Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: belleraphon1 Mar 26 2008, 03:19 PM

All...

have no idea why.... ?????

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080326-sn-stern-resigns.html

Craig

Posted by: djellison Mar 26 2008, 03:30 PM

Alan's resigned! I didn't see that coming. He's done a lot in the short time at the helm. I wouldn't be suprised if the recent Mars program issues are somehow involved- but I'm not going to try and second guess his reasons. Should make todays science briefing on NTV interesting. (March 26, Wednesday 2 p.m. - NASA Science News Conference - HQ (Media Channel)

Posted by: imipak Mar 26 2008, 03:33 PM

<speculation type="shameless">
Can't help noticing the correlatation with the bizarre MER budget shenanigans. Correlation != causation, of course, but... it's certainly interesting times for the bureaucracy.

8.

Posted by: remcook Mar 26 2008, 03:37 PM

strange, because it looked like he was doing a really good job...

Posted by: ugordan Mar 26 2008, 04:55 PM

Well, this sucks.

That's putting it short.

Posted by: rlorenz Mar 26 2008, 05:30 PM

No good deed goes unpunished.

Posted by: djellison Mar 26 2008, 06:05 PM

Two posts moved to http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=5039&st=60&start=60

Posted by: tedstryk Mar 26 2008, 07:48 PM

This is very sad. If a certain camp that gave him hell to try to exempt their fiefdom from the budget strain that NASA's entire scientific program suddenly finds itself worse off thanks to their having run off the best science chief NASA has had in years, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

Posted by: Greg Hullender Mar 26 2008, 11:05 PM

Here's the offical announcement, for what it's worth.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/mar/HQ_08088_SMD_AA_change.html

I guess I didn't want to believe it until I found it on NASA's site. :-(

--Greg

Posted by: nprev Mar 27 2008, 12:32 AM

Very bad news indeed, but can't blame him at all.

There is nothing as unpleasant to many people as giving up field work in order to navigate the always-stormy seas of departmental politics and stakeholder relations. Hell, I spend half my time fantasizing about quitting & picking up a toolbox on a flightline again!

I speculate that this also may have been the case for Alan; can't imagine going from the excitement of building, launching, and flying NH to presiding over constant squabbles and ulcer-making dilemmas. Administrative work can suck the life out of you; the first thing to go is the joy of getting up in the morning and looking forward to going in, which is a profound loss.

I wish him all the best, and can only the echo the comments of others: he did an extremely good job during his tenure.

Posted by: Stephen Mar 27 2008, 01:37 AM

Space.com has an http://www.space.com/news/080326-weiler-interview.html on his new posting. He wisely sidesteps a couple of potholes placed in his path by his interviewer (eg Space.com. "Does the sudden leadership change at SMD have anything to do with this week's budget fight over the Mars rovers?" Weiler: "That's the kind of question that only Alan Stern, Mike Griffin or Chris Scolese can answer. I don't travel in those circles.") while being openly supportive of some of Stern's initiatives and non-committal on others.

======
Stephen

Posted by: nprev Mar 27 2008, 02:00 AM

Looked like some pretty straight talk from Mr. Weiler; he's clearly experienced in this realm. Not a job I'd want, though.

On a personal note, this whole event is making me rethink my own career goals VERY seriously...

Posted by: Greg Hullender Mar 27 2008, 03:41 AM

Become a "gentleman scholar." I'm ready to start a club. :-)

Seriously, I find myself wondering if the truth is that Alan perceived that Spirit (at least) and maybe Opportunity too have long passed the point where they're returning significant new science. I have seen this in projects I've worked on in the past -- where people confused the collection of new data with collection of new information. Certainly someone once thought that 90 days of data from those two would be enough to declare success, and that was with all the instruments working. Maybe spending at least some of the money on something new really IS the best idea.

Anyway, what this feels like to me is that Alan made a hard call, Squyres took it to the public, and Griffin didn't back Alan up. So Alan did the honorable thing and quit. I don't like to think that -- Squyres is someone I admire too -- but that's what it looks like to me.

I guess I really don't know enough one way or the other whether the rovers are really past their "sell-by" dates. I do know, though, that if I heard that from Alan Stern, I'd believe it completely.

--Greg

Posted by: dvandorn Mar 27 2008, 03:56 AM

At the STS-123 post-landing press conference, Mike Griffin was asked about the MER situation and about Stern's resignation. I won't even try to paraphrase from memory what Griffin said, but the gist of it was that, first, he had tried to talk Stern into staying. "I didn't see any reason why he had to leave," is what I believe Griffin said about it. But he said that Stern disagreed, and so Griffin accepted it and allowed Stern to resign.

He then said that the letter to JPL announcing the MER and Odyssey budget cuts had not been run past him, had not been reviewed by him, and had not been approved by him. He said that if he had been consulted, there would never have been any kind of dust-up because the letter never would have gone out. Griffin said rather strongly that he doesn't approve of shutting down working spacecraft that are still returning good data.

