Poll

What grade would you give Mike Griffin for his performance as NASA Admin so far

A
B
C
D
E
F

Author Topic: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll  (Read 19997 times)

Online Chris Bergin

The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« on: 10/05/2008 01:23 am »
At the request of a member.....
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10390
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 1415
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #1 on: 10/05/2008 01:49 am »
E probably = F for American conversions ;)

Offline Hunt101

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • ULA
  • Liked: 2273
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #2 on: 10/05/2008 02:06 am »
Not great, but not as bad as O'Keefe or Goldin.

Offline Stowbridge

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 426
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #3 on: 10/05/2008 03:31 am »
Interesting spread. Ares is his legacy, which isn't a positive one at this stage.
Veteran space reporter.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #4 on: 10/05/2008 03:40 am »
Where is the "F" grade?

I'll vote once someone adds that... [EDIT: Thanks Chris!]


BTW - "U" (Ungradable) is often used as the UK equivalent of the American "F" (Fail).


Griffin, we beg you, please, please, please:




Never mind...



Ross.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2008 03:54 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Paul Howard

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #5 on: 10/05/2008 03:51 am »
I think he's done great. The budget has let him, but his no nonsense leadership has given clear focus. He's not shy'd away from dismissing arm chair commentators, and has always impressed at media briefings and infront of commitees.

A

Offline AresWatcher

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 226
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #6 on: 10/05/2008 03:56 am »
Ares I is the new X-33, but I don't see any mismanagement by him. The success of safe shuttle missions under his watch means he deserves nothing below a C.
"One Percent for Space"

Offline STS Tony

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1677
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #7 on: 10/05/2008 04:01 am »
I get the impression wants to kill Shuttle at any cost to send more money to Constellation because of its problems. His safety number calculation was irresponsible imho.

D

Offline KEdward5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 840
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #8 on: 10/05/2008 04:04 am »
I get the impression wants to kill Shuttle at any cost to send more money to Constellation because of its problems. His safety number calculation was irresponsible imho.

D

But as wonderful as Shuttle is, and it is, wouldn't you call him irresponsible if he didn't make a point about safety? Not one even close call with the missions while he's been in charge is the most important element.

NASA's bigger than any one person, so on his report card I'll give him a B.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #9 on: 10/05/2008 04:07 am »
His safety number calculation was irresponsible imho.

If you thought those were bad, wait until you hear Steve Cook's latest ones!   They will make you laugh your a$$ off, or perhaps cry.

I won't spoil the surprise though, just keep your eyes peeled for them soon :)


Griffin gets an "F" from me firstly because of his regular gaffs over things like Global Warming & ISS, but mostly for screwing up the VSE due to achieving a failing grades in all the following subjects:   Schedule, Closing the Gap, Short-term Budget, Long-term Budget, Workforce Retention, ISS Performance, Lunar Performance, Ignoring the Spirit of the NASA Authorization acts, Ignoring the Letter of the NASA Authorization acts, Ignoring the Astronauts official Complaints about his pet architecture and systematically Witch-Hunting every single person who dares speak out against him.

As leader of a "JUNTA" he has successfully gotten his way - just as every ruthless dictator does.

But as an Administrator, he has single-handedly done more damage to the agency than any other Administrator in the last 50 years. Griffin is no James Webb, nor is he a von Braun either.   Even Dan Goldin never did this much damage to NASA.

I wish O'Keefe would re-consider the job this time around.   The agency needs someone like him to try to sort this mess out - he was a real *administrator*, not a self-proclaimed engineering God who is trying to re-fashion the agency in his own image.   O'Keefe got dealt a really difficult hand with STS-107, but he did an amazing job of revitalizing an floundering agency after that, while also doing the job he was appointed to do: Solve the endless financial overruns which had plagued the agency prior to that.

Griffin has, in just 6 short years, managed to overturn almost everything good that he achieved - and almost entirely because of his knuckle-headed insistence that his pet "1.5-launch architecture" was the best thing since KFC, even though almost everyone disagrees.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2008 04:40 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #10 on: 10/05/2008 04:59 am »
Not great, but not as bad as O'Keefe or Goldin.

What was the matter with them?  Goldin revived the space science program. 

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #11 on: 10/05/2008 08:25 am »
Good question Jim: What was wrong with Goldin? I really don’t know.

Under his watch space science took center stage again: The SMEX, MIDEX, Discovery and Mars programs were started or at least went on during his time in office. Many science missions were the result, as indicated by the number of Pegasus (SMEX) and Delta (MIDEX, Discovery, Mars) launches in the 1990ies until about 2005. Just to name a few from the top of my head: FAST, SeaStar, TRACE, SWAS, WIRE, HESSI, RXTE, NEAR, Lunar Prospector, Stardust, Contour, Genesis, Deep Impact, ACE, DS-1, FUSE, MAP, SWIFT, POLAR, Landsat-7, IMAGE, QuikSCAT, Jason-1, TIMED, IceSat, MGS, MPF, MCO, MPL, Mars Odyssey, MER-A, MER-B,

Add the big ticket missions, the last 2 Great Observatories (Chandra and Spitzer), the EOS flagships (Terra, Aqua, Aura), and Cassini.

Lets move to human spaceflight: countless Shuttle missions (many Spacelab) plus design and construction (as in built on the ground) of ISS, plus cooperation with the Russians (9 Mir missions), plus actually launching ISS components.

Sure he was a choleric person to work with, known for his extreme temper. He went too far with Faster, Better, Cheaper, as indicated by the Mars 1998 failures (and some more). But he also made some bold moves, like building two (instead of one) MERs. Accounting may be a mess, but has been in the 1980ies as well.

