Jeff Bell hearts Mike Griffin

BWhite · 2006-02-14 16:59:44

NASA critics like myself are often asked what they would do different if they were in charge. For the first time in many years I can honestly say: I would do nothing different from what the current Administrator is doing.

Wow! Just Wow!

GCNRevenger · 2006-02-14 17:30:15

No no Bill, Jeffy Bell is doing his usual thing, he's just being sly about it

"This fuel combination was also politically difficult. The only way a methane engine could be developed in time for the Block 1 CEV was to turn the whole project over to Russia, the only place where a methane engine has actually been tested. Clearly this would not be tolerable to Congress."

Bullsh*t. A methane-fueled RL-10 has been tested already.

"Of course, now that the CEV is only 5 meters in diameter, it can easily fit atop the existing Delta 4 or Atlas 5 boosters and the whole CLV development program is unneccessary. Look for this change during some future budget crisis."

Now here he goes again... the EELVs aren't in any shape form or fasion man rated, and none of them except the big Delta-IV HLV can fly without alot of those little SRBs. The big Delta by reason of its complexity would be hard to man rate or fly on time. TheStick makes sense, man-rated engines all around, the big SRB doesn't "boom" like a liquid fuel rocket, and the infrastructure for it is already in place for the most part.

"Without the CDV, there is no way to deliver new CMGs after the Shuttle retires in 2010. Clearly, it is not expected that the ISS will still need them in the 2010-2016 period. This implies that the ISS won't be there at that time - or at least that NASA will not be supporting it."

This brought a smile to my face though... the 2017 cutoff date is looking more and more concrete all the time.

"In recent months Griffin has redone the Shuttle budget [and was] shocked to learn that there is a funding shortfall of $3-5B over the next four years... No one can understand why successful programs are being sacrificed to maintain an obsolete system that is headed for extinction in a few years anyway.

This is easy to understand, because the Shuttle's complete and total management and engineering disaster requires vast amounts of money to overcome. I do hope Bell is right about Griffin's motives for cuts, but I doubt it, getting rid of Shuttle is a political "crossing the rubicon" as it were.

"It now appears that the expansion of the tanks when they are drained and warmed causes the frozen foam to crack. These cracks allow air to reach the metal tank during the next filling and liquify... It is virtually certain that foam will fall from STS-121 despite the ramp removal fix."

No. The solution is simply not to drain the tank before flying, and the whole point was to limit dangerous foam loss, not no foam at all. If not for the PAL ramp, Discovery would have had a pretty clean bill of health last time and we would probobly be flying now.

"these study groups that there no substitute for Shuttle that can be brought on line in time to save ISS. He will be "forced" to withdraw from the project and make a gift of the half-completed station to the international partners (meaning Russia)."

Again, this would be fine by me, I just don't see it happening if Shuttle flies okay in May, which is likly.

BWhite · 2006-02-14 17:56:06

I seem to recall (too lazy to google it up) that Griffin was scathing about STS / ISS before becoming NASA Administrator. His reasons parallel the reasons you often recite.

Griffin by himself cannot "cancel" STS / ISS - its waay above his pay grade. But, if circumstances develop that allow him to make a case to Congress . . .

One can always hope.

Commodore · 2006-02-14 18:21:14

No. The solution is simply not to drain the tank before flying, and the whole point was to limit dangerous foam loss, not no foam at all. If not for the PAL ramp, Discovery would have had a pretty clean bill of health last time and we would probobly be flying now.

Is that really feasable? Shuttle launches are scrubbed all the time for any number of uncontrolable reasons. The last thing we want is a summer thundershower turning a shuttle, its payload, the pad, and about a million pounds of cryogenic fuels into a smoking crater.

GCNRevenger · 2006-02-14 18:33:58

How long does it take to load the tanks on the thing? Instead of doing it the day before, do it only after most of the diagnostics are done.

And if small bits of foam pop off, so what? Only the big pieces are the "scarry" ones most likly. The stuff is really not very dense at all.

Commodore · 2006-02-14 19:09:07

And most like it was the PAL ramp that was aiming the stuff outwords towords the shuttle.

