Mike Griffin doesn't read blogs.

On the surface, I'm sure that he could make a good argument for why he shouldn't, that many would find compelling. He's a busy guy, he's got plenty of other things that he needs to read, why waste time watching a bunch of Interweb people arguing about stuff they know nothing about, yada, yada.

The problem is that, in the twenty-first century, if you ignore the blogosphere, you can get blind sided, as more than a few Senators discovered yesterday.

The administrator may not think much of what people are saying out here, but that doesn't mean that there's no significance to it, or that it has no effect on policy and public mood. The blogosphere, and that includes the space blogosphere, may not have as large a readership as the Washington Post, but its readership is not without influence. Congressional staffers read it, and when they do, and read about problems that they're not necessarily hearing about from NASA, they have to wonder if they're getting the straight story when Code L comes up to the Hill. What's being said in the blogs is often a canary in a coal mine of a potential political imbroglio, that is ignored at a bureaucrat's, or politician's peril.

If Mike isn't reading blogs, he'd better make sure that someone he knows and trusts is, and is keeping him abreast.

Of course, some companies are trying to support internal blogs. For research, this isn't too bad, but for most things, it falls flat. Few companies want to follow the daily ups and downs of employees, and few employees really want to put them out there. And who really wants to read their bosses opinion daily?

So careful about coercing Griffin into reading blogs, because it might cause a foolish endeavor.

Opinions and personal blogging is one thing .. but not reading HobbySpace or Cosmic Log is basically saying "no, i dont read news".
Because lots of relevant bits of news come there first and often never hit any mainstream publication.
Maybe Griffin doesnt consider Masten or Armadillo tests relevant news, but this only works towards making their own agency more irrelevant in the future.

This is just my opinion, but I think smart company executives DO read blogs. They just don't post much. :)

This is just my opinion, but I think smart company executives DO read blogs.

I agree, Dan. I'm just not sure whether you're saying that Mike is lying, or not smart... ;-)

Why should he bother reading blogs? All that he'll "learn" is that he's considered to be a useless waste of taxpayer's money and that we'd all be better off if he ordered a mass suicide at NASA and then jumped off the IDRF. NASA can never do anything, he'll learn, and the geek culture hates it and wishes it would go away. Private Space uber alles!

.
.
.

if Mr. Griffin doesn't (really) read space blogs, I can just be SORRY for him, since, on the web, there are lots of interesting ideas ...some of which could solve his (Ares, Orion, LAS, etc.) problems... :) :) :) ...like this: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/031easyways.html

"I agree, Dan. I'm just not sure whether you're saying that Mike is lying, or not smart... ;-)"

Rand, I did not intend to say or imply anything about Mr Griffin in that post, who may read more than he admits. My comment was directed toward the company executives that I personally know, who do read blogs but don't post much.

Marano:

Space blogs are going to have to start spam filtering messages for your domain name, buddy.

Good save, Dan. ;-)

.

the chiefs of big companies, that are supposed to be the "best guys" for their jobs (and very well paid to be that...) NEVER can admit they read websites, blogs and forums to search opinions, suggestions and ideas... :) :) :)

“as more than a few Senators discovered yesterday”
Yes I agree that the “blogosphere” and talk radio were useful and even correct when it came to that rotten immigration bill.

But then there’s this. http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/031easyways.html
Look how smart and important the “blogosphere” is when it comes to real engineering. Someone draws a dotted line and says “see how stupid NASA is”? I wonder if the author took into account the avionics in that section, and did the CFD analysis to prove transonic stability of the suggested design? I pointed this out about the “lunar direct”? concept when it was being circulated on the “blogosphere” and I was later proved right with the creators of the concept admitting they were wrong. You can have an opinion about politics but not about physics, which supports ignoring the “blogosphere” when it comes to space/science.

Unfortunately the average politician is scientifically ignorant. I saw an article around 1984 about an Ohio senator (not John Glenn) that under public pressure (“blogosphere”) tried to introduce a bill to force the patent office to grant a patent for a perpetual motion machine invented by someone in his district as a solution to the energy crises.

Look how smart and important the “blogosphere” is when it comes to real engineering.

Yes, of course. Because there are idiots in the blogosphere, we must ignore the entire thing. Just as because the Weekly World News exists, no print media is to be trusted.

Did you ever take a course in logic?

That was a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious...

Did you ever take a course in logic?

One way to prove that a theorem is false is to give an example where the theorem fails. Have you ever taken a math course?

