Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

BWhite · 2005-03-11 16:29:59

A sample of Griffins]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10683]Griffin's testimony to Congress, via SpaceRef.

I like his "why" answers, which focus on human expansion into the solar system, not merely presence. Rock collectors are present, then leave. Expansion requires settlement.

Anyway, a quote:

Consider also that Great Britain's influence, achieved through its mastery of the oceans, was not restricted merely to affairs in the colonies, the new lands. By virtue of its nautical superiority, Britain wielded a dominant influence in the Old World as well, an influence hugely out of proportion to its size and other resources.
Can America, through its mastery of human space flight, have a similar influence on the cultures and societies of the future, those yet to evolve in the solar system as well as those here on Earth? I think so, and I think our descendants will consider it to have been worth twenty cents per day.

Edited By BWhite on 1110580360

BWhite · 2005-03-11 16:39:05

On the HLLV front, Griffin said this:

On the engineering side, the first order of business is largely to restore capabilities that we once had, and then to make them more reliable and cost effective.It may not be impossible to consider returning to the moon, or going to Mars, without a robust heavy-lift launch capability, but it is certainly silly. Our last Saturn V was launched thirty years ago, and while I do not necessarily advocate resurrecting an outdated design, this is the class of capability which is needed for the human space flight enterprise.

BWhite · 2005-03-11 16:45:32

Another good http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.htm … 1]SpaceRef link on Griffin.

# NASA should initiate development of a heavy lift launch vehicle having a payload capacity of at least 100 metric tons to low Earth orbit (LEO). Such a vehicle is the single most important physical asset enabling human exploration of the solar system. The use of shuttle-derived systems offers what is quite likely to be the most costeffective near-term approach.
# Much cargo (including humans) does not need to be launched in very large packages. We desperately need much more cost effective Earth-to-LEO transportation for payloads in the size range from a few thousand to a few tens of thousands of pounds. In my judgment, this is our most pressing need, for it controls a major portion of the cost of everything else that we do in space. Yet, no active U.S. government program of which I am aware has this as its goal. Again, shuttle-derived systems, particularly emphasizing use of the RSRB, may offer a useful approach.
# New propulsion systems are unnecessary. We can certainly return to the moon or go to Mars using existing chemical propulsion systems. Looking ahead, development of nuclear propulsion should be re-initiated to allow more efficient travel beyond cislunar space, but such systems are not altogether new. The NERVA (nuclear engine for rocket vehicle applications) program produced a working nuclear upperstage engine and demonstrated excellent performance in extensive ground tests, before regrettably being cancelled in 1973.
# Compact space qualified nuclear power systems are required for extended human presence on the Moon and Mars.
# The efficient establishment of permanent human bases on the Moon, Mars, and certain asteroids requires the use of in situ resources to minimize the amount of material and equipment which must be brought from Earth. The technology for such exploitation has yet to be fully developed, though promising experiments have been conducted.
# Space and planetary surface habitat and suit technology is at present insufficient for the needs of an extended program of human space exploration. Improvements in suit technology are of the highest priority.

See the bold section. Can you say 5 segment RSRB + RL-60?

Edited By BWhite on 1110581284

BWhite · 2005-03-11 16:53:57

On the ISS:

Equally important is the delay in pursuing the President's vision. Respecting present budget constraints, we return to the moon in 2020, thus accomplishing in 16 years what it required eight years to achieve in the 1960s. This is not because the task is so much more difficult, or because we are today so much less capable than our predecessors, but because we do not actually begin work on the task until 2011. I do not need to point out to this body the political pitfalls endemic to such a plan.
I, and others, have elsewhere advocated that the shuttle should be returned to flight and the ISS brought to completion, if only because the program's two-decade advocacy by the United States and commitment to its international partners should not be cavalierly abandoned. But, if there is no additional money to be allocated to space exploration, this position becomes increasingly difficult to justify. It is worth asking whether our international partners might judge the issue similarly.

Ask our partners to abandon ISS by mutual agreement, perhaps with an offer to bring them with us to the Moon and Mars?

IIRC, I was calling for exactly that exactly one year ago. :;):

Palomar · 2005-03-11 16:59:14

?

I thought the job had been fairly certainly netted by the African-American gentleman.

(Sorry -- I can't recall any names currently, in association with this and haven't time to Google; soon off-line).

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-03-11 17:14:31

Cindy, he was temporary and if I recall correctly he stated fairly openly he did NOT want the permanent position.