-the other Doug

Posted by: ElkGroveDan Mar 27 2008, 04:07 AM

Knowing Alan as a sensible doing-more-for-less kind of manager, I don't think he would have suggested an extreme or damaging proposal. I think your scenario is close, but more likely Alan proposed targeted reductions in funding with a plan to get more science out of fewer dollars. Then someone affected went public spinning it as "shutting down a rover" when in fact the plan was far less draconian than that. Then, as you say, if Griffin didn't back him or defend him he would have chosen to step down. I do believe however that whatever was proposed was subject to interpretation. There are always two sides to a story, and I've grown to appreciate Alan Stern's good sense, so that's why I think there's a bit more to it.

Posted by: stevesliva Mar 27 2008, 05:49 AM

I'd guess that it's more shades of grey. Does it really take so large a staff to run 0.5 nonstationary rovers? Shouldn't there be some increasing efficiencies as things get more mature and the capabilities get smaller? Does a cut really mean that they can't operate Spirit? Or does it mean they have to operate more efficiently (fewer people)?

Posted by: brellis Mar 27 2008, 05:58 AM

Bottom line - they're trying to do a lot with not enough money.

Posted by: djellison Mar 27 2008, 08:07 AM

No - they really were getting ready to put a full hibernation plan into place, which would have been sent up next week. I have no doubt about that. People were figuring out how to do MER part time and work on something else as well to help with the money to reliable keep things going.

And lest we forget, there was an impact on Odyssey as well, something the public really barely know about.

I think people are trying to second guess who thought what and when - probably in the wrong thread. What the hell, I'll have a go as well.

What I do know is that Monday was the Mars program going to MER and saying 'you're only going to get $X from now, what can you do' - and the answer had to be going to full hibernation on Spirit and loosing a lot of team which would have been near impossible to rebuild. The plan was real. The decision to cut funding for Odyssey and MER would have had to occur above Odyssey and MER. The resulting impact was perhaps not appreciated until the MER team meeting (and I presume a matching Odyssey meeting that's gone less well documented). You can be sure as hell that Squyres et.al. tried to think of any and every way to keep operating two rovers - but there is a financial floor beyond which you simply can't keep the people on board to operated both rovers. Perhaps above MER they thought "Yeah - MER can handle a few million less" without realizing that after 4 years, they're operating about as efficiently as is possible. It'd be interesting to compared the per-week cost of operating the first 90 sols (not the $800m/180sols - but the chunk of that $800m that was actual operating costs during that 90 sols) and compare it to today. That critical mass of engineering and scientists you need to operate them would be just about impossible to rebuild ( and utterly impossible if an $8m cut for '09 were carried thru ). If out take out the dust storm - last year could have been suprisingly productive for Spirit - home plate finished, and south to the interesting features there. She was back to 800 Whrs can you believe - and then the dust storm kind of ruined that - but hey - we learnt about dust-storms instead. If she can survive the next winter, I think it reasonable to suggest that 800 Whrs and an active summer could happen again - and, we'll have survived three Martian winters - a useful scientific baseline for future long term exploration.

This is why, in the other thread, I question the sensibility of a Mars 'program'. MSL is the problem here, for whatever reason. The challenge was put to the Mars program to find further MSL funding itself - and it's decision was to go to Odyssey and MER and say 'you can't have the normal extended funding anymore' . What Odyssey and MER came back with in response to that probably surprised a lot of people - but they were not doing it for a reaction, they were doing it because that's all they could do with the cut they were being presented with. I see MER and Odyssey getting hit as no more appropriate than say, hitting Aqua, Terra and Aura to be honest.

Perhaps Alan was expecting the Mars program to sort this out for themselves, for JPL to find cash from elsewhere to top up the MSL budget without impacting other missions. When they didn't or couldn't do that, I think Alan was probably prepared to let them hang out to dry for a while, see if they capitulated internally and found the cash somehow. With the threat of too many 'NASA kills Mars rovers' headlines, I think that the money would have been found from inside somehow. Griffin instead capitulated over him, and thus rendered ineffective Alan's commendable efforts in trying to get some honesty and accountability within the mission design and ATLO process. With that precedent set, then missions of the future would try to pull the same thing, and thus Alan essentially becomes a Sherif with a Colt that his boss swopped out half the rounds for blanks. It's untenable.

Two things are wrong in that picture. The treatment of all Mars missions as one big accounting code, and the over runs of MSL. The MSL overruns are massive. HQ moved the goal posts on them (pre-Stern), inappropriately, requiring further engineering work which was never accounted for at the beginning. There may have been further MSL budget growth for other reasons, but at least part of it was HQ instigated.

