Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

New NASA Admin Griffin Cleans House 299

Posted by CowboyNeal from the big-changes dept.
Doug Dante writes "Michael D. Griffin, the new NASA Administrator, has given 20 senior NASA officials their walking papers, in a first purge that can see as many as 50 loose their positions, reports the Washington Post. Included are Associate Administrator for Space Operations William F. Readdy, and his deputy Air Force Maj. Gen. Michael C. Kostelnik (retired)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New NASA Admin Griffin Cleans House More

New NASA Admin Griffin Cleans House

Comments Filter:

  • people or system? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moz25 ( 262020 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @11:56AM (#12789381) Homepage
    This makes me wonder to which extent the bureaucracy is to blame (or attribute) to "entrenched" managers or the whole system. In this case, it is apparently believed that the top layer of people keep an inefficient system intact. The question is: can one change the nature of a system by replacing the managing people in that system?

    • Re:people or system? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Detritus ( 11846 )
      I wouldn't say that it is a matter of efficiency. When you get to the level of NASA Headquarters, politics becomes extremely important. You aren't a practicing scientist or engineer, you are an upper-level manager, concerned about funding and budgets in an environment where everyone is fighting over a limited and shrinking pot of money. Not only that, but you have to defend and sell your programs to the executive branch and Congress. It's not like someone hands you a check and says "Design, launch and opera

    • Re:people or system? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HardCase ( 14757 )
      Shame on me for not RTFA, but in any government agency, it's customary for a new director to request the resignations of senior managers. It doesn't mean that he accepts them (or accepts all of them), but it's customary to submit them. The fact that it's NASA makes it newsworthy to /., I guess, but it happens in virtually every government agency, from the feds right down to your city's offices.

      Changing the management probably won't have an immediate effect on the programs, but every agency director wants
      • True to some extent, but this something more. Griffin is getting rid of the entire "political" level of the agency (the Associate Administrators) and is also reassiging between 30 and 50 SES positions, which are the top level civil service people - people who do not normally get touched by changes of leadership, or even administration. 50 would be pretty close to the entire group of SESers in the agency.

        Griffin has been thinking about this for 15 years, since he left during the beginning of the Goldin te

      • Re:people or system? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Feztaa ( 633745 )
        it's customary for a new director to request the resignations of senior managers. It doesn't mean that he accepts them (or accepts all of them), but it's customary to submit them.

        What the hell, is that like some kind of neo-feudal way of pledging allegiance to the new King? Like acknowledging that he does in fact have the power to fire you at any time?

    • Re:people or system? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @12:53PM (#12789686)
      The question is: can one change the nature of a system by replacing the managing people in that system?

      Yes, one can. In fact, it's probably a necessary step; the nature of an organisation is effectively defined by how it is managed.

      (Before anyone chimes in with the obvious counter: if the grunts are poor but the management is good, then it is already in the nature of the system that the grunts will be improved or replaced, it just hasn't had time to happen yet. In fact, this is quite likely to be the situation you're in immediately after replacing poor management with better.)

      • OTOH, a lot of the problems at NASA appear to be systemic. Removing the top managers may be a necessary step towards fixing the problems, but it won't do so without a massive restructuring.

        However, one may well be skeptical that fixing the problems at NASA is the real intent of the new management. The entire system appears to be highly political, and as such patronage is more likely to be the reason that problem solving. Just because this would be a necessary step towards restructuring the system doesn'
    • I couldn't agree with you more. NASA has $10 million allocated and congressionally approved for competitive prizes this fiscal year, and yet less than $1 million has been allocated thus far. Even DARPA's Grand Challenge in October (autonomous robotic roving) is worth $2 million. Isn't it obvious that the bureaucrat statists and / or the pork barrelers in Congress FEAR this long overdue reform-fortification? Why won't NASA simply fortify its competitive prizes? Do we really need for central planners to
      • Read Mike Griffin's "internal memo" to NASA posted on spaceref.com or nasawatch.com. He (rightly so) believes that private industry does not have the resources or drive to implement the kinds of multigenerational missions that space exploration requires. Getting to Mars will take decades (not the trip itself, but the planning, building the vehicles, and implementation). When was the last time you saw any corporation plan more than 10 years out? How about 20 or 30? Now, take all profit motivation out of
    • Well, whoever put the dad from Family Guy in charge of NASA is the one who should be fired! Oh wait, that's Peter Griffin.

  • Begins the glut of spelling nazis at NASA (Score:5, Funny)

    by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @11:56AM (#12789383) Homepage Journal
    "in a first purge that can see as many as 50 loose their positions"

    I hear they are looking for replacements, that know the difference between the word "loose" and "lose".

    The new, "tighter" jobs are said to pay much less, however.

