Recently in Ask The Administrator Category

From: Anonymous at Marshall Space Flight Center Question(s): An alternative launch vehicle was proposed that has many advantages to Ares I/V. The direct STS derived vehicle offers more mass to orbit at $2B less per year, minimizes changes to the STS launch infrastructure while maintaining existing workforce, provides greater flexibility for lunar architecture options including global access anytime return, enables large science missions, and allows upgrades for Mars exploration. The vehicle is described in a Sept 2007 AIAA paper "Achieving the Vision for Space Exploration on Time and Within Budget", 2007-6231 (www.directlauncher.com). Is NASA considering a seldom encounter option of "better, faster, cheaper" as a slight change to the Ares I/V approach that opened the doors to exploration beyond low earth orbit? If not, why not?

Response: No, we are not examining this concept further at this time, because we have looked at this and similar designs on numerous prior occasions. We conducted a very thorough study of architectural alternatives to meeting our needs for ISS resupply and return to the Moon during the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), over two years ago. At some point, the studying has to stop and the work has to commence. We are well past that point. The suggested approach has numerous shortcomings with regard to meeting our architectural requirements.

This column is not the place to cover all the pros and cons of that approach. If you are interested, I would suggest contacting Steve Cook, of MSFC, directly. As a courtesy, you should copy Constellation Program Manager Jeff Hanley and ESMD AA Rick Gilbrech.

Editor's note: There is an energetic little group of Internet denizens who love to wave their arms around and posit the notion that they - and they alone - have a solution to all of NASA's problems with the Ares I and V rockets. Technical merits (or lack thereof) aside, anyone who knows Mike Griffin and how he has been running NASA will tell you in a heartbeat that he will simply not deter from his current path so long as he is Administrator. As such all of these Powerpoint concepts are just that - concepts.

However, should Griffin leave or be replaced, the general consenus is that the entire VSE/ESAS universe would be revisited - from stem to stern - with an EELV-based architecture the strong favorite to replace it. If the powers that be reject Ares - they will reject any Shuttle-derived architecture.

Yawn. Next topic.

The Internet is a great way to share ideas. So far it is not the best way to (re)design NASA's rockets. That does not mean that it will not be capable of hosting such a "crowdsourcing" activity in the near future.

-- Just not this week.

From: Konstantin Penanen (Jet Propulsion Laboratory)
Date: 17-Aug-2007

Question(s): Mike, During your recent all-hands meeting at JPL a number of employees raised their concerns about the implementation of HSPD-12 and the resulting intrusive investigations. While you expressed your own basic comfort with the directive, you emphasized that the process is government-wide and your hands were tied.

Editor's note: The following selection is repeated - verbatim - from an ongoing "Ask the Administrator" dialog with Mike Griffin, located on InsideNASA, and can be viewed by anyone at NASA:

From: Anonymous (Goddard Space Flight Center) Question(s): After making the hard and much needed decision to stop moving the Lunar Precursor and Robotics Program office from Center to Center and bring it to HQ to more efficiently manage NASA's programs and projects under severely constrained budget conditions, how do you handle politicians trying to reverse such a decision? With the very aggressive schedule and limited resources of the LRO Project (and presumably the LCROSS Project), acclimating to a new Center program office structure every year or so is terribly unproductive and a strain on already limited project resources, especially when some Centers do not necessarily have the expertise in program management needed to manage such projects, resulting in even more strain on limited resources. One would think that those politicians who confirmed you as Administrator to make the hard decisions and trusted you to do so in the best interest of the Agency and the taxpayers would let you do your job.

Editor's note: The following selection is repeated - verbatim - from an ongoing "Ask the Administrator" dialog with Mike Griffin, located on InsideNASA, and can be viewed by anyone at NASA:

Anonymous (Langley Research Center): Along with many of my colleagues, I was quite surprised when you canceled the OneNASA initiative along with the statement (to the effect) that its objectives had been satisfied. Reviewing any of the original mission statements for OneNASA, there would appear to be a pretty clear 'disconnect' between the two statements. Admiring the extremely clear and logical thinking (and articulation) you've demonstrated in every speaking forum, I'm wondering if you might expand a bit more on your rationale for this cancellation. Similar to some questions already posted in this forum, I know there was a sincere hope among many of my colleagues at several centers, that we might strive toward eliminating the 'ten stove pipes' in terms of attitudes and practices.

