Next Name on NASA Ballot

April 26, 2009

There’s a new name floating around Washington D.C. to fill the job of NASA administrator: Lori Garver.

You may have heard of her.  She’s the soccer mom who gave N’Sync singer Lance Bass a run for the money to fly as a sponsored tourist on a Russian Soyuz capsule to the space station. In the end, both came up short.

Most recently a consultant, Garver, who will be 48 in May, also served a stint as  a NASA associate administrator, charged with overseeing plans and policy. She holds a bachelors degree in political science from Colorado College and a master’s in public policy from George Washington University.

When I met Garver, she was director of the National Space Society, a space advocacy organization. Her husband, David Brandt, who oversaw legislative issues for NSS, used to sit with us in the pressroom at Johnson Space Center and run “Dial-a-Shuttle” which featured ‘round the clock updates about the shuttle missions. We used to call Garver for quotes when Congress came up with a new budget for NASA, or when some issue surfaced that needed some balance from a non-government space-vested source.  She was always professional, though not particularly inspiring.

Before joining the Obama campaign, Garver was a D.C.-area space consultant. After the election, she worked on the transition team and had a reportedly prickly public exchange with former administrator Mike Griffin. I don’t know. I wasn’t there, but it’s not hard to see that those two might have had a personality clash.

Griffin, who prides himself as an aerospace engineer, pilot, businessman, teacher and manager, reportedly questioned Garver’s technical proclivities, though for such a smart man -- he holds six advanced degrees -- you’d think he would’ve realized that engineering artistry and scientific grace are not the deciding factors in space programs, nor much else I suspect.

It may come as a surprise to some that Obama is considering appointing someone to head the U.S. space program who has no technical background, but it wouldn’t be the first time. When George Bush needed to fill the post, he turned to a politico too -- Sean O’Keefe, the man most remembered for canceling the last shuttle visit to Hubble after the 2003 Columbia disaster.

O’Keefe’s successor, Mike Griffin, reopened the issue with a rigorous technical review that came up with several options for flying the mission safely. That flight is scheduled for launch May 11 -- with or without a new NASA chief.

(Lori Garver speaking at a May 2008 space conference representing Hillary Clinton campaign.  Photo courtesy Jeff Foust, The Space Review.) 

Mike Griffin's No. 1 Fan

December 30, 2008

A petition urging Barack Obama to retain Mike Griffin as NASA's administrator has gathered more than 500 signatures and dozens of comments, pro and con. Scott Horowitz, a former astronaut who worked under Griffin as the head of the agency's new exploration initiative, explains why he launched the "Keep Mike" drive.

Why did you decide to start the petition and what do you hope to accomplish with it?

It’s no big secret we’re in the midst of a transition here and President-elect Obama is going to get to choose whether to keep the current administrator or choose another one because the NASA administrator serves at the pleasure of the president. I just wanted to make sure that since he has a decision to make that he has all the data available to make that decision.

When I was working at a fairly high-level decision-making capacity, one of the things I realized is that one of the hardest things about making a decision when you’re high up in the ranks is ‘Do you have all the data?’ So this is my attempt at collecting data that can be presented to President-elect Obama so that he can see what people think about the current administrator and that there is a lot of support out there and a lot of people do appreciate how good a job Mike has done as administrator. I for one, believe, he’s probably the best thing to happen to NASA in 30 years … So I wanted to see how many people felt the same and that’s what the petition is about.

People are trying to use it as a place to vent a bunch of different ideas and thoughts and that’s not what it’s about. It’s a petition for those who support Mike. I’m just collecting comments and signatures from people who support Mike Griffin as the NASA administrator. It’s really that simple.

Do you think it really matters who the administrator is?

Absolutely. I think it absolutely matters.

Why?

Everything rolls from the top on down. Give you an example: We had a set of requirements years ago for a program called OSP, Orbital Space Plane, and because the leadership at the time did not understand the problem they were trying to conquer, that program failed miserably. The requirements were poor. The concept that led to it … was so technically flawed that there was no hope or it ever, ever working.

NASA spent on the order of half a billion dollars trying to figure out how to put an X-37 (spacecraft) on a Delta 4 (rocket) and basically every review of it showed that it failed absolutely miserably and that it would never be safe and that it would never work very well. Nobody at the top knew how to request the right kind of a study and the right kind of analysis so they could make the right kind of decision on the program to move forward.

You know, you can have good administrative skills and be a good administrator from a managerial standpoint, but NASA is a very, very technical organization and the things we do are very technical -- flying a space shuttle, sending up all these incredible instruments on all these satellites to all these places. Being able to make decisions that affect everything throughout the organization with no technical knowledge, in my opinion, is impossible. You cannot manage that kind of organization without knowing. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist, but you’d better at least understand enough about it.

At this point, because we’re in a very huge transition, because we’re retiring the shuttle and building the next capability for probably the next 30 years if history serves us correctly -- we’re not going to build another system for another 30 years, at least -- you’d better have somebody who understands all the data that’s being studied and presented to them so they can make the right decisions.

