Oh No! Bye -Bye Ares 1

[docm]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The lofted trajectory is part of it.&nbsp; The fact that a manned system would have to be mounted with a heavy launch escape system not used by unmanned satellites is another part of it.&nbsp; The fact that NASA requires more residual propellant margins may be part of it.&nbsp; - Ed Kyle <br />Posted by edkyle99</DIV><br />Would a lifting body with&nbsp;hybrids like Dream Chaser be better in this regard?&nbsp; Seems I remember reading a PDF documenting its abort modes and that Atlas V could launch it to ISS, though not for a lunar mission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Would a lifting body with&nbsp;hybrids like Dream Chaser be better in this regard?&nbsp; Seems I remember reading a PDF documenting its abort modes and that Atlas V could launch it to ISS, though not for a lunar mission. <br />Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>Almost always a design that exists solely as a PowerPoint presentation is better than whatever you have at the moment.&nbsp; Most advanced propulsion programs proceed flawlessly, until someone tries to actually build something.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your liquids background and bias is showing.The plain truth is that the reliability of liquids and solids are about equal.&nbsp; There are advantages and disadvantages to each.With solids the key to reliability is the simplicity of design and the attention to detail in process control.&nbsp; There is also need to be rigorous in review of each booster before it is accepted for use.&nbsp; With solid technical rigor solids are very reliable.&nbsp; When companies get sloppy (and I have seen that happen) and do stupid things&nbsp;unexpected failures can occur in flight.The same comment applies to liquids.&nbsp; And while it is true that liquid engines can be tested prior to flight use, it is also true that the complexity of the engines and the attendant large number of failure modes drives the need for such tests.&nbsp; Ariane V ignites the liquids on the launch pad, not because the thrust is needed, but because they are afraid the liquids may not ignite in flight and can abort on the pad if they fail to ignite there.&nbsp; The next solid that fails to ignite will be the first one.&nbsp; They also tend not to have fuel leaks.That same Delta II, with an outstanding record of&nbsp;reliability, &nbsp;that you mentioned flies with 9 solid boosters.&nbsp; The one recent failure in which a solid motor burst at launch was also shown to not be a result of any manufacturing defect in the motor, but rather to damage sustained after delivery.&nbsp; That statement also applies to another test failure of the same basic motor in another application.&nbsp; You are correct in that the Challenger disaster was not the result of manufacturing or design failure.&nbsp; It was a direct result of failure to operate the system under the conditions for which it was designed.&nbsp; That failure was due to some poor system management, some inappropriate pressure on and by management, and pure human stupidity.&nbsp; Not all of the story has been widely told.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>In the first place, while I did work almost exclusively for a liquid engine manufacturer, I don't have an anti large solid rocket motor bias.&nbsp; And please note that I did mention the simplicity factor for the solid motors, just as you did.</p><p>Had NASA been able to just continue the use of the standard four segment motor as used on the shuttle, I would have been quite happy.&nbsp; That would not have brought in the evidently enormous costs that ATK has quoted NASA for the newer stretched out version.&nbsp; Even Michael Griffin was angered by what he considered to almost political robbery on the part of ATK!&nbsp; But I have noticed that he is still paying the blood money anyway.</p><p>It was at that point that I thought it might be a very good idea for NASA to start to seriously look at other alternatives.&nbsp; The Air Force had LM and Boeing both design and build entirely new rockets with up to some 25,000 lbs carrying capacity to LEO (to replace the venerable but very expensive Titan IV).&nbsp; Their cost for getting two entirely new systems (including in the case of the RS68 the only new liquid engine in some 20 years) was only about $3 billion for the entire program.&nbsp; And to just upgrade the present shuttle solid rocket motors to something that NASA could use for the Ares I, was going to cost some $5 billion alone!</p><p>Now, I am all for NASA even getting a steady increase in its funding, but it sure becomes more and more difficult under those kinds of circumstances to justify that kind of funding in these times!&nbsp; </p><p>On top of that, is seems that almost every time I come on board here there is another problem (with its attendant number of solutions that possibly will generate new problems),&nbsp; This also has a tendency to bother me.</p><p>Now, this new request for information from NASA by the new administration might just be that and nothing more, But if this old aerospace retiree can see these problems, then I am truly certain that this program might just be in serious trouble, and it might also then behoove NASA to just have some kind of a less expensive back up plan available, or NASA isn't going to go anywhere.&nbsp; And to me at least, that would be tragic!!!</p>