I have proven more than 1 internet rocketeer wrong so it would be folly to take much of it seriously. I use wikipedia once in a while for general curiosity, but since I have found at least 1 error in it I won’t use it to design something where a person’s life is on the line. Only a fool would use the blogs to make important decisions about math or science

One way to prove that a theorem is false is to give an example where the theorem fails. Have you ever taken a math course

What "theorem" did you prove is false?

I guess you answered my question. You haven't taken a course in logic. Or if you did, you flunked.

Here in Florida, you have to take a course in logic to pass the CLAST. That's a test you take in community college to get your Associates Degree.

Anyway, the first thing that went through my mind when I read about this guy who doesn't read blogs was "don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do..." In this case, though, is there really anything inside?

In a way one can have symphathy for Dr. Griffin. There is a lot of noise in the blogosphere that would just be a waste of time for someone of his paygrade to try to sift through. I do agree with Rand, though, that Griffin needs to task someone (if he has not already) to do it for him.

Of course, some of us bloggers also write for the MSM (g).

.
.
.

to brian d.

I agree that th web is full of stupid ideas, but this is not the case of MY ideas...

just a few examples of MANY other I've collected in last two years:

this is MY "FAST-SLV" published in MAY 12, 2006:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html

well, I'm sure you know the NASA "Stumpy" rumored in JULY 2006 and the "Direct Launcher" published on NSF four months LATER in AUGUST 2006 (that the powerful "Direct-Lobby" promotes EVERYWHERE)

also assuming there was not any "inspiration" from my idea... the last two designs clearly show that I was RIGHT and my idea was GOOD

2nd example, the "underside-LAS":

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/020newLAS.html

four months after my proposal, NASA has published this study about the ALAS:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070018751_2007018905.pdf

as you can see from the pictures in the NASA document, the ALAS has a big FARING that forces the abort motor's thrust from the top of the LAS to the bottom of the Orion's Service Module, so, in both (ALAS and underside-LAS) systems, the Orion capsule (on abort) is NOT "dragged" from the top, but "pushed" from the bottom (like happen with rockets)

the only difference between my underside-LAS and the ALAS is that MY design is ways simpler, safer, cheaper and lighter than ALAS... :)

the 3rd (and most incredible) example is MY "Orioncopter":

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/025orioncopter.html

well, it could seem a too complex and useless idea... but, just a week ago, Jeff Hagen has sent me a mail with a link to a 2005 AIAA document (with lots of drawings and data!) where the Orioncopter (called "Rotocapsule") was evaluated and studied AT SCIENTIFIC LEVEL

well, I've NOT just "drawn a dotted line" NOR said “see how stupid NASA is”

my proposal is only the latest of a series of article (that will continue) with suggestions and ideas about how to design a simpler, lighter, better, safer and cheaper Orion, LAS, Ares-I, etc. (that, of course, need studies and tests to work)

last, I've to say to you (and to some "anonymous" that post insults against me) that comments about how "stupid" (or, at least, "not engineered") are my ideas have ZERO EFFECT on me since I will ALWAYS publish my past and future ideas on my website and write threads, posts and comments about them on all free and democratic forums and blogs that accept to publish my alternative opinions and proposals (so, don't lose your time)

I'm not at all surprised Dr. Griffin doesn't read blogs. My guess is this is just a symptom of a personal outlook that is focused more on how things were done in the past. He probably decided decades ago what news sources he likes, and he's sticking to them. After a point you've found what works for you, and you've made up your mind and no longer want to change, but the world keeps changing anyway. This is similar to the general ESAS approach, which seems to some to be anachronistic, not so much in its technology, but in its approach to dealing with private industry.

It's probably also a symptom of a personal outlook that favors the big versus the small. This outlook may lead one to believe that the big city newspaper is better than the small blog, the big Orion is better than a cheap but cramped 2-person transport; and the big aerospace contractor is better than the small entrepreneurial company.

None of this is flat-out wrong; there are certainly cases where you want the big, official, traditional news source (or space vehicle architecture, or cost-plus contract approach). There are plenty of cases where you don't, too. For thorough space news, something that should be a requirement for Dr. Griffin's job, I found traditional media to be lacking even before blogs existed. It's important, but it still needs to be supplemented in a major way by the blogs, which often are quicker, take a few chances for a potentially big payoff, or go into more detail on a space topic. The same is true, I think, with the VSE and the space industry in general. We need the big aerospace contractors, but alone they are totally inadequate. We also need the quick, or risk-taking, or specialist entrepreneurs in a big way.

A smart person (and Dr. Griffin is very smart) should be able to figure out these personal biases, and compensate for them. Let's hope that's happening (or will happen).

I'm surprised that Griffin doesn't atleast have a couple dozen RSS feeds from the interesting sites. It would take all of five minutes a week to skim.