Flight International has a brief article about an otherwise-overlooked speech given by NASA administrator Mike Griffin at the Society of Experimental Test Pilots annual symposium in Anaheim late last month. (So overlooked, it seems, that NASA hasn’t added it to the list of speeches given by Griffin; evidently he gave it immediately after returning from China.) Much of the speech focuses on aeronautics—unsurprising, given the audience—although he does note that prior to the introduction of the Vision for Space Exploration “I believe we’d lost our way. To restrict ourselves to orbit is the wrong choice in my view.” As for continuing the shuttle and station programs, he says that “If we’d fully had our wits about us it is fair to say we’d probably not have been spending the huge amount of money on it that we’re doing. But it is important to keep to those commitments.”
Yes, we should spend hundreds of billions of dollars that we don’t really have, to build single use throwaway hardware, to fly down steep gravity wells, to have a few astronauts kick around some volatile poor dusty regolith, when we haven’t really got a clue what is happening on Ceres or any other of the 1000 or so larger asteroids, to say nothing of the millions of small near earth asteroids whizzing around out there, nor even the physical, chemical and biological processes occuring on the Earth that effect every aspect of our daily lives.
Sure. Uh-huh. That’s so … George Bush.
Sure, h
Personally I’d rather we stop spending so much time understanding some of the biological processes here on earth. Too many nuts have been discovered. Time to start all over in some other gravity well. The moon sounds good to me. VSE, its righteous.
VSE, its righteous.
Too bad you haven’t offered US near enough of the ‘right $tuff’ to back up your juvenile fantasy of cowboys and horseys on the moon.
Get back to us after LRO results are in.
VSE is often characterized as just going back to the Moon, when it’s real purpose is to get mankind out of Low Earth Orbit and into deep space. It’s a training ground and a stepping stone to becoming a true spacefaring nation. On the Moon we can learn how to use local resources and how to conduct long-duration missions without resupply. We can gain the skills and knowledge needed to get out into the solar system.
Please don’t say we can do all our exploration with robots. There is a difference between looking at a photo of a beach and sitting on a beach.
Don’t say we should be spending the money on [insert pet project here] instead. Do away with space exploration and redistibute that 0.6% of the budget – it won’t even be noticed.
Finally, don’t disregard VSE due to irrational hatred. George Bush did not create the VSE, he simply endorsed it, and for the same reason many of us do – it makes sense. Calling it a “fantasy of cowboys and horseys on the moon” reveals your bias and ignorance.
But hey, don’t let facts stop you. If Bush endorses something it must be evil, right?
Astroreach: If Bush endorses something it must be evil, right?
Long-term readers of this space know that this relatively liberal Democrat does believe much of what Mr. Bush is doing is wrong for the long-term survival and health of our country. (“Evil” implies an absolute morality that I don’t accept and therefore won’t use.) However, in one area, space exploration, his minders got it right. (I used to add Afghanistan, but, unfortunately, he let his eyes drift off the ball and it no longer appears that a positive outcome is likely.) I’m not about to confuse my distaste for most of the rest of his philosophy and actions with my belief that the VSE or something like it is critical to our nation’s (and humanity’s) long-term future. I can support the policy without supporting the man. I wish other space advocates of both major parties would adapt a similar attitude. It’s essential if we wish to build the kind of broad coalition that can survive many changes of leadership.
This is true whatever space policy is ultimately decided on. Sustaining a project that can ultimately open the Solar System requires the broadest possible coalition. When the space community duplicates the kind of chaos we’ve seen in Afghanistan — as it often does — we are guaranteed to go the way of Afghanistan, that is, into civil war and chaos.
In the VSE, Mr. Bush came up with a lowest-common-denominator plan in which some conservatives, liberals, scientists, commercial space advocates, Mars society, and lunar advocates, and all the other factions can find at least something to support. It is not, and if it is to succeed cannot be, ideologically or technologically “pure” for any faction. Yet any faction can probably kill it if they try hard enough.
That will only put us back into the “dark ages” of post-Apollo chaos, with a thousand plans and no Plan — and consequently, no progress.
Many argue that Dr. Griffin’s plan is the “wrong plan” or is “unsustainable” and therefore should be rejected. Maybe so, but is it really better than no plan? In today’s political, technical, and economic environment, that is almost certainly the alternative, at least in the short term.
