts'".

"When reviewing all of this, we must take care not to forget Heinlein's Razor:"

I think you meant Hanlon's Razor? (I know, there is some dispute on the matter...)

"the promise of commercial crew is a repeat of what was originally promised with the Space Shuttle in the '70s- cheap, reliable, frequent spaceflight. It is easy for me to imagine how that might be enchanting to those in the OSTP who may not be that familiar with space policy."

Not to mention OMB... But you are exactly right.

NASA welcome the OIG and whatever investigation anyone wants.

The Cx program is the one in which will be taking the sour pill of justice.

I would like to see a real, fair and impartial investigation of how NASA lost its ability to field a first rate management team.

Were there experienced and capable people who were not selected for the prime jobs? Was there nepotism, cronyism or other forms of management corruption which effected to ability of NASA to carry out its programs and mission?

I think it is time to take a look under the hood and see if there is a reason we are now in the situation we are in.

This NASA team does not even understand how to utilize the career SES managers and other leaders. From recent developments it seems the mission takes a secondary role to political objectives. The "reassignment" of Jeff, the AA for Education and the departure of George W only continue to point this out

"You care to comment on Obama's qualifications to lead one of the most powerful countries in the history of the world? Tell me about that. How about Ms. Clinton? Being first lady makes you qualified to be a Senator for a state she never lived in? And just to make it balanced in case you're fearing my political affiliation -- what makes a star college football player qualified as a US Rep? A comedian to become a political commentator? A nominee for supreme court who's never been a judge?"

I don't mind commenting on the qualifications of Obama, Ms. Clinton, the star college football player, Kagan etc. to server in our Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches. Those qualifications are listed in the Constitution of the U.S., and sorry to say all of the above are duly qualified. In addition, all of them must be voted into office.

On the other hand, we've had written qualifications for senior management positions at NASA modified to fit the member of the clique that would not otherwise make the cut. I've seen technical positions become administrative positions; I've seen project management requirements removed from senior project management positions; and I've even seen individuals selected for senior positions that had no experience at all in the subject area. Tell me about that.

"This NASA team does not even understand how to utilize the career SES managers and other leaders."

There are a lot - many - SES's that I have seen who should never have been made SES's. Some should never have gotten beyond a GS-13. The lack of products, lack of experience, lack of education, lack of ability to relate to other people and to intelligence...you really have to question on what basis these people got their rank and their positions.

Yes I aqree that many SES in NASA and throughout government are not qualified -- however this was not the case with the recently reassigned AA for Education at NASA, for George Whitesides and for Jeff Hanley in my opinion

I don't know Whitesides or the Education people.

Hanley and most of his management and staff were in over their heads from the start. The performance of the program reflects the people who led it. They never had a clear plan, they never understood their goals, and they never defined a strategy that would allow them to make the required progress.

I keep remembering back to some of Griffn's first words. What we need is an up to date spacecraft with Gemini kinds of capabilities. Gemini was done in 3 years and about a billion dollars which equates to about $5 billion today. Constellation did not even come close.

The poor performance of Constellation now is being felt by all of NASA. For human space flight, this was a dismal failure and the entire future of human space flight in the US is now in peril.

The AA for Education had done an outstanding job of improving the performance of the office (specfically budgeting and metrics) and in areas including outreadh. The reassignment is still a mystery to many of us.

Editor's note: it is not a mystery at all. You just have to ask around. That organization has been broken for years. It is still broken.