Someone get Griffin away from the media!

[nacnud]

Griffin mentioned in his speech unveiling the new architecture that the CEV could be able to service the Hubble,<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> The crew exploration vehicle is designed with its launch system to go to low earth orbit. Once you're in low earth orbit, you can do any number of things. You must go through low earth orbit to go anywhere else. We can go to the moon. In later decades, we can go to Mars. We can service the space station. We can undertake the service of the Hubble space telescope or other space telescopes, as may exist. We can do anything. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />but I've also seen S_G disagree with this so... <br /><br />...the CEV probably could be made to service the Hubble on a pay as you go basis, but it would be simpler to use the STS (whatever that means).<br />

 

[barrykirk]

Well, we could abandon the STS and the ISS as a two stage deal.<br /><br />Stage one eliminate the ISS.<br /><br />Fly one more service mission to hubble.<br /><br />Abandon the STS.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

I happen to agree with Griffin. And I also agree, people in public life who speak the truth, especially when, on the face of it, it appears self-critical or otherwise contrary to self-interest, gain a great deal of credibility with the public, who then are more likely to listen to any other arguments they want to make.<br /><br />The Shuttle <i>was</i> a mistake. It was a revolution, when what was needed was an evolution. It was a compromise. But most importanly it was 'Shuttle-mode' thinking - build a capability and then see what you can do with it. What they eventually ended up doing with it was building the ISS - and a large part of the motivation for that project was indeed to give the Shuttle something to do.<br /><br />If they had stuck with the Saturn 5 and Apollo etc and simply evolved and updated them, they could've done everything they did do but at far lower cost. In addition they would have retained further-than-LEO capability.<br /><br />Of course this is hindsight. The plan was to reduce the cost to LEO significantly (although to do what with it isn't clear), and it only became apparent with time that 1970s technology wasn't up to it (not certain that current technology is). It may be that the decisions of NASA at the time were correct, but we can now see that they were also wrong. (A decision is correct on incorrect depending on the information available at the time. It is right or wrong depending on the outcome.)

 

[barrykirk]

I think that the theory behind the shuttle was along the lines that if you build it to be re-usable, it will cost more for each launcher, but you don't have build another launcher each time you go up.<br /><br />There is a fallacy in that argument.<br /><br />The throw away vehicle can be made much cheaper than the non-throw away vehicle.<br /><br />The throw away vehicle is easier to upgrade and evolve.<br /><br />The throw away vehicle has much more capacity, since it doesn't waste weight and space for the non-payload that has to be launched to make it re-usable.<br /><br />In other words, most of the payload of the shuttle is the shuttle itself. The dead weight on an expendable vehicle is much much less.<br /><br />If you could double the ISP of LOX/LH2 and change nothing else. I believe that the shuttle would make sense.<br /><br />As has been stated elsewhere on this forum, the laws of physics are against the shuttle and against rockets in general.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I've got to be very clear about this. I'm not shocked or upset that Griffin has made comments he's intimated at before. I'm encouraged by his honesty. <br /><br />However, what stands out for me (and is being missed by the posts about ISS and STS capabilities in subsequent posts on here) is the lack of any recognition and respect for the positives NASA has achieved over the last 30 years.<br /><br />It's completely one dimensional negativity.<br /><br />While he's becoming a flag bearer for the anti-STS and ISS crowd, self evident in the posts on here, I hope people can see how such one dimensional/one angle comments are damaging to a hell of a lot of people working on these "mistakes" - we've seen some comments already that back this up.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

And how many posters on here (see STS poll thread) are happy with Griffin being associated with Orrey's point of view?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Missing the point again.<br /><br />Do you think the last 30 years was a mistake. Do you have a problem finding any positives out of the STS and ISS programs? Not one? 14 dead Astronauts for nothing? 100s of billions of dollars for nothing?<br /><br />Maybe and I only disagree with your view.<br /><br />However, is this what the Head of NASA should be saying to the media? Hell no!

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Yes, we all love the Shuttle, we all support it, its been great. But the fact is, everyone knows that we could have done infinitely better. <<br /><br />Why didn't Griffin say that then? There wouldn't be a problem if so.<br /><br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Again, missing my point. Please read my posts properly. <br /><br /> />The Shuttle has done a lot of great science, however, what the Shuttle has done could have been done infinitely better by other architectures.<<br /><br />Again, why didn't Griffin say that?

