Support Moon or no ISS ?

[radarredux]

In the latest AW&ST there is an article that mentions three items:<br /><ol><li>March 2nd meeting to set final ISS assembly<li>Another meeting to get international cooperation for returning to the moon<li>NASA has cut billions from its own science programs to complete assembly of ISS</li></li></li></ol><br />I wonder if Griffin is strong-arming international partners to support the Lunar program or risk the ISS being abandoned? In other words, NASA has announced it is cutting billions from existing NASA science programs to, in effect, deploy Japanese and European hardware to ISS. There have also been comments from Congress recently that their patience for Shuttle/ISS is running very thin and that the "international obligation" argument doesn't hold water with them. Is Griffin expecting to get something in return from these partners?

 

[askold]

I think Griffin's a con man. He makes promises he has no intention of keeping - for example the Hubble service mission. He's conning the science community into supporting the shuttle with the hope of servicing Hubble.<br /><br />You heard it here first, ladies and gentlemen: Griffin has no intention of flying a Hubble mission.

 

[frodo1008]

I can almost guarantee that if we abandon ISS now, we will get NO cooperation from ANY of the partners, quite possibly ever again!! And even though I am as patriotic as anyone on these boards I wouldn't under those circumstances blame them!! WE got them into the ISS, and then our clownish congress would pull out?? <br /><br />It might actually be a positive in some ways for mankind's getting into space. I can see the ESA, Russians, and even China and India quite possibly developing the kind oc cooperation that we once led the world in! In that case it will be they that go on to the moon and eventually Mars, and their high tech industries and people that will benifit NOT ours!! <br /><br />As I am now retired and have been for some five years now, it will not influence me directly, but as an American it makes me sad to see us possibly fall so far!!

 

[frodo1008]

Among your other many talents, now you are a mind reader. truly extraordinary!! What you are becomming more and more here is a negative!! As if you weren't negativ enough to begin with!<br /><br />I know you are intelligent enough not to be this way, why do you persist, why not try to be somewhat more positive and helpful??<br /><br />It is really unfortunate, but I am starting to see the same kind of thing happening here on M&L that has already happened to free space. Eventually, all of these message boards will be the domain of the lunatic fringe. You may even get the chance to chase people like calli, shuttle_guy, and myself out of here. A pity really.... At least one site on the net might actually have been available for non-sarcastic, indpendent, and educational (instead of either left or right wing extremists) moderate debate!! Oh, well can't have everything I guess!!

 

[askold]

I'm sorry if the truth disturbs you - I'm disturbed by lies.<br /><br />Here's Griffin last month: NASA administrator Michael Griffin repeated a pledge Tuesday he has made several times since taking over the space agency last April. Speaking to a packed house at the 207 th meeting of the American Astronomical Society, Griffin said because of his deep appreciation of the scientific importance of the Hubble Space Telescope, "NASA will, if at all possible, use one of the remaining flights of the space shuttle for Hubble servicing."<br /><br />If at all possible - what do you want to bet it won't be possible?<br /><br />Let's go to the video tape. According to Space.com: "Griffin vowed never to transfer “one thin dime” from scientific exploration into human spaceflight." Then he did.<br /><br />It's not me that's negative - it's the facts.

 

[frodo1008]

What is also interesting to me is that you and I are actually somewhat on the same side of things here. Like yourself, I am very unwilling to see the space science budget cut for the sake of the manned programs. It is just that I am not willing to see the programs go the other way either. <br /><br />Your problem is that of reality here! The current administration is conservative and Republican, and so is congress. Neither of these organizations is very science oriented at this time!! Heck, I am certain that you have seen the almost anti science attitude of the right wing Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian movement here in America! As a person that has absolutely no trouble being both supportive of science and at the same time being a genuine Christian this extreme attitude disgusts me!! So the reality is that if congress is going to support anything, it IS going to be the manned programs! <br /><br />I am however somewhat heartened by the statements of the Democrat congressman that he (and hopefully others) would be willing to see an increase in NASA's budget somewhat equal in amount to the percent increase being allocated to the military budget (some 7%, or about $1 billion per year) but ONLY if this money was set up to fund the space science side of NASA exclusively!! I would be perfectly HAPPY with this, as it would allow NASA to do what congress evidently wishes NASA to do and still save the space science side of NASA ANY cuts, or even slowdowns in the excellent work that they do!!<br /><br />IF this can’t be done, then I have already stated that I am perfectly happy with the CEV program being stretched out to where the first manned launch occurs in 2014 instead of 2011 to 2012, and the first moon landing occurs in the 2020 timeframe instead of 2017 to 2018, again to preserve the space science side of things. And I really don’t give a hoot what China does or doesn't do (however, I think that their own time frame estimates are way off!).<br /><br />So you a

 

[spacester]

Careful who you call a liar, askold. Glass houses and flying stones and all that . . . <br /><br />Griffin did NOT vow to "never" cut one thin dime from Science. What he said was that "we have not" cut one thin dime from Science. At the point it time when he said that, it was not only true, but provided Congress with a clear choice: Pay the long-awaited bill for STS accounting shenanigans thru the years or watch the cuts in programs that will inevitably ensue.<br /><br />It is up to Congress to come up with the STS shortfall so that their Science programs can reach full flower and so that CEV can close the gap to less than 2 years.<br /><br />It is up to the White House to go along for the ride (the most we can hope for from them IMO).<br /><br />It is up to us to convince them all that it is essential they do so. <br /><br />It's an election year. <br /><br />Let's make some noise.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[askold]

