“NASA has the right administrator and he is walking the talk.”

So it appears — NASA is unlikely to get a better administrator if giving purpose and direction to manned spaceflight is a national goal to be carried out by NASA. Let us wish him well and see how his walk goes as it traverses the fields inside the Beltway.

I still think that the probability of substantial success is small for various intertwined technical, financial and political reasons, but would much like to be proved wrong.

… perhaps Mike Griffin was selected based in part on what he came up with in this July 2004 paper he co-authored:

http://planetary.org/aimformars/study-summary.html

Bonus! here’s a paper abstract by Mike on NASA Management for exploring the Moon and Mars (1995) and I recommend getting the entire paper:

“Chapter 6 from the book Strategies for Mars: a Guide to Human Exploration
C. Stoker and C. Emmart, Eds.
AAS Science and Technology Series Vol. 86, 1996
MANAGING THE EXPLORATION OF THE MOON AND MARS
Michael D. Griffin*
Space Industries International, 800 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1111,
Washington D.C., 20006
Final Draft 4/17/95
* At the time this paper was written, Michael Griffin was the NASA Associate
Administrator for the Office of Exploration, the office responsible for implementing
the Space Exploration Initiative, a program with the goal of establishing a permanent
Lunar base and human landing on Mars.
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses the key ingredient for a successful program of exploration and habitation of
the Moon and Mars: effective program and project management. There is no technical issue that
would preclude establishing a Lunar base within five years, or a Mars landing within a decade, if
proper management principles were applied. These principles, which have been applied to past
successful projects including the space program of the 1960s, include: maintain flat organizations
and short chains of command; specify outcome rather than process; select the best people and put
them in charge; delegate decision authority down to the lowest possible level. In addition, a
successful program will require clearly defined goals, and accepting appropriate risks. The order of
priorities must be set among the three basic project parameters: cost, schedule, and performance.
Finally, it is essential to select good project and program managers and vest them with the
responsibility and authority to manage. A national program office should be put in charge of the
program, and it must be able to control the funding for the effort. Space exploration should be the
single unifying focus of America’s space program and other programs should be judged from this
perspective. The exploration and settlement of the Moon and Mars will be so demanding that
managing it properly, or not, determines by itself whether the effort is affordable and can succeed.
If we cannot agree among ourselves, within government, to direct the program appropriately, then
we had best not start.”

NASA has the right administrator and he is walking the talk.

1) a more fortified Centennial Challenges (competitive prizes) program at NASA;

2) space-related tax incentives; and:

3) the recognition of private property rights in space.

Considering how Burt Rutan has correctly mentioned for years how competitive prizes often leverage as much as 40 times their amount in terms of total private sector investment pursuing such prizes, CAGW’s activism’s embodiment into greater prizes can mean the emergence of more competing approaches, a lowering of prices, and more opportunities for more folks to participate. Who can find this alternative scenario objectionable except for the most unmarketable of NASA’s “workers”?

Rich Robins

As to getting it done on the money we have. Other then prizes similar to Gingrich’s Mars Prize, (Which Bigalow’s American Space Prize is modeled after or seems to be) Griffin will have to switch to the fixed cost method and of DOD style, “you get paid only when you do X, then when you do Y and then when you do Z”.

Boieng and Lockheed may be resistant to this, but will conceed to it once there are enough of the little guys doing it this way and succeeding.

t/SPace has also a good idea with how to do the Moon:
http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.welcome

THough would love to hear the full presentation.

While I would be delighted to have $1 trillion spent on space, naysayers can’t have it both ways. Either VSE will come out of existing funding and be {slow, failure, steal from aeronautics, be unpopular} or just happen after 20-30 years or there will be a big budget increase and wouldn’t that mean that the public becomes very happy with it or their congressmen would vote for it?

> I guess what I meant was that the VSE that Sean O’Keefe planned does not include manned missions to Mars.

I don’t think that O’Keefe planned anything. He, presumably providing the primary input to da Prez’ VSE, sort of thought (mostly rightly, IMO) that if we’re going to continue to do manned space flight, it needs a better goal and inspiration than flying circles around the earth . “Back to the Moon, on to Mars and Beyond” was the result which, again, I’d say is not bad as a slogan.

> I concede that Mike Griffin might well plan a completely different VSE.

No, I’d say that Mike Griffin, luck fellow, has to translate the VSE into a plan, with attendant programs, schedules and budgets. What he will come up with is the current subject of interest.

>And I agree with Sam Dinkin that whatever really happens, it probably won’t cost a trillion dollars, just because NASA is unlikely to see that kind of money.

There’s the rub. I really don’t see how a sustained manned Moon program, let alone a manned Mars one is going to be feasible with the monetary resources available and the other demands on those resources.

But Mike Griffin is a smart guy with lots of credentials and experience, and (I think I said this before) we need to wait and see what he comes up with. Maybe he’ll pull a really handsome rabbit out of the hat. Or not.

I guess what I meant was that the VSE that Sean O’Keefe planned does not include manned missions to Mars. I concede that Mike Griffin might well plan a completely different VSE.

And I agree with Sam Dinkin that whatever really happens, it probably won’t cost a trillion dollars, just because NASA is unlikely to see that kind of money.

“The VSE, as currently planned, doesn’t
include manned missions to Mars.”

We, as of 15 July 2005, DON’T KNOW what VSE has planned, whether it includes manned Mars missions, whether it has developing Mars-applicable technologies as an integral part of a return to the Moon, whether going to Mars is a can that is being kicked down the road for whoever is President in 2021 to think about once the Moon has been returned to.

We need to wait and see what Griffin comes up with before any of this stuff can be discussed reasonably.

FWIW, if we regard VSE as starting in 2004 and extending to the first manned Mars landing, I’ll be surprised if the tag comes in a lot short of a terabuck in 2004 dollars. But, to repeat, we’ll have to wait and see what the VSE really is.