A new candidate for NASA administrator, according to NASAWatch.
There is nothing in his resume that makes me think that he understands anything at all about space policy issues, and the fact that he’s worked with Hans Mark gives me the heebies, if not full jeebies.
As for this quote:
The general also has some strong views of his own: ‘I believe if you could get rid of all the nuclear weapons this would be a wonderful world,’ he says.”
I wouldn’t disagree with the sentiment, as far as it goes, but what does it imply in terms of his beliefs and potential acts? Does he think this is an attainable goal, or is it some out-of-context quote about what he’d do if he had a magic wand? If the former, what policies would he promote to achieve it (not that NASA administrator has much to do with that)?
There is nothing here that gives me a good feeling about this potential pick. Not that the Obama administration cares what I think, of course.
[Update a few minutes later]
I know, you’re asking, “what’s the problem with Hans Mark?”
The trivial reason is that he was the one who recommended Mike Griffin to the Bush administration. A more substantive one is that he has made many statements, or at least implications, over the years that private citizens have no business being in space, and that it’s a realm only for government astronauts. Which would be in keeping with his German upbringing and long NASA pedigree. He is a government space man, first, last, always.
[One more before-bed thought]
The general is reportedly very close to the president elect. That can either be very good, or very bad, depending on just what it is he/they want to do. The last time we had a NASA administrator close to the president, it worked out pretty well (Jim Webb, Apollo). Whatever he wants to do, he can count on White House support from the top, if he gets the job. The question remains: what will the Obama space policy be?
[Wednesday morning update]
Mark Whittington once again displays his complete inability to sanely read the emotions of other people. It’s nutty to think that I’m in a “blind panic.” It’s just as dumb when he claims that I’m “full of rage,” or any of the other extreme emotions that he often misattributes to me. But that’s Mark — perhaps he’s just projecting or something.
And Jeff Foust has more on the potential pick.
[Bumped]
[Early afternoon update]
FWIW, there’s an interesting comment over at NASAWatch, from someone who calls himself “Space Exec”:
It’s well known that Gration was angling for a top job in the Department of Defense in the Obama Administration. During the campaign he had an opportunity to be involved in creating Obama’s space policy, but barely engaged due to lack of interest and quickly pivoted over to other things – leaving the job to 20-something policy staffer Carlos Monje instead.
If he’s appointed, the signal sent to the entire space community will be that NASA is nothing more than a consolation prize for the Presidents’ buddy who couldn’t get the job he wanted. Or, at best, maybe NASA is some kind of training wheels for Gration to prove his management abilities.
How soon until he has his eyes on some of the slots at DoD that will be opening up when Gates leaves (Secretary of the Air Force, for example)? Is he really going to be effective if his term is only one or two years? Is he going to have the respect of the NASA team given his apparent lack of interest in space science or exploration?
If this is the case, it reminds me of the Frosch appointment during the Carter administration. Bob Frosch reportedly wanted to run NOAA (something for which his previous career better suited him) but that post went to someone in more political favor, and he ended up with NASA as a consolation prize. We don’t need someone at the agency right now with little previous interest in space, and whose eyes are on a bigger (in his mind) prize. But we’ll see.
[Bumped again]
[Mid-afternoon update]
I’ve verified the Frosch story. It’s actually very interesting.
So if this guy shows up as the choice, maybe we will see a ban on ‘civilians’ in space. It’s for their own safety, and ours. Hey, they could bump into something which would then come crashing down on some unsuspecting innocent in Gaza.
or some such.
G_d am I tired and and…….
There’s a little bit more about Scott Gration and nukes here.
What can one say?
This is not good. The Hans Mark connection makes it worse.
And the nukes quote is just downright scary.
“Piecing Together Obama Troop Snub: Is Gen. Gration Tantrum Reason for Cancellation?” (freerepublic.com).
His own words in paragraph three, four, and five on this page are “interesting” (it’s in English despite the French domain name).
I understand the concern about Hans Mark, but on the other hand, that was a long time ago. He was a White House fellow at the time, and we don’t know how much Mark influenced him or if those influences still persist. Generals don’t necessarily hold the same views they held when they were captains.