 

[j05h]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Finally, a reality check on NASA's plans. &nbsp; Returning to the moon is hardly a top priority when facing a depression, climate change, and international instability.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by ThereIWas2</DIV></p><p>all of those reasons are more than enough to expand the space frontier. Space in the form of an industrialized Moon-Mars-LEO infrastructure provides a level of "backup" for Earth. The Moon is not enough.</p><p>Josh </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[propforce]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Almost always a design that exists solely as a PowerPoint presentation is better than whatever you have at the moment.&nbsp; Most advanced propulsion programs proceed flawlessly, until someone tries to actually build something. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>LMAO!!&nbsp; So true....</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Are you sure Delta 4 or Ariane 5 could not launch the crew to orbit to rendezvous with the moon hardware? At first glance I thought the Obama team seemed pretty smart and informed, but that was just the first impression.I could be wrong, ofcourse. In any case, it seems like decisions will be made. <br />Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The Obama team is data gathering. No decisions have been made.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vulture4]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>all of those reasons are more than enough to expand the space frontier. Space in the form of an industrialized Moon-Mars-LEO infrastructure provides a level of "backup" for Earth. The Moon is not enough.</DIV> </p><p>If you have the money to go to the moon, have at it. Buttalk about a handful of asronauts on the moon supported only by billion-dollar care packages as a back-up for the human race is unrealistic in the extreme. </p><p>The country is in crisis. If you want to spend tax dollars, they're going to have to provide a direct benefit, and I don't mean the mythical "spin-off". Any tax expenditure must save lives, increase industrial productivity, or reduce the trade deficit. The Ares has no commercial prospects at all, and not even any technology development benefits, since it is all old technology and much too expensive to launch commercial payloads. Economically it is equivalent to GM paying workers to sit at home. Subsidizing ULA, SpaceX, or Orbital might at least win a few commercial launches. Spending the money on environmental monitoring satellites might improve lives. Basic scientific research and technology development might improve productivity, something the old NACA did very effectively. A NASA contract with Burt Rutan to apply his phenomenal knowledge of composites to new structural concepts for commercial aircraft could be worth billions in exports. Money is short, and spending, sorry, I mean BORROWING $100B to re-enact Apollo with old tech simply does not make the cut.&nbsp; </p>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

I thought the old SRB's did have field joint burn-through on previous flights, but none burned all the way through until STS-51L.&nbsp; I've asked tis question before and noone knew, maybe you folks do, how much burn-through has there been since the re-design of the SRB's field joint? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I thought the old SRB's did have field joint burn-through on previous flights, but none burned all the way through until STS-51L.&nbsp; I've asked tis question before and noone knew, maybe you folks do, how much burn-through has there been since the re-design of the SRB's field joint? <br />Posted by rocketwatcher2001</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>So far I've read that STS-78 and STS-79 both had some very minor burn-though past the most inner layer of putty and they think that is was because a different type of cleaning solvent was used in the joint prep.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[venator_3000]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A question for those who know more about rockets.....Wayne Hale, on his blog,&nbsp; alluded to the fact that EELV's follow a very different flight profile than manned rockets do, because they don't have to worry about survivable abort modes.&nbsp; In a satellite launch, you are pretty much operating on the assumption that if anything goes wrong, the spacecraft is a complete loss.&nbsp; So they can launch more vertically and thus get better payload capacity.&nbsp; Manned rockets, he said, have to launch more gently not only to reduce stresses on the crew but so that any capsule, if it has to separate during an abort, is on a trajectory that won't result in too much heating during reentry.Is this why Delta IV Heavy is said to be inadequate for an Orion launch, despite its published payload capacity exceeding the mass of Orion?&nbsp;&nbsp; Because it's published capacity applies only to an unmanned (aka "ya ain't comin' back") trajectory? <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />I think the issues are weight of payload (Orion is around 18000 kg is that correct?), redundancy/safety, and initiative ($$$). Atlas V has good reliability and Lockmart has stated it could be man-rated within 3 years.</p><p>This has come up before, and I had thought Space X had looked into this. I know Bigelow was working on this as a possibility (LINK) The link is from an archive I keep. It is an article from New Scientist earlier this year. Not sure where Bigelow went with this.</p><p>Last article&nbsp;I had on Bigelow doing this was here...</p><p>V3K</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Marduke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If you have the money to go to the moon, have at it. Buttalk about a handful of asronauts on the moon supported only by billion-dollar care packages as a back-up for the human race is unrealistic in the extreme. The country is in crisis. If you want to spend tax dollars, they're going to have to provide a direct benefit, and I don't mean the mythical "spin-off". Any tax expenditure must save lives, increase industrial productivity, or reduce the trade deficit. The Ares has no commercial prospects at all, <strong>and not even any technology development benefits, since it is all old technology</strong> and much too expensive to launch commercial payloads. Economically it is equivalent to GM paying workers to sit at home. Subsidizing ULA, SpaceX, or Orbital might at least win a few commercial launches. Spending the money on environmental monitoring satellites might improve lives. Basic scientific research and technology development might improve productivity, something the old NACA did very effectively. A NASA contract with Burt Rutan to apply his phenomenal knowledge of composites to new structural concepts for commercial aircraft could be worth billions in exports. Money is short, and spending, sorry, I mean BORROWING $100B to re-enact Apollo with old tech simply does not make the cut.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by vulture4</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>But you are very wrong on one very important fact. The Ares project is doing large ammounts of new research to put everything together. In reality, almost nothing is actually "heritage" from earlier projects.</p><p>In fact work being done in persuit to the moon (the ECLSS system) is already being used to save thousands of lives across the globe by providing clean drinking water. </p><p>&nbsp;Structure and materials research is once again leading the cutting edge, and will shortly find it's way into countless commercial applications. </p>