 

[barrykirk]

Yes, I recognized all along that the shuttle and ISS were expensive and at this point not very useful.<br /><br />I was more concerned that jettisoning them could have negative political econonmic repercussions that could impact on us going to the moon.<br /><br />Now that the cat is out of the bag. And Dr. Griffin has come out and said that the ISS and the shuttle were mistakes.<br /><br />We will find out what the fallout from that is. I'm hopeful that it will be positive.<br /><br />Dr. Griffin has made both enemies and friends with that announcement. Some of those enemies and friends are congress critters and set the NASA budget.<br /><br />As I said before, Dr. Griffin may have been forced to scale back his budget and thought that the timing was good to dump the ISS and the STS.<br /><br />I'm worried though that the timing of this announcement came right after Rita and Katrina.<br /><br />The budgetary pressure on Dr. Griffin may be immense. If that is the case, we may lose the whole manned space program which is really scarey.<br /><br />Remember we got the crippled version of the shuttle in the first place because NASA's budget got cut back in the 70's.....<br /><br />Sorry to be pessemistic, but I'm worried about the timing of this announcement.

 

[wdobner]

Why abandon the ISS? I can see abandoning a launch system which drains a significant percentage of NASA's budget every time we launch it, but the ISS certainly has a great deal of usefulness left in it. I believe elsewhere on this board you advocated a space elevator, I happen to believe this is well beyond 25 years and a few hundred billion dollars off. Using the ISS as a base for both scientific and 'actual' exploration would be perhaps the greatest service NASA and the other space agencies could render to those of us stuck here on earth. Leaving the ISS unfinished, or worse, abandoning it would represent wasting tons of energy just to get the damn thing into orbit. The loss of Mir was unfortunate, as it too denied us a potential staging base (with refurbishment of course), but the loss of the ISS would be unconscionable.<br /><br />We can't do things for propoganda or even proof-of-concept value at this point. We know how to manuever in space, so nobody is going to be impressed when we put a capsule into a GTO. Going to the moon as our current plan holds just shows that we can put a big enough booster on our capsule to get 250,000miles from here and know how to hit one point in space. What are we going to do when we get there? What will we do to justify the massive expense of getting there? And what will keep future generations from dismissing Mr. Griffin's time as NASA administrator as 'the time NASA redid it's 1960's moon program'? Apollo broke no new ground, it was just another capsule basically taking over where the apogee boosting Agena Gemini flights left off. In the same vein, our current plans to go back to the moon break no new ground. We're not developing new technology and likely we'll just end up using some Kliper or Soyuz like capsule to get there. I'm willing to allow that the shuttle was a mistake, but it broke significant new ground in areas like ceramics, composites, and metallurgy which basically hadn't existed before. I feel confid

 

[rsp1202]

The current shuttle and station are what come from having politicians hold the purse strings and making the final decisions on what should better be left to the engineers and dreamers. An old story that never changes. That NASA workers were able to make these systems work as well as they did is a testament to their abilities, and the Administrator's comments should have noted that.<br /><br />Does anyone recollect the tenure of Dr. Fletcher as agency head way back when, when the shuttle program was trying to be sold to Congress, and what he had to go through to keep NASA afloat? The same question applies to Admiral Truly, who had to sell the station to Congress during his tenure in the '90s. I vaguely remember Fletcher getting into it with Sen. Gore, who called him to task for overpromising on the shuttle's capabilities, etc.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Let me put it this way.<br /><br />The head of a rail company has a line running from New York to Denver. Some parts of the track need upgrading and extending for the high speed train that's coming out in 2018...one that can go from New York to LA.<br /><br />The manager is interviewed in the media and says, "Well, the track was a mistake." <br /><br />He says nothing about the NY to Denver track helping them on processes that will build the the upgraded track that can go all the way to LA. He doesn't say anything about the track that goes from NY to Denver being part of that progression.<br /><br />I'd class that as a problem and you can bet the workers who helped build the track between NY and Denver are feeling pissed off about it. I wonder what the investors are thinking "so you're saying we wasted our money on the NY to Denver track?"

 

[barrykirk]

Yes, Yes, Yes, a cheap method of getting to LEO is imperative. That is the staging point for going everywhere else.<br /><br />What significant new technologies did the shuttle have over the previous generation of apollo?<br /><br />It has the SSME which is the most efficient chemical rocket ever designed and it has the tile based thermal management system that allows you to re-use the orbiter.<br /><br />Lets look at some shuttle specs from.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle<br /><br />1) Gross Liftoff weight of the entire stack 2 Million Kg<br /><br />2) Maximum Launch Payload 28,800 Kg<br /><br />3) Orbiter Weight is 109,000Kg<br /><br />For a grand total of 1.44% of launch payload gets to orbit. And when I say that it gets to orbit, it just barely makes it.<br /><br />Notice that the Orbiter weighs 3.8 times as much as the payload.<br /><br />Here is a funny point, most of the mass and cost of the orbiter is the equipement that makes that mass re-usable.<br />Compare this to Saturn V,<br /><br /><br />Launch mass is 2.9 Million Kg about 50% more than shuttle.<br />Payload to LEO 118,000 Kg <br /><br />About 4% payload to orbit or almost 3 times as efficient as the more advanced shuttle.<br /><br />Someone correct me if I'm wrong but it is relatively easy to make a first stage re-usable. Not much in thermal mangement is required. Just add parachutes.<br /><br />The First Stage of the Saturn V had a launch mass of 2.29 Million Kg or roughly 79% of the launch mass of the vehicle.<br /><br />What i'm trying to say is that the overwhelming majority of the total cost of a launch vehicle is in the first stage which is easy to reuse.<br /><br />The shuttle broke new ground in Thermal Management Systems allowing us at great expense to re-use the cheapest part of the vehicle. And this is breaking new ground?<br /><br />

