Someone get Griffin away from the media!

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"The rockets and engines are about the only thing being used from Shuttle launch system."</font><br /><br />Only? That's a pretty major contribution. <br /><br />Rather than a waste, it may be better to call the shuttle concept a dead end. We may need to take a new path now, but we learned from the one we were on. One thing we learned was it wasn't the right path. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">$250 Billion gets you a Mars mission or a space elevator.</font>/i><br /><br />Nah. A Space Elevator may only cost about $6-10 billion.<br /><br />However... That cost assumes the technologies exist, and it will still take a few years to get there. Back in 1972 it wasn't even close.</i>

 

[barrykirk]

"The rockets and engines are about the only thing being used from Shuttle launch system." <br /><br />Only? That's a pretty major contribution. <br /><br />How great is the SSME? And I'm not trying to diss the engineers who designed it and all the good people who have worked on it over the years.<br /><br />But is it that much better than a LOX/Kero engine?<br /><br />In some ways yes, but in some ways no.<br /><br />Let me ask a hypothetical question.<br /><br />If orbital velocity was 8000 MPH instead of 17,000 MPH would we be using the SSME?<br /><br />I think not. Under those circumstances, it would be easy to get SSTO with a LOX/Kero motor and have a respectable payload mass fraction.<br /><br />For a truely re-usable motor, you don't want a motor that is pushed to the edge of it's design limits. You want something that will run reliably day after day with minimal maintenance costs.<br /><br />I'll explain why I raised that hypothetical question in another thread, their may be reasons that it isn't so hypothetical.<br /><br />I've heard that the non-reusable SSME is significantly cheaper than the reusable one. But people wonder if the refurb cost is close to the difference in price between the two versions.<br /><br />That sounds like a motor that is pushed too close to it's design limits to really be cost effective day in day out.<br /><br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Well I think we've pretty much found some of you out on here. There's two United Space Alliance workers on here, both find these comments from Griffin as negative. We've got two more on our site saying the same thing.<br /><br />You're all totally missing the point here and it's getting to the point of banging heads against walls now.<br /><br />A lot of you are pointing out the achievement of the STS program in a counter point to supporting comments from Griffin that DID NOT give any support to the STS program or anything in the last 30 years of manned space flight.<br /><br />It means &%$#@! all for you to say "but he did at some press conference some other month" he HAD to say it in counter point in this interview with USA Today.<br /><br />He didn't.<br /><br />That's a disgrace.<br /><br />So, let's drop this attempt to seperate the "But I want to go to Mars" debate and stick with the issue in hand. He's classed the blood, sweat, tears as a "mistake." <br /><br />If that's something you agree with, or something you don't think is a big deal, then tell that to the familes of the 14 dead astronauts we've lost on the STS program. Tell it to the workers that have put their life work into this "mistake" because of lot of this people working on that "mistake" will get you to back to the Moon and Mars.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">And how many posters on here (see STS poll thread) are happy with Griffin being associated with Orrey's point of view?</font>/i><br /><br />My interpretation of Orrey's position is that (1) STS/ISS is a mistake, and (2) it should be terminated immediately.<br /><br />My interpretation of Griffin's position is that (1) STS/ISS is a mistake, and (2) an orderly (although, perhaps accelerated) exit strategy should be implemented.<br /><br />And I think even on these boards you see the gradual change in position. Four years ago O'Keefe was talking about flying the shuttle until 2020. After CAIB that was reduced to 2010 with only 28 flights. Now it is widely accepted that considerably less than 28 missions will be flown.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">He was too harsh in not pointing out the positives of the Shuttle and ISS.</font>/i><br /><br />Griffin may not have the best people skills, but he should not be judged on a few quotes in a short artcle. The writer chooses the questions to ask and what subset of words to put in the article.</i>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

