Griffin Builds Hopes For Terrestrial Planet Finder

[kdavis007]

Griffin Builds Hopes For Terrestrial Planet Finder And Hubble Rescue Missions<br /><br />NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said last week that, in effect, reports of the demise of the Terrestrial Planet Finder - and perhaps other major space-exploration projects for the future - have been exaggerated.<br /><br />He also made a strong statement of support for sending a space shuttle mission to the Hubble Space Telescope for repair and upgrades within two years.<br /><br />Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the National Space Club, Griffin acknowledged that his agency's proposed budget for fiscal year 2007 contained no funding for the giant telescope, which has been planned for some time as a possible means of imaging Earth-like planets orbiting distant stars. NASA's budget proposal, released last week, said essentially that funding constraints had forced the TPF's postponement indefinitely.<br /><br />The James Webb Space Telescope, a near-infrared instrument intended to replace the aging Hubble, also would be deferred, the NASA document said, with an eye on a "launch date of no earlier than 2013."<br /><br />Likewise, NASA's plans now call for deferring SIM PlanetQuest - formerly called the Space Interferometry Mission - a precursor to the TPF.<br /><br />"I recognize that no one is getting everything they want from this budget for NASA," Griffin said. "We simply will not be able to do everything, right now, that many in the space community may want us to do. I do not relish the fact that we cannot afford the costs and complexity of starting new space science missions, like a mission to Jupiter's moon Europa, or the next generation space astronomy missions beyond the James Webb Space Telescope. We must make difficult choices in setting resource priorities."<br /><br />Despite the decisions, Griffin said, "it is important to note that we are delaying missions, not simply abandoning them. We will still do the Space Interferometry Mission, the Terrestrial Planet Finder, and the Gl

 

[kdavis007]

We have a choice... Either keep the Hubble and scrap the TPF or scrap the Hubble to develop the TPF??? <br /><br />I wonder what the Hubble supporters are saying now...<br />

 

[toymaker]

His statements are not binding. Unless there is a written obligation to continue the projects, such prop talk is worth as much as anybodies personal view. <br />With time you learn to see through the propaganda that is space politics.

 

[gunsandrockets]

I'm a fairly harsh critic of Griffin's management of NASA, but I think Griffin is getting a bum rap over the science mission deferment issue.<br /><br />Griffin is dealing with a horrible budget crunch. The STS and ISS are draining the life blood out of NASA. And at the same time Griffin has decided to accelerate the CEV development. Under such conditions something has got to give, hence deferment of many programs.<br /><br />I believe, 'spock' mind that he is, Griffin can be taken at his word regarding deferred spending, whether it is for unmanned science missions or for important technology development programs such as Project Prometheus.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

The TPF is a waste of money. 'Deferring' it simply allows time for this to become more obvious, and reduces the number of people whose career depends on it. Cancellation is practically certain.

 

[toymaker]

All science is a waste of money when moon rocks and flying coffins are waiting.

 

[serak_the_preparer]

<i>Cancellation is practically certain.</i><br /><br />From Most likely host star for advanced life named (New Scientist):<br /><br /><i>. . . A planned life-hunting project is NASA's Terrestrial Planet Finder, would look for life by imaging forms potentially habitable planets. That might reveal life that does not deliberately send any signals off their home planet.<br /><br />But the mission, which some anticipated would launch in 2014, has been postponed due to cuts in NASA's science budget proposed by US President George W Bush on 6 February 2006. "TPF is essentially shelved," says Turnbull.<br /><br />The budget cuts would mean that NASA's 2007 budget for astrobiology would be 50% of that in 2005, according to Jill Tarter of the SETI Institute.</i>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>I'm a fairly harsh critic of Griffin's management of NASA, but I think Griffin is getting a bum rap over the science mission deferment issue. <br /><br />Griffin is dealing with a horrible budget crunch.</i><br /><br />If the guy voted for Bush - and I assume that he's loyal to the neo-cons since he's a Bush appointee - then I can't really feel too sorry for his predicament. Anyone voting for this current corrupt administration has given tacit endorsement of our nation's screwed up policies, including pouring billions into the Iraq debacle while things fall apart here at home.

 

[BReif]

You actually think a democratic congress and administration would support the space program, TPF, or any other space mission? The Democtaric Party has been weak on space for over 20 years. The fought Space Station Freedom, NASP, SSTO, ISS, SEI, and now many are fighting VSE. Do they support space science? John Kerry led the effort to get the Cassini Mission canceled because of its RTG power source. If Kerry had gotten his way, Galilieo, Cassini, New Horizons, and any other science mission using Plutonuim decay for power would never haver flown. The days of JFK and LBJ touting NASA and its programs are long gone. President Clinton may have expressed support, but the Dems in Congress (except Nelson and Glenn) always seemed to fall short. Al Gore was never a fan of space exploration, as VP, or as Tennessee Senator. He consitently voted against NASA authorization bills, to cut or kill NASA programs in unmanned and manned spaceflight in his carreer as senator. <br /><br />War in Iraq is something we ought to get out of the quicker the better, but Bush was the best candidate for space exploration in 2000 and 2004, IMO.

