Griffin betrayal. Published e-mail

[centsworth_II]

<i><font color="yellow">1) NASA hasn't gone under.</font></i><br />The only way a government agency can go under is if Congress pulls its funding. <br /><br /><i><font color="yellow">2) The guy you talk about didn't whine in order to ask the world to chnage to keep his job.</font></i><br />Sounded like whining to me, whether to keep things as they are (unjustified) or because of hurt feelings due to feeling unappreciated (justified, but undignified).<br /><br /><i><font color="yellow">3) You're backing Griffin up with something he didn't say. It was what he didn't say that was offensive. He proves that by the need to do that other e-mail where he does apologise and correct his comments.</font></i><br />Griffin does a good job of backing himself up. The Space Shuttle was a mistake IN HINDSIGHT. Griffin's only mistake was pointing this out without adding that those who worked on the program did an outstanding job making it work as well as it does given the complexity and budget limitations. <br /><br /><i><font color="yellow">4) Sounds like you're whining.</font></i><br />Doesn't sound like it to me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

When doing highly technical engineering. Nobody gets it perfect the first time. If you got it perfect, than you've had practice and done it before.<br /><br />When they designed the space shuttle, it was the first time they had tried to put all of those components together in that manner.<br /><br />It was the most complicated machine that had ever been built at the time.<br /><br />Was it a mistake to build the shuttle. Absolutely not!! Could we do better if we had to build it again knowing what we know now? You bet.<br /><br />Would the whole concept of what it's supposed to do be rethought when doing a redesign. If they aren't doing that, then very little learning occurred.

 

[propforce]

... and maybe after we take a look at YOUR LIFE, we may conclude that it too is a MISTAKE <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

My life can never be a mistake unless I think its a mistake <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> That's where people like Mr. Sipes differ from people like me. Also I don't try to justify my existence by puffing myself up and getting full righteous indignation were no offense was ever intended. <br /><br />As far as I know no one called anyone's life a mistake. Where exactly did you hear someone say that someone else's life was a mistake? I heard someone say that a government program was a mistake, but that was it.<br /><br />Its so patently obvious that Griffin was referring to mistakes made by politicians and upper management that I find it hard to believe that this "non-issue" is still going on! frankly I wouldn't be surprised if USA (the "private" company that operates the shuttle) was behind it all. Its obvious that Griffin wants to rely less on Boeing and Lockmart (the co-owners of USA--that can be taken several ways I think!) in the future.<br /><br />

 

[propforce]

<i>"... As far as I know no one called anyone's life a mistake. Where exactly did you hear someone say that someone else's life was a mistake? I heard someone say that a government program was a mistake, but that was it. ..."</i><br /><br />No one say anyone's life is a mistake. I am just trying to draw an analogy that everyone can relate to. So I guess you can blame me as the pot-stirrer. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />I disagree with many posters here who thinks that Shuttle and the ISS is a mistake for the last 30 years. I think it's unfair to broad brush stroke and swipe all the accomplishment in the last 30 years under the carpet. As minimum, they have advanced a great deal in science, engineering and material technologies, inspire several generations of young people to the field of science & engineering, and has been the symbol & pride of American ingenuity & the "Can-Do" spirit. <br /><br />Like all human endeavors, as well as in all sciences & engineering, the next direction NASA takes - the Vision for Space Exploration, builts upon the knowledges & experience of the past by the people who have contributed to them. Without the advancement by the Shuttle & ISS, we would not be able to proceed with the VSE with the timeline and budget that is available.<br /><br />So I'd say let's move on. To criticize others for someone else who has not say what he said is just silly. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

I am also ready to lay this thread to rest. As I have replied to many shuttle bashers on other threads there is nothing even on the horizon that comes close to doing what the shuttle can do. The fact that it can do all of these things despite the severe politcal and monetary constraints during its development is a miracle of engineering.<br /><br />But putting all of our eggs in the shuttle basket WAS a mistake. How often would you drive anywhere if your only vehicle were a tractor trailer?<br /><br />Besides, In everything I've read related to this matter I can't see how anyone could rationally say that Griffin was trying to insult the people who designed, built or maintain the shuttle system. I mean he campaigned hard to use STS components for the next generation of launch vehicles. I don't think he would have done that if he thought that the shuttle was an engineering failure.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Personally, it was a lot - not soley, but a problem, imho - to do with the ommision of recognition for the STS program that stood out for me, and that's been rectified in the follow-up open e-mail Griffin sent out.<br /><br />And get this:<br /><br />USA Today do appear to like selective quoting and leading questions. The big leading question was the one with the now infamous "mistake" quote.<br /><br />http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-10-04-questions-answers-griffin_x.htm

 

