TED: I don’t know bout space, but I’ll tell ya this:

Biden — the perfect foil for Palin!

Who the heck is “Ted”, and how did Ted know?????

Ted, if it was just a WAG, I want to talk to you about buying stocks for me.

– Al

That is why the Shuttle was built; to reduce the cost of human spaceflight to a practical level. It did not achieve the low cost and high reliability specified, not because this goal is physically unachievable but because it was our first attempt and numerous design decisions were made before we had any flight experience with the critical systems.

The solution to this was the technology demonstrator program, to identify the best design approaches for a new generation of RLVs that would be practical and reliable, and test them in actual flight. These were canceled by the current administration. Giving up on RLVs and going back to solids now is like flying nothing but the Wright “A” Flyer until 1930 and then deciding that heavier-than-air flight is impractical and going back to baloons.

Moreover, the Shuttle and ISS were justified on the basis of practical benefits, whether political, scientific, or economic. If we have not yet produced these benefits, I suggest we try harder. If humans cannot do anything of practical value in LEO, it is inconceivable that we can do anything of practical value on the moon.

Recent presentations that try to justify the enormous cost of the VSE on the basis of the “spirit of exploration” and “destiny of humanity” are painfully naive. Attempts to start a space race with China are absurd. It is inconceivable that either political party will commit $10B+/yr indefinitely on such arguments. No one in government is committed to this plan except Bush, who has scrapped decades of work and thousands of careers, yet even he refused a NASA funding increase requested by Congress. The Democrats might give more to NASA but would expect it to do useful work. (What a concept!) The public will not accept a tax increase of any size, and if there is a public clamor to spend more tax dollars to return Americans to the moon, I have seen no evidence of it.

In short, the only thing sustaining the VSE in Congress at present is its inertia as a federal jobs program.Politicians care about jobs, not missions. As a result funding will probably remain level and as costs increase the moon landings will slip until the CEV will be limited to flights to the ISS, for which it will be about the same cost as the Shuttle with much less capability. In my humble opinion, we are proceeding headlong toward a dead end.

Anyone who wants to demolish my arguments is more than welcome. Best regards to all.

Actually, no, he’s not.

He has not been right about one damn thing since he assumed the mantle of power at NASA. Not a single thing. He is truly ‘unfit for duty’.

Propulsion is key, just in case you’re interested.

I actually agree with much of the speech. I believe that Dr. Griffin chose the wrong architecture, but I also think he is dead right that spaceflight is far more difficult that most of us want to believe — as Orbital Sciences demonstrated with the Pegasus that proved it was hard to be cheap and reliable at the same time, and as SpaceX is demonstrating today.

That said, Dr. Griffin is correct that transportation is key. If our goal is to send geologists to Earth’s moon and ultimately Mars and get real ground truth field work that might actually answer our questions — as I believe it should be — today’s job is to develop the tools to get them there.

— Donald

Even if one doesn’t believe these were justified (e.g., the notion that we “invaded” Somalia, Yugoslavia or Haiti is lunacy), that hardly constitutes “constantly.” More like “occasionally.”

I wouldn’t say that he’s keeping his mouth shut. His comments at the DC-X reunion last week were pretty blunt, and at least some of it was on target.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/267632main_DCX_Reunion_18_Aug_08_Final.pdf

Some rather specific grousing about “change”, and chest beating about staying the course. In his mind, this is about getting space transportation architecture, and not about what the nation gets for space transportation architecture. That’s where a Space Council could have some wisdom, and provide what the agency and, it would seem, Mike Griffin, cannot. At least it would provide some adult supervision for an agency that seems to have lost its way.