<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Amen, brother. Griffin is the most effective NASA administrator in the past 20 years or more. He's good at it. Consequently, he has acquired a squadron of enemies who'd love to see him go down in flames. If the journey back to the moon and then onward to Mars and other places is actually to occur, it must be allowed to survive political flux -- including, most especially, transitions from one presidential administration to the next. Keeping Griffin also would be consistent with the inclusive tone that the Obama folks are trying to project. And hanging onto him would represent a commitment to the vision thing, which is essential given that in Constellation, we're talking about a program that will only have barely begun even by the end of a hypothetical Obama second term. <br />Posted by lampblack</DIV><br /><br />Here's my opinion of recent NASA administrators:</p><p>Dan Goldin brought a sence of shrudness and smart management to the agency, while also lifting morale and injecting NASA with a new "can-do" attitude. His administration began with the Hubble repair mission, created the Mars Exploraton Program, started zillions of new technology initiates, forged the space station partnership with Russia, created the Scout low-cost missions program. His mantra was Faster, Better, Cheaper. After multiple Mars program failures that mantra was attacked by his critics but was quickly revised as Faster, Better, Not Much Cheaper. Eventually his management reform programs got the best of him. Employees were pushed to the brink, annoyed with programs that went beyond the call of duty. For example, one program divided NASA into red and blue teams whom were assigned to spy on fellow employees.</p><p>Sean O'Keefe was an accountant who not only loved numbers but also got interested in space science. He was like an accounting wizard, coming up with 5-year budget plans, figuring out how to pump more science out of each dolar allocated. When the ISS started having financial and management problems, he managed to get it back on track without additional hardware cuts, while also finding security for Node 3 and the equipment for additional station crew (to be launched this month, in fact). He cancelled the station Crew Rescue Vehicle in favor of development full-fledged crewed launch capsule. After the Columbia accident, I guess his job was no longer fun, as he spent his full time cooperating with the investigation and testifying before Congress. After a year of full-time Columbia investigation cooperation, he resigned. But under him, programs stayed focused, on track and on budget and new unplanned fruits were beginning to blossom.</p><p>At this point, I stopped following NASA for a while, upset that all the focus that NASA gained from the last two administrators was coming to an abrupt end and virtual deadlock amist in the Columbia aftermath. Some years later, I decide to check the news archives to catch up with the going-ons at NASA. When I first learned of Constellation, my reaction was dismay that the agency was virtually starting over again and that the progress O'Keefe has made was tossed out the window. My thinking was that Constellation was just the latest in a long list of other programs that were eventually cancelled and that Constellation would be doomed from the get-go.</p><p>When I learned that Congress committed to it, that several billions had already been spent on it, that the hardware is real and is actually being manufactured, that the program has actually pretty much stuck to its plan and schedule, I became very optimistic. I'm assuming that Orion has its routes in the capsule program started by O'Keefe?</p><p>Whatever the case may be, we must stay the course. No change in plans. Constellation must continue as planned. Any policy shift, change of plan, or priority reshufflling will only add more years of NASA stagnation and billions in additional wasted tax dollars on spending for cancelled programs that never see the light of day, or wasted billions of dollars and precious time on unnceccessary redesign work.</p><p>Bottom line: Obama should keep Griffin for policy continuity sake or appoint someone who pledges to stay on target.</p>