Still, fueling itself can cause any number of issues. It was fuel gauges that caused delays on Discovery.

Were still better off trying the CaLV.

Austin Stanley · 2006-02-15 04:24:14

How long does it take to load the tanks on the thing? Instead of doing it the day before, do it only after most of the diagnostics are done.

Actualy, attaching the tanks is probably a very difficult and complicated procedure, which is acomplished in the VAB before the thing is rolled out to the pad, a process which takes about a day. The actual fuel for the tanks is not loaded untill shortly before launch (just a couple hours before in the case of the liquid hydrogen IIRC). It's important to remember that the main tank (like the rest of the shuttle) is still freakin' huge so assembly of any component of it is bound to be a little difficult.

Is that really feasable? Shuttle launches are scrubbed all the time for any number of uncontrolable reasons. The last thing we want is a summer thundershower turning a shuttle, its payload, the pad, and about a million pounds of cryogenic fuels into a smoking crater.

The launch pad does have lighting rods to help mitigate this factor. However, the shuttle has been struck by lightning before (although not while loaded with it's cryogenic fuels) and there were apparently no ill-effects. It's solid rockets didn't go boom or nothing.

But you are correct on the balance. If the shuttle isn't going to be launched, keeping it fueled IS a safety hazard. Especialy considering that the launch is only scrubbed if there is some sort of problem with the shuttle. To safely inspect and repair whatever problem they have, the tanks generaly have to be drained. I know I wouldn't feel comfortable around several tons of cryogenic explosives if I knew there was a mechanical probelm with the shuttles systems.

Furthermore, the main tank doesn't provide the best insulation and so if it has to sit there for an extended period of time it makes sense to drain them.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2006-02-15 08:39:19

I seriously hope they find something, anything wrong with the shuttle and ground it permanently after the launch this year. (I don't care if anything really went wrong or not, find a reason) That would solve all the VSE funding problems and then some, we could accelerate the lunar program and put more money into true commercial ventures too get them off the ground. Maybe then we can get to mars before the 60th anniversary of the first lunar landing...

I know the ISS is an international political football, but if we gift the thing to the Russians would they really be complaining? Hell, if we're lucky and in the next few years T/Space or SpaceDev or Space-X actually lowers the cost of reaching orbit I could see either AMD or Intel setting up orbital shops for chip production, that has a decent economic outlook even with the high launch costs because your talking about a high value product with very low mass/volume.

Please, please, someone kill the Shuttle/Space Station.

Oh, and if you hear someone arguing about saving the Hubble, point out to them that the new generation of ground based telescopes with adaptive optics have taken the title of 'astronomies big gun' from the Hubble.

GCNRevenger · 2006-02-15 09:53:45

Oh amen to that Purdue, but what are the chances? Shuttle/ISS is congresses' baby and long-time multi billion dollar cash cow. They are not interested in notions that might interrupt this proverbial gravy train at all. It must pain them enough that Bush has orderd Shuttle grounded by 2010 instead of ~2025 like originally planned, not that they care that doing so would doom NASA.

The state department and more "internationally sensitive" congressmen also, given the choice, not hear of any of this business where our vaunted and priceless international partners would be "offended" any more then they already are with our "unilateral" not-UN-(or Europe)-aproved war. (Not that they complained when Bill Clinton bombed Bosnia without UN approval, or they fret about offending us over embracing Hamas, etc).

Then there is the PR issue of giving the thing to Russia lock/stock/barrel that might not go over painlessly either unless public opinion is solidly pro-Moon/Mars and either indifferent or anti-ISS.

About Hubble and adaptive optics, the shorter the wavelength of the light you are collecting, the harder it is to do, so adaptive optics are capable of surpassing Hubble in the IR but not so well in the UV/Vis. Space telescopes also have superior SNR properties when imaging faint objects near bright ones. Oh, and adaptive optics is very difficult to do on wide fields of view, and are only really good at focusing on small regions of space.

