Griffin betrayal. Published e-mail

shuttle_man · Oct 2, 2005

In Sunday's Florida Today newspaper, one of my colleages speaks out at Griffin's "mistake" interview with USA Today. Remember kids, this guy works in the space program, just remember that as you read it. I can only echo his comments. "NASA chief's comments betray workers, mission The headline in Wednesday's paper, in which NASA Administrator Michael Griffin called the shuttle and space station programs a mistake, were not only appalling to those who have followed and supported the space program for decades. They were an outright insult to those who have given their blood, sweat, tears, and yes, even their lives, for this national treasure. To say the shuttle was "deeply flawed" and the space station was not worth "the expense, the risk and the difficulty" of flying humans to into space borders on heresy to those who have given so much for this great cause. I'm an employee with United Space Alliance, the shuttle's prime contractor, and have worked at Kennedy Space Center since the birth of the shuttle program. I have never known a more professional or more dedicated group of individuals than those who comprise the space shuttle team. For Griffin to denigrate the achievements of my co-workers and the thousands of space pioneers that preceded us in developing this program is shameful. But then again, it doesn't take a genius to realize he must discredit and sabotage this program to solicit support for his "moon, Mars and beyond" pipe dream. Griffin may hold five master's degree and a Ph.D., but there are two things he lacks -- common sense and compassion. I, for one space employee, am embarrassed to consider him a colleague. Brian Sipe Cocoa Beach"

spacefire · Oct 2, 2005

but at the same time it's hard to argue with the facts: The Shutlle is flawed and the ISS needs the Shuttle to be completed and supported. If the ISS could function with a crew of 3 relying only on Soyuz/Proton launches, it should be kept. If alternatives could be found, it should be kept. At the same time, it's obvious the US government wants to pull out of the ISS and Griffin is just echoing that opinion. He's not allowed to say otherwise

I totally agree with his comments on the Shuttle <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

vt_hokie · Oct 2, 2005

While I understand the sentiment, I cannot in principle support the notion that policy decisions must not be criticized for fear of offending someone. It's the same as the people who complain when someone criticizes the Vietnam war, or the current war in Iraq. Yes, people have given their lives in each, but that doesn't automatically make them the correct policy decisions or make our leaders beyond reproach. I think it was indeed a mistake to halt our momentum and abandon the Apollo infrastructure for the sake of "STS". However, as I've said before, I think it would be no less of a mistake to severely curtail or abandon ISS now.

centsworth_II · Oct 2, 2005

The writer may be justified in seeing Griffin as discrediting the hard work of many by calling the shuttle and space station programs a mistake. However, when he refers to "Moon, Mars and beyond" as a "pipe dream", he commits the same sin. Many, including many now working on the shuttle, will be involved in the new Moon program. These people will not be working on a "pipe dream". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

tmccort · Oct 2, 2005

To say the shuttle was "deeply flawed" and the space station was not worth "the expense, the risk and the difficulty" of flying humans to into space borders on heresy to those who have given so much for this great cause. I'm sorry but what? The Shuttle IS deeply flawed. The ISS in it's cut down form is basically useless. I have never known a more professional or more dedicated group of individuals than those who comprise the space shuttle team. Who says otherwise!? For Griffin to denigrate the achievements of my co-workers and the thousands of space pioneers that preceded us in developing this program is shameful. Now this is getting silly. But then again, it doesn't take a genius to realize he must discredit and sabotage this program to solicit support for his "moon, Mars and beyond" pipe dream. This guy is content to remain doing circles in LEO it seems. If it wasn't for the ISS what would the Shuttle be doing, really? This is pretty much an emotional screed from someone who needs to just chill out. Is he worried he won't have a place in the Moon/Mars program or something. I thought these people were supposed to like challenges.