Far better, I think, for each faction to try to ride their interest on the wider plan. Commercial space gets COTS and can try for more. Scientists get lunar science, and, as I argued in last week’s Space News, could probably free up some money for automated deep space reconnaissance if the lunar program concentrated on returning astronauts. Again, they should push for better science on the moon, rather than attack the Plan. Moon base advocates get measurable steps toward their goal. Mars advocates get less, but they could fight for the return of Methane engines and early demonstrations of oxygen extraction. Conservatives can point to continued human access to space and the greater glory of the “American Way”, while liberals can point to the retention of the Shuttle Workforce and future employment opportunities.
We remind me of a pair of eleven-year-old twins I know. It’s all about attacking what the other guy gets, rather than looking at what we all get. For once, we need to grow up and stop pointing at how bad it is that the “other guy” got something, and fight for what “we personally get,” even if it is something less than what we want, or even think we need.
Otherwise, we’ll continue to be a nation of eleven-year-old and accomplish exactly what they would.
— Donald
George Bush did not create the VSE, he simply endorsed it
Let’s see, he’s the President of the United States, he proposed this plan in a major speech after burning up a space shuttle, and he hired the guy to implement it. Who’s the boss again? Is he the decider, or the creator? Don’t let facts stand in your way. He’s the executive. Next you will be telling us that invading Iraq wasn’t really his plan either. Just some unnamed underling.
What are we going to do on the moon? Drive around and look at cool busted up brechia and basalt, pulverized to a fine dust. Get the hell out before nightfall. You really are not thinking anything through. Until LRO, we got nothing. Actually, we’ve got nothing right now. NOTHING justifies spending that kind of money building the kind of hardware they propose. Not a damn thing. And what we’ve got, two fine TSTO launchers with a nearly 10 t to LEO launch capacity, sitting almost idle, and a space station stripped of life science research.
Please feel free to disgust me further. I need the distraction.
Many argue that Dr. Griffin’s plan is the “wrong plan” or is “unsustainable” and therefore should be rejected. Maybe so, but is it really better than no plan?
I think you mean “is it really worse”? If so, the answer is yes. If there’s no plan, then that provides an opportunity to come up with a good one. With a bad and unsustainable plan, we’re locked into a future of continued non performance, at high costs.
Thanks for correcting my typo, Rand. No, with no plan we have an opportunity to spend the next thirty years bickering until Dad turns away from the wheel again and forces us to stop with a new plan. Then, we can start picking at _that_ plan, ad infinitum.
Dr. Griffin’s plan is far from perfect — there is a lot that I don’t like about it — but it probably will work if it is ever given a chance to. What is more, it provides room for some of the things we really want — COTS, an eventual lunar COTS, the transportation to get us to near-Earth asteroids, resource utilization on the moon, and eventually on the asteroids. Kill the current plan and here and now, with the country’s money and attention tied up in Iraq, et al, you probably get nothing at all.
Just who do you expect to propose this new plan you have in mind? Who do you expect to push it through the next Administration (whever that is) and Congress? Let’s see the _political_ plan, and the up-front investment one, not just the “better” technical one.
— Donald
> VSE is often characterized as just going back to the Moon, when it’s real purpose
> is to get mankind out of Low Earth Orbit and into deep space.
No, its purpose is to get 8 NASA employees a year out of Low Earth Orbit and into deep space. That isn’t “mankind” — it’s not even 1% of mankind.
> It’s a training ground and a stepping stone to becoming a true spacefaring nation.
Eight astronauts are not a nation, either. Or even a small village. To become a true spacefaring nation, spacefaring has to be something the entire nation can afford.
> Please don’t say we can do all our exploration with robots. There is a
> difference between looking at a photo of a beach and sitting on a beach.
EXACTLY — and that is what’s wrong with VSE. Pictures are the only thing most of us will get out of it. You keep saying “we” will do this or that on the Moon, but the reality is, WE won’t get to do any of those things. All we’ll get to do is look at pictures on teevee.
> Don’t say we should be spending the money on [insert pet project here] instead. Do
> away with space exploration and redistibute that 0.6% of the budget – it won’t
> even be noticed.
Poo. Take the money being spent on Orion and put it into skunk works-style military spaceplane development, and we could have a weapon system capable of striking a target anywhere on Earth in less than 60 minutes. I guarantee you THAT would be noticed, especially by our enemies.
I don’t object to spending money on space exploration. I object to the fact that VSE provides very little space exploration for the buck.