The comments about nuclear weapons can also be interpreted in different ways. Most of the warfighters in Air Combat Command generally have a degree of contempt for the silo sitters in Space Command and see nuclear weapons as less important than conventional weapons in today’s world. (Read “Every Man a Tiger” by Tom Clancy and General Chuck Horner.) It could be interesting to have an Air Force officer (and one who does not come from Space Command) in charge of NASA.
That’s the optimistic view. On the other hand, things could be as bad as you fear.
By the way, Hans Mark was born in Germany but he grew up in London during the Battle of Britain. With a background like that, one would expect him to be somewhat skeptical of the Von Braun vision. That just goes to show that people can surprise you. Perhaps Gration will surprise from the other direction.
Government space policy will remain as it has been for fifty years; to keep private individuals out of space for as long as possible (preferably forever) no matter how many of the intellectual and financial resources of the USA have to be wasted to achieve this aim.
Why? Because once there are a significant number of people in space – especially if they are living and working there, for example in space habitats – then the American hegenomy is dead. And not long after that, the USA will be utterly insignificant, and all the best and brightest humans will live off Earth.
The powers-that-be in the USA would do anything to avoid that. Never mind that in avoiding it they condemn their grandchildren, and everyone else’s, to poverty and the breakdown of civilisation, and after that to extinction.
“It is the Universe or nothing – which shall it be?” The powers-that-be have chosen nothing. Perhaps we now know the answer to the Fermi Paradox.
Based on his background and comments, a wild guess would be he will be big on international space. So one could predict more ISS type projects.
I’m pretty sure that working for Hans Mark twenty seven years ago is not a disqualifier for being NASA Administrator. The link provided by “Habitat Hermit” does give one pause, though. Can a man whose thinking is *that* utopian ever be given a position of trust?
Rand hit the nail on the head: are these “magic wand” aspirations, or does he think them practically achievable by a well executed five-year plan? Because the world actually would be better off without nuclear weapons or ethnic conflict; I don’t think anyone thinks of those things as actually good.
For now I’m going to assume these comments are more aspirational. No one makes it to Major-General without a good deal of practical “get it done” attitude.
The bigger concern is Newspace. There is nothing in the military mind that is terribly welcoming to private contractors for anything other than “support.” “Operations” are always down by uniforms.
But to be optimistic for a moment, the military does use contractors for logistics. If all this guy does for the next four years is outsource ISS resupply to SpaceX, that’s not terrible. And as a Major-General he also cares a great deal about flexibility and reliability in the logistics chain; he may be a supporter of prop depots in that context.
Say goodbye to Newspace if this guy becomes NASA Admin, that’s what I’m thinking.
Admittedly, on the surface it doesn’t look that good. Until we actually hear his views on Newspace directly from his mouth, we should be wary but hope for the best. It’s at least barely possible that he might pleasantly surprise us (though I certainly wouldn’t bet on it).
> The powers-that-be in the USA would do anything to avoid that.
This explains the EU’s vibrant space program….
Well, I’m not exactly impressed with this potential selection. Nor am I thrilled with the alleged WH-NASA liaison pick.
There’s an interesting comment (direct link) over at the Daily Kos thread which speculates upon Scott Gration being an interim caretaker administrator.
A similar possibility could be if he was tasked to make rather big changes setting the house in order so to speak; a cleaning up operation enabling the real choice to come to a prepped and ready organization. That could be a stroke of genius (and a lot of hard work for Gration).
Of course, Rand “Please, no” was surely uttered in a Spock-like monotone (g). Gration’s nomination hasn’t, as if this writing, been officially announced, but one suspects that in certain quarters it does take the edge off of the celebrations over Mike Griffin’s departure. I, however, will wait and see before passing my own dispassionate judgment.
Of course, Rand “Please, no” was surely uttered in a Spock-like monotone (g).
Yeah, pretty much. It certainly wasn’t a panicked scream.
There is a multi-legged creature crawling on your shoulder.
Well, first, I strongly suspect Rand’s final para has the key insight here. I don’t think Obama gives a damn about space. He’s a city boy, he’s well in touch with his feminine side, and his hero is Lincoln. I think he couldn’t care less if a man walks on Mars or the Moon, still less that it be an American rather than Chinese.