spacester · Oct 2, 2005

The sin of heresy can only be committed when dealing with a religious social system. I was under the impression that NASA was a bit more technical than that. I guess you learn something new every day. I fail to see how Dr. Griffin's comments discredit anyone except the policy makers in Washington. I simply am unable to imagine any logical path from one to the other. I see emotional paths, and that's all we've seen on this issue so far. Maybe we should just leave it at that? Alternatively, could one on you folks who feel so offended please lay out the logic for us? Policy mistake made years ago ---------- denigrating the achievments. What's the connection? I simply do not see it. Is the NASA hymnal available to the rest of us? I admire your bravery Mr. Sipe, I really do. But maybe you are just so resistant to change that you cannot let your fellow citizens in on setting the direction of their space program. You are not the only stakeholder in this game. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SpaceKiwi · Oct 3, 2005

I have to say I agree with you on this one, spacester. Those of you who have known me for a while around here will also know that I am one of the greatest advocates for human spaceflight, for the shuttle program, and for the efforts of those who work within these. However, I struggle greatly with the 'logic' of the 'insult' allegedly perpetrated by Griffin in labelling the Shuttle and ISS Programs as 'mistakes'. I readily concede I have not read the article in question as yet, but I do believe it is possible to question the rationale of decisions taken without questioning the efforts of those charged with carrying them out. A classic example of this in recent times was Bush's successful re-election implication that questioning the Iraq war insults the efforts of the troops in the field fighting it. I believe such a connection does not stand LOGICAL scrutiny and was 'mischievious' in the extreme. If I might be so bold as to say, I think exactly the same thing has happened here. The rights and/or wrongs of the decision taken to build the STS are a completely and utterly separate issue from whether all those who have worked on the STS have done a fine and commendable job. I have no strong view one way or the other on whether the STS was the right way to go after Apollo. It's impossible to Monday-Morning-Quarterback on what might have happened if NASA went a different route than the STS. They may have ended up with a 'better' system than Shuttle, they may have ended up with something 10 times worse. However, I have VERY strong views on the efforts of those charged with executing the decision made to proceed with Shuttle. And, as I'm sure you can guess by now, I believe the workforce that have made Shuttle a reality have done an outstanding job over the years. They have been wildly successful in bringing this machine into existance, and operating it over the course of the last decades. Yes, lives have been lost, but name me j <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

jatslo · Oct 3, 2005

I am a business manager: these symptoms are characteristics of "Change Resistance". This means that when there are major rapid changes in company behavior that individuals have gotten used to over the years, backlash quells up in the form of resistance to change. It is down right hostile sometimes, and heads will role and people will quit, rest assured, but in the long run, everything is going to be okay. There is a new vision, and it is big time different from the old vision. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

Swampcat · Oct 3, 2005

To no one in particular, except the NASA/USA workers (and maybe Shuttle_RTF): I honestly don't understand the negative reaction to Dr. Griffin's comments. As I pointed out in another thread and others have written here, there is absolutely no connection between calling the original decision to build STS/ISS a "mistake" and the workers who did an admirable job of making it work or the lives that were lost. Help me understand exactly what you guys are so upset about. Are you so entrenched in your current job or so enamored with STS/ISS that you've lost your objectivity or aren't up to new challenges? What is it that you have to lose here? I truly don't understand. It seems more like you guys are simply looking for some reason to be against Dr. Griffin and VSE. What's going on here? You want to work on STS/ISS forever? You want to do LEO forever and never go beyond? Do you have an opinion on what NASA should be doing besides going beyond LEO? I'm really trying to understand your attitude. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

nacnud · Oct 3, 2005

Well this is how New Scientist mentions the USA today interview. Michael Griffin said: "Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in." He also told USA Today that the decision in the 1970s to replace the Apollo programme with the reusable space shuttle "was not the right path", adding "we are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can." If you refer to what Griffin actual said rather than what is being reported in some media then his comments make sense. It’s a shame that it turning into a game of Chinese whispers (telephone?).