Now compare this with Griffin: The number of missions started under his watch is very low (Juno, Mars 2013 (no 2011), WISE, LCM, LRO, Discovery lunar missions in 2011, maybe some small missions), just look at the number of projected launches in the next years. We were / are still flying out some delayed missions started under O’Keefe – or even Goldin (MRO, Phoenix, GLAST, Kepler, MSL). An outer planets flagship? Only talk.

ISS is done because he must, not for science, as indicated by the number of science racks. If Congress hasn’t ordered some science, ISS would only be a construction project, a shell.

Everything within NASA has to stand down because of the “lunar and beyond” dream and its doomed implementation. He choose the most expensive and technically hardest way to built launch vehicles he can’t pay for whenever they may fly. He wasted his whole term with designing and redesigning, still not meeting minimal standards. He created the gap. He is laying off the workforce.

He deserves a F, F minus if you ask me. The earlier he leaves, the better. Be assured, human spaceflight beyond LEO (Moon, Mars) can’t be done within the current funding levels, and these won’t change much. Not if NASA wants to do anything else, as it did under Goldin: Designing, building and finally launching ISS and, at the very same time, flying the Shuttle and doing many space science missions in LEO and beyond. Space cadets loved Griffin because he talked about bringing humans to the Moon again and to Mars within the curret budgets, pay as you can. This won’t work out. Never was.

We need an adminstrator who understands this, who uses ISS, human spaceflight plus robotics in LEO, and only robotics beyond. He must use the assets he has, not throw them away. Someone who is realistic, who does the best with the buck, not the biggest dreams. Call it going in circles if you must, I call it realistic progress within the funding constraints we have. These won’t get better, probably they get worse.

Analyst

Offline Carl G

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Liked: 260
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #12 on: 10/05/2008 11:16 am »
Very informative post Analyst.

Offline Launch Fan

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1317
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #13 on: 10/05/2008 11:41 am »
Wow, huge spread of opinion, still mostly leaning towards the positive with 60 percent C or above. Will be interesting what the vote looks like after a full day of voting on Monday when the site busier (week days).

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #14 on: 10/05/2008 12:02 pm »
Lets move to human spaceflight: countless Shuttle missions (many Spacelab) plus design and construction (as in built on the ground) of ISS, plus cooperation with the Russians (9 Mir missions), plus actually launching ISS components.
The Hubble recovery should be in there, too.

He went too far with Faster, Better, Cheaper, as indicated by the Mars 1998 failures (and some more). But he also made some bold moves, like building two (instead of one) MERs. Accounting may be a mess, but has been in the 1980ies as well.
Same with the budget cuts in the Shuttle program.  The large overruns in ISS resulted in it being primarily a construction job (and probably contributed to cutting "too far" with Shuttle).

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #15 on: 10/05/2008 12:31 pm »
Not only HST recovery (SM-1), but future servicing missions too (SM-2, SM-3A, SM-3B).

I am not saying Goldin only did good things, but at least he got things done. Hardware was built and launched. Sure, some failed. Today we rarely have missions at all.

Goldin did something with the limited budget he had (Shuttle and ISS and science). Griffin is fixated at CxP, everything else is worthless. This would be less of a problem if CxP would produce any positive results, but it does not. To the contrary.

Analyst
« Last Edit: 10/05/2008 12:32 pm by Analyst »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #16 on: 10/05/2008 01:23 pm »
Not only HST recovery (SM-1), but future servicing missions too (SM-2, SM-3A, SM-3B).
Those were part of the baseline before HST was launched; independent of the administrator.  The recovery from the spherical aberration was not planned for.  (And, to be fair, Golden wasn't administrator during that whole period.)

Goldin did something with the limited budget he had (Shuttle and ISS and science).
His influence on space science was clearer, but on the HSF side, that influence wasn't as positive (ISS delays, higher ISS costs, declining Shuttle flight rate, less money for Shuttle infrastructure and maintenance).

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #17 on: 10/05/2008 02:03 pm »
1) A baseline can be changed or canceled: Goldin was administrator during most - Partly for SM-1 and SM-3B - of the preparation period for all four HST-SM missions above and did not do this. This is the time when when the money is needed. Under his watch SM-3A was initiated. (SM-4 also has been baseline, O'Keefe did cancel it and Griffin - only under massive pressure by Congress - put it back)

2) Goldin did not control the budget. Same for Griffin. Congress does. But Goldin was aware of this and the limitations resulting from this very fact. He had to save money not only in the science part (Faster, Better, Cheaper) but the HSF part too. And he did. Contrary to Griffin. Btw, STS flight rate is quite dependant on ISS delays.

Analyst
« Last Edit: 10/05/2008 02:11 pm by Analyst »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #18 on: 10/05/2008 05:39 pm »
D, for several reasons.

1.  Failure of the Constellation architecture and his personal bias toward anything but Ares 1 and Ares 5 even when technical issues continue to make this system less and less feasible, cost more and drag the schedule to the right.

2.  Failure to get Orion, which should be a systems integration project, even to PDR during what will likely be his entire tenure. 

3.  Failure to really embrace existing capabilities (EELV's) costing the tax payers more money and keeping the commercial word at arm's length even though he baits them with COTS.

4.  Failure to not be enough of a strategic administrator and look at the bigger picture.  The current implementation of the VSE is shoe horning us into a very narrow interpretation of what it was meant to be and could have been.

5.  His rather open dislike for Shuttle and ISS.  While everyone has personal opinions and history gives the benefit of having 20/20 hindsight, an Administrator of NASA should not be so vocal on those personal beliefs.

