Will Obama keep Michael Griffin?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PJay_A

Guest
<p>Traditionally, it's been customary for the incoming president to name their own NASA Administrator, as is cabinet-level positions. Bush Sr. appointed Dan Goldin when he became president. Clinton, however, deviated from tradition and kept Goldin in charge of NASA during his two administrations. George W. Bush appointed Sean O'Keefe, who later resigned a year into the Columbia investigation and was replaced by NASA's current administrator Michael Griffin.</p><p>Will Obama do what Clinton did and keep Griffin serving as NASA head, or will he follow tradition and give one of his cronnies the top NASA position?</p><p>Personally, I hope he keeps Griffin on because so far I think he has done a great job in putting together the Constellation program and keeping that program pretty much on track. Also, for consistency sake, I hope he stays on because a new administrator may come in with a different agenda and there goes the Constellation program! </p>
 
D

docm

Guest
<p><em><font color="#0000ff">Will Obama keep Michael Griffin?</font></em></p><p>GAWD, I hope not.</p><p>If you think Constellation is "on track" I have this bridge for sale.....</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Will Obama keep Michael Griffin?GAWD, I hope not.If you think Constellation is "on track" I have this bridge for sale..... <br />Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>Yes, I am sure that you would have done so much better.</p><p>Griffin was the best person for the job at the time.&nbsp; Overall he is still the best person for the job.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Will Obama keep Michael Griffin?GAWD, I hope not.If you think Constellation is "on track" I have this bridge for sale..... <br />Posted by docm</DIV></p><p><strong>LOL!&nbsp; However,&nbsp; the only mistake Griffin made, was "he bit off more, than he can chew".&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
V

vulture4

Guest
<p>With the country in the shape it is, we need a leader who will return NASA to its real original mission: developing new technology of practical value to America. </p>
 
W

windnwar

Guest
While Griffin is well regarded as a decent engineer, he seems to have forgotten about engineering completely when it comes to Ares. I'd be surprised if he doesn't get the axe. The only good to come from the griffin administration is the hubble mission, and cots. Constellation is a disaster. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>
 
M

MarkStanaway

Guest
<p>As an outsider looking in it appears to me that Griffin is the best administrator NASA has had in a long time. He seems to be focussing on the VSE despite the limited budget he has to work with. Bush cunningly left the big spending decisions to his successor and Griffin will have to work his magic with the new Administration and Congress if the the VSE is to be kept on track. He will need the drive of James Webb to to see the VSE through and so far I think the signs look promising. I hope Obama keeps Griffin on and doesn't give the position to some party hack.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
L

lampblack

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As an outsider looking in it appears to me that Griffin is the best administrator NASA has had in a long time. He seems to be focussing on the VSE despite the limited budget he has to work with. Bush cunningly left the big spending decisions to his successor and Griffin will have to work his magic with the new Administration and Congress if the the VSE is to be kept on track. He will need the drive of James Webb to to see the VSE through and so far I think the signs look promising. I hope Obama keeps Griffin on and doesn't give the position to some party hack.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by MarkStanaway</DIV></p><p><font size="2">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. </font></p><p><font size="2">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.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
<p>I'm not a real NASA insider, but I'm a huge fan.&nbsp; From what I've seen on NASA TV, and reading NASA related stuff, I like Griffin.&nbsp; I hope he stays.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
P

PJay_A

Guest
<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.&nbsp; <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&nbsp;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.&nbsp;For example, one program&nbsp;divided NASA into red and blue teams whom were&nbsp;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>
 
W

windnwar

Guest
Sorry but if Griffin is going to stay then he needs to get the courage to stand up to Thiokol and abolish the abomination that is Ares-1 before they waste more time and resources on a rocket that just has "BAD IDEA" stamped all over it. For too long he's been towing the line that it'll all be fine. He's smart enough to realize that isn't the case. If he can't do that, then he needs to go, period! The longer they screw around with that rocket, the further behind they'll end up being. Get a man rated EELV and instead spend money building Ares-V. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>
 
V

vulture4

Guest
After decades of effort put into finally making the Shuttle and ISS work remarkably well, Mike Griffin told the agency to drop everything and head for Mars, but without spending any more money. He paid for the Constellation program by dropping both Shuttle and ISS, creating a false history that the Shuttle program was reaching a planned end and sending the ISS partners through the roof, yet rejecting China's offer to join the ISS program and inject some cash. Later Griffin responded to political pressure by putting ISS support back in the schedule along with the trips to the moon, but without funding for both, leaving it to a successor to take the heat for either changing course again or raising costs. While Dan Golden spent a little money to return symbolically to the "meatball" of the Apollo era, Griffin abandoned the entire technology of human spaceflight, including all the work in returning the Shuttle to flight, to return to a costly 40-year-old Apollo-like technology, but one in which he personally chose the designs and contractors. The possibility that NASA should do more work that is useful and productive for the country has been ignored. On the plus side, Griffin uses the metric system. <BR/><BR/>The last _NINE_ NASA administrators have all been Republican appointees. It's time to let a Democrat who has shown at least some talent at picking people choose a new leader for the agency.
 