barrykirk · Oct 3, 2005

Yup, You got it jatslo. If your making progress your going to make enemies of those who like the status quo. If your not making progress your going to make enemies of those who want change. Either way your going to make enemies. That's just human nature. Mike Griffin, is probably doing a fabulous job with the resources and situations he is facing. Is his VSE what he would really want? Probably not. He didn't set the budget or the conditions he inherited. Is his VSE what I would want. In some ways yes, and some ways not. Is his VSE what most people want. I'd also say that in some ways yes, and some ways not. But what will people say in 30 years. Will he be remembered in a similar light to W. Von Braun? Von Braun set the bar really high, But, tt's too soo to tell.

wdobner · Oct 3, 2005

He may be making progress on the all-too-popular front of getting out of low earth orbit again, but what of other developments which NASA has been working on? How was the space shuttle 'too expensive' yet we found money to work on Prometheus, the X-43, the X-33, and a myriad other projects while flying it (and building the ISS to boot)? To paraphrase Dave Barry, some moron in DC says "Umm, lets go to umm to that place, ok?" He undoubtedly means the Chinese buffet across the street, but his aides interpret it as a grand statement for the future of human spaceflight and suddenly every other project is cut in the name of repeating what we did 35 years ago. I'm not looking for a continuation of the status quo, but if Mr. Griffin is going to call the actions of his predecessors into question perhaps he should look at what they REALLY did wrong rather than focus on the product of their managerial mistake. Back then NASA probably should have pursued a two pronged approach to their spaceflight woes, continue Apollo or perhaps a follow-on space capsule, and develop the space shuttle at a cheaper, slower rate. Admittedly politics would make this difficult, but it certainly should not have been out of the question. Now we're doing the exact same thing, but in the opposite direction. We've decided we're sick of going around in circles so we're going to go to the moon and Mars. Just like in the 1960s the post-lunar plans are sketchy at best. Why can't we just for once run a program which allows both for the development of an exploratory space program and a way to get vehicles into LEO cheaply at the same time? Later exploratory programs will benefit greatly from the cheaper LEO access the 'boring' spaceplane, SSTO, or reusable rocket programs bring to life (heck, have NASA work with SpaceX like they do with Boeing, P&W, and everyone else). We're not racing anyone to the moon, so why rush back? We've been there, we won and the only way we're going make t

spacefire · Oct 3, 2005

great post, sir! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

radarredux · Oct 3, 2005

> Remember kids, this guy works in the space program, just remember that as you read it./i> I'm sorry, when I read stuff like this I think, "What a bunch of cry babies." I am sorry that NASA employees and contractors aren't adult enough to handle the truth. Its like the politically correct educators who won't give an 'F' for fear of hurting the child's feelings. People and opinions like these are what make my blood boil when I see all the BS NASA has pulled over the year with my tax dollar. If this is the position of NASA's employees and contractors, I say cancel government-sponsored the manned space program!

wvbraun · Oct 3, 2005

What a load of BS. I just hope most of the people working at NASA and for its contractors are a bit more rational minded. Griffin didn't insult anybody, he just said that the Shuttle and ISS were mistakes and that's the truth. People like Brian Sipe who are addicted to the stuatus quo should just leave, they may care about the Shuttle and the station but they obviously don't care about the long-term future of the space program. I hope Griffin can get rid of all the Sipes in NASA's upper management before he leaves the agency.

