OK, I was going to comment on the space portion of the president’s interview as well:
Q: Over the last eight years, they’ve had to make some decisions on priorities and spending. I was wondering how you assess how well NASA has done during your presidency and what do you think lies ahead for space exploration, and particularly manned space exploration.
THE PRESIDENT: I was very concerned about the dwindling enthusiasm for NASA when I first got here. And the reason why — and so we did a whole study of NASA and its future, and it became apparent to me that the space shuttle was losing its glamour and, frankly, people weren’t convinced of its necessity. And the space station was important, but it just didn’t have — the mission itself didn’t capture a lot of folks — the imagination of a lot of folks in Congress.
And so we changed the mission, as you know, of NASA. We said we’re going to stop flying the shuttle in 2010 and develop a Orion rocket or Orion launching vehicle to go to the moon, to get back to lunar exploration. And the purpose there is to eventually settle in and develop enough facility in the Moon to then be able to go beyond.
And so my first purpose on the NASA issue was to develop a mission that would excite the scientists, the employees, and the Congress. That has been accomplished. I know there is a gap that concerns people, and that would be the gap between the last shuttle and the beginning of the new Orion rocket program. Nevertheless, I do think it’s — the mission has to be very relevant. And so I’ve been a believer in NASA and space exploration since I’ve been the President, and I’m excited about the new mission.
I’d say first that he didn’t seem to think it necessary to excite the American people — just the “scientists” (whatever he means by that), the “employees” (of NASA? of the contractors? all of the above?) and the Congress. Perhaps, though, that was an oversight. I do think, though, that it reveals a conventional mindset — that space is about “science.” It also reveals that he is a) familiar with the broad outlines of the plan that he announced exactly five years ago (was it really that long?) on Wednesday and that b) he is familiar with only the broad outlines. He knows that the capsule has been since named Orion, and either doesn’t know, or has forgotten the name of the launcher (Ares).
I don’t think that this is a reflection on his intelligence so much as his focus. There have been arguments over at Space Politics over how much culpability the administration has in the developing disaster of ESAS/Constellation/whatever, since the new policy was announced half a decade ago. It is certainly not in keeping with either the Aldridge Commission recommendations (as I remind my readers on probably more than a weekly basis), nor with the goals stated by John Marburger (the White House science adviser) to bring the solar system within the economic sphere of humanity.
I agree that ultimately the buck stops in the Oval Office, and that the Bush administration is responsible for letting NASA drop the ball by not supervising them sufficiently. But I disagree with those who say that it has engaged in a crime of commission (i.e., it actually actively directed and approved the current direction), rather than omission (just not paying much attention). I believe that it was the latter, and I think that the president’s statement is evidence for that. They were forced to divert themselves from more pressing issues in 2003 to focus on space policy as a result of the loss of Columbia (now almost six years ago at the beginning of next month). They came up with new policy, and then, a little over a year later, hired a new administrator to implement it.
He came highly credentialed and recommended. They thought that once he was in place, they could go refocus on more pressing issues They expected him to do it right, and didn’t want or expect to have to look over his shoulder to make sure that he did, particularly when he was supposed to be the expert rocket scientist. As a result, Mike Griffin had free reign to drive the program into the ditch, with little attention or interference from the White House.
And once again, we see that civil space is unimportant. I’d like to Hope that this will Change in the new administration. Well, I do hope so. But I don’t expect it.
I’d say first that he didn’t seem to think it necessary to excite the American people — just the “scientists” (whatever he means by that), the “employees” (of NASA? of the contractors? all of the above?) and the Congress. Perhaps, though, that was an oversight.
To me, the telling statement is “I was very concerned about the dwindling enthusiasm for NASA when I first got here. And [that is why] we did a whole study of NASA and its future.”
The answers you get depend on the questions you ask. In this case, the problem statement was not lack of progress in space but lack of enthusiasm for NASA. That explains why the Administration did not voice concerns over Orion.
It also explains why Bush never used the words “commercial” or “military” even once during his space policy address.
If they wanted to bring the Solar System within the economic sphere of humanity they should have hired an economist to be Administrator. One with the explicit authority to hire his own panels of experts to review the projects his NASA employees are pimping in case there’s a concern he cannot judge competing programs on the technical basis.
Griffin’s credentials are a bug, not a feature. On the many projects I’ve worked on the best Technician is a really lousy Administrator 9 times out of 10.
I agree with Brock. A good engineer, is just that, nothing more, and as such, is an asset to his company or department for sure. But ASSuming he’ll be a good leader / manager / administrator is as dumb idea as ever seen. But it happens time and again.
It’s hardly ever worked where I’ve been involved.
I don’t understand the feds just setting some reasonable standards, (what am I smoking, right?) and let the privateers go at it.
Maybe Belize or some place like that should open themselves up to being the premier Space Port / Space Launch country. It would make them money I think.
NASA’s political problem, in a nutshell, can be summarized as “neither Texas nor Florida voted for Obama nor are they likely to in 2012”. If you look hypothetically at what it costs the new President if he zeros ouit NASA’s space exploration budget you have to conclude, “not much”. He’s got to find around $1.5 TRILLION dollars for his New-New Deal jobs program and NASA’s only saving grace there is that it does generate a lot of jobs. Just not in swing states he needs for re-election.
The solar system is in the economy. It is part of the open source planetary pictures that come out of NASA and the rent free parking space for the Google Lunar X Prize. I’d like to speed the day toward permanent habitation of the Moon, but it won’t be based on economic growth increasing in the first 400 years of the endeavor due to access to additional physical resources. It’s what’s missing at the frontier that pushes technology and economics forward.
I disagree with Brock. A person grabbed off the street would have a far worse success rate than 1 in 10. I think even an arbitrary college degree would have a somewhat worse success rate. And it strikes me that engineering plus whatever magic degree (I may be a bit sarcastic here) confers administration competence yields better results than the magic degree by itself.
To be honest, I can’t see that Griffin is a terrible administrator. He achieved the objectives that the Bush administration wanted. NASA hasn’t caused problems or significant embarassment for the Bush administration and it created political goodwill in a number of states that the Republicans value. To actually make a useful choice in manned space exploration seemed far down on the list of the Bush administration’s priorities.