[X] My Assistant

[belleraphon1]

All...

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

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/08032...rn-resigns.html

Craig

[djellison]

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)

[imipak]

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

<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.

[remcook]

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

[ugordan]

Well, this sucks.

That's putting it short.

[rlorenz]

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

No good deed goes unpunished.

[djellison]

Two posts moved to http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...60&start=60

[tedstryk]

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.

[Greg Hullender]

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

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

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

--Greg

[nprev]

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.

[Stephen]

Space.com has an interview with Ed Weiler 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

[nprev]

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...

[Greg Hullender]

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

[dvandorn]

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

[ElkGroveDan]

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.