This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Budget

Former NASA Leaders Who Still Ignore Reality

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 14, 2013
Filed under , , , ,

Former NASA Managers Call for More Spending Despite Crunch, Space News
“Among those who spoke at the von Braun symposium was one of Constellation’s chief architects, former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. Griffin, who ran NASA from 2005 to 2009, scoffed at the idea that NASA is operating in a budget-constrained environment. “We are in a willpower-constrained environment,” said Griffin, who is now the Huntsville-based chairman and chief executive of science and engineering services contractor Schafer Corp. Griffin noted that 50 years of NASA spending, adjusted for inflation, was approximately equivalent to the roughly $800 billion stimulus bill signed into law in February 2009. Meanwhile, Cooke and another former NASA manager took shots at the “flat-is-the-new-up” mantra that has become prevalent among government-relations executives in Washington in the age of across-the-board sequestration budget cuts.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

30 responses to “Former NASA Leaders Who Still Ignore Reality”

  1. Shaun Heath says:
    0
    0

    Keith’s headline is much better than the original articles headline.

  2. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    Why do they think they will get more money ? Why do they think they deserve more money?

    Constellation was stopped in name, though work continues on the Orion capsule; they are $10+billion and 8 years into it now and have nothing more than a shell of a reentry structure that they’ll try and test in a year or 2. Remember when Orion was going to fly in 2009 or 2010 and when the design was selected because it was safe simple and soon? Remember when the Constellation and Orion managers testified to Augustine and to Sally Ride that they’d have the vehicle in orbit in 2014? Her response was maybe 2017 but 2018 or 2019 were more likely.

    Work continues on a rocket that looks a lot like the Ares 5. Most think that it cannot be supported and really isn’t needed since commercial vehicles could easily replace it and save thee development costs and time. After spending $10 billion on Ares 1 everyone came to the realization it never had the throw capacity that was required.

    In 1970 NASA was told how much money NASA could anticipate and its remained pretty constant. In 2004 no one was told there would be a big new infusion of money even though these same managers seemed to be counting on it.

    The issues that I have been seeing over the last 8 years (really a lot longer) are not monetary issues. The issues are a poorly conceived program, no vision for how to proceed either in terms of big picture or in terms of organizational structure, poorly established technical teams, requirements that were never established. Other organizations like Boeing and Space-X seem to be doing very well with minimal budgets. The problem is not money; the problem is poor management. These folks never showed us they could do the job and they were booted out. The people left behind in management positions today are not much better in my estimation.

    • Andrew French says:
      0
      0

      I agree. How classic that Mike Griffin and Doug Cooke, the very people who wasted billions of tax-payer dollars on their worthless programs, continue to get paid by NASA contractors to beg for even more public funding. CxP lives on as SLS/Orion and tens of billions of dollars have been not only wasted, but are undermining the truly valuable activities that can be done by NASA. Why do organizations continue to give these people a platform to speak? Nice to see a couple contractors in the article do seem to recognize the need to change – Aerojet and Dynetics. I thought Boeing might come around, but if they are still paying consultants like Doug Cooke, I must have been wrong.

      • Brian_M2525 says:
        0
        0

        More significant than the billions of dollars these two wasted was the wasted opportunity to get the program on a logical path forward. Too bad they didn’t use some of that intelligence they must have been inspired with.

        Thanks to them we lost Shuttle with no carryover to the future. Thanks to them we have lost a generation of space exploration. The exact same complaints they were responsible for pertaining to Apollo and Saturn are exactly the same loss they and their followers have now caused. Talk about narrow minded pigheadedness those two were the poster boys.

        • muomega0 says:
          0
          0

          “Bitterman speculated that ‘the new norm’ for NASA would be about $16.5 billion”

          So there you have it. The result of casting away spirals (or space planes as Brian_M2525 states below) for HLV/Orion.

          As NASA returns to work, it is time to start making consistent progress towards it objectives, making shifts in available time and commitments. There is so much work ahead, but now with a reduced budget (less people). There is a credible, yet flexible architecture that immediately includes the International Partners to increase cost share.

          Recall Wayne Hale’s comment: “The entire purpose of my speech was a call to action for the community – government and industry – to initiate the kind of revolutionary change in management systems and financial resources that will be necessary for any new space efforts to succeed.” http://nasawatch.com/archiv

          A focus on sustainable architecture is mandatory. One can easily predict numerous compromises to use “what we have” to ‘explore sooner’. As numbers_guy101 stated below “the keyword is improvement” but add the words “in cost performance benefits.”

