Another Griffin--ISS data point

[radarredux]

"[Grffin has] been told we're going back to the Moon. He was appointed because he wants to go to the Moon. That isn't going to change. Secondly, it's clear he wanted to get rid of the ISS [International Space Station] and shuttle as soon as possible, but he can't, because of international agreements."<br />http://planetary.org/blog/article/00000573/

 

[JonClarke]

It is a blog and it is quoting Fran Bagenal interpretation of Griffin, not Griffin himself.<br /><br />Secondly "get rid of" may simply be a coloquial expression for wanting to finish construction ASAP and move on to the next stage. We can all identify with that, I think.<br /><br />So it is not a data point.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It is a blog and it is quoting Fran Bagenal interpretation of Griffin, not Griffin himself.</font>/i><br /><br />I never said it was a quote from Griffin -- I doubt he refers to himself in the third person.<br /><br />I also think it is relatively clear that it is the opinion of Chairman of NASA's Outer Planets Assessment Group, Fran, that had there not been international agreements in place, Griffin would ground the shuttles immediately and stop construction of ISS (and not simply move on with other ISS stuff).<br /><br />To say this is not a data point is to be blind to reality.</i>

 

[frodo1008]

No, reality is accepting what exists. And the international agreements signed by NASA for the US exist. So speculating on what would have been without those agreements is speculation, not reality, and therefore is not a reality data point.<br /><br />I guess you could state (if you are anti-shuttle and ISS) that it could be a wish data point. It certainly could be a speculation date argument point, now couldn't it? I mean how may data points are there, exactly?

 

[j05h]

How do we work the Internationals (as citizens and NSS,etc) to change the argreements? If Japan was willing to retool the Kibo concept, and ESA would use an ATV for Columbus equipment, we could get down to business with the VSE. <br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

What then do we do about the billions of dollars worth of equipment that WE made, just sitting at the Cape? No, unless the shuttle just can't fly again, we should at least finish what we have already started and paid for!<br /><br />In the long run if the ISS is fully finished and staffed by at least six people from all the partners involved, there will be enough research for such a facility (and what other facility is such research going to be done on anyway?) to fully fustify its expense. <br /><br />We are so far away from really knowing what we can and can't do in the way of materials and manufacturing in space that it is kind of pathetic when I here people saying "But everything the ISS can do we have already done!". What incredible Bull! <br /><br />The same thing applies to the, "But we have done everything that can be done on the moon!" People. Those who say things like these don't even have a clue! Just how many people have explored the non visable from Earth (otherwise know as the Dark side) side of the moon? How about NONE! How many people have explored even the poles of the moon, where water ice is a real possiblity in the deeper craters? How about also NONE!<br /><br />Even the Apollo astronauts themselves were unhappy with how short a time they had to explore. <br /><br />Then there are the far more important reasons for the explitation as opposed to exploration of the moon. Aside from exotic things like helium 3, there are large percentages of almost all of the materials needed for the further exploration of the solar system. They are there in a one sixth gravity, with no atmosphere to speak of environment. Just waiting for the hand of man to create an entire space infrastructure from them! <br /><br />Those that call going back to the moon a waste (or even the ISS a waste) are the people without vision, not those that would go back!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I mean how may data points are there, exactly?</font>/i><br /><br />The data point is the level of support for ISS within NASA.<br /><br />Three years ago ISS was probably the crowning achievement of NASA. Today, more and more, it is seen as a drag on NASA's future. When the shuttle costs for building out ISS ballooned, Griffin took the costs not out of VSE but out of other science programs. I suspect that was his effort to alienate ISS further. From Griffin's speeches, his only comments for building out ISS are (1) to fulfill international agreements and (2) to provide a means to bootstrap private LEO space access. He never talks about the science to be done on it. Early plans to use ISS as a staging point to the Moon and Mars have all been dropped.<br /><br />This is NOT to say micogravity research isn't important. Nor, is this to say that science won't be done on ISS. But I do believe that there is gathering evidence that ISS support at the highest levels is very thin. The originally quoted statement was another data point indicating this. Not a smoking gun, but another data point.</i>

 

[JonClarke]