But why a Mars 'program'? Why not an inner-planets program? LRO goes over so Messenger gets cut? Outer planets : Juno goes over, so the Cassini extension gets cut in half. I don't think that's the right way of doing things. But I don't know what the right way is. I don't think anyone does. Alan was having a damn good try, but if you're not left to get on with your job in the best way you think, then there's nothing to be done but walk out the door.

Doug

Posted by: PhilCo126 Mar 27 2008, 09:29 AM

O.K. Doug... this even made the news in Belgium!
http://www.hln.be/static/FOTO/pe/6/7/14/large_350309.jpg

Posted by: DrShank Mar 27 2008, 01:48 PM

Belgium eh? The folks at ESA are very interested in how things are run over here, given the level of cooperative activities. The OSS Flagship selection (that ESA may cooperate in) is one key decision that will now be made by someone else.
alan was making some tough decisions and seemed to be making a lot of progress. Like Ralph reminded us,
No good dead goes unpunished. I wonder sometimes if he was trying to make a point by resigning and it
was unexpectedly accepted. That would be bad! If Griffin caved on MER as Doug suggests above that would be ungood, but might suggest a lack of communication in this matter (at least) at the top levels on the ultimate goals. Mistakes get made. Resignation is final. I dont know. i think it will probably take a while to completely unravel the layers of this affair.
i do agree with Alan that Mike G does seem to be one of the best adminstrators that NASA has seen, at least since Webb.

p

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Mar 27 2008, 03:33 PM

History has shown the exact opposite. Mike G has gutted space science and hamstrung the manned program with an unworkable expensive architecture that will be NASA's downfall if not changed

Posted by: DrShank Mar 27 2008, 03:46 PM

then someone is lying to us. We have more missions operating than ever, and R&A has held the line against inflation and other incroachments. doesnt seem gutted to me. what do you refer to, specifically?
the big hit of course is STS and ISS on the manned side, which eat a lot, as well as MSL....

Posted by: Norm Hartnett Mar 27 2008, 04:16 PM

The "local" paper gave one paragraph to the landing of the Shuttle and three half columns and a photo to the Rover debacle. I suspect that the science community is going to rue the day Dr. Stern left. This is one of the things both Dr. Stern and Dr. Griffin have railed against, where one segment of NASA goes to "their" politicians and the public to force NASA's decisions. I was more than a little surprised that HQ did not support Dr. Stern. This decision, to cut funding to MER, must have been one of several decisions that have not sat well within NASA HQ. JPL and NASA now have an interesting problem, where is that $200m going to come from? With the failure to back Dr. Stern, Dr. Weiler is faced with the knowledge that every cut he proposes is going to cause a similar reaction. Political game playing has just gotten a green light and the science community is going to pay a heavy price.

Posted by: Greg Hullender Mar 27 2008, 04:54 PM

Perhaps Dr. Weiler could benefit from Machiavelli's advice to "commit all your unkindnesses at once." If you have to make cuts in order to balance the budget, make them across dozens of projects at the same time. Then, even if the impacted groups try to go to the public or to Congress, they have to compete with each other. Ronald Reagan used this tactic with some success when he changed the US tax code (he removed dozens of tax deductions at the same time), so it certainly CAN work with the US Congress.

--Greg

Posted by: Norm Hartnett Mar 27 2008, 05:51 PM

NASAWatch says SMD Chief Scientist John Mather is leaving NASA HQ. More spinoff from this debacle?

Posted by: climber Mar 27 2008, 08:51 PM

If you remember how nervous Dr Weiler was on Spirit landing, I'd bet we'll see the same man again for Phoenix landing. I just cannot imagine him cutting Mer budget.

Posted by: ugordan Mar 27 2008, 09:58 PM

You're making it sound like Alan's the big bad guy here.

Posted by: climber Mar 28 2008, 08:46 PM

I was talking of the emotional part of him I can "see" !

Posted by: tedstryk Mar 28 2008, 11:59 PM

Another possibility is that Stern was pressured to take the action he did with regard to MER and Odyssey from higher up and then was hung out to dry when they realized the media was picking up the story.

Posted by: vjkane Apr 3 2008, 11:30 PM

Science magazine just published their article on why Stern quit. Since this journal is not generally available, I'll quote a couple of key paragrahs:

Sources close to NASA headquarters say that Griffin feels Stern, a planetary scientist who came to Washington, D.C., 1 year ago, has repeatedly failed to tell him about major decisions and that the plan to shut down one of the rovers--which outraged congressional supporters and made headlines around the country--was the last straw. Other managers, however, say that Stern believes Griffin has tied his managerial hands by blocking efforts to cut or delay politically sensitive projects.

NASA officials say Griffin favors cutting less popular parts of the budget, including funding for science grants, but that Stern has resisted that approach. "Mike didn't like Alan's solutions," explains one NASA official. "Mike told him how to fix it. Alan didn't like the solution and resigned."