It has been announced that Mike Griffin will be nominated to succeed Sean O’Keefe as NASA Administrator. Is this good for NASA and the nation?
My initial reaction is guarded optimism. I’m strongly in favor of the Moon-Mars program, and Griffin is not only a scientist and engineer but also appears to have vision. And it’s not Dan Goldin-style vision. If Congress asked him what he’d do with more money, he might actually have an answer.
Well, the Bad Astronomer seems to approve of the choice…
He’s probably the most technically knowledgeable guy that will ever have been appointed adminstrator of NASA, and he’s got a reputation as a pull-no-punches guy who says what he believes, even if it’s politically incorrect. Seems like a good appointment to me.
It’s about time NASA had a director who really understands what space travel is for, and that it’s about things even more important than expanding humanity’s scientific knowledge! (See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=262764)
I hope some of you who were skeptical about Bush’s commitment to space will finally agree that Bush is doing more for NASA than any president has done since at least the 1980’s. He threatened a veto (his first) to make sure NASA got every nickel it requested this year, and now he’s appointed a fantastic administrator.
We’ll see what he decides to do about continued support for the Hubble and Voyager missions, both of which O’Keefe had decided to sack. Then I’ll post what I think of him.
I’m all for trying to restart our manned space program (and phasing out the LEO stuff), but it shouldn’t come at the expense of the very succsessful, cost effective, publically popular and much less pie in the sky unmanned missions that NASA has undertaken.
In short, Griffin supports the development of a heavy-lift craft, perhaps based on the Shuttle system (replacing the orbiter itself with a cargo pod), eliminating the Shuttle as quickly as possible, and getting out of ISS commitments as quickly as possible. Then NASA can focus on its primary job of exploration - opening up the solar system to eventual human colonization.
I’ve not really followed space exploration since my pre-teen years; I’d given up on this generation for space travel. But the quotes you guys provide rock my world. Mike Griffin rocks my world. I went out an expanded my world a bit, and then he rocked that, too. Scientific credentials! Human colonization!
Thanks for posting this, Sam Stone.
[sub]No, I can’t provide a debate either. Anybody?[/sub]
Well it’s no wonder that Zubrin loves the guy. He’s effectively proposing the start of Zubrin’s Mars Direct plan with 100 metric ton launch capacity.
The question is what role does a 100 ton launch vehicle have outside of placing payloads in lunar or Martian orbit? Typical Titan 4B’s throw around 25 tons to LEO. Well that and what is the plan for Prometheus and JIMO? Anyone have any details on those?
As of now, I believe that Prometheus has been scaled back slightly, and JIMO has been axed. JIMO was axed not because of lack of funding, but because the engineers decided it was just too tough to fly on any reasonable schedule. I hope both of these make a comeback under the new administrator.
Remains to be seen, doesn’t it? All the plans in the world don’t mean dick if the money isn’t there, and it won’t be there if he doesn’t lobby for it himself. Surely you understand that very deep skepticism is warranted.
He sounds good, but we haven’t seen him in practice yet. As for the funding, how much did NASA ask for? Enough to keep the Hubble in service, or replace it? Enough to meet our obligations on the ISS? Enough to restore basic aeronautics research? Has the bar been lowered enough yet that some lofty words will suffice?
As the old Earth proverb goes, “Show me the money”.
What do you mean, “In practice”? Congress already tried to cut NASA’s budget, and Bush threatened to veto an entire omnibus appropriations bill unless they restored every penny of funding that NASA asked for. That’s not taking action? That’s not demonstrating commitment? Come on, give the guy some credit.
Under Bush, NASA has seen its funding increase dramatically. Under Clinton, NASA was stagnating and going nowhere. Under Bush, NASA has been revitalized, with a new mission and a fantastic new administrator.
I have no idea what else you expect him to do. NASA was given substantial funding increases in a budget that saw most agencies get no increase or even decreases in funding.
If Bush weren’t serious, here’s what he would have done - he would have announced this great vision for political purposes, but given NASA only enough funds to ‘study’ it. A few hundred million, perhaps. He would have left the agency as-is, rather than demanding sweeping changes in its structure. He would have left an administrator in charge who didn’t really believe in the vision and who could be counted on to drag his feet. A couple of years down the road, he could make a big show of awarding some ‘preliminary’ contracts to the usual suspects. And eventually, with wide enough specifications and no focus, some white-elephant of a ‘plan’ would have emerged that would be hideously expensive. By then, Bush would be nearing the end of his second term and could walk away from the whole thing.
You know, like most Presidents have done with NASA since the 1970’s.
Bush didn’t do that. He announced sweeping reforms, demanded that they begin being implemented NOW, pushed for huge funding increases, restructured the agency around the new vision so there would be no turning back, and demanded hard timetables and narrow requirements that had a chance to succeed. Then he appointed an administrator who shares that vision and has been a tireless advocate for a greatly expanded space program for decades. One who has wide respect all through the space community and both sides of Congress. Not some ineffectual, non-engineer manager like Dan Goldin.
If NASA has gotten every penny they asked for then someone higher up in NASA is a masochist. Thought their actual budget has increased, so much more money is being diverted to space that they are ripping their aeronautics programs to shreds. Wind tunnels are being closed down left and right at Langley, and will be torn down shortly. Techs are being laid off left and right there (as well as several other NASA facilities) and the engineers are going to go next year (those who haven’t already been forced into early retirement).
Also, they have traditionally gotten supplemental funding for specific projects, with the money earmarked for those projects. That supplemental funding has disappeared, but the requirements are still there, so NASA has to divert more of its dwindling aeronautics budget to fund them before it can do any other research. All of this when we as a nation have already fallen behind europe in our aeronautics technology.
Sure, this appointment does look great for the space side of NASA, but it is entirely possible that that is all there will be in a couple years.
And, outside of the happy world that Sam Stone talks about where Bush gives NASA big increases and fights then Congress that tries to cut NASA, there is the real world where the redirection at NASA is cutting some programs badly, like aeronautics (and here) and other things and Congress is questioning these cuts:
Park has built a career out of naysaying human spaceflight. If Wernher von Braun rose from the grave and took over NASA, Park would whine about it.
Robots are great, but what it comes down to is that the public wants to (a) have a chance of going to space, or, failing that, (b) send someone to space so he/she can tell us what it’s like. Robots can send plenty of data, but they can never tell us what it is like to walk on another world.
There have always been Bob Parks around, but until recently, nobody took them seriously. Good thing, too, otherwise there would be a severe overpopulation crisis in East Africa by now.
