This looks like an interesting new book:

Though the Lunar Prospector Mission was a small, inexpensive, unmanned, orbital mapping mission, the reader will, via the author's experiences in conducting his mission, become intimately acquainted with the inefficient and self-serving activities of the entrenched NASA bureaucracy and the big aerospace companies. As such, the reader will come to understand how NASA's increasing incompetence led to 1) the destruction of the space shuttles Challenger and Columbia and their crews, 2) the loss of the 1992 Mars Observer, the 1999 Mars Climate Observer, the 1999 Mars Polar Lander, 3) the never-to-be-finished International Space Station that is already five times over its $8 billion budget and a decade over its original schedule, and 4) many similar NASA failures that have cost the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and have already taken 14 human lives.

[Sunday night update]

Keith Cowing isn't impressed.

Any chance of the new NASA director using Dr Pinder as an example to be aspired to?

Nasa and the big aerospace companies inefficient and self serving? I'm SHOCKED! Shocked I say!

I suggest a better book would be one by Dave Thompson, who founded Spectrum Astro. He would have a lot more interesting things to say about NASA, the Air Force and government procurment policies and their corruption by the large corporations.

As a promotional blurb, one expects it to lay things on a little thick. But this one seems so exaggerated that it borders on hyperbole. One could start with the fact that Binder tried for over a decade to secure private funding for his spacecraft and failed. The only reason he got to fly his spacecraft was because of NASA. And now he turns around and bites the hand that fed him?

Furthermore, is it really fair to tie together disparate events over 20 years and hold them up as "proof" that the entire agency is completely and fatally flawed? This promotional blurb, at least, seems to imply that NASA is allowed _no_ failures at all, as if total perfection is what one expects from spaceflight. How would the author fare if the spotlight was turned back on him? Does he, for instance, have a perfect driving record since 1986?

This is not to say that the book may not illuminate many things. But the language in the blurb is rabid and ultimately may not be as effective as it could otherwise be. (I might also add that people who choose to throw stones in promotional blurbs should check their spelling...)

NASA Watch sounds a little less than enthusiastic about the book.

Rand-

As your official IE beta tester, I'm letting you know that the "Sunday night update" didn't go too well from an IE perspective. Looks like you fat-fingered a "-" in your target call, instead of an "=".

I think Keith should give the guy a break. lf NASA did all the things Binder outlined to you, you might find it hard to write about NASA in moderate terms too.

The problem is, like all books with that strong of an opinoin, the vast majority of readers are going to be people who already agree with the author's premise. You don't really spread your message and gain readership by publishing an 1100 page rant.

You need to lull the average reader into the fold with a more moderate opinion, and, likely, a smaller book.

It sounds like the author could have used a disciplined coauthor or ghost writer. Like me, for example. Seriously.

I have given talks on the very real problems in space industry. For instance, there is a runaway authoritarianism in some parts of aerospace. No, not everywhere, but enough to do real damage.

Perhaps because I have a certain moderation in my demeanor, my talks were well received -- even by a few NASA civil servants and contractors.

I'm very interested in what Griffin will do. He has a reputation of being a straight shooter (as well as an extremely bright Renaissance man) at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and elsewhere.

O'Keefe did a good job of starting reform at NASA as far as I can tell. Only starting? Yes. I've heard enough rumors that suggest there's a long way to go. Some people doubt that reform will succeed. Some are people in the "establishment."

I just listened to Binder's interview on The Space Show (www.thespaceshow.com) last week and am not terribly impressed.

First of all, note that this is a 1100 page book. That's not a book, it's a telephone directory. Does anyone really believe that there is that much to be said about Lunar Prospector, probably one of the smallest missions flown in the last 15 years?

Add to that the fact that the book appears to be produced by a vanity press. Has anybody heard of "Ken Press" before? Try a Google search on it.

When asked by the host on The Space Show why the book is so long, Binder said that it was _impossible_ to write a shorter book. To anybody who knows anything about writing and editing books, that kind of statement is automatically suspect. It sounds as if the writer has a muddled message, no self-discipline, and no idea how to communicate. In his interview, Binder also said several times that he is not a writer and "hates to write." Does that sound encouraging? Do people who hate writing produce good books?

Binder made a few comments early on in the show that make it sound like his biggest beef with NASA is that they would not let him run his spacecraft program all by himself, without any government oversight. Speaking as an American taxpayer, all I can say is that I'm sure glad that there WAS government oversight. Binder can rant all he wants about how terrible NASA is, but would we prefer that the agency handed him $63 million in cash in suitcases and not asked any questions? It really sounds like he is mad because he came up with the idea but that in order to make it happen he had to give up control.

Some of his claims on the radio show make no sense. For instance, several times he claims that "private" spacecraft can be built and flown for perhaps 20% of what NASA does. That is simply not believable in this case. LP's costs were:

Mission development: $34 million
Launch vehicle: $25 million
Operations: $4 million

Forty percent of the mission was launch costs. How could Binder have conceivably done this mission with total costs less than the launch vehicle?

Binder also has a lot to say about Michael Griffin, who he tried to get to fund his mission in the early 1990s. But some of his comments appear to be ad hominem (his comment that Griffin is a guy who "couldn't hold a job very long"--er, yeah, except that he keeps getting promoted), whereas many of them make Binder appear to be one of those people who is incapable of understanding that there may be two sides to an argument. He seemed to be unwilling to try and view anybody else's point of view--they opposed him, so they were wrong.

Some of his statements about Griffin can only really be checked by talking to Griffin. But other things he said were flat out wrong. For instance, twice he claimed that NASA's Space Exploration Initiative was "driven into the ground" because Griffin produced a program that cost $500 billion. He needs to check his facts on that, because Griffin did not come to NASA until 1991, and he was essentially brought in to _save_ the exploration initiative.

Phil Mellifen's comments are most interesting. I didn't hear The Space Show. I prefer getting news and commentary via reading. It's faster, easier on bandwidth and more informative.

There are lots of control freaks in NASA and elsewhere. They don't seem to get along well with anyone else. They don't listen to others. They create little fiefdoms and are surprised when failure occurs. They blame failure on other people.

I'm sometimes critical of NASA. But I don't want a space agency where petty little tyrants are given freedom to do whatever they want at everybody else's expense. I want a space agency that works with others to build a healthy space industry.

"I didn't hear The Space Show. I prefer getting news and commentary via reading. It's faster, easier on bandwidth and more informative."

Binder's book is an 1100-page one. The Space Show is one hour long. If you can read it in under an hour, then that's the way to go. But I suggest listening to the show.

Or at least look at Binder's website. Note that his "staff" is identical to his "board of directors."