  • Walking papers? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @11:57AM (#12789388)
    Surely NASA should bind and gag you before strapping to you the back of a just about to be launched rocket if they were firing you.

  • Baby & bathwater... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jpellino ( 202698 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @11:59AM (#12789402)
    How about you get thru the current Mars & Cassini missions and GET THE SHUTTLE BACK UP before you sack the leaders of those three programs - two of which are very big loud & public successes (in NASA-land anyway) and the third had better be or else you'll be looking at barely enough authorization funds to make with two large-ish slingshots.
    • How about you consider that the bloated managerial staff could be the reason that these programs are foundering...
    • These people really have little to do with the detailed running of these programs. I'm sure that those efforts will continue on just fine. BTW: The article didn't mention it, but most of the people named have only been there for a year or two. The were all put there by the previous administrator, O'Keefe. It's not like Griffin is destroying decades of experience. Many of these people were bean counters, appointed by a bean counter.

  • zerg (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lord Omlette ( 124579 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @12:19PM (#12789509) Homepage
    Does anyone have the political affiliations of the people who were fired?
    • The people in question are not political appointees, only the Administrator and Deputy Administrator of NASA fall in that category.

      • Re:zerg (Score:3, Insightful)

        by palfrey ( 198640 )
        Given that the new Administrator is a politicial nominee, and given that he's the one hiring/firing here, people being shifted by a politicial nominee might well have political reasons for their change in state.

        Of course, this might not be the case, but given the current US administration's track record of replacing good people with duckspeakers, it's a good idea to check their backgrounds.
    • Do you title every post you make "zerg"?

    • Re:zerg (Score:4, Funny)

      by lawpoop ( 604919 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @01:03PM (#12789731) Homepage Journal
      Probably Terran or *possibly* Protoss. Very rarely do Terrans ally with Zerg, unless...
    • I know for a fact one of two mentioned is a Republican.

    • Apparently they "politically affiliated" already (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jesterzog ( 189797 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @05:31PM (#12791188) Journal

      Does anyone have the political affiliations of the people who were fired?

      I don't know specifically about their affiliations, but if you trust the article, page 2 says:

      Instead, the sources said, [Griffin] expressed dismay that NASA over the past several years had put a lot of people in top management positions because of what one source described as "political connections or bureaucratic gamesmanship -- not merit."

      Several sources spoke of a corps of younger scientists and engineers, including Griffin, who had been groomed in the 1970s and 1980s as NASA's next generation of leaders only to be shoved aside during the past 15 years. They said Griffin hopes to bring them back.

      In principle, this sounds like a very good thing. Apparently, he's kicking out people whom he believes were hired more for their political affiliations than their competance. Before taking this as it's written, however, can anyone comment on any political affiliations of Griffin himself? For all we know, and as I think you're implying, his definition of competance might be synonymous with republican.

  • Politics (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nnet ( 20306 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @12:25PM (#12789547) Journal
    While its certainly pleasant to see altruism be attempted, if the funding comes from the feds, not private sector, politics/bureaucracy must be involved. I wish the new administrator well, but I hope he's not so naive to think he can rid NASA of the dead weight of politicos and entrenched senior bureaucrats. No way in hell NASA will ever be free of fed interference when it relies solely on fed money.
    • And you think that if funding comes from "the private sector", it won't similarly be encumbered with agendas, targets to be reached, people to hire/benefit regardless, etc.?

      Most of NASA's budget is tied up in running the Space Shuttle (think Boeing and Lockmart). Yes, those are two major "private sector" enterprises.

      They influence NASA directly or indirectly through Congressional pressures, especially come election time or for budget blood-letting.

      The Space Shuttle goes on, but any new alternative that N

  • what are your thoughts on..... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tloh ( 451585 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @12:27PM (#12789554)
    I wonder what Griffin, as a genuine no nonsense space scientist would make of the rants that appear on slashdot from time to time among space enthusiasts. If any of the folks who run slashdot can score an interview with him, I have a ton of questions I would like the head of NASA to address. Hey, it's possible right? As a public official, public relations are an integral part of his job. I believe he would have to regard a high profile mob like slashdot as a sort of "constituency" he needs to take seriously.
    • Do you honestly think that outside of slashdot, people care what slashdotters think? Not even the EDITORS of /. care what their paying customers think.

      We're a medium to large community who can take down servers from time to time, but we don't represent 1% of the geek population.

      Disclaimer: All stats were made up on the spot.
    • Conspiracy whackos who believed that the "face on mars" was being covered up got them to reimage the sites (at the expense of other sites that were bumped).

      It happened because of Art Bell's radio show, and the deluded ravings of a specific guest, Richard C. Hoagland.

      Of course when the pictures showed natural formations, the whackos said that NASA was covering up the real data. So rerouting the imaging mission didn't even satisfy them.

