NASA: Beats Us

First, during the interview he said

I think the entire nation is more risk-averse. Everyone's looking for guarantees.
You could look at the loss of the Challenger and Columbia crew (and say), "Absolutely, I can't understand how that would happen." But you could also take a look at (it from the perspective that) here you have the world's most reliable space system.
It's gone through well over a hundred missions and your batting average has been over 98 percent. So you could look at it to say this is a pretty damn good space system.

This is a great quote. It also points out the intrinsic problem with only having 5 orbiters: even with a great safety record the program is doomed to failure. Do the math. Even assuming a reduction in risk as the program goes forward, you easily run out of orbiters before reliability reaches that of commercial aviation -- it's simply not a workable solution to advancing space transportation. Can you get a lot of good things from the program and apply them later on? Absolutely.
The other quote:

I don't think culture (was responsible.) And I am somewhat of a radical on this topic. Culture is the legacy of a leader. What is the leader's responsibility? To establish trust, a set of values, and to foster communications that forms the team.
I would say that where the (Columbia Accident Investigation Board) report wrote of a "culture" problem, I would change that word to say a "leadership" problem. For the decade of the '90s, we just did not have the trust within the agency that we needed....

I agree with Gene on this, but in a way he ducks the question. Of course, leaders are responsible for what happens -- that's the whole idea of being a leader. From my own experience in the government, I would argue that NASA probably has too many leaders, and has been trying to make too many people happy at the same time. Pointing at the administrator and saying "the buck stops there" may make for a great sound bite on TV, but unless and until the administrator has full control over the agency (which they don't) it's just another cop-out. Fixing the blame instead of fixing the problem. Just my opinion.
NASA should be reducing cost-to-orbit. That's it. Then if you want a space science agency, or a manned space exploration agency, fund them under a separate line item, with a different chain of command. It's a little bit for everybody and not a lot for anybody. Hopefully the current mission change will help with that.
UPDATE: ABC news is also running a good story about the orbiter. Makes for great reading. FTA

People are young at 20, but electronics are well into maturity by then if not beyond. "I wonder whether I could find a single electronics box in my house that's 25 years old and still works. I don't think I can. It's the same thing with the orbiter," the NASA administrator said of a recent shuttle part breakdown.