Thomas Lee Elifritz typed:
What are we going to do on the moon? Drive around and look at cool busted up brechia and basalt, pulverized to a fine dust. Get the hell out before nightfall. You really are not thinking anything through. Until LRO, we got nothing. Actually, we’ve got nothing right now. NOTHING justifies spending that kind of money building the kind of hardware they propose.
Going to the moon is preparation for going to Mars and beyond. The justification is exploration, science and technology amongst many other real benefits that only such hard complex goals can deliver. The US government this year will spend $2700 billion, which other program delivers more for $16 billion?
Thomas Lee Elifritz, if you support the idea of manned space, what is your human space flight plan? How would you propose to enable 100,000 average US citizens to experience space in a meaningful way? If you do not support human space flight, what would you propose in its place?
Well, if we’ve lost our way, according to Michael Griffin’s astute opinion, then sending tourists and scientists to the ISS is a complete waste of money, sending citizens on suborbital jaunts is beyound the pale. That’s what Michael Griffin and George W. Bush thinks about sending US Citizens into space. He doesn’t think it’s a good idea, and they have consistently done everything within their power to prevent it. That’s the bottom line at YOUR United States space agencey. Your opinion doesn’t count, all that counts is George W. Bush’s vision, not yours. You elected him. So deal with it.
On the other hand, my working group has numerous space flight architectures and designs on the table at any given moment. Nothing is sacred. Six person capsules, flying wings, heavy lift boosters of every possible Frankenstein configuration, sea dragons, thar be dragons, nothing is swept inder the rug. In none of these scenarios, is the surface of the moon and mars considered as a viable destination. There is just too much area to cover, thus sending humans to the surface of any deep water free gravity well is simply not on the table of any near term space colonization architecture, it’s IRRATIONAL in the near term. There simply is not any rational nor credible near term infrastructure in place. The infrastructure we have in place, is far closer to rationality than anything Michael Griffin proposes, and he proposes to dismantle it – before it is even finished. In other words, they propose to finish it only to dismantle it, and then replace it, at great cost, with something even LESS cost effective.
And you propose to ‘STAY THE COURSE‘, while simultaneously labeling me irrational. That’s so special. You’re so special. We have a long way to go before we start plonking people down on the moon and Mars, and putting humans in the in situ exploration loop is irrational. We don’t send people to explore and map every square centimeter of the Earth, we use satellites. ROV’s are far more effective than manned submersibles. What George Bush is proposing is that we send humans to the dark lunar poles to look for water. That’s nuts.
Rationality goes something like this : Recycle, compact and store your trash for shielding. Put a freeze on orbital debris, in other words, no more expendable upper stages. Demand reusability of boost stages. Demand research into cryogenic propulsion, storage, and energy conversion. Eliminate the foam insulation, replacing it with something more modern, with zero friability. These are very simple engineering problems, there is nothing outstanding in the physics.
Rationality also comes in other forms. For instance, educate the populace with a fleet of space telescopes, asteroid reconnaissance orbiters, and Earth observing systems, so that the majority of the population clearly understands that they are already flying in space, on a large planet, that shares its orbit with many other hazardous objects. Fly as many space tourists on the station as possible = AND GIVE THEM A VOICE! NASA basically just locks them into their space and muzzles them nearly completely. NASA is a public relations disaster, and I think they realize that now.
A single image of a single Earthlike planet around another star will go farther in exciting human beings about space exploration than any footprint anywhere. Modern man doesn’t use footprints to explore, modern man uses instruments. You want excitement? Send a reconnaissance orbiter to CERES.
The US space program has been an great attractor to Luddites since its inception but they are mostly harmless since they offer nothing more than doing nothing and nothing is what they do.
Where NASA and American leadership will be constantly challenged is from people like Katie Couric. She recently observed, on the air, that Nasa is spending an awful lot of money when there is so much human suffering here on planet Earth. Truely a retro viewpoint. Despite Nasa’s pitiful small budget, its the notion that Nasa is in a zero sum game with human suffering that will depress its ambitions.
Donald Robertson: I can support the policy without supporting the man.
I see a certain consistency in your relationship with President Bush. If you can support the policy without supporting the man, the man can humor you without really supporting the policy.
Greg: I see a certain consistency in your relationship with President Bush.
Thanks for the complement, Greg. I certainly hope my arguments are consistant.
the man can humor you without really supporting the policy.
