Someone get Griffin away from the media!

shuttle_rtf · Sep 29, 2005

Try a wire search. The Google story is easy for the media as it's a press release. (I'm not even bothering with it). There's 28 articles on the Griffin comments so far. Easily the top NASA related story if you take the Google press release away.

radarredux · Sep 29, 2005

> Try a wire search./i> Yes, I know there are stories out there, especially on sites representing NASA locations (e.g., Florida and Texas), geek sites (CNET, Geek.com), and a few miscellaneous locations. With Google's news service collecting feeds from over 4,000 sites it isn't surprising to find some news stories. I was looking at the major media outlets for the general public, and in those markets the Google-NASA story was covered, Griffin's comments were not. Arctic ice melting, DARPA grand challenge, and giant squids are all there. Griffin is not. I had lunch with three people today, all with advanced science degrees, and none of them had heard of Griffin's comments. As passionate about NASA's manned space program as those of us on these boards are, we represent a very small minority.

chriscdc · Sep 29, 2005

In my defence I was born in 85, but even as a kid I payed more attention than the average person. If you consider me ignorant then imagine the majority of the public. At least i'm interested and trying to learn. I should be easy to persuade as to the use of the shuttle. So apart from the tech involved in the development of the shuttle, what is the research that warrants the 500million dollar launch price? Horray I've made something new in micro-gravity, shame I can't make enough of it for anyone to properly test and turn into a commercial product (PLEASE correct me on this). I like manned space programs but the shuttle has damaged humanities expansion into space. In 2018 it will have been 49 years since we first went to the moon. We went from the wright brothers to the moon in only 66 years. The shuttle phase was not necessary to return to the moon. The Skylab and russian stations, showed that humans can survive for a long time in space, that we have the life support systems that would allow us to survive on the moon, for extended periods. The money allocated for the shuttle and ISS cold have been better spent.

cuddlyrocket · Sep 29, 2005

"You're a Shuttle Basher, I get it!" You're a Shuttle booster, we all get it! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Human achievements are what count, not machine. I don't care what piece of metal those humans use, I care what they do with it. Outputs not inputs. Hard work, skill and bravery say a lot about the individuals concerned, but what counts for the program is what the output is. If I had a choice between a bunch of hard working, skillful, brave people who produced squat, and another bunch of layabout kludges with no spine at all, but who produced loads, I'd go with the latter. It's not the cost, it's the opportunity cost - i.e. what else could you have done with the time and resources. The Shuttle program has achieved a great many things, but nothing that could not have been done with an evolution of Saturn and Apollo (remember what the Russians did actually achieve with similar, but less capable, equipment) and at far less cost - that could have been used for other things. Perhaps Congress and the Administration might not have gone for it, but at least the out of LEO capability would still have been available. NASA's strategic choice in the mid to late seventies was a mistake, and only 30 years on are they correcting it. It's about time someone in authority said so. Telling the public the truth is usually best in the long run. Spinning is always found out and destroys your credibility. Griffin is gaining a reputation for plain speaking honesty.

Swampcat · Sep 29, 2005

"You're a Shuttle Basher, I get it!" IMO, it's unfair of you to call everyone that doesn't share your obession with STS a "Shuttle Basher." In your view, despite my admiration for STS, you'd likely call me a "Shuttle Basher" because I agree with chrisdc. It's unfortunate for such a fine machine to now be viewed as a "mistake," but that's just the way it is. NASA did the best they could with what they were told to do, but that doesn't change the fact that STS, though conceptually a nice idea, is now holding back progress. There is a lot of latent frustration with the pace of human spaceflight development and it's obvious that STS, for all its excellent qualities, is not the craft that will take us further for all kinds of reasons. It's done its job. It's time to move on. What's wrong with that? <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>

vt_hokie · Sep 29, 2005

" It's done its job. It's time to move on. What's wrong with that?" It hasn't finished it's job. Let the space shuttle finish out its mission of completing the International Space Station (and hopefully performing one more Hubble flight), and I'll be right on board!

