Jeff Foust has a good roundup of the critical issues that are becoming more urgent (what to do about Shuttle and Constellation) and the current rumors.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s a lot more from Chris Bergin. This seems like great news, if true:
General Peter Worden, Director of NASA’s Ames Research Center (ARC), will also spearhead a NASA review, which is deemed to have “wide scope” – likely to include shuttle extension – while a main body “Blue Ribbon Panel” will work with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in Washington, possibly overseeing all of the studies.
Jim Muncy was hinting at this a couple weeks ago at Space Access. What I don’t understand is what’s been taking them so long to get this under way. It could have happened back in February, and they’d be done by now.
It is not appropriate to use Dr. Worden’s military rank designation in these articles.
Is the proper use of the honorific only used within a military context?
In other news it appears that SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corp got the nod for the ISS Commerical Resupply contracts…GAO denied PlanetSpace’s Jan09 award protest.
Sounds like good news for commerical space…
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/04/planetspace_cot.html
Is the proper use of the honorific only used within a military context?
If you are going to use his military honorific you have to use (ret) after using his rank. For his current position at NASA it is more appropriate to use his academic honorific of Dr.
It would be unfortunate to have idiots use the “general” as a means to personally attack him or NASA for having a military officer in charge, which is most certainly is not anymore.
Also, the protocol for the use of rank depends upon whether the communication is written or verbal; formal or informal.
I agree, for clarity, Dr. Worden is a better option.
If he were addressing the Association of the US Army (AUSA), then the proper introduction would be ( ) General Peter Worden, USAF(?), Retired.
A bit cumbersome, but that is the nature of protocol.
Well, actually it would be General Simon P. Worden, USAF (ret).
Well, actually it would be [Brigadier] General Simon P. Worden, USAF (ret).
🙂
Shouldn’t it be Dr Simon Worden (Brigadier General-Ret USAF). The Military Rank is a life title, but because he is out of service it goes after the name?
How about Brig. Gen. Dr. Simon P. Worden (USAF-Ret.)? That would follow compounding protocols applied to, say, “Rev. Dr.” Martin Luther King, Jr., and British military officers with titles of nobility “Col. Sir John Smith.”
I hope not, McGehee. Otherwise, he could become a knighted minister and confound us all.
Hmmm. “The Rev. Sir General…”
Actually – I prefer the title “Pete” — 🙂
Try living your life with your first two initials M and D.
The doctor jokes never get old…………………………………………………
Well, It’s a good thing you stepped in Pete.
This was quickly headed in the direction of a new Monty Python skit.