I agree with the implication that Mr. Bush probably does not care about, or particularly support, the VSE. So what? The project is started and has a good deal of momentum, and important parts of Congress do support it. If Dr. Griffin can stay the course (however imperfect it may be) for the next two years without getting hacked into a thousand pieces by his supposed political “friends” (if I’m not clear, I mean us space advocates here), I think Orian has a reasonbly good chance of flying — with or without Mr. Bush’s active support.
In short, you may well be right, but it may well not matter.
— Donald
Donald Robertson: The project is started and has a good deal of momentum, and important parts of Congress do support it.
You’re going to need a lot of magnanimity to accept what Congress will do to the VSE after January, 2009.
(But to your credit, you already display more than your share of magnanimity, at least sometimes.)
You’re going to need a lot of magnanimity to accept what Congress will do to the VSE after January, 2009.
The question is not what the current Pres. or current Congress thinks or wants. The question is, will Apollo 2.0 gain enough momentum to be unkillable, in the mode of Shuttle and ISS?
Btw, NorKo setting off a big bomb is bullish for American missile and space budgets in general.
I think the most opposition NASA had was in the mid to late 1980s. I think the opposition was mostly from the House. I think the House succeeded in killing one form the the space station, but we got the space station back in another form. The point being that when NASA had its lowest support, budget wise, we still got a space station. Today, NASA and VSE are supported much, much more than the space station was back in the mid to late 1980s which tells me that the VSE is basically guaranteed to continue after 2009. If their is a move to kill VSE because of cost, say, and it is killed, eventhough I believe this unlikely, it will come back in another form, meaning putting the CEV on top of an Atlas, Titan or some other rocket and using an Atlas or Titan to replace Aries 5. If COTS is successfull, their is the possibility of private rockets replacing Aries 1 and Aries 5.
Either way, the US will find someway to put astronauts back on the moon permanently and then send people to Mars.
vze3gz45
The question is, will Apollo 2.0 gain enough momentum to be unkillable, in the mode of Shuttle and ISS?
It’s an ironic question, given how bleak it is that the shuttle and space station are in fact unkillable. They bounce between sham and crisis, yet Washington can’t manage to pull the plug.
I have no great intuition for political power. For all I know, the VSE, or “Apollo 2.0″ if you want to call it that, really will be unkillable. But I would suppose that NASA doesn’t have room for more millstones. I would also suppose that they will have a lot of trouble retiring the space shuttle by 2010 as Bush and Griffin have vowed.
Lets give credit where its due. NASA has played a shrewed hand. They have made it clear, the shuttle is dead and Atlantis will be sent off to the Smithsonian in 2008, while Bush is in office. By the time he leaves in Jan 2009, there are only a very few flights left to the ISS. Shuttle is dead because its got nothing to do. Now on to VSE.
They have built a nationwide supply chain, led by the king of Congressional clout, Lockheed Martin, to insulate the CEV and CLV from any Congressional or Presidential backsliding. Lockheed is running the JSF, F-22 and now CEV and that gives it influence across the nation in almost all congressional districts. I wouldn’t want to be the congressman who cries “Kill the CEV, use it for the poor!”.
Too many of you are overestimating the political support for VSE. Beyond the few senators and congressmen with NASA/contractor constiituents, the response has been resoundingly tepid. I recommend that readers of this blog take a look at the Oct 10 edition of “Aerospace Briefing.” The main article, “The Knives are Out,” discusses the potential $700M cut to NASA’s FY07 budget. That does not include the Mikulski-Hutchison bill which would have added an additional $1B of needed funds. This extra infusion is considered dead by most folks on the Hill.
What you’re seeing is the beginning of congress looking for ways to pay for Iraq. The situation is only going to get worse. A democratic sweep in the upcoming elections will undoubtedly bring about a renewed interest in health care and social security.
Now, do you really think this country is going to support an Apollo 2.0? Remember, Apollo 1.0 was able to barely squeak through Vietnam, and only because most of the investment occurred before the Tet Offensive in ’68.
Lets give credit where its due. NASA has played a shrewed hand. They have made it clear, the shuttle is dead and Atlantis will be sent off to the Smithsonian in 2008, while Bush is in office.
Atlantis will not go anywhere in 2008. It will remain in the OPF as a source of spares for the remaining two operational orbiters until they are retired.
I think the most opposition NASA had was in the mid to late 1980s. I think the opposition was mostly from the House. I think the House succeeded in killing one form the the space station, but we got the space station back in another form.
