O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-14 18:44:05

If we scale back ISS, no need to to not fly a Hubble service mission. Hubble is a public relations icon. Perhaps its not logical, but to scrap Hubble in favor of VSE will provide the VSE with negative PR capital.
How we scale back ISS will be interesting to watch as well.

When the public sees how many zeros it will cost, and when you have side-by-side images from HST and a new adaptive-optics scope on the ground, and how it would be a risk of human lives... I think people will understand well enough.

Sure, let anybody-but-us have the ISS, though I don't think there is a cheap enough way to reach it for many tourists.

Euler · 2004-12-14 19:06:05

How about offering to sell the ISS at a bargin basement price to Richard Branson, Virgin Galactic Real Estate!

What could he do with it? He does not have any vehicles that can even come close to getting to it.

BWhite · 2004-12-14 20:15:09

I see two possibilities. The more likely, it ends up getting de-orbited, liike Mir.

Less likely, the EU uses the US abandonment of ISS as a rallying cry to get additional funding for Proton shots to add other, different modules and they use Kliper for crew transfer and they run the thing.

By the way, Jeffrey Bell predicted ISS incineration before 2010 about a year ago, IIRC.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-14 22:00:51

The political fallout would still be enormous...

Ad Astra · 2004-12-15 01:14:05

Let the Russians devote their space program to orbital tourism, with ISS as a space hotel.

I know this is a political non-starter. But the plug needs to be pulled on ISS if we want to free up money for the moon and beyond. Authorizing ISS was a mistake in '93. Since then we've been throwing good money after bad.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-15 05:43:53

The only trouble I see for space tourism use by any one will be in the form of maintance of the station. What happens when you need a gyro or an new solar panel or other large items to large for anything but a shuttle, What then?

Gennaro · 2004-12-15 05:52:30

Doc Zubrin as NASA head? Ummmmmm I think there would be a mass exodus of NASA execs if that happend, they wouldn't work with the guy, he's too zealous and not capable of managing effectively.

Good, dump the pork barrel! A visionary who stakes out the goals and who'll thug the space agency out of obscurity and into public consiousness is precisely what I believe NASA needs at the top. Leave the managing to the middle-men. An efficient leader says, "I want this. You have full freedom to whatever means you feel necessary. Just achieve the results!" Whatever is meant by managing, Zubrin has got his priorities straight, and that's what counts in that position.

I have a better opinion of Zurbin. He would make a good critic, troubleshooter, polarizing. That is what is needed.

Precisely. I have all my faith in Zubrin, though if the Americans don't want him, maybe we Europeans can have him. Hehe, kind of like Portugal lost Columbus to Spain.
:;):

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-15 08:49:08

*shakes head* No, Zubrin is too much of a hot-head, he wouldn't get anything done... I shudder to think how he would behave in private sessions with small numbers of skeptical senators. I also fear that because of Zubrin's background, he will micromanage NASA to death. Lets not forget that he is guided by his emotions rather then his head, like wanting to go save Hubble. Not a good combination.

I don't think if even Klipper could deliver tourists to the ISS cheaply enough... $40-50M for the launcher, another few million for the orbital module/airlock/docking adapter, another seven digits to refurbish Klipper/amoratize replacements, oh and don't forget food & LSS supplies.

C M Edwards · 2004-12-15 08:55:11

The Chief Administrator of NASA makes $158000 per year.

The US Vice President makes $190000 per year.

The LSU Chancellor makes $350000 per year.

The US President makes $400000 per year.

O'Keefe, already an unusually well-paid public servant, stands to become a spectacularly well-paid academic. I'd have taken the chancellorship, too. It makes me rather sorry for the rank and file at NASA, though. Odds are, their pay scales are not as impressive.

BWhite · 2004-12-15 13:30:43

I don't think if even Klipper could deliver tourists to the ISS cheaply enough... $40-50M for the launcher, another few million for the orbital module/airlock/docking adapter, another seven digits to refurbish Klipper/amoratize replacements, oh and don't forget food & LSS supplies.

That is less than what Dennis Tito paid.

If the US withdraws from ISS do we insist on de-orbiting the thing or do we "give" it to the Russians?

Grypd · 2004-12-15 14:54:40

NASA operates in a very political way(Yeah, I know im telling the initiated) to get funds, you must be able to gain and trade favours allways remembering that each time you make a decision to cut costs you will find half of the senate on your heels demanding that there special project in there state is saved. And when you are not you have us the space advocates and the press saying what a waste NASA does nothing except make taxes go up.

I really pity the poor man or woman who gets the job.

Gennaro · 2004-12-15 18:29:27

Lets not forget that he is guided by his emotions rather then his head, like wanting to go save Hubble. Not a good combination.

