Lugo and Coats Are Out. More Changes Ahead?
Keith’s 15 Nov 4:00 pm EST note: NASA will announce soon that Glenn Research Center Director Ray Lugo and Johnson Space Center Director Mike Coats are leaving their respective positions. All-hands meetings have reportedly been scheduled for tomorrow (Friday) at JSC and GRC. As was reported on NASAWatch in August, these departures, which will be described as “retirement”, are part of a larger attempt by NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden to rearrange field center management at NASA. Bolden is still attempting to replace several other NASA field center directors including Ames Research Center Director Pete Worden – despite repeated pressure on Bolden from the White House and Congress not to do so.
Bolden Seeks To Replace Multiple Center Directors, earlier post
NASA Announces Leadership Changes at Glenn Research Center and Johnson Space Center
“NASA Administrator Charles Bolden announced leadership changes Friday for the agency’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland and Johnson Space Center in Houston. James Free will succeed Ramon (Ray) Lugo as Glenn’s center director when Lugo retires in January. Free has served as Glenn’s deputy director since January 2011. Ellen Ochoa will succeed Michael Coats as Johnson’s center director when Coats retires at the end of the year. Ochoa has served as Johnson’s deputy director since September 2007.”
– Ochoa Named Johnson Space Center Director; Coats to Retire
– Free Named Glenn Research Center Director; Lugo To Retire
NASA Glenn director Ray Lugo to retire in January, Cleveland Plain Dealer
“In an interview with The Plain Dealer in August in response to those rumors, Lugo said he had gotten personal assurance from Bolden “that he is not planning to replace me or move me. To the best of my knowledge – and I’ve talked to the boss – there’s no truth to the rumor.”
Keith, do you have the background of the politics involved?
Would be interesting to know the backstory on why Bolden is in conflict with so many of his center directors.
For starters, Charlie Bolden is not a good manager. He also does not take direction from his boss very well. That trickles down to all of the people who work for Bolden.
Have you worked for Bolden? Can you cite specific examples of his managerial (in)expertise? (sorry, couldn’t resist)
I told all of you that this was going to happen – in August.
Who gives the marching orders . Nelson or just goes off the reservation on his own?
You don’t get to become commanding general of the 3rd Marine Air Wing by not being a good manager.
There is a JSC all hands tomorrow at which it is rumored this will be announced.
There is an all hands at GRC too. However, there is absolutely no indication that Ray Lugo will announce his imminent departure.
Check back in here tomorrow after the All-hands that is being held at GRC and let me know what happened ….
Will do. But I’ll tell you, Ray is well liked by many people at the center. Although he can be a bit of a whirlwind, he is extremely intelligent and one of the most honorable people I have ever met at NASA. I’ve never seen a person care so much about his employees and his organization.
This has nothing to do with the people at GRC or whether they like or dislike Lugo. Rather, this all has to do with what Bolden thinks and what he wants.
It’s official. Ray Lugo announced his “retirement” at the end of the year.
My understanding from at least spring was that Coats was retiring at the end of the year. Never have heard he was being pressured out other then in rumor filled blogs
Check back in here tomorrow after the All-hands that is being held at JSC and let me know what happened ….
Sorry to see Mr. Lugo go. He actually knew how to run a center and an organization.
This is a shame.
Do you work at NASA GRC? Can you cite specific examples of his managerial expertise?
No Keith,
You and I, as well as most of the people who read NASA Watch, know I do not work at NASA Glenn… but we have some TEA Party types that do.
Our organization has had a couple of discussions about directions of centers, their directors, and how many centers do we really need. After the announcement of his “retirement”, I again asked about his leadership and his vision for what he thought NASA Glenn should be. All positive feedback from the line at GRC… Ray is an innovator.
No one has a bad thing to say about him.
I simply reiterated that.
You asked your “TEA party types” or other people? How many people did you ask?
I’m surprised Mike Coats has stayed on this long, given some family medical issues. The fact that he’s been working through it all this time is a testament to his dedication.
