Michael D. Griffin: New NASA Admin

[mrmorris]

<br />Supposedly about to be announced anyway...<br /><br />What's amazing is that he actually looks like the right man for the job. Some highlights from Prepared Statement of Dr. Michael D. Griffin: "The Future of Human Space Flight" <br /><br /><i>- Allow me to begin, if I might, with some "truth in advertising". I am an unabashed supporter of space exploration in general, and of human space flight in particular. I believe that the human space flight program is in the long run possibly the most significant activity in which our nation is engaged. <br /><br /><br /><br />- It has been drolly observed that, "if God had wanted us to have a space program, he would have given us a moon", and I believe the truth underlying this witticism is correct. Development of permanent lunar bases on the moon, only three days away, will teach us much of what we need to know to press on to Mars. And in the slightly longer run, I believe the asteroids will be found to have immense value as a source of raw materials, as well as being of great scientific interest. <br /><br />So, to me, the proper sequence for exploration is the moon, then Mars, and then the asteroids. It must be recognized, of course, that any such sequence is for initial program planning only. Once begun, exploration and exploitation of the moon will continue for centuries or millennia, just as it will for Mars and beyond. <br /><br /><br /><br />- To this point, there is no inherent conflict between manned and unmanned space programs, save that deliberately promulgated by those seeking to play a difficult and ugly zero-sum game...<br /><br />Human space flight advocates are not making a case that such programs should be deferred in favor of manned programs. On the contrary, the necessary requirements of human expansion into the solar system cannot be met without a greatly increased program of unmanned scientific exploration. This can only be seen as a "w</i>

 

[shyningnight]

I think I love this man...<br />And I'm not even gay! <br /><br />If he can "walk the walk", I think he's a winner....<br /><br />Paul F.

 

[summoner]

Seems to be looking even farther ahead than Moon-Mars missions. Good to see forward thinking people. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[wvbraun]

That's good news. He was No. 3 on my list personal list, after Pete Worden and Craig Steidle...

 

[wvbraun]

The Planetary Society thinks he is the right man:<br /><br /><i>Griffin Good for Space Exploration, Says Planetary Society<br /><br />NASA Administrator-Designate is Strong Supporter of Vision for Space Exploration<br /><br />Planetary Society leaders applaud the choice of Michael Griffin as proposed NASA Administrator, as announced today by President Bush. The appointment comes as Congress debates America's role in space - a role that was changed last year by the Administration's new policy focusing U.S. space goals on human and robotic exploration of the solar system.<br /><br />Planetary Society President, Wes Huntress said, "Mike is an excellent choice because of his passion for space exploration, his technical expertise and his long experience in space flight engineering. He resonates with the President's new vision for space and will add a down-to-earth insistence on logic and realism." Huntress served as NASA Associate Administrator from 1992 to 1998.<br /><br />Griffin's appointment comes at a critical time for the Agency. In two months, the shuttle is expected to return to flight after a hiatus of more than two years following the loss of the Columbia orbiter and its crew in 2003. That accident led to a re-evaluation of the purpose of human space flight and a consequent redirection of human space flight policy by the United States. The new direction points towards planetary destinations beyond Earth orbit and away from a long-term focus on the shuttle and international space station. Funding this Vision for Space Exploration is a key issue in the proposed NASA budget currently being considered by Congress.<br /><br />Louis Friedman, Society Executive Director, noted, "The new exploration vision for space policy is a radical change for NASA operations. Mike Griffin can provide the strong leadership required to turn this vision into reality."<br /><br />The Planetary Society strongly recommends the early retirement of the space shuttle, an early completion of the n</i>

 

[wvbraun]

National Space Society joins in:<br /><br /><br /><i>The Right Person at the Right Time - NSS applauds choice of Dr. Michael Griffin for NASA Administrator<br /><br />Washington, DC - March 11, 2005 In response to the announcement of Dr. Michael Griffin's appointment as Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, George T. Whitesides, Executive Director of the National Space Society, made the following remarks:<br /><br />"Dr. Griffin is a superb choice to lead NASA at this critical moment. Dr. Griffin's extensive space experience and bold leadership style will create a powerful driver for implementation of the vision for space exploration."<br /><br />"Mike is well known for combining a deep passion for space with a rigorous commitment to no-nonsense management. That is exactly what NASA needs now."<br /><br />"The National Space Society looks forward to supporting Dr. Griffin as he tackles the challenges of the coming years. NASA has a wonderful and inspiring mission before it, and Dr. Griffin is the right captain for this ship."</i>

 

[wvbraun]

