Ed Weiler, the salty, straight-talking astrophysicist who left NASA
headquarters in 2004 to take the helm of the agency's Goddard Space Flight
Center, is returning to Washington to replace NASA science chief Alan Stern, an
equally straight-talking scientist who abruptly resigned March 25 after less
than a year on the job.
Weiler, who
was named earlier today, is no stranger to the demands of the new job he will
assume in April. The 30-year NASA veteran served as associate administrator for
space science from 1998 to 2004.
Weiler met
with Goddard employees during an all-hands meeting at the Greenbelt, Md.-based
field center March 26 to discuss the sudden change and to reassure them that
they would be in good hands with his deputy, Richard Obsenschain, taking over
as interim director and Laurie Leshin moving up to the deputy director
position.
March 26 after
the all-hands meeting, Weiler talked to Space News staff writer Brian
Berger about the leadership transition ahead for NASA's Science Mission
Directorate (SMD).
What did
you tell Goddard employees this morning?
I told them
[NASA Administrator] Mike Griffin and [NASA Associate Administrator] Chris Scolese
talked to me late yesterday and informed me that Alan was planning to resign
and that they discussed it and would like me to come back to headquarters as
the interim AA to keep the ship running.
How long
do you think you will be at NASA headquarters?
That's
totally up to Mike and Chris and me. I've got to get the lay of the land. I
haven't been at headquarters now for four years. I certainly know the status of
Goddard projects but I've got to get up to speed on JPL and Ames projects, etc.
It's going to take a while for that. It's going to take me a while to meet the
new team because only about half the team that I left is still there.
One of
Stern's signature initiatives was restructuring the Mars exploration program to
free up money for a multi-billion dollar sample return mission in the 2018 to
2020 timeframe. The big question today is whether that push for Mars sample
return mission will continue under you?
I'm not
going to make any decisions without any information. When I left the SMD we had
a program in place of taking advantage of every [Mars launch] opportunity and
someday when, we have the data we needed and all the science we needed, we'd
spend the billions of dollars for a Mars sample return.
There are
several things I need to understand and [figuring them out] is one of the top
priorities on my list. What is the real cost of Mars sample return? Does the
community want to pay that cost in terms of the missions that could be done in
the interim or not done? So I intend to work with the community -- the broadest
possible science community -- to find out what their real priorities are. But
to make those kinds of decisions I want the community to have the full
knowledge of what a real mission would cost and how it would impact the budget,
etc. and I don't have any of that information right now. You probably know more
than I do.
Two
other priorities under Stern were restoring cuts to NASA's research and
analysis budget and reinvigorating the suborbital science program. Where do you
stand on those issues?
I think
Alan is absolutely on target. I think one of the best things Alan Stern did was
reinvigorate the suborbital program -- the rockets and balloons. If we are
going to train another generation of [principal investigators], the place to do
it is rockets [and] balloons. I started out at NASA 30 years ago managing a
small grants program for astronomy rockets. It's in my blood, too, and I
applaud Alan for what he's done in that area.
On R&A,
there were deep cuts after I left. Now there are large increases. What I have
to understand is how much were the cuts and how much were the increases ... I
believe there has to be a delicate balance between grants and science missions
because we are the space agency and our job is to launch rockets. I want to be
sure there's a good balance. It would be out of balance if there's too much
money going to grants and not enough money going to missions. It would be out
of balance if all we did was hardware and never paid for the science. I cannot
say it's good or bad now. All I can say from my post here 17 miles north is I
have no idea what the status is right now, how much the cuts were, how much the
increases were. That's sort of out of my bailiwick. But obviously it's
something I've got to look at closely.
As part
of reinvigorating the suborbital efforts, the Science Mission Directorate just
issued a request for information from companies such as Virgin Galactic and Xcor
Aerospace about flying researchers and their experiments on piloted suborbital
spacecraft. Does that initiative continue under you?