Yes, I have heard, many times, that he’s had family issues that might have forced him to depart – but that he managed to hang on and stay in the job. That is dedication, plain and simple. The issue here is not that he was against retirement but rather that Bolden was pushing him to do things on a timeline that suited Charlie Bolden and not Mike Coats.
Yusef,
I know this is going to sound strange, but from experience I can tell you that sometimes when you have medical or other serious problems, whether a family member or yourself, continuing to work (assuming you’re able to) can actually make your life a lot easier to deal with. Having that break from your/family problems eight hours (or however many) a day can save your sanity, especially when you can continue to solve problems, manage people, build equipment, whatever… These become the things that “go right” in your day, and they help make the problems more bearable, almost like a mini vacation. So, I’m not surprised that Mr. Coats stayed on while he could. Good work can be good therapy.
Steve
Nice scoop. 11:33 AM and the e-mail announcement said 11:52 AM. You have reliable sources.
The release was sent around the agency about an hour or so before it was formally released. Copies found their way to me ….
Lots of people, here at NASA Watch and elsewhere, have blogged that Charlie Bolden should do this, do that, take charge, etc., deciding that it was up to Charlie to turn things around and lead the charge, make decisions, provide the “Vision,” be the boss. Well, it looks like maybe now he’s trying to do exactly that.
I certainly expect that he has information and has participated in discussions which none of us know anything about, and which factor into his current actions (assuming these “retirements” are Charlie’s doing). I was sort of expecting something like this following the “shoe banging” story. It’s time for the federal government to either put up or shut up as far as NASA is concerned.
As I recall, Bolden took this job, the second time he was asked, when nobody else asked would take it. And since then, he’s had to put up with an awful lot of BS for his trouble. Maybe, now that the election is over, he’s decided that enough is enough, and that the BS stops now. In his shoes, I would certainly be letting all of the players know that from now on we do things intelligently and sanely in accordance with what NASA needs to do, or get yourself another scapegoat.
Whatever NASA’s programs are from here on out, once those programs are decided on, the NASA Administrator needs to be able manage his agency in accordance with the legislation which spells out his duties and responsibilities, as directed by the President (not Congress), without perpetual interference and endlessly added reports and committee meetings. If Congress should decide not to fund any program(s) sufficiently to execute them, then I hope Charlie will have the smarts to go to the President, his boss, and say, NASA will no longer be doing the X program as of Y date, unless the indicated adequate funding is provided by Z date, and the balance of the currently allocated money will be spent on severance pay and temporary benefits extensions, which, as I read the legislation, is within his power to do.
In short, unless the Congress and the White House quit playing screwball with NASA, Charlie is going to play hardball with them, and if they don’t like it, they can stuff it and replace him. I can recall people making similar suggestions as far back as three years ago, so maybe Charlie has finally had enough.
This is all pure speculation on my part, but when I try to put myself in his shoes, this is pretty much how I would be thinking. If this should backlash on him, I won’t be surprised if the next “retirement” that Bolden announces is his own.
Steve
Charlie likes to say he didn’t want the job and they couldn’t get anyone else to take it – but none of that is true. Nelson kept other Obama picks from getting the job and forced-in Charlie, with Charlie’s full knowledge and support.
Elizabeth,
What makes you say this? Do you have documentation or references, or did you hear a conversation involving either Nelson or Bolden in which this was discussed? What I’m asking is, is this official fact or were you expressing an opinion?
Steve
Steve,
First thanks for the short statement (I usually, if at all, only follow for your first sentence before quickly losing interest, I have a short attention span). Back on topic, unless its documented or you personally heard it, are you say it could not have possibly occurred? Unless of course you read it on the internet.
Simply looking for clarification.
I have direct knowledge of the activity. The documentation will come out when the Administration is over and personnel discussions are released. It is not something WH personnel will discuss officially until later.
Elizabeth,
Thank you for the clarification. It makes the situation appear somewhat different than it did before.
Steve
It’s my understanding that Obama’s first choice was Lori Garver.
You are incorrect. His first choice was Scott Gration, the former Air Force 2-star general.
vulture4,
If you recall, there were several names being kicked around at the time, but nothing in the media ever made clear which ones were officially being considered and which names were the result of rumor, hearsay and speculation.