Swampcat · Sep 29, 2005

"Let the space shuttle finish out its mission of completing the International Space Station (and hopefully performing one more Hubble flight), and I'll be right on board!" Sorry. I wasn't saying stop STS flights right now. I've never been a fan of ISS, but the US commited to it and we can't simply abandon it now. As far as Hubble is concerned, STS is the only vehicle we have that can be used to maintain it. It wouldn't be right to have Hubble go the way of Skylab. <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>

lunatic133 · Sep 29, 2005

Hey a fellow 85'er rock on I have been interested in space since I was about 12. I didn't follow space shuttle missions obsessively but I was interested and I did think that the space shuttle was worthwhile, back then. In middle school space was kind of a big deal, even though it wasn't nationally popular or anything back then. I remember being upset because there were two girls in my class who everyone looked to as the space gurus and not me and I wanted to prove I was a better space dork than them. Everyone was really excited about when john glenn launched the second time too. Nobody cared about space in high school though. I had a friend who didn't even realize we're not still going to the moon and thought we had missions there and stuff all the time. I think the only reason people cared in middle school was because we had a teacher who taught us about the space shuttle and everyone thought that teacher was the coolest person ever so they liked the space shuttle too. When it comes down to it, that's how I got obsessed, though I was one of the few who stayed obsessed. But I guess I was brainwashed almost into thinking that the shuttle was excellent because I didn't want to believe that NASA was fallible. I knew that people went to the moon in the 60's and didn't go to the moon now, but I never really stopped to think about why. I always just accepted what NASA said, that the space shuttle was the next logical step forward, and "eventually" we would get to Mars. It was only when I became older that I realized that NASA didn't really have anything planned beyond the space shuttle and that a lot of the vision of the past had been lost. And then Columbia happened and my faith in the STS was more or less shattered. I guess what I'm trying to say is that NASA has always tried to convince people that the space shuttle is high tech and the way of the future but the truth is it really isn't and Griffin is the first administrator with th

shuttle_man · Sep 29, 2005

Glad to see you are finding buddies orrery. I've read your comments and you have very little grasp or intellgence on the subjects discussed. As for chriscdc, I find it strange someone who admits taking no interest like some baby who turns his back on something that isn't agreeable to him, can claim to comment on the Shuttle. How are you learning anything when you don't have any interest in it and then preach at people who know 100 per cent more than you?

shuttle_man · Sep 29, 2005

" It's done its job. It's time to move on. What's wrong with that? " What's wrong with it is a basic lack of understanding you're saying by claiming the job is done.

Swampcat · Sep 29, 2005

"a basic lack of understanding you're saying by claiming the job is done." Can't play well with others? Try reading my next post. Maybe it'll improve your basic lack of understanding. <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>

shuttle_man · Sep 29, 2005

Well unless you've been involved with Manned Space Flight for 33 years, I doubt it.

chriscdc · Sep 29, 2005

Firstly, I've always been interested in space. Mostly cosmology etc. I've been more interested in more advanced forms of space transport. I had little interest in the shuttle but the subject has grown on me over the last few years. I think I can comment on the shuttle for several reasons. 1 Can you get men into space cheaper.- yes 2 Does it cost alot more to launch crew and cargo at the same time, and drag up the cargo carrying compartment even when the full capacity has never been used. - yes 3 Is the design just asking for trouble, no escape ability, vulnerable heat shield,- yes 4 Has it achieved its original launch frequency.- no Please tell me where I am wrong. Specifics please. I'm sorry if those who know more specifics are offended, but I have not heard any reason apart from political why the shuttle is the only craft Nasa has to lift crew. Also Griffin seems to agree with these general critiques of the shuttle and I think he trumps everyone on this board.