[propforce]

<i>"... But putting all of our eggs in the shuttle basket WAS a mistake. How often would you drive anywhere if your only vehicle were a tractor trailer? ..."</i><br /><br />But we did NOT put all our eggs in the shuttle basket.<br /><br />You should've seen a JPL presentation on what they're doing in Space Exploration. In addition to Mars exploration, they are searching for life-friendly sites in & out of solar system, trying to understand the origin of galaxies and universe, as well as understanding our home planet - Earth!! Granted they are <i>unmanned</i> robotic explorations, but they are still exploration in gaining knowlege and understanding of our solar system and beyond. <br /><br />We <i>have</i> conducted research on alternative access to LEO space, e.g., X-30, X-33, SLI, NGLT, etc. While most of them failed, they are still great lessons learned and knowledge gain (if we don't try how would we know we'll suceed?). These 'failed' program will serve as knowledge base for future access to space transportation design, when technologies and advanced materials are more readily available.<br /><br />How would you know if it's safe for human to be in space for more than 6 months at a time, if not for the 'experiments' conducted on the ISS. (sex in space --- now that will get everyone's interests !! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />).<br /><br />Again IMO, what 'we' (collectively speaking) accomplished in the last 30 years has not been a mistake, and we did not put all eggs in the shuttle basket.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">No one say anyone's life is a mistake.</font>/i><br /><br />Well, a few of us may have been an "Oops!" But that is a different story.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Was it a mistake to build the shuttle. Absolutely not!! Could we do better if we had to build it again knowing what we know now? You bet.</font>/i><br /><br />But it was... and not even in hindsight.<br /><br />The problem was that there were too many unknown variables that needed to be answered. Instead of developing low cost traditional X-vehicles to answer these questions and mature the technologies, STS was developed in one big shot. I think this was captured in Griffin's line: "It was a design that was aggressive and just barely possible."<br /><br /><i>Before</i>, investing huge sums of money into a very large system, you should understand all the elements of the system first. Note: NASA is hardly unique in making this mistake.<br /><br />The mistake is compounded by the fact that a perfectly operational space transportation system and space station had to be abandoned to pay for this new system. Come 2012 when the ISS and CEV/CLV are operational, we will be back to where we were in 1973 with Skylab and the Saturn IB (actually, they also had an HLV capability which won't be available until 2015-2017). The 40 year oops.<br /><br /><br />The second mistake was, once the effectiveness and economics of STS was realized, no one had the cohunes to say, "We made a mistake, lets shut this down."</i>

 

[propforce]

But the STS is still cheaper than the Saturn V, even today.<br /><br />The STS was first step toward <i>reusable</i> launch system. Apollo was not. CLV & CEV go back to <i>throw away</i>, e.g., expendable launch system like the Delta IV and Atlas V. <br /><br />Is it a 'mistake'??? Of course not !! Different tools for different jobs. This time, we just need 'people taxi' and we ain't bringing anything back from space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

Cheaper....<br /><br />Is that cheaper per pound to LEO...<br /><br /><br />Or is it cheaper per launch?

 

[frodo1008]

The Saturn V was indeed a most magnificent vehicle. I personally worked on just about every rocket engine on board (there were a total of 28), so I do have some knowledge of this creature. While magnificent, to build and launch such a vehicle today would cost at least $1 billion (and quite probably closer to $2 billion). Remember it was NOT a reusable system. The only thing that came back was the Apollo Command Module, and that was very little of the actual rocket's total system. This rocket weighed in at some 3,000 tons! True, it would place some 250,000 lbs into LEO, but at a great cost as it was actually just a very large ELV.<br /><br />Also. the entire program cost some 4% of the federal budget at its peak (I think it averaged about 2% of the federal budget over all of its years). <br /><br />If NASA were to get some 2% of the current 2.5 tillion federal budget, NASA's budget would be 50 billion instead of 16.4 billion, or just about 3 times its current budget. This would easily give enough to go back to the moon to stay, and then on to Mars, develope CATS, and even give enough to let the pure new private space start-up companies join in the efforts! It would also allow the ISS to be completed properly, and the STS system to be phased out easily! <br /><br />It is this continuing cut in NASA's funding that has made it almost impossible to run anywhere near as effective a program as we had in the 1960's!! This is due primarily to the lack of foresight of the politicians in Washington, and NOT to any problems with NASA itself!! You can't have a Hummer on the budget that would support a bycycle!! It just doesn't happen!!!<br /><br />

 

[cuddlyrocket]

