Someone get Griffin away from the media!

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
After a very uneasy interview with Washington Post, I'm told he's gone and said NASA's last 30 years was a "mistake".<br /><br />Apparently he's said it to USA Today and they are running with it as they (quoting my friend at USA Today) "smell blood"<br /><br />More when I have it.
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
I'm getting paraphrased comments via MSN from a friend at the paper. <br /><br />Note this is not direct quoting, but paraphrased...<br /><br />The ISS was a mistake. The Space Shuttle was a mistake. The last 30 years of NASA was a mistake. "We" took the wrong path, we're trying to change it. The STS design was extreemly agressive and just barely possible.<br /><br />You can bet they'll run "and NASA lost 14 crew" cause if it. No idea who's writing it.
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
Traci Watson's writing it, so they may dodge the bullet. If you listen carefully, you can hear Marcia Dunn sharpening her knives.<br /><br />Waiting for a link as it's been written already.<br /><br />Don't need to go into how damaging this is going to be. At a time the US tax payer/NASA is an issue, he's just said the last 30 years of what you guys paid for was a "mistake" and you're going to be paying for the mistake continually for the next several years.<br /><br />Christ.
 
N

nyarlathotep

Guest
>>"Don't need to go into how damaging this is going to be."<br /><br />On the contrary, this is the best thing that has happened to the NASA manned spaceflight program in the last 30 years. Lets hope he has the courage to say what needs to be said about this ESAS plan aswell.
 
M

mikejz

Guest
I'm torn between the back PR/Political thinking of that comment, and the fact that he is the first person in the gov't I say something so honest.
 
G

gofer

Guest
Still, the 30 years produced some tangible hardware: a semi-reusable space vehicle and a space station. What Dr. Griffin has so far produced is a pile of slides. I'd understand him expressing these views in his memoirs, but this may piss off the STS and ISS backers in Congress/Bush administration.
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
Totally agree about him being honest. Problem is - and it pains me to say this - the media is unforgiving for self proclaimed criticism and negativity. This is all that's said here, nothing positive about the achievements, nothing to justify the money spent over the past 30 years. Nothing of substance that he'll get it right.<br /><br />Now I know "we" know different about the path being taken, but how many people on the street and in Washington do? This does not help.<br /><br />I really think - in my experience - this is very damaging and just watch the media coverage on this in the coming days.<br /><br />Pretty angry about this.
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
Thanks, that's a big point of what I'm trying to say (at 5:30am) - where's my coffee <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
M

mikejz

Guest
Still $250 BILLION on ISS/STS If we had the sense to realise we would spend that much money compared to result we would get---we would not of done it.<br /><br />$250 Billion gets you a Mars mission or a space elevator.
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
It's hard to argue that abanding the Apollo program and infrastructure wasn't a mistake. And STS certainly was a compromise. (But then, so is an STS-derived launch system for lunar flights! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) The shuttle system, due to its tremendous operational costs, has stood in the way of progress, much as I feel the "VSE" will stand in the way of progress for decades to come. All this money being spent on SRB's and "CEV" capsules will prevent any significant funding for pursuit of new technologies like scramjet propulsion. But I've expressed my opinion on this before. <br /><br />I think the ideas of a reusable space plane and a space station in LEO are good ones. But for a lot less money, we could have had a "Dyna-Soar" type of space plane ferrying crews to and from Saturn-launched "Skylabs" a couple of decades ago, and we could probably be 30 years ahead of where we are if Nixon hadn't killed Apollo and approved what became the space shuttle.
 