Opposition peaked in 1993, not the mid to late 1980s.
“Atlantis will not go anywhere in 2008. It will remain in the OPF as a source of spares for the remaining two operational orbiters until they are retired.”
I stand corrected, you are correct. Atlantis will be retired in 2008, which was my point.
“Too many of you are overestimating the political support for VSE. ”
The Feds have to spend money, its their nature. Did you see the recent Fed budget numbers? Deficit is falling fast. Nasa’s part of the budget is less than 1%. That won’t fund much, bigger targets abound.
Here is the lineup, from memory, of states beholdened to Nasa. California, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Maryland, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississipi, Utah, Colorado. That is alot of votes, House and Senate.
Greg: I would also suppose that they will have a lot of trouble retiring the space shuttle by 2010 as Bush and Griffin have vowed.
They have stopped producing the equipment to keep this partially-reusable system going, and they have shifted much of what is left to the VSE. While I’m sure it will be technically possible to resurect the Shuttle for several more years, every day that goes by makes it more expensive. I agree with Changehappens that NASA has played its political cards well, in many ways far better than their technical cards.
As for the the VSE, it is true that Iraq makes things very, very difficult — I have not changed my opinion that the biggest threat to the VSE (other than the bulcanized space community) is this impending “Foreverwar.” (Joe Haldeman: a war story worth reading about now.)
That said, my prediction (and hope) remains that the VSE will survive. For better or worse, human spaceflight is now part of the background fabric of our society, and no one wants to be the politician who led the United States’ “retreat from space.” This attitude would have been held anyway, but China guarantees it. Voices against human space funding have become consistantly more rare in both parties (outside of the science community); look at all the fuss about maintaining human access after the Shuttle.
On the other side of the equation, there is no clear alternative that those in power will believe in that will achieve measurable results more quickly and at less cost. Rightly or wrongly (and I believe rightly), any dramatically different alternative is likely to be viewed as unrealistic, as taking too long, and / or as unaffordable.
While I expect the government’s (and to a lessor degree, the nation’s) financial situation to get much more dire in the next few years, whoever is in power, things will have to be dire indeed before the VSE is cancelled outright. That said, it could easily be descoped or delayed — that is, after all, the pay-as-you-can philosophy that allowed it to get approved.
Many of us — including me — don’t like elements of this, or all of it, but I believe that it accurately reflects the political reality we’re in.
— Donald
As for the the VSE, it is true that Iraq makes things very, very difficult.
I don’t think that it’s right to pin this on the war in Iraq. The general budget picture is certainly a factor, but there is something else going on as well.
Namely, if you look at the history of human spaceflight projects at NASA and elsewhere, they eventually have to fly with astronauts in order to survive. Dyna-Soar died, Venturestar died, a lot of things died. Without astronauts, the “pregnancy” only has so much time before the project dies “in the womb”. When they are not axed outright, they are often railroaded into something else. What was once Reagan’s “Orient Express” was repeatedly reorganized until it became the VSE.
In this case, Bush has given the VSE a fairly long gestation period in which no astronauts fly. It also competes with an older sibling in which astronauts do fly. During this time, the money is a habit that Congress is willing to shake off. They’re not doing it now just because Washington is largely a club of mutual agreement — who cares about the quaint concept of checks and balances. Bush doesn’t want to lose face by having Congress cut any program that’s called “the VSE”. (No matter what the program actually is.) But after he leaves office, it will be different.
Greg, I actually agree with a lot of that. I have consistently argued that to succeed the VSE must show measurable results (i.e., fly a vehicle at least capable of carrying a crew) ASAP. I think Dr. Griffin’s replanning of the original ideas, and his development of new launch vehicles, pushes hard against the edge of the political envelope. It is bad indeed that two years from the end of Mr. Bush’s Administration we have very little to show for the VSE. However, for all the reasons I listed above, I remain hopeful that something like the VSE will survive.
Or, let’s turn your argument on its head. Suppose we have a Democratic Administration in two-plus years. Even suppose it’s a “liberal” one, or at least as liberal as its possible to be and get elected. That Administration will undoubtedly have a weak hand in Congress. Is that Administration really going to want to be responsible for our “retreat from space?” I doubt it. So that Administration is going to be floundering around trying to find something to keep a hand in the game without a) spending much money, and b) laying off large numbers of NASA workers. With Orion a couple of years from first flight and the Shuttle program a clear technical dead end (and extremely expensive at that point to renew), I think they’ll end up with something very like the VSE. With today’s technology and money, and institutional history (i.e., NASA), you have a very limited range of options. If they care about space, they may decide to aim for an asteroid rather than the moon, or it may even occur to someone that the Martian moons are potentially within reach inside of two Presidential terms.