 

[lampblack]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... as I mentioned earlier, NASA prefers Atlas V over Delta IV regardless. &nbsp; - Ed Kyle <br /> Posted by edkyle99</DIV></p><p><font size="2">Please pardon an uninformed question: but why?</font></p><p><font size="2">I'd always assumed (there's that word again) that Atlas versus Delta was somewhat like Chevy versus Ford -- products that are similar enough that distinctions have no real meaning except to those who benefit from selling them.</font></p><p><font size="2">Are there solid reasons -- based in engineering rather than politics -- that Atlas would be preferred over Delta? </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please pardon an uninformed question: but why?I'd always assumed (there's that word again) that Atlas versus Delta was somewhat like Chevy versus Ford -- products that are similar enough that distinctions have no real meaning except to those who benefit from selling them.Are there solid reasons -- based in engineering rather than politics -- that Atlas would be preferred over Delta? <br /> Posted by lampblack</DIV></p><p>Actually politics is all important here.&nbsp; If the relations between Russia and the US deteriorate further, then congress is going to feel duty bound to strop NASA's dealing with Russia because Russia is still dealing with helping the Iranians in their nuclear goals.&nbsp; Personally, I don't care that much about that myself, but political reality is far more important than any opinion held by anyone here anyway (or for that matter even engineering considerations at times).&nbsp; </p><p>From an engineering standpoint, I think that the systems are probably about equal, but the Delta IV Heavy has flown, and to my knowledge the Atlas V Heavy has yet to fly, so that might be a factor.&nbsp; If it were possible for ULA to produce the actual Russian engines for the Atlas V here in the US, then it might be possible for the Atlas to be also considered for NASA use also.&nbsp; However, until that happen,s I can't see congress allowing NASA to have to depend that heavily on the Russians.&nbsp; There is even talk about keeping the shuttle going until the new system (whatever system that turns out to be) up and running, so we do not have to depend on the Russians for access to the ISS for the five years or so between 1020 and 2015! </p><p>I do not like it myself, but unfortunately politics does play an important part in these decisions! </p>

 

