I speculated yesterday that there was a connection between the NASA-Pentagon-Ares-EELV issue and the delay in appointing a new NASA administrator. Now the issue is being more fully reported in the Houston Chronicle.
It’s actually my thought that the appointment of a general may not be a bad idea. Everyone respects generals and it’s not a given that one would be parochial about using a military vehicle. Plus, two generals (Lew Allen, Pete Worden) have gone on to run NASA centers with great success. Someone at that level may have the clout to stand firm against the powerful interests involved and actually make the right choices for the right reasons. Here’s what the “Chron” had to say:
WASHINGTON — During the past few weeks, the names of three retired generals have floated around Washington and Houston as candidates for the top job at NASA.
Each time, though, aides to President Barack Obama failed to say whether they had selected the space agency’s administrator, and the guessing game continued.
Now, some supporters of the manned space program with ties to NASA say that one of the key reasons for the prolonged selection process is that powerful politicians and rival space contractors are maneuvering behind the scenes to influence the choice.
At stake is a multi-billion-dollar project to develop the Ares rocket for the space shuttle replacement.
Read the full Houston Chronicle article
T. Keith Glennan, First NASA Administrator
NASA is a large and amazing organization, always embroiled in its own dramas – funding, priorities, battles between behemoth contractors with increasing noise from smaller startups, the ongoing bungee-cord balance between science, safety, cost, manned flight considerations, defense vs commercial vs exploration, US dominance vs all the other countries, and on and on. The latest issues to bump heads are the future of Ares, and the appointment of a new NASA administrator.
By now, you would have thought that a new administrator would be in place. Instead, there is no more activity than a few names being floated around. Interestingly, there are several from the military world. This plays into the other issue, that there are those who think that we should abandon Ares and go with military launch vehicles instead.
I’m not going to get into that line of reasoning here (Jeff Krukin has some thoughts), but I will say that it plays into the old assumption that political and other appointees will be parochial and come in with agendas. A military NASA administrator would be assumed to automatically support the use of military vehicles, for example. I’m not sure if that’s true or if a military appointee would necessarily be a bad thing (General Lew Allen had a good run as director of JPL in the 80’s, for example, and Pete Worden is happily ensconced at Ames) but it will certainly bring in a different perspective. Some people might argue that it’s not fruitful to have dual-track vehicle programs at all.
Anyway, for your interest here are links to a few people whose names are currently floating around as possible nominees for NASA administrator:
Spaceports has a longer but older (Dec ‘08) list here.
From the Orlando Sentinel, a reported phone call from Mike Griffin, the NASA administrator:
Industry officials say that a few days later, Griffin called Robert Stevens, the CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp., which jointly owns ULA together with Boeing Co., and demanded that Stevens stop what Griffin called the subsidiary’s efforts to “kill Ares I” by promoting versions of its own rockets that could carry humans to space.
Maybe Mike Griffin should get his wife to call. She seems to be doing pretty good rallying people around the effort to keep the Administrator in his job.
Editors note: this post was updated on 1/7/09 to include this link with updates as to the status on the appointment of a new administrator:
Other names being considered
Over at NASAWatch, they’re keeping tabs on the petition to keep Mike Griffin in his post. The implication is that signers leaving negative comments are being removed.
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/01/vote_to_keep_mi.html
Unfortunately, in my opinion, this can only have a negative effect. Obama, if he keeps Griffin, will be accused of bowing to the pressure of an unscientifically developed petition. Yet another mess he’s expected to straighten out when I need him to fix my mortgage!