6.  On the plus side, he has been willing to step in and make a decision when necessary.  Examples include ET foam during RTF and the decision to return to Hubble. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #19 on: 10/05/2008 06:35 pm »
F

Agree with much of Analyst's take on this.
Scott

Offline Davie OPF

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Kennedy Space Center
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #20 on: 10/05/2008 07:04 pm »
D, for several reasons.

1.  Failure of the Constellation architecture and his personal bias toward anything but Ares 1 and Ares 5 even when technical issues continue to make this system less and less feasible, cost more and drag the schedule to the right.

2.  Failure to get Orion, which should be a systems integration project, even to PDR during what will likely be his entire tenure. 

3.  Failure to really embrace existing capabilities (EELV's) costing the tax payers more money and keeping the commercial word at arm's length even though he baits them with COTS.

4.  Failure to not be enough of a strategic administrator and look at the bigger picture.  The current implementation of the VSE is shoe horning us into a very narrow interpretation of what it was meant to be and could have been.

5.  His rather open dislike for Shuttle and ISS.  While everyone has personal opinions and history gives the benefit of having 20/20 hindsight, an Administrator of NASA should not be so vocal on those personal beliefs.

6.  On the plus side, he has been willing to step in and make a decision when necessary.  Examples include ET foam during RTF and the decision to return to Hubble. 

I find a lot of similar thought pattens as yours.

Offline synchrotron

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #21 on: 10/05/2008 08:28 pm »
Not great, but not as bad as O'Keefe or Goldin.

What was the matter with them?  Goldin revived the space science program. 

And if O'Keefe's support for servicing HST robotically hadn't been terminated early, we'd be racking up new proven skills in LEO right now.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #22 on: 10/06/2008 12:13 am »
C

That e-mail of his showed him in a more favorable light. Fighting for the Shuttle, ISS and VSE. On the negative is this deluxe version of Cx, Ares 1.5, which is more costly and much later than a simpler DIRECT two launch system and has led to this current gap. There is also not a small risk that Ares I proves technically infeasible in which case the damage to NASA's technical standing to Congress/President may prove irrevocable and rocket design maybe handed over to commercial companies so the stakes are high for this ideal choice of his. However if he can convince politicians to ensure there is no gap between Shuttle and Ares I and Ares I actually works as advertised eventually then I'm prepared to change it to an A. If Ares I fails then it's an F.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2008 12:18 am by marsavian »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15287
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #23 on: 10/06/2008 12:13 am »
And if O'Keefe's support for servicing HST robotically hadn't been terminated early, we'd be racking up new proven skills in LEO right now.

Can you cite a single high-level independent review that stated that a robotic HST mission would have worked?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15287
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #24 on: 10/06/2008 12:15 am »
(SM-4 also has been baseline, O'Keefe did cancel it and Griffin - only under massive pressure by Congress - put it back)

The way you wrote this implies that the pressure is the reason that Griffin restarted SM4.  But if you look at his public statements about the decision, it's clear that he--unlike O'Keefe--determined that the robotic option would not work.  And he sought a careful risk assessment of a human servicing mission. 

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15287
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #25 on: 10/06/2008 12:20 am »
Now compare this with Griffin: The number of missions started under his watch is very low (Juno, Mars 2013 (no 2011), WISE, LCM, LRO, Discovery lunar missions in 2011, maybe some small missions),

Huh?  Griffin has been NASA administrator for 3.5 years.  Goldin was in for 10.  How can you call this a fair comparison?

Offline daver

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 336
  • South Carolina
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 951
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #26 on: 10/06/2008 12:41 am »
"F"
1:  5 year and growing gap.
2:  Buying Russian rockets.
3:  Ares expense.
4:  Ares troubles.
5:  Blaming President Bush for lack of funding when the Ares is costing
      billions more than EELV or Shuttle Heritage.  VSE calls for
      affordable space access.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #27 on: 10/06/2008 01:07 am »
Not great, but not as bad as O'Keefe or Goldin.
If you work at ULA, you would have a lot more work to do if O'Keefe had stayed - and NASA would have a lot more money for Ares V and science.

has always impressed infront of commitees.
Based on what?  They deferred to his degrees early on, but that deference is not there any more, hasn't been for quite a while.

Ares I is the new X-33, but I don't see any mismanagement by him.
If you only knew...

Junta: perfectly said, Ross.  And OV-106 too.  I give him the same grade for the same reasons.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2008 01:08 am by Antares »
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #28 on: 10/06/2008 02:34 am »
D, for several reasons.

1.  Failure of the Constellation architecture and his personal bias toward anything but Ares 1 and Ares 5 even when technical issues continue to make this system less and less feasible, cost more and drag the schedule to the right.

2.  Failure to get Orion, which should be a systems integration project, even to PDR during what will likely be his entire tenure. 

3.  Failure to really embrace existing capabilities (EELV's) costing the tax payers more money and keeping the commercial word at arm's length even though he baits them with COTS.

4.  Failure to not be enough of a strategic administrator and look at the bigger picture.  The current implementation of the VSE is shoe horning us into a very narrow interpretation of what it was meant to be and could have been.

5.  His rather open dislike for Shuttle and ISS.  While everyone has personal opinions and history gives the benefit of having 20/20 hindsight, an Administrator of NASA should not be so vocal on those personal beliefs.

6.  On the plus side, he has been willing to step in and make a decision when necessary.  Examples include ET foam during RTF and the decision to return to Hubble. 

I find a lot of similar thought pattens as yours.