Far more likely, if the VSE is going forward relatively quietly (and probably even if it isn’t), it will be last on their list of problems to deal with. They won’t even address it in the first year. When it comes time to make decisions, they’ll quickly realize that any major change would involve a great deal of political risk. Going forward (albeit slowly) will be the technically and politically safest strategy.
Ironically, a new Republican Administration might be more problematic. It’s remotely possible we’ll get someone who actually believes Republican’s budgetary philosophy (hasn’t happened yet, but there’s always a first time). Whoever we get, as a Republican they’re likely to have the conservative credentials to sustain the political price of radical change — the “Nixon to China” syndrome.
In any case, the VSE’s survival or lack thereof after Mr. Bush is likely to be neither clean nor cut-and-dried. Human spaceflight by the government is not likely to disappear, but a new Administration will want some kind of change. My suggestion would be that they leave Orion alone and look hard at the launch vehicles.
— Donald
Greg, on second thought, doesn’t the Space Station go against your argument? It went on for many years without even hardware being cut, let alone flying astronatus. . . .
— Donald
Namely, if you look at the history of human spaceflight projects at NASA and elsewhere, they eventually have to fly with astronauts in order to survive.
I don’t think you’re making a nontrivial point here.
Greg, on second thought, doesn’t the Space Station go against your argument? It went on for many years without even hardware being cut, let alone flying astronatus. . . .
That is a fair test case, and my answer is that I think that it would have been cancelled without the space shuttle. The space station is an extension of the space shuttle program.
I don’t think you’re making a nontrivial point here.
I don’t think that my argument is quite tautological. I don’t think that NASA can support something like missile defense for as long as 20 years. There has to be a pretense of success within about 10 years or the program will be cancelled. With missile defense, that pretense has been like the joke about why you might keep a banana in your ear. (To keep away the alligators. But there are no alligators here, you say. See, it works!) But NASA cannot make that argument.
It is true that the space shuttle lurched along for 8 years, close to the limit of my argument, before it flew. But even the shuttle program was sustained not only by the new space station, but also by the old one, Skylab, that it was supposed to visit and rescue. History repeats itself.
I have consistently argued that to succeed the VSE must show measurable results (i.e., fly a vehicle at least capable of carrying a crew) ASAP.
That’s great advice, which I’m sure Griffin thought of in about two seconds. You’re second-guessing him too much. Griffin not only knows rocketry, he also inherited the job from a quitter who doesn’t know or care about rocketry or space travel. The choice he faced was not sooner versus later, it was ever versus never.
After all, look at the past record of Craig Steidle, “of Joint Strike Fighter fame”. The JSF is the greatest thing since sliced bread, except that you can’t actually fly one.
Suppose we have a Democratic Administration in two-plus years. Even suppose it’s a “liberal” one, or at least as liberal as its possible to be and get elected. That Administration will undoubtedly have a weak hand in Congress. Is that Administration really going to want to be responsible for our “retreat from space?”
This is an interesting scenario that was already offered by Alex Roland and Steven Weinberg at the very beginning of the VSE. Not just because of space policy, the next presidency could well be the worst job in the world, even worse than this one. (And not very different.)
In defence of that ‘quitter who doesn’t care about space travel’, his flyoff plan would have given us multiple vehicles capable of servicing a commercial market, four years earlier than the current plan.
In defence of that ‘quitter who doesn’t care about space travel’, his flyoff plan would have given us multiple vehicles capable of servicing a commercial market, four years earlier than the current plan.
But how can you trust him to have given you anything?
Greg: Griffin not only knows rocketry,
He may know rocketry, but I’m increasingly concerned that he doesn’t know politics well enough. He needlessly made enemies of the planetary science community. (Before you say it, I know that I am doing the same, but I am not in his position. In addition, I’m making no attempt to defend planetary scientists, here, who I think largely have behaved like spoiled children who had one toy taken away from a room full of toys. But the apparently random method that appeared to be used to cut programs, and worse reinstate them, needlessly riled up a (too) powerful group that was not initially opposed to the VSE.)
he also inherited the job from a quitter who doesn’t know or care about rocketry or space travel.