      Space tends to attract a lot of whackos, and I'm not sure too much dir
    • While it might be a "high profile" mob, it's not part of the Space Shuttle infrastructure, or the space science academia group, Cal-Tech/JPL, JHAPL, etc. It makes a lot of noise, but in the end our group doesn't really matter, unless we somehow can sway those entities.

      Then there is the 800-tonne leviathan known as "Congress".

      And the current mouse with a mighty roar that seems to be doing a good job at wagging the dog as well.

  • Preparing for a more military-centric NASA? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @12:35PM (#12789587)
    Perhaps this cleaning of the administration is being done in order to facilitate a more military-centric NASA. There has been much speculation (see References) that the US military will begin to weaponize space. A NASA that is less interested in scientific discovery will of course be beneficial to the Pentagon, as they have the capabilities and know-how to design, implement, launch, maintain and control this upcoming space-based weaponry.

    References: http://www.reuters.com/audi/newsArticle.jhtml?type =technologyNews&storyID=8522373 [reuters.com]
    http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a4a4e198-c8cf-11d9-87c9-0 0000e2511c8.html [ft.com]
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7896613/ [msn.com]
    • Perhaps this cleaning of the administration is being done in order to facilitate a more military-centric NASA.

      More? Most of what NASA does is research for the Air Force (missiles, planes, etc), and the Shuttle was used primarily for lofting spy satellites.

      Did you really think that we lit off the Shuttle just to take a bunch of plants and gerbils from 4th graders to space to see how they grow? Not quite. The military is known for doing all sorts of trickery, including deployed structures and whatnot

    • Highly unlikely. NASA is a civilian organization, tasked with civilian space missions. The DoD maintains its own space operations (the Navy through SPAWAR and the Air Force through Space Command). The military side of space is quite distinct from the NASA side. Yes, many of the same contractors (Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed) work both kinds of projects. But the management and direction is done by quite different entities.
    • There has been much speculation (see References) that the US military will begin to weaponize space.
      ...there's also rumors that they might even begin to to breaderize toasters, or childrenize the playgrounds.

      Come back when you learn English.

      *looks up "weaponize" [reference.com] on Dictionary.com*

      Oh. Damn.

    • Re:Preparing for a more military-centric NASA? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Edward Ka-Spel ( 779129 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @03:18PM (#12790453)
      Make NASA more military-centric? Most of the people being canned are ex-military generals. The stated plan of Griffin is to make NASA more engineering and science driven. If anything, it sounds the opposite.

    • Perhaps this cleaning of the administration is being done in order to facilitate a more military-centric NASA.

      Extremely unlikely given the massive space infrastructure the military already owns, much larger in fact than NASA's.

      There has been much speculation (see References) that the US military will begin to weaponize space.

      Only idiots utterly ignorant of space and military history believes that is speculation. Informed analysts and laymen know it to be fact, as the Pentagon has been working on sp

  • You know... "Lose" and "Loose" are not even one of the more challenging mix-ups. I don't understand how people do it.
  • I think it's a serious problem that unmanned and manned space exploration are so intertwined.

    Unmanned exploration is science and should be funded as such. It shouldn't have to compete with politically motivated "manned exploration" projects.

    In fact, ideally, I think NASA should leave manned exploration to the private sector. NASA should be turned into an agency dedicated to unmanned exploration: remote sensing, robotics, and new propulsion technologies.
    • There is nothing scientific about an unmanned space program. Unmanned probes can do a number of things and gather lots of useful data without a doubt.

      However, there are numerous things that they can not do and there is nothing that can do that can not be done by a human supplied with life essentials.

      Willfully refusing to conduct experiments that would yield valuable data because of the budget concerns is NOT scientific at all. Willfully refusing to conduct experiments that would yield valuable data for AN
      • Willfully refusing to conduct experiments that would yield valuable data for ANY reason is an opposition to science.

        Who said anything about "willfully refusing"? In cases where manned exploration yields the same bang-for-the-buck as unmanned probes, I'm all for manned exploration. Until then, we should stick with unmanned probes.

        However, there are numerous things that they can not do and there is nothing that can do that can not be done by a human supplied with life essentials.

        Most scientifically in
  • If it had been some other government agency, or some private company that "cleaned house" this way, like the energy or the defense department, or like Adobe or Microsoft, would this be news on Slashdot? What makes NASA so special?

  • Hmm (Score:2)

    by mcc ( 14761 )
    I think something of this sort was needed, clearing out entrenched and increasingly useless NASA upper management who have in the last 20 years largely robbed the program of both vision and scientific relevance.

    Unfortunately with an event as large-scale as this, and given some of the other circumstances involved, I have serious questions as to whether the 20 managers axed are the ones who have been holding NASA back, or if they were selected on some other criteria...

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close