Similar thought here, but went one lower, only because HE is the Administrator, and the buck stops there. In most circumstances He is responsible for the actions of his team, except that in this case HE seems to be the team and not taking the stongest advice given to him. It's not like a member of the team that can be fired on a whim (which he has apparently done). Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

siatwork

  • Guest
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #29 on: 10/06/2008 04:17 am »
I voted D because:

On one hand under Griffin the shuttle restart after Columbia so far has been pretty smooth.  Not sure how much of that is to his personal credit though.  And the ISS construction proceeded, and he did push the soyuz waiver extension which helps our utilization of this multi-billion dollar investment.  He also didn't hinder commitment to COTS.

On the minus side, he sacrificed too much to his personal old "napkin" vision of the architecture from the Mars society paper, and didn't listen enough to people who actually design rockets and spacecraft for a living.  And he cut way too many science missions.

We don't need a technical "maverick" whipping NASA into his/her shape according to a singular implementation vision, we need a thoughtful manager with the long term goals in mind, and Yes, A Bean Counter (them the fiscal realities) that absorbs implementation knowledge from the subordinates and makes informed decisions on strategy.

Aside, I don't understand people picking on O'Keefe, I think if his and Stiedle's OSP ideas were carried through we'd be further ahead at this point in time in terms of human space flight, with more sustainability in the long run.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2008 04:27 am by siatwork »

Offline Paul Howard

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #30 on: 10/06/2008 07:00 am »
Columbia was lost under O'Keefe's watch. There's no two ways about it, that's a failure. You don't lose the flagship shuttle along with seven of her crew, contributed by a management culture problem and get to keep your job.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2008 07:01 am by Paul Howard »

siatwork

  • Guest
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #31 on: 10/06/2008 07:11 am »
Columbia was lost under O'Keefe's watch. There's no two ways about it, that's a failure. You don't lose the flagship shuttle along with seven of her crew, contributed by a management culture problem and get to keep your job.

Coincidence.  ET's were dropping foam for a long time before O'Keefe could even start to consider it.  It was a feature long before it became a bug.  Don't pin Columbia on him.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2008 07:27 am by siatwork »

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #32 on: 10/06/2008 08:08 am »
Blackstar, every fool could see from the beginning a robotic HST servicing mission would not work, not for the ~$ 1,5 billion estimated. At best it would have launched a new bus with gyros and batteries to be docked to HST, not to be changed out. No new instruments, and no repairs. I think O’Keefe knew this too and the robotic talk was a way to keep critics low (As in: We do something.). He was home in politics, wasn’t he. But the latter is just my personal opinion.

Congress did put pressure on NASA pushing for SM-4 long before Griffin was administrator. Look at Griffin before Congress commitees 2005 - even before he was confirmed administrator - and you get the impression he is “giving” them SM-4 because Congress wants it (And he wants to become NASA administrator.). I give him - but not him alone - credit for SM-4, but he was not pushing for it. He was not against it. Congress was pushing. Btw. in the same way it is pushing for a Shuttle AMS flight.

Now compare this with Griffin: The number of missions started under his watch is very low (Juno, Mars 2013 (no 2011), WISE, LCM, LRO, Discovery lunar missions in 2011, maybe some small missions),

Huh?  Griffin has been NASA administrator for 3.5 years.  Goldin was in for 10.  How can you call this a fair comparison?

Please, this is cheap. Normalize for missions per year and you get the results I claim. Or count launches per year. Or count newly selected missions per year. Or AOs per year. Look at the manifest for the next 5 years, because it includes missions selected (or better: not selected) under Griffin’s watch. Take the Mars program, or Discovery, or MIDEX, or SMEX, or EOS follow on (Is there one?). Or HSF: Any planned missions between 2010 and 2015?

Analyst

siatwork

  • Guest
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #33 on: 10/06/2008 08:16 am »
RE: HST - it would have been better to replace it with a new (and more capable) observatory (a superset of Spitzer), rather than the multi-billion multi-year mucking around with fixing the Hubble.  We should have retired the Hubble long time ago.  (using HST as a showcase of human spaceflight was self-serving and not convincing the first time)

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #34 on: 10/06/2008 10:24 am »
This is not how it works. First of all, I am not sure building and launching a Hubble every 5 years is less expensive than servicing. Second and more important: You don't get the budget to do it. Other programs will get it and you can come back 20 years later. The days of "serial" production in this area are over since the last Suveryor landed on the moon (This being another time and another level of completity too.). Ever since than we never had more than 2 copies (Viking, Voyager, MER) of the same science spacecraft, most often only one. More was not affordable, economics of scale or not. By servicing HST we extended the lifetime of this single copy we have, we never would have got 3 or 5, even in the complete absence of HSF.

Analyst

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #35 on: 10/06/2008 11:48 am »

Huh?  Griffin has been NASA administrator for 3.5 years.  Goldin was in for 10.  How can you call this a fair comparison?

Please, this is cheap. Normalize for missions per year and you get the results I claim. Or count launches per year. Or count newly selected missions per year. Or AOs per year. Look at the manifest for the next 5 years, because it includes missions selected (or better: not selected) under Griffin’s watch.
It's cheap, but is it fair?  Would Goldin rate the same way after four years vs. ten?

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #36 on: 10/06/2008 12:51 pm »
Yes, at the end of Goldin's (hypothetical) four year term you saw launches of NEAR, MGS, MPF and of other missions initiated under his watch. After his (hypothetical) departure you saw many more of these, initiated under his watch (I am tired of looking these up, why don't you? There are many.), or restructured (ISS, Cassini, EOS).