Is this a bad thing? Isn’t the alt-space goal a policy of benign neglect from the government? Imagine what would happen if Obama did care passionately about space. I don’t see him asking Congress to set up enormous prizes and merely sit in the Oval Office watching private ventures compete for them on the TV. I would foresee some massive government project, Ares on steroids, so to speak.
Second, in passing, the quote on nukes is insane. The world has been far more peaceful with the advent of nukes, just as the MAD adherents said it would be. As many have said, an armed citizenry is a polite citizenry. This goes for the community of nations as much as it goes for any local community of men. To think the world would be better off without nukes is as contrary to reason and experience as suggesting a big city would have less crime if private possession of guns were banned.
I agree the military doesn’t like nukes, however. First, there’s not much action or military skill there. You just sit in a silo and wait. Second, nukes are way cheaper than conventional forces, so there’s less employment, less cool new hardware, less absorbing problems of tactics to study and master and debate.
OK, getting serious for a second… what fraction of the NASA budget, over the last thirty years, has actually been spent pushing the state-of-the-art in space launch?
1%? 2%?
(And no, I don’t think rehashed solid rocket junk like the ARES counts).
They managed to redirect the DC-X program into the X-33 mess back during the Clinton administration, dumping a group that had bent metal and flown hardware for one that didn’t, they went on during the second Bush admin. pretending that they ‘proved’ that RLV’s couldn’t work and we just needed more expendables… and now their capstone achievement for the new Obama administration will be moving to a slightly more rational Expendable program. (Although probably the one with the keep-us-dependent-on-Russia engines).
I’m afraid my expectations re: NASA are going to be pitifully low for the forseeable future. They don’t _want_ to do real X-vehicles.
“As for this quote:
The general also has some strong views of his own: ‘I believe if you could get rid of all the nuclear weapons this would be a wonderful world,’ he says.”
I wouldn’t disagree with the sentiment, as far as it goes, but what does it imply in terms of his beliefs and potential acts?”
I actually disagree with this quote quite strongly. Nuclear weapons have prevented another catastrophic world war for 63 years now. If you stuff the nuclear genie back in the bottle and cork it, what’s to prevent the even more awful World War genie from popping out? Comments like this suggest this guy Gration is a naif at best and a moral idiot at worst. Not good, not good at all.
> …They don’t _want_ to do real X-vehicles.
well they like X vehicles and technology demostrators, its the idea CATS RLVs that gets them runnig screaming nito the streets. A nice endless research program, or redoing old programs with less economical options (to keep the budgets up) suits them best.
I am ambivalent about nuclear weapons. They clearly have reduced the number and intensity of wars. However, in turn they have a chance of causing harm far in excess of what a conventional world war could do. For example, a full blown nuclear war between the US and Russia back in the 70’s (complete with targeting of potential allies, nuclear winter, and knocking back potential frontrunners in the post-war period) could kill several times more people than have died in war throughout history. Just because it didn’t happen doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened.
I see part of the problem simply that a lot of people consider only one side or the other. We have this weapon that provides a considerable peace benefit over a considerable period of time, but has a colossal downside.
As many others have indicated, a complete elimination of nuclear weapons is unrealistic. Many countries are larger economically than the US was in 1945 with similar or better technology. That means that they have the resources to develope nuclear weapons completely from scratch. That’s without smuggling in technology banned under proliferation agreements or conning someone into building a nuclear plant for you.
Similarly, the continued existence of nuclear weapons is going to require some changes in current treaty. For example, it simply isn’t possible in my view to maintain reliable nuclear weapons indefinitely without some sort of nuclear weapon testing on occasion. It doesn’t have to be frequent or even done on Earth, but nuclear deterence requires a reliable arsenal in order to work.
Er, Karl, nuclear weapons keep the peace precisely because they have catastrophic consequences for both user and usee.
Consider the history of Pakistan and India. They fought three wars over the Kashmir before they both got nukes. Since then, zip. They don’t dare fight a war now, at least not a serious one, because each holds the other’s major cities hostage.