OK, let's see who's telling the truth.<br /><br />This is Griffin's exact quote - <br />http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/138.html<br /><br />". . . this was not about taking money from the science programs for human space flight and it's not. The science program has not - in our forward planning, we do not take one thin dime out of the science program in order to execute this architecture. It is about re-directing what we do in the human space flight program."<br /><br />So, in his "forward planning" he's not taking one thin dime out of the science programs. But he did.<br /><br />So, what can we conclude from this? He's not a good planner? He makes statements that he's not serious about carrying out? He makes commitments he feels he can break, if the situation warrants it - like promising to fly a mission to Hubble, if possible?<br /><br />What I don't understand is why we feel duty-bound to one "promise" - to finish the ISS - above all others. OK, we made that promise, but now we've found out that the shuttle has some serious design flaws (shedding foam, presence of structures above the crew cabin, etc.) so why can't we break our promise to finish ISS and move on to new ground.

 

[askold]

"?? what is this?"<br /><br />From space.com - <br />http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/050803_shuttle-derived_cev.html<br /><br />"There will be one big difference, though, instead of riding along the side of the new rocket, astronauts in the future will be riding on top on top of their next launcher -- above any debris that might fall off. <br />.....<br />"As long as we put the crew and valuable cargo up above the tank we don't care what they shed," Griffin said, ..."

 

[spacester]

It's good to see you took the trouble to go get the actual quote. I stand by my interpretation. <br /><br />You do understand that the NASA Administrator has bosses, don't you? He's not the king of Space, able to do whatever he wants!<br /><br />He had a forward plan in which not one thin dime was to be taken from Exploration Science. It got trashed by his bosses. They had an opportunity to step up to the plate with the FY06 budget in terms of projections for FY07 and beyond and they failed to do so.<br /><br />We need to make sure the FY07 budget makes things right. We need a one-time appropriation of appx $3.5B to cover the sins of the past and ensure that all of NASA's programs have a chance to reach their full flower.<br /><br />There are two reasons why the ISS committment is paramount. Both have to do with the future. You do think it's wise to look to the future, don't you?<br /><br />For the VSE to bear economic fruit, we will need to do lots of things on the lunar surface and we cannot do it all by ourselves. We need international involvement to do all of it. Note that in many ways, ISS will serve as a model for how NOT to do international projects - we need to have a balance of cooperation AND competition. But to enter this new era on the heels of a defaulted committment will be very counterproductive.<br /><br />The second reason is the simple fact that shutting it down would not only NOT SAVE ANY MONEY but would cause serious damage to the human spaceflight workforce. Look, I'm one of the guys who's been talking about the 'standing army' for years, I get why shutting down ISS is attractive to many. But the fact is that the proposed cure would not have the intended effect. We need to have a better standing army and we need them to produce results. We can not have the whole army stand down, and we cannot instantly shift them to CEV.<br /><br />Administrator Griffin has a plan for transitioning the standing army to a new theater of operations, and that's good enough for m <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[askold]

You seem to want to place the blame on Griffin's (NASA's) "bosses", but there's no truth to that. NASA's budget requests are being approved - they are getting the money they are requesting - <br />http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Unveils_FY_2007_Budget_Request.html<br /><br />"NASA has unveiled a proposed budget for fiscal year 2007 that strongly promotes the Bush administration’s long-term goals for human space exploration, while requesting modest increases for or postponing the scheduled start of robotic missions.<br />......<br />The agency’s FY07 request totals $16.8 billion, technically a 3.2 percent increase over last year,..."<br /><br />The problem is NASA mismanagement - just Google "NASA" and "GAO" and see all the hits on NASA mismanagement. They're mainly related to mismanagement of the shuttle and the ISS, not the science programs. But, of course, Griffin wants more money for the mismanaged programs and less for the successful programs.<br /><br />You can't blame this on NASA's bosses.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We need a one-time appropriation of appx $3.5B to cover (insert any ailing program name here)<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />this has been heard too often

 

[trailrider]

You seem to want to place the blame on Griffin's (NASA's) "bosses", but there's no truth to that. NASA's budget requests are being approved - they are getting the money they are requesting -" (snip)<br /><br />Do you really understand how the budget and procurement "game" is played in and around "Foggy Bottom"?<br /><br />Griffin most likely sent a preliminary budget to whomever is above him in the chain of command. They (and their staff) took a look at it, and having talked with the budget troops on the congressional staff were told "it won't fly", but this is the figure that MIGHT. This information was communicated back down the chain of command to Griffin and his budget people, who revised the proposal. When it went into the main proposal, it was then approved "as proposed". <br /><br />It may not have been what YOU or the scientists, or even Griffin LIKE. Politics is the art of the possible. You don't play the game and the people with the purse strings are liable to pick up ALL the marbles and go home!<br /><br />Get this straight...everybody...unless we keep our committments to our foreign partners in ISS, we will NOT get any future co-operation! Without future co-operation from other countries there will NOT be enough money to do the things we would ALL like to see done in SPACE!<br /><br />Griffin WANTS and is WILLING to send up a mission to Hubble. But he is NOT omniscient! The Shuttle fleet isn't even operational again, yet! Every precaution and investigation APPEARS to be being done by NASA, BEFORE the next flight can launch!<br /><br />But, make no mistake! Should an orbiter so much as skid off the side of the runway due to a blown tire and wash out the bird, the rest of the STS program could end. And, God forbid, we lose another crew...for whatever reason...kiss the STS program goodbye! Then, it's "Katie bar the door!"<br /><br />As far as the Republican conservatism being a "problem" for some research projects, I don't recall there being much in the way