The question is not whether a single launch would be more expensive, but whether what was achieved using the STS could have been carried out cheaper using the previous launch systems.<br /><br />These launch systems were just limited to the Saturn V. There was the Saturn IVB as well, which would've been a lot cheaper per launch.<br /><br />The Saturns could've taken up ISS-equivalent materiel (any space station would've been designed for the Saturns, but consider volume and mass) for less total cost than the Shuttles. The same applies for anything the Shuttle has done - except for the Shuttle's capacity to return stuff from orbit, but that has hardly ever been used and isn't worth the additional cost.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow"><i>"... These launch systems were just limited to the Saturn V. There was the Saturn IVB as well, which would've been a lot cheaper per launch. ..."</i></font><br /><br />The Saturn IVB (S-IVB) is simply a 3rd stage of the Saturn V (S-V) launch vehicle.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"><i>"...The Saturns could've taken up ISS-equivalent materiel (any space station would've been designed for the Saturns, but consider volume and mass) for less total cost than the Shuttles...."</i></font><br /><br />Could've.... Would've...... Should've... Might've... if we have the luxuary of Monday morning quarterbacking 30 years later.<br /><br />I can just about guarantee the same people who criticize the STS today will be here criticizing the CEV/CLV/SDHLV designs 30 yrs from now. It's too big.... it's too small .... it's too complex.... it's too simple.... it's too expensive... it's too screwed up.... etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

The decision to shut down the Saturn program was made by congress, NOT NASA. It was legitimately thought at that time that a reusable system would indeed be cheaper. After all, with all of the Saturn’s we were throwing away the entire rocket!<br /><br />It is even debatable whether or not such large ELV's would have been cheaper. The cost race between the two systems would have been close. At least up until the Challenger accident the shuttle would have even won such a race almost hands down. There is nothing that would have kept the shuttle from being far cheaper except that the eventual launch rate became far too low. This might have even happened without the Challenger and Columbia accidents. This will ALWAYS be a major problem. <br /><br />If you have a launch rate of only a few rockets per year, the cost per launch, and therefore the cost per pound to LEO is going to be much higher. The main problem is NOT the cost of the rockets themselves, but what are we going to launch on them. If we could launch at least 2 launches per month, the cost of ANY system would come down dramatically, this is the economy of scale. So put your busy little anti-shuttle, anti-ISS, and anti- NASA minds to work and come up with projects that would use many more launches! <br /><br />I am more than willing to start threads with several such ideas of my own. Perhaps we could begin with actually building up the trans-lunar space infrastructure? How about the right type of space station, in the right inclination, at the right altitude? If we then design the CEV to carry people to work on such projects, and a SHHLV to provide such material as Bigelow's inflatable space station habitats in such quantities as to allow for the formation of real space hotels and research centers then just the increase in the launch rate itself will bring the cost down greatly. Then using such way points, both in a high earth orbit, and a low moon orbit, design a continuous transport system between t

 

[SteveMick]

frodo1008 wrote "So before we can go further out into the solar system with people instead of robots (a necessary condition to actually exploit the resources of the solar system instead of just exploring such with robots) we are going to need a far larger trans-lunar infrastructure"<br /> I rarely agree with a post as completely as this one and for me the above quote was the icing on the cake. Let me ask two questions:<br />1. Will a mature space transport infrastructure rely on propellent lifted up from earth's deep gravity well or will it rely on in-situ resources?<br />2. Will a mature space infrastructure have any non-reusable vehicles?<br /> i think the answer to the first is that in-situ derived resources will of course be used be they from NEO's, the Moon, Mars or Phobos for instance. Also the answer to the second is that of course all vehicles will be reusable.<br /> So the real question is whether we want to begin building the robust and sustainable transportation infrastructure of the future or something that will be a dinosaur?<br /> Building ISRU capability is essential and must be a first step and not an afterthought. Given ISRU, the economics change dramatically and even if launch costs to LEO remain relatively high, travel to the Moon and Mars will still be relatively cheap. The Japanese Hayabusha probe shows that robotic recovery of NEO regolith is hardly a major problem and baking the volatiles out of it for propellent with a solar furnace is rather straightforward.<br /> Idiocy is doing the same thing(Apollo) again and expecting a different result(than political cancellation due to high costs).<br />Steve

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It was legitimately thought at that time that a reusable system would indeed be cheaper. After all, with all of the Saturn’s we were throwing away the entire rocket!</font>/i><br /><br />True, but there were already existing expendables whereas the STS would need additional costs for development and construction. In response to the General Accounting Office (GAO), NASA stated in june of 1973 that through 1990 using expendable rockets would cost $66.2 billion whereas STS would cost $50.2 billion -- a savings of $16 billion over approximately 18 years.<br /><br />However, to arrive at these numbers, NASA made the following assumptions:<br /><ul type="square"><li> seven orbiters<li> 779 flights by 1990<li> 86 missions per year by 1990<li> or 1 STS flight every 4 days by 1990.<br /></li></li></li></li></ul><br />In other words, to justify the economic viability of the shuttle over existing expendables, NASA needed to assume a fantasy land launch schedule of more than one per week. Sounds like assumptions built into a lot of dot-com business models circa 1999.</i>

 

[tmccort]

How is that not illegal? I can't see how anyone could report numbers like that to the GAO without lying through their teeth.<br /><br />Or did they actually believe it... incredible.

