Someone get Griffin away from the media!

vt_hokie · Sep 28, 2005

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? That's my fear. Look, nobody is arguing that we shouldn't begin the retirement process for STS. In fact, I believe some subcontractors have already started to shut down, as NASA has more than enough of certain components for the remaining flights. But let's at least get through the addition of the remaining ISS solar arrays, Node 2, the Columbus module, and the Japanese Experiment Module, and hopefully fly a final Hubble servicing mission, before retiring the shuttle fleet! That's what we said we would do, and I think it's clearly the right thing to do. We could probably accomplish what I just outlined with no more than a dozen flights!

radarredux · Sep 28, 2005

> I'm not as angry about what he said, as angry about what he didn't say./i> To be provacative: And what would those great things be? The STS was grossly more expensive and dangerous than any previous means to put mass into orbit. The ISS is probably the most costly way ever imagined to perform science in a microgravity environment, and with astronauts aboard it is probably a very inappropriate way too (see quote below). Regarding the conclusion that STS/ISS has taught us how to build large structures in space, a better conclusion is that it has taught us not to build large structures in space. Has science been done? Sure, but at the most expensive price ever imagined. From Matthew B. Koss, whose experiments were carried out on three space shuttle Columbia missions:<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />To be sure, a lot of important science has been conducted in orbit. ... But, in fact, experiments like these are often more efficient and yield more fruitful results when done without the involvement of astronauts. ... My experiments, on the fundamentals of how liquids turn into solids, were originally planned for the mid-deck, where they would be controlled by an astronaut who was scheduled to do eight tests.But because of launching delays, the project was changed to a payload experiment that would perform tests autonomously. During the flight, initial data was transmitted to the ground and analyzed by me and my colleagues. Performing the experiment remotely, without crew involvement, allowed us to do 63 test runs.p><hr /></blockquote> So what has STS/ISS managed to do that could not have been done several orders of magnitude cheaper? What justifies $250 billion?

vt_hokie · Sep 28, 2005

"So what has STS/ISS managed to do that could not have been done several orders of magnitude cheaper? What justifies $250 billion?" So far, I haven't heard a good explanation for what justifies $100+ billion being spent so that a few people can walk around on the lunar surface. What exactly is the benefit, beyond some cool photos and perhaps some geological research?

shuttle_rtf · Sep 28, 2005

>Has anyone seen the full transcript of the interview with USA Today, or are the two quotes all we have?< I've asked if there is a quote sheet and requested it...waiting for an answer.

shuttle_rtf · Sep 28, 2005

>To be provacative: And what would those great things be?< Provacative is good <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Off the top of my head and I'll just do the STS in no particular order and as part of the progression curve to CEV: Processing and longevity of space hardware and software. On Orbit inspection of vehicle and EVA repair techniques. Knowledge pool increase with dedicated workforce on critical design flaws, troubleshooting and solutions. Increased SSME and SRB safety and efficiency ratios. Capability to rescue and repair on-orbit satellites. Spacehab science on human space flight research. Not to mention - though not relevant to the CEV - Reusability - and advancements therein - of space vehicles.

radarredux · Sep 28, 2005

> So far, I haven't heard a good explanation for what justifies $100+ billion being spent so that a few people can walk around on the lunar surface. What exactly is the benefit, beyond some cool photos and perhaps some geological research?/i> That is a good question by itself. But the issues are different: one is about goals and one is about methods to achieve the goals. For example, the goal of putting mass into LEO is good. The method of using the space shuttle to do that is bad. the goal of conducting research in a micro-gravity environment is good, but the method of using ISS to do it is bad. That is the criticism: the methods to achieve the goals were flawed.

radarredux · Sep 28, 2005

> Processing and longevity of space hardware and software./i> Could have been done with skylab + existing launch vehicles circa early 1970s. Could have been done with the proposed Industrial Space Facility too. /> On Orbit inspection of vehicle and EVA repair techniques./i> Was done with Skylab (e.g., repair of solar panels). /> Knowledge pool increase with dedicated workforce on critical design flaws, troubleshooting and solutions. This would have been true with any system. /> Increased SSME and SRB safety and efficiency ratios/i> I suspect any system used for a long period of time would have been continuously improved upon. /> Capability to rescue and repair on-orbit satellites/i> I think this was the STS's primary unique strength, but it was woefully underutilized. /> Skylab science on human space flight research/i> Could have been done on Skylab. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Obviously hindsight is always better. But I suspect instead of diverting resources to build the STS throughout the 70s and then ISS through 1980s, 1990s,and 2000s, using that money to maintain and refine the Saturns and Skylabs would have been a better use of financial resources. The questions I have are (1) What did NASA know, and (2) When did they know it? NASA knew the fixed costs of the STS was going to be high (as it turned out, it was even higher than they expected), so they needed 50+ launches a year to make it more economical than existing systems. Did NASA really expect that there would be a US launch market of 50+ launches per year and that it could turn around a shut

toymaker · Sep 28, 2005

He said things public already knows and feels.Overall the Shuttle and ISS were mistakes. Many people might have contributed a lot of effort but it didn't amount to much impressive achievements, besides the Hubble mission.The money and effort could have been better spent.NASA had major achievements in the last 30 years, yet they weren't related with the Shuttle-Mars Rovers, detection of planets in other solar systems, Cassini, Hubble, Galileo.Yet in relation to Shuttle and ISS I don't think he said anything untrue. Btw I think the only major effort should be aimed at making as cheap as possible launch system to orbit. Without longterm plans towards the moon the current program also lacks steam so to say.

robotical · Sep 28, 2005

The problem here is that as a public official and the head of NASA, Griffin does not just speak for himself, but for the agency and the U.S. government. The problem isn't him saying that it was a mistake, but saying it was a mistake in his position. What he is basically saying to the American public is that NASA has just wasted 30 years and several hundred billion of your tax dollars, and now we want you to hand over another one hundred billion dollars of your money for another grand vision. If a corporate executive said something along these lines he would likely end up lowering investor's trust in his company and risk his job. When you're in an administrative position, like Griffin is, your words mean a whole lot more than when you're simply an engineer or scientist working for the program. What he should have said was that the shuttle was a great machine, but had its flaws and therefore the next program will be even better as a result of the lessons learned from those flaws. Nobody take this as a defense of the shuttle and station; it is not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

shuttle_rtf · Sep 28, 2005

As I've mentioned, it's pretty much shown that some people on here will never have any admiration for the STS - and that's no shocker on this particular message board. However, I'm not going along with the debate on the STS as that's not what this is about. It's about the head of NASA (as opposed to a few Shuttle bashers on a message board) failing to say anything positive in a negative, unrespecful and uninspiring article in a major US paper, one that only resonates with the aforementioned handful of people.

nacnud · Sep 28, 2005

However, I'm not going along with the debate on the STS as that's not what this is about. It's about the head of NASA (as opposed to a few Shuttle bashers on a message board) failing to say anything positive in a negative, unrespecful and uninspiring article in a major US paper, one that only resonates with the aforementioned handful of people. Can you say that without seeing a transcript of the meeting? All we have is a couple of quotes...

shuttle_rtf · Sep 28, 2005

Yes, because I'm talking about the published article. If they've misrepresented him, then USA Today is who I'll also have issues with.

spacester · Sep 28, 2005

RTF, I'm shocked that you seem to be willing to give USA Today every benefit of the doubt but refuse to do the same for Mike Griffin. He spoke to the editorial board, right? That would indicate a long interview, right? How long would it take for Mike to say the things that were quoted? How can you be so sure that the remainder of the time wasn't spent by Griffin to set the rest of the comments in their proper context? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

wdobner · Sep 28, 2005

The X-43 and other scramjets are too slow to reach orbital velocity. Scramjets are a dead end as far as launch vehicles go A scramjet is an excellent replacement for the lower down stages of a booster. Why carry heavy liquid oxygen up through the lower atmosphere when 22% of our atmosphere is oxygen? The X-43 flew from something like Mach 4 and 109,000 feet to Mach 9.6 and a bit over it's launch height. It didn't just set a new record, it shattered the former record of Mach 5 for an air breathing vehicle and Mach 6 for a rocket propelled aircraft (the X-15). There seem to be signs that with development this speed could be pushed up to Mach 15, which is 11,000mph and a significant way to 17,000mph for LEO, all without any LOX. Above 11,000mph presumably a either Rocket Based Combined Cycle Scramjet engine would transition to the rocket side of the cycle, or an auxilliary rocket would take over for the final push. By keeping the LOX consumption to a relatively short burn happening mostly above the atmosphere a much smaller amount would be needed, which means even things like empty tank weight and such are smaller (LOX drop tanks for a Scramjet?:]). Once on orbit the vehicle would behave just like the shuttle, probably using two small OMS-like rockets and a host of RCSs to manuever. It's possible fuel could be saved by creating an X-30-like vehicle which would fly up to Mach 15, get most of the way above the atmosphere and pop a small capsule out which would serve to transfer personnel to the ISS or a Moon or Mars-bound vehicle. I've heard this called 'Stage and Half to Orbit' but that conflicts with the early Atlas staging name. Using this method the heavy spaceplane never has to achieve orbital velocity, and can just float along at 11,000mph on a ballistic arc while the smaller capsule, with or without a true heat shield carries the LOX and is truely equipped for orbital manuvering. It'd be somewhat interesting to design a spaceplane large

shuttle_rtf · Sep 28, 2005

You're missing what I said on the first few posts. I had the meat of the transcript read out to me, I simply don't have it in a document form to publish on here. The only thing that you can be shocked with is the utter disrespect seen on this message board as a response to this - and nearly anything that doesn't critise the STS - in responses. Shame, but maybe that is what this message board is about.

shuttle_rtf · Sep 28, 2005

As I've said.

kdavis007 · Sep 28, 2005

Well sometimes telling the truth hurts.... In all fairness the shuttle was a big mistake....