propforce · Oct 3, 2005

".... What a load of BS...." Your LIFE and ACCOMPLISHMENTS in the last 30 years has been a MISTAKE !! How would you feel when this was directed to YOUR LIFE? I think that's what many Shuttle & ISS employees felt when they hear that comment. The majority of men & women who works for/ at NASA do not dictate the nations space transportation policy, they execute them to the best of their abilities. Nobody is more aware of bureaucratic red tapes and inefficiencies than these men & women, but they still manage to make the space program as safe and reliable as humanly possible. So I'd say why don't you folks cut these space-verterans some slacks and look in the mirror before you spew your ill-conceived thought with those tricky fingers on the keyboard? IMO, the past 30 yrs was not a mistake. We've learned a great deals and advanced technologies heck of a lot. Thanksfully, there's a tons of operational experience on the Shuttle that can be pass down to CLV, SDHLV, etc., and ISS experience for the CEV. It is a transitional time, passing of torch from one major program to another. I'd say salute to those who have faithfully executed the Shuttle program, thanking them for a job well down, and looking forward to have them to teach us on how to do it better with the next phrase of human space exploration. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

wdobner · Oct 3, 2005

People like Brian Sipe who are addicted to the stuatus quo should just leave, they may care about the Shuttle and the station but they obviously don't care about the long-term future of the space program. And Griffin's view in any way benefits long term spaceflight? We've been to the moon, we've proven we can get there. If we want to make this time any different we'll return on a regular basis. As it stands right now it's simply too expensive to get out of the atmosphere. Until we get the cost to LEO down, we're not going to be going anywhere in the solar system on a regular basis. I'm all for going to the moon, but dropping every good program we had to get there (including stuff already in earth orbit) is a total waste. Nothing against the fine folks who worked on the shuttle, but it likely was a misguided effort. The supposed lowering of flight costs and the proposed flexibility and convenience never panned out. However, what we're doing now is just as bad if not worse than what we did in the 1970s with the shuttle development. At least some truely amazing materials science research came out of the shuttle design and construction effort, but the CLV, SDLV and other components of the VSE just don't extend the state of the art at all.

barrykirk · Oct 3, 2005

So, it seems we have two schools of thought here. Those who are oppossed to same old same old. And the other group who are oppossed to the status quo. LOL We won't see truly lowered costs to space flight until one of the following occurs. 1) Private companies develop cheap rockets. 2) Space tethers/ Space Elevators come on line. 3) Laser Launch Systems become a reality. Any one of those three technologies has real promise. All three of them could come on line within the next 10 years and change our world out of all recognition.

propforce · Oct 3, 2005

"...So, it seems we have two schools of thought here. Those who are oppossed to same old same old. And the other group who are oppossed to the status quo. ..." How about a 3rd school of thought ? Say 'thank you' to the Shuttle workers and ask them to help us designing a more reliable and safer CLV ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

wvbraun · Oct 3, 2005

Read my post again. I don't blame NASA's workforce for the slow pace of progress over the past thirty years and neither does Griffin. That doesn't change the fact that the Shuttle program was the wrong choice. I'm sure the people working for NASA, USA etc. did the best they could. Griffin never said anything that could be interpreted as denigrating their efforts.

propforce · Oct 3, 2005

"...Read my post again. I don't blame NASA's workforce for the slow pace of progress over the past thirty years and neither does Griffin..." No. You just insulted their intelligent for being '...irrational minded...' and they should just quite their job if they disagree with the new adminstrator's comments. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />What a load of BS. I just hope most of the people working at NASA and for its contractors are a bit more rational minded. Griffin didn't insult anybody, he just said that the Shuttle and ISS were mistakes and that's the truth. People like Brian Sipe who are addicted to the stuatus quo should just leave, they may care about the Shuttle and the station but they obviously don't care about the long-term future of the space program. I hope Griffin can get rid of all the Sipes in NASA's upper management before he leaves the agency<hr /></blockquote> I don't know what you do for a living (I think you live in Germany, yes?) How would you feel if the new German prime minster say what the German people have done since post-WW II was a mistake????? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

wvbraun · Oct 3, 2005

I can't believe you still don't get it. The Shuttle was a mistake, so was the ISS. To say that doesn't denigrate the efforts of the people who worked on these programs for the past thirty years because they didn't make the decision to start them. They did the best they could, they are not to blame for the lack of good judgement of the politicians and a few NASA mangers in the early 1970s. And yes, those who attack Griffin because he speaks the truth should leave NASA. I mean, come on we all know that the Shuttle is a deeply flawed design, that the program never achieved its objectives and that upgrading the Apollo hardware would have made more sense. We could be on Mars by now. Maybe it was impossible to see the problems (with the Shuttle) coming at the time so that there is really no one to blame. That doesn't change the fact that the Shuttle was a mistake that has held back real progress for three decades and any rational person should be ready to acknowledge that.

