Pete "shuttle basher" Worden director of ARC

[radarredux]

Apparently Pete Worden is the next director at NASA's Ames Research Center. While Worden has a long history in the space industry, one of his most colorful comments involves the Shuttle:<br /><br />"<i>I’m absolutely convinced that we don’t ever need to fly the shuttle again. We’ve got three of them. Put them in the Smithsonian ... school parking lots. Kids can climb on them</i>"<br /><br />He also describes himself as "a veteran NASA basher". I'll be interested to see what he says going forward now that he is part of the establishment.

 

[mikejz]

Buy Griffen a few drinks and I would not be shocked if he said the same thing.

 

[askold]

You don't need a few drinks, all you need is Google. Just a few samples:<br /><br />"Griffin has made clear in previous statements that he regards the shuttle and space station as misguided. He told the Senate earlier this year that the shuttle was “deeply flawed” and that the space station was not worth “the expense, the risk and the difficulty” of flying humans to space."<br /><br />and:<br /><br />"In a meeting with USA TODAY's editorial board, Griffin said NASA lost its way in the 1970s, when the agency ended the Apollo moon missions in favor of developing the shuttle and space station, which can only orbit Earth. <br /><br />“It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path,” Griffin said. “We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can.” "

 

[vt_hokie]

It's sad, but such comments make me wonder if NASA's leadership is really interested in flying the remaining shuttle missions and completing ISS. <br /><br />NASA is on a path right now that will likely make this lifelong fan and supporter of NASA into a strong opponent.<br /> <br />I do think that abandoning the Saturn V and all of the Apollo infrastructure was a mistake, but I also think that some of NASA's greatest achievements have come since the Apollo era. Hubble, Chandra, interplanetary missions, etc. are all included on that list. And I think that ISS could be, if we follow through. Even the space shuttle, flawed as it is, I think represents a successful first step in RLV development. It's a shame that we won't take the next step, but instead are regressing with the "CEV". And I have seen no worthy justification for gutting science and research programs so that we can go plant a few more flags and footprints on the moon.

 

[qso1]

IMO, I don't think CEV will survive the new Presidential Administration. <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>

 

[propforce]

Congratulation to Gen. Simon P. Worden. ARC got a good man. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I have seen no worthy justification for gutting science and research programs so that we can go plant a few more flags and footprints on the moon.</font>/i><br /><br />I think that the science that can be done on the Moon can easily equal what can be done on a manned station. This isn't to say that I am not for microgravity research, but I would have much preferred a largely unmanned (i.e., man-tended) solution.<br /><br />I think it would be healthy to split NASA's responsibilities -- make NASA an operational and manned exploration arm and hand the science (and supporting budget) to a science-oriented body like NSF. In any case, some of the speculation is that Griffin is pushing NASA in that direction.</i>

 

[rfoshaug]

But what if they are right? <br /><br />Don't get me wrong - I think the Shuttle is a fantastic achievement technically speaking, but I think it was a bad decision in the 70's to confine the next 30-40 years of space exploration to low Earth orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

I think that's what Griffin's point was too when he described the Shuttles as misguided. They're amazing machines, fantastic pieces of engineering, and truly cool. But....they're not the best tool for the job in many cases. They are a system before its time, in my opinion. We're not ready for shuttles. It also doesn't help that they were forced to design for two divergent objectives -- a major case of scope-creep. <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>

 

[revolutionary]

Thanks Radar, its great to see that NASA is finally moving forward. NASA is capable of so much more and it will be a great day when the NASA abandons the ISS and Shuttle, the red tape that goes with it, and begins to explore space and do real science again.

 

[revolutionary]

vt_hokie, that flags & footprints mission resulted in more science and more NASA funding than anything since. I suggest you learn to be more appreciative.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">MO, I don't think CEV will survive the new Presidential Administration.</font>/i><br /><br />That is always a risk for any program and any administration change, and with budgets getting ever tighter over the next decade (darn Baby Boomers), this is going to be a particular challenge.<br /><br />One approach to saving the CEV is to make a lot of progress on it (beyond paper sutdies) before the next President gets to have a major say in the budget process (that would be the FY 2010 budget). In particular, I would hope that by then NASA will have under its belt: <ol><li>Orbiter/probe at the Moon<li>Orbiter/probe produces exciting results<li>preliminary flight tests (even if just suborbital) of major CEV components</li></li></li></ol><br />If they can achieve these things, I believe CEV will be safe for a little longer. However, if the CEV is sigificantly delayed (as many NASA efforts have been), then I would be a little worried.</i>

 

[brandbll]

I don't know, i kinda like what the guy is saying. Seems to be ambitious, just what NASA needs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

RadarRedux:<br />On the face of it, the challenge logic sounds right. But when you consider NASA budgets during the economic booms of the Reagan/Clinton eras, it defies logic.<br /><br />To be more specific, IMO Reagan launched the space station program in part because he or those advising him believed it had military value, particular star wars. This wasn't publically proclaimed but there had to be a reason for station languishing for much of the remainder of his Administration. Once the military value proved to be dubious at best, and star wars itself began coming unglued, the station then became a program in which it took longer to get the first element to orbit than it took us to get to the moon after the Kennedy committment speech. Clintons Admin produced something that benefited NASA only marginally yet could have produced a sizeable budget increase. That something was a budget surplus.<br /><br />NASA was marginally improved during two significant economic booms.<br /><br />If a Democrat is elected as is highly likely given the publics penchant for swapping Presidents by party every 8 to 12 years, then whoever this person is may want to continue a status quo on NASA and rely on the Russians for transport.<br /><br />As for exciting results, I seriously doubt a significant portion of the public will be too exited by anything done at the moon short of a permanent base. Even that will wear off quickly.<br /><br />In any case, maybe I'll be proven wrong, hope so and with my track record, thats pretty likely so will see. <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>

 

[josh_simonson]

>One approach to saving the CEV is to make a lot of progress on it (beyond paper sutdies) before the next President gets to have a major say in the budget process (that would be the FY 2010 budget). <br /><br />I wholeheartedly agree on that one. This is probably part of why the CEV is so simple, other than the requirement of being (relatively) inexpensive.<br /><br />The HLV could get cut though, perhaps going to a program that's heavilly reliant on the EELVs and using the 'stick' for general purpose launches. A democrat president may try to cosy up to europe by re-comitting to the ISS for another 5 or 10 years past 2015.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I think it would be healthy to split NASA's responsibilities -- make NASA an operational and manned exploration arm and hand the science (and supporting budget) to a science-oriented body like NSF. In any case, some of the speculation is that Griffin is pushing NASA in that direction.</font>/i><br /><br />To reinforce this view, here is some text from Griffin's most recent Congressional testimony:<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>While NASA needed to significantly curtail projected funding for biological and physical sciences research on the ISS as well as various research and technology projects in order to fund development for the CEV, the U.S. segment of the ISS was designated a National Laboratory in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. Thus, NASA is seeking partnerships with other government agencies like the National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Energy, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology as well as the commercial sector to conduct research onboard the ISS.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20415</i>

 

[j05h]

how about a US Department of Science with cabinet position? It would provide an umbrella and needed Admin representation for that which fuels our way of life.<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[john_316]

Just another department to suck down billions of dollars in an already unmanagable bureaucracy.<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />The idea is sound but with the pork barrel spenders its hard to say...

 

[Swampcat]

Yeah, that was my initial reaction. All we need is another government bureaucracy...that'll fix the problem <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>