Orlando Sentinel aerospace editor Michael Cabbage has started a new blog, The Write Stuff, and has kicked it off with the transcript of a recent interview with NASA administrator Michael Griffin. The interview covers a broad range of subjects, from the shuttle to space science. On the budget, Griffin has this to say:
NASA is very fortunate not to receive outright cuts. I believe that. I take that as a sign of support from the administration. But at the same time, we at NASA – the 2006 budget showed this and the 2005 budget showed this – are not expecting major growth at the top line. Sub-elements like shuttle don’t need to grow. It just needs to do what it needs to do. But exploration is not going to get major growth in its sub-line. Science is not going to get major growth in its sub-line. Aeronautics is not going to see major growth in its sub-line, because if there is no growth at the top line, the elements can only grow by eating each other, and frankly, I won’t support that. I’ll take an order, of course. I’m only an agency head. I’m not a czar. But what I have said since coming on board is that I’ll do everything I can to make sure that our major themes don’t cannibalize each other. So if we’re not rationally expecting major growth in the top line, then you will not see major growth in any sub-element. That’s the strategic picture.
This is not terribly surprising, given recent indications (and other statements by Griffin) that NASA would not get a major increase in the FY07 budget proposal, unlike the past two years.
Later, he had this to say about the schedule for carrying out the Vision for Space Exploration and how that is tied into the budget:
So the nation seems to have decided, if you’ll forgive me for putting it this way, on about what level they want NASA to operate at. Currently, that’s around 17 billion dollars in constant dollars and, of course, as was said last year at the 2006 budget rollout, NASA can expect inflationary growth, not cuts, but essentially constant dollars. So if that’s true, if we have constant dollars for the foreseeable future, then my answer to your question is unequivocally yes. There is money there. There is enough money there to accomplish the goals of the vision for exploration. People keep asking me “Why are you taking until 2018 or whatever it takes us to get back to the moon when we did it in eight years the first time?” The reason is that we’re not being given the kind of money necessary to do that in eight years, but we are being given the kind of money necessary to do that in 12, 13, 14 years. We can meet the president’s goals of not later than 2020 for the moon and not later than 2014 for the CEV [Crew Exploration Vehicle]. We hope to be able to improve upon those goals but those goals were stated as “not later than” and we can meet those with the funding that the nation seems to be willing to allocate to the space program. More would always be nicer. I certainly hope that we don’t get less.
(Side note: an article in this week’s issue of Space News reports that NASA is considering a streamlined version of the exploration architecture, called “Lunar Sooner”, that would move up the first manned lunar landing a year to 2017.)
Also, Cabbage asks Griffin if he will go out and campaign for Congressional candidates in 2006, noting that Sean O’Keefe did some campaigning while administrator. (I’m not sure that he actually did; I recall that he did try to go down to Florida in a personal, not official, capacity in 2002 to appear at an event for Tom Feeney, but airline delays canceled that trip. [Update: Michael Cabbage was kind enough to email me this morning and confirm the cancelled Feeney campaign trip, but added that O’Keefe did put in a campaign appearance in the Alabama governor’s race in 2002 as well as some other, less visible work.]) Griffin, citing the Hatch Act, said that he “certainly will not be doing that.”
There are a lot more interesting items in the interview beyond what I’ve cited here; it’s worth a full read.
Two points:
1. Mr. Griffin is an astute observer of which party is likely to be in control of one or both houses of Congress in 2007 and the White House in 2009;
2. Rocketdyne is located in the community of Canoga Park, California (part of the city of Los Angeles), and has been since the 1950s; the company’s two main plants are on streets named De Soto and Canoga, respectively. There is no De Soto, California, as far as I know.
“Mr. Griffin is an astute observer of which party is likely to be in control of one or both houses of Congress in 2007 and the White House in 2009.”
This is cynical and unnecessary.
