Griffin speech 1 Nov 05

[cuddlyrocket]

To the Centre for Strategic & International Studies.<br /><br />Interesting the concentration on international cooperation and commercial involvement, together with his stressing that landing on the Moon is only a first step, with bases, telescopes etc to follow. Perhaps he's been reading this site! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...Perhaps he's been reading this site..."<br /><br /><br />if it is true... probably he have been read threads and posts of those (some assumptive posters...) calls "trolls" (that can't be feeded...)... since (after only a month...) the VSE plan is already changed in many crucial points... moonrovers... mars... lunar telescope... international cooperation... etc. ...he can't have different opinions and poin-of-views reading only CEV-VSE-loving-posters' chorum...<br /><br />fortunately... (so called "trolls") will continue having and communicate their FREE opinions despite the proposal of some (assumptive and "democratic"...) posters to boycott them...<br /><br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

I'm not sure how thrilled the international partners will be about an exploration scheme that relies entirely on just one method of launch. It is all well and good to compare the CLV and the HLV to a highway but roads are a lot more mature technology and don't tent to break very often.<br /><br />For example the STS was sold as a one-stop shop, capable of launching all payloads. The current problems and cost overruns can be traced in a large part to that fact that payloads designed for the STS can only be launched by the STS. <br /><br />Now I'm not saying that the CLV and the HLV are a bad ideas, anything but, I think that they will be a vast improvement over the STS however it might be hard for the international partners to commit to the VSE before the new launchers have even flown.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...CLV and the HLV to a highway..."<br /><br /><br />a VERY BAD (high)WAY to start any international cooperation... the rest of the world (including big and ambitious future worlds' powers like China...) CAN'T DEPEND or base their future plans on NASA/USA/Congress/Presidents decisions (and changes) about vehicle "X", "Y", "CEV", "capsule", "shuttle", launcher "H", "M", "L", plan "A", "B", "C", timeline "2005-2012", "2016", "2022" (that change every day...), etc.<br /><br />the rest of the world CAN'T WAIT that USA/NASA will build "their" space "highways"... then hope that NASA/USA will help international hitchhikers...<br /><br />STS is a good example for the future... it don't work safely, so it will be soon grounded... and the ISS will be abandoned without finish to build it or resupply the international crews...<br /><br />NASA/USA partners can't be abandoned (due to NASA "changed plans") after spending so much time and money, like with ISS!

 

[tap_sa]

A proper way to end a sentence is period. Follow it with a space and start another sentence with capital letter. Try it! Does wonder to the visual output of your posts. The triple ...'s belong to cybercopulating people at xxx-sites. Thank you!

 

[gaetanomarano]

sorry, I like very much "triple-dots" because they mean as... "think!"<br /><br />about copulation... do you are sure that the "TRUE FINAL REASON" of space travels and technology is "explore" instead of "spacecopulation"??? ...like hotels, cars, ships, etc. and technologies like VHS, DVD, internet, 3D... ... ... (triple-triple-dots!)<br /><br />

 

[josh_simonson]

I doubt NASA monitors boards like this directly, but they do talk to folks at various societies and other serious space enthusiasts. However, those folks do read (and participate) here and the best thoughts will gravitate to the top. <br /><br />I'm sure a little more fleshing out of the mars program would generate some public interest.

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...doubt NASA monitors boards like this directly..."<br /><br /><br />why not?<br /><br />private companies and public institutions spend BILLIONS dollars for market and public opinion research while NASA may have THOUSANDS hi-grade opinions of experts and space enthusiasts COMPLETELY FREE!!!<br /><br /><br />"...those folks do read (and participate) here..."<br /><br />the final result equals like partecipate directly, but... I feel... some posters... may hide NASA guys... I've "two" suspects... but I can't reveal their nickname, for privacy... of course, here they are welcome!<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Perhaps he's been reading this site!</font>/i><br /><br />Somehow I think he has more pressing issues on his plate. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />This speech is pretty consistent with what he has broadcasted before, and generally I like it. ESAS provide a core capability on which "applications" can be built. There have been plenty of potential applications talked about (e.g., large radio telescopes on the far side of the Moon), habitats, assembling spacecraft for Mars missions, etc., but which application to follow, who leads it, and who funds it does not need to be determined now.<br /><br />On one hand, this approach prevents lock-in of a long and expensive plan that may not be widely supported in the future. On the other hand, with no lock-in future governments could simply choose not to support any applications and let ESAS wither away.</i>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />"...he has more pressing issues on his plate..."<br /><br />yes, but... present and future NASA plans depend of Congress funds... Congress funds depend of Public Opinion... then...<br />

 

[scottb50]