I believe I see what you mean, but I would prefer to interpret the Hubble episode as evidence of excellent political intuition. People, not only in the US but around the world, care about Hubble. A telescope in space is something that has that strange aura about it. It points ahead into the unknown, speaking both figuratively and concretely. People certainly don't care about the ISS. It's even more a case of been-there-done-that than the Moon. A good sense of intuition is a valuable asset for any politician, in my opinion, at the top rather more so than being an impeccable organizer.

NASA operates in a very political way(Yeah, I know im telling the initiated) to get funds, you must be able to gain and trade favours allways remembering that each time you make a decision to cut costs you will find half of the senate on your heels demanding that there special project in there state is saved.

I've never understood this. How can the US allow the space program to be the victim of vested interests and the whims of ignorant dorks?
I say NASA ought rather to be made answerable only to the highest political level and guaranteed a set percentage of federal funds, adjusted by inflation.

Ad Astra · 2004-12-15 22:41:35

Many people on this forum have said things to the tune of "people love Hubble" or "Hubble is an icon." If you check on nasawatch.com's section for commenting on Sean O'Keefe, it's clear that a lot of people hate Sean because of his Hubble decision. Yet I fail to see the massive groundswell of support for the telescope from people who aren't space afficianados. I just don't think that an aging telescope gets the kind of attention that, say, a Mars rover would get. The public relations end of Hubble is not big enough to risk another superfluous shuttle mission that could potentially end the program.

The new administrator should throw a bone to the Hubble huggers by proposing a new "Hubble II." It would use the instruments intended for the Hubble servicing mission, get launched on a Delta IV heavy, and orbit higher than Hubble to avoid atmospheric drag. The robot mission should also continue, to attach the deorbit motor and replace the gyroscopes, and to push robotic technologies that will be useful during moon and Mars exploration.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-15 22:49:07

I think there might be some public whining when Hubble is done away with, but its surviveable, especially with new super ground-based telescopes to show off.

I don't think the robotic rendevous system is worth it. Lockheed already has such technology in the test satelite phase, and automated docking between objects designed to dock is all we really need. We aren't to the point where orbiting repair robots or ones that dock to things not designed to dock would be worthwhile, and probobly won't be for some time.

Let Hubble come down on its own... don't go spending $300M to knock a few percent off reentry risks.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-17 23:49:24

Let Hubble come down on its own... don't go spending $300M to knock a few percent off reentry risks.

None of us are concerned about reentry risks until it comes down in our own back yard, thats when the public outrage would start. Would you consider 300million worth spending in hindsight if it came crashing down to Earth killing someone you know?

At the end of the day the replacement for O'Keefe should not be picked on his/her view of Hubble alone, there are many more pressing issues to tackle - getting manned mission up and running in an efficient manner would be my first issue :up:

So in conclusion I'll accept the job if they ask nicely and only if I can work from home

Graeme

John Creighton · 2004-12-17 23:53:08

None of us are concerned about reentry risks until it comes down in our own back yard, thats when the public outrage would start. Would you consider 300million worth spending in hindsight if it came crashing down to Earth killing someone you know?

Could it do any major damage to a major sky scraper?

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-17 23:58:08

Could it do any major damage to a major sky scraper?

To be honest I suspect it would burn up during reentry and would not pose a threat to anyone, but you can bet that someone somewhere is sitting with a risk analysis on their desk putting a dollar against the risk to see which wins - acceptable risks = no money required.

Graeme

John Creighton · 2004-12-18 00:00:19

To be honest I suspect it would burn up during reentry and would not pose a threat to anyone, but you can bet that someone somewhere is sitting with a risk analysis on their desk putting a dollar against the risk to see which wins - acceptable risks = no money required.
Graeme

Kind of like the fight clube equation. Anyway money matters. Just 50 cents a day........

RobS · 2004-12-26 21:09:36

From Today's New York Times Editorial page:

NASA's Chief Bails Out

Published: December 26, 2004

Sean O'Keefe had the extreme bad luck to take the helm of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration less than 14 months before the shuttle Columbia disintegrated in the skies over Texas, throwing the agency into disarray. Through no great fault of his own, Mr. O'Keefe is leaving the space program in worse shape than he found it. The remaining shuttles are still grounded for safety repairs, the space station they service is a shrunken shell and the agency has been given a challenging long-term mandate for space exploration with little new money to carry it out. Mr. O'Keefe announced recently that he would soon depart for a high-paying job as chancellor of Louisiana State University. He will bequeath to his successor a daunting array of half-finished tasks as the American space program struggles to get back on course.

The irony is that Mr. O'Keefe's impact has been virtually the opposite of what was initially expected. A self-described "bean counter" who had been deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, he was appointed to NASA in December 2001 to bring its finances under control after the International Space Station program was staggered by a projected overrun of almost $5 billion. The chief worry voiced by space enthusiasts was that he would bring an accountant's mentality to an agency that needed bold vision. As it turned out, he is leaving the agency's finances still mired in confusion but played a role, yet to be spelled out, in shaping the exploration vision put forth by the White House.

