O'Keefe, Himself, Must Go

Re. NASA

I'm sorry to have to say this, because I realize that everybody who
knows him apparently thinks he is a wonderful guy, skilled
administrator, etc. But the harsh fact is that Sean O'Keefe, himself,
must be replaced because he is unable to achieve the results the country
needs. He is simply too close to the situation, too much in bed with
too many people he doesn't want to hurt. What is needed is some ruthless
******* who can weed out the garden without being emotionally attached
to either the flowers or the weeds, but simply to the garden itself, as
a whole. O'Keefe cannot do this, in my opinion.


--
Rev. Bill McGinnis
Editor - http://TheAmericanCitizen.US
Director - http://LoveAllPeople.org


Bill McGinnis

I'd not want to be on a launcher prepared by folk under the command of a
ruthless administrator myself, actually....

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"Bill McGinnis" wrote in message
...
| Re. NASA
|
| I'm sorry to have to say this, because I realize that everybody who
| knows him apparently thinks he is a wonderful guy, skilled
| administrator, etc. But the harsh fact is that Sean O'Keefe, himself,
| must be replaced because he is unable to achieve the results the country
| needs. He is simply too close to the situation, too much in bed with
| too many people he doesn't want to hurt. What is needed is some ruthless
| ******* who can weed out the garden without being emotionally attached
| to either the flowers or the weeds, but simply to the garden itself, as
| a whole. O'Keefe cannot do this, in my opinion.
|
|
| --
| Rev. Bill McGinnis
| Editor - http://TheAmericanCitizen.US
| Director - http://LoveAllPeople.org
|
|
| Bill McGinnis


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 28/08/03

In article , Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd not want to be on a launcher prepared by folk under the command of a
ruthless administrator myself, actually....

Heh, one of the problems the CAIB cited *was* a 'ruthless administrator'
(my words) -- with his precedessor (Daniel Goldin), that changed perhaps
too many things in a less than well reasoned out way, although to an
extent, he (Goldin) was responding to the funding pressure by the other
government branches.

O'Keefe is still too new to NASA for me to be majorly judgemental -- for
either good or bad -- in my honest opinion. He became administrator less
than two years ago, and frankly, it usually takes more time to _completely_
turn around the large organization that NASA is. How he responds now and in
the future will be a better indication of his overall performance.

From the official NASA biography on Mr. O'Keefe:

http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights...nistrator.html

It indicates he's had successes in other areas of large scale
administrative experience, so I suppose no obvious reasons in his
background why he might not be qualified for this job nor not be successful
over time.

I'd personally be more inclined to give him at least another 2 or 3 years
and by then, should have a better reference point and more data points for
comparison of his performance as the NASA Administrator and to make a
better prediction of future performance.

If anything, he got a *masters* degree in public administration 25 years
ago and served in appropriate positions since. He's definitely the
born-and-bred career bureaucrat! Which may not actually be a bad thing per
se, *if* it's done well.

NASA certainly needs senior leadership that has credibility (proven track
record, fiscal responsibility, appropriate leadership and vision/plans,
etc) with the White House and Congress.

Perhaps time will show that he was as bad as Mr. Goldin or worse... or much
better, but either way... I believe it's just too soon to determine that.

-Dan

Does O'Keefe have any experience _AT_ _ALL_ in space science? My
understanding is, no.

Jack

Dan Foster wrote:

In article , Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd not want to be on a launcher prepared by folk under the command of a
ruthless administrator myself, actually....

Heh, one of the problems the CAIB cited *was* a 'ruthless administrator'
(my words) -- with his precedessor (Daniel Goldin), that changed perhaps
too many things in a less than well reasoned out way, although to an
extent, he (Goldin) was responding to the funding pressure by the other
government branches.

O'Keefe is still too new to NASA for me to be majorly judgemental -- for
either good or bad -- in my honest opinion. He became administrator less
than two years ago, and frankly, it usually takes more time to _completely_
turn around the large organization that NASA is. How he responds now and in
the future will be a better indication of his overall performance.

