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
His safety number calculation was irresponsible imho.
Not great, but not as bad as O'Keefe or Goldin.
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.
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.
Not only HST recovery (SM-1), but future servicing missions too (SM-2, SM-3A, SM-3B).
Goldin did something with the limited budget he had (Shuttle and ISS and science).
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.
Quote from: Hunt101 on 10/05/2008 02:06 amNot 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.
(SM-4 also has been baseline, O'Keefe did cancel it and Griffin - only under massive pressure by Congress - put it back)
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),
has always impressed infront of commitees.
Ares I is the new X-33, but I don't see any mismanagement by him.
Quote from: OV-106 on 10/05/2008 05:39 pmD, 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.
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.
Quote from: Analyst on 10/05/2008 08:25 amNow 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?
Quote from: Blackstar on 10/06/2008 12:20 amHuh? 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.
Huh? Griffin has been NASA administrator for 3.5 years. Goldin was in for 10. How can you call this a fair comparison?
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.
PS: Simply have a look at the EELV, Delta II and Pegasus manifest.
Quote from: synchrotron on 10/05/2008 08:28 pmAnd 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?
Quote from: Blackstar on 10/06/2008 12:20 amHuh? 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.
Quote from: Analyst on 10/06/2008 12:51 pmPS: Simply have a look at the EELV, Delta II and Pegasus manifest.Why not a more broad measure than that?
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.
You keep asking questions. Why don't you develop your own metric, present it and discuss it?
Quote from: psloss on 10/06/2008 01:21 pmQuote from: Analyst on 10/06/2008 12:51 pmPS: 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.
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.
At least Griffin, when he leaves, will not be leaving with a multi-million dollar golden parachute.
Tough crowd!Who was NASA's best boss, for comparison?
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.
Quote from: kool-aid on 10/06/2008 11:36 pmHands 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.
Quote from: Blackstar on 10/07/2008 03:22 amQuote from: kool-aid on 10/06/2008 11:36 pmHands 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.
Sorry, I was too vague -- I meant why not use a more broad measure than space science?
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.
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.
Quote from: kool-aid on 10/06/2008 11:36 pmMike 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.
Quote from: Jorge on 10/07/2008 12:09 amQuote from: kool-aid on 10/06/2008 11:36 pmMike 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?"
Quote from: psloss on 10/07/2008 12:04 pmHmmm...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.
Hmmm...is NASA "too big to fail?"
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.Quote from: Blackstar on 10/06/2008 12:20 amQuote from: Analyst on 10/05/2008 08:25 amNow 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
1) Why does the PDR package for HST Robotic Servicing and Deorbit Mission have a Level 1 requirement to Install WFC3 and COS andNew SV gyros (6) installed on WP3 2) A robotic servicing capability gained from HRSDM would have be fantastic!!!!
2. Failure to get Orion, which should be a systems integration project, even to PDR during what will likely be his entire tenure.
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.
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.
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.