The dominant feature of his three-year tenure was the disastrous loss of the Columbia, which had an impact on virtually every decision he made thereafter. The accident reflected deep-seated problems at the agency that predated Mr. O'Keefe's arrival, as well as the fragility and age of the shuttle fleet. The investigating board assigned Mr. O'Keefe some blame for setting rigid deadlines that led shuttle personnel to cut corners and defer dealing with the problem with foam insulation that brought down the Columbia. But no one accused him of being a prime cause of the accident, and it could have happened whoever was in charge.

The initial task assigned to Mr. O'Keefe - to right NASA's finances - is still a work in progress. He reined in the costs of the space station mostly by shrinking its size and crew to the point where its value is marginal. The agency's financial claims still strain credulity. For the 2003 fiscal year, NASA thought it had almost $2 billion more in its accounts than the Treasury Department said it had, a discrepancy NASA resolved by reducing its figures to match Treasury's. The agency has been hit with a barrage of critical reports from the Government Accountability Office and its own inspector general. Its outside auditor has refused to certify its accounting because it cannot justify the numbers. And the Office of Management and Budget recently gave NASA's financial management a red light, its lowest rating. Some of these problems can be attributed to what Mr. O'Keefe describes as the "hellacious challenge" of merging many separate, often archaic accounting systems into a single core financial system. His successor will have to stay on top of this transition if NASA's notoriously optimistic cost estimates are to have any credibility in coming years.

Mr. O'Keefe's chief legacy, if it comes to fruition, may turn out to be the space exploration vision announced by President Bush in January. The sketchy plans call for a new crew vehicle to succeed the shuttles, a landing on the Moon by 2020, and ultimately moving on to Mars and beyond. Historians will have to sort out whether Mr. O'Keefe, whose hands were already full with shuttle and space station problems, was an initiator of this vision or was pulled into it by a White House staff eager to meet the clamor for clear goals in space after the Columbia disaster. Either way, he helped shape the vision and the plans to carry it out. What he did not get was much money to get started - an average of $200 million a year in new money over the next five years, forcing NASA to cannibalize about $11 billion from other programs over the same period.

His biggest mistake was his decision to cancel a planned shuttle mission to service and upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope, NASA's most important scientific instrument, before its batteries and gyroscopes die out. Although Mr. O'Keefe insists the cancellation was based on safety concerns, it seems likely that the mission was sacrificed because the shuttles are needed to complete the space station so that the path can be cleared for the new exploration program. Mr. O'Keefe hoped to service the Hubble with a chancy robotic mission. His successor ought to ensure that Hubble survives even if a shuttle has to be used.

As a first priority, the agency has to get its shuttle fleet back up and running, a task that has taken longer and cost more than originally hoped. It must then expeditiously complete the space station. And it must change the cultural habits and organizational patterns that were blamed for contributing to the accident, a task that has barely started. One wonders how far any cultural change will go given that no one seems to have been held accountable for bad judgments that led to the Columbia disaster.

By many accounts, Mr. O'Keefe has raised the morale of NASA employees dispirited by the shuttle accident. With the help of the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, whose district includes the Johnson Space Center, the agency got almost its full budget request for the 2005 fiscal year while most other civilian agencies suffered cuts. These are encouraging developments that should help the next administrator meet a very tough set of challenges.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-25 06:08:11

Well the canabalization of projects and funding has begun.

NASA To Use Outer Planets Data Analysis Funds for Other Purposes

Fiscal Year 2005 funds for NASA's Outer Planets Data Analyis solicitation have been reallocated. In 2004, 142 proposals were submitted in response to this solicitation. 55 proposals were selected accounting for $4.8 million of the $5 million available.

Other turmoil due to increase is over the loss of jobs as Nasa streamlines for the goal and there again other facilities wull try there darnedest to stay open for business as usual.

NASA deals itself best proposal for fabrication

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-12-14 18:44:05

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#27 2004-12-14 19:06:05

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#28 2004-12-14 20:15:09

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#29 2004-12-14 22:00:51

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#30 2004-12-15 01:14:05

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#31 2004-12-15 05:43:53

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#32 2004-12-15 05:52:30

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#33 2004-12-15 08:49:08

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#34 2004-12-15 08:55:11

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#35 2004-12-15 13:30:43

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#36 2004-12-15 14:54:40

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#37 2004-12-15 18:29:27

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#38 2004-12-15 22:41:35

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#39 2004-12-15 22:49:07

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#40 2004-12-17 23:49:24

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#41 2004-12-17 23:53:08

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#42 2004-12-17 23:58:08

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#43 2004-12-18 00:00:19

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#44 2004-12-26 21:09:36

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

#45 2005-01-25 06:08:11

Re: O'Keefe Resigns :: Zubrin Should Apply for the Job - Wanted: New NASA Chief

Board footer