NASA OIG Seeks Media Commentary For SOFIA Audit
Keith’s note: I am really baffled by this. I got this unsolicted email today from the JPL OIG. I had no idea that this SOFIA audit was going on. My reply (to PAO, OIG): “Thanks for thinking that I may have opinions relevant to your audit/investigation. But what I want to know (and, heads up, I consider this to be newsworthy and hence publishable) is why are you using an official NASA.gov email address to send me (media) wholly unsolicited email with threatening legal language attached with regard to disclosure of this unsolicited email? Again, thanks for thinking I might have useful commentary, but I do not like to have people in government positions send me news about a government activity – in an official capacity – and then dangle legal threats at the bottom of the very same email.”
After I sent my response I got this “Xu, Tiffany L (0920-NASA) would like to recall the message, “NASA – Discussion regarding SOFIA”.” Duh. I do not work at NASA so you can’t “recall” anything. Then I got the same (original) email again. I do not care what legal language the OIG attached. The email was official, unsolicted, and sent again after an initial complaint.
Keith’s 30 Sep note: Neither PAO or the OIG has responded to the comments I included when I forwarded all of this to them. I have to therefore assume that they have no issues with this process.
Here it is – maybe some of you have information on the value of/problems with SOFIA to provide to the JPL OIG:
Mr. Cowing, My name is Tiffany Xu and work for NASA Office of Inspector General out of our field office at JPL. Currently we are conducting the survey phase of an audit on the SOFIA project. Since SOFIA has had many delay of instrument deliverables, one of the question that we are be tasked to find out is how astronomical society feel towards SOFIA: is it still an observatory that the general community is excited about, is the project delivering what it has been promised, and is it still relevant considering the up and coming JWST.
We have noted the many articles you had written about NASA and we are interested in getting your feed on this project. Specifically, we are trying to determine
1. What is the science community of the reception of SOFIA: given its long development cycle, is the community still interested in this project, will there a steady demand over its 20-year operation life cycle, how to keep the community interested
2. SOFIA has gone through so many changes, its promised capabilities in the early phases (around 1996) are very different than what the project has achieved or is projected to achieve. Is the community still interested in the capabilities SOFIA can deliver given what has already been accomplished by Herschel and Spitzer?
We had talked to a cross section of people (review board members, SOFIA instrument scientist in academia, and SOFIA project scientists). However, as he is with USRA, we would also like to people in the astronomical science community at large as well.
A few things for clarifications: we do not quote people directly unless given express permission to do so unless it has been publicly released. We also keep a written documentation of all interviews. If you have any concerns about what would be documented, we can email you a copy for your review and you would have editorial right on what is documented on paper. This is to ensure all interviewers that their views would be accurately captured and documented.
If you have a moment in the next week or so (Monday to Wednesday would be the best for our team, but we will work around your schedule), we would appreciate an opportunity to have a discussion with you and get your take on the SOFIA project.
Best Regards,
Tiffany Xu, CPA
NASA Office of Inspector General-Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S: 180-202
Pasadena, CA 91109-8099
Office: (818) 354-1310
Mobile: (818) 395-7891
[email protected]
WARNING: This email (including any attachments) is intended only for authorized recipients and may contain non-public information subject to legal and other privileges that restrict its distribution. Accordingly, the use, dissemination, or distribution of this information to or by unauthorized individuals may be unlawful.
We at TPiS would love to look at SOFIA. Just another project.
#goodtimes
Interesting they are asking you to voice an opinion as an agent for astronomy. If you were an astronomer or with an observatory or other research organization it would make more sense. Interesting that once they ask you they do not wish to follow through and actually get an opinion. Interesting they are seeking such an opinions via email.
Like I told them, I was flattered – but sending an email to media asking for opinions and then putting legal language on the request that says that this all may or may not be confidential. How am I supposed to know what I can or cannot say? On top of that I complained and they sent the same request to me again!
Well, is it impossible for them to communicate with people involved in mass media confidentially by definition? It’s quite often that companies give out samples of new hardware or give news of developments to media outlets with embargoes set until a certain release date. The outlets honor them if they want to play fair. It’s not exactly the same as they wouldn’t have a reason to give anything out if they didn’t want it to be talked/written about, and here they are asking for your input instead. I guess it depends if you can separate SpaceRef-NASAWatch-Keith and Keith.