><br />If that's something you agree with, or something you don't think is a big deal, then tell that to the familes of the 14 dead astronauts we've lost on the STS program. Tell it to the workers that have put their life work into this "mistake" because of lot of this people working on that "mistake" will get you to back to the Moon and Mars.<<br /><br />And you respond with "yack yack yack"<br /><br />That says it all about your opinion.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">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</font>/i><br /><br />As one example, the large (and heavy) delta wing of the shuttle was chosen to support one-hop polar orbits. The shuttle would launch out of Vandenberg in a polar orbit, snag a Russian satellite (or whatever), and immediately return to Vandenberg. The problem is that due to the rotation of the Earth, Vandenberg would have moved East, so the delta wing was added to support the necessary cross range.<br /><br />This was done to get DOD political support, even though the military would not pony up the money.</i>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

><br />Griffin may not have the best people skills, but he should not be judged on a few quotes in a short artcle. The writer chooses the questions to ask and what subset of words to put in the article.<<br /><br />But that is what we're talking about here - even if posters are trying to dilute it. <br /><br />And I'm sorry, but to say the writer choose the questions does not in anyway given the right to omit absolutely required objective counter points.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Shuttle, unlike you, I don't think it worthwhile to "go around in circles all day"<br /><br />pun intended. <<br /><br />Again, you're failing to grasp the point...and then quoting me on something I didn't say.<br /><br />Stop throwing your dummy of your pram and learn how to debate on subject.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

What? How about I said what I wrote....if you've got an affliction to assumptions of some hidden meaning behind what's written, then that's your problem, not mine.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">However, is this what the Head of NASA should be saying to the media? Hell no!</font>/i><br /><br />He is confirming what he has said before. Should he lie now, or simply dodge the question?<br /><br />By admitting what many members in Congress probably believe, he is probably establishing some credibility with important decision makers. Remember, it is the political leaders, not the public, that matter.</i>

 

[radarredux]

Conspiracy Theory: What if Griffin knows NASA is going to take a financial hit soon (Katrina, Rita, Iraq), and he would prefer to see STS/ISS take the brunt of the cost reductions while keeping the new plan in place?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>He is confirming what he has said before. Should he lie now, or simply dodge the question? <<br /><br />As I've said, about five times now.<br /><br />I'm not as angry about what he said, as angry about what he didn't say.<br /><br />I thought I had made this clear?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Conspiracy Theory: What if Griffin knows NASA is going to take a financial hit soon (Katrina, Rita, Iraq), and he would prefer to see STS/ISS take the brunt of the cost reductions while keeping the new plan in place?<<br /><br />Then I'd like to know why he's pre-empting it in the media and not to the workers at the sharp end - if so. But that doesn't allow him to omit any comment on the achievements of the past 30 years - and classing as a mistake. That's my point.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">spacefire, no it wasn't. NASA was used to demonstrate America's ability to technologically compete with the enemies of freedom. That mission will never be over.</font><br />Cold war is over. Even so, NASA has to relay on the Russians to take astronauts up to and service the ISS for the time being. China is just imitating the grownups. Nobody else cares about manned space exploration.<br /><br /><br />Hence, there's no competition. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

That would be bad, but plausible.

 

[spacefire]

if the private industry, the small guys, received sizable incentives from the government, America would always be the first nation in space related issues.<br />As of now, it appears the Russians have developed an uncanny entrepreneurial spirit at the final frontier. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[wdobner]