A note from Keith Cowing (nasawatch.com): <br /><br /><i>In 1993, during the redesign of Space Station Freedom, many of us felt that the books had been cooked by NASA HQ such that the SS Freedom configuration (Option B) was deliberately handicapped and that the other two options A (MSFC) and C (JSC) were given an unfair advantage. Hardly an apples to apples review. Mike Griffin, who led the Option B effort (headquartered at LaRC) wrote a letter for the record at one point, standing squarely on principle and pointing out the discrepancies and inequities in that review process. That letter received wide circulation - and Mike's NASA career suffered as a result. He was promoted to some pointless job by Dan Goldin and eventually left the agency. I can say from personal experience, that Mike Griffin has demonstrated personal integrity - and did so in a public way that was rather career adverse. I expect he will bring that same integrity to the job of NASA Administrator. As such, yes, at this point, I am biased in this regard.</i><br /><br /><br />Sounds good to me. <br /><br />It seems he is a strong advocate of an HLV-mission-architecture. I wonder how this will affect NASA's current plans to make maximum use of the EELVs. Will there be a Shuttle C after all?

 

[spacester]

This guy looks way too good to be true. I am shocked that they got a guy who seems to understand that we need a HLLV. An actual space geek it looks like! Wow.<br /><br />He should build a Shuttle-C or Shuttle-Z or maybe that design rogers_buck had, at the same time throw SpaceX a bone with some research projects on BFRs.<br /><br />Uncancel those cancelled probe programs. Get going on Spin-g and ISRU. <br /><br />Quit studying, start building flight hardware. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[crix]

Agreed. This guy sounds like a practical minded space enthusiast who wants these big visions to actually happen. Although I dislike his concentration on the Moon and Mars as destinations, as goals. If Boemart sees our astronauts to these destinations we will have gained some science, temporary fanfare and a large bill. More than anything I would love to hear that the new administrator is determined to create a program that will open up the doors of space to smaller American investors.

 

[gofer]

Why exactly does NASA need a heavy vehicle? AFAIK, Spiral 1 calls for capability to launch 20 ton modules to LEO. That can be bought on the market. Spiral 2 is far into the future. <br />Then, there is the issue of money in the budget available for this HLLV thing. There is none allocated. Will they dip into the CEV budget? The whole shuttle-X thing will cost a lot of money, see http://www.orbit6.com/rockets/shc_tom.htm<br />Lastly, STS has got only 28 flights planned and then it'll be shut down, no ifs, buts or ors about it. Whos gonna keep making ETs, SRBs, maintaining SSMEs, crawlers, hiring and training engineers, and such? <br />Anyway, this insistance (in the testimony quote) that NASA develop and maintain its own fleet of heavy and medium launchers made out of various bits and pieces of soon-to-be-discontinued STS is strange, to say the least.<br />Is making this really a 'nice to have' widget for NASA a good way to create sustainable future in space? Don't Boeing and Lockheed have plans for scaled up vehicles? <br />I don't know, seems like NASA developing its own launch system is a perfect way to run VSE into the ground. In my view the sole development NASA should be doing is developing CEV modules and such. Rockets should be 'beneath' them. Hope the canditate will think these things through. <br />He's also a scientist and a space romantic? No offence meant, but I'm not sure it that's what we need to get sustainable and permanent presence in LEO and beyond. Need more of an economist and manager, in my opinion. <br />Anyways, even if I disagree with some of his views I wish Mr. Griffin success in his endeavor.

 

[najab]

><i>Why exactly does NASA need a heavy vehicle?</i><p>Does NASA <b>need</b> a HLLV? Well, no. They <i>could</i> put together a Moon base or Mars mission using existing EELVs. This would require breaking things down into a number of smaller modules and assembling the vehicles in orbit over the course of a large number of launches. NASA has demonstrated their (in)ability to conduct this kind of assembly with ISS.<p>The alternative method would be to use a HLLV to either launch the vehicles complete, or in a few launches - as was demonstrated by the Skylab program.<p>I know which I prefer, what about you?</p></p></p>

 

[summoner]

Exactly, fewer launches and fewer parts means less of a chance of problems. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[kdavis007]

It seems that he is a good choice...

 

[dschmelzer]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I don't know, seems like NASA developing its own launch system is a perfect way to run VSE into the ground. In my view the sole development NASA should be doing is developing CEV modules and such. Rockets should be 'beneath' them. Hope the canditate will think these things through.<br />He's also a scientist and a space romantic? No offence meant, but I'm not sure it that's what we need to get sustainable and permanent presence in LEO and beyond. Need more of an economist and manager, in my opinion.<br />Anyways, even if I disagree with some of his views I wish Mr. Griffin success in his endeavor.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Agreed.