L

lunatic133

Guest
We haven't been out of LEO for thirty years. We haven't created a new manned spacecraft for more than twenty years. NASA has probably abandoned more projects in the last 30 years than it and all international and private space agencies have created since the launch of Sputnik. The space shuttle was supposed to make space exploration cheaper, instead it made it more expensive. It was supposed to have frequent launches, not one per year. In the best of times, it was averaging one every other month. Not what they had in mind in the 60's. Even before Columbia, every time something goes minimally wrong, the entire fleet is grounded for months on end. My parents' generation thought that we'd be living on Mars by now. Instead, we haven't even returned to the moon, and we can barely get to LEO. The international space station has been scaled down in quality and driven up in price. With a few notable exceptions (the hubble flights, for one), we haven't done anything meaningful in human space flight for the past thirty years. Robotic space flight has had some success, but those still could have been just as successful, if not moreso, if the manned side of NASA had done something worthwhile with the funds allocated to them (think of if we were already living on Mars, what we could have learned about the outer solar system from our robotic friends!). <br /><br />And you are mad at Mr. Griffin for calling this a mistake?
 
S

spacester

Guest
Truth Tellers should be embraced, not shunned.<br /><br />Any short term pain from this unusual honesty will be more than offset by long term gains.<br /><br />I don't know the media like you do, Chris, but I have a perspective to offer that might ease your anxiety.<br /><br />Yes, Marcia Dunn will try to exploit this. So will others. But as Lt. Worf would say "They have no honor; that is their greatest weakness." They'll write their articles, and they will influence public opinion somewhat, but to what effect? It's not like they have the technical expertise to make a solid case. All they do is make noise in a sea of noise.<br /><br />I think that public opinion means much less to NASA's budget than most people suppose. If the press mattered much, space flight would already be dead. NASA is a laughing stock already for most people, simply because the press milks the failures and dismisses the successes.<br /><br />We live in a *representative* democracy. This means that lawmakers are charged with the responsibility to *represent* the interests of their constituents. They are not required to vote as the mob would - they are required to exercise their best judgment.<br /><br />There are some issues which a Congresscritter will take as too important and/or too complicated to worry too much about public opinion. Space flight is one of those issues - any of the folks back home calling for NASA's demise, etc. are easily dismissed or otherwise dealt with. This is an issue where they can exercise their leadership muscles, and it feels good.<br /><br />When it comes to budgets, first of all most politicos have already made up their mind. Secondly, "popular opinion" deals with issues, not money. So bad press has little to no impact.<br /><br />But more importantly, I'd like folks to look at this from the perspective of a Congresscritter who has been in office for a while. The fact is, given the history, this is not bad press, it is good news!<br /><br />Ever since Psycho Dan came in, Congress <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

shuttle_man

Guest
As someone who has worked on the manned space program for roughly those last 30 years. I find it apporant to have the administrator of NASA completely dismiss everything we've done with three lines of negative quotes. Trying to be popular with the negative media and pandering to the wishes of the people who want the Shuttle program ending today is nothing short of ill advised and arrogant. He lacks balance and respect in his comments, maybe he should stick to engineering.
 
S

spacester

Guest
<font color="yellow"> . . . apporant (sic) . . . completely dismiss everything . . . . </font><br /><br />It is not going to help if you exaggerate his statements. Try reading it again:<br /><br /><font color="orange">In a meeting with USA TODAY's editorial board, Griffin said NASA lost its way in the 1970s, when the agency ended the Apollo moon missions in favor of developing the shuttle and space station, which can only orbit Earth. <br /><br />"It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path," Griffin said. "We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can."<br />...<br />He told the Senate earlier this year that the shuttle was "deeply flawed" and that the space station was not worth "the expense, the risk and the difficulty" of flying humans to space.<br />...<br />Asked Tuesday whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin said, "My opinion is that it was. ... It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible." Asked whether the space station had been a mistake, he said, "Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in."</font><br /><br />Which part of that is "dismissive of everything"? Is the slightest criticism a threat? Is there not some point in time when we can honestly assess the mission for ISS? Is that time not now?<br /><br />It is also not going to help if you assign spurious motives to his statements.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> . . . Trying to be popular with the negative media and pandering to the wishes of the people who want the Shuttle program ending today . . . . </font><br /><br />How in the world can you conclude these are his motives? Can you show me anything he has said anywhere, ever, that would be consistent with this alleged motive? In what way would such an absurd approach be in his interests?<br /><br />Perhaps the hype coming out of NASA for the last 20 years is where we should look for <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

