Comments on: Griffin’s latest defense of Constellation

By: ....

.... — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:13:15 +0000

Beyond the costs involved, our probabilistic risk assessment for loss of crew on Ares 1 showed it to be twice as safe â€“ I repeat, twice as safe â€“ as a human-rated EELV-derived vehicle. This figure of merit was a significant factor in our decision to go with the Shuttle-derived Ares 1, yet is ignored by almost everyone suggesting that we make a change. I cannot responsibly ignore it, for reasons having nothing to do with money. But if to someone else it is just about the money, then the cost of unreliability must be considered. Incurring even one additional accident through the use of a less-reliable system wipes out all of the savings of the hypothetically cheaper vehicle. Solely from a fiscal perspective, we should be willing to pay a premium for safety, if necessary.

B*LLSH*T!

By: Space Politics » Griffin, Constellation, and more

Space Politics » Griffin, Constellation, and more — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:38:44 +0000

[…] In yesterday’s issue of The Space Review, I write a more detailed article about Mike Griffin’s speech last week where he defended Constellation against the various alternatives proposed to replace it. A couple of items in the report that I didn’t mention in my previous post on the topic: […]

By: Michael Mealling

Michael Mealling — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:49:28 +0000

yg1968,
And yet again he responded to the criticisms by looking specifically at the rockets themselves and comparing them to the architecture and basic assumptions he had already made. If you came to me with a self driving, green-energy truck and I had pre-determined that I wanted a mule cart, I could easily dismiss your solution as being in appropriate since it didn’t come with a bridle and hardware for hooking my mule up to it. I guess that was Jon’s point about a strawman.
No where in his speech did he dismiss or even acknowledge changing the architecture to take advantage of on-orbit-assembly, fuel depots, or any of several ways you can re-architect the cislunar infrastructure to reduce costs over time.

-MM

By: Jonathan Goff

Jonathan Goff — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:07:22 +0000

vg1968,
Well, he responded all right, but I typically like a little more proof or data before claiming that criticism has been answered. And I’m also not a huge fan of setting up strawment to knock down.

Quite frankly, I wasn’t that impressed.

~Jon

By: yg1968

yg1968 — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:40:31 +0000

I meant that he answers a lot of the criticism on Ares I that appears in various blogs concerning the possibility of using rockets other than Ares I (Delta, Atlas, Direct 2.0, Space X, etc.) because they would be somehow cheaper, better, etc.

By: Jonathan Goff

Jonathan Goff — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:48:12 +0000

“He answers all the bloggersâ€™ criticism.”

Heh.

By: yg1968

yg1968 — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:58:16 +0000

Great speech. He answers all the bloggers’ criticism. He mentions that using two Ares V would be possible for some misions when necessary (although 32% more expensive).

By: The Truth

The Truth — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:49:07 +0000

Is (or was…) Mike Griffin the NASA’s Gorbachev?
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/043griffin.html
in my opinion, the Griffin’s story as NASA chief looks very much like the story of Mikhail Gorbachev as last President of the Soviet Union

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:11:16 +0000

As I note at my blog (in the ping above), I love the way he always accuses his critics of just being in it for the money.

By: Making The Case One Last Time - Transterrestrial Musings

Making The Case One Last Time - Transterrestrial Musings — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:09:47 +0000

[…] Foust has some notes from it. I just read […]