I admit that I was shocked when O’Keefe quit, and I make no attempt to justify it. I, too, can’t help thinking we learned just how much he really cared about the space endeavor — though if it’s true that he did that for his daughters, than neither of us are being particularly fair to him. However, while Mr. O’Keefe may not have known rocketry, he did know politics. He recognized (uniquely, as far as I am aware) that in the current political and technical environment, the human space program had to live within its means, while achieving quick results, and that there may be a way forward while achieving both requirements. He did not propose developing new rockets, slthough I do think he was trying to support too large a portfolio of new technology development.
Dr. Griffin was correct to cut the portfolio to a manageable minimum, but I think history may prove him wrong to devote scarce resources to developing yet another medium class rocket. He is gambling that the lunar project has enough momentum to ride a lot of Mars development (Ares-V and the rest of the list in this week’s Aviation Week) on the lunar program, sustaining delay in the latter. I fear that he is wrong, but I hope that he is right.
— Donald
He may know rocketry, but I’m increasingly concerned that he doesn’t know politics well enough.
I suppose that the basic choice here is rocketry without politics vs politics without rocketry.
He needlessly made enemies of the planetary science community.
Compared to O’Keefe? Are you kidding me?
I’m making no attempt to defend planetary scientists, here, who I think largely have behaved like spoiled children who had one toy taken away from a room full of toys.
One could argue that planetary science is overfunded compared to mathematics here on Earth. That said, calling planetary scientists “spoiled children” says more about you than it does about them. Since you are an amateur journalist, I recommend that you visit the Berkeley planetary science center and see if you can find any spoiled children there. Extended interviews with those people might do you some good.
I, too, can’t help thinking we learned just how much he really cared about the space endeavor
Some of us were not surprised given his prior interest in space. Which is to say, none.
Though if it’s true that he did that for his daughters, than neither of us are being particularly fair to him.
Yeah, it can be hard to make ends meet on 186 grand per year. The fringe benefits were okay, but nothing special. You have to plan for college well in advance or you’ll never climb out of debt. And I’m sure that his wife was sick of busing tables at the diner.
(One daughter and two sons, I am told.)
the human space program had to live within its means, while achieving quick results
What quick results? Other than his $500,000 LSU salary, that is.
The JSF is the greatest thing since sliced bread, except that you can’t actually fly one.
Wrong, Greg, wrong on the facts. You are discrediting yourself.
SOURCE:Flight International
JSF special: Time for testing
By Graham Warwick in Fort Worth
Ground laboratories and flying testbeds will play a key role in ensuring the F-35 is ready for productive flight testing at sites across the USA
A pathfinder for manufacturing of the JSF, aircraft AA-1 will also pave the way for flight testing of the 14 development F-35s that follow, blazing a trail from Fort Worth in Texas to the US Air Force test centre at Edwards AFB in California and US Navy test centre at NAS Patuxent River in Maryland.
“AA-1 is the only aircraft in the original configuration, but the differences are not visible and it is very representative for the type of flight-test tasks planned,” says Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice-president and general manager F-35 programme integration. AA-1 will evaluate aerodynamic performance, flying qualities and systems over two years of flying before handing over the test baton to the optimised-airframe F-35s that follow.
APG-81 radar
© Northrop Grumman
The APG-81 radar has already flown on Northrop’s BAC testbed
“AA-1 is an outstanding learning tool. It allows us to go fly and collect real data,” says Doug Pearson, Lockheed vice-president F-35 integrated test force. “AA-1 will do a lot of performance work, evaluate vehicle systems and basic flying qualities, validate our analytical tools, demonstrate credibility and build confidence,” he says. “We will take it to Edwards and Pax and get their infrastructure up and running.”
Although looking complete when it rolled off the assembly line in February, AA-1 was not ready to fly. After fuel system testing and structural coupling and ground vibration tests, the aircraft is in the final build – or “box swap” – phase, where flight-qualified parts not available earlier are being installed. While there are “orders of magnitude fewer such issues” than in previous programmes, final build will continue to the end of July, says Pearson.
Once completely built, the aircraft will be powered up for another system check-out, the integrated power package (IPP) will be started, then the engine, and the aircraft will be ready to begin taxi tests. “There is 40-45 manufacturing days of negative float, which we have had for a year. If we do not recover that, we will fly in late October,” says Burbage. The company had set an internal “challenge” date of 28 August for the first flight, but “it’s remarkable we’re as close as we are”, says Pearson.