Griffin enjoys broad bipartisan support in Congress. It is in his agency’s best interest if he maintains that support, and he has demonstrated no prior interest in partisan campaigning in the past. He can be more effective if both parties support him in Congress, not simply the majority party. It is to his benefit, and to all of our benefit, if he focuses on his job and doesn’t get involved in campaigning.
This is cynical and unnecessary.
Not to mention delusionally wishful thinking…
There seems to be an illusion in this country, and its been going on since Jimmy Carter was president. and that is when you have “other domestic issues” that must be addressed or “political realities” that must be addressed (ex. deficit reductions) shifting monies from technology programs to social programs have no cost. This is so wrong.
So while Congress was so elated when the super collider project was canceled it started a shift in physics leadership away from the united states to cern. Under Carter or Clinton not one new reactor was licensed, under Clinton the space program was hardly considered.
This country doesn’t exists in a vacumn and the rest of the world is starting to catch up.
But in 2007 the conservatives will be pushing for accross the board freezes in descrecionary non security related programs. Wow, its not security related when a country like Russia literally could deny us access to OUR space station over some political issue. (could happen).
I think Griffin understands the realities better than a lot of politicians, he also knows the longer it takes to get that project off the ground the more likely it is to get canceled.
Well put, Mr. Day. I fully agree.
— Donald
Actually, it is not “cynical and uneccesary,” Mr. Day.
It is pragmatic, and, dare I say, even professional.
I applaud Mr. Griffin for his unwillingness to be part of the Administration’s political machine, unlike his predecessor.
It makes for a refreshing change.
Frankly speaking, as a Democrat, I am glad he hasn’t engaged in partisanship. This stuff should be above partisainism.
Although given the whole climate scandal thing, I am forced to recondsider.
” Actually, it is not “cynical and uneccesary,” Mr. Day.
It is pragmatic, and, dare I say, even professional.”
To clarify: I interpreted _your_ explanation as cynical and unnecessary, not Griffin’s statements as cynical and unnecessary. You implied that the reason he was not engaging in partisan campaigning was because he anticipates political changes. My interpretation is that he has no interest in political campaigning, and does not view that as part of his job as NASA administrator.
It is always best to assume that people have honorable intentions until they demonstrate otherwise (yes, maybe naive, but try living in Washington sometime, where the default position is to assume base/selfish intentions for everything). So I assume that he is a good public servant, not someone who is always testing the political winds.
“1. Mr. Griffin is an astute observer of which party is likely to be in control of one or both houses of Congress in 2007 and the White House in 2009″
Why does he need to ass-kiss the Republicans? I thought he was already in good with future President McCain? Surely you don’t mean the currently turning on itself like a dying Rattlesnake Democratic party?!?
> when you have “other domestic issues” that must be addressed or “political
> realities” that must be addressed (ex. deficit reductions) shifting monies
> from technology programs to social programs have no cost. This is so wrong.
Building solid rocket motors and external tanks is not developing new technology. Most new technology is developed by the private sector, not the government. If you’re worried about shifting money from technology development programs, you should be calling for tax incentives, not more government spending.
> But in 2007 the conservatives will be pushing for accross the board freezes
> in descrecionary non security related programs. Wow, its not security
> related when a country like Russia literally could deny us access to OUR space
> station over some political issue. (could happen).
Correct. It is not security related. ISS serves no security-related purpose, nor is it “our” space station. It’s an *international* space station.
There are many things in space that are vital to national security, but ISS is not one of them. To protect those things, the United States does not need an expensive but limited Apollo on Steroids. It needs a flexible military spacecraft capable of rapid response, fast deployment, and low-cost operation.
> I think Griffin understands the realities better than a lot of politicians,
> he also knows the longer it takes to get that project off the ground the more
> likely it is to get canceled.
What “realities” are you talking about? The only thing NASA really does that’s important to national security is aeronautical research and Griffin (not the evil conservatives) is cutting that to the bone.
I really don’t have time to get into a drawnout argument with you, but the comments you make are the line we just keep hearing and hearing from mostly democrats but some republicans. But nothing ever gets done. Both parties are at fault.
