I don't know if NASA attracts douchebags or turns people into douchebags or both, but this story does not surprise me at all.

Yes, once again I am embarrassing my husband...

Don't worry. Samuel Alito's wife knows just how you feel. Boo hoo hoo. As does Lynne Cheney's, whose daughter was called a lesbian by John Kerry. Why can't people just focus on your feelings.

and of course ALL of his speeches are available for free at http://www.nasa.gov/news/speeches/admin/index.html

but the best part about the NASA website is the obligatory standard official portrait photo of Griffin, accompanied by a link "Click photo to download 8.8 Mb high resolution version." - because we all need a 8.8Mb high resolution photo of the guy.

Sounds like this particular Bushie has some serious ego issues...

The article mentions that NASA mailed his book at $6.75 a package, but it doesn't mention how many were mailed and to whom--an irritating omission. As it says, printing the book, while tacky, isn't completely out of line, but if he's sending copies to administration officials as part of his lobbying effort--that is, using government resources for his personal ends--that's a firing offense in any job. Even if his obstruction of the transition and climate change denial weren't enough to justify showing him the door (and they are), this is.

It is hard to find a NASA administrator in the best of times. Obama is decidedly indifferent to space. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire agency is broken up and sold for scrap.

On the other hand as a child of the 60s I am a space nut and love NASA and nearly all of its programs. I would love to see a more aggressive and focused approach. The problem is that politics between the robotic scientists and the proponents of human exploration is among the most bitter and destructive of the politics of any agency.

This ridiculous refusal by repug political appointees to acknowledge or accept that such appointments automatically end with the end of the appointing authority's term in office is also widespread here in Kentucky.

It is made worse by the reluctance - of Kentucky's new Democratic Governor Beshear as well as President-elect Obama - to clean house immediately, firing every political appointee of the previous administration.

They're welcome to re-apply, of course, but they'll be judged the same as every other applicant.

And yes, voter registration and history WILL be checked and taken into account.

I have a feeling that doctoring the books to conceal whatever illegal gifts Griffin accepted from defense contractors is taking a little longer than he expected.

As a child of the 60s myself, I remember the manned and unmanned missions of that era fondly - Ranger and Surveyor as well as Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. Tops on the list: hearing the astronauts reading Genesis from lunar orbit on Christmas Eve, 1968.

But I don't see any clear purpose, any meaningful mission, for manned spaceflight in this era. We've shown once that we could get to the moon, and if we ever needed to get back, we could presumably do a crash program to get us there in 2-3 years.

But we don't need to put boots on the moon, or Mars, or even Earth orbit, really. All the science is being done by unmanned satellites and probes. Sure, we can send a human into space to repair the Hubble 'scope, but we can build and launch a new one for the same price.

Manned flight is a particularly expensive boondoggle. Let's give it up, increase the unmanned space budget by 50%, and put the rest of the manned-program savings to work down here.

Ron Byers: "The problem is that politics between the robotic scientists and the proponents of human exploration is among the most bitter and destructive of the politics of any agency."

This is a problem mainly because the human "exploration" side hasn't been destroyed yet. They have become so focused on doing what it takes to complete their mission that they have entirely lost touch with their purpose. NASA has a fearsome PR machine and they are expert at extracting dollars for their human spaceflight programs, but they can no longer remember why they are doing it.

When a group of people go to a president they know to be a moron and tell him a flagrant lie (a permanent moonbase makes a Mars mission easier) they no longer deserve to be called scientists. They are self-serving bureaucrats stealing money from taxpayers.

Here's hoping the scientists regain control of the agency when douchebag Griffin is finally gone.

Clueless, arrogant egotists with a completely unrealistic sense of their own importance and worth.

Is this just another example of Bush administration appointees taking their cues from the top?

Fire this unqualified poser immediately, publicly, and with prejudice. Do it in a way that makes clear that Obama appreciates the faithful service of all the dedicated hardworking scientists who have been embarrassed by Griffin's neocon hissy fits and unprofessionalism.

skeptic

You are right to conclude humans are unnecessary in space, but without Buck Rogers there are no bucks for the robots and there never have been. If the robotic scientists win, NASA will be scrapped.

skeptic

I reread your post and apologize for assuming you oppose all human exploration. You didn't say that. My basic position still stands. Without Buck Rogers there are no bucks for NASA.

Whooo! Maybe they ought to change the locks before this bag of bananas does something really crazy.

Kathy Griffin has made herself available.

NASA needs the same sort of high-end clearing out as EPA--far too many scientists and far too much data have been muzzled for far too long. Griffin has too much blood on his hands to be kept on.

Who was the Skippy with a fake degree Bush appointed as head of NASA public affairs as a reward for his stellar (hah) campaign work? The one who made everyone use air quotes when saying "big bang"? Oh yea, George Deutsch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Deutsch

Be gone, the lot of you.

"Without Buck Rogers there are no bucks for NASA."

Not to mention that if human beings aren't in space a thousand years from now, they probably won't be on Earth either. I don't think even the most irrational, gaia-worshipping environmentalist really wants to consider what it means to humanity and the planet if we're just stuck here until the end of time.