Now think about what you see today and will see in the next 5 years, because this will be Griffin's legacy.

Analyst

PS: Simply have a look at the EELV, Delta II and Pegasus manifest.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2008 12:56 pm by Analyst »

Offline Gene DiGennaro

  • Armchair Astronaut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Baltimore, Md
    • Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #37 on: 10/06/2008 01:18 pm »
I wish O'Keefe would re-consider the job this time around.   The agency needs someone like him to try to sort this mess out - he was a real *administrator*, not a self-proclaimed engineering God who is trying to re-fashion the agency in his own image.   O'Keefe got dealt a really difficult hand with STS-107, but he did an amazing job of revitalizing an floundering agency after that, while also doing the job he was appointed to do: Solve the endless financial overruns which had plagued the agency prior to that.


I think I would have liked O'Keefe but there was one thing missing from him, and that was guts. The Columbia accident left him gunshy ,perhaps understandably so. I don't  think he wanted to go through that ever again. He knew that spacefaring is a dangerous business, that the potential for the loss of crew was always there and chose not to be involved in spacefaring any longer.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #38 on: 10/06/2008 01:21 pm »
PS: Simply have a look at the EELV, Delta II and Pegasus manifest.
Why not a more broad measure than that?

Offline synchrotron

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #39 on: 10/06/2008 04:02 pm »
And if O'Keefe's support for servicing HST robotically hadn't been terminated early, we'd be racking up new proven skills in LEO right now.

Can you cite a single high-level independent review that stated that a robotic HST mission would have worked?

While I recognize that this was not independent, the very risk-averse GSFC was won over by the demonstrated robotic capability. 
The NAS review was drinking the bathwater of folks who a priori thought it could not be done.  They did not adequately review the validation work that had been done.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15287
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #40 on: 10/06/2008 05:20 pm »
Huh?  Griffin has been NASA administrator for 3.5 years.  Goldin was in for 10.  How can you call this a fair comparison?

Please, this is cheap. Normalize for missions per year and you get the results I claim.

(and now starts the part of the conversation where I note that what you are writing now is not what you wrote earlier...)

Please back at you. That's not what you did--what you did was you compared total number of missions during ten years of Goldin versus total number of missions during 3.5 years of Griffin.

Now we could turn this into a long discussion of flight rates and increasing costs of missions and the introduction of faster cheaper better and the question of whether it is even possible to do meaningful science missions at the lower cost rates of 12 years ago, and not only normalize for missions-per-year but also include things like number of failed missions as well (and all this happens to be something that I'm rather familiar with).  But I really don't want to go there because it's tiresome.  All I will note is that you stacked the deck in making an apples to tomatoes comparison.

Any true comparison will have to include a lot of other things, such as very large cost overruns on the ISS under Goldin which forced a scaling back of its capabilities.  You've hinted at how one would establish some metrics for such a comparison, but it's really more complex and subtle--and less obvious--than you make it out to be.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #41 on: 10/06/2008 07:34 pm »
PS: Simply have a look at the EELV, Delta II and Pegasus manifest.
Why not a more broad measure than that?


You keep asking questions. Why don't you develop your own metric, present it and discuss it?

Analyst

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #42 on: 10/06/2008 07:44 pm »
You've hinted at how one would establish some metrics for such a comparison, but it's really more complex and subtle--and less obvious--than you make it out to be.

It is always more complex than it seems. I am well aware of this. I have had discussions about Discovery and Mars Scout budget maximums. Are there still worthy missions? I think there are. In the MIDEX and SMEX segment am I sure they are there.

Back to Griffin. I stand by my opinion: A more sane approch in HSF - they are spending ~ $ 2,5 billion for CxP in 2008 -  would have allowed the science missions to be flown more frequently.

Analyst

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #43 on: 10/06/2008 08:51 pm »
You keep asking questions. Why don't you develop your own metric, present it and discuss it?
Because I'm trying understand your methodology?  If that's as far as you want to go, no problem.  I'm not ready to grade Griffin; I think it's more complicated (big surprise there, I'm sure) and there's more information still to come. 

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #44 on: 10/06/2008 10:48 pm »
PS: Simply have a look at the EELV, Delta II and Pegasus manifest.
Why not a more broad measure than that?

Because those are the launchers that send out NASA's science missions.  Of which there are like 20 over the 201x decade, rather than 50 over the 200x decade.  ESAS decimated relatively cheap science in lots of congressional districts in favor of relatively expensive engineering in many fewer congressional districts.  "One thin dime" my foot.  When you decrease projected increases, you eliminate the ability to take a spacecraft from paper to hardware to launch.  Griffin has evaded this question semantically in testimony.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #45 on: 10/06/2008 11:14 pm »
PS: Simply have a look at the EELV, Delta II and Pegasus manifest.
Why not a more broad measure than that?

Because those are the launchers that send out NASA's science missions.  Of which there are like 20 over the 201x decade, rather than 50 over the 200x decade.  ESAS decimated relatively cheap science in lots of congressional districts in favor of relatively expensive engineering in many fewer congressional districts.  "One thin dime" my foot.  When you decrease projected increases, you eliminate the ability to take a spacecraft from paper to hardware to launch.  Griffin has evaded this question semantically in testimony.
Sorry, I was too vague -- I meant why not use a more broad measure than space science?
« Last Edit: 10/06/2008 11:14 pm by psloss »

Offline kool-aid

  • Don't drink it, baby...
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #46 on: 10/06/2008 11:36 pm »
Mike Griffin gets an F.

Hands down, he has been the worst NASA administrator in history, and I don't think the agency will survive the bad decisions he has made.

