A few other items from Mike Griffin’s speech at the AAS yesterday:
- The biggest applause generator was a comment made by Griffin early in his address that his love of astronomy and his appreciation of the work done by Hubble and other space telescopes “prompted my decision that NASA will, if at all possible, use one of the remaining flights of the space shuttle for Hubble servicing.” After the ten-second round of applause died down, he added, “Thanks, but we still need to figure out if that’s possible.”
- Later, Griffin was asked if he thought that a robotic servicing mission was still possible should a shuttle mission fall through. He noted that he had chaired a committee that was looking into that last year when he was nominated to become NASA administrator. Both he and the rest of the committee, though, felt that in the time and cost constraints facing Hubble, there was no robotic option that would be feasible other than a strict deorbiting-only mission. “So I am sorry to tell you that it is either a shuttle mission to repair Hubble or it will not be repaired.”
- He said that NASA is facing “daunting fiscal realities” shared by other discretionary programs, adding that “NASA simply cannot do everything that was on our plate when I took office last April.” Later, he said that science programs in the agency have enjoyed budget growth of “in the five to seven percent range annualized over the last decade or so”; current circumstances mean that “that level of growth cannot be maintained” although science programs would still see smaller increases.
- Griffin said that NASA would learn from the past, specifically the ISS, in how it sells the Vision for Space Exploration to the scientific community. “I want to be very clear: I will not with the scientific community do another space station, meaning I will not say, ‘Hey, we’re doing this for you, and here’s all the great things that can occur.’ I well recognize that no one would go to the Moon to site astronomical platforms. No one would do that. But, if we’re going to the Moon anyway for other and larger purposes, then science, I believe, can benefit by rethinking some of the engineering trades which are involved.”
A couple of the quotes seem to be missing verbs.
I have corrected a quote in the third item, “NASA simply cannot [do] everything that was on our plate when I took office last April”; the omission of the word “do” was a transcription error on my part. If Prof. Kuperberg or another reader is aware of another quote or quotes with missing verbs (or nouns, etc.), he is welcome to bring the specific offending quote to my attention in a comment or an email message. Thanks!
My question is, if the Crew Exploration Vehicle gets built to the current timeline, why is that not at least a potential option for repairing Hubble?
— Donald
The sentence after “I want to be very clear” is not very clear, and I thought it was missing a verb as well. But actually the verb is there, just in a strange place.
My question is, if the Crew Exploration Vehicle gets built to the current timeline, why is that not at least a potential option for repairing Hubble?
The current timeline is 2012 for CEV. By then Hubble will be dead. CEV will not have Hubble servicing capability anyway.
I well recognize that no one would go to the Moon to site astronomical platforms. No one would do that.
Why not? If putting optical or radio telescopes on the Moon is such an egregiously bad, dead, and buried idea, why is Mickey Mouse Griffin nailing so furiously on the coffin lid?
But, if we’re going to the Moon anyway for other and larger purposes
Please tell us explictily what the puroposes of a manned return to the Moon will be. Don’t be so orotound, Mickey.
then science, I believe, can benefit by rethinking some of the engineering trades which are involved.
What the Hell does that mean? What are these engineering trades to which the Mickster alludes?
It sounds to me like another ISS, wherein the engineering development of the project becomes the end which is used to justify the need for the thing. Dr. M. M. Griffin is about to do exactly the thing he denies, as in:
… “I want to be very clear: I will not with the scientific community do another space station, meaning I will not say, ‘Hey, we’re doing this for you, and here’s all the great things that can occur.’
Well then, tell us what freat things are going to occur. Don’t merely allude to them.
Oops, “explicitly” and “great,” instead of “freat.”
If putting optical or radio telescopes on the Moon is such an egregiously bad, dead, and buried idea, why is Mickey Mouse Griffin nailing so furiously on the coffin lid?
Because he needs hostages for VSE, just as NASA needed hostages for STS and ISS? For example, SIRTF was going to be a shuttle cargo bay telescope at one point, then it was going to be attached to the space station. Sanity prevailed in the end.