          How to make the system more cost effective?

          Higher ISP for the transfer stages reduces IMLEO. Launching the transfer stage empty improves payload mass fraction (pmf) or allows mass addition to enable reusability. A depot reduces LV size. Smaller LVs increase flight rate reducing yearly $/kg. Placing AR&D and boiloff mitigation equipment on the depot improves transfer stage pmf. Zero boiloff depot allows payload development one year and launches in another providing substantial cost and schedule benefits. Hybrid EP/chemical provides faster trip times and economics. A L2 DSH could demonstrate over time that the crew and equipment could sustain a trip to Mars. The L2 DSH could also serve as gateway/safe haven for other destinations, …. {snip}, {your ideas here}….

          Perhaps NASA could demonstrate that its ready to explore again, and then ask for a plus up?

          Quite the exciting, yet challenging future: trying to fit exploration into a budget. Wait a minute, this is what engineers do for a living…

          Step up and expect to change…

          • Brian_M2525 says:
            0
            0

            “As NASA returns to work, it is time to start making consistent progress towards it objectives”

            And what would those objectives be?

            Asteroid retrieval?

            Unfortunately one of the problems that Griffin and Cooke induced was the elimination of a vision and a tenable plan. The managers who remained behind have not come up with one that is supportable.

            One of the big problems with the current set of managers is that they don’t assert anything. Just as they did with Griffin and Cooke, the current remaining managers pretty much go along with anything without having the honesty or conviction to speak truthfully about what needs to be done. They are a bunch of lemmings.

            For engineers this is the worst sort of people to have in place because no one knows where NASA stands. Its really a continuation of exactly the same mentality that caused Columbia. Foam shedding problems? Yes, but it has never caused too serious a problem yet so why bother to say or do anything? Foam impact on the leading edge of the wing. Yes, but we’ve never experienced destruction of a vehicle before and what would we do now? so why bother to say or do anything?

            I’d like to see some technically honest rationale for why we need an Orion or an SLS, or whatever else is supposed to be in the plan. I’d like to understand just what the vision is and where it takes us. I don’t think NASA can make the case for Orion or SLS. Orion is redundant with CST or Dragon but much further behind and needlessly much more expensive and in a permanent, long term supportable system such a throw away capsule would not be required except as an emergency escape pod. SLS is redundant with commercial launchers.

            So if the current program is not tenable, then what should the program be? Yes, the managers like Cooke and Griffin, but also Gersten, Geyer, and the rest have wasted about $20billion and the last 8 years and now we have to return to square one to reestablish a plan and a vision.

            “Perhaps NASA could demonstrate that its ready to explore again, and then ask for a plus up?”

            Yes, what NASA needs to do is figure out a way forward and then they need to actually demonstrate progress. They are years away from this and years away from a plus up.

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            The objectives are quite straight forward. First, step up the NASA Space Grand challenges and *demonstrate* economical access to space and crew health to complete a round trip to Mars. The L2 Gateway and asteroid mission are great stepping stones and the only objection was the cost of retaining SLS/Orion.

            The architecture is depot centric and EP to reduce LV size and IMLEO. Get started on the demonstrations and turn decades of ‘advanced technologies’ into the SOA. Yes, a few years away. A composite tank transfer stage increases pmf; fire up that stir friction welder for the depot, variable gravity required?, … Spin the technology back to the economy, a key component lost in the HLV ‘plans’.

            Besides the L2 Gateway and LEO, Asteroids, Mars and its moons, and lunar are the only destinations achievable in the next 50 years. The 2030s Mars flyby should be one of the goals.

            Focus on the most number of missions in the next three to five decades for the budget, not the next five years. Perform the long term studies and make choices in the flexible path forward. Find the balance between technology and missions and make operations more efficient and more integrated into advanced development.

            SLS (or a HLV) may be required if the average annual metric tonnes per year exceeds 500 mT. NASA requires a capsule/vehicle to depart and return to earth. Perform trades on many options for the 3 day trip to the L2 gateway, asteriods, and Mars.

            Hopefully NASA can show a better step forward. The community certainly has the talent. The challenges are grand indeed.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      When we consider the things that Griffin and Cooke said and did during Constellation, and the fairy tale that was PDR, I’m not surprised to see this, and I would never expect anything different from either of them. This is not about right and wrong; it’s about not having the integrity to admit that perhaps you were wrong.