 

[vt_hokie]

Too many Democrats are either against or ambivalent toward our space program - I'll give you that. But I don't think you can include "SSTO" in your list. Wasn't X-33 known as a Clinton/Gore program? <br /><br />But with more responsible policies overall, this nation would be in better fiscal condition to support a worthwhile space program. For the record, I'm not registered as either a Republican or Democrat, although I won't try to deny that I am a somewhat left leaning independent. But I will say this: If the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Hillary Clinton for 2008, I'm voting for a third party candidate!

 

[BReif]

<font color="yellow">But with more responsible policies overall, this nation would be in better fiscal condition to support a worthwhile space program.</font><br /><br />AGREED!<br /><br />And I an not a registered Republican or Democrat either, and given the choice between dumb and dumber, may just leave the presidential ballot unpunched.

 

[josh_simonson]

I don't agree, NASA didn't get an increase in funding when there was a tax surplus, and now that we're in a deficit mode again NASA has been getting the biggest budget increase it's gotten in over a decade. NASA's budget is small enough that fluctuations in the overall budget don't affect it much. <br /><br />A democrat president may cut some of the promising dual use DARPA stuff like the FALCON program too...

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>I don't agree, NASA didn't get an increase in funding when there was a tax surplus, and now that we're in a deficit mode again NASA has been getting the biggest budget increase it's gotten in over a decade. </i><br /><br />That's a fair point. However, I think that our space program and everything else is going to eventually collapse like a house of cards if we maintain the current reckless and unsustainable policies.

 

[baktothemoon]

I say that we should cut out all of the pork and give the savings to NASA.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I think that our space program and everything else is going to eventually collapse like a house of cards if we maintain the current reckless and unsustainable policies.</font>/i><br /><br />I think the lack of an "undeniable win" for NASA's manned space program in many years certainly hurts their credibility. No one in Congress seems very excited about ISS, and the constant Shuttle and ISS delays and cost overruns have not helped.<br /><br />However, as long as China continues to push to become a player in space exploration, and if Russia makes a serious effort to do anything beyond LEO, Congress will want the US to be involved in manned space exploration. It is a matter of national pride, and if there is one thing Congress likes to do, it is wave the American flag.<br /><br />Regarding the unmanned side of space exploration, I think that is solid. It may suffer some minor budget reductions, but with the success of Hubble, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and other programs over the years, the unmanned side is sitting well.</i>

 

[ragnorak]

<br />I understand there are Congressmen jumping up and down about China but it seems to me the Chinese are in no rush to get men to the Moon.

 

[mlorrey]

I think China is intent on making gullible people believe they are in no rush to get to the moon. Being a student of Sun Tsu's "The Art of War", as is every officer of the People's Liberation Army, I believe I have a greater understanding of their thought processes. Sun Tsu was the general who united the various states of China into the first true Chinese Empire, back around 500 BC. His book is considered the greatest strategy tome ever written.<br /><br />One strategy Tsu argues for is to cause your enemy to underestimate you, while preparing yourself and choosing the place of battle, undermining your enemies capacities, such that you win the battle before the first arrow is shot.<br /><br />I would argue that the "no rush" paradigm is one that China wants the US to believe, but that they will spring a major achievement on us while we are lulled.

 

[qso1]

There is no reason for us to race China to the moon, we been there.<br /><br />We need to advance in other ways. I agree we should go to the moon for two reasons, one to stay, as in lunar base. The other, a base that has two goals. One goal to rehearse a possible Mars base. The other goal of course, mining, and industrial production. NASA has not had an undeniable win because there has been no race. The Russians have had no undeniable win either. The areas of space we can explore with people are still LEO and we only have ISS between the two countries to do that.<br /><br />The only really immediate new goal that sets itself apart from that which we have already done is Mars IMO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[revolutionary]

Cancel the ISS. The ISS is not worth losing the TPF and other projects that have fallen victim to the ISS thugs.

 

[baktothemoon]

I hate that what didn't get swallowed up by the ISS is now being swallowed by VSE. Pouring money into something that will have taken almost 20 years to build and 100 billion dollars and then letting it fall into the atmosphere once we are done is the most wasteful thing that I have ever heard. Put money into projects that we get benefits back from. Leave space station building to people like Bigelow. They will be able to do it better than NASA anyway.<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[BReif]

The agency must set priorities that match the law of the land set in the NASA authorization bill passed in 2005. That is VSE. Hw does TPF further the VSE?

 

[revolutionary]

How does the ISS further the VSE?

 

[BReif]

It doesn't, in my opinion. However, in the VSE outlined in January 2004, the ISS was a part of the overall plan.<br /><br />1. Get shuttle flying<br />2. Finish ISS<br />3. Develop CEV/CaLV and Return to Moon<br />4. Go to Mars, then beyond<br /><br />So essentially, ISS is a part of the VSE, step 2, though I think it will hurt the possibilities of step 3 and 4 from ever happening. But that's the way the man outlined the Vision.