Editor's note: The following selection is repeated - verbatim - from an ongoing "Ask the Administrator" dialog with Mike Griffin, located on InsideNASA, and can be viewed by anyone at NASA:

From: Raymond Sanders (Johnson Space Center) Date: 07-May-2007 Question(s): If I, as a NASA employee in good standing get involved in some emotional, non lethal altercation and arrested by law enforcements agents in Florida, will NASA quickly dispatch my supervisor in a Government T-38 or equivalent, to represent NASA and assess the matter?

Response: No.

NASA Deputy Administrator's Blog Jun 25, 2007

"I was in Colorado and Arizona on June 17-20. I will write more about my meetings there in my next entry. I have been traveling quite a bit in the past few months and there is no sense that it will slow down any time soon. I think these trips are necessary, talking to people outside the beltway to see what their thoughts are about NASA and exploration. But the main purpose has been to focus on fiscal year (FY) 2008 appropriations for NASA."

NASA Deputy Administrator's Blog Jun 15, 2007 - Shana Dale

"I am looking for a more direct way to communicate with people inside the agency. There is so much that goes on at headquarters and I want to be able to pull the curtain back on at least some of it and also explain what is going on with new initiatives. I anticipate updating the blog every week - I know, not as routine as many but it's hard even to find time to eat lunch."

Today's Ask the Administrator Answer, previous post

[Mike Griffin] "Finally, no, I do not read NASAWatch, or any other blog."

Editor's note: Gee Mike, you won't even read your own Deputy's blog?

Editor's note: The following selection is repeated - verbatim - from an ongoing "Ask the Administrator" dialog with Mike Griffin, located on InsideNASA, and can be viewed by anyone at NASA:

Question(s): To preface this question, I have already read your answers that make it clear that the "Vision" carriers a higher priority than sustaining our research edge. What I do not understand is: (1) How can the Vision be implemented within the resource constraints we face? From the data and trends I'm seeing, there is an Achilles' mismatch between budgets & costs and schedules & progress. (2) How is the "Vision" more beneficial to the Nation than NASA's other responsibility to sustain preeminence in the sciences and technologies of aerospace? Thanks for inviting such questions. From: Marc G. Millis (Glenn Research Center)

Editor's note: The following selection is repeated - verbatim - from an ongoing "Ask the Administrator" dialog with Mike Griffin, located on InsideNASA, and can be viewed by anyone at NASA:

From: Anonymous (Goddard Space Flight Center): Regarding the letter about experiences on Constellation outreach and public relations on NASAWATCH.com on May 30, 2007, I would recommend that HQ PAO needs to coordinate with all Center PAO offices and educate the public about NASA. Have you develop the plan to communicate directly to public? They are the taxpayers. We need to tell them that NASA has benefits for everyone. Also, do you read posts on NASAWATCH.com? I find it very interesting than what PAO has on NASA website.

Editor's note: The following selection is repeated - verbatim - from an ongoing "Ask the Administrator" dialog with Mike Griffin, located on InsideNASA, and can be viewed by anyone at NASA:

Question(s): As you are no doubt aware, a recent Washington Post article entitled, 'Cutbacks Impede Climate Studies', describes Earth Science research funding cuts that impact Earth Science research. It is my understanding that many people on our home planet believe that Global Warming/Climate Change is the number 1 challenge to our survival as a species. If that is the case, then perhaps Congress should give the Agency an emergency supplement that will enable NASA to perform this important climatic change research at or beyond the current level of vigor.

Editor's note: The following selection is repeated - verbatim - from an ongoing "Ask the Administrator" dialog with Mike Griffin, located on InsideNASA, and can be viewed by anyone at NASA:

Question(s): What are the agency plans to respond to the NRC Decadal Survey "Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond"? Is there a general opinion of this report and the impacts to NASA at this early stage? From: Steve Ambrose, Headquarters