Swampcat · Sep 29, 2005

"Well unless you've been involved with Manned Space Flight for 33 years, I doubt it." And what is that supposed to mean? Hey, maybe I haven't worked on Orbiters like you, but I'm old enough to have followed Human Spaceflight for 33 years and have followed Human Spaceflight for at least 44 years. I have the greatest respect for NASA, STS and all the people who work on it. Maybe I should re-evaluate that position considering that you're one of them and now want to nitpick and accuse me of basic lack of understanding. What's your problem? Did you even read my following post or do you just want to be crabby and rude for no good reason? Geez. <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" /> <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>

spacefire · Sep 29, 2005

Well unless you've been involved with Manned Space Flight for 33 years, I doubt it. hey, you're too old to be using the Internet. It doesn't run on vacuum, tubes you know <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

tmccort · Sep 29, 2005

I can't see how anyone can call the Shuttle a success. If you look back at the original design goals of the Shuttle (of which some are rather dubious) you will find that the program is an utter failure. I know alot of you that have worked on the Shuttle and people who idolize it like Shuttle_RTF are put off by this but please look at the facts. To constrain this debate lets handle some issues one at a time. First, has the Shuttle significantly reduced the costs of human spaceflight?

trailrider · Sep 30, 2005

Ironically, I am watching "Engineering Successes and Failures" on the History Channel. There is no doubt that the Shuttle system didn't do what it was hoped to...provide cheap access to LEO. That doesn't mean that it was a technological failure. The SSME's were an order of magnitude improvement over contemporary engines of the time (with the possible exception of the Russian RD180/170). We have learned much about Thermal Protection Systems, materials, how to recover heavy payloads with parachutes, and have given crews the experience of operating in space in many different ways. Could we have been on the Moon with permanent bases by now had we not abandoned Apollo? Probably. But there were other political considerations that mitigated against that, given the main objective of Apollo was to beat the Soviets to the moon, whether it was expressed to the general public or not. Historical hindsight is always perfect. But life isn't an instant replay! If President Lincoln had not gone to Ford's theater... If President Kennedy hadn't gone to Dallas, or had put the top of the car up... Or if the Titanic hadn't... You get the picture. What we must do NOW is to make the best use of what we have learned, and go FORWARD! Those of you who excoriate NASA (Griffin) for "Apollo on steroids" had better understand that by improving on Apollo concepts and using the best parts of the Shuttle systems we may improve reliability and safety to the point where an accident will be a rarity. As to the crews of Challenger and Columbia have died in vain, bite your tongues! The only way their sacrifices will have been in vain is if we QUIT! I commend to your reading, the editorial on p. 70, of the September 26, 2005 edition of Aviation Week! Ad Luna! Ad Aries! Ad Astra! Trailrider

tmccort · Sep 30, 2005

So your arguing that the Shuttle was basically only an R&D program, but that's sure as hell isn't how it was sold. Besides couldn't the same things have been accomplished for much less money? Your trying to rationalize a failed program and I just don't buy it.

shuttle_rtf · Sep 30, 2005

>riiiiight. my friend, I grew up in Houston, TX. I have posters and blueprints of your space shuttle and have read them daily since 1986. My interest in the Shuttle peaked that year as I watched Challenger explode. I grew up with many friends and family members who worked on the Shuttle. I will tell you right now, Shuttle_Man, that I have EVERY SINGLE Shuttle Patch for every mission ever flown. I've got every lapel pin, and I've got many many coffee mugs.< Similar to me. Doesn't make me an Engineer of his experience, regardless of how many coffee mugs I've got <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> />So, do not think for an instance that I am "not interested"< If you read his post, you'll see he was talking to Chriscdc, who self proclaimed he has no interest in Shuttle missions.

yummylicious2323 · Sep 30, 2005

Lay off, would you RTF? I usually regard your opinions very highly. Given your experience, most everyone does, but what I see here is a play of arrogance. You don't have to be an engineer to contribute meaning and insight, and you don't have to obsess over every single shuttle launch to be a space enthusiast.

shuttle_rtf · Sep 30, 2005

Then you've misread what I said? Because - "You don't have to be an engineer to contribute meaning and insight, and you don't have to obsess over every single shuttle launch to be a space enthusiast." - I didn't say that. I said that regardless of the amount of STS mugs one has collected it's hardly a play in retort to insulting a "USA Engineer with 33 years experience." So no, I won't "lay off" when it comes to that as I've got a hell of a lot more respect for the people at the sharpe end than a lot of people on here seem to have for them (despite the expected crys of "noo, we think they are great" that will follow this). Don't take me personally. I'm Yorkshire and thus I'm really holding back! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

tmccort · Sep 30, 2005

Shuttle_RTF would you mind answering my question? Has the Shuttle significantly reduced the costs of human spaceflight?

chriscdc · Sep 30, 2005

Everyone here can agree that the engineers on this project were brilliant. If you had to build a space plane that could return large satellites from orbit, then the design is good. But Nasa's management and the government decided to build 5, to try and make use of the economy of scale. This failed. The economy of space craft didn't turn out the way they expected it to. The really annoying thing was that this became apparent a while ago but the responce was to build the ISS. That would make use of the shuttles crew whilst carrying the modules. But the shuttle didn't fly more often and so hasn't gotten any cheaper. The shuttle set up could be a heavy lifter if you replaced the orbiter. But the orbiter was just cheap enough in the eyes of the politicians, not to develop the shuttle C or a seperate human crew launch. The result was a stagnation. The private sector has more experience with developing large rockets than Nasa has had in the last 20 years. I'm sorry that the engineers (who must of wanted to build rockets when they joined) have been just maintaining them for the last 20 years and they have grown far too sentimental. You seethis attitude everywhere but I was hoping that Nasa engineers here would have been smarter than this. Understand this, the STRATAGY was wrong not the Implementation. This is a rather elemental distinction that you seem to be deliberatly ignoring. E.g. During Challenger, the engineers were not at fault but the management was.

shuttle_rtf · Sep 30, 2005

Sorry, missed your question. />Has the Shuttle significantly reduced the costs of human spaceflight?< Absolutely not...but I would like to note that it's not a primary system for manned space flight, imho It's a truck, a big 18 wheeler that happens to have space for seven crew and is used on multiple levels because of that (where the 'truck' becomes a science lab with spacehab). It's a hell of a lot more diverse than people give it credit for, albeit all LEO. I'm not sure (but I'm not positive) that the cost is all the STS' designs fault. I think the USAF running away from it post STS-51L played a major role in that.

shuttle_rtf · Sep 30, 2005

>Everyone here can agree that the engineers on this project were brilliant. If you had to build a space plane that could return large satellites from orbit, then the design is good. But Nasa's management and the government decided to build 5, to try and make use of the economy of scale. This failed. The economy of space craft didn't turn out the way they expected it to. The really annoying thing was that this became apparent a while ago but the responce was to build the ISS. That would make use of the shuttles crew whilst carrying the modules. But the shuttle didn't fly more often and so hasn't gotten any cheaper. < That's a very good point. Remember, it was four (as you know Endeavour replaced Challenger). />The shuttle set up could be a heavy lifter if you replaced the orbiter. But the orbiter was just cheap enough in the eyes of the politicians, not to develop the shuttle C or a seperate human crew launch. The result was a stagnation. The private sector has more experience with developing large rockets than Nasa has had in the last 20 years.< And the Russians had a good idea with their Orbiter (Buran) that could fly itself. />I'm sorry that the engineers (who must of wanted to build rockets when they joined) have been just maintaining them for the last 20 years and they have grown far too sentimental. You seethis attitude everywhere but I was hoping that Nasa engineers here would have been smarter than this. < Well the USA engineers are doing their job. Yes, some of them are rightly sentimental - who came blame them as they are a major part of their lives. SG will be able to say better, but I believe in his case he's been involved with Apollo, STS and now CEV. I think a lot of us would kill to have that career! />Understand this, the STRATAGY was wrong not the Implementation. This is a rather elemental distinction that you seem to be deliberatly ignoring. E.g. During Challenger, the engineers

Someone get Griffin away from the media!

shuttle_rtf

Guest

radarredux

Guest

chriscdc

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

lunatic133

Guest

shuttle_man

Guest

shuttle_man

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

shuttle_man

Guest

chriscdc

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

spacefire

Guest

tmccort

Guest

trailrider

Guest

tmccort

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

yummylicious2323

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

tmccort

Guest

chriscdc

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page