Someone get Griffin away from the media!

[dragon04]

"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."<br /><br />Perhaps Dr Griffin wasn't in the mood to be an apologist during that interview. And had he included "the good stuff", that's exactly what he'd look like. An apologist.<br /><br />I think you're a little too close to the Shuttle program to be objective here, RTF. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[lunatic133]

What sort of space elevator are you speaking of? I did an in depth analysis on the space elevator for a class and it turned out with today's technology an elevator to geo would cost more than the entire national GDP. But perhaps when those darned carbon nanotubes go down in price...

 

[barrykirk]

go check out my thread on space elevator versus space tether.<br /><br />One of the biggest problems with the space elevator is the long length required because of the slow rotation of the earth. That long length increases the self mass that the elevator must hold up which increases the strength requirements, which further increases the mass. The space tether has a way around that.

 

[lunatic133]

Ha, I'd say go for it. I don't want to steal money from the starving children but I'd hate to say a plan everyone fought so hard for die. Better a 20 year old system take the hit than a new program just barely getting a chance. But then again, NASA doesn't exactly have a good track record of getting new plans off the ground...

 

[barrykirk]

They seem to be best at getting new plans off the ground when they have no current plan.<br /><br />The trick is to arrange getting rid of the current plan and transitioning to the new plan at a time when there is money in the budget.

 

[wvbraun]

In response to the original message: I strongly disagree. Mike Griffin is only stating the obvious. He is telling the truth and a lot of people can't handle the truth. I hope he continues to say what's right.

 

[nacnud]

Space daily has a take on this, <br /><br /><font color="yellow">NASA's chief had harsh words for the space shuttle and International Space Station, calling them costly strategic mistakes...<br /><br /><font color="white">however it goes on to point out one aspect of these views that I don't think has been touched on much here, how does this effect the international partners in the ISS.<br /></font></font>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I did an in depth analysis on the space elevator for a class and it turned out with today's technology an elevator to geo would cost more than the entire national GDP</font>/i><br /><br />Here is the link to a recent IEEE Spectrum article:<br />A Hoist to the Heavens<br />By Bradley Carl Edwards<br />http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug05/1690<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>A space elevator would be amazingly expensive or absurdly cheap—depending on how you look at it. It would cost about $6 billion in today's dollars just to complete the structure itself, according to my study. Costs associated with legal, regulatory, and political aspects could easily add another $4 billion, but these expenses are much harder to estimate.<br />...<br />I estimate that a second elevator would cost a fraction of the first one—as little as $3 billion dollars for parts and construction.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The key is having the right technology infrastructure (e.g., carbon nanotubes) in place before you start building.</i>

 

[chriscdc]

Just replying to a any nearby post.<br /><br />1. I like the way Griffin deals with the media.<br /><br />2. Most people haven't a clue what Nasa has been doing all this time. Therefore there will be little public attention paid.<br /><br />3. According to 'Space Race' (excellent programme on BBC2 at the moment) a huge number of people got into space after Von Brauns show. Why can't Griffin do the same. He is obviously enthusiastic about space, and this will rub off on viewers. <br /><br />Raising his profile will get support behind the project. Underdog, adventurer and higher purpose will always be viewed higher than some obscure government project. It might also get him more political weight.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

You're UK then.....did you see the Daily Mirror's take on this. <br /><br /> />"Yanks a lot" - NASA boss slams his own agency as a mistake.<<br /><br />Got to love the tabloids <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />However, I honestly don't know where you came to the conclusion that people (other than some message board posters) will get behind him after what he said.

 

[wvbraun]

"However, I honestly don't know where you came to the conclusion that people (other than some message board posters) will get behind him after what he said."<br /><br />1. Nobody really cares what the NASA administrator has to say. The effects on public opinion (positive or negative) are negligible.<br /><br />2. I don't know where you got the idea that pretending that the Shuttle program was a success will get people behind the space program. It's obvious that it's not.<br /><br />3. Griffin is refreshingly blunt and straight-forward in his dealings with the media and politicians. I like his style better than O'Keefe's. Who accomplishes more in the end remains to be seen.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"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."</i><br /><br />Exactly! I agree on this. This is why it drives me nuts when people say that because I disagree with the war in Iraq, that means I don't "support the troops". That is such a bogus argument, and it makes no logical sense to suggest that once our troops engage in something, it means it must be the right thing to do and that our leaders are beyond reproach.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>1. Nobody really cares what the NASA administrator has to say.<<br /><br />That's amazing statement to make.<br /><br /> />The effects on public opinion (positive or negative) are negligible.<<br /><br />Proof?<br /><br /> />2. I don't know where you got the idea that pretending that the Shuttle program was a success will get people behind the space program. It's obvious that it's not.<<br /><br />Proof?<br /><br /> />3. Griffin is refreshingly blunt and straight-forward in his dealings with the media and politicians. I like his style better than O'Keefe's. Who accomplishes more in the end remains to be seen.<<br /><br />And agreed!