I know
nothing about this. Believe me, Brian, I've had 18 hours to think about this
[job] and that was not one of the things on my list I was thinking about last
night because I had a hundred other things.
Does the
sudden leadership change at SMD have anything to do with this week's budget
fight over the Mars rovers?
That's the
kind of question that only Alan Stern, Mike Griffin or Chris Scolese can
answer. I don't travel in those circles.
The Mars
community is up in arms over proposed cuts to their budget. What's your
assessment of the situation you will soon find yourself in as science chief?
I can't
give you definitive answers. I can give you my philosophy that I tried to
follow when I was the AA. Somebody asked me the same exact question at my
all-hands. NASA's got all these budget problems on the science missions. Well,
believe it or not, during the six years I was AA we had a lot of budget
problems too. As I liked to remind reporters and members of Congress then,
these science missions are not the one millionth copy of a Toyota. Everyone is
absolutely unique and you can't predict the cost of these things in pre-phase A
when all you are working with is PowerPoint engineering. You don't really get
to the true cost of missions like this until you get to the preliminary design
review or even later. And sometimes people underestimate the difficulty of
these things. It's human nature. On the other hand if programs get out of
control and I suspect they weren't going to be able to get back within control,
I have a clear record as the associate administrator for six years. I canceled
five programs. I'm capable of doing that again. On the other hand I'm also
going to make sure that programs aren't nickel and dimed just to save a few cents,
because I have direct personal experience where cost was the only concern. And
that was Mars '98. Do you remember that little baby? And what I got for good
cost control on that program was two craters on Mars. You've got to balance
good engineering with good cost control. That's my philosophy. I'm not saying
that isn't somebody else's philosophy, I'm just saying that's my philosophy.
I'm not a stranger to cost problems. But I do believe this: the best way to
sell new programs to Congress and the American people is to deliver what you
said you would deliver on the highest priority programs that are under
development now.
Stern
established new minimum experience criteria for principal investigators
proposing space missions. Will you preserve that policy?
You must
have been at my all-hands. I was asked about that there. So now I've had at
least three more minutes to think about it. I've had 33 years [of] involvement
at NASA and I've kind of learned that there are no absolutes in this world. I
kind of see the world as gray, not necessarily black and white. Now, given a
choice of having an experienced PI versus an inexperienced PI, of course I'd
rather have an experienced PI. However ... I also have enough experience managing
many, many, many missions where sometimes I had a weak PI but I had a really
strong project manager ... you've got to look at the team of people. It's not
just the PI. It's the PI, it's the project manager, it's the system engineer, it's
the institution behind the PI. So you've got to ask the question, 'is it only
the PI's qualifications or do I have to take other factors into account?' I'm
not saying I would overturn what Alan has put in place. In general, it's a good
philosophy. Is it an absolute philosophy? I will have to think about it.
When is
your first opportunity to meet with the science community in your new role?
Hopefully
I'm going to get a lot of them to travel to Washington because I've got a lot
of work to do at headquarters to get my team together, to get morale to a really
good ... I really think getting my team together and working the same agenda is
the highest priority I have in the first few months. So I don't see myself
traveling very much in the first few months, but I want to invite a lot of the
key scientists, chairpersons of the committees and things like that, to
Washington. I know all these people. I used to work with them intimately, so
it's not as though it's going to be a first meeting. But I want to get a broad
perspective not just from the sample community for instance but from the people
who worry about Mars atmosphere, the people who worry about Mars geology, etc.
I want to know exactly what all of those people think.
You
mention getting your team together. Should we be expecting new science division
chiefs soon?
First of
all, in the government you don't make changes too easily. Keep in mind that a
lot of people who are there now are people who were there when I left. So I
have some real core, good people there. Chuck Gay is the deputy AA. Chuck used
to work for me here at Goddard and worked for me when I ran [the Office of
Space Science].
How soon
will you be reporting for work at headquarters?
That
depends on what Mike and Chris tell me to do. I have a feeling it will be two
to four weeks depending on Alan's plans.