It’s not a happy and worry-free situation, to live under the threat of nuclear annihilation. But liberty and being worry-free have always tended to be strictly exchangeable goods. You get one, or the other, but not both.
Carl, my point is that most people simply are not taking into account all the costs and benefits. The Pax Atomica is not a straightforward calculation, peace in exchange for a vague threat of atomic annihilation. Things can go wrong. Villains and the ambitious push the boundaries. Confidence can be misplaced, too little confidence in nuclear defenses can be as bad as too much.
And while happiness is overrated, I think there’s negative psychological consequences to societies living for generations under the threat of nuclear war.
Mr Freeman – You have a very good point, although the ESA at least has a working launcher, one that could with little effort be converted to launch astronauts. Incidentally, to go on from your point, the Chinese (and even the Japanese, who usually get done what they want to do) have space programs.
I might have said something like this: The US government seems bound and determined to keep humans out of space, except for handfuls of highly-trained specialists lifted up there at immense cost to do nothing in particular. (Insert my stuff about American hegemony here.) This is yet another case of American arrogance leading them to ignore the fact that they are not the only country with engineers, when making policy. The eventual consequence of this may well be not the prevention of humanity in space, but the prevention of Americans there.
It seems more likely by the year that the dominant language of the Solar System will be an Asian tongue; maybe Japanese, probably Mandarin, possibly a creole of both. And English won’t get a look-in. And it will be NASA’s fault.
> I might have said something like this: The US government seems bound and determined to keep humans out of space, except for handfuls of highly-trained specialists lifted up there at immense cost to do nothing in particular. (Insert my stuff about American hegemony here.) This is yet another case of American arrogance leading them to ignore the fact that they are not the only country with engineers, when making policy. The eventual consequence of this may well be not the prevention of humanity in space, but the prevention of Americans there.
Except that “bound and determined” consists of “not doing it themselves”.
The US isn’t doing anything to stop non-Americans from going into space.
I realize that FC feels the need to explain why the EU has no accomplishments to speak of, but “The Americans did it” isn’t actually true.
While FC seems to think that the US’ unwillingness to do as he’d like is “American hegemony”, he’s wrong.
Carl, would you want to tell the people killed by a Pakistani death squad last week in Mumbai how good their situation is now that both sides have nuclear weapons?
Or talk about how free they are?
Mr Freeman, I entirely agree with you about the EU’s inactivity. (Strictly speaking it’s the ESA, which includes countries not in the EU.) The trouble is that ESA is severely infected with the same sort of bureaucratic mindset that infests everything else the EU does.
Incidentally, I am one of those that think the UK ought to leave the EU right now. All the EU does for us is create miles of red tape and make everything cost more. But there is only one of me. And the UK is simply not big enough for its own space programme. Apart from anything else, where the heck would we launch from?
Interestingly enough, the ESA has in fact built and launched quite a few robot spacecraft – and intends in the very near future to launch its own version of the GPS system; the USA were, publicly, very unhappy about that. Apparently the American military doesn’t like the idea of not being able to cause global commercial chaos at a whim. However, the ESA has told them where to stick their objections. And rightly so.
At present the ESA has no man-rated spacecraft – quite true. How many has the USA got right now? And how many billions of dollars and how many months does it take to launch one? I believe that the total Shuttle ground crew is about 30,000. Ridiculous.
In any case, the ESA is a sideshow here. Worry more about the Chinese and the Japanese – and even, catching up rapidly, the Indians. Perhaps they are doing quite well, despite much less resources, because they don’t spend 95% of the budget buying votes for elected officials. Perhaps, also, the USA ought to stop doing that.
Disband the NASA space programme, and put the money into large cash prizes for clearly defined milestone tasks. It will never happen. After all, that approach won’t create jobs at the gift of any Congressmen – and even worse; it might actually work.
> and intends in the very near future to launch its own version of the GPS system; the USA were, publicly, very unhappy about that.
So what?
FC thinks that the US is stopping other folks from doing things, but “the US was unhappy” is his evidence.
No matter what you’re thinking about doing, someone will be unhappy. That doesn’t mean that said someone is stopping you from doing said something.
The US isn’t stopping anyone from doing a space program. It isn’t stopping the EU or the UK from growing a pair and doing things.