• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Vote for Phil Plait

Residing where I do and having the citizenships I have, I do not feel I should be voting but the numbers so far are Verrry Interesting.

Any chance you guys could get Dr. Barrett of Quackwatch selected as Surgeon General? :D
 
I have to pick between Phil and Neil deGrass Tyson?
 
Why?

I don't intend that as a rude question - what qualifications does Phil have to administer such a complicated government agency? The current administrator, Griffin, was previously CEO of a couple of space & defense companies, and was space department head of John Hopkins, 5 masters in various disciplines, including EE, physics, business, civil engineering, all topped off with a PhD in Aerospace Engineering. All of those degrees are directly relevant to the kinds of things crossing the Administrator's desk every day.

Phil, in contrast, has a PhD in Astronomy (only a small, small part of what NASA does), lectured, has done some work with space telescopes, and written some books. Notable achievements, but how does that qualify him for NASA's top job? This position requires not merely insight and drive to improve the space mission (which Phil would have in spades), but the ability to run a huge bureaucracy, work with congress and the president, work with foreign governments such as Russia, manage huge budgets, deal with multiple space/defense contractors, etc. It's far more than science and astronomy.

Phil's an author, educator, sceptic, and outreacher to the public. He's perfect for JREF.
 
I love Phil, but, frankly, I doubt he has the administrative skills needed to manage a Agency this huge.
 
I loves me some Plait. You aren't stealing him from the JREF.

Edit: Wow. Phil is winning by a lot.
 
Last edited:
Unless there's something I'm missing, this poll seems fairly worthless. Anyone know who's doing it?
 
:jaw-dropp I... I can't... My Cousin (Albeit distant) is also listed....
 
roger said:
Why?

I don't intend that as a rude question - what qualifications does Phil have to administer such a complicated government agency? The current administrator, Griffin, was previously CEO of a couple of space & defense companies, and was space department head of John Hopkins, 5 masters in various disciplines, including EE, physics, business, civil engineering, all topped off with a PhD in Aerospace Engineering. All of those degrees are directly relevant to the kinds of things crossing the Administrator's desk every day.

Phil, in contrast, has a PhD in Astronomy (only a small, small part of what NASA does), lectured, has done some work with space telescopes, and written some books. Notable achievements, but how does that qualify him for NASA's top job? This position requires not merely insight and drive to improve the space mission (which Phil would have in spades), but the ability to run a huge bureaucracy, work with congress and the president, work with foreign governments such as Russia, manage huge budgets, deal with multiple space/defense contractors, etc. It's far more than science and astronomy.

Phil's an author, educator, sceptic, and outreacher to the public. He's perfect for JREF.
Click to expand...

I had exactly this reaction Roger, but I'm not sure I was right. There are lots of people that must have looked pretty good that draw vast salaries running giant corporations whose only major success is to make people who short their companies happy.

My guess is that Phil Plait would have done a hell of a lot better job running GM than Rick Waggoner. There was a lot of talk when Jobs left Apple about how entrepreneurs run out of steam when the organization grows beyond a certain size and that's when professional managers are required. So they brought in the ex Pepsi CEO who managed to almost completely shut down Apple in a few years. Jobs took control again when Apple was so far gone that the powers that be just decided that there wasn't much left to save so they might as well take a chance on Jobs again.

Almost all of Obama's major picks have been from the political class, people without strong management backgrounds. I have an open mind as to whether this is good or bad. Leadership of large government organizations is perforce a very political undertaking and maybe skills in that direction trump managerial skills which can be brought into the organization with the appropriate selection of subordinates.

I won't vote for Phil Plait because I feel profoundly unqualified to pick anybody to lead NASA, but if it came down to a contest between Griffin and Plait, I'd pick Plait all day long (Not that he has the remotest interest in the job).
 
davefoc said:
So they brought in the ex Pepsi CEO who managed to almost completely shut down Apple...

...Leadership of large government organizations is perforce a very political undertaking and maybe skills in that direction trump managerial skills which can be brought into the organization with the appropriate selection of subordinates.
Click to expand...

So what, exactly, are managerial skills, then?
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Well your country did manage to survive 8 years of presidential incompetency. :duck:
Click to expand...

So why repeat the mistake?
Look, I love Phil, but being a astronomer is not enough credentials to manage a huge agency like NASA. Political savvy, ability to deal with a large budget, and general ability to manage a large organization are more important as director of NASA then being a first rate astronomer. Sorry, folks, but the is the way it is.
 
And, frankly, if I was hiring for NASA on the basis of pure technical skills, I would probably go for somebody with a strong background in engineering then an astronomer.
 
Jimbo07 said:
So what, exactly, are managerial skills, then?
Click to expand...

I've pondered that a bit without having a good answer. I was some kind of low level manager for a good part of my engineering career and that is a completely different kind of thing than higher level managers.

Low level managers still do actual work and are probably the most informed people in the organization about the low level details that actually make an organization work.

Mid level managers seem to retain some work related skills but their most important job is to evaluate, monitor and select low level managers and to report to higher level managers what a wonderful job they are doing.

High level managers evaluate, select and monitor the midlevel managers but their most important role in the company is probably to strategize and react to small and large paradigm changes. As a practical matter their most important skill is to know how to get elected. Without that everything else doesn't matter. During my engineering career I was with quite a few organizations that struggled and several failed. It was my observation that the inability to get higher level managers with the appropriate skillset was usually a big part of the problem. There was just too much of a disconnect between the people with a detailed knowledge about what was going on and what could go on in the organization and the higher level managers.

The CEO of the most successful organization I worked for actively sought to communicate directly with the lower level managers in the organization. This was disruptive to the organization in that it caused resentment amongst mid level managers so this behavior didn't come without a cost. But he seemed to have retained a knowledge of nuts and bolts issues and at the same time he retained a knowledge of the necessity of looking forward and making tough decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom