Talk:Alan Stern

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia C‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

What's with the S. ? Isn't he also a Dr. ? --Sonjaaa 22:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a first initial. I don't know what it stands for. zowie 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is writing this bull about my contradicting myself? Read the Stern & Levison paper: We defined planets as objects orbiting a star that are large enough to be round owing to self gravity--hence in hydrostatic equilibium. We did not include orbital clearing as a criterion of planethood. The terms uberplant and unterplanets relate to *SUB*-categories of planets, **not** whether an object is counted as a planet or not. Further, our definition was not sloppy, as the IAU's is; for example the IAU refers to an object having "cleared it neighborhood" but never explains what this means-- leading to ambiguities like the Earth, Jupiter, Mars, and Neptune not being planets owing to the sloppy wording. I really resent this slanderous innuendo on Wikipedia. -Alan Stern

The only direct suggestion of contradiction I could see in the stuff you deleted was the word "however." I've rewritten the description of the 2002 paper to present more specifics and put it into its own paragraph, hopefully making the presentation more neutral and "just the facts." More detailed coverage of the general concepts and critiques relating to them can be found at 2006 redefinition of planet#Objections and clearing the neighborhood. Bryan 20:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "S" is for "Sol". Alan has joked that being named both "Sol" and "Stern," he was destined to be an astronomer.

When he war born? --134.147.117.19 11:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THE MISSING JOHN MATHER ANGLE: It seems to me that the following facts related to Alan Stern – widely reported in the media - would also be of interest to the reader.

Soon after Stern became NASA Associate Administrator (in charge of the Science Mission Directorate), he appointed with great fanfare the freshly minted NASA Nobel Laureate John Mather Chief Scientist of SMD. Thus Mather reported to Stern and Stern reported to NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. For a time, this was promoted by the media as a most hopeful situation for NASA's science future. There was every indication that this was a long-haul situation.

Most abruptly, about a year later – on the same day or on consecutive days – Stern and Mather both "resigned": Stern from NASA and Mather from his Chief Scientist position. Mather strenuously pointed out that the two resignations were unrelated.

Judging from the Wikipedia article I am commenting on, Stern's career has not recovered. Nor has Mather's career. He was sent back to his pre-Nobel job classification, and there he remains. The next NASA administrator did nothing by way of giving Mather a title commensurate with his Nobel Laureate status. As far as I know, neither Stern nor Mather issued any remarks about one another. Michael Griffin issued statements to the effect that Stern was not keeping him informed on important things, and that Mather was being ordered to work full-time on the James Webb Space Telescope.

Now some speculative remarks: Griffin and his advisors had hand-picked Stern, who was well-known in the scientific community, surely after much deliberation. Only months before the resignation, Stern told the media proudly that he had full backing of Griffin. Still and all, the two may have had disagreements on issues – even strong disagreements – but there is a long way to go before such friction rises to the level of resignation or dismissal. In fact, disagreements and hashing them out would be part of what these people were there to do.

So what was the real reason behind the precipitous events? Was the Mather "resignation" truly a pure coincidence? Did Griffin have two non-overlapping fights going on with two top NASA execs, one of whom reported to the other? Could it be that the Stern departure from NASA had nothing at all to do with budgetary philosophy as it is being presented?

Dr. Michael Griffin is not just any old Joe. He has several advanced science and technology degrees, and ran NASA most professionally. For his actions with regard to Stern and America's Superhero John Mather he was accountable to his immediate boss – President George W. Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.125.22.83 (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]