  3. Denniswingo says:
    0
    0

    Realism has never been their strong suit. In a way I agree with them, it is a will problem. The congress is unwilling to fund a program that is just a means for engineers to play. There must be a rational for exploration and in this department, it is Dr. Griffin and Mr. Cooke who have failed.

    Its the vision people. Without vision (sense of purpose) the space agency perishes.

    Say what you want about G.W. Bush and Dr. John Marburger they understood the vision thing.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Newt understood it to and he got laughed off the planet.

      • Denniswingo says:
        0
        0

        Which says more about those laughing than Newt.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          Well where does the public learn that it is impossible to live in space?

          I just saw the gravity movie Everything gets blown to bits 🙁 a horror movie! I don’t want to get killed by flying garbage!!!!!

          Joe Q Public!

  4. megeorge says:
    0
    0

    LOL! Mike Griffin, Doug Cooke et al were born too late. They are anachronisms, pure, plain and simple.

  5. megeorge says:
    0
    0

    LOL! Mike Griffin, Doug Cooke et al were born too late. They are anachronisms, pure, plain and simple.

  6. thebigMoose says:
    0
    0

    The demographics of the country are changing, and one can only go off the gold standard once. For most of my 60ish year life we saw GDP grow at around 3% a year, because of the western free worlds demographic change, we may be lucky to see 2% peaks, perhaps 1.5% average. That is going to change the revenue stream into governments significantly. Basically austerity is coming relatively soon and across the western democracies.

    We are not going to have outposts on the moon, or a crewed mission to mars. We are going to be lucky to sustain the science program.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Depressing but fundamentally accurate, so far as NASA HSF is concerned. Compare ‘Inspiration Mars’ with ‘Constellation’ and it is obvious why Dennis Tito would make the ideal leader to resurrect NASA: just the right mix of no-nonsense business and engineering knowledge. Of course, he may not want it but no Griffin-on-steroids, please!

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Hmm. I hear this refrain often, and could not disagree more. Why? America is an incredibly rich country with a history of squandering. The past thirty years have seen military adventures of huge scale, wars spending trillions to protect our energy supply when a more rational approach would have lessened the need for oil and moved us in a different direction.

      It’s a little like whining to list what we could have had, I know some will say, but still, here are some of the nice things this country can easily afford given a rational approach to international obligations and energy requirements: how about new airports, and trains from coast to coast, and medical care for everyone, and new highways and bridges, and…well, a trillion dollars buys an awful lot unless it’s given to military escapades.

      And by the way, a billion dollars would fund schools all over Afghanistan and Pakistan and any other -istan that needed to be brought under the flag by those interested in such things. It’s easy to buy friends with dollars. Bombs, not so much.

      Sorry, Keith, for the rant. But I think it’s relevant in a thread that talks about why there is so little money for space.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        From my limited persepctive on things, I would say that war spending and space spending by the US have one thing in common — far more money is spent on them both than was ever necessary to accomplish what has been accomplished, or not accomplished, for that matter. One difference between the two is that most of the space spending is spent domestically, whereas a large portion of the war spending is spent elsewhere, and thererfore provides no economic return, unlike the space spending. Granted, that’s not its purpose, but it still has a huge effect on the US economy.

        • Paul451 says:
          0
          0

          Not disagreeing with your first point, but…

          One difference […] a large portion of the war spending is spent elsewhere

          How is it “spent elsewhere”? This is a bit like the idea that Apollo was dumping truck-loads of money on the moon. US Defence spending is mostly spent in the US. The vast majority of goes to US defence contractors. The majority of the rest goes to US defence personnel (and their families.)

          The only stuff that goes overseas is fuel costs, bribes for officials, some local contracting, and whatever off-duty personnel spend off-base.

          The materiel may end up as shrapnel in a school playground in Baghdad, but it was build in an American factory.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Sorry Paul, I should have been specific. I was thinking of the rebuilding and compensations during and especially after a military action. Typically, a lot of money goes into putting the “losers” back on an economic and medical restart. And food and water are supplemented until the losers are back on their feet. Japan after WWII seems to have set a precedent. In fact it’s an old tacky joke; if you want to give your country’s infrastructure a real boost for little money, get the US to declare war on you, hide your people, and then surrender after a few months. It’s humane action, but it costs.

            Also, because the US “wars” with people on the other side of the planet, US allies often make big money on fuel, logistics, base facilities usage, insurance, supplies, etc. In a war, nobody wins, but some lose better than others.

            This is from media reports, not any first-hand experience on my part.

