Yes We Can(ned the space program)!

Returning to the main theme here, I just read an article in the Washington Post entitled "Uncertainty Clouds Transition at NASA." In this case, he is certainly not responding as a "yes-man" would.

I give him credit for that.

When asked specifically about by the transition team about scrapping a particular rocket planned for the Moon mission in favor of upgrading existing unmanned launch vehicles to the level of safe for human missions, he considered that executive meddling in science, which is a sure recipe for failure.

The article states the following in a discussion of where he would draw the line and resign:

The Washington Post e-mailed Griffin and asked whether scrapping the Ares for a different rocket would be the kind of strategic change that would ensure his departure. His answer conveyed his passion for the current Constellation architecture:

"I don't know where the threshold is, but dictating design solutions to NASA on any technical subject, launch vehicles or otherwise, is above it," he wrote. "NASA's purpose is to produce technical solutions to achieve space policy goals enunciated from above. If agency management cannot be trusted to do that, they should be replaced. Specifying solutions from outside the agency cannot possibly work."

I agree. The outsiders should definitely ask probing questions--and perhaps that's all the transition team intended--but they should not get into the business of recommending specific technical solutions.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

Thanks for the nomination, 'Sauce :)

I agree about the need for inspiration, and I see plenty of that in the tone of the new administration, despite the hard economic times. So I think the scientific and technological future will be in good hands in the next four years at least. If Obama's appointee for Energy Secretary has a Nobel Prize in Physics, I can't envision a science adviser without equal intellectual depth and leadership ability.

I think we went off the track (ain't retrospection wonderful!) when we decided to get practical and built a space truck rather than a 'Vette. We fell into a "make-do" rather than a "can-do" attitude.

When I speak to schools, I always make sure that the kids--and their teachers, especially--know that the Apollo astronauts were in their late 30s and 40s. That means if we send humans of that age to Mars in 2040, they are now in elementary and middle school.

I tell them that they have a chance to become real space aliens of the future, beings from one planet landing on another.

Is a human mission Mars in 2040 the right goal? I don't know. Perhaps a mission to send a robot submersible to Europa would be equally exciting.

But whatever it is, we need a grand challenge or a great set of questions to make NASA a force for technological advancement and inspiration.

We need a new cherry-red T-bird or a silver 'Vette because the people who build and drive those will not let critical details slip their attention and will not stop short of success.

It's an attitude thing!

Fred, who drives a Subaru (for what it's worth)

P.S.: I'm not sure Griffin is the right choice. In the past, he has parked his scientific judgment to defend Bush's global warming policies, and I blogged about it. It's not so much the viewpoint as the fact that he acted like a yes-man, while Obama welcomes challenges to his viewpoint.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)