Palomar · 2005-03-11 17:18:31

*Okay, thanks Bill.

I recall telling my husband last month that NASA has its 1st African-American CEO. There is so much astronomy and space-exploration news to keep tabs on, but I wasn't quite sure where/how precisely my memory might have failed.

--Cindy

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-03-11 17:23:55

Fred Gregory was the other guy, I think he had flown shuttle missions like Challenger & Atlantis, and had his own ideas on Shuttle/Hubble that might not have went well with the politics at NASA
Perhaps this guy Griffin might take up this problem about budget cuts on NASA projects ?

BWhite · 2005-03-11 17:25:29

http://www.spacepolitics.com/archives/000465.html]Fred Gregory

On Griffin's nomination, I may need to admit that George Bush sometimes gets it right!

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-11 17:53:13

I am wary, he seems much too gung-ho about Shuttle-Derived (insert thing here) then is healthy. I am deeply interested in his motives... Trying to save the Shuttle Army? Just infatuated with the SDV-centric glossies? Just too optimistic for his own good?

I like his talk of ditching the ISS though

The Atlas-V could, in theory, be upgraded to provide about as much payload as the SRB launcher, but do it without solid fuel engines. Unlikly to be much more expensive either.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-03-11 19:45:28

Micheal Griffin,

I would like to see an allocation of about $20 B per year to the U.S. civil space program. This would enable us to begin crucially needed programs to develop reusable space transportation systems, heavy lift launch, crew transfer vehicles, life support technology, and space power and propulsion systems that are needed to establish bases on the moon and Mars.

The best yet, to talk about a reusable human transportation system !!!! We are not the only one seeing the benefits and needs.

Mad Grad Student · 2005-03-12 00:22:18

Hmm, from what I've heard of Griffin he seems to be a pretty decent choice for executing the VSE. As for the SDV, he's probably not as interested in keeping the shuttle army as he is in developing the quickest possible HLLV. Whether or not the fastest way to do that is through the shuttle remains to be seen, but hopefully NASA will have an open mind on the subject. I especially like the ideas about promoting private-sector involvement in NASA operations, that is exactly what is needed to keep costs down and productivity up.

Best of luck for NASA and the new administrator!

Ad Astra · 2005-03-12 11:24:23

Griffin sounds like the best guy to be in charge of the VSE, and he is widely respected by both parties in Congress. He's a multitalented engineer and manager who knows what he's talking about.

Has anybody heard what his position is regarding Hubble?

John Creighton · 2005-03-12 11:43:55

I read the article by Mr Griffin and found it to be very inspiring, articulate and factual. In the article presented to congress there was not mention of SDV but SDV is a sensible engineering choice. I don’t know if I entirely agree that the magic number is 100 tons to LEO but I do agree that there needs to be a substantial capability to lift mass to LEO whether the actual capability should be half that or twice that. :up: :up:

BWhite · 2005-03-12 13:22:23

Robert Zubrin sent out this e-mail to the Mars Society members:

Statement of Mars Society President Robert Zubrin on the Selection of Dr. Mike Griffin for NASA Administrator
Mike Griffin is a superb choice for NASA Administrator. I have known Mike for more than a decade. He is a real leader who is technically brilliant, highly creative, open minded to new ideas, well-experienced, and deeply committed for many years to the success of the American space program - emphatically including the new vision of reaching for human exploration of the Moon and Mars.
The Bush administration is to be commended for this inspired
selection. There is literally no one better qualified to lead the new space initiative than Mike Griffin. For the job of 11th NASA Administrator, Mike is the right man, in the right place, at the right time. As President of the Mars Society, I offer him our full support.

Ad Astra · 2005-03-12 14:57:53

I found this anecdote by Keith Cowing of http://nasawatch.com]NASA Watch to be the most telling sign of what we can exect from Mr. Griffin and what kind of integrity he will be bringing to the table:

Editor's personal note: In 1993, during the redesign of Space Station Freedom, many of us felt that the books had been cooked by NASA HQ such that the SS Freedom configuration (Option B) was deliberately handicapped and that the other two options A (MSFC) and C (JSC) were given an unfair advantage. Hardly an apples to apples review. Mike Griffin, who led the Option B effort (headquartered at LaRC) wrote a letter for the record at one point, standing squarely on principle and pointing out the discrepancies and inequities in that review process. That letter received wide circulation - and Mike's NASA career suffered as a result. He was promoted to some pointless job by Dan Goldin and eventually left the agency. I can say from personal experience, that Mike Griffin has demonstrated personal integrity - and did so in a public way that was rather career adverse. I expect he will bring that same integrity to the job of NASA Administrator. As such, yes, at this point, I am biased in this regard.

Rxke · 2005-03-13 04:02:02

Wow... Getting sidekicked at NASA... Only to return as Head Honcho.

I bet there are a lot of people involved at that time now sh***ing their pants!

Impressive guy. I read somewhere Goldin kind of nicked the better,faster,cheaper idea from him, when he was in SDI. only problem was Goldin forgot he was at NASA, not a Skunkworks kind of outfit, where you *can* repair stuff when it breaks relatively painlessly...

Ad Astra · 2005-03-13 21:03:40

I don't expect any retribution for the sins of the past in Michael Griffin's NASA. The problems had much to do with the abrasive management style of Dan Goldin.

Although Goldin got results, he was widely despised by his agency. Say what you will about Sean O'Keefe, he certainly changed the tone and improved morale in the agency. Most of the Goldin people who wronged Michael Griffin and his teammates probably followed Goldin out the door in late 2001.

BWhite · 2005-03-13 21:26:27

Look at this:

Noting NASA intends to spend another $60 billion to complete the space station's construction, Griffin urged lawmakers to use the funds instead to accelerate work on a deep space exploration.
"It is beyond reason to believe the international space station can help to fulfill any objective, or set of objectives, for space exploration that would be worth the $60 billion remaining to be invested in the program." Griffin told House lawmakers.

Link to follow:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mp … y2/3080401

Edited By BWhite on 1110770839

clark · 2005-03-14 08:52:12

Personal commitment to VSE. Personal opinion that ISS should be curtailed. All in a budgetary climate where the wolves are eyeing the NASA lamb.

Griffin isn't O'Keefe, and he dosen't have the politcal clout that O'Keefe had with Congress.

What better way to kill scientific research than with a scientist?

VSE isn't about science, it results in some, but that is not the actual goal. The goal is practical application and development of technology for capability. Scientific results are merely a side benefit.

At least we are going to Mars.

clark · 2005-03-14 09:12:12

SDV will not happen.

Current policy, as instutited by the white house, is prefrence for EELV derived HLV, not SDV. What's going on, before Griffin, is the restructure of NASA, basically shutting down and curtailing the size and scope of their previous activites (some call it cutting the fat). Shuttle infrastructure is a big piece of the NASA pie, and VSE needs that money.

http://space.com/news/griffin_nasa_0503 … 50311.html

But even as NASA administrator, the decision would not be Griffin’s to make. The National Space Transportation Policy, updated by the White House late last year, decreed that any heavy-lift launcher decision would be made by the president after hearing the joint recommendation of the NASA administrator and the Defense secretary.

Griffin is a face man in this instance, in order to put credibility into the decisions made by the white house in relation to decisions made in terminating or altering NASA programs. They did the same thing with the EPA.

None of this sould come as a shock or surprise, and all of this is part of "paying the piper" for human based space exploration.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-14 09:52:27

So who is the national Space Transportation policy makers and what agency or cabinet are they part of ? How dare they dictate what gets used by Nasa or for that fact the military?
Should it not by left up to those groups? ???

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-14 09:59:35

I don't think that appointing Griffin is purely a front for alterior motives, at least not purely.

I am still against building SDV, because if NASA can't bring itself to build a system that doesn't include the Shuttle Army, then VSE will fail. VSE simply can't be afforded if the Shuttle Army is unnessesarily retained, and because they are unessesarry, Congress wont' raise their budget... they will just point to the Army and say "theres' your budget increase right there."

And they would be right. Would you trust NASA to cull the ranks it has held onto so dearly for so long? NASA has been in denial for a generation in order to hold onto them... I am open to changing my mind, but I will need some convincing first.

Also, SDV is all wrong if you need to launch intermediate payloads. If you want to just resupply a Lunar base, launch a heavy space probe, or the military wants a big satelite, then a 40MT class launcher is the appropriate size. SDV is simply too big for this purpose.

So there are two options...
-Use enhanced EELVs to launch Lunar sorties in two pieces instead of one big piece (they are split up into payload & TLI rocket anyway). Available today, flight proven, relativly known costs.

-Build clean-sheet, a single-core rocket that can lift 40MT safely enough for humans, or 80MT with boosters for heavier missions. Probobly the best option, but would take time to develop, and would certainly cost more to develop then EELV+.

Griffin is also right get rid of unproductive NASA centers, and stop trying to do things that aren't NASA's job. Other things that aren't NASA's job are supposed to be funded by other agencies (NSF, DoE, etc).

I am greatly pleased by his talk of eliminating ISS work. Finally!

clark · 2005-03-14 10:32:16

Would you trust NASA to cull the ranks it has held onto so dearly for so long? NASA has been in denial for a generation in order to hold onto them... I am open to changing my mind, but I will need some convincing first.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … ...?sub=AR

NASA Plans Cuts By Summer '06
Reduction of Workforce By 15.3 Percent Is Possible

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mp … on/3079425

About one of every seven NASA workers nationwide will be transferred or paid to leave in the next 1 1/2 years as the space agency focuses on President Bush's moon-Mars exploration plan, officials said Thursday.

http://crainscleveland.com/news.cms?new … ewsId=3124

The NASA Glenn Research Center can expect another round of employee buyouts in the next few months as the agency looks to slash the center’s work force by 700 jobs, said NASA associate deputy administrator James Jennings.

NASA, under O'Keefe, began the process of closing down or down-sizing the NASA centers. Griffin can't stop it, and will make it look like "good science" given his creditianls.

Also, SDV is all wrong if you need to launch intermediate payloads. If you want to just resupply a Lunar base, launch a heavy space probe, or the military wants a big satelite, then a 40MT class launcher is the appropriate size. SDV is simply too big for this purpose.

One, current lunar plans and propsals are geared towards a couple of lunar sorties a year, where whatever station is there is occupied for a little time, but most of the time it would remain unoccupied. Resupply is a real non-issue unless Moon Base Kennedy becomes the new rationale.

The military dosen't want big sats anymore- they want launch on demand, and they want constellations of micro sats that work in tandem and can function in an ASAT environment. Having one big sat system is untenable with asymetric warfare options. Airforce 2020 will explain all of this.

If you look at the budget details, Earth Science, aeronautical research, space astronomy, anything related to hard science in NASA is getting slashed or defunded. A lot of scientists are going to cry, or are crying, and those senators and congress people who have constutiencies in affected areas are going to cry "foul". Griffin gives the Administration a leg to stand on during the public debate.

For instance, the Hubble debate, or even ISS... you won't have a bean counter making the argument with the National Science groups, but a respected scientist. I'm not saying there are alterior motives for Griffin, it's all in line with the goals of this administration in relation to their space policy.

BWhite · 2005-03-14 10:58:08

What Griffin brings is legitimacy for the proposition that permanent settlement - - and the associated spreading of western civilization - - is the only "why" that can be sustained across decades, or generations. He has stated that "spin-offs" and "educational inspiration" may be feel-good but are actually meaningless with respect to the expense that is needed for space exploration.

It also appears Griffin does not have a history of subordinating his own opinion or personal integrity for the sake of team unity. Good!

Thus, we may have a better chance of learning what is really motivating the architects of the VSE, behind the curtain.

= = =

And, of course, this "why" ultimately requires children being born "out there" - - whether in 25 years or 125 years or 225 years is irrelevant.

Whichever subset of humanity gets there (safe, routine childbearing) first, with the most, will OWN the solar system.

Griffin's quote - - in my sig - - tells me he sees this.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-03-11 16:29:59

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#2 2005-03-11 16:39:05

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#3 2005-03-11 16:45:32

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#4 2005-03-11 16:53:57

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#5 2005-03-11 16:59:14

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#6 2005-03-11 17:14:31

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#7 2005-03-11 17:18:31

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#8 2005-03-11 17:23:55

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#9 2005-03-11 17:25:29

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#10 2005-03-11 17:53:13

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#11 2005-03-11 19:45:28

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#12 2005-03-12 00:22:18

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#13 2005-03-12 11:24:23

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#14 2005-03-12 11:43:55

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#15 2005-03-12 13:22:23

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#16 2005-03-12 14:57:53

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#17 2005-03-13 04:02:02

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#18 2005-03-13 21:03:40

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#19 2005-03-13 21:26:27

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#20 2005-03-14 08:52:12

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#21 2005-03-14 09:12:12

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#22 2005-03-14 09:52:27

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#23 2005-03-14 09:59:35

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#24 2005-03-14 10:32:16

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#25 2005-03-14 10:58:08

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

Board footer