Internal Memos from NASA Administrator Michael Griffin

NASA E-mail via SpaceRef.com ^ | Monday, December 12, 2005 | NASA Administrator Michael Griffin

[anymouse]

Internal Memos from NASA Administrator Michael Griffin regarding the NRC report "Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station"

Editor's note: The email exchanges below occurred between Mike Griffin and his senior staff between 22/23 November 2005 in reaction to the release of the NRC Report: Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station.

"From: "Griffin, Michael D. (HQ-AA000)" Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:43:50 -0500 To: "Pengra, Trish (HQ-FB000)" Cc: "Horowitz, Scott J. (HQ-BA000)", "Cooke, Douglas (HQ-BA000)", "Dale, Shana (HQ-AA000)", "Geveden, Rex (HQ-AA000)", "Morrell, Paul (HQ-AA000)", "Shank, Christopher M. (HQ-AA000)", "Pace, Scott (HQ-FA000)", "Gerstenmaier, William H. (HQ-CA000)", "Cleave, Mary (HQ-DA000)", "Davis, Joseph H. (HQ-AA000)", "OBrien, Michael F. (HQ-ND000)", "Hanley, Jeffrey M. (HQ-FA000)", "Coats, Michael L. (JSC-AA)", "King, David A. (MSFC-DA01)", "Weiler, Edward J. (GSFC-100.0)", "Elachi, Charles (JPL-1000)[JPL]", "Hubbard, Scott (ARC-D)", "Whitlow, Woodrow (KSC)", "Roe, Lesa B. (LARC-A)", "Kennedy, James W. (KSC), "Petersen, Kevin L. (DFRC-X)", "Parsons, William W. (SSC-AA00)" Subject: RE: ISS Research Plan

All-

Thanks to Trish. This is helpful. I've read the report, and there is not much good in it for us. Not surprising, however, coming from Len Fisk.

I'm copying a bunch of folks on this note because it concerns the nucleus of a strategic problem for us in going forward with the VSE. Bottom line, we're going to have to answer the specific issues in this report. We're going to have to define the program of activity for ISS that obtains from it the utility that it can provide. We may NOT be able to fund that activity at present; I consider that almost a fact on the ground. But we can put in place the kind of peer-reviewed science that we WOULD do, given the money, and that we WILL do, when we can afford it. This is the "non SMD science" to which Trish refers.

Scotty/Gerst, defining the program that gets the most out of ISS for Exploration is squarely in your court. But others can and will help where possible.

The next step out is the Moon. We're going to get, and probably already are getting, the same criticisms as for ISS. This is the "why go to the Moon?" theme.

We've got the architecture in place and generally accepted. That's the "interstate highway" analogy I've made. So now, we need to start talking about those exit ramps I've referred to. What ARE we going to do on the Moon? To what end? And with whom? I have ideas, of course. (I ALWAYS have ideas; it's a given.) But my ideas don't matter. Now is the time to start working with our own science community and with the Internationals to define the program of lunar activity that makes the most sense to the most people. I keep saying -- because it's true -- that it's not the trip that matters, it's the destination, and what we do there. We got to get started on this.

Shana will be taking the lead on working with Obie and the International Partners to get started down the track on pulling together an international coalition. They are annoyed and impatient with our delays since the Vision speech. We need to be, and be seen to be, proactive in seeking their involvement. We need to work with them, not prescribe to them, regarding what we can do together on the Moon.

Beyond the Moon is Mars, robots first. Most of the Internationals are at present more interested in Mars, as I hear the gossip. Fine, we can't tell them what to be interested in. But our road to Mars goes through the Moon, and we should be able to enlist them to join on that path.

Everyone on this address list wants to be part of making Exploration what NASA does. It won't survive if all we worry about is getting there. That was the essential first step. But it has to sell itself on what it is that we DO there. The kind of criticism we're receiving in connection with the ISS, in the report Trish references, needs to be addressed for ISS, and needs to be "headed off at the pass" for the Moon.

Mary and Scotty, what we do at our destinations is in your bailiwick. But let's resolve to get some runway behind us on this, and soon.

Mike

-----Original Message----- From: Pengra, Trish (HQ-FB000) Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 12:40 PM To: Griffin, Michael D. (HQ-AA000) Subject: RE: ISS Research Plan

Agreed, though there may be ways to improve the management of what little we have and the manner is which we interact with the external communities (i.e., scientific community, Congress). I am pulling together some history and issues related to NASA science that falls outside the Science Mission Directorate for your consideration. -- Trish

________________________________ Trish Pengra Studies and Analysis, Program Analysis and Evaluation NASA

-----Original Message----- From: Griffin, Michael D. (HQ-AA000) Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 10:12 AM To: Pengra, Trish (HQ-FB000) Subject: RE: ISS Research Plan

Trish-

I know, and thanks. The only logical answers come with "spend more money", and we don't right now have it to spend.

Mike

-----Original Message----- From: Pengra, Trish (HQ-FB000) Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:51 AM To: Griffin, Michael D. (HQ-AA000) Subject: RE: ISS Research Plan

Hopefully, you got it within minutes of the email. We're developing a list of the questions logically raised by the review, but there are no ready answers.

Don't let it ruin your Thanksgiving.

Trish

________________________________ Trish Pengra Studies and Analysis, Program Analysis and Evaluation NASA

-----Original Message----- From: Griffin, Michael D. (HQ-AA000) Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 4:22 PM To: Pengra, Trish (HQ-FB000) Subject: Re: ISS Research Plan

Just make sure I get one.