Hubble itself however is worn out and might not last long with or without servicing, and a repair job with Shuttle will be fantastically expensive (>$1.5Bn easy) not to mention take up a precious and risky Shuttle shot if NASA is forced to trudge on with The Golden Goose. The solution is just to build a brand new telescope, perhaps using the spare Hubble main mirror and new cameras, and stick it on top of a Atlas or Delta. It would last longer then a patched-up Hubble, and could be tailored to do the things that adaptive optics scopes' can't, thus being a much more useful instrument. Japan has even offerd to donate the superwide field camera for free. The Hubble option is purely political and PR driven.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2006-02-15 10:10:36

Hubble itself however is worn out and might not last long with or without servicing, and a repair job with Shuttle will be fantastically expensive (>$1.5Bn easy) not to mention take up a precious and risky Shuttle shot if NASA is forced to trudge on with The Golden Goose. The solution is just to build a brand new telescope, perhaps using the spare Hubble main mirror and new cameras, and stick it on top of a Atlas or Delta. It would last longer then a patched-up Hubble, and could be tailored to do the things that adaptive optics scopes' can't, thus being a much more useful instrument. Japan has even offerd to donate the superwide field camera for free. The Hubble option is purely political and PR driven.

You're right, putting up an entirely new telescope would be a beter, and in all likleyhood a cheaper option then servicing the hubble. My question is do we really want to spend ~billion dollars on astronomy? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for pure science, but for the time being I'd rather see any astronomy money in NASAs budget go to VSE or even aeronautics, there are alot of aeronautics programs that would have significant comercial use if they got funded. Even if your sold on in space astronomy as a priority for NASA, shouldn't the first priority be to get the James Webb up as planned?

GCNRevenger · 2006-02-15 14:00:45

Well, that depends on what the question is, doesn't it? Is it between Hubble and the new Hubble Origins Probe (HOP, aka "Hubble-II")? Or is it between Hubble or no space telescope at all.

JWST is far enough along that its not going to get canceld unless its costs REALLY get insane.

cIclops · 2006-02-17 13:16:10

JWST is far enough along that its not going to get canceld unless its costs REALLY get insane.

According to the 2007 budget request JWST will cost $2.633 billion, that's off the SANE scale already with a $1.5 billion cost overrun. It's only in year 2 of a 7 year development program and it's burnt less than 30% of its budget, so it's not totally safe from cancellation.

Let's kill it, service the HST and start building the HLV now! RTTM in 2014! Mars in 2016! Way to go

publiusr · 2006-02-17 15:58:31

At least Jeff Bell said something actually supportive of the NASA Chief for a change. It styill doesn't keep me from wanting his next piece to be in the obit-column..

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-03-22 07:34:14

Mike Griffin will be speaking at the Mars Society Convention in August 06 at Washington

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-02-14 16:59:44

Re: Jeff Bell hearts Mike Griffin

#2 2006-02-14 17:30:15

Re: Jeff Bell hearts Mike Griffin

#3 2006-02-14 17:56:06

Re: Jeff Bell hearts Mike Griffin

#4 2006-02-14 18:21:14

Re: Jeff Bell hearts Mike Griffin

#5 2006-02-14 18:33:58

Re: Jeff Bell hearts Mike Griffin

#6 2006-02-14 19:09:07

Re: Jeff Bell hearts Mike Griffin

#7 2006-02-15 04:24:14

Re: Jeff Bell hearts Mike Griffin

#8 2006-02-15 08:39:19

Re: Jeff Bell hearts Mike Griffin

#9 2006-02-15 09:53:45

Re: Jeff Bell hearts Mike Griffin

#10 2006-02-15 10:10:36

Re: Jeff Bell hearts Mike Griffin

#11 2006-02-15 14:00:45

Re: Jeff Bell hearts Mike Griffin

#12 2006-02-17 13:16:10

Re: Jeff Bell hearts Mike Griffin

#13 2006-02-17 15:58:31

Re: Jeff Bell hearts Mike Griffin

#14 2006-03-22 07:34:14

Re: Jeff Bell hearts Mike Griffin

Board footer