But why take a giant leap backwards from the Shuttle when a cheaper, far more convenient system lies just over the technological horizon? I'm perfectly content to spend the money which NASA would otherwise blow on a moon program on what (IMHO) SHOULD be the overarching goal of NASA's spaceflight program, and that being the development of cheap access to LEO. The fact that NASA is returning to Apollo is downright disgraceful, we're shrinking from the technological forefront at a time when recent advances in the X-43 program and such should be pushing us to make perhaps the greatest flight since the Wright Brothers (or at least Chuck Yeager). LEO and GEO are where most of the real benefits people see from space are done. More people will benefit more directly from lowering the cost of LEO access than will benefit from watching two or three guys stand around on the moon once again. <br /><br />How are we going to maintain this moonbase when we're already set up into the same budget which killed Apollo's moon base aspirations? We've got a war to fund, several large natural disasters to clean up from, and now we want to fund a moon base through a system which offers very little economy over our existing fleet of expendible rockets? How can Griffin go so far as to say the past 30 years of NASA have been one great mistake when it looks like he's heading for the same mistake the folks running Apollo made? It's all too easy to get caught up in something like 'moon fever' where we're all sick and tired of going around in circles and want to use spaceflight to send astronauts to the places we've only read about. I certainly have no love lost on the Shuttle program, so restrictive a vehicle for such a high cost per launch just doesn't seem worthwhile. But to take a giant leap backwards to the same stuff we did in the 1960s just for the sake of breaking that cycle is ludicrous because we'll most likely end up canceling the program once again after a dozen astronauts have

 

[barrykirk]

Just what is this cheaper, far more convienient system that you are talking about?

 

[BReif]

Well, I think that with Tom Delay in the news having been criminally charged by a grand jury, that may eclipse the comments made by Mike Griffin. However, I agree with Shuttle_RTF, I think Mr. Griffin would have been better off citing some of the positive attributes of the STS and ISS systems, ie. the engineers and personell who have dedicated their lives to the space program, and the technology that was produced by the program that will, hopefully, get us out of LEO for the first time since 1972. I guess I look at the STS program this way: It was a nessecary part of the evolution of our manned space program, yielding new technology and techniques for manned spaceflight, putting in place an infrastructure to do manned spaceflight at many different centers around the country. Continuing to fly the shuttle past 2010 would be a mistake, because it is time we got on with getting out of LEO and back to the Moon, doing exploration, leading toward colonization. Debating whether the program itself was a 30 year mistake, well, we can't change the past, and somethin positive did come from it, as well as negative. We need to be balanced and hear both sides. The ISS: I see a space station as an element of an overall archtecture for moving out of LEO towards the Moon and Mars. I wish it was in an orbit more favorable to the Ecliptic plane, making it more likely to be used as a construction point for interplanetary spacecraft. As it is, it can still be useful as a medical research and micro-gravity research station, goal oriented to the Vision, and getting back to the Moon and on to Mars. <br /><br />Now, another point to look at: The US Congress...Having watched the political aspects of space exploration for the last 15+ years, and having written to Congress numerous times, and having seen their attitude toward space in 1989 at the announcement of the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) on 20 July of that year, their narrow passage of the space station's budget several ye

 

[nacnud]

The X-43 and other scramjets are too slow to reach orbital velocity. Scramjets are a dead end as far as launch vehicles go.

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">A lot of you are pointing out the achievement of the STS program in a counter point to supporting comments from Griffin that DID NOT give any support to the STS program or anything in the last 30 years of manned space flight.<br /><br />It means &%$#@! all for you to say "but he did at some press conference some other month" he HAD to say it in counter point in this interview with USA Today.<br /><br />He didn't.<br /><br />That's a disgrace. <br /><br /><font color="white">Has anyone seen the full transcript of the interview with USA Today, or are the two quotes all we have?</font></font>

 

[j05h]

>Only? That's a pretty major contribution.<br /> />Rather than a waste, it may be better to call the shuttle concept a dead end. We may need to take a new path now, but we learned from the one we were on. One thing we learned was it wasn't the right path.<br /><br />It's not that major - there were plenty of other engines available 30+ years ago in the same classes - F1 and J2. $250 billion to learn that crew and cargo should fly separate? yikes. <br /><br />The Russian architecture is proven superior, not the tech but the system. Especially at light-medium flight rates. Above that something like SeaDragon probably makes more sense. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

dobner- NASA's charter has nothing to do with enabling Cheap Access. That is private industries imperative.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>