Since you have gone against the warning in the message, there is now the chance that people working on SOFIA will contact you, there is the potential for misdeeds… anyway not saying that but that’s opened up and is a possible reasoning for their warning here. They have to keep that kind of thing private. You may have been the one to let the cat out of the bag altogether too.They probably should have put something more specific in the message if it was private only though.
Haven’t these OIG people ever heard of a telephone? Maybe they could have called me first (or even emailed) and asked if I was interested in commenting on something – confidentially or otherwise – without telling me what it was. That way they could have saved themselves from being in this situation. But they did not. They just sent this to me out of the blue – officially. I did not ask for this email. I complained and told them that I considered it newsworthy and publishable. So their response is to send it to me yet again? I clearly did not ask to receive this information and am uncertain how much clearer I could have made that known to them. When I get news items under embargo it is because I agreed – in advance – to honor an embargo on something. You can’t just sent things out – without asking – and force recipients into legal situations they did not say that they’d agree to be bound under. Amateur hour.
Yep, agree on all points
To at least some NASA management, Nasawatch is akin to the National Enquirer – you know, the tabloid that Jay in MIB used to get his investigative tips or the one your mother would read in the grocery store. I think there are some managers at JPL and elsewhere, like at Ames (SOFIA), that are a bit tiffed or more like teed-off with this faux pas. Relations between Centers is competitive if not also unfriendly and this does nothing to help. With Nasawatch releasing this, one can be assured that there is no love lost with NASA. But it is JPL’s mistake first and foremost. Releasing it to the public was not so much a question of ethics but rather whether Nasawatch wanted to do NASA a favor (and not publish). [It is no easy task being a publisher and I side with news sources that do not try to be the protector or the conscience of the public]
I sent OIG a complaint about this email and overtly said that this email from them was “unsolicited” and that “I consider this to be newsworthy and hence publishable”. So what did the OIG do? They sent the same message I complained about to me yet again – after I complained. Either they are clueless or they wanted this to get out.
[cross out – I’d consider offering this lady a job] I would suspect some high level people are exchanging phone calls. Very unfortunate mistake. I think JPL will try to distance themselves from OIG. This might be OIG and not JPL but its a small world inside the facilities.
Oh yes WRT MIB – I’d love to have the worms as part of my posse at NASAWatch.
Quick correction. SOFIA is managed by Dryden and not Ames. Its a joint center program with the Science Project (instument and academia – Ames), the Platform Project (aircraft mods and certification – Dryden), and the telescope assembly (DLR/DSI – Germany).
Ames gets the most press since all the data is processed through them however the primary is Dryden.
I’m sorry I’ve been following Astronomy very close for decades, even lived next door to NASA JSC and participated in educational programs there, I don’t know what SOFIA is ! While I know I can research it on Google I have not seen one article in Astronomy Magazine on the subject, of all the alphabet soup programs out there this is one I don’t recognize and I consider my self an early adopted and Space Sciences enthusiast, the one and only reason I’m not working for NASA is my lack of a degree, not for lack of trying to apply of course, I’d venture that they would have turned down Bill Gates and Steve Jobs too… not that I’m imagining doing anything as illustrious, well I do but I haven’t quite found the product, timing and investors of something I think is really the future. My experiences with NASA lead me to believe that the future is ever narrowing, unlike in the early 80’s before Challenger went poof.
So now I have googled SOFIA, and why they didn’t call it the Plane telescope or flying observatory, I remember reading about it in Popular science I think, or even watching something on the Discovery channel, at the time I was very impressed, and 15 years ago with much lower fuel costs this might have provided research that did more than break even with results, sadly, it’s time has passed due to the fuel costs, however, the package should be considered for use on a extremely high altitude blimp where fuel costs would be negligible, however I don’t know what the current condition on America’s strategic Helium reserves are, and I don’t know what if any breakthroughs have been made in materials science to prevent issues with hydrogen usage in blimps since the Hindenburg. I do know that Good year is back working with Zeppelin after a multi decade hiatus. If you NASA people working on SOFIA read this you should make efforts to track the subject down before you get canceled.
They tried….no interest due to the lack of altitude per one of the PMs exploring the possibility