Scott, the comments posted on NASA Watch run largely to the belief that retaining Griffin is a vote for the current hardware design for the new exploration initiative (to return to the moon and travel beyond). Do you think that it’s actually the hardware that’s so important, or is your petition really about Mike Griffin the man -- even if the Obama administration decided to delay or change or do something else with the architecture for the follow-on program?

Well, a couple of things. One, I’ve never read NASA Watch so I don’t know what’s on it, but I’ll assume that what you’re telling me is true. This petition is about Mike Griffin the man, about the administrator. We can have another whole discussion on what I believe about the hardware and the architecture (for the follow-on program) … There’s three things you need if you want to be successful. You need clear and concise and stable guidance from the top, which means from the president and Congress. You need sufficient budget -- and that’s another whole discussion -- which has caused most of the problems that NASA has. There’s been $12 billion in budget erosion over the last four years. And then you need good, technically sound, stable leadership. I’m only addressing the last point here and I think it’s absolutely critical that whatever NASA is asked to do, that they have somebody with the capabilities that Mike Griffin possesses to lead the agency. I have never met anybody who has the skill set that he does. I have been very impressed. He has changed the whole demeanor in NASA -- the fact that people can openly communicate and voice their views is great. There’s nobody who is as open and honest and has the ability to understand all the trades as Mike Griffin … If there’s nothing else you can appreciate about Mike is that he’s brutally honest. It’s nice to have that.

Maybe a little too much brutal sometimes?

Maybe. You know, I grew up in a world from being a fighter pilot and if you think this is brutal, you should go to a debrief after an engagement. You get really thick skin really fast or you don’t survive in that world. People just need to hear the truth. One of the great things I learned in my management career is that hope is not a management tool. Just because you hope something will work, or (think) this is a pretty design, doesn’t mean it’s going to work. Physics rules. If you don’t understand the rules of physics, you’re going to pay for it. Dearly.

Speaking of truth, could you briefly recount your career arc with ATK (which won a non-competed contract with NASA for the new launch system) and your ties with NASA?

I’ll tell you exactly what happened. And just to let you know, everything I do I always consult with the legal people just to avoid any appearance of, or any anything, that might be perceived of as a legal issue. I’m not doing anything to try to game the system.

I was in the Air Force and NASA for a total of about 25 years. I left NASA in 2004. My wife and I picked a place to raise our children and it happened to be in Utah. After I moved to Utah, because I was going to start a consulting business, I was offered a position with ATK and I took that position. That was the end of 2004.

In 2005, about 11 months later, I applied to and then received a request to become the NASA associate administrator for exploration. So, the first thing I had to do legally, you have to get rid of all of your holdings in a contractor company. Any financial connections with the company have to be severed: stock options, stock, anything. Legally, you have to give all that up, which I did. Went to DC and then actually legal has to go through and look at your background and decide what you can and cannot do. We decided even if it was legal for me to be, for example, the SSA, Source Selection Authority, that I would not be on any contracts at NASA for Constellation (exploration program), so I did not … and if it had anything to do with ATK, I was completely recused from anything to do with those selections. So I had no input into the selection of any contracts dealing with ATK to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

I served in that position at NASA for two years and then I decided that in order to take better care of my family, because that kind of position is not conducive to somebody with young children like I had, that I would retire from that position and start the consulting business that I wanted to start four years earlier. We moved back to the place where I still owned a townhome and my wife and I started my consulting business. I have probably about 15 different clients. ATK is one of my clients, but I am not an ATK employee and I do not represent ATK to NASA. I’ve been out of NASA for over a year, and I could, but I do not represent ATK to NASA, like I can’t represent ANY contractor to NASA and I don’t work directly on any contracts that I would have had any input into making, but I didn’t have any because I was recused in all dealings with ATK during my tenure as the AA of NASA. So that’s exactly the chain of events since I was a NASA employee back, in 2004.

Just to close the very last step, were you asked, or did the idea of the petition spring solely from you?

This was completely my idea. I didn’t even tell Mike. In fact, I think he was a bit flabbergasted when he saw it. I take all the credit, good or bad. This was my idea.

Just out of curiosity, who’d be your second choice for administrator?

I don’t have one. I’ve been asking myself that question and I don’t have a second choice … I’ve looked at a list of all the names that people have been floating out there and they’re so far distant second choice to Mike. I can’t think of anyone more qualified to run NASA at this time and I can’t even think of a second choice. Really, I just can’t think of one.

The President of Free Space, Part 1

August 29, 2008

I’m not a gambling lady, but if I had to pick right now, I’d say the Democrats just lost the election. Now, don’t get me wrong -- I’m a registered Democrat, which I’m assuming is OK for you to know even though (especially?) because I’m a reporter and have had it drilled into my head by the hard-core teachers at the Medill School of Journalism (a sort of Hogwarts for reporters-in-training) who implored their protégés to live an objective, detached life, particularly in the political arena, for professional integrity.