The catch was always that the President can’t pick his NASA Administrator unilaterally. His choice has to be approved by the Senate (as per the legislation under which NASA was created), and I can’t imagine that the aging Senate would ever have approved a women for the job in 2008.
Garver may well have been an Obama choice, and in my opinion she had the right experience for the job and isn’t afraid to play tough. She may have made a difference, but we’ll never know because it seems to me that she has been, as much as possible, shuffled off to the side and rendered less effective over the last four years. If that is the case, it would sure be interesting to know who’s doing it was; there is certainly no shortage of suspects.
Of course, if Bolden’s current getting tough moves should backfire on him, we may well see Lori Garver replacing him for the remainder of this Presidential term.
Steve
Rigt experience? Really?
Yes, really. Education and experience.
Degrees in public policy? Experience in writing policy papers? At least Jim Webb knew to leave the engineering to the engineers…
In reply to Yusef (insufficient dialog levels available), Webb was neither an engineer nor a pilot. Elon Musk had no formal training in engineering or experience in aerospace when he started SpaceX. Both understood the issues, however. Experience as an astronaut or engineer is certainly relevant but has not always proven to be the ideal background for NASA Administrator, as it tends to blind one to the need to build sustained public and political support. Public policy might actually be more relevant.
Replying to Yusef (above):
“Degrees in public policy? Experience in writing policy papers?“
So, Yusef, in your world you arbitrarily pick one single task from someone’s past and equate that to their entire education and experience?
Either you made bad assumptions based on not doing any simple research, or you’re trying to bull your way through this, thinking perhaps that other people with no more facts in hand than have you will simply believe you.
• Garver has a BA in political science and economics, and a MA in science, technology and public policy.
• Her work in the NASA Office of Policy and Plans, which you seem to consider her sole experience, was only three years out of her entire career (and finished a dozen years ago).
• She was the Executive Director of the NSS for nine years.
• Her non-NASA career includes several impressive senior positions, most of which related to planning and implementation of space activities. This is an area where NASA has been under criticism for decades, so bringing in someone with her experience to the DA position — instead of another astronaut (whose experience/education is flying and/or engineering), or promoting a program manager from up through the ranks — was a good move.
You clearly don’t like her for some reason, but you can’t use lack of education or experience to support your bias, because the facts clearly contradict you.
Steve
I’ve listened to both Bolden and Garver a number of times. Bolden is genuine and sincere, but he has often said things that just weren’t diplomatic, helpful, or accurate, like saying that outreach to certain countries was NASA’s most important mission, or pantomiming Russian Roulette while talking about the risks of flying the Shuttle at KSC, and suggesting the risk was a constant throughout the program; in reality risk declined after both shuttle losses as changes were made in the design. Garver has said things she may not actually believe, e.g. that NASA will somehow create a useful mission for SLS/Orion, but has done so only when Congress clearly left her no alternative. I have never heard her make an obvious mistake. She understands the issues thoroughly and speaks accurately and precisely, and she has a clear vision of a future in which spaceflight will be practical for substantial numbers of people who will work productively or travel there for there for their own enjoyment, rather than just a handful of civil servants. You may be right that she has been sidelined, but if so, those who have done so were not acting in the interest of our future.
vulture4,
I first heard Lori Garver speak before she was NASA DA and after her NASA policy stint. She was talking about another issue (not NASA or NSS) and she came across as both knowledgeable and sincere. As far as I can tell, she is the same as DA (although I don’t really follow her activities). Some senior people are news makers, pro or con, whether they like it or not. Others proceed more quietly, taking care of the day to day stuff that adds up. I think Garver is in the second group and these are the people, in my mind, who get the real work done.
I hate to say it, but clearly some people criticize or dismiss her because she’s a woman, including some posters on NASA Watch. Perhaps that’s the same reason why some posters make stuff up about her.
I wish we had more “space flight for the people” thinkers like Garver in the game (and I don’t mean tourism). I followed her own attempt to go to space and was honestly ticked when she got “bumped.” She seems to me to be a realist, and I think we could use more like her at NASA.