 

[cuddlyrocket]

I can't speak for Griffin, but speaking for myself (and dissasociating myself from Orrery), although I think that the Shuttle and the ISS were mistakes, that does not mean that nothing was achieved by them. A great deal was achieved. I just think that more would have been achieved if the mistakes hadn't been made.<br /><br />Nor, even though the decisions to proceed with these projects were mistakes, does that mean that all those who worked hard, with skill, and some bravery, were wasting their time. Though mistakes, these weren't <i>failures</i>. (It's like the famous saying that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy - because such plans always contain mistakes. But the battle can be won, because of the skill and bravery of the men.)<br /><br />Should Griffin have added these 'clarifications' to his remarks? It depends. If his intention is to place in the public consciousness his view, then it is better for it to be clear and unmuddied. He can 'clarify' at a later date.

 

[j05h]

>From a media standpoint, he made a mistake himself here. <br /><br />I have to disagree, ShuttleRTF. I think Dr. Griffin wants NASA to stop flying in circles and go explore. He seems to be positioning to kill both STS and Station to enable the moon and mars missions. <br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[spacefire]

if we're going to argue about mistakes, let's not forget that NASA was created for the sole purpose of beating the Russians to the Moon. This means that post-Apollo NASA is itself a mistake. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[lunatic133]

I'm not so sure why everyone's making such a big deal out of this. Yes, the shuttle accomplished some pretty decent things. But in the 20+ years its been in service, what has been accomplished, really? I know Dave and others have spent most of their careers working on the shuttle and I don't want to dismiss their work as nothing. Believe it or not, neither does Mike. However, you have to admit that flying around in circles and blowing zero-g soap bubbles (that was an actual experiment on a mission) lacks the grandeur of landing someone on the moon. There could have been many better ways to do things in the past 30 years that just weren't done. What has the shuttle accomplished for humanity in the past 30 years? How has it brought us closer to exploration and colonization? I know it is painful for a lot of you guys to hear it, because sometimes people dedicate themselves for years to something that is the wrong path. But the first step to improving things is to admit that it's the wrong path and to do your best to move on to the right path. We're all here for the same goal, the furthering of space exploration. Perhaps there is something to be said about admitting that you're running headfirst into a brick wall, even if evading it means letting go of everything you've held onto for so long. But you don't have to give up on the dream by changing course. If anything you'd be helping it. The space shuttle was only supposed to be in service for 10 years, but its service time kept getting extended and re-extended. I'm sorry to offend everyone here but the shuttle minded architecture was slowly killing manned spaceflight. I can only hope that it's not too late. Griffin is doing the right thing, and saying the right thing. He's not a politician, he's an engineer. He doesn't need to sugar coat anything. He realizes that things need to change and he's willing to say it, no ifs ands or buts about it.

 

[mikejz]

Delay resigns, so this should get the media off his back asap.

 

[barrykirk]

I concur

 

[centsworth_II]

Griffin calls the last 30 years a mistake while making the shuttle launch systems the cornerstone of his new program. He should be carefull to separate the shuttle concept itsself from the launch systems which he needs to convince everyone are the best for the job. If the shuttle rockets and engines are what power the manned space program into the future, that's certainly a very big positive that came from the past 30 years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

Look, I don't disagree that the shuttle and ISS represent serious mistakes in policy decisions. But I think it would be no less of a mistake to abandon them now. To not fly the remaining shuttle missions to complete ISS would be as big a mistake as prematurely abandoning Apollo was, imo. Like others here, I'm worried about the timing of Dr. Griffin's remarks and the possible implications.

 

[askold]

Hey, I think I like this guy.<br /><br />I agree with him!

 

[barrykirk]

The rockets and engines are about the only thing being used from Shuttle launch system.<br /><br />Oh yes, The shuttle launch pad.<br /><br />The wings and the thermal management system aren't being used.<br /><br />Perhaps a newer ablative heat shield for the capsule... I'm not sure.

 

[barrykirk]

Yes, The timing is scarey. I sure hope that Dr. Griffin isn't under pressure to try to save the entire manned space program, but the timing suggest that he may be.