 

[severian]

"Why exactly does NASA need a heavy vehicle? AFAIK, Spiral 1 calls for capability to launch 20 ton modules to LEO. That can be bought on the market. Spiral 2 is far into the future. <br />Then, there is the issue of money in the budget available for this HLLV thing. There is none allocated. Will they dip into the CEV budget? The whole shuttle-X thing will cost a lot of money, see http://www.orbit6.com/rockets/shc_tom.htm"<br /><br />Two points I'd say for this - in the short term, I think the modularity of the CEV is a good idea, and I really don't think the crew return module (which should be resuable) should weigh anymore than say, 20,000 lbs, well within the EELV's launch capability. <br /><br />If you want to lanch cargo at the same time, then I would do it in a seperate module (which can possibly be attached to the CEV, but which is not necessarily an integral part of it).<br /><br />As for a shuttle-based HLV, I think that is probably the best way to go. However, one thing I would say at this point is that if it is going to be expendable, it should use 3 RS-68 engines (From Boeings Delta rockets) rather than 3 SSME's, since they are far cheaper to manufacture. They do have a significantly lower ISP, however their greater thrust and the fact that the HLV would no longer have such a rigid payload requirement, means that I think they would probably be a lot more cost effective than the SSMEs, which are extremely difficult and expensive to manufacture.<br /><br />Of course, a discussion on this should probably have a separate thread.<br /><br />On the administrator pick, I think they made a good choice. I've barely heard a negative comment so far, which is a good sign. Of course, only time will tell. Although I'd tend to think that the budget is probably a lot more important than who the figurehead is. There's a lot of machinery in the support workers at NASA - the admins individual power is probably not

 

[rvastro]

I am interested in the view of those working at the NASA Centers, what do they feel about him?

 

[no_way]

hm, the guy is a HLV fanatic, apprently never heard about X-Prize and Zubrin likes him .. <br /><br />wait and see ?

 

[robotical]

The quote they are referring to:<br /><br /><i>no human-rated spacecraft has been developed in the last 20 years</i><br /><br />I have a feeling that quote is out of context. He may just be referring to NASA, in which case it would be quite accurate. I would withhold judgement until I read the entire paragraph the quote was in. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

"never heard about X-Prize"<br /><br />That's nonsense. He is a strong advocate of private sector involvement.

 

[mattblack]

Michael Griffin seems like the real thing. At this point in time, I give him a big thumbs up. <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>

 

[scottb50]

Just the opposite. Want to wait in orbit for the rest of your crew for two years while they work through the Challenger or Columbia accidents? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

Robert Zubrin comments:<br /><br /><i>Mike Griffin: A Superb Choice for NASA Administrator<br /><br />Statement of Mars Society President Robert Zubrin on the Selection of Dr. Mike Griffin for NASA Administrator<br /><br />Mike Griffin is a superb choice for NASA Administrator. I have known Mike for more than a decade. He is a real leader who is technically brilliant, highly creative, open minded to new ideas, well- experienced, and deeply committed for many years to the success of the American space program - emphatically including the new vision of reaching for human exploration of the Moon and Mars.<br /><br />The Bush administration is to be commended for this inspired selection. There is literally no one better qualified to lead the new space initiative than Mike Griffin. For the job of 11th NASA Administrator, Mike is the right man, in the right place, at the right time. As President of the Mars Society, I offer him our full support. </i><br /><br /><br />I haven't heard a single negative comment on Griffin so far. Has this happened before? I know that O'Keefe got a rather cold reception from some places (although he turned out to be one of the best NASA adminsitrators ever). What about Goldin or his predecessors?

 

[JonClarke]

An unatributed "quote" in a forum is hardly a definitive statement. As other have said, what was the context? Given absence of reference the Shenzhou, also developed in the last 20 years, it was probably an passing remark about NASA. <br /><br />From the sound of it a big thumbs up from the Planetary Society, The Mars Society, and the normally jaded Keith Cowling, who has given him a glowing recommendation. Sounds good to be. Plus he is not military, I was sure taht some bemedalled general was going to get it - glad I am wrong.<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>

 

[no_way]

" As other have said, what was the context?"<br /><br />huh .. download the report, scroll to page 29 and see the context. Its under the "The Cost of Going to Mars". Theres a simple blanket statement that "no human-rated spacecraft has been developed in the past 20 years."<br /><br />Michael Griffin is a coauthor of this report ( see page 2 )<br /><br />Anyway, wvbraun said that he is a strong proponent on private sector involvement, is there any evidence of that ?

 

[no_way]

at least, the guy has got some guts to say things out loud:<br />http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory2/3080401<br /><i>"It is beyond reason to believe the international space station can help to fulfill any objective, or set of objectives, for space exploration that would be worth the $60 billion remaining to be invested in the program." Griffin told House lawmakers.</i><br /><br /><br /><br />