I think the astronomers are going to be very reluctant to hitch their scopes to this wagon, if only because of the likelihood of its early termination or even outright cancellation before the moon is reached at all.
Actually I think he’s pretty on target with the last comment. As crazy as it must sound I’m convinced that there are people in the space community who think that we would go to the Moon specifically to put up a craterscope. (There’s no way that would be cost effective, so we shouldn’t go back to the Moon, blah, blah, blah…) Just like there are folks that think we would go to the Moon JUST to mine He-3. Or just to produce oxygen for a Mars trip. Or any number of other nonsensical things.
However, in the context of having humans permanently on the Moon, the designers can revisit some of the ‘engineering trades’ and figure out ways to make it easier to service and able to last longer for less money. If we are there to process regolith for SWIEs (incl. He-3), metals and oxygen as well as solar cells and anhydrous glass, as well as doing good science like characterizing the H deposits both from the Solar wind as well as in the everdark craters at the poles, crater counting, sizing and dating, selenological field assays, magnetic field studies (yes, there are a few puny ones in odd locations), and so on, then heck, why not throw-up a craterscope to do a slow sky survey for, oh I don’t know, let’s say out of the ecliptic disturbed Oort Cloud objects. You know, the nasties that can smack us at 17+ km/s. Or how ’bout a radio-quiet scope on the far side with laser comm via an EML-2 (very, very large) halo orbit link.
There is good science to do on the Moon, but not the only thing. Same with industry (I’ve got more than a few ideas). Same with planetary security.
Those were the three key components of the VSE – security, commerce and science. I think Griffin’s trying to smack some sense into NASA and try to make them realize that NASA is not -reason- America goes into space.
And there are advantages to that.
Oops, seem to be missing a “the” there towards the end. The sentence should read:
“I think Griffin’s trying to smack some sense into NASA and try to make them realize that NASA is not the -reason- America goes into space.”
Sorry ’bout that.
NASA Refines Design for Crew Exploration Vehicle
PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Source: NASA HQ
…
Requirements are based on future exploration mission needs and the desire to fly the first CEV mission as close as possible to 2010, when the space shuttle will be retired. Phase I resulted in contract awards in July 2005 for CEV systems requirements definition to teams led by Lockheed Martin Corp. and Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. Phase II proposals are due March 20, 2006.
The Vision for Space Exploration calls for humans to journey to the moon, Mars and other destinations. For more information about NASA and agency programs on the Web, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/home
…
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18701
“the desire to fly the first CEV mission as close as possible to 2010 …”
Well, I desire to win a big lottery payoff.
“I think Griffin’s trying to smack some sense into NASA and try to make them realize that NASA is not the -reason- America goes into space.”
Huh? You think NASA smurfs are going to rebel if they don’t get their pet project, whatever it is? I doubt it.
Griffin’s primary challenge is to sell his manned space plans to the public and to Congresspersons in districts that lack a Thiokal presence. I don’t think he’s doing a very good job at that.
Mr. Murphy, you have just described a more concrete list of reasons to return to the Moon than Dr. Griffin has yet articulated.
Griffin does tend to overhype prospects for extracting rocket propellant on the Moon. I contend that the fesaibility of doing that has yet to be demonstrated. Also, that rationale seems kind of circular: “We must return to the Moon in order to make more rocket stuff.”
“I well recognize that no one would go to the Moon to site astronomical platforms. No one would do that.
Why not?”
The analysis has not changed much since 1957. Read them here.
As to why raise the spectre to kill it, SpaceDev and Steve Durst are hawking it. E.g., here. I like Moon-bound space observatories such as a big parabolic mercury spinning mirror which you can’t do in free space, or a radio observatory in a far-side crater not too far from the pole which would minimize interference from humanity while being proximate to maintenance personnel.
What a dink.
Griffin does tend to overhype prospects for extracting rocket propellant on the Moon.
Especially since ESAS has now dropped the LOX-methane engine. It’ll be difficult to make hypergolic propellants on the moon.
Ah well. Maybe the usual suspects will now admit this isn’t going to be a first step to anything.