Nixon never should of canceled the Apollo program, that was a mistake, some of it was economical but some was just party politics. Unlike leo the moon actually has resources that may be able to be tapped in the next 20, 30 or 50 years, or whenever other nations are starting to realize this.
You are correct the space station is not a security assest but space it, the US must maintain the ability to protect and repair if necessary its obital survallence assests, these are very important to its national security and will be more so in the future. The US should also develop a rapid sub orbital deployment capability, the marines are studying such an ability but the budget is very limited.
Name just one Scientific accomplishement outside of medical of the clinton administration, how about energy in particular advanced physics. Meantime Cern will be going online with the large hardon collider, yes its an international project but those researches and there families are NOT going to be commuting from there host contries.
How many reactors were licensed in the last 25 years. We had a two and a half year downtime with the shuttles but how long was(is) the standdown after 3 mile island.
Some smaller nations are adapting new nuclear technologies developed in the US . Give me a break .
You keep mentioning the IS, that partnership is lopsidded and should of never been allowed in its present form, the station should of never been built in its current inclination just to secure the Russian partnership, likewise the gutting that occurred mostly by congress after President Bush senoir’s space initiative fall about, it was labeled battlestar galactica and never given a fair review, or the downsizing under the Bush Administration. The original double keel design would of serverd as a waypoint for later exploration of the moon and langrange points. Yes there are more greater needs than the space program, but this country should try to address those needs by attacking the biggest problems which is an environment which is becomming hostile to innovation. Of course the cry is to hold the line on spending, That is not working, what needs to be done is to identify those areas and invest in projects that wil make this country more selfsufficent and competitive in the global marketplace. We cannot afford to lose our lead in any areas right now, be that leo, cis-lunar and I agree aeronautics.
Nixon never should of canceled the Apollo program, that was a mistake
It’s over. Get over it.
> the comments you make are the line we just keep hearing and hearing
> from mostly democrats but some republicans
That’s strange. I keep hearing Democrats and Bush Republicans calling for more spending and bigger government. Where is this libertarian paradise you live in?
> Unlike leo the moon actually has resources that may be able to be tapped
> in the next 20, 30 or 50 years,
Apollo was not an economical way of tapping lunar resources. Extracting lunar resources will require order-of-magnitude cost reductions, which are not on NASA’s roadmap.
> You are correct the space station is not a security assest but space it,
> the US must maintain the ability to protect and repair if necessary its
> obital survallence assests,
Apollo on Steroids isn’t an affordable way of protecting or servicing satellites. Protecting and servicing satellites is a military mission, not a NASA mission. It isn’t part of Griffin’s “vision.” So, how is that an argument for giving more money to Griffin?
> The US should also develop a rapid sub orbital deployment capability,
> the marines are studying such an ability but the budget is very limited.
Exactly. Billions for Apollo on Steroids, but pennies for defense. So, why do you argue for giving more money to Griffin instead of the US Marine Corps?
> How many reactors were licensed in the last 25 years.
Zero. What does that have to do with giving NASA more money? NASA doesn’t license nuclear reactors. NASA doesn’t do most of the things on your list.
> original double keel design would of serverd as a waypoint for later exploration
> of the moon and langrange points.
Not without an affordable way of launching payloads to the station. At least, not to any meaningful degree.
> Yes there are more greater needs than the space program, but this country
> should try to address those needs by attacking the biggest problems which is an
> environment which is becomming hostile to innovation.
The United States has more than one space program. Why do you assume the solution to every problem is throwing money at NASA?
> what needs to be done is to identify those areas and invest in projects
> that wil make this country more selfsufficent and competitive in the global
> marketplace.
That’s already being done. Check out the stock price for Apple or Pixar. Taxing those companies in order to build replica Apollo capsules won’t spur innovation. There’s nothing innovative about repeating something NASA did 40 years ago.
