C'mon, Keith. What's the point in passing on this tidbit if you're not going to name names?

Who's the administrator candidate? Who's the former JSCer? This isn't journalism--it sounds like a Cindy Adams gossip column.

I suppose the response will be that (s)he knows who (s)he is.

[Noon update]

Commenter Leland makes a good point:

Now others are left speculating on names of who is doing what to whom with the greatest likelihood of muddying the names of innocent people.

Knock it off indeed.

A rudimentary search of the web pulls up Randy Stone as a JSC deputy admin who retired last year.

He was chair of the NASA Accident Investigation Team (NAIT) after Columbia, so maybe that work led him to dislike someone...

Then again maybe it was one of his predecessors. Conspiracy theories anyone?

Actually, Keith did imply that the search for a new NASA admin is almost over. That's worth knowing.

Hmmmm...

Hal Gehman? That would be an interesting pick.

I was thinking more along the lines of perhaps there are some guilty parties from the Columbia accident on that list.

Could be, I suppose, but I'd like to think that the intersection of the sets that were guilty parties to Columbia and those who the administration is considering for administrator is vanishingly small.

Seems a bit hypocritical of Keith there. Now others are left speculating on names of who is doing what to whom with the greatest likelihood of muddying the names of innocent people.

Knock it off indeed.

Good point you made Rand.

William Readdy is a name floating around.

It's interesting that Keith doesn't think the public has a right to know whose name is in consideration but does expect us to rally to his defense, just because Keith tells us to.

Support "anonymous" for NASA Administrator.

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030314readdy/

"William Readdy, associate administrator for spaceflight and a former shuttle commander, told the Columbia Accident Investigation Board he did not consider asking for a spy satellite inspection of Columbia's left wing during the doomed ship's mission because the agency had already concluded the shuttle could land safely."

A sicknening example of NASA rewarding failure, at the very top no less.

I'm disgusted this guy is still working for NASA let alone being considered for administrator. And who would put such a person's name forward in the first place??

Now I worry which other NASA darlings have been put forward.

NASA hasn't changed at all.

They should appoint an outsider as administrator and clean house as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps then NASA will STOP REWARDING FAILURE.

Just re-read Dwayne Day's Space Review piece on Adm. Gehman. Interesting that it should appear now.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/314/2

Most relevantly the article said this:

"This is not to say that Gehman was perfect. There were times where Board members disagreed with the Admiral. There were a few things that I and others felt should have made it into the final report that Gehman removed very late in the editing process. The Admiral felt that it was the duty of others, at NASA and in Congress, to deal with the individuals who bore responsibility for the accident."

I read two main things from this:

(1) Gehman can be legitimately criticized for not holding individuals (such as Readdy) accountable

(2) People on the CAIB felt that there _were_ individuals who should have been named and shamed, but weren't

And evidently NASA and Congress did not deal with the individuals who bore responsibility for the accident. Indeed, if what has been said is true Readdy could have been nominated NASA administrator on the eve of the second anniversary of the Columbia accident.

Mr. Parkin wrote:

"Just re-read Dwayne Day's Space Review piece on Adm. Gehman. Interesting that it should appear now."

No. You're over-speculating about a bunch of things The only reason my piece appeared now is because TSR came out on Monday and Tuesday was the second anniversary of the Columbia accident, and the second anniversary of Gehman being named to head the investigation. I wanted to give Admiral Gehman his props. He was hands-down an excellent chairman of the CAIB.

I know nothing about anybody being discussed as NASA administrator.

Mr. Day wrote:

"The only reason my piece appeared now is because TSR came out on Monday and Tuesday was the second anniversary of the Columbia accident, and the second anniversary of Gehman being named to head the investigation"

Thanks for pointing that out; I was so eager to make sense of it all I missed the obvious.

By the way, the Space Frontier Foundation has their wish list out for NASA administrator at SpaceDaily:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nasa-05b.html

"NASA must invest in the future, not the past. Every dollar spent on dead ends such as the space shuttle is a dollar not spent on the future"

Keith has tipped his hand a little:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/02/all_silent_on_t.html

Hopefully he's corroborating his information with more than one source.

PARKIN: Hopefully he's corroborating his information with more than one source.

Nah, after 9 years, I continue to just make things up, Kevin.