President-Elect Obama and NASA

Getting into a shouting match with the HR rep is not exactly the best way to land a job. But according to the Orlando Sentinel, that's just what happened last week between NASA administrator Mike Griffin and Lori Garver, a member of Barack Obama's transition team who will help decide if Griffin keeps his post once the President-elect takes office. If the contretemps did occur, it could help doom not only the NASA chief's chances, but the space agency's ambitious plans to get Americans back to the moon.

We think: NASA's chief should welcome Obama team's scrutiny

For NASA, the transition between the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama has been a bumpy ride. The blame goes to NASA Administrator Michael Griffin.

Last week the Sentinel reported that Mr. Griffin, trying to protect the space agency's Constellation program, was obstructing information-gathering by Mr. Obama's transition team. With its goal of sending astronauts to the moon and Mars, the program is considered Mr. Griffin's signature project.

Mr. Griffin vehemently disputed the report. But a NASA spokesman confirmed to The Washington Post that the administrator had told the head of the transition team, a former associate administrator at NASA, that no one on her team had the engineering qualifications to evaluate the agency's choice of rocket for the program.

Controversy has been building for months over that rocket, known as Ares:

*The Government Accountability Office found in April that Ares (air-ease) suffered from dangerous design flaws. NASA said the flaws could be fixed.

*The Sentinel reported in June that some NASA employees and contractors had been working on their own time to develop an alternative to Ares that they said could be built cheaper and sooner. Mr. Griffin said it was time to stop studying options and get to work on Ares.

*In October, another problem with Ares -- a risk of crashing into its launch tower during liftoff -- came to light. It could take a year and tens of millions of unbudgeted dollars to fix. NASA officials downplayed the problem, but an agency engineer who quit the Ares program told the Sentinel it was "time for a rethink."
... ... ...

the prospect of a president who doesn't "get" science

Arf arf arf arf arf arf arf arf

The Time report from the December 11 issue, quoted in above source above, says:

Quote:

Getting into a shouting match with the HR rep is not exactly the best way to land a job. But according to the Orlando Sentinel, that's just what happened last week between NASA administrator Mike Griffin and Lori Garver, a member of Barack Obama's transition team who will help decide if Griffin keeps his post once the President-elect takes office. If the contretemps did occur, it could help doom not only the NASA chief's chances, but the space agency's ambitious plans to get Americans back to the moon.

Orlando Sentinel, Editorial (December 19):

Quote:

We think: NASA's chief should welcome Obama team's scrutiny

For NASA, the transition between the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama has been a bumpy ride. The blame goes to NASA Administrator Michael Griffin.

Last week the Sentinel reported that Mr. Griffin, trying to protect the space agency's Constellation program, was obstructing information-gathering by Mr. Obama's transition team. With its goal of sending astronauts to the moon and Mars, the program is considered Mr. Griffin's signature project.

Mr. Griffin vehemently disputed the report. But a NASA spokesman confirmed to The Washington Post that the administrator had told the head of the transition team, a former associate administrator at NASA, that no one on her team had the engineering qualifications to evaluate the agency's choice of rocket for the program.

Controversy has been building for months over that rocket, known as Ares:

*The Government Accountability Office found in April that Ares (air-ease) suffered from dangerous design flaws. NASA said the flaws could be fixed.

*The Sentinel reported in June that some NASA employees and contractors had been working on their own time to develop an alternative to Ares that they said could be built cheaper and sooner. Mr. Griffin said it was time to stop studying options and get to work on Ares.

*In October, another problem with Ares -- a risk of crashing into its launch tower during liftoff -- came to light. It could take a year and tens of millions of unbudgeted dollars to fix. NASA officials downplayed the problem, but an agency engineer who quit the Ares program told the Sentinel it was "time for a rethink."
... ... ...

Could it be because Bush started the "Return to the Moon" program, and at one point, Obama proposed cancelling it? Now he says he doesn't want to cancel it anymore, and I want to believe him.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Could it be because Bush started the "Return to the Moon" program, and at one point, Obama proposed cancelling it? Now he says he doesn't want to cancel it anymore, and I want to believe him.

Ah, so that is your criterion for "getting science." Sounds pretty unscientific to me. But I will back off and let your discussion go as it will without any more interruption.

Enjoy the holidays.

I gather we are getting virtually no benefits from manned space projects. I keep hearing about the great serendipity benefits that are forthcoming. But keep in mind that research on earth (energy, autos, medicine, etc.) will also yield such benefits, and not be a total waste of money similar to that expended on manned space projects.

I think the claimed NASA spinoff benefits are wildly exagerated, and are from earlier unmanned projects. (The manned projects, I think, are mostly for publicity.) Moreover, there are spinoff benefits to virtually any research. Another thing to consider, in my opinion, is the immense air pollution produced by the blastoffs. Further, it is fanciful to a fault to think that we will someday inhabit other planets.

I think the claimed NASA spinoff benefits are wildly exagerated, and are from earlier unmanned projects. (The manned projects, I think, are mostly for publicity.) Moreover, there are spinoff benefits to virtually any research. Another thing to consider, in my opinion, is the immense air pollution produced by the blastoffs. Further, it is fanciful to a fault to think that we will someday inhabit other planets.

Actually, Brandon, I generally agree with your desire for a manned program. In the light of economic dire straights, Obama may see cause to slow the program. I don't know that he has said that. So far, I don't see that he has a plan to alter the program as it is. I find it disturbing that dissention within NASA, over the rocket to be used has not been settled.

edgarblythe wrote:

Actually, Brandon, I generally agree with your desire for a manned program. In the light of economic dire straights, Obama may see cause to slow the program. I don't know that he has said that. So far, I don't see that he has a plan to alter the program as it is. I find it disturbing that dissention within NASA, over the rocket to be used has not been settled.

During the Apollo program, I imagined that by now we'd have bases on the moon and perhaps Mars. The glacially slow progress in the space program since Apollo is very disappointing. I can only hope that we have government office holders who at least agree in principle that putting Man in space is good.