Steve
If you saw these “resumes” in a pile, would you pick them out a s the best qualified to run a research center? Being a technical visionary? How about actually having done research once in your career ?
Free began his career in 1990 at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. as a propulsion engineer and later as a systems engineer on NASA’s Tracking and Data Relay Satellites. He joined Glenn in 1999 as the International Space Station liaison for the Fluids and Combustion Facility. His other NASA assignments have included director of Space Flight Systems at Glenn, Orion Service Module manager at Glenn and chief of the center’s Orion Project Office. He also worked at Johnson as the Orion Test and Verification manager. Lugo’s retirement brings to a close a 37-year career at NASA. In 1975, he began working at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida as a cooperative education student. His first assignment was in the Construction and Modifications Branch as an engineer responsible for construction modifications to Launch Pad 39A in preparation for the first space shuttle mission. His other NASA assignments included serving as Glenn’s deputy center director and deputy program manager for NASA’s Launch Services Program.
My understanding is that Mr. Free is a really sharp rocket scientist/manager. I am looking forward to how he leads GRC.
What is not entirely clear to me, is how James Free will perform as top dog. He’s a first rate engineer and he was very effective in his deputy assignments — but these are “getting it done” jobs, whereas management is a “deciding what to do” job and a “dealing with people” job, which is a very different thing.
Over and over, at NASA and everywhere else, senior engineers have been “promoted” to management jobs, all too often managing the same people who they worked side by side with the week before. After a while on the job they discover (along with everyone else) that they left a job at which they were very good to take on a job that they can’t do well at all, not because of any personal shortcomings, but because the new duties are simply outside of what they know and understand. It’s not a crime, but it is a problem, for everyone involved.
The Peter Principle (“every man rises to his own level of incompetence”) is as valid today as it was in late 1950’s when Drucker first said it.
I sincerely hope that these essential management jobs are being filled by experienced, capable managers. The truth is, a manager needs to know enough about what his/her people do to make effective, informed decisions (Mr. Free appears to), but we DO NOT want an engineer, a scientist, an astronaut, a researcher, etc. for the center managers’ jobs (or any management jobs) — we need a seasoned manager in every management position. Otherwise, we’ll keep getting the same ineffective nonsense that’s been choking NASA for the last quarter century.
James Webb was not an engineer, or any of those other professions; he was a business man who knew nothing about space or airplanes. And he was (in my opinion) the most effective Administrator NASA ever had. Lyndon Johnson talked Webb into taking the job (they were friends) because Webb was a first rate manager, and Johnson correctly identified that a seasoned, hard-hitting manager is what the NASA Administrator job requires. Even though Charlie Bolden himself is not a strong senior manager (which I feel sure he knows about himself), I think he is fully capable of identifying those who are, and is nominating replacements accordingly, which, right now, just might be the thing that NASA needs most of all.
One thing that’s clear is that NASA has a large number of people in management positions, at several levels, who are simply not up to the job, quite aside from what fine people they might be and how many loyal followers they may have. If Charlie Bolden is now embarking upon the task of fixing that single problem, as appears might be the case, then, assuming that he does it well, I think he’ll be doing more for NASA than any Administrator has done since Webb. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that he’s loading the dice by bringing in proven managers, and that those managers will have the savvy and the nerve to stand up to and overcome all of the political interference that has been slowly killing NASA. Once NASA has shored up its managerial capabilities, then perhaps we can talk more meaningfully about goals and visions.
Steve
The Peter Principle was invented by Dr. Laurence Peter, not by Peter Drucker.
Thank you, Jim.
I first read of it in a book that was talking about Drucker and I obviously made a wrong assumption, and I’ve had it wrong in my head all these years. Embarrassing. Live and learn. Thanks,
Steve
Ummm, Charlie Bolden was commanding general of the 3rd Marine Air Wing…So how do you come to the conclusion that he is not a strong senior manager?
Yusef,
As a General, he was in a situation where he knew the rules, the rules made sense, and he had spent a career working up to and earning the rank of General. As NASA Administrator, he’s in a situation complicated by politics, where the “rules” are not clear and often don’t make sense (from a non-politician’s perspective), and he didn’t have an opportunity work his way up to the hot seat, but rather was under the gun almost from day one.
In the military the chain of command is both clear and respected; in D.C. it is generally neither. For military officers, responsibility and authority are matched, which is an absolute necessity for anyone “in charge,” whether a General or a manager. As NASA Administrator he has constantly been put in a position, by politicians and the public, where he is labeled as responsible for things in which he was afforded no authority at all. Only the very highest caliber managers can face that sort of situation and come out ahead, and anyone that good is too experienced a manager to let themselves be pulled into such a no-win situation.
This is all just my opinion, of course, but if it is at all accurate, then it means that, if we’re lucky, we’ll get NASA Administrators who are good enough, but we’ll never get the most capable people taking the job.
Steve
Man, I really don’t miss working for the govt. Sure, there are a lot of perks but a lot of the times it’s like you’re in a minimum security prison. The power struggles are always, always going on..and as years go by you’re going to be involved in them. A lot of times it’s a popularity contest, a lot of times the new boss wants to make a name for him/her self or exact revenge for some perceived slight from years gone by.
You can spend you’re whole career striving to achieve excellence and in the end, one new person can smash it all to smithereens. Not worth the stress unless you’ve got the thickest of skins.
BTW, I’ve always heard Mike Coats was a great guy all around, I wish him the best. Same goes for Lugo and whoever else Charlie ends up forcing out.
Relative to Mr. Coats’ retirement, this from reporter Eric Berger in today’s Houston Chronicle. “Coats said his goal now is to focus on taking care of his wife, Diane, who has been ill. ‘Her health is not great, and she’s going to be my entire focus.’ Coats said. ‘She’s taken care of me for 43 years. Now it’s her turn.”
Mr. Coats lives his life with high integrity and a true devotion to his family and the people who work for him. The daily examples he sets of communicating and dealing with people and working issues are worthy of being followed by all…
James Milton Heflin, Jr.
Bolden was pushing Coats to do things on a different timeline than Coats had planned.
Can you elaborate and be more specific? No one close to the situation has said anything regarding timetable as a reason for Coats departure, other than the rumor that Coats was waiting for the election in hopes of an obama loss so he can than retire with a republican administration left to pick the next center director. I suppose that was a timetable of sorts.
So – what’s the big issue here? Is it assumed by some in this thread that Center Director positions are like line level civil service jobs where you can’t ever be let go unless you REALLY screw up or commit a crime? While I am not aware of any overt insubordination by Coats or Lugo and from all external appearances JSC and Glenn are being competently run – doesn’t Bolden have the legitimate management freedom to have the best team for the mission he is trying to accomplish? Coats and Lugo are both retirement eligible long term SES employees – they aren’t being thrown out in the street; they will have their full NASA retirement and can go work somewhere else if they choose.
I believe that at least one of these three Center Directors really screwed up. That is the information that isn’t available to the public, but is known by too many employees and too many higher ups to keep them in the roles…
Lori Garver has been running NASA HQ from Day 1. Charlie’s her puppet. Lori could not get an Administrator approval from the Senate. Let’s see if Charlie serves in the next term or who Obama –I mean Lori — chooses to replace him. They’d probably go with Bill Nelson if they could, but Democrats need him more in Senate….Been there, seen that…
Lori does not run NASA HQ. Trust me. Charlie Bolden is most certainly not her puppet either. Oh yes: Lori was already confirmed by the Senate.
Does Lori’s Senate confirmation for deputy administrator extend to Administrator or would she have to be confirmed for that position after the “retirement of Charlie”?
She can be acting administrator for a significant period of time without the need for any Senate approval.
So the answer is no?
My understanding is that she does not need additional confirmation since the Deputy Administrator is, by definition, someone who can be NASA administrator if the need arises.
shuttlepuppy,
What is your basis for this curious opinion?
I have more than one highly placed, extremely trusted NASA sources who will remain anonymous
Gee, that’s easy for *anyone* to say when they post here using a fictional name ….
