Jeff Foust asks, with regard to Griffin’s reorganization:

At what point does the standard reorganization of officials during a change of leadership become something more like a purge?

I’m not sure exactly where that point is, but it seems pretty clear to me from this WaPo article that, though they don’t use the word, we’re well beyond it.

As I’ve said before, Dr. Griffin is either going to be a spectacular success, or a spectacular failure, but either way, he’s going to do it his way. As the article points out, he’s been thinking about these issues for a long time. If I were in his position, I’d do a pretty thorough housecleaning as well, but I wouldn’t necessarily bring in all of the same people that he will.

[Update in the afternoon]

Via Keith Cowing, here’s a Slashdot discussion of this.

[Another update at 3 PM]

Thomas James says that Griffin is being Machiavellian. He means that in a good way, of course.

Jeff Foust points out a couple of editorials in the DC Examiner that set up the false choice of manned exploration versus, well, other stuff. In the one case, it’s earth sciences, though why this is NASA’s job (as opposed to, say, NOAA or NSF) isn’t said.

And both point out the continuing need for resolving my pet peeve, that we have still not had a national debate on why NASA even exists. Until we can develop some kind of consensus on why we have a government-funded space program, and particularly a manned one, we’ll continue have these pointless discussions. As it is now, the purpose is vague and chameleon like, allowing proponents of pork and hobby shops to continue to proliferate.

Mark Whittington has a survey of space tourism activities in which you can participate today.

Mark Whittington has a survey of space tourism activities in which you can participate today.

Mark Whittington has a survey of space tourism activities in which you can participate today.

Clark Lindsey has an excellent idea. The problem, of course, is how to make it pay.

Wil McCarthy says the moon is too darn big. He has a plan.

Jack Parsons is an interesting character in the history of American rocketry, but it’s a major slight to the memory of Dr. Robert Goddard to call Parsons the father of it.

Via NASA Watch, an interesting article about SETI:

Denounced a decade ago as a misguided effort to find “little green men” and cut off from government funding, SETI, which stands for search for extraterrestrial intelligence, has found a new following among Silicon Valley titans and techies elsewhere who are interested in space. They have infused the institute with money and unconventional technical ideas, bringing a new respect and energy to the organization. Some argue that being cast away by the federal government was the best thing that could have happened to SETI, that it has become stronger and more innovative in the private sector than it ever could have as part of a public bureaucracy.

More of this, please, particularly for human spaceflight.

Via NASA Watch, an interesting article about SETI:

Denounced a decade ago as a misguided effort to find “little green men” and cut off from government funding, SETI, which stands for search for extraterrestrial intelligence, has found a new following among Silicon Valley titans and techies elsewhere who are interested in space. They have infused the institute with money and unconventional technical ideas, bringing a new respect and energy to the organization. Some argue that being cast away by the federal government was the best thing that could have happened to SETI, that it has become stronger and more innovative in the private sector than it ever could have as part of a public bureaucracy.

More of this, please, particularly for human spaceflight.