Ed Wright Speaks
************
Apollo on Steroids isn’t an affordable way of protecting or servicing satellites. Protecting and servicing satellites is a military mission, not a NASA mission. It isn’t part of Griffin’s “vision.” So, how is that an argument for giving more money to Griffin?
***********
Hmmm
I am quite sure that the stockholders of Orbital Recovery would disagree with your statement above there Ed. Since when did servicing satellites become a military role?
You might read Space News from a few weeks back where the USAF is talking to us about buying a spacecraft or two to life extend some of their assets.
What is this new preoccupation with the military? They manage their programs with considerably less effectiveness than anything that NASA has done. I have had it told to me by knowlegeable sources that the USAF is $23 billion dollars over budget on their space programs (in aggregate) and 78 years behind schedule.
This is hardly a model to emulate.
Dennis
Ed Wright Speaks
************
Apollo on Steroids isn’t an affordable way of protecting or servicing satellites. Protecting and servicing satellites is a military mission, not a NASA mission. It isn’t part of Griffin’s “vision.” So, how is that an argument for giving more money to Griffin?
***********
Hmmm
I am quite sure that the stockholders of Orbital Recovery would disagree with your statement above there Ed. Since when did servicing satellites become a military role?
You might read Space News from a few weeks back where the USAF is talking to us about buying a spacecraft or two to life extend some of their assets.
What is this new preoccupation with the military? They manage their programs with considerably less effectiveness than anything that NASA has done. I have had it told to me by knowlegeable sources that the USAF is $23 billion dollars over budget on their space programs (in aggregate) and 78 years behind schedule.
This is hardly a model to emulate.
Dennis
> I am quite sure that the stockholders of Orbital Recovery would
> disagree with your statement above there Ed. Since when did servicing
> satellites become a military role?
You mean ESA? No surprise there. The French and Germans would disagree with the US having any military capability.
> What is this new preoccupation with the military? They manage their
> programs with considerably less effectiveness than anything that NASA has
> done. I have had it told to me by knowlegeable sources that the USAF is
> $23 billion dollars over budget on their space programs (in aggregate)
> and 78 years behind schedule.
78 years??? Do you think the USAF has been working on military space projects since 1927, Dennis?
Do your knowledgeable sources include Bob Lazar and Art Bell?
Yes, the USAF is behind sechedule. When you have a spacecraft that’s 80% finished and NASA gets the White House to kill it, for political reasons, that tends to put you behind schedule.
The first duty of the US government is not to send government employees on cool trips to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond. It’s to provide for the common defense.
Laf
Poor Ed, he does not like it when the European Space Agency forms a public private partnership that supports the growth of private space industry. He gets his new military space religion that all problems would be solved under military contracting rules.
This is when just about everyone (watch the congressional hearings on the failures of SBIRS and NPOESS) understands that the military space procurement system is beyond broken.
As for my sources, they are from little places like the pentagon, NSSO, and DARPA, all places that I have been in the past few days.
It is quite funny that you now criticize us for doing what you advocated for years that NASA do, support commercial space.
Truly an amazing turnabout.
Dennis
> As for my sources, they are from little places like the pentagon, NSSO, and DARPA,
> all places that I have been in the past few days.
The Pentagon, NSSO, and DARPA all told you Air Force space programs were 78 years behind schedule???
And you believed them???
The Air Force hasn’t had space programs for 78 years, Dennis. It hasn’t even existed for 78 years. How could *any* Air Force program be 78 years behind schedule???
Has it occured to you that might have misunderstood those “sources”? Isn’t it more likely that they said “7 to 8 years,” rather than “78 years”???
> It is quite funny that you now criticize us for doing what you advocated
> for years that NASA do, support commercial space.
Sorry, Dennis, but a a $150 million COTS program out of a $17 billion budget is *not* what I advocated.
It isn’t even what you advocated. For years, you told us NASA should get a big budget increase and would support all kinds of commercial programs if they got it.
When NASA finally got the big budget you wanted, what did they decide to do with it? Apollo on Steroids.
It’s classic bait and switch. And you wonder why people don’t trust NASA any more?