OK, Keith. Looks like you had the best skinny on Lugo’s retirement. However after listening to Ray’s All Hands and talking to him in a small group afterwards, it didn’t seem like he was upset at all. He seemed to be downright happy and excited about moving on. In fact, multiple factors may be motivating Coats’ and Lugo’s interest in retiring. At the very least, most would construe it as being a combination of personal and professional interests.
In any event, we will definitely miss Ray. He loves the researchers, technologists and engineers at GRC, which has raised the ire with many in mid to upper-management. None of those “oligarchs” ever felt comfortable with his reaching into their fiefdoms and petty empires to find out how the employees truly felt.
All in all, Ray will register a big positive mark on GRC’s legacy. We have no doubt that he will continue thriving in a freewheeling entrepreneurial environment. He has the smarts and the great interpersonal skills. He will definitely be missed!I want to mention that Jim Free will be a good leader for the center. People challenging the rationale for the GRC reorganization will be sorely disappointed. Jim was the main architect for the new center organization. He has been advocating the new structure for over a year. I couldn’t imagine that Bolden and Garver would approve his appointment as Center Director unless they endorsed GRC going forward with alignment along its main competencies.
All in all, Ray and Jim have positioned GRC as a force to be reckoned with in the future…
Bolden pushed him out. Privately according to my sources he was not at all pleased about this. But Lugo is being a gentleman about this and putting the best face on it. What are the odds that two center directors would make their retirement announcements at the exact same moment?
Huh!?
Does this sound like someone planning retirement?
In an interview with The Plain Dealer in August in response to those rumors, Lugo said he had gotten personal assurance from Bolden “that he is not planning to replace me or move me. To the best of my knowledge – and I’ve talked to the boss – there’s no truth to the rumor.”
I suppose those were tears of joy from Lugo at his all hands!
A force to be reckoned with – you must be kidding me. What exactly have they established in terms of aero or spaceflight capability or track record (in the last 5 years) that would make them any kind of force at all? What role do they have in any significant NASA project or what do they see as their core capabilities that would lead NASA in the future? I have seen nothing significant come out of GRC in terms of accomplishments or plans for the future (in the last 5 years). Must be black projects they are working on thse days or just a lousy marketing program. In my opinion, and by all financial or technical indicators, GRC is just dying on the vine. Can’t wait to hear about all the great plans for the future and see the tangible outcomes to follow.
Coats never seemed to have any technical role in human space flight as Center Director. At best he was a cheer leader, though the cheers proved pretty hollow when the entire human space program was allowed to collapse over the last few years. I don’t blame Coats for this-a lot of other people at the Administrator, AA and Program Management levels had much more to do with whether the program was progressing satisfactorily. It has certainly been interesting to watch the program go from vitality to disarray with no plan and no goals. Now it is proving interesting to watch some of the NASA ‘leadership’, a term I use loosely, talk at conferences about how we don’t know where we are going but we are definitely making progress getting there.
Brian,
What changes would you like to see put in place that would turn things back around? I don’t mean the visions and missions boilerplate. What tangible or managerial changes do you think need to happen to put NASA back in the HSF game?
Steve
It is pretty hard to separate what we ought to be doing from Vision and Mission. And, anything we do now is just playing catch-up.
NASA needs to decide, within the context of human space flight, just what role it is supposed to play. Once that strategy is clearly understood, then it needs to be very clearly communicated. Deciding what we should be doing and how to go about doing it does not require astronauts, and likely not even engineers. It does require some real manager/strateticians and it requires some real communicators.
I for one do not see those kinds of people running the show today.
What needs to be decided is NASA’s role in research, science, development, design, engineering, operations, education, communications, safety, quality assurance…. Over decades lots of little fiefdoms have tried to give the appearance of taking over functions that they do not do well with. In many cases NASA is at cross purposes with itself. Maybe NASA should be ensuring safety, but if the same organization that is doing the operating is also overseeing the safety, then there is a clear conflict of interest. Likewise in a lot of other areas. Is NASA the researcher or does research get done in academia or in industry? Is NASA set up to try and compete with academia and industry ? Does NASA design the spaceships and rockets or is NASA defining the design requirements? Is NASA managing the budget allocations or is NASA in direct receipt of the budget allocations?