From the official NASA biography on Mr. O'Keefe:

http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights...nistrator.html

It indicates he's had successes in other areas of large scale
administrative experience, so I suppose no obvious reasons in his
background why he might not be qualified for this job nor not be successful
over time.

I'd personally be more inclined to give him at least another 2 or 3 years
and by then, should have a better reference point and more data points for
comparison of his performance as the NASA Administrator and to make a
better prediction of future performance.

If anything, he got a *masters* degree in public administration 25 years
ago and served in appropriate positions since. He's definitely the
born-and-bred career bureaucrat! Which may not actually be a bad thing per
se, *if* it's done well.

NASA certainly needs senior leadership that has credibility (proven track
record, fiscal responsibility, appropriate leadership and vision/plans,
etc) with the White House and Congress.

Perhaps time will show that he was as bad as Mr. Goldin or worse... or much
better, but either way... I believe it's just too soon to determine that.

-Dan

From Dan Foster:
O'Keefe is still too new to NASA for me to be majorly judgemental -- for
either good or bad -- in my honest opinion. He became administrator less
than two years ago, and frankly, it usually takes more time to _completely_
turn around the large organization that NASA is. How he responds now and in
the future will be a better indication of his overall performance.

From the official NASA biography on Mr. O'Keefe:

http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights...nistrator.html
snip

O'Keefe may have inherited problems from Goldin, but he is culpable
for having *caused* certain problems for NASA in his previous role in
the OMB. One criticism from the CAIB report that I wholeheartedly
agree with is accountability for those within the Executive and
Legislative branches of government in their funding decisions. A
collective decision needs to be made whether or not this country wants
a space program. After that, it is up to these individuals to oversee
funding and management of a program that is run safely.

Sean O'Keefe failed in that role, both at the OMB and at his "new"
job.

Now how about his failure to override the decision to keep launching
shuttles after the STS-112 foam impact incident a few months prior to
the -107 mission? Sean may be lacking in technical expertise, but
being successful at that job does not necessarily require technical
expertise. The way to do this is to surround yourself with smart
people. So who was there at headquarters whose job it was to help
Sean raise the flag and call a time out? There was plenty of
technical expertise with the person O'Keefe had hired as his #2, Fred
Gregory. From his bio:

"From June 1992 to December 2001, Mr. Gregory held the position of
Associate Administrator, Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, at
NASA Headquarters. As Associate Administrator, he was responsible for
assuring the safety, reliability, quality, and mission assurance of
all NASA programs.

Mr. Gregory has extensive experience as an astronaut, test pilot, and
manager of flight safety programs and launch support operations."

(Full bio at http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights...re_Deputy.html)

*THIS* is the man who had the obligation to pull Sean aside and tell
him to call a King's X after the STS-112 incident in October 2002.

And Sean O'Keefe is fully accountable for having hired Fred Gregory as
NASA's #2 leader. I don't see how Sean O'Keefe can be excused for
hiring as his right hand man someone with *a track record* of
culpability in losing space shuttles.

And accountability for this decision extends right back to the
Congress for their role in confirming the appointment of Sean
O'Keefe's deputy. Here's a comment I posted back in September,
ironically just prior to the STS-102 launch incident:
--------
snip

I fault the Senate for not asking.

(I don't see Fred Gregory as having any obligation to bring up the
topic of 51-L at his confirmation hearings if no one asks him about
it.)

snip
--------
(Full thread at http://tinyurl.com/mjg1)

Photos of Fred Gregory at the CAPCOM console on the morning of January
28th, 1986:

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pa...L/10062393.jpg
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pa...L/10062390.htm

(Feb 1st must have been a horrific deja vu for him.)

NASA certainly needs senior leadership that has credibility (proven track
record, fiscal responsibility, appropriate leadership and vision/plans,
etc) with the White House and Congress.

Perhaps time will show that he was as bad as Mr. Goldin or worse... or much
better, but either way... I believe it's just too soon to determine that.

(The above facts were pulled together within a matter of minutes. Hal
Gehman had months.)


~ CT