Ed
1. Go to a Dictionary.
2. Look up the word “aggregate”
3. Ponder for a while on its meaning.
4. Re-read what you misread, unintentinally or otherwise.
5. Review current USAF space programs.
6. Do a little math.
7. Understand that there is a problem, just as large if not more, in the procurement of military systems.
8. If you do 1-6 and still do not understand, repeat the algorithm.
There I put it in a form that theoretically a Microsoft employee can understand. However, it is widely known that most MS algorithms have, inserted after every instruction, a interrupt that carries you to the routine “jump to false conclusion” followed on the computer by the blue screen of death. Here it is called Ed.
Dennis
So, if the Air Force has 78 programs that are one year behind schedule, you think that equates to being 78 years behind schedule??? That’s bizarre even by Marshall standards.
Why is it you’re still mad about, Dennis?
You got everything you wanted in the White House Vision of Space Exploration. Your moonrush is now the central goal of US space policy. NASA has gotten a huge budget increase to pay for it. Your “top choice” is now NASA Administrator, and he’s cutting science, aeronautics, and everything else that’s not moonrush-related. Anything aimed at reducing the cost of space transportation is dead, but ISS is still getting full funding.
And whatever NASA isn’t funding, you have ESA for.
So, why are you unhappy? You always said CATS was a waste of time. You ought to be glad to leave it to the military and the private sector. That will leave NASA free to operate ISS, build Constellation capsules, and do all the other things you’ve been preaching.
You should be celebrating — and executing your vision.
Instead, all you can do is get angry because someone else might do something else?
Is it important to you that your Vision succeeds — or do you just wnat to see everything else fail?
Ed
This is why no one listens to you anymore and this is my final email to you on this subject. You simply refuse to engage in a discussion based upon the subject at hand, any reference to reality or even what was in the previous mail, and then proceed to foist your perception into whatever the issue at hand is. You sure you aren’t James Carville?
The issue under discussion is your new military religion and for some reason you have the view that military procurement is handled in a maner that is more efficient and more visionary than NASA. You have complained on many occasions against a NASA COTS program funded at “only” $500M dollars as a paltry fraction of a $16 billion dollar NASA budget. All of this while the DoD buget is $439 billion dollars, with the entire space budget being about $22 billion dollars, of which about $100M dollars per year is spent in the manner that you would approve of. It seems to the observer that the NASA fraction is higher and addresses an issue that sees virtually every alt.space company spending their last dollar to win that contract.
It is remarkable the way that your brain works.
Dennis
> this is my final email to you on this subject.
If I had a penny for every time you’ve said that — of course, this isn’t email, to begin with.
> The issue under discussion is your new military religion
It’s not “my” religion, and it isn’t new. The US government was created to protect the United States. Not to operate spacelines, mine platinum, build electric cars, etc.
> you have the view that military procurement is handled in a maner that is more efficient and more visionary than NASA.
I didn’t say that, but let’s look at the evidence and see if it’s true. DARPA’s Grand Challenge — successful. NASA’s Centennial Challenges — zeroed in the FY06 budget because NASA officials repeatedly failed to answer specific questions put to them by the Senate.
Which was more efficient in accomplishing its goal?
> You have complained on many occasions against a NASA COTS program funded at “only” $500M
> dollars as a paltry fraction of a $16 billion dollar NASA budget.
No, it is more like ~$150 million out of a $16 billion budget. That $500 million is over several years.
> All of this while the DoD buget is $439 billion dollars, with the entire space budget being about $22
> billion dollars, of which about $100M dollars per year is spent in the manner that you would approve of.
I have no idea what you think I would approve of. I approve of what the US military is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is a lot more than $100 million.
If you mean human spaceflight, the military isn’t even spending $100 million a year on that. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to change that.
A few years ago, NASA was not spending $100 million on Moon, Mars, and Beyond. You guys lobbied the White House to change that.
Now that you and NASA have gotten exactly what you wanted, you don’t want anyone else trying to influence the government.