Thirty years have passed since I set foot in the door and I’ve decided it’s OK to shed the cloak for a higher calling. I’ll tell you straight up what happened: While my son plowed through Tess of the d’Urbervilles for his high school IB English Class, I entered the world of Ayn Rand with my first reading of Atlas Shrugged.

If you haven’t read the book, it’s not going to help you much to read the Cliffs Notes , or Wiki report. Like sex, or watching rockets launch , you just have to experience it. I’d be happy to give you a book report on it another time, but suffice it to say it’s a POWERFUL portrayal of what happens when rationality and scientific processes break down.

Now back to the story of the day -- John McCain’s selection of 44-year-old Sarah Palin of Alaska to be his running mate.

First off, if the Republicans want to absolutely STOMP the Democrats, they would cancel the upcoming convention in Minnesota, or at least scale it way back and donate the money to any one of a billion worthwhile causes. That will show they have a heart, which is mostly what folks hold against the party. The Democrats, on the other hand, have always won my vote, though the candidates sometimes seem to lack a brain, because they positively ooze with compassion, empathy and those highly valued Judeo-Christian attributes of caring for those who can’t care for themselves. Besides, what’s the convention going to accomplish that hasn’t already happened?

Rational thought, the foundation of science, the reason why there are rovers scratching the sand on Mars today, has been largely absent from the American political scene, and perhaps the American way of life for a long time now. Institutions created to solve specific problems, became incarnated (think FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society) and never went away. That’s what NASA is fighting now. Its leaders know the agency needs to dematerialize, shed its expensive and deadly shuttle program, and return to its core roots of space exploration. (You can read here what administrator Michael Griffin and others have to say on this subject.) Will they be successful? Who knows.

McCain’s selection of Palin brought the Republicans to the Democrats’ dinner table. She diversifies the ticket; she’s easy on the eye; she’s even a former reporter. What’s not to like? The only team that would have been more attractive would have been if Barack Obama had picked her.

So now that the beauty and ethnic portions of the presidential contest are over, let’s move on to a discussion of substance: Free Space will explore in the coming two months the single issue of space exploration as a window into how the candidates view the world. It's not about what they say or what they promise, but about their processes (or lack thereof) and whether they are rational, i.e. scientific, or based on emotions.

You could take any topic -- education, business, foreign policy -- and do the same, but I happen to know a lot about space and I happen to believe it’s cool and important. Plus, for you (us) nationalists, it's just about the only major enterprise where America still reigns supreme.

We talk a lot about freedom in this country, criticize its absence abroad, but do we really practice it? As a Democrat who has taken a sharp turn to the right, I’m often as confused as anyone about the road ahead. We often cannot pick our path, but we can choose our travel partners. I pick my old J-school buddies, Morality and Integrity, and invite you to journey with us on a scientific quest to illuminate the meaning of free space. I'd prefer to not do this in a vacuum (pardon the pun) so please use your hands or whatever tools you use to communicate these days, and be generous with feedback.

Metaphysically Speaking

June 24, 2008

I’d like to know about dark matter as much as anyone. And it sure would be swell if the United States made good on its word to fly the particle detector known as the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, or AMS, to the International Space Station, especially after it got 16 countries to foot most of the $1.5 billion construction bill.

With great fanfare -- press conferences with the Nobel Prize winner behind the project, etc. -- NASA flew a prototype on the shuttle 10 years ago. The agency agreed to send another AMS to the space station in 2002 or 2003 for a three-year study. Then came the Columbia accident, the decision to retire the shuttles and ultimately a cancellation of AMS’ ride to orbit.

Except that Samuel Ting, the Nobel-holding lead scientist for AMS, wouldn’t take no for an answer. He lobbied Congress. He got his international partners involved. He literally turned it into a federal case. And now, Ting's relentlessness may be about to pay off.

Last week, the House passed a NASA funding bill adding one more flight of the shuttle to deliver AMS to the space station. This week, it's the Senate's turn. On Monday, NASA chief Michael Griffin told a Senate oversight committee it’d run a few hundred million dollars for the extra flight, with one huge caveat: That figure presumes there is no extension of any shuttle equipment contracts. Griffin wouldn’t come straight out and say it, but what he means is that if the AMS flight is added on, there won’t be a shuttle available to mount a rescue mission. Since Columbia, NASA routinely adds the contingency mission to every flight.

That’s not to say that a crew tapped to deliver AMS to the station would be abandoned should the shuttle be too damaged to return to Earth. They could all use the station as a temporary shelter until folks figured out how to get enough Soyuz capsules to the outpost to fly them all back home. Or something along those lines. (At this part of the hearing it was NASA space operations chief Bill Gerstenmaier’s turn at obtuse.)

Griffin came back after the morning proceedings ended to clarify that maintaining the shuttle contracts past their cut-off dates would be prohibitively expensive -- something on the order of $3 billion to $4 billion, which “we don’t need to do to fly the final flight.”

No, all NASA needs to do is tell it straight: If AMS is the last flight, it’ll go without the safety net provided to all previous missions since Columbia. After listening to all the circumfusion, I think I have a clearer picture of dark matter, metaphysically speaking.