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"

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

The difference is that the paperwork keeps increasing...

Make-work jobs. NASA can build it's little empires by having to hire people to read all of the new paperwork now required of the people who used to spend most of their time doing real work. UGH!!!!

How can any decent manager justify all of this B.S.?

[FreedomPoster]

>>The lesson is that space development needs to shift to the private sector as well, in order to not only survive, but excel.

Jerry Pournelle has been advocating exactly that for years. The engineer:manager ratio went below 1:1 at NASA long ago. This is not a good thing.

[RadioAstronomer]

One of our engineers joked about getting out the power drill and "fixing" the problem...

Hehe!

[MikeD]

How can any decent manager justify all of this B.S.?

I don't know. I know we're fighting every step of the way because we don't want to have to hire new people just to handle paperwork. One of the reasons we're able to keep costs down is because we keep team continuity from project to project. If team members have to spend more time with paperwork, that's less work being done...

[MikeD]

That's the great thing about sounding rocket programs -- you can drill holes, tape stuff down, no one cares. You're just launching out of White Sands, after all...

[burzum]

This is because NASA, the aviation industry, and the nuclear industry have basically merged their QA and safety standards. There are some very good reasons why this has occurred (such as TMI, Challenger, etc) but they do not always differentiate very well between items important to safety and equipment that does not affect safety. I could easily imagine an engineer asking what would occur if the laptop came free in flight. Then it would have to be certified to be compatible with a normal flight mount or it would have to have an engineering review determine the probability of different causalities. I can understand the frustration of your boss but I also understand the fear that management has of any type of failure. Deaths have occurred due to failures in QA and engineering analyzes to catch items. NASA failed to perform the appropriate engineering analysis on o-rings and foam losing two orbiters. The nuclear industry has destroyed several reactors due to failure of QA and engineering analyzes (among other reasons). No manager wants to be the one who has to answer why he or she didn't perform the analysis even though they knew a problem could occur.

[RadioAstronomer]

Did you ever hear the story about the time they blew up a graveyard in Mexico from a launch that went awry from White Sands?

"The Peenemuende Germans joked 'We were the first German unit to not only infiltrate the United States, but to attack Mexico from US soil" LMAO!

[MikeD]

Yeah, I heard about that one. I never knew it hit a graveyard in Juarez, but I knew it went over the border. Of course, in those days they didn't even bother closing down US 70. Now, they close off US 70 at the pass into White Sands an hour before a launch.

[anymouse]

I prob have close to 100 docs here

That's all? Slacker. :)

I've had to review that (space shuttle P/L integration docs) plus 15 years of different incarnations of space station various levels documents and the Russian Mir, Soyuz, etc., and various DoD and commercial program over my career in and out of NASA.

[RoadTest]

Let private enterprise do the job. It's already making a name for itself in near space.

[KevinDavis]

[SunkenCiv]

re: Len Fisk

Bio:
http://www.michiganaero.com/employees/lfisk.shtml

Observations support new model of sun's magnetic field developed by U-M space scientist
By Nancy Ross-Flanigan
News and Information Services
The University Record, November 12, 1997
http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9798/Nov12_97/sun.htm

"Evidence is mounting that the sun's magnetic field looks more like a wild cyclone than a tidy lawn sprinkler-the image scientists had accepted for almost 40 years. The cyclone-like shape comes from a mathematical model first proposed last year by U-M space scientist Len Fisk."