[kelvinzero]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If you have the money to go to the moon, have at it. Buttalk about a handful of asronauts on the moon supported only by billion-dollar care packages as a back-up for the human race is unrealistic in the extreme. The country is in crisis. If you want to spend tax dollars, they're going to have to provide a direct benefit, and I don't mean the mythical "spin-off". Any tax expenditure must save lives, increase industrial productivity, or reduce the trade deficit...</DIV></p><p>With spending on space less than 1%, this money can not make a significant difference to the current recession.</p><p>However pulling this money out for even a year would obviously destroy your space industry for about a generation.</p><p>For all I know pouring money into NASA would save lives, increase productivity and reduce the deficit. But the absolute minimum is to maintain consistent funding.</p>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please pardon an uninformed question: but why?I'd always assumed (there's that word again) that Atlas versus Delta was somewhat like Chevy versus Ford -- products that are similar enough that distinctions have no real meaning except to those who benefit from selling them.Are there solid reasons -- based in engineering rather than politics -- that Atlas would be preferred over Delta? <br /> Posted by lampblack</DIV></p><p>Well, I know politically Delta lost a lot when Boeing got their spank-down for ITAR violations followed closely by the tanker bidding scandal.&nbsp; (So they leaked stuff to the Chinese and then tried to hide it, and followed that up by making use of proprietary Lockheed pricing information when bidding Delta.&nbsp; Naughty, naughty.)&nbsp; Real engineering reasons?&nbsp; No idea.&nbsp; As far as I can tell, they're pretty similar -- and in my opinion, Delta's farther ahead than Atlas, because Delta IV Heavy has actually flown.&nbsp; The comparable Atlas configuration still exists only on paper.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I must admit to a great deal of personal skepticism with respect to survivable abort modes.&nbsp; That notion is perhaps comforting, but I am not sure that they really exist as a practical matter.<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Well, the crew of Soyuz 18a survived their abort (which occured at very high altitude, high enough to require a reentry), so of the two recorded instances of a massive failure during launch, the one with an escapable vehicle was indeed survivable.&nbsp; (STS-51L was of course the other, and launch failures during SRB burn are not survivable on Shuttle.)</p><p>Any abort is risky, of course, and as a matter of course, it is best not to depend upon them.&nbsp;&nbsp; However, it is good to know that they exist.&nbsp; I think most astronauts would find it comforting to know that some thought has been given to their safe return, though doubtless many would fly anyway. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[rybanis]