If NASA was a corporation, it would already be bankrupt and in an advanced state of liquidation, probably with its CEO and most of its board of directors behind bars for insider trading, fraud, and gross mismanagement.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #47 on: 10/07/2008 12:04 am »
Most leaders end up known for a single thing.  Some for more than that, but it's usually no more than a small handful.

Griffin was in the right place at the right time to make a MAJOR impact on a HUGE issue - managing the transition away from Shuttle.  He had the opportunity to devise a well-thought-out, well-managed series of programs that would leave no gap to the program, no gap to the employees, and leave us with a more-capable system that operated for the same cost as STS.

There are no objective measures I can think of for which that management opportunity can be judged anything other than a failure.  We have a huge gap, employees will lose their jobs in mass, what we will be left will will initially be less capable than what we have now (Ares I) and what we'll have finally will be more expensive than what we have now (Ares I + Ares V).  As I write this, he's 74% failing, IMHO.

None of the objectives were met - F.

By the way, in grad school, a C is effectively a failing grade.  If you are in danger of getting a C, you go to the professor and beg for an "incomplete" so you can re-take the course.  Griffin is the head of a large government agency.  He's beyond post-grad.  A "C" is a failing grade in his position.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #48 on: 10/07/2008 12:09 am »
Mike Griffin gets an F.

Hands down, he has been the worst NASA administrator in history, and I don't think the agency will survive the bad decisions he has made.

If NASA was a corporation, it would already be bankrupt and in an advanced state of liquidation, probably with its CEO and most of its board of directors behind bars for insider trading, fraud, and gross mismanagement.

If NASA was a corporation, it would get a hefty government bailout with its CEO and board of directors happily floating away on their golden parachutes.
JRF

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #49 on: 10/07/2008 12:20 am »
Mike Griffin gets an F.

Hands down, he has been the worst NASA administrator in history, and I don't think the agency will survive the bad decisions he has made.

If NASA was a corporation, it would already be bankrupt and in an advanced state of liquidation, probably with its CEO and most of its board of directors behind bars for insider trading, fraud, and gross mismanagement.

This is a typical mistake.  A government agency's job is to spend money.  Hopefully in a controlled and accountable manner.  NASA argueable has not controlled or accounted for its money in a way in which many of us approve.

A corporations job is to make money in a controlled and accountable manner..  We have seen lately that some corporations do not do that very well either.

At least Griffin, when he leaves, will not be leaving with a multi-million dollar golden parachute.



Offline kool-aid

  • Don't drink it, baby...
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #50 on: 10/07/2008 12:28 am »
At least Griffin, when he leaves, will not be leaving with a multi-million dollar golden parachute.

No, he's simply squandered billions.  I'd much rather he get a $5M bonus and do a good job rather than waste all the money he has.

Offline STS Tony

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1677
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #51 on: 10/07/2008 12:59 am »
Tough crowd!

Who was NASA's best boss, for comparison?

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #52 on: 10/07/2008 01:02 am »
Tough crowd!

Who was NASA's best boss, for comparison?

James Webb. No question, not even close.

T. Keith Glennan was second best.

And it's a long drop from Glennan to the rest of the pack.
JRF

Offline STS Tony

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1677
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #53 on: 10/07/2008 01:12 am »
Thanks Jorge. I'll do some googling on those names!

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #54 on: 10/07/2008 02:36 am »
Jorge,
I think O'Keefe got dealt an impossibly hard hand.   Yet he managed not only to put NASA back together after the loss of Columbia's crew, but also managed to do the job he had actually been chosen to do in the first place - get NASA's insane spending and accounting we had during the Goldin years, back under some sort of control.

O'Keefe did as good a job as anyone could have, given the near-impossible situations he faced.   Yes, he canceled a lot of programs, but that was what he was appointed to do because NASA was out of control and was heading for a really high cliff.   I think he succeeded.

I still think Webb was the best NASA Administrator so far, and I don't really know a lot about Glennan, so can't really comment about him.   But I think O'Keefe was a top-class Administrator, who should not be lumped with the Goldin's and the Griffin's.   That isn't fair.

Griffin is seriously scraping the barrel compared to all the others.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2008 02:39 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15287
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #55 on: 10/07/2008 03:22 am »
Hands down, he has been the worst NASA administrator in history, and I don't think the agency will survive the bad decisions he has made.

Oh brother.

I doubt you could name them all without looking them up.

Statements like that make it impossible to take you seriously.  But let's come back to this subject six months after he's left and see if NASA is still around.  Then we'll see how wise you are.

Offline kool-aid

  • Don't drink it, baby...
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #56 on: 10/07/2008 03:40 am »
Hands down, he has been the worst NASA administrator in history, and I don't think the agency will survive the bad decisions he has made.

Oh brother.

I doubt you could name them all without looking them up.

Statements like that make it impossible to take you seriously.  But let's come back to this subject six months after he's left and see if NASA is still around.  Then we'll see how wise you are.

It won't be six months.  But six years from now, NASA human spaceflight will be a memory, the wreckage of the ISS will be on the bottom of the ocean (minus the Russian portions, which will be free-flying and hosting all manner of Russian and commercial activities), and JPL and GSFC will be transferred to the NSF, while the rest of the NASA centers' fates will range between closure and eking out an existence.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #57 on: 10/07/2008 05:19 am »
Hands down, he has been the worst NASA administrator in history, and I don't think the agency will survive the bad decisions he has made.

Oh brother.

I doubt you could name them all without looking them up.

Statements like that make it impossible to take you seriously.  But let's come back to this subject six months after he's left and see if NASA is still around.  Then we'll see how wise you are.