Mike

-----Original Message----- From: Pengra, Trish (HQ-FB000) To: Griffin, Michael D. (HQ-AA000); Pace, Scott (HQ-FA000); Horowitz, Scott J. (HQ-BA000); Williams, Richard S. (HQ-LJ000); Allen, Marc (HQ-DA000); Gerstenmaier, William H. (HQ-CA000); Chase, Brian E. (HQ-NC000); Geveden, Rex (HQ-AA000); Cleave, Mary (HQ-DF000); Ahlf, Peter R. (HQ-BF011); Walz, Carl (HQ-BF017) CC: Lomax, Terri (HQ-FB000) Sent: Tue Nov 22 15:20:10 2005 Subject: ISS Research Plan

All: I just received and will deliver your advance copy of the NRC's Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station. The report will be publicly released next Monday, 28 November.

While there is little that is very new or unexpected in their findings and recommendations, the report is highly critical and likely to draw some attention. Since the review was requested by Congress, the NRC will be delivering copies to the Hill.

-- Trish

________________________________ Trish Pengra Studies and Analysis, Program Analysis and Evaluation NASA"

[anymouse]

The top brass at NASA are worried about their future - worried enough to release this candid e-mail communication discussing how worried they are. What I am seeing, reading between the lines, is that Griffin and his management team have inherited a train wreck in progress and are despirately trying to figure out how to survive it.

[anymouse]

Space ping.

[RadioAstronomer]

What I am seeing, reading between the lines, is that Griffin and his management team have inherited a train wreck in progress and are despirately trying to figure out how to survive it.

I concur. Sigh.

[Talking_Mouse]

I have somehow been dropped from the space ping list, would you please reinstate me? Thanks

[DoughtyOne]

While you guys have touched on the obvious issue, you haven't seemed to touch on the not so obvious issue, at least directly.

Yes they are concerned about how to survive this train wreck ("The top brass at NASA are worried about their future"), but I believe it goes beyond that. I believe they are concerned if NASA will survive it.

Perhaps that's part of what both of you meant.

In this instance the cost of keeping the space station afloat is offset by the disgrace of watching it die. Either eventuality could be the death knell to NASA IMO.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

From an engineer on the inside (me) at Goddard - NASA is a train wreck in and of itself because "diversity" is what rules the day. It's n o longer excellent engineering. And they are overloading all of the engineers with paper work. Ridiculous stuff that is simply make-work for the many highly diverse peoples of NASA who can't do actual engineering because they were hired for their diversity factor, not their talent...

[jaguaretype]

3.5 years @JPL.

Have friends there including 1 section manager(and am hiring a recently layed off MER EE) still and and some "not so good stuff" seems to be happening there.

MSL seems to be the only larger scope hope at least at JPL.

And WOW! Who got their hands on this email??

[anymouse]

KevinDavis runs the space ping list.

[RadioAstronomer]

Was at JPL myself. :-)

I worked in the SFOF "dark room" (flight operations).

[RadioAstronomer]

I cringed when Prometheus was cancelled. Not sure where we are going now. Funding will be a huge prob for a long time I fear.

[jaguaretype]

Europa/X2000 conceptual, MER design and MAM/Kite testbed for me.

[anymouse]

Actually I have a high level of regard for Griffin and most of his top management (finally the Bush Administration has pushed out the deadwood.) These are bright folks who know they will survive.

What they are worried about is whether NASA and American government-sponsored manned space exploration will survive.

The good news is, that I just got a great deal on car insurance at GEICO. :)

I'm only half joking about that. For those who don't know that GEICO originally was an acronym for Government Employees Insurance COmpany. They went private back in the 80s and have succeeded famously - to the point that most people don't know their history and assume they were named after a lizard and have silly, annoying, yet memorable commercials.

The lesson is that space development needs to shift to the private sector as well, in order to not only survive, but excel. And yes, some of the process of getting us into space will be silly, annoying, yet memorable.

[RadioAstronomer]

Wait till you see how much paperwork is required for a manned system.

I still have:

the 14 volume set (NSTS 07700) with appendix 1-10;

The ICD 2-19001 (Shuttle Orbiter Cargo Standard Interfaces);

Flight Data File System Data Book;

Payload Support Capabilities Description, JSC, POCC, Remote POCC;

just to name a few sitting in book cases here in my office.

(I prob have close to 100 docs here)

[RadioAstronomer]

Way cool!

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Oh, yeah... Manned systems = nightmare. NASA is driving the good people out.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the comments, but I'll never look at that little GEICO (Gecko) the same way again.

I agree with your comments.

[anymouse]

The "Diversity tax" is only part of what grinds NASA and other government agencies, and any company with any government contracts down. It is a mentality in management that following the government rules (to avoid being sued) is more important than good business practices. ISO 9000 and other management fads ensure that both managers and employees are more concerned with C.Y.A. than with innovation.

You can bet that workers and management in India, China, Mexico, etc. don't give a damn about Political Correctness, sexual harassment, ISO 9000, and other arbitrary government rules. They care about how best to keep making money selling things that people want to buy.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Yeah, the "process" has become NASA's main focus. Who really cares if it works or is near budget... Now we're doing a bunch of CMMI crap. It requires a small staff for each project and probably 10% of each engineer's total time. Glad I'm accumulating enough to retire soon.

[MikeD]

And they are overloading all of the engineers with paper work.

Preach on, brother! We're on the third iteration of an instrument, one that is a virtual carbon-copy of a previous instrument. The cost has gone *up* since the original was made, despite the NRE expense on the first one, and despite the use of spares on the new one. The difference is that the paperwork keeps increasing...

[MikeD]

My boss tells me horror stories of trying to get a laptop and a telescope to fly on the shuttle. They flew twice, but not before going through mountains of paperwork, and discovering the hard way that the shuttles are not built the same. Mounting holes present in one shuttle are not present in another, things like that. One of our engineers joked about getting out the power drill and "fixing" the problem...