The title of your post was "Another Griffin-ISS data point", not the "Chair of the Outer Planets Assessment Group-ISS data point". <br /><br />The opinion of a group of people who have a long term hostility to human exploration and also to Mars exploration (shown in that article) is not a data point on the ISS but a data point on internal NASA politics.<br /><br />For those of us interested in humans on Mars (or NEOs), the ISS or similar platform is essential. Griffin knows this, and is a long term advocate of such missions. I strongly doubt that, however much frustration he feels at the corner that NASA has painted itself into with past decisions, he actually wants to kill a program that is the only way to supply key data and expertise for the long term goals.<br /><br />However, not everyone feels this way. that is why it is just as well the ISS is international, to stiffen the backbone of some of the more nervous people in the US.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"If Japan was willing to retool the Kibo concept, and ESA would use an ATV for Columbus equipment, we could get down to business with the VSE."<br /><br />I don't understand your statements. Retool Kibo how? Start from scratch to build something smaller to launch on an expendable? What is the point? ATV is a supply ship, you would have to completely redesign it to replace Columbus, you still wouldn't have the equivalent and then you are short a supply ship. And without much of the remaining ISS (inparticular the solar panels) the JAXA and European contributions would not work. They have invested heavily in the program - why should we just abandon them?<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

Very true. And not only that but when the ISS is completed as it is contracted to be it will have far, far more capability than any other such device mankind has put into space. This will not only give us more capability to study such areas as microgravity and its affects on not only human beings, but also its affects on very large crystals, and its affects on various pharmaceuticals. Now I am not going to state that such a facility will result in a cure for cancer or even such simpler problems such as AIDS, but who actually has any idea what research on such a facility could lead to?<br /><br />To me at least with a backgound in manufacturing (expecially quality assurance) I fully believe that a full compliment ISS (at least six people) will give us the very important know how for assembly of large space structures. And the use of teleoperated robotics for such assembly. <br /><br />Then there is the developement of smelting and manufacturing methods for converting such minerals as exist on the moon into useful space infrastructure sub assemblies and such. Even if such developement is carried out in small amounts it will give us the necessary knowledge (which at this time we lack almost totally). So the actual eventuall importance of the ISS will be far more than its costs!

 

[arconin]

Does anybody know if once the ISS is complete it could be handed off to another agency like NSF (any science based group would do really) to relieve NASA of any financial responsibility other than providing the occasional ride up?<br /><br />It seems that while everybody is focusing on getting it done there will still be a lingering cost of operation strapped around NASA's neck.<br /><br />Would handing it off even be desireable at all even to free up $$?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Would handing it off even be desireable at all even to free up $$?</font>/i><br /><br />Someone will have to pay for the operational costs. The National Science Foundation, or any other government organization, would probably not take over operational costs without a similar boost to their budget. Where would that extra money come from? My best guess would be NASA.<br /><br />Alternative approaches may include (1) selling US astronaut slots to other countries or other organizations, (2) selling research slots to commercial companies (e.g., can GE make better turbine blades on ISS?), (3) handing over the United State's portion to a commercial entity.<br /><br />Regarding the latter, I would love to see the United Space Alliance (USA) step forward and say they will take over full financial responsibility of ISS. They could then form a sale force to convince commercial companies to pay for research on ISS or to lobby other government groups (DOE, NSF, NIST) to sponsor research on ISS using their own dollars. USA could even promote tourism. NASA, for legal or cultural reasons, probably could not successfully create such a sales force.<br /><br />On the other hand, if USA, who is getting paid to a lot of money to build ISS, does not think enough paying customers (commercial, government, tourists, etc.) can be found to pay for the operational costs of ISS (that is, writing off the development costs), then people should step back and say, "hmmm?"</i>

 

[frodo1008]

I believe that NASA has funded the ISS after it is finished at about 1.5 billion per year. When you consider that the shuttle will no longer exist, and the cost of construction of the ISS was funded at about $3 billion per year, this residual cost is not so very bad.<br /><br />NASA would then have about 6.5 billion in savings to devote to the CEV program. And even if NASA only gets inflation plus a few percent extra by 2010 they should have some $10 billion per year to spend on the CEV project. <br /><br /> As the first landing on the moon will not be until at least 2018 that comes to a total of some 80 billion of the $107 billion esstimated cost for the CEV project (although I don't know whether or not that is through the first moon landing, or somewhere beyond that), so the entire program is indeed possible, if there are no expensive surprises!

 

[erioladastra]

Well NASA operates all the infrastructure (TDRS, ground network, mission control) and all th trained personnel needed to operate are in NASA. So you would either destroy NASA by moving that all somewhere else, or strain NASA to support the new gov agency and CEV etc.