It won't be six months.  But six years from now, NASA human spaceflight will be a memory, the wreckage of the ISS will be on the bottom of the ocean (minus the Russian portions, which will be free-flying and hosting all manner of Russian and commercial activities), and JPL and GSFC will be transferred to the NSF, while the rest of the NASA centers' fates will range between closure and eking out an existence.

The Russian sections can't be detached in that way. If the ISS deorbits, the whole thing will go down.
Karl Hallowell

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #58 on: 10/07/2008 06:50 am »
You are wrong about the Russian sections. But this has nothing to do with this thread.

Analyst

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #59 on: 10/07/2008 06:55 am »

Sorry, I was too vague -- I meant why not use a more broad measure than space science?

So you really want to talk about HSF (including launch vehicle development), basic R&D, aeronautics or Earth observing (although this can be put under science as well) and think the results will be different as in better for Griffin? You are free to do it. Please surprise me.

Analyst

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #60 on: 10/07/2008 11:24 am »
"E", and just because COTS has survived so far. Im not sure how much Griffin has contributed to this, but at least he has not actively killed the program, like this one was killed
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15287
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #61 on: 10/07/2008 11:53 am »
But six years from now, NASA human spaceflight will be a memory, the wreckage of the ISS will be on the bottom of the ocean (minus the Russian portions, which will be free-flying and hosting all manner of Russian and commercial activities), and JPL and GSFC will be transferred to the NSF, while the rest of the NASA centers' fates will range between closure and eking out an existence.

I bet you $1000 that none of this will happen.  You game?

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #62 on: 10/07/2008 12:01 pm »
So you really want to talk about HSF (including launch vehicle development), basic R&D, aeronautics or Earth observing (although this can be put under science as well) and think the results will be different as in better for Griffin? You are free to do it. Please surprise me.
LOL, no surprises.  What I'm suggesting is that NASA doesn't operate in a vacuum and that focusing only on the administrator's choices misses the whole picture.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #63 on: 10/07/2008 12:04 pm »
Mike Griffin gets an F.

Hands down, he has been the worst NASA administrator in history, and I don't think the agency will survive the bad decisions he has made.

If NASA was a corporation, it would already be bankrupt and in an advanced state of liquidation, probably with its CEO and most of its board of directors behind bars for insider trading, fraud, and gross mismanagement.

If NASA was a corporation, it would get a hefty government bailout with its CEO and board of directors happily floating away on their golden parachutes.
Hmmm...is NASA "too big to fail?"

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #64 on: 10/07/2008 05:01 pm »
Huh, more Griffins legacy. MSL in serious trouble .. perhaps that E should have been a E-
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #65 on: 10/07/2008 05:16 pm »
Mike Griffin gets an F.

Hands down, he has been the worst NASA administrator in history, and I don't think the agency will survive the bad decisions he has made.

If NASA was a corporation, it would already be bankrupt and in an advanced state of liquidation, probably with its CEO and most of its board of directors behind bars for insider trading, fraud, and gross mismanagement.

If NASA was a corporation, it would get a hefty government bailout with its CEO and board of directors happily floating away on their golden parachutes.
Hmmm...is NASA "too big to fail?"


What does that mean?  Government agencies do not fail like a company can.  If they are not meeting their basic intent as to why they were created in the first place, and the will is there to do anything about it, then they are reorganized, abolished or broke up to be re-absorbed into other government agencies. 

But back to it NASA itself has not failed.  This agency does many very good things but the people who make it up, civil servants and contractors alike, must stand up and salute the flag in order to try to carry out the policies put in place by the NASA Administrator, Congress and the President regardless if they are or are not well thought out, cost effective and timely from a schedule perspective. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #66 on: 10/07/2008 05:34 pm »
Hmmm...is NASA "too big to fail?"

What does that mean?  Government agencies do not fail like a company can.  If they are not meeting their basic intent as to why they were created in the first place, and the will is there to do anything about it, then they are reorganized, abolished or broke up to be re-absorbed into other government agencies. 
Wasn't serious -- running with a bad analogy.

Offline cozmicray

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 166
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #67 on: 10/07/2008 05:36 pm »
Why does the PDR package for HST Robotic Servicing and Deorbit Mission have a Level 1 requirement to  Install WFC3 and COS and
New SV gyros (6) installed on WP3

A robotic servicing capability gained from HRSDM would have be fantastic!!!!


Blackstar, every fool could see from the beginning a robotic HST servicing mission would not work, not for the ~$ 1,5 billion estimated. At best it would have launched a new bus with gyros and batteries to be docked to HST, not to be changed out. No new instruments, and no repairs. I think O’Keefe knew this too and the robotic talk was a way to keep critics low (As in: We do something.). He was home in politics, wasn’t he. But the latter is just my personal opinion.

Congress did put pressure on NASA pushing for SM-4 long before Griffin was administrator. Look at Griffin before Congress commitees 2005 - even before he was confirmed administrator - and you get the impression he is “giving” them SM-4 because Congress wants it (And he wants to become NASA administrator.). I give him - but not him alone - credit for SM-4, but he was not pushing for it. He was not against it. Congress was pushing. Btw. in the same way it is pushing for a Shuttle AMS flight.

Now compare this with Griffin: The number of missions started under his watch is very low (Juno, Mars 2013 (no 2011), WISE, LCM, LRO, Discovery lunar missions in 2011, maybe some small missions),

Huh?  Griffin has been NASA administrator for 3.5 years.  Goldin was in for 10.  How can you call this a fair comparison?