Invest that money in private enterprises and there would be no limit. We could be on Mars, the moon or asteroids and Comets in a few years. The structural and propulsion needs are here today. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dobbins]

Ask Santa for the money. There is as much reason to believe in him as there is to believe that private industry will magically get us that far in a few years.<br /><br />

 

[scottb50]

Not Santa, if the money going to NASA was distributed to private industry it would do happen right away. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dobbins]

That is nothing more than wishful thinking. I've heard all about the market magically providing every whim from Libertarians, but have yet to see any data to back up wild claims like yours. My experience is that tossing money at private companies willy nilly only results in massive amounts of public funds being transformed into private bank accounts.<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[scottb50]

Well, DUH, that's what happens, you invest in it and support it or create a beurocracy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Ask Santa for the money.</font>/i><br /><br />Maybe NASA should ask the CIA for the money, telling them that LEO or the Moon would make a better place for their secret prisons they are building in other countries. <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /></i>

 

[scottb50]

Better than being processed into Halliburtons windfalls? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dobbins]

Smart A** remarks in no way addresses the utter lack of a reason to believe your remarks about wild advances in the short span of a few years. Face it, all you have done is ask me to accept it on blind faith, no different than that of any religious fanatic.<br /><br />

 

[scottb50]

I would much rather pay you for your thoughts than wasting it on Haliburton.<br /><br />All I'm saying is if the government can divert money then at least devert it the right direction <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dobbins]

Whatever grudges you have against Haliburton (a private enterprise) are irrelevant, they have nothing to do with your wild and unsubstantiated claim that other private enterprises can make great leaps in space in a short time span.<br /><br />

 

[erioladastra]

"I doubt NASA monitors boards like this directly,"<br /><br />I love that - like there is some guy named NASA who does or does not read the web. Yes, lots of us at NASA read here. But Griffin is pushing ahead FAST with a team of bright folks who have heard all these seems points countless times.

 

[digitalman2]

I must say I have been impressed by his focus. Also, it appears to me that he is doing as much as possible to retain existing talent, which is important both to the people who work there but also since that is something that congress can get on board with. The list of projects that have been delayed or cut is probably necessary for now, in order to get over the initial hurdle of a new vehicle for manned access to space as quickly as possible. It will be interesting to see how the house/senate handle the transition and what options they give nasa for carrying it out. <br /><br />On the technical side, I like the architecture, since it is simpler than alternatives and pieces of it can be improved upon as research projects begin to pay off. <br /> It was exciting to me to see the breakdown of responsibilities for each of the nasa centers that was published some time ago. Since I do not work for nasa, it helps to see how the whole agency will be mobilizing to pull this together.

 

[j05h]

> Not Santa, if the money going to NASA was distributed to private industry it would do happen right away.<br /><br />I totally disagree with this. I'm private spaceflight's #1 fan (even flew to Mojave for SS1), but this is a non-starter. If NASA's budget was somehow assigned straight to 'private industry', it would produce nothing. Nothing. If it's Big Aero getting the money, they will show cool graphics and fly nothing. The small entrepreneurs are not ready for that kind of money or are fully funded. <br /><br />Now, does private industry have the potential to earn $15billion/year from space? Sure, satelite communications already produces more than that. There is definitely growth potential in space business, tourism, mining and paying explorers. Beamed energy is an idea with promise, but lots of legwork. None of this will come about from government handouts. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[mattblack]

Nasa usually works well with other nations in space issues, but in spite of the benefits, If I were them I'd be reluctant to draw the Russians into a major space project again. Also, there has been anecdotal evidence over the years that ESA has been displeased with Nasa's performance in joint ventures.<br /><br />For ESAS, apart from the occasional guest Astronaut, I'd keep the Return to the Moon a reasonably strict America-only venture. "Sharing the costs and benefits" with other nations has been a mixed blessing for the U.S. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

look at the world, it changes quickly and, in 2020 (moon, etc.) will be COMPLETELY different from now, the computer you use in this moment may have an american logo but 90% of internal parts and assembly was made in Asia<br /><br />to-day, half computer tecnology don't come from Asia but, in 2020, probably the best microprocessor and O.S. (ask Bill...) will be chinese (it will be easy to do, with 400,000 new engineers per year!) <br /><br />"american-only" and "occasional guest astrounauts" is a past days scenario, if NASA try to close its technological doors, in 2020... american astronauts will be "guests"...<br /><br />I've read here that the choice of "capsule" is technical because of mass-geometry, reentry, etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />I feel (no, I'm sure!!!) that the choice is only political and "protectionist" because NASA think (but still make a giant mistake!) that, with an "advanced capsule" it may lead the space technology ALSO in the next 20 years...<br /><br />it's only a dream! (see the "Shenzhou 235" image on my website...)<br /><br />