“We were in and out of the fuel barn ahead of schedule,” he says. The 46 fuel probes and electrical harnesses were checked, and some replaced, but the tests were “extremely successful”, he says. “The first aircraft built usually leaks, but this did not. And manufacturing debris in the tanks is typical, but there was none. We had to flush the F-22 fuel system 70 times to get it clean, but after only 27 times the F-35 was below 200 microns.”
…
http://62.189.48.33/Articles/2006/06/27/Navigation/181/207391/JSF+special+Time+for+testing.html
Wow, that’s so cool! We need more guns and bombs and planes to deliver them, and less Earth observing satellites and rockets.
More war, less life. What a great way to solve our population problem. Merka must be the greatest country in the whole darn galaxy.
What a great way to solve our population problem.
Well, it does tend to solve earth’s human overpopulation problem and consequent ecological problems.
I thought overpopulation was a Left-ish issue …. save the whales, abort more babies, and so on.
I thought overpopulation was a Left-ish issue
Of course you did, you’re the boob who cut and pastes JSF drivel on a space politics blog.
Other more rational minds consider overpopulation to be an issue about too many humans on the planet Earth, and the associated stupidy and insanity that you so proudly exemplify.
For the last two decades the majority of the countries in the developed world have had sub-replacement fertility rates. It’s likely that once we bring South America, China and India up to western living standards their populations will stabilize too.
I admit that I was shocked when O’Keefe quit, and I make no attempt to justify it.
It just proves you weren’t paying attention. It was quite well known even when O’Keefe took the NASA job that he had his sights set on returning to DoD, either as SecDef or Deputy SecDef, after the 2004 elections. When Rumsfeld announced his intention to stay, the question was not whether or when O’Keefe would jump, but to where.
Chris: since when does having ‘sub-replacement fertility rates’ mean the population is ‘stabilized’? Exponential decay is as unstable as exponential growth.
Paul Dietz: Since when does having ‘sub-replacement fertility rates’ mean the population is ‘stabilized’? Exponential decay is as unstable as exponential growth.
I don’t really want to encourage this off-topic tangent, but I would like to make two mathematical points: (1) all population curves are exponential with a time-dependent exponent; (2) all population curves are approximately stable for some definition of “approximately”. Therefore whether any population curve, or an inflation curve or any other non-negative curve, is exponential is more a matter of description than assertion. Likewise whether or not any given population curve is stable.
Anyway before Jeff Foust gets too angry, I’ll get back to the main topic. I don’t agree with Griffin at all. (And I suspect that Griffin’s private views are a bit closer to me.) NASA didn’t lose its way before the VSE; NASA lost its way by hiring the bean counter who pushed for the VSE. In order to competently run a technology organization, you have to either have techies on top (as Google has, and Intel had for many years) or on tap (as Apple has, and NASA had with Webb and Dryden). With O’Keefe, NASA had neither. Running NASA with bean counters isn’t any better than running Apple with bean counters (as was tried in the 1990s).
Besides, according to Price Waterhouse Coopers, O’Keefe wasn’t even good at counting beans. He may have been cut from the same cloth as Michael Brown of FEMA.
all population curves are exponential with a time-dependent exponent
There you go with trivial statements again, Greg. Any positive function can be expressed in that way!
What ‘exponential’ is primarily used for in population discussions is as a scare word.
Paul Dietz: There you go with trivial statements again, Greg. Any positive function can be expressed in that way!
Well, of course; do you think that the discussion is really prepared for a hard theorem?
What I meant to offer was a general principle that a lot of things are called exponential — population and inflation being two examples — for the basic intuitive reason that they ought to be presented on a logarithmic scale. It’s not a priori a “scare word”, although, granted, population growth is sometimes described that way. It’s a valid kind of description, although of course people should understand that it is description rather than assertion.
Anyway, you said:
Since when does having ‘sub-replacement fertility rates’ mean the population is ‘stabilized’? Exponential decay is as unstable as exponential growth.
I am not completely sure how you intended your question. My answer is that empirically, most populations with sub-replacement fertility are more stable than most countries with super-replacement fertility. Italy has a more stable population than Yemen, for example. Of course neither is 100% stable, but on the other hand 100% population stability is nonsense.