  7. Granit says:
    0
    0

    I know this most in forum don’t like Griffon, but under his leadership was the last time NASA had a definable human exploration mission that excited the public, and that is what is sorely needed.

    • jamesmuncy says:
      0
      0

      Not exactly. That was the last time that NASA claimed to have a well-defined human exploration plan, and this claim did in fact excite the public. Which blew up when it crashed into budgetary reality.

      I believe President Lincoln said something pithy about the sustainability of lying to the American people.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        And therein lies the rub. The vision thing is all good and necessary, but it must be married to a credible plan, and a credible plan has some deep realism about budget scenarios. Also, credible budgets are not just about some consensus notions on overall top-line outlooks for the NASA budget, but a real understanding about the details, the centers, the diverse missions within NASA, and the budgetary relationships to the incentives of our NASA organizations and our industry partners.

        The key word is improvement. Without a culture of improvement then everything else falls apart-as is happening with SLS and Orion already. You end up asking for more money, because you are incapable of understanding or staying ahead of any budget crisis by means of a culture of improvement. We’ve too long had a culture of crisis in NASA, a culture focused on problem resolution or mitigation, but not of improvement and really building on what has gone before.

        So affordability, reliability, and all the notions that go with improvement fall by the way side. We end up confusing a different or a better defined or more focused mission (further, demanding more performance, like the Moon or Mars) with being an improvement. All the while this is “what”, not “how”. The how is ignored. And once again we have the usual suspects asking for more budget so they can focus on what, not how. The Griffins and Cooke’s just don’t “get it”, sad to say.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          This same argument could be made of the entire country and the inability of leaders to lead.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          You end up asking for more money, because you are incapable of understanding or staying ahead of any budget crisis by means of a culture of improvement.

          While I agree that this is a significant factor, I would say that it doesn’t stand alone as the culprit. When you have a new group of budget allocators every two years, always with different understanding and prioroties than the preceding group, you end up being handed budget crises no matter how capable you may be of staying ahead. The cards are always shuffled between deals, and there’s no way you can know what’s in each hand ahead of time.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            I don’t believe this afflicts NIH, NIST, DOE, DARPA, or any of the other federal R&D agencies.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            V4,

            I don’t understand why this is the case. Senate elections are every two years for 6-year terms; As I understand it, Senators can both create bills and pass/fail bills that are put before them. Same for the various resolutions. The party with the majority can change at any election.

            The Senate has acted on bills/resolutions relating to federal R&D agencies in the past, including NASA, NIST, etc. Am I misunderstanding what you mean by “afflicts”?

            Thanks, Steve

      • Brian_M2525 says:
        0
        0

        Actually the Vision was espoused by Bush under O’Keefe. The first step of the plan was for commercial entities to develop space-planes that would have a fly-off by 2010 that would replace the Shuttle for earth to orbit transportation. The goal was to develop a step-wise progression of systems to take us out of LEO, go to the moon and on to Mars. That was under O’Keefe and Steidle. That was a Vision with the beginning of a plan.

        The came Griffin. He decided we need not replace the Shuttle at all, and that we would re-establish an Apollo-like system which would go to Mars, perhaps with a quick stop on the moon. There were many missing pieces. An Orion was never capable on its own of a Marts mission. How hardware for a moon mission related to hardware for a Mars missions was never really said. If Griffin had stuck to the basic tenets, like a vehicle truly based on Apollo, or launch vehicles either commercially developed or based directly on Shuttle, then we might have had a plan. Instead he decided on an Apollo-like shape that weighed twice as much as Apollo and which could not be carried by the Shuttle SRB-based booster. Griffin’s plan went into a tailspin with a capsule that was too large and too heavy, no hard requirements so it was hard to tell what mission he was trying to accomplish, a booster that was too feeble and too expensive to begin with. The tailspin quickly grew into a cycle of requirements changes and cost increases with little progress actually being made.

        Which is where we still are today.

  8. Mike_F says:
    0
    0

    Truth be told in all of these comments, a complex web of availability of funds in today’s economic climate mixed with multiple competing priorities. Who knows what is right, and what is right to one may not be right to another. However Griffin is right in one aspect – when Kennedy announced the manned mission to the moon we had the “will” that Mike speaks about and funded NASA at 4% of GDP. Today NASA is funded at less than 1%. Whether we have the will (or money) to do it now is questionable. We have different challenges today than we did then. However if we had the will to fund it more we at least historiacally have shown that we could – and succeed.