The Soyuz also has a proven abort mode for on-pad emergency... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, the crew of Soyuz 18a survived their abort (which occured at very high altitude, high enough to require a reentry), so of the two recorded instances of a massive failure during launch, the one with an escapable vehicle was indeed survivable.&nbsp; (STS-51L was of course the other, and launch failures during SRB burn are not survivable on Shuttle.)Any abort is risky, of course, and as a matter of course, it is best not to depend upon them.&nbsp;&nbsp; However, it is good to know that they exist.&nbsp; I think most astronauts would find it comforting to know that some thought has been given to their safe return, though doubtless many would fly anyway. <br /> Posted by CalliArcale</DIV></p><p>I think we can pretty well rest assured that NASA has never wanted to use the abort modes for the shuttle.&nbsp; Outside of an out-and-out failure of the shuttle at a time when such a mode is possible (and then a decision would almost have to be instantaneous) NASA is going to continue to fly the mission, rather than even try such a maneuver!</p><p>Even the escape towers on the Saturn (and the same on the newer Ares I, if it ever is completed and actually launches with astronauts on board) were highly risky.&nbsp; But as you say, at least the astronauts knew that somebody was trying to think of such a mode to attempt to save their lives!&nbsp; </p>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>I assume most of you already saw this Orlando Sentinel article today, not sure where it belongs...</p><p>http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/12/nasa-has-become.html</p><p>&nbsp;</p><span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-size:12px" class="Apple-style-span"><h3 style="border-left-width:5px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:#dae0e6;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:10px;color:#666666;font-size:18px;margin:0px" class="entry-header">NASA has become a transition problem for Obama</h3><p><span style="border-collapse:separate;color:#000000;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal" class="Apple-style-span">....</span></p><span style="line-height:18px" class="Apple-style-span"><p style="font-family:Verdana,Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;text-align:left;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-bottom:10px;padding:0px"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">Garver refused comment about her conversation with Griffin -- and his remark that she is &ldquo;not qualified&rdquo; -- during a book-publication party at NASA headquarters last week. Obama&rsquo;s Chicago office &ndash; which has sent similar transition teams to every federal agency &ndash; also had no comment.</span></p><p style="font-family:Verdana,Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;text-align:left;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-bottom:10px;padding:0px"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">People close to Garver, however, say that she has confirmed &ldquo;unpleasant&rdquo; exchanges with Griffin and other NASA officials. &ldquo;Don&rsquo;t worry, they have not beaten me down yet,&rdquo; she e-mailed a colleague.</span></p></span><p><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-size:10px" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-size:12px" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">And this week, Garver told a meeting of aerospace representatives in Washington that &ldquo;there will be change&rdquo; to NASA policy and hinted that Obama would name a new administrator soon, according to participants.</span></span><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">&nbsp;</span></span></p><p>....</p><p><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">When team members arrived three weeks ago, they asked the agency, among other things, to quantify how much could be saved by canceling Ares I. Though they also asked what it would take to accelerate the program, the fact that the team could even consider scrapping the program was enough to spur Griffin and his supporters into action</span></p><span style="line-height:18px" class="Apple-style-span"><p style="font-family:Verdana,Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;text-align:left;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-bottom:10px;padding:0px"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">According to industry officials, Griffin started calling heads of companies working for NASA, demanding that they either tell the Obama team that they support Constellation or refrain from talking about alternatives.</span></p><p style="font-family:Verdana,Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;text-align:left;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-bottom:10px;padding:0px"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">The companies, worried that Griffin may remain and somehow punish them if they ignore his wishes, have by and large complied.</span></p></span><p><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">One consultant said that when Garver invited &ldquo;several&rdquo; mid-level aerospace executives to speak to the team, their bosses told them not to go and warned that anything said had to be cleared first with NASA because Griffin had demanded it.</span>&nbsp;</p><p>.....</p><span style="line-height:18px" class="Apple-style-span"><p style="font-family:Verdana,Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;text-align:left;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-bottom:10px;padding:0px"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">Tensions were on public display last week at the NASA library, as overheard by guests at a book party.</span></p><p style="font-family:Verdana,Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;text-align:left;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-bottom:10px;padding:0px"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">According to people who were present, Logsdon, a space historian, told a group of about 50 people he had just learned that President John F. Kennedy&rsquo;s transition team had completely ignored NASA.</span></p><p style="font-family:Verdana,Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;text-align:left;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-bottom:10px;padding:0px"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">Griffin responded, in a loud voice, &ldquo;I wish the Obama team would come and talk to me.&rdquo;</span></p><p style="font-family:Verdana,Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;text-align:left;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-bottom:10px;padding:0px"><strong style="font-weight:bold"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">Alan Ladwig</span></strong><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">, a transition team member who was at the party with Garver, shouted out: &ldquo;Well, we&rsquo;re here now, Mike.&rdquo;</span></p><p style="font-family:Verdana,Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;text-align:left;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-bottom:10px;padding:0px"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">Soon after, Garver and Griffin engaged in what witnesses said was an animated conversation. Some overheard parts of it.</span></p><p style="font-family:Verdana,Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;text-align:left;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-bottom:10px;padding:0px"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">&ldquo;Mike, I don&rsquo;t understand what the problem is. We are just trying to look under the hood,&rdquo; Garver said.</span></p></span><p><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">&ldquo;If you are looking under the hood, then you are calling me a liar,&rdquo; Griffin replied. &ldquo;Because it means you don&rsquo;t trust what I say is under the hood.</span>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>......</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Eep, doesn't look like Griffin will be around much longer. &nbsp;He is obviously one of the staunchest supporters of Ares I, if he is asked to leave it may call into serious question the future of the project, no?</p><p>&nbsp;</p></span> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I assume most of you already saw this Orlando Sentinel article today, not sure where it belongs...http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/12/nasa-has-become.htmlNASA has become a transition problem for Obama....Garver refused comment about her conversation with Griffin -- ?&nbsp; <br />Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV><br /><br />Who is Garver? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Who is Garver? <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>According to the article:&nbsp;<span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-size:12px" class="Apple-style-span"><strong style="font-weight:bold"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">Lori Garver</span></strong><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">, a former NASA associate administrator who heads the space transition team</span><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-size:10px" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">&nbsp;</span></span></span></p><p>I don't know what to think about any of it, was hoping to get the thoughts of some of you here who know more about the internal workings of NASA and such. &nbsp;Sometimes the Sentinel seems to blow things out of proportion also, but I don't know if that's the case here.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp;......&nbsp;Eep, doesn't look like Griffin will be around much longer. &nbsp;He is obviously one of the staunchest supporters of Ares I, if he is asked to leave it may call into serious question the future of the project, no?&nbsp; <br />Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p><strong>They didn't just give him the nick-name (title) "Emporer Griffin" for nothing, ya know.....</strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="#333399"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Who is Garver? <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /></font>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Garver <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p>Thanx to both of you (who is garver)</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>More importantly, who is John Galt?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>