wdobner · Oct 3, 2005

We won't see truly lowered costs to space flight until one of the following occurs. 1) Private companies develop cheap rockets. 2) Space tethers/ Space Elevators come on line. 3) Laser Launch Systems become a reality. Any one of those three technologies has real promise. All three of them could come on line within the next 10 years and change our world out of all recognition. Geez, you put those far-off things in there and completely ignore the contributions a single stage to orbit vehicle could bring to lowering the cost of accessing LEO. An airbreathing HOTOL SSTO could be 100% reusable, require no specialized launch facilities, use a high ISP airbreathing engine during the run-up to orbit, and cut LOX consumption to the bare minimum, all of which works toward reducing the total cost to LEO. I see you're counting 36,000km of carbon nanotubules, space tethers which NASA has yet to deploy successfully, private launchers which have yet to get off the pad, and lasers of power ratings far in advance of the current state of the art as being more likely than our joining a scramjet design which we know works to a vehicle optimized to fly in the same corridor as the shuttle did on reentry. It's not all that complicated an undertaking, and it's a goal now closer than it has ever been before. We just need to get a little money out of the VSE program to have a fall-back plan for when Congress balks at the cost of continuing it and demands an option to allow NASA to continue the missions without continually blowing billions getting payloads out of the atmosphere. Believe it or not technical development is exploration, and at this point exploring the possibility of cheap access to LEO by performing long-range SSTO testing which no company would undertake is perhaps the best service they could render this country. What good is a moon program if you're stuck on earth because of high launch costs?

chris_in_space · Oct 3, 2005

"Your LIFE and ACCOMPLISHMENTS in the last 30 years has been a MISTAKE !! How would you feel when this was directed to YOUR LIFE?" And I can see even more disappointement if this is coming from your boss (or sort of boss). I mean I can understand the disappointement if your boss comes to you and says that what you've done for the last 30 years is useless. I think it's a bit like this that some people working on these projects feel this. Still if Griffin only said that these programs were not the right way to go, than I think that some may have overeacted a bit. I mean he didn't said that the people didn't do their job right neither that all this work was useless. He just that after taking some distance, these programs were not necessarily the best ones. If he keeps the commitements that he or his predecessors have taken on the shuttle/ISS programs and if he will now try to change the direction of the new programs that HE will launch, that's ok for me. I mean you have to allow people to say if they have new ideas that they think are better than the previous without taking it as an insult. Provided that he takes the necessary precautions while saying and explaining this (i.e. not throwing everything that was done before him over bord, respecting the previous work and projects...). Now I don't have all the details to say if Griffin did or didn't took all these precautions...

wvbraun · Oct 3, 2005

"Geez, you put those far-off things in there and completely ignore the contributions a single stage to orbit vehicle could bring to lowering the cost of accessing LEO." LOL. Far-off things? SpaceX's Falcon 1 sits on the launchpad, Falcon 5&9 are in development. Space elevators will be a realistic option within 20 years. An SSTO vehicle is at least as far-off, its development would be hugely expensive and in the end it would be inferior to a space elevator.

Griffin betrayal. Published e-mail

shuttle_man

Guest

spacefire

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

tmccort

Guest

spacester

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

nacnud

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

wdobner

Guest

spacefire

Guest

radarredux

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

propforce

Guest

wdobner

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

propforce

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

propforce

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

wdobner

Guest

chris_in_space

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page