Today these answers have not been decided. They need to be. And the people who have grown up trying to show they are designing things, when they really aren’t and do not know how, or trying to show they are doing research, when they aren’t,or trying to manage a budget, when they have been totally unsuccessful at it. Some real and significant choices need to be made, and the people who need to make the choices are not the people who are in place today trying to capture the money, the authority, or the glory.
Quote: “NASA needs to decide, within the context of human space flight, just what role it is supposed to play”
This is the problem. NASA is not the one who decides their own HSF role. It is the President who decides this, strictly for political reasons..and Presidents and political reasons change with the wind my friend.
I disagree. Yours is a typical defeatist attitude. ‘Someone else is in charge. Everybody decides NASA’s fate and NASA has no option but to go along with whatever they’re told; woe is NASA’.
This is nonsense. NASA is looked upon as the technical expert. NASA is the pre-eminent civilian space organization. NASA needs to figure out how to proceed. NASA needs to be convincing in its arguments before Presidents, Congress and the taxpayer, and that is why communications is key. If NASA is not going to figure it out, no one will do it for them, and then you wind up exactly in the situation we are today with no goals, no plans and no program.
Brian,
I think that what you’re advocating is a popular opinion, and it makes sense from the perspective that certain NASA people know better (in theory) than anyone else in the country what NASA should be doing — if there is a clear understanding of what they overall goals are.
However, as BlingSlade points out, NASA does not have the legal authority to do that. The NASA Administrator is charged with having his organization plan and execute the tasks, but the tasks themselves are decided by the President, not NASA, in accordance with the legislation under which NASA was created. And there have been no subsequent amendments to that legislation that changes this. Of course, any President worth his salt doesn’t actually make these decisions unilaterally, but does so after discussing the situation and getting advice from NASA senior people (plus his staff, DOD, and probably lots of other people). So, NASA can provide input and submit program proposals to the President, but NASA does not and has never had either the responsibility or the authority to make the decisions. And in recent years, as we all know, certain members of Congress have made the situation much more chaotic by interfering in this process in ways not in accordance with that legislation (but who’s going to stop them?).
Perhaps if NASA were to put together an integrated long-term plan that everybody would but off on, it would be gladly scooped up by the President, but who is NASA? There are too many factions within NASA itself for that to ever happen. Those few times in the past when this was attempted what we got was ridiculously bloated mega-programs that tried to be all things to all people, thereby satisfying no one and having insane price tags.
“NASA is looked upon as the technical expert“
Agreed, but the technical experts don’t decide “what,” their expertise is “how.” If you were remodeling your kitchen, at some point you call in a plumber — as a technical expert. You might ask him for advise or suggestions on certain issues, but you’d never ask him to decide on the remodeling scheme.
So, if you were to accept my statement that NASA doesn’t decide the “What,” just the “How,” then how would you answer the question of “What changes would you like to see put in place that would turn things back around?”
Steve
Brian, your view of NASA is a simplistic distorted view and not based in reality. NASA like ALL other Fed agencies do not decide their fate (of course you could say J Edgar’s FBI was an exception but I digress)
Bling you succinctly nailed it. Despite the wishful thinking of many posters, it is the President who sets the goal/vision and works/negotiates with Congress to implement. NASA has little say (although it provides advice and studies to support an agenda) but its up to the administration to accept or reject NASA’s input. Just like in every other Federal agency.
Bingo!
R U Freaking kidding me!
Only in a agency as poorly run as NASA could someone with Ray Lugos judgement ever make it to Center Director….For those who know, he was
placed in Cleveland by Mike Griffin to shake things up and tick people off!
Absolutely nothing got done on his watch except for his pet favorite
Jim Free went in two years from running a branch of 15 people to being the
most inexperienced Center Director in NASA history!
Lets tell it like it is….GRC has been a **** for decades and has no
real role in major NASA projects. They fight for crumbs which they often
dont get because nothing ever gets done on time or on budget.
The Center will continue to muddle through being the weak link in the
NASA system for decades to come.
Argue if you want but the truth is the truth….Dan Goldin had it right!