spayss · Sep 28, 2005

Reality check. Science isn't about shutting up and closing one's eyes to the folly of the Shuttle. This is a positive step towards getting a man back on the Moon by 2025. The 2018 0r 2020 dates were unrealistic with an Active Shuttle program and would have delayed the Moon until 2030.

thecolonel · Sep 28, 2005

Awesome (dripping with sarcasm). I've been out of the loop the last week and just now returned home due to the boondoggle that was Houston's evacuation scheme, and now it seems that the Shuttle/ISS future is also now in question? What a week.

radarredux · Sep 28, 2005

After re-reading the original article again, I think most of us (in both directions) are reading too much into the story. However, to fan the flames a bit (sorry), I thought I would post some of the text from the Mars Society's response to the ESAS architecture Griffin announced the other day. These are pre-USA Today article: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The Mars Society applauds this study as the first rational plan for long-term human space exploration that the United States has produced since the Apollo Program. ... ... The rising costs incurred from these storms have caused some members of Congress to consider the possibility of recouping some of this money by canceling the Vision for Space Exploration or the Space Shuttle program. If this unfortunate scenario should come to pass, it is vital that this money should not be taken from the Vision for Space Exploration, but from the Space Shuttle program, which is already being phased out over the next few years. While immediate cancellation the Space Shuttle would mean a temporary gap in our human space program (which we already have), cancellation of the Vision for Space Exploration would most likely mean the end of long-term human space flight at NASA for the foreseeable future. In addition, Space Shuttle cancellation could save over $30 billion over the next five to six years. These savings could be used to both help pay for hurricane relief and to accelerate the development of the vehicles to replace the Space Shuttle. In fact, a portion of the funds made available would allow both the Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Shuttle-derived Heavy Lift Vehicle to be operational by 2010. Even without this funding crisis, it would be advantageous to cancel the Space Shuttle sooner and begin development of the Heavy-Lift Vehicle. With the correct configuration, the HLV can better support the completion of the International Space Station, satisfying our agreement with our</blockquote>

shuttle_rtf · Sep 28, 2005

Radar, I said I wasn't going to get involved with a "Keep the STS till 2010 / Scrap the STS asap" debate, as that's got nothing to do with what I'm talking about - even if the bulk of comments on this thread used it as a breeding ground for such an over-used debate.

lampblack · Sep 29, 2005

Griffin isn't secretly hoping that STS takes a hit. Because the funds that are currently being spent for STS will *morph* into funding for the "vision" during the post-2010 time frame after the shuttle is gone. A cut in STS funding is the last thing Griffin wants to see. It would mean less money for going to the moon (and maybe Mars) later on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

centsworth_II · Sep 29, 2005

"The Shuttle is the ET, SRBs and Orbiter. He is throwing away the only part of the Shuttle system that has not caused a failure." -- SG I meant: If Griffin is going to use the ET/SSME and SRB, he better not call the program that developed them a waste of time. He may however call the winged Orbiter an evolutionary dead end, and replace it with the CEV capsule. You don't really think it's a bad idea to hold onto the ET/SSME and ET, do you? The SRB has been "perfected" and the shedding foam of the ET will no longer be an issue with a top-mounted CEV. I'm exited about the new program. I hope Griffin doesn't stir up any lasting ill will (from in or outside of NASA) with his insensitive comments. He should have remembered that he was talking about the life work of a lot of people. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Swampcat · Sep 29, 2005

"He should have remembered that he was talking about the life work of a lot of people." A lot of posters have made statements similar to this. With all due respect, IMO it's a bogus argument. Nobody's saying that 30 years of worker's efforts and lost lives were a mistake. The mistake was made by those that decide policy and direction. The workers work on what they're told to work on. As I've said before, I'm amazed that the STS works as well it does. That's a testament to the people who made it happen despite their understanding that it wasn't the best way to go. Certainly, Dr. Griffin wasn't saying that these people were the "mistake." I don't see how anyone can get that out of anything Dr. Griffin is purported to have said. He's simply telling it like it is. OK, maybe he could have said "in hindsight, STS/ISS were mistakes," but that's quibbling. The fact is that STS was not the vehicle NASA wanted. Policy makers above NASA made the decision to create the current STS, not NASA or the people who made it happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "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."Thomas Jefferson </div>

cuddlyrocket · Sep 29, 2005

"> Capability to rescue and repair on-orbit satellites I think this was the STS's primary unique strength, but it was woefully underutilized." Because it turned out to be cheaper to build and launch new satellites than to launch a Shuttle to repair and/or retrieve them. Few satellites cost anywhere near what the Hubble does, which is why it is the notable exception. I think Griffin needs to get over to the American public and policy makers that the way NASA conducted business (whether by its own design, or forced upon it) for the past 25+ years was mistaken. That that mistake has been recognised and that NASA is moving onto a new modus operandi. To do that he needs to articulate the message clearly and not get bogged down in a lot of clarifications.

Someone get Griffin away from the media!

vt_hokie

Guest

radarredux

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

toymaker

Guest

robotical

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

nacnud

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

spacester

Guest

wdobner

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

kdavis007

Guest

spayss

Guest

thecolonel

Guest

radarredux

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

lampblack

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page