Mary Cleave as Associate Administrator

At the time NASA launched MRO, Griffin made a series of across-the-board changes in his management team. They affected most aspects of NASA, mainly human spaceflight. However, they also had impacts for Mars. Griffin replaced Diaz, who retired, with Mary Cleave as associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate. Cleave came out of the Earth science division of the SMD, a fact that some observers considered indicative of Griffin’s rebalancing effort. She was also a former astronaut, as well as an engineer. Finally, she was someone with whom Griffin had long-term connections. Whatever her merits, she was not an advocate of robotic Mars as her directorate’s top priority. That brought her into conflict with Mars proponents.

Figueroa, not happy with Griffin’s policies, moved to a new position at the Goddard Space Flight Center in nearby Greenbelt, Maryland. McCuis­tion stayed, frustrated with the trends for Mars. Garvin, however, soon joined Figueroa at Goddard. Griffin told Garvin he had no need for a chief scientist. Garvin believed that his outspoken advocacy for Mars as a priority made him especially expendable.9 Another individual who had been central to the Mars buildup was Isakowitz. He was also a casualty of Griffin’s actions to replace O’Keefe appointees with individuals of his choosing. Isakowitz wound up at the Department of Energy. The upshot of the various personnel moves was the distinct weakening of the Mars constituency at headquarters.

Cleave, meanwhile, inherited a program that had far more budget challenges than easy solutions. One huge issue was the James Webb Space Telescope, Hub­ble’s eventual successor, suffering an overrun of $1 billion.10 Her problems were also those of Griffin, but he had many additional and more pressing ones, most connected to human spaceflight. He was anxious to delegate responsibility for science decisions to her. In July, the shuttle returned to flight, and while it was successful in some respects, it still experienced foam-shedding problems that had caused the Columbia accident. It would need further repair work. Delays meant that more money had to be diverted from other activities to the shuttle, NASA’s most troubled (and most expensive) human spaceflight program. What Diaz had begun (cutting Mars), Cleave would have to continue.

Space News, a leading trade journal, had a suggestion for Griffin—and Cleave—which it claimed might help with their money troubles. Why not defer the MSL, scheduled for a 2009 launch? In an editorial entitled “Mars Science Lab Can Wait,” it made this argument as one way to get funds for more urgent needs.11 Mars proponents were appalled. MSL was the flagship of the MEP. Friedman wrote an impassioned response in a letter to the editor. He reminded readers of an earlier debate he had had with a senator who had suggested Mars could “wait.”

“Without Mars as a target,” Friedman said, “there will be no sustained pro­gram of space exploration. Mars is the compelling goal that drives the ‘Vision for Space Exploration’—not just for robots, but for human space flight as well.” He added up the recent decisions against Mars and said they came to $2 billion in long-term diversions and cancellations. The money extracted included funds from the SMD, as well as what the Exploration Systems Office had for precur­sor missions. “You take away the vision [of Mars],” he declared, “you lose public support.”12

The public was surely engaged with what was then happening robotically on Mars. The public seemed to identify innately with the intrepid rovers. Spirit made it to the top of a summit in August, a feat that NASA hailed as an unex­pected milestone. William Farrand, a researcher connected with the project, noted, “When we started the mission, if anyone had told us that we would not only drive all the way over to the Columbia Hills, but also drive to the highest point there, I think we would not have really believed it.”13

NASA seemed to be doing better on Mars than on Earth.