F

franontanaya

Guest
<p>I don't see the President in the mood of making partisan moves nor dropping people with experience. He'll probably see through the 'Constellation program is Bush Jr.'s program' and hopefully ask NASA to focus on making work the things they *need* working (ISS transport) and take more international partners for the exploration science projects. I'd better see a NASA/ESA flagship to Jupiter than a NASA only scout probe. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>After decades of effort put into finally making the Shuttle and ISS work remarkably well, Mike Griffin told the agency to drop everything and head for Mars, but without spending any more money. He paid for the Constellation program by dropping both Shuttle and ISS, creating a false history that the Shuttle program was reaching a planned end </DIV></p><p><strong>Huh????&nbsp; The shuttle is over 30 yrs old (1981).&nbsp; The ISS is a work program for the shuttle, even Shuttle Guy admits this.&nbsp; You want to stay in LEO forever?</strong></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;While Dan Golden spent a little money to return symbolically to the "meatball" of the Apollo era, Griffin abandoned the entire technology of human spaceflight, including all the work in returning the Shuttle to flight, to return to a costly 40-year-old Apollo-like technology, but one in which he personally chose the designs and contractors.</DIV></p><p><strong>A 40 yr. old design (capsule, LM, etc.)&nbsp; Nothing wrong with this, it's prudent.&nbsp; From what I've read, Griffin is a Genius.</strong></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The possibility that NASA should do more work that is useful and productive for the country has been ignored. On the plus side, Griffin uses the metric system. The last _NINE_ NASA administrators have all been Republican appointees. It's time to let a Democrat who has shown at least some talent at picking people choose a new leader for the agency. <br />Posted by vulture4</DIV></p><p><strong>You hate Griffin.&nbsp; Are you one of the Jupiter designers?</strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
V

vulture4

Guest
>>Huh???? The shuttle is over 30 yrs old (1981). The ISS is a work program for the shuttle, even Shuttle Guy admits this. You want to stay in LEO forever?<BR/><BR/>If we cannot be productive in LEO then we certainly won't be productive on the moon. The taxpayers would be fools to give us another $100B just because we're bored. And I've never met anyone who had actually BEEN to LEO and was bored with it. <BR/><BR/>It's hard to see how the shuttle is too old (operational for about 25 years) but the Ares, parts of which were operational 40 years ago, is not. The "Apollo on Steroids" program will absorb virtually our entire R&D budget for the next 30 years without advancing technology or reducing cost. <BR/><BR/>Third, I was a grass-roots organizer in the L-5 Society for years, and worked hard to build support for space among ordinary taxpayers. We believed in space colonies, but we new we had to find a way to make human spaceflight economically productive, something which we never quite achieved. We were never so naive as to think the taxpayers would foot the bill just because we wanted to go.<BR/><BR/>>>Do we all agree, that NASA should get 1% of the Budget?<BR/><BR/>During Apollo taxes were much higher than the are now, particularly for the wealthy. Raising a comparable amount through taxation today would be much more difficult, now that so many believe paying any taxes at all is taking away what is rightfully theirs. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Fine wi
 
M

MarkStanaway

Guest
<p>&nbsp;On the plus side, Griffin uses the metric system.</p><p>Posted by vulture4[/QUOTE]</p><p>This directive does not seem to have filtered down to the commentary from the Public Affairs Officer (PAO) on yesterday's Shuttle launch . We are still hearing flight progress in terms of so many MILES down range. We made the transition to metric nearly forty years ago and it is finally starting to sound familiar&nbsp; to some of us 'oldies'.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The ISS is a work program for the shuttle, Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>The ISS is essential for building knowledge and skills for long duration flights.&nbsp; Or aren't you interested in going to asteroids and Mars?</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The ISS is essential for building knowledge and skills for long duration flights.&nbsp; Or aren't you interested in going to asteroids and Mars?Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p><strong>Sure I'm interested.&nbsp; But, I'm not going to see it in my lifetime.&nbsp; I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.</strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
B

brandbll

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The ISS is essential for building knowledge and skills for long duration flights.&nbsp; Or aren't you interested in going to asteroids and Mars?Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV><br /><br />Last time i checked we have to leave our orbit to get to those places.&nbsp; That'd be like building an underwater Aquastation at the bottom of a 60 foot lake to study a better way to build a habitat on the bottom of the Mariana Trench.&nbsp; Yeah they're both underwater, but that's about where the similarities end.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Last time i checked we have to leave our orbit to get to those places.&nbsp; That'd be like building an underwater Aquastation at the bottom of a 60 foot lake to study a better way to build a habitat on the bottom of the Mariana Trench.&nbsp; Yeah they're both underwater, but that's about where the similarities end.&nbsp; <br />Posted by brandbll</DIV><br /><br />So are you saying that experience in LEO is worthless? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
B

brandbll

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So are you saying that experience in LEO is worthless? <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />No.&nbsp; That's why i used that example.&nbsp; I would think we derived enough information from Mir and other spacecraft that we wouldn't have needed to build the ISS. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>
 
V

vulture4

Guest
<p><strong>>>You hate Griffin.&nbsp; Are you one of the Jupiter designers?</strong></p><p>I certainly do not hate Mr. Griffin, in fact I met him briefly and he seemed like a nice enough guy. But shortly after he was appointed he said NASA could no longer spend any significant part of its budget on technology developement because "we've got to spend it flying missions. And if we're not flying missions, then I don't know what we're developing that technology for." </p><p>I feel this reflects an unfortunate failure to appreciate the history and mission of NASA and the priorities of America in these difficult times. NASA is an R&D organization, and it was once proud to spend all its resources doing work of practical value to America.&nbsp; During the moon race this was forgotten, but only because the moon race served a vital political purpose, for a short time, as a substitute for war. The Shuttle and ISS were attemps to return to practical goals in space, and if they fell short, they were also our first attempts. NASA was developing "enabling technology", technology that would make human spaceflight practical for others. </p><p>If NASA is not producing new technology of practical value to America in space, aviation, and other areas of science and technology than it is failing to achieve the primary mission of any tax-supported R&D organization. We need an Administrator who understands that the country is going broke and NASA has to pay its way with investments that benefit the US economically. One step would be to help US industry rebuild our one-time position as a world leader in commercial launches. The complete lack of commercial launches from US soil is considerably more ominous than the fantasy that China will engage in a re-enactment of the Moon Race. </p>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No.&nbsp; That's why i used that example.&nbsp; I would think we derived enough information from Mir and other spacecraft that we wouldn't have needed to build the ISS. <br />Posted by brandbll</DIV><br /><br />OK, I can see where we disagree then. I think the ISS has vastly extended what was learned by MIR as far as construction in space is concerned. A different philosophy has been used, including much international cooperation which will be essential for any future missions "out there". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Last time i checked we have to leave our orbit to get to those places.&nbsp; That'd be like building an underwater Aquastation at the bottom of a 60 foot lake to study a better way to build a habitat on the bottom of the Mariana Trench.&nbsp; Yeah they're both underwater, but that's about where the similarities end.&nbsp; <br />Posted by brandbll</DIV></p><p>So you would rather develop and test your life support systems, crew health systems,&nbsp;and all the thousands of other systems and all the other tousands of components&nbsp;on the way to Mars rather than in Earth orbit?</p><p>Not going to happen.</p><p>Jon</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
B

brandbll

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So you would rather develop and test your life support systems, crew health systems,&nbsp;and all the thousands of other systems and all the other tousands of components&nbsp;on the way to Mars rather than in Earth orbit?Not going to happen.Jon&nbsp; <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV><br /><br />Were we planning on building a spacecraft closely identical to that of the ISS to send people to Mars?&nbsp; As i stated in my example, going to Mars and sitting in LEO for a few years are completely different accomplishments to strive to achieve.&nbsp; Your not going to be able to send up supply modules via Progress to a spacecraft that is cruising towards Mars, and from what i gather it would be difficult to do the same even for a Moon base.&nbsp; And regardless of the scientific output, the ISS has sucked the popularity out of the Space program and whether we like it or not it's the taxpayers we have to get on board for these things.&nbsp; Try going to Joe Schmoe off&nbsp; the street and ask him about the current space program.&nbsp; I am willing to bet 98% of the US population doesn't know jack squat about the ISS.&nbsp; Hell i bet a very large majority doesn't even know the name "ISS" or what it even stands for.&nbsp; Exploration gets people excited, and the ISS is simply a scientific workshop, not a vehicle for exploration.&nbsp; "The People" don't care about the ISS, and politcally that's a major problem.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts