Good news about Griffin - Maybe change is coming

BWhite · 2005-05-01 10:23:09

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 … 6240r]Link

For example, since the early 1980s, the National Space Society, headquartered in Washington, has run an annual event, dubbed the International Space Development Conference, in which the organization tries to bring together industry experts, scientists and space advocates to discuss methods for encouraging the exploration of space.
In all those years, NASA has never been a willing participant.
This year, however, the conference, scheduled from May 19-22 in Arlington, Va., is being sponsored by NASA, with the agency even running its own track of speakers. In fact, it was Steidle, now associate administrator for exploration systems, who helped encourage the sponsorship.
As George Whitesides, the society's executive director, told UPI's Space Watch, "The fact that Admiral Steidle said he would speak at the conference very early on I think is a large ... reason why we've gotten so many great speakers this year."

and this:

There also was the experience of Rick Tumlinson, co-founder of Space Frontier Foundation in Nyack, N.Y. Over the decades Tumlinson has been known as a strong critic of NASA. As he said in testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on Oct. 29, 2003, the agency "is bloated, self-preservation-oriented and is spending its time wasting billions of our tax dollars ... The agency and its encrustation of existing contractors need to be totally re-vamped."
Despite criticisms such as this, NASA's lunar-exploration roadmap committee -- co-chaired by Steidle and part of his exploration directorate -- asked Tumlinson to put together a panel presentation for a March 30-31 committee meeting in College Park, Md.
* * *
The presentations lasted almost three hours, including a long and vigorous question-and-answer session. At its completion, Steidle took the microphone and asked Tumlinson to keep his panel together so it could make further recommendations on commercial lunar-surface activities. Furthermore, Steidle wanted the panel to report directly to him.
"We were stunned," Tumlinson remembered.

One warm day does not a summer make, but its a start. . .

clark · 2005-05-01 12:09:12

The goal of their presentation was to persuade the roadmap committee the sooner they involved the private sector in the development of lunar bases, the more effective and permanent that exploration effort would become.
As Tumlinson told Space Watch, the idea was not to "spend our upfront money on pure science, but instead work on frontier-enabling activities that allow us to live and operate on the moon more cheaply." He added, "In the long run, you're going to get a ton more science because it's going to be more economical to keep people on the moon."

As I've said, CEV and VSE are about building the pieces to give everyone what they want. It why we need to go to the moon first.

Told ya to be patient.

BWhite · 2005-05-01 14:24:23

The goal of their presentation was to persuade the roadmap committee the sooner they involved the private sector in the development of lunar bases, the more effective and permanent that exploration effort would become.
As Tumlinson told Space Watch, the idea was not to "spend our upfront money on pure science, but instead work on frontier-enabling activities that allow us to live and operate on the moon more cheaply." He added, "In the long run, you're going to get a ton more science because it's going to be more economical to keep people on the moon."
As I've said, CEV and VSE are about building the pieces to give everyone what they want. It why we need to go to the moon first.
Told ya to be patient.

CEV built to ride Delta IV is busy work that goes sideways not forward. Kliper riding on Zenit is equally as capable at 1/3 the price.

5 segment RSRM plus LH2 upper stages for cargo, however, can compete with the Russians on price.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-01 14:52:29

Yeah Bill, except that its NOT equally capable

Klipper can NOT return from trans-Lunar velocities, its heat shield would be insufficent to protect the vehicle. It is NOT just as good as CEV.

The SRB booster, as mentioned before, cannot deliver payloads to LEO in pieces big enough for CEV either, we need something bigger, in the 40MT range.

And, if we are building Delta in bulk, then add a third pair of SRMs to the Medium and it would have similar payload capacity as the SRB booster and probobly not cost much more if built in number... except no more Shuttle facilities.

dicktice · 2005-05-01 15:07:03

Okay, Griffin. I like your looks, what I read and hear. So, after reviewing the resources at The Cape to confirm all that's there, in addition to transporting the whole shebang back to the shop for a rethink, regarding falling ice (a decision which incidentally hot-checks-out all of the systems in the loop without seeming to be doing so)--now, how about some other gutsy decisions you might like to consider? Like, for example:

Order two more new orbiters, right now, suitably upgraded, and spares, for delivery within three to five years.

Activate both launch complexes, for near simultaneous launchings, to ensure that two orbiters can rendezvous during overlapping missions.

Along with cargo carrying, needed to complete the ISS, continue on up to Hubble-space to carry out the necessary service mission.

Actively encourage the Russians to expand their space vehicle develops, aiming orbital trials leading to more ambitious missions beyond low-Earth orbit, including an orbital-only space tug, capable of transporting payloads from LEO to geostationary-Earth orbity and return to ISS.

Accumulate empty fuel tanks in LEO, when feasible, bundled together, as the launching fulcrum for Lunar and cis-lunar space probes, one-way only, to explore the inner asteroidal resources, using nearly-realtime remote presence manipulation and sight, operated from Earth.

Encourage the Japanese to design and build the first Lunar habitation modules, for livability which they excell at, as well as functionality in cooperation with an international community plan, much like the ISS plan has been envisioned.

Encourage the Chinese to design their spacecraft to be compatible with current American-Russian docking hardware, for the practical reasons of backup, rescue and orbital repairs in space.

Encourage the Europeans to develop the ISS crew transportation system, both routine and emergency, to be compatible with all of the above--e Russians in cooperation with the EU space facility in South America.

Do all of this simultaneously, and in so doing, utilize the aging international experienced workforce and facilities to train an up-and-coming workforce, so they will be able to carry out the next generations of missions to expore the Moon and Mars.

Meanwhile (as all this is going on) encourage NASA and the other national space agencies to at least discuss the next fifty years in space--cooperatively--competitively--whatever it takes, as long as it involve weapons and counterweapons and military organizations to use them. Why? Without any intelligence out there, what do we need weapons of distruction for? There's nobody out there to shoot at, you guys!
I refuse to admit that it's in our nature to want to kill each other. It may have had some survival value back when we were ignorant of our place in the universe, but we're informed big boys and girls now, most of us, most of the time--so with all of interplanetary space challenging us to help each other just to stay alive out there, that part of our nature should become blunted, if not vestigial.
Onboard police officers, and the anti-terrorist provisions being developed for our currently evolving air transportation system, should be sufficient by the time they are needed to provide sufficient security.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-01 15:35:59

What? What is all this? Whaaat?

Build MORE orbiters? Certainly not! Why in the world?? The faster we are rid of all the Shuttles, the better off we are. They have truely, really, literally been the millstone around NASA's neck for thirty years, and they are the reason why we can't afford to go anywhere today instead of 2015. The orbiters themselves take years to build, and would easily cost billions each since the factory is out of business, just so you can have a spare ready for a rescue? You can't even dock two Shuttles together on-orbit safely!

Frankly, the Russians aren't well suited to building orbit-to-orbit tugs. The US and the ESA are much better at automated rendevous technologies and ion drive systems, plus we have better cryogenic engines if you wished to use Methane/LOX engines... But besides, why would you want a inter-orbit tug? Just to save a buck on launching communications satelites? If you are going to build a tug, make it powerful enough to go from LEO to Lunar orbit. And, there really isn't any reason to ever have any tug bring derilict satelties from GEO to the ISS.

And if you haven't noticed, the Russians are activly NOT building beyond-LEO vehicles. Their Klipper vehicle is a terrible option for a Lunar vehicle, since it would have to execute a large high-delta breaking burn or a hazardous aerobrake maneuver.

And why would we put empty fuel tanks into orbit? That would pretty much kill Shuttle's payload capacity, and if you are thinking about making a "slingshot" for trans-Lunar payloads, you'll never make it big enough to handle REAL payload. Not to mention, in LEO, the rareified air drag on those big tanks would be a problem.

"Encourage the Chinese to design their spacecraft to be compatible with current American-Russian docking hardware"

There is no such thing as American-Russian docking hardware, its the stupid antique too-small Soyuz hatches, or the almost-as-dumb personnel-centric NASA docking tunnels. We need BIGGER hatches, big enough for cargo pallets, to be standard.

"Encourage the Europeans to develop the ISS crew transportation system"

The Europeans are doing exactly nothing with this, and won't for a long time probobly, because there isn't any need. If they have to put people up, they call us or the Russians. The lack of experience with building manned spacecraft is also a big problem here. Same deal with Japan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"I refuse to admit that it's in our nature to want to kill each other."

Well, people with your idealistic opinion are in the minority... probobly because the people that don't killed them off or something. A quick perusal through any old world history book is ample proof.

Space is the next battlefield, like it or not, it is coming... The ability to strike with terrible firepower anywhere on Earth with almost absolute impunity is

dicktice · 2005-05-01 17:50:25

Well, since you and I are presently the whole show, thanks for taking the time to knock down my strawmen. My point was to take each current problem from past memory, and suggest a "solution" currently achievable, however impracticable: If we still had five orbiters, what would you say? That's why I added the two new ones, but you chose not to consider the what-if. The Clarke Orbit (I remember him lecturing our Cal Poly class about it, in Berkely, in 1949) is bound, like LEO, to be occupied by more than just comsats. It's a resource, which will have to be provisioned. So muscular tugs, on their way to the Moon, offer that additional challenge the spacecraft designers. The Russians seem to be less secretive than the Americans in these matters, which is ironical don't you think? By the way, I just saw "2001/A Space Odyssey" on the Space Channel, and I questioned for the first time (!) how that beautiful shuttle/lander got back to the revolving space station. Clarke must have come up with the concepts, and no one questioned him about it--how about that? Putting up a bundle of fuel tanks, was simply a way of getting shut of the ISS, and the risk (certainty?) of entanglement with the tether considering the conflicting orbital mechanics and orientations involved. Filled with fuel (water-ice?) that might be a useful idea. The payloads I had in mind were mini-semirobtics, used for remote presence work in near-Earthspace, where near realtime manipulation would be feasible. One probe per slingshot: You tell me how big and, unless you're in the know as well, I'll surprise you with how small, even curently they could be. The trick is to escape from Earth, after that it's all downhill. They have to be aimed passively, and for that the invisible, sunward asteroids will have to be mapped from the orbit of Venus, say--snother really good, potentially useful job to decide upon, which I haven't read much about. Re. docking compatibility and standards: Like Topsy, we have what we've got, and as long as the Chinese are as far along but no further than they are, and their hardware is built to be compatible with the Russians ... encourage 'em. Standards will evole and improve with experience. Engineering makes do, I've learned, and optimum solutions exist only in your dreams. I believe, when the Russians start launching from South America, surprises are in store, and what could be more practical a step into space for them to take than develop a standard crew transporter--something we've failed time and again to figure out how to do. Don't give me that "We could've, but didn't because ..." routine. Shame on us. Japan, when they get down to it, will develope livable space-situated enclosures we can all live with,over the long term--not just habitable. I see them building the space colony ecoshells of the future ,which (sob) I won't live to see it, dammit. On the other hand, my "idealistic opinion" regarding us not wanting to kill each other in space, is based upon the idea that "everything out there is out to get us." We don't have to invent the threats. We'll have to stick together, in order to survive out there: No politics or religious stupidities. The idea, that intelligent life is plentiful enough to squander by killing ourselves here on Earth, is due to ignorance--once we get out beyond Mars, a few billion intellects spread-out pretty thin. We're damned rare, in that context, is what I mean. Cis-Lunar space is no space at all, volume-wise, child's play really. Anyone with the powder to launch at any sitting duck up there will have to be suppressed down here, period. We can't stand the pollution, for one thing. We've lived through the dumb ballistic missile development phase (of which I admittedly took part) and nothing could have been more dangerous than the pre-Sputnik period. You don't want to know, believe me. I'll end this rant now, and stop baiting you, but it has been a real pleasure. Some day soon, let's try to dream up something that's do-able within max fifteen years. That's my motivation--what's yours?

SpaceNut · 2005-05-01 19:52:55

Question for the shuttle what if, I recall the first ones costing less than the replacements that had been ordered and that was because the lines to build them were gone. The what if takes into account if the lines were still running would they cost less than a refurbished unit by now or would the fact of many units to refurb also keep driving the cost of a shuttle down if more had been built.

As for the other stuff wow... but as you noted all with the possiblity of doing but just not in the box of ideas that Nasa wishes to play from.

BWhite · 2005-06-22 07:49:33

I]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1034%20target=]I]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1034%20target=]I]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1034'%20target=]I like Mike:

I am literally besieged by entrepreneurs who insist that if I just dump the money into their area we'll get results. OK - maybe so. But I have to deal with the fact that if I gamble money in that direction - and product is not delivered - then public money has been spent on something which didn't come true. [Moreover] it was money that could have been spent on a higher odds proposition - and I have to account for why I did that.
So, the task in front of me as a manager of our civil space program is how to recognize and deal with the fact that publicly funded space programs have goals and objectives which have to be achieved. The NASA Administrator, the Director of the NRO, Secretary of he Air Force - all the folks who have high level budgeting and strategic authority as to where the money goes - have goals and objectives that have to be met. And the meeting of those goals cannot be treated as a lottery - where we'll just spread money around and let a thousand flowers bloom.
But at the same time we, as stewards of public money, have to recognize that a way needs to be found to engage the engine of competition. One measure of our success in allocating public dollars is using those dollars to help create the kind of economy that made America great - and it has largely been lacking in the aerospace industry.
So it is a real dilemma - it is a real dichotomy: how do we engage competition and position ourselves to take advantage of the successes and accept the failures which inevitable occur in that environment while, at the same time, meeting the goals and objectives that we have as managers?

Read the whole thing.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-22 07:58:18

Yup link was posted in the Tspace thread by clark as a smack to handing over money with no proven means , capability or product to hand over in exchange.

Where I also noted other line in the reference article for not wanting to stay in contract mode and for a desire to buy off the shelf products instead.

Griffin is definetly shaking things up.

Loughman · 2005-06-22 19:21:28

I have to agree with GCN. Orbiters were and are a bad idea. However, the US has no capability to rendezvous autonomously, and as far as I know neither does the ESA. The Russians have been doing for decades though.

Tugs are 90% a bad idea. They have some applications for reboost, but the cost to develop and operate just does not fit into the plan right now.

We do need better docking. The Chinesse have a lot to learn yet before they will be able to compete with the rest of us. The ESA does not deal with manned systems. The Kliper...hard to say. I'm not really sure where you all are getting your information on the CEV and the Kliper. A final design on the CEV has not been chosen as far as I know. If you know, send a link. Kliper is Russian, we won't know until it's flying. But it will likely not be effective for much more than orbital flights.

Finally, we should get over the shuttles as soon as we can. Space will be the future of mankind, and whatever that entails (war, etc.).

Commodore · 2005-06-22 19:31:38

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.h … 35]Griffen on Commercialization, part duex

BWhite · 2005-06-22 21:04:36

Can you imagine Sean O'Keefe being this folksy =and= this candid with so few words? Some highlights. . .

But, those who've known me - agree or disagree - like it or don't like it - those who have known me know that for 25 years I have been saying we don't want to be mixing crew and cargo up. You know, my car has a trunk. That is the amount of cargo I want in the crew vehicle.

and,

So, as we look to the future, the overall CEV system that we will be advocating will ship cargo. It will also ship crew. Most of the time it won't ship both of them on the same launch. For the heavy lifter, I am looking to adapt shuttle-derived systems to the needs of Moon-Mars because we already have a vehicle that is in the class that I want. We'll see how that works.

Hello, clark. Can you say SDV? :;):

The CAIB recommendations in their full scope are recommendations and they are not all implementable. I said this - literally - on my first day in office - you can beat me all you want - but you can't make me smarter than I am. Many have tried. [laughter] We do not know how to effect a tile repair within the sphere of the CAIB recommendation. Now, the recommendation itself is fine. It's a great recommendation, you know: see if you can figure out how you can fix tiles and reinforced carbon-carbon on orbit. Great idea. We haven't been able to do it.

Blunt, no?

Well, with regard to feelings: I don't do feelings. Just think of me as Spock.

The other big conundrum that we have is that we will be retiring the shuttle in 2010. We have 113 flights of history. We know - to the extent that something can be known through statistics - we know that we can't launch 28 shuttle flights, which is the current station assembly manifest, between now and when they retire. We have a very high likelihood of getting 19 or 20 flights - and I would say a near certainty of getting 15 or 16. So, somewhere in there - in a best case, maybe 23. So somewhere in there represent an achievable number of shuttle flights that we can do.

ISS gets pruned. Good. Cancelled would be better, but hey.

We must have for ourselves - for the government - the capability to move crew and cargo around. We cannot be hostage to an individual provider deciding to go out of business. That happens. So we have to have our capability. If we want to have an industry we have to use the industrial capability - if it is available. That means, that with public money, we will be spending a certain amount of money to keep that capability in being that may not be as fully utilized as it could be.

My reading? t/Space will be gravy and if they build CVX, Griffin will buy flights but probably won't fund development.

If t/Space needs $500M per their website and will charge $20 million for 4 - 6 astronauts to ISS, maybe they find an investor to pay for development and then charge NASA $60 million per flight to ISS, which is still less than any CEV flight, whether EELV or da' stick.

Mike Lounge: [regarding ] the ISS cargo delivery: for technical reasons "delivery to the door" has a lot of issues. Would you consider a hybrid decision where you "deliver to the curb" - and have a government solution for bring it to the station?
Mike Griffin: Absolutely. We're open to it - I mean, I do get it - the visiting vehicle requirements on the station can be kind of onerous. So, could there be a middleman who makes money by being that middleman? Sort of an analogy is when a really big ocean liner comes into a port, they send a pilot out to take it the last mile. I am trying to avoid the description of a fixed solution. I am trying to say "here are the people we need, here is the cargo we need - let's try and find a way to build an industrial capability that can do this. I want to be flexible rather than proscriptive.

Very very interesting.

BWhite · 2005-06-29 10:45:05

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/119619main_Grif … df]Griffin sightings continue

Iran & Russia

= = =

Page 16 Griffin promises that this will be the last time the words "spiral development" ever pass his lips. . .

Edited By BWhite on 1120063945

clark · 2005-06-29 10:52:31

I enjoyed his comments in regards to questioning on EELV and SDV in terms of the Space Transportation Policy guidelines.

Apparently Griffin accept launching science payloads on EELV, but not elements of the VSE-CEV program.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-05-01 10:23:09

Re: Good news about Griffin - Maybe change is coming

#2 2005-05-01 12:09:12

Re: Good news about Griffin - Maybe change is coming

#3 2005-05-01 14:24:23

Re: Good news about Griffin - Maybe change is coming

#4 2005-05-01 14:52:29

Re: Good news about Griffin - Maybe change is coming

#5 2005-05-01 15:07:03

Re: Good news about Griffin - Maybe change is coming

#6 2005-05-01 15:35:59

Re: Good news about Griffin - Maybe change is coming

#7 2005-05-01 17:50:25

Re: Good news about Griffin - Maybe change is coming

#8 2005-05-01 19:52:55

Re: Good news about Griffin - Maybe change is coming

#9 2005-06-22 07:49:33

Re: Good news about Griffin - Maybe change is coming

#10 2005-06-22 07:58:18

Re: Good news about Griffin - Maybe change is coming

#11 2005-06-22 19:21:28

Re: Good news about Griffin - Maybe change is coming

#12 2005-06-22 19:31:38

Re: Good news about Griffin - Maybe change is coming

#13 2005-06-22 21:04:36

Re: Good news about Griffin - Maybe change is coming

#14 2005-06-29 10:45:05

Re: Good news about Griffin - Maybe change is coming

#15 2005-06-29 10:52:31

Re: Good news about Griffin - Maybe change is coming

Board footer