mattblack

Guest
I admire Mike Griffin for his stance, but I had a sharp intake of breath when I read his comments. This could go either way, good or bad for Nasa. I'm hoping good.<br /><br />The last 30 years are a series of "What Ifs". There are ALWAYS what ifs. Most of us know the tortuous funding route that Nasa had to take in the early to mid-seventies. <br /><br />What Should Have Happened In The Seventies:<br /><br />*1): Fly Apollo 18 and save one Saturn V to launch the backup Skylab Station.<br /> <br />*2): Produce several more Saturn 1Bs and Apollo CSMs to fly 4 or 5 three month missions to the Skylab B, including a joint mission with the Russians. The gap between the Apollo/Skylab programs and Shuttle then might only have been 2 or 3 years, not 6.<br /><br />*3): Fund the Shuttle program enough to allow powerful liquid Rocket Boosters (with F-1 engines) and a crew escape cabin similar to the F-111 bomber. There probably wouldn't have been any loss of crew then and the Shuttle flight rate would have been better.<br /><br />*4): Select Option C for Space Station Freedom, which would have minimised construction of Freedom to only 5 or 6 launches. Also, the cost of the station would have been close to the original $8 billion, and a genuine Shuttle C would have been in existence years early.<br /><br />*5): The Shuttle could then have been retired as early as 1995 with a new NASP-type spacecraft and/or much improved Apollo-style craft waiting in the wings.<br /><br />*6): Return to the Moon by Y2K and Mars by 2010.<br /><br />Perhaps the above is something like what Mike Griffin meant. But we all know that there was nothing like the money available to Nasa to do the above things I just mentioned. Still, if Nasa's budget had been allowed an extra 2 or 3 billion dollars a year over the last 30-odd years, who could say? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
 
S

shuttle_man

Guest
Where are the positves? Where does this make NASA look anything other than incompetent over the past 30 years? Find me that? Do you think 10 words which say it wasn't right is what the NASA Adminstrator should be saying as what the Shuttle Program has achieved. What does that say about the 14 people we lost? They did it as part of a program that achieved what? Oh, it was too agressive. They died because of a mistake?<br /><br />How do you think my collegues feel working day and night sweating blood and tears for this program only for it to be summed up in 10 words of negativity?<br /><br />Well?
 
G

gofer

Guest
How do you know it wouldn't have been another "mistake" in retrospect? Space elevators? Manned Mars shots? Even now we don't know if we can do it for any amount of money.<br /><br />LEO construction with high frequency launches is a great and viable architecture ( see Von Braun, Korolyov)<br /><br />The point is what we've got exists, works and is not architecturally flawed. The problem is that it's incredibly expensive, yes! And programmatically badly executed. How do we know the new plan will not be incredibly expensive (in retrospect, again) and badly executed?<br /><br />Dr. Griffin is not in the position to be judgmental (unlike us forum denizens <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) on such highly sensitive and political issues. The fact is there are strong supporters of both the ISS and STS in Congress (heck, they voted for them) Another fact is that there is a large shuttle and ISS workforce that is to work for him (perhaps they mostly agree with him? I don't know) Telling them that they worked on a mistake is not what a good project manager does. <br /><br />One can be a good PhDd engineer with preconceived notions, but project management and customer relations is an entirely different ballgame (my experience is only in the corporate world, but still) Rarely, if ever, have I seen a good engineer become a good project manager. <br /><br />'Honesty' is a dubious trait in politics, especially when it's just a premature opinion not backed by your own program's accomplishments. What if Dr. Griffin disagrees with the war in Iraq. Should he be honest, go ahead a say it like it is in the press? <br /><br />What I'd say to Dr. Griffin. Once the Lunar base is up and operating, and doing whatever it's supposed to do in an affordable manner, and the SDHVLs are flying once a month for mere peanuts, according to your plan, then go ahead and call your predecessor's efforts a mistake. 'Till then, keep your opinion to yourself, or coctail parties. You are just an
 
