Ares Manager Steve Cook Resigns From NASA 153
FleaPlus writes "Steve Cook, project manager for the Ares I-X, Ares I, and Ares V rockets, announced that he will resign from NASA MSFC after 19 years at the agency, leaving for an executive position at Dynetics, Inc. This raises doubts about the future of the Ares program, which has been plagued with development problems and massive cost/schedule overruns since its inception. Steve Cook also oversaw the (since discredited) 2005 ESAS study which scrapped NASA's prior plans to adapt already-existing commercial rockets for human/beyond-LEO exploration in favor of internally developing the Ares rockets."
One Person is not a Program (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would the departure of Steve Cook raise doubts about the future of an entire program? If that is the case, then NASA really needs to work on hiring and/or training more Program Managers.
Re:Back out of Plan Affirmative-Action (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One Person is not a Program (Score:4, Insightful)
The summary of the article mentioned that his previous work included overseeing a discredited study, and until now he had been overseeing a program that seems to not be doing terribly well.
This departure would seem a net positive.
Unless, of course, Timothy and fleaplus have led me astray with that summary of Steve Cook's nineteen years at NASA.
Re:One Person is not a Program (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the problem - good program managers come from good engineers. And NASA has very, very few engineers anymore. They've got principal investigators (scientists) and contract managers. Most anybody who was left at the end of the 70s was fired by Reagan and the jobs subbed out to contractors. That way they could manage cash flow by simply increasing or decreasing manpower by manipulating the contract. Which sounds great if you're a business major, and is just death for any sort of continuity and corporate knowledge. The best and brightest go on to find steady work, the good stay around, and the dregs come on and off jobs as the contract tide rises and falls. Which, by the way, happens very little. With the contractor employees being so entwined with the remaining personnel, there's pressure to find work for everyone when the money gets tight. That's just human nature - but it foils the MBA's plans to save money, and it prevents NASA from having the in-house expertise (since it was all farmed out).
Steve Cook as an example? (Score:2, Insightful)
-Todd
Re:One Person is not a Program (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, I don't think feeding the giant bureaucracy that NASA has become will get the results we want. Here's my manned space program:
Thank God (Score:4, Insightful)
Steve Cook has done more to damange the US space program than any foreign enemy government could hope for. Now that he's gone, maybe things can start to get back on track. He will /not/ be missed.
Re:Back out of Plan Affirmative-Action (Score:0, Insightful)
What's even funnier is how many people will deny it, no matter how much supporting evidence accumulates.
Re:Back out of Plan Affirmative-Action (Score:5, Insightful)
Spaceflight continues to be the crowning achievement of humanity
I agreed with everything you said up to this point. What about the elimination of smallpox? The Internet? Sanitation? Prenatal genetic testing? I won't argue that space flight has been a terrific triumph of engineering, but I'd hesitate to say it's the most important and impressive thing humans've ever done. Say it again when we have a permanent settlement on another planet and maybe I'll change my mind, but for now I'd rank it not quite at the top. Certainly very, very high on the list, tho'.
Re:One Person is not a Program (Score:3, Insightful)
I would trust composites. Sure it will take some engineering to make it work, but you'd have to engineer metallic structures, too. FWIW, I develop advanced sensors and structural health systems at MSFC.
Re:Back out of Plan Affirmative-Action (Score:4, Insightful)
If Soyuz has a severe problem during landing, it ends up in another country.
If the Shuttle has a severe problem during landing, it blows up. There is literally no room for error.
Do you see where I'm going here? There were likely some gross oversights that led to the incident you linked to -- however, by virtue of the fact that Soyuz is both simple and mature, the craft is able to survive the statistical fluke of a faulty explosive bolt.
Have I got this right? (Score:3, Insightful)
So the guy leaves a couple of turds on the rug at NASA, then slinks out the back door to work for a private company. And people think corporations do a better job of running things than the government?
NASA probably didn't know any better when they hired him. What's Dynetics' excuse?
Re:Back out of Plan Affirmative-Action (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm. Private Enterprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, NASA does not need to build launch vehicles. It needs CHEAP WAYS to get cargo and other vehicles into space. By having MULTIPLE companies providing launch services, we will see a fast lowering of the costs. For example, SpaceX is about to lower the costs greatly compared to the shuttle, EELV, Russia, and even China. Yet, I think that they will have a contender in about 3 years from Scaled. Once SS3 is built, human cargo (the really expensive one) will go up for a fraction of the price of SpaceX. At that point, we will likely see other companies work to lower the costs further for cargo by either building a bigger version of SS3/WK2, or perhaps building a track launcher (circular track built in western USA that accelerates a system to say mach 5-10 or so and then throws it upwards).
Why will these companies do it? Will it be because of NASA Business? Nope. Neither NASA NOR DOD have enough business to warrent that. BUT, NASA, DOD, Other nations, Tourists, and hopefully offworld mining WOULD HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH. So, how do build up these businesses? Tourism is but one part. Bigelow WANTS to do multiple space stations for different nations. Yes, they will almost certainly do a hotel for tourism. If we are very lucky, they will need to put several up there. That would indicate that business is good and prices are dropping. But Bigelow, like Elon Musk, have spoke about wanting to put us on the moon and mars. They will also want to explore asteroids. If the gov encourages this NOW, then the west will lead this (otherwise, it is likely to be Chinese gov. that will lead this).
Now, what would happen to NASA? They would focus on space experiments, new robotics, new exploration sats that private industry is not like to do, new telescopes, and new advanced SPACE propulsion (not launch). Basically, by encouraging private enterprise to jump into space, it will lower the costs for NASA to do the advanced things that they need to do. In addition, it would create a whole new industry similar to what the net did. We would see lots of money being invested into new start-ups. The best thing that can happen is to have a number of companies jumping into new niches all over space. In fact, I am guessing that it will make the net look positively minor in size. Hopefully, this time, president and congress will push a balanced budget amendment.
(De)Face The Facts (Score:4, Insightful)
The Huntsville Times (of all places) gets the story half right and half sensationalistic speculation based on ignoring the rest of the facts, and in posting it here the summary turns to 25/75, prompting shadow tippers to pretend they know enough to continue the line of assumed criticisms and innuendos.
Cook has been on this project since it began, working his way up and filling bigger shoes capably, including those of his previous supervisor. Now he's leaving with the blessings of NASA to rejoin his previous supervisor, working for a contractor specializing in space craft test telemetry and analysis, including that of (The Rocket Boys' "Miss Riley"? no. My Shiny Metal Ass? no. Wait for it...) Ares.
Cook is not leaving the project, he's only leaving federal employment. That's not necessarily true, he may be tasked with other work, but figure the odds they'll waste his experience on something else as long as Ares is viable.
Now, my money says it's not viable and will get canceled and Cook will continue to make good money elsewhere, but at this point neither NASA nor Dynetics is betting that way, and that's how the story should have been written if it had been intended to be journalism. Had it been, it may have even been reported as such here. Of course that would never stop such dedicated and learned critics from toppling every perceived ivory tower with their Tonka Trucks of Truth as long as the facts can be safely kept outside the sandbox.
Re:Back out of Plan Affirmative-Action (Score:4, Insightful)