Please, this is cheap. Normalize for missions per year and you get the results I claim. Or count launches per year. Or count newly selected missions per year. Or AOs per year. Look at the manifest for the next 5 years, because it includes missions selected (or better: not selected) under Griffin’s watch. Take the Mars program, or Discovery, or MIDEX, or SMEX, or EOS follow on (Is there one?). Or HSF: Any planned missions between 2010 and 2015?

Analyst

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #68 on: 10/07/2008 07:52 pm »
1) Why does the PDR package for HST Robotic Servicing and Deorbit Mission have a Level 1 requirement to  Install WFC3 and COS and
New SV gyros (6) installed on WP3

2) A robotic servicing capability gained from HRSDM would have be fantastic!!!!

1) Why? Because the science community rightly felt HST with new gyros but without WFPC-3 and COS is not worth the whole robotic mission. A requirement does not make it easier or more likely. Look at the success probabilities for a robotic mission back then, it has been below 50% AFAIR. You lost me with an acronym: WP3?

2) Would be great. But expensive to develop.

Analyst

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #69 on: 10/08/2008 10:35 pm »
Current GPA: 1.6.  His eighth degree clearly won't be coming from NSFU.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline texas_space

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 393
  • Ex Terra, Scientia
  • Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #70 on: 10/09/2008 12:21 am »
2.  Failure to get Orion, which should be a systems integration project, even to PDR during what will likely be his entire tenure. 

That says it for me right there.  D for Griffin.
"We went to the moon nine times. Why fake it nine times, if we faked it?" - Charlie Duke

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #71 on: 10/09/2008 03:36 pm »
F

Offline janmb

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #72 on: 10/09/2008 05:49 pm »
He gets a B from me.

I sincerely doubt he has any "hate" toward the shuttle or the shuttle program, as some would seem to claim.

His loyalty and commitment to the VES and government decisions is a huge plus in my book - not a negative.

Speaking his mind (in regards the flaws of the shuttle program) is equally so.

Focusing on Constellation is a third bonus.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2008 05:50 pm by janmb »
Jan M Berg
Software Engineer
Kongsberg Defense and Aerospace
Norway

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #73 on: 10/09/2008 06:11 pm »
He gets a B from me.

I sincerely doubt he has any "hate" toward the shuttle or the shuttle program, as some would seem to claim.

His loyalty and commitment to the VES and government decisions is a huge plus in my book - not a negative.

Speaking his mind (in regards the flaws of the shuttle program) is equally so.

Focusing on Constellation is a third bonus.


Of course you are entitled to your opinion....but let me tell you why it is wrong.

With regards to shuttle, admit the flaws, tell everyone up front it is risky but it is what it is and if it's worth the cost (and I'm not talking dollars) than it is worth the risk.  Do not over emphasize or exaggerate data in order to make your case seem, and only seem, better for an architecture that is your pet project. 

His commitment to the VSE has actually ruined the VSE.  Constellation as currently deployed is not the VSE, it is Apollo v2.0.  We all know how Apollo v1.0 ended.  The use of the current Ares family will be the single cost driver in the near term due to development.  Development will eventially turn into operations but the cost of that, due to ignoring issues encounted in development and the costs needed to mitigate these issues operationally, will ultimately not be sustainable in the long run for the capibilities it will give us. 

Speaking your mind is good and should be encouraged, most of the time.  However when you are Administrator of NASA you require the appropriate filter to still state your opinion without going over the top.  Mike is in a position where he now needs to be more politician and strategic manager and less engineer. 

Finally, he has not focused on Constellation.  He has focused on Ares 1 and that is only a minor change in words but a huge difference in policy. 
« Last Edit: 10/09/2008 06:13 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline janmb

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Mike Griffin Assessment Grade Poll
« Reply #74 on: 10/09/2008 09:00 pm »
With regards to shuttle, admit the flaws, tell everyone up front it is risky but it is what it is and if it's worth the cost (and I'm not talking dollars) than it is worth the risk.  Do not over emphasize or exaggerate data in order to make your case seem, and only seem, better for an architecture that is your pet project.


So you are saying it would be better if he kept his mouth shut about his true opinion? That's not the kind of leader *I* would want. As long as his actions are loyal to the mandate given to him (and you can hardly argue against THAT?), I'd much rather he was open about his true opinions than not.

An honest opinion is always better than keeping your mouth shut just because that opinion might in fact be unpopular.


Speaking your mind is good and should be encouraged, most of the time.  However when you are Administrator of NASA you require the appropriate filter to still state your opinion without going over the top.  Mike is in a position where he now needs to be more politician and strategic manager and less engineer.

I'd rather he was both - which from my point of view seems to be exactly what he tried to be.

You should (imo) never filter opinions in a position as important as this. If people can't take hearing your opinion, if it's somehow politically incorrect or out of place - so be it. If you can't live with that, then find someone without opinions you can't live with. But don't expect a leader at this level to not speak his mind openly. If you in fact WANT that in the first place, you are shooting yourself not only in the foot but in the back of your own head too.

As for your notes regarding the Constellation program and his impact on those, I'll have to take your word for it - I have no basis for disputing or agreeing to that. I only observe the fact that he works hard to follow up on the mandate to retire the shuttle - despite sharing the concerns regarding the gap with all the rest of us. That is in my book a very good thing, and I'm glad NASA has an administrator that makes the right call even when having to choose the lesser among evils. Far too many people seem to freak out when having to choose among a set of bad alternatives.. Just because an alternative has flaws and weaknesses does mean it's not the best one available to you at any given time.
Jan M Berg
Software Engineer
Kongsberg Defense and Aerospace
Norway

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0