S

spacester

Guest
<font color="yellow">Where are the positves? Where does this make NASA look anything other than incompetent over the past 30 years? Find me that? Do you think 10 words which say it wasn't right is what the NASA Adminstrator should be saying as what the Shuttle Program has achieved. What does that say about the 14 people we lost? They did it as part of a program that achieved what? Oh, it was too agressive. They died because of a mistake? <br /><br />How do you think my collegues feel working day and night sweating blood and tears for this program only for it to be summed up in 10 words of negativity? <br /><br />Well? </font><br /><br />OK, look, you have a great deal of emotion tied up in the program and I'm "just" an observer. The only way I know how to respond is with observations and logic, and by talking about perception and reality. I assume you are willing to grant that "just an observer" has just as much a right to an opinion as an 'insider"?<br /><br />I presented my observations and logic. You don't give me much to go on in terms of your reaction to those words. I have to either assume you completely dismiss them or are just unable to process them right now. I will however indicate to you that I read what you wrote. As I sort thru it, I see flawed logic, probably best explained by strong emotions.<br /><br />You certainly are not alone in the tendency to overstate the "opposition's" opinions; I've been thinking on this lately and so I bring some frustration to this whole thing myself.<br /><br />Where are the positives? Other than the words I already offered? Not many, I said what I meant to say. So I'll repeat as necessary. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Truth is good.<br /><br />Your truth may not be my truth.<br /><br />I don't see where Mike's comments "make NASA look . . . incompetent over the past 30 years?" Read it again, don't over-react. He is saying that things could have gone better if better decisions had been made. How does criticism <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
L

lampblack

Guest
It looks as though Griffin was simply repeating what he has actually suggested before -- that the shuttle is seriously flawed, and that the ISS in its present incarnation is a poor use of resources.<br /><br />He was simply speaking the truth as he sees it -- and the fact of the matter is that the public has a marvelous and constantly surprising capacity for handling the truth when it's presented in a cogent way. <br /><br />It's not a public relations disaster -- just the opposite. Griffin is actually doing wonders for NASA's credibility by speaking so clearly and frankly. People listen to him and get a sense that they're not just hearing the same old BS -- and they respect him for it.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Relax guys, this is a highly slanted report based on selected quotes from an as yet unpublished interview. Let's wait until article is published and we can see what he really said and in what context. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
P

peterweg

Guest
Its pretty obvious to everyone that NASA has been barking up the wrong tree for the past 30years. Painful if you were part of it but a key point of being an engineer is change path when and as needed.<br />Politicians work on the principle on sticking to a stupid idea until you have nothing left.. we don't want to be like them do we?
 
S

spacefire

Guest
I agree that the Shuttle was a mistake. But him saying it was 'barely possible' is rather stupid. We should push forward with technology, not go back to the Stone age.<br />He's wrong about the ISS, ISS was a great idea, and but it was NASAs fault that they failed to complete it in its original configuration, losing all cred among international partners :p<br />Griffin is partly right, but, alas, that doesn't mean that NASA is doing the right thing at the moment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
 
B

barrykirk

Guest
Sounds to me like Griffin is in a position right now where he is being told that he will have to cut something back.<br /><br />I would imagine that he was saving the shuttle and the ISS to be the first thing to cut.<br /><br />The first rule of negotiating is that you need to give something to get something.<br /><br />But, if you give away something of little value at the beginning, all you have left to give is stuff of high value.<br /><br />Looks like we know what his priorities are as to high and low value.<br /><br />I agree with him that the shuttle and the ISS need to be at the bottom of his priority list.<br /><br />The one thing that is bothering me and it is a lower priority item at this point is hubble.<br /><br />I know that it's replacement is being built now, but it would be nice to service the hubble one more time.<br /><br />Is it possible to use the CEV to service the hubble?<br /><br />If Dr. Griffin can offer that possiblility than he will gain a lot of support from the pure science guys.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts