Most of the debate in the last week regarding “openness” at NASA has focused on claims that the NASA officials have tried to squelch comments by one scientist on climate change issues. However, an article in Saturday’s New York Times expands the focus to other efforts by NASA’s public affairs staff, in particular an effort by the agency, under direction from the White House, to bring as much attention as possible on the Vision for Space Exploration:
Repeatedly that year [2004], public-affairs directors at all of NASA’s science centers were admonished by White House appointees at headquarters to focus all attention on Mr. Bush’s January 2004 “vision” for returning to the Moon and eventually traveling to Mars.
Starting early in 2004, directives, almost always transmitted verbally through a chain of midlevel workers, went out from NASA headquarters to the agency’s far-flung research centers and institutes saying that all news releases on earth science developments had to allude to goals set out in Mr. Bush’s “vision statement” for the agency, according to interviews with public-affairs officials working in headquarters and at three research centers.
[…]
In another incident, on Dec. 2, 2004, the propulsion lab and NASA headquarters issued a news release describing research on links between wind patterns and the recent warming of the Indian Ocean.
It included a statement in quotation marks from Tong Lee, a scientist at the laboratory, saying some of the analytical tools used in the study could “advance space exploration” and “may someday prove useful in studying climate systems on other planets.”
But after other scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory queried Dr. Lee on the statement, he e-mailed public-affairs officers saying he disavowed the quotation and demanded that the release be taken off the Web site.
The Times article reports that NASA removed the offending quotation from the press release around midday on Friday. However, as of early Monday morning, the quotation still appeared in the second paragraph of the press release archived on the NASA web site (see screenshot taken at 5:47 am EST Monday).
Now, it makes sense for the agency to promote a major initiative in every way possible, within reason. It also makes sense for its public affairs officers to help shape that message. In some cases scientists and others mentioned in press releases are not the most articulate people, and PAOs need to work with them to craft the quotes that will be used in press releases, and in turn in many news accounts. However, when PAOs are putting words in the mouths of scientists without their consent, as was the case here, that’s going too far.
As the title of this entry suggests, the VSE is more an agency-wide slogan than a coherent plan. If they hammer away at the shuttle tanks at Michoud, that’s part of the VSE. If some guy at Langley figures out a new way to jump-start his car, who knows, one day that may be useful on other planets. The only step remaining is to rename NASA as VSEA: Vision for Space Exploration Agency.
While I do not support “putting words in the mouths of scientists,” an exploration agency is exactly what NASA should be. Operations and science should either support that or go to another agency.
— Donald
The point is that “VSE” is not the general idea of space exploration (which could be fine), it’s the slogan of one particular President. One way to attain a pretense of a new vision is to co-opt and rename everything that NASA (or any agency) is already doing. If you sincerely hope for something new, you may be bitterly disappointed come January, 2009. In fact some people, Keith Cowing for one, already feel cheated.
I’m feeling cheated, not by the goals of the VSE, per se, but at what I perceive as the mismanagement. We’re already in our third major redesign and, going on three years in, we have yet to cut a single sheet of metal. Anyone who watched the early years of the Space Station project should be worried.
We were supposed to do it differently this time . . . .
— Donald
Isn’t it possible that insincerity is a better explanation of what you perceive as mismanagement? Not that NASA workers are insincere, because I’m sure that they aren’t; rather that the VSE itself is.
I’d be willing to consider insincerity if you ever came up with a shred of evidence to support it. You haven’t. In fact, while the VSE clearly has low priority for the Administration, they have done what they can within their competing priorities to provide funding and support it. While I am deeply concerned about Dr. Griffin’s redesigns, I think the effort to reduce technical difficulty and the number of items that have to be developed is not necessarily a bad thing. Also, Occom’s Razor (and post-Apollo history) lead me to the conclusion that simple mismanagement is the most likely cause of the VSE’s apparent paralysis.
Even if the Administration is insincere in its support, so what? I see my job as using the skills I have to do what I can to lay the groundwork for eventual human settlements in the Solar System, rather than criticizing what others do. Given that, up to a certain degree I don’t really care why the Administration is funding preparations for a return to the moon, only that they are.
— Donald
The Bush Administration is well-known for a certain brand of insincerity in which the appearance of success is more important than the fact of success. They don’t mind spending money in pursuit of it. “No Child Left Behind” and “the Hydrogen Economy” are two notorious examples of this. Outside of the community of human spaceflight fans, the VSE is commonly cited as a third example.
So what is the evidence? First, that Bush has barely mentioned the VSE since the VSE speech two years ago. Human spaceflight fans are a special interest, and he apparently wants them to be the only ones who know a lot about the VSE. It’s probably working pretty well: I have talked to highly literate people who have never heard of the VSE.
Second, that when the shuttle returned to flight, Bush took the occassion to generally express “confidence”. The gist of it was, “Great job guys, and I’m sure you’ll do well with the VSE.” It makes no sense in context, since the whole plan is to get rid of the shuttle and do something new and better. Certainly one trait of this style of insincerity is to lump together completely different or even opposing things, if they seem similar to credulous people.