Mike

Ron Byers: No apology necessary, you correctly concluded that I oppose human "exploration." I think we should splash that stupid space station into the Pacific next week.

Your argument for continuing human spaceflight is the best one going, much better than the "spinoff technology" justification, though I still find it unpersuasive. I believe we would find the dollars for Astronomy Picture of the Day and Mars rovers even if we didn't have a shuttle blow up every few years.

I certainly don't buy the argument advanced by MBunge, that humans will be either living in space or extinct in 1000 years if we don't keep funding NASA's human spaceflight boondoggles. If we go extinct, so be it, that wouldn't be the first time. But the idea that our species is so stupid that we will destroy the planet but clever enough to live on another planet with no food, water or air is just plain ridiculous.

Whatever the survival plan is for our Mars colonization, we can do it much easier by going under the oceans -- no radiation, no micrometeorites, and no expensive travel costs. If escaping the planet by going underwater sounds stupid, then escaping the planet to another planet is a million times more so.

I find it interesting that the administrator of one of the government agencies we most expect to be familiar with cutting-edge science and technology actually had books of his speeches printed, and physically mailed. How embarrassing. I mean, seriously. I guess he could be forgiven for not just emailing a link to the online versions, but not even a DVD of the speeches on video? Books? With text? Not even hyperlinked?

I'm sorry, but NASA needs to get with the program. Space food sticks and TANG were great, but jeez, books?

one wag said "the only thing left is to stencil mike griffin on the side of the shuttle."

one artist (skippy's) interpretation here.

Dump the space station and we could save a hundred billion dollars or so. The damn thing's worthless and everyone knows it's just a money pit, taking funds from far more worthwhile projects with actual scientific value -- such as a new, improved Hubble or another Jupiter probe.

See ms to me that Griffin, et al. are setting up a "stabbed in the back" scenario, as keystone cops as their methodology may be. Just another highly implausible (yet all the more 'real' for being so; remember we're talking about Repukelicans here) 'slight' the Christianists will have to endure. Poor, persecuted peebles. Is there any end to their travails?

Dear Senator Obama, Please let my husband keep his job. I really hate to cook.

Laura Bush

> Dump the space station and we could save a
> hundred billion dollars or so. The damn thing's
> worthless and everyone knows it's just a money
> pit,

The purpose of continuing the space station program under Bill Clinton was neither science nor adventure, but to give Russian (that is, ex-Soviet) rocket scientists something to do (and some US dollar supplements to their salaries) so they wouldn't go off to North Korea, Iran, or the PRC looking for employment.

Cranky

It may be a little odd or desperate, but it is certainly not creepy. Come on. Creepy is Tentacle rape or shokushu goukan in hentai porn. Creepy is the weird uncle at Christmas who drinks too much and sits disturbingly close to the kids.

"Mike ought to play it the way (retained Defense Secretary) Bob Gates is playing it, which is to shut up," Mark said.

I don't think that would help any because the main reason that Gates was kept on is that he is competent and doing a decent job. That description does not fit the present NASA administrator.

Dump the space station and we could save a hundred billion dollars or so. The damn thing's worthless and everyone knows it's just a money pit, taking funds from far more worthwhile projects with actual scientific value -- such as a new, improved Hubble or another Jupiter probe

Um, how much do you think NASA's yearly budget is? If we assumed that ALL of NASA's budget went to ISS, it would take seven years to save us "a hundred billion dollars". That's scrapping NASA entirely -- from ISS to Shuttle to all flight centers, science centers, firing every scientist, engineer, closing every center, and just pink slipping and fire-saleing any employee, contractor, or asset out there.

NASA's budget is peanuts. We spent more a year in Iraq than NASA spends in a decade, and even if we agree manned space-flight is a pointless boondoggle, you end up keeping a few hundred thousand engineers, scientists, and whatnot gainfully employed doing fairly useful work -- lots of fun spinoffs come out of NASA-funded labs, both associated and unassociated with the manned side of the mission.

It's weird to hear people talk about all the wasted money spent on manned space flight, but placed in context with the entire budget -- it's nothing. You'd save more money a year by scrapping a single useless military project.

NASA's yearly budget is about 15 billion -- which is a fraction of it's Apollo-era resources, and a non-existant amount of the federal budget. We spend more on ludicrous Star Wars systems, more on next-gen subs and fighters we don't need, more on weapons systems that won't work, more on farm bills that are basically corporate give-aways, more on practically EVERYTHING ELSE.

NASA would love better leadership. They'd also love more money, since they're pretty much last in freakin' line when the dough is handled out. It's amazing they get as much done as they do.

Do the Griffins have kids?

Because that's the way to go to impress people. Get some young kids on camera, crying and sobbing and pleading "Please don't fire my Dad!" For that extra touch, dress them in rags, and touch them up with makeup to make them look underfed.

I don't know if NASA attracts douchebags or turns people into douchebags or both, but this story does not surprise me at all.
Posted by: skeptic
NASA must be something like the Kennedy family.