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"...it makes no logical sense to suggest that once our troops engage in something, it means it must be the right thing to do and that our leaders are beyond reproach."</font><br /><br />Good comparison. I couldn't agree more.<br /><br />I have the utmost respect for NASA workers (as well as sub-contractors, etc.) and their abilities. STS <i>is</i> a remarkable machine. Calling it a mistake should just be taken as an honest appraisal and not any kind of reflection on the capabilities of those that work on it or have lost their lives riding in it. There is <i>no</i> connection there. I'm certain Dr. Griffin intended no such thing. <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>

 

[radarredux]

FYI: NASA responds to the USA Today report... sort of<br /><br />NASA Memo: Griffin Point Paper on USA Today Article,<br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18223

 

[chriscdc]

How about all those kids who have to be told that we did not continue after the moon. That we played about in LEO for 30 years after we went to the friggin moon.<br /><br />I seriously doubt that anyone 'normal' will remember this in a years time, hell most people don't pay any attention to it now. People won't get behind him for this remark, but he can take it further and the US can actually have a worthwhile manned programme.<br /><br />The program needs a new public image and telling people what they already half-knew would be a good way to start.<br /><br />The truth is that NASA desperatly needs public support if it is going to continue with this over multiple presidencies. A new round of inspiring kids is needed. Inspiring requires OTT ambition. Claims that YOU can walk on mars or fly past Jupiter. If you use the Nasa administrator then you sound alot less like a crank. If the Russians do go for that moon flyby in a few years time, then people will actually start to take you very seriously.<br /><br />You follow space too closely and you miss how the average person reacts to space. To you this is massive, but to most other other people, Jordan and Petes wedding was more important. You seem content for the program to hide in the shadows, in case someone comes across it and shuts it down. (Trying not to sound overly dramatic) But you can't stay in the shadows, You can only get so much done in the shadows, after 30 years you need to come out into the day and shout why your existence is so important.<br /><br />I did not read the Daily Mails article but how important is some third rate tabloid in the UK on the US space program. I know you use it as an example of a larger problem, but the most anyone will remember is that a government official once told something resembling the truth.

 

[wvbraun]

"That's amazing statement to make." <br /><br />I was referring to the average guy on the street. Most people don't even know the name of the current NASA administrator.<br /><br /><br />"Proof?"<br /><br />If you think that your average guy cares what Mike Griffin has to say you're living in a parallel universe where the public didn't lose interest in space exploration more than three decades ago. And I might as well ask back: Where is your proof that support for the Shuttle means support from the public?<br /><br /><br />"Proof?"<br /><br />Let's see. NASA is spending billions on the shuttles while they sit on the ground. Thanks to the shuttle NASA astronauts have been circling the earth for the past 24 years while development of new systems was put off again and again. The only real success of the Shuttle program of any significance is Hubble - and the shuttle provided valuable lessons on how not to run a space program. Good riddance.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">STS is a remarkable machine. Calling it a mistake should just be taken as an honest appraisal</font>/i><br /><br />One element of the interview that caught my eye was:<br /><br />Griffin: NASA Memo: "<i>My opinion is that it was. ... It was a design which was <b><font color="yellow">extremely aggressive and just barely possible.</font>/b></b></i>"<br /><br />I think this view is reflected in the new ESAS architecture. STS included lots of new stuff (new TPS, reusable main engines, etc.), and its inability to reach the promised goals is probably due in part to this aggressiveness. Compared to NASP and X-33/VS which also pushed several limits simultaneously, the Shuttle was a success -- it flew! The mistake was biting off more than they could chew.<br /><br />The ESAS is much more evolutionary, largely leveraging existing knowledge and capability. It has some new elements (e.g., the methane engines), but there are also fallback plans should these fail.<br /><br />Because of this, some have criticized ESAS for being boring, but this is probably the primary reason it will have more success (meeting goals within time and budget) than the Shuttle, NASP, and X-33/VS.</i>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Yeah, read that on Spaceref. It's pretty strange and unclear...and is it me or are they trying to claim the word "mistake" is a misrepresentation?<br /><br />NASA PR then go on their own little slagging off of the STS, but DO throw in some positives.<br /><br />This is becoming a little surreal.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

You made the initial comment, can you prove it or not? I believe you should say it's simply your opinion.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

You're bantering on about how "we should not be in LEO" which has got NOTHING to do (and God, you're not the first on here) with the point of what's been said.<br /><br />Most of your post seemed patronising.

 

[radarredux]

>> <i>1. Nobody really cares what the NASA administrator has to say.</i><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">That's amazing statement to make.</font>/i><br /><br />I just did a quick scan on a few major new sites that are for the general public: CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, ABC News. None are carrying Griffin's comments, but three are carrying the Google-NASA deal. They all have a story on the squid. Apparently a squid is much more important than what Griffin has to say.</i>

 

[chriscdc]

Oh I'm sorry, I'm just one of the generation that will have had no real important things happen in manned space. The same age group that will be the ones walking on the moon and building the mars spacecraft.<br />I consider the moon landings as the crowning achievement of mankind, but we have only gone backwards because of the political descisions that turned the shuttle into the financial black hole it is now. <br /><br />The fact that we have been in LEO has almost killed manned space. Kids no longer believe that space will be available to them in the future. The press followed unmanned probes with more intensity than they did for an entire year of shuttle flights.<br />The shuttle managed the impressive task of making space dull, without making it common place. Space can only be allowed to get dull when everyone is able to take advantage of it.<br />I'm the only space nerd that I personally know, and I wasn't paying attention to the shuttle flights.<br /><br />The real problem is that the pointlessness of the shuttle is obvious to even the most casual observer. Throw in how much it costs to launch the thing and most people I know would be against manned space full stop. Griffin realises that pretending otherwise will just make him look like a politician. Considering that he has been a critic of Nasa's strategy in the past, it would be pointless to lie now.

 

[vt_hokie]

I don't see going to the moon as being <i>that</i> much more exciting than going to low Earth orbit. Sure, you get to walk around on a desolate rock, but you're still in Earth orbit! In the grand scheme of things, we're still stuck on our own doorstep whether we're in LEO or on the moon!

 

[shuttle_rtf]

You're a Shuttle Basher, I get it!<br /><br />However, the list of assumptions you've made as statements are incorrect. But I don't blame you for thinking that when you don't even pay attention to Shuttle flights - a really strange thing for anyone on here to say.