 

[propforce]

Well... so much for a case against any future development of reusuable launch vehicle. I hope everyone remember this post next time they argue for a RLV system. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Let's see if Rutan can do better and if his rocket is anything more than just a ".. vomit rocket..." ride. Let's also see how does SpaceX justifies their $6M per launch price tag <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Hindsight is really just so wonderful isn't it? We can now look back some 35 years or so and say that NASA was being criminal in making predictions like these. Aren't we lucky!<br /><br /> At the time the designs for the STS system were to be fully two stage to orbit using only rapidly refueled liquid engines. The orbiters were to be mounted onto or beside the boosters in days instead of weeks, and these predictions were indeed considered quite possible by all concerned!<br /><br />Of course, this was before NASA's budgets were slashed to provide increased funding for the Viet Nahm war. Once this happened the kluge (magnificent kluge, but still a kluge) that was the eventual STS system was born. If the job had been done correctly from the beginning it would indeed have cost more up front, but these predictions would actually not have been that far off the mark. <br /><br />Of course, if we could have even come close to these marks, we would now have a very large space infrastructure between the moon and the earth, fully sustainable bases on the moon, and even human beings on Mars! This would have been quite possible with only an increase in NASA's budget from the less than 1% of the federal budget it has averaged over the last 30 years to about the 2% that it averaged over the years of Apollo. Instead we chose to make bomb craters in southeast asia. And now we may be doing it again in the middle east! <br /><br />Maybe we actually deserve to have the Chinese take over space in the long run and destroy us economically! Luckily for me at the age of 63 I quite probably won't live long enough to see it, have fun kids!!!

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"Let's see if Rutan can do better and if his rocket is anything more than just a ".. vomit rocket..." ride."</i><br /><br />Well, no, it won't really be more than just a "vomit rocket" if you're referring to "SpaceShipTwo". I think it's cool as hell, don't get me wrong, but from a practical standpoint, it's no more useful than the roller coasters I rode at Six Flags Great Adventure last week! It'll basically be a very high tech, high risk amusement park ride for rich dudes! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />I know that Burt Rutan wants to open up access to Low Earth Orbit and beyond, but at this point, "SpaceShipThree" seems a long way off. I just hope that the inevitable catastrophes and fatalities in the fledgling suborbital tourism industry won't bring the entire thing to a screeching halt.

 

[frodo1008]

Like Yevaud I am basically a political independent and moderate. So I will try to take a more logical and less impassioned viewpoint on the situation in Iraq. With this viewpoint I come to the conclusion that we need to at least start to develop some kind of concrete plan to extract our people from a very dangerous situation!<br /><br />The way that I see it there are only three major directions that Iraq can go in:<br /><br />One is the desired direction of president Bush and his administration, that is that the Iraqis will take over and become a moderate democracy in the middle east. I am sorry, but this is absolutely the least likely of scenarios. Unlike Viet Nahm (which didn't quite end so well for the US, now did it) we are not just fighting people who disagree with our political system. We are fighting a very religious people who believe that our country is out to get their particular religion. Now it doesn't matter a hoot whether or not this position is valid or not, it IS the perception of such a position that creates a people so fanatical that they are fully willing to end their own lives just so long as they can take some of the hated invaders with them!! Our very presence upon their sacred Islamic soil is creating such fanatics! We are NOT decreasing international terrorism in this manner we are increasing it!<br /><br />Number two, is that the Sunni branch of the Moslem religion will accept the rule of the far more conservative and traditional Shiites. This will NOT result in a moderate Arabic democratic country! What it will result in is a country very like Iran (where the Shiite Moslems are also the majority) which is a fundamentalist Islamic state that hates the US as "The Great Satan" which opposes such Islamic fundamentalism! Not exactly what the current administration had in mind, now is it?<br />The only real advantage that I could see to this is that we would then be asked to leave the sacred Islamic soil of Iraq just as soon as possible! At

 

[frodo1008]

Sorry, please ignore the above post, I was on a thread in free space (as you can see I am not only against the War in Iraq because it is quite possibly going to take funding from NASA, but I am against it for other more concrete reasons) and made this post. Somehow, it got posted here instead! Oh well, my bad!!