Author Topic: Frustrated NASA chief vents in internal e-mail over fate of agency  (Read 34125 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Here's a BBC story that mentions Administrator Griffin's frustration:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7612790.stm

---  CHAS

It's not a BBC story. It's a copy and paste of Irene Klotz's Reuters story.

Mass media don't employ writers when they can bulk bulk wire fodder on the cheap, and most people don't realize it's the same story, that's how they get away with it.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Warren Platts

I have two questions for you guys:

If the administration completely defunded the ISS now as a protest against the Russian invasion of Georgia and decommissioned the shuttle in 2009 instead of 2010, how much money could be realistically freed up?

And as Griffin's email seems to imply, if it's true that the schedule for flying Ares/Orion depends on funding levels more than anything else, if the funds freed up by defunding the ISS and an early shuttle decommissioning were channeled into Ares/Orion instead, could the Ares launch date be moved up to perhaps 2013 or 2012?

ETA: Actually, Griffin's memo answers the second question:

Quote
No additional money of significance is going to be provided to accelerate Orion/Ares, and even if it were, at this point we can't get there earlier than 2014 . . . .

What really bothers me is that if billions and billions are spent on extending the shuttle for the sole purpose of going to the ISS, the extension will come at the cost of delays in the lunar exploration program-as Griffin himself points out--not to mention "what that does for U.S. leadership in space in the long term."

So I guess I'll rephrase Number 2: if we defund the ISS now, and the money freed up channeled into the exploration budget, would that at least ensure that the planned lunar landings will occur on schedule?
« Last Edit: 09/17/2008 03:46 pm by Warren Platts »
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

siatwork

  • Guest
I have two questions for you guys:

If the administration completely defunded the ISS now as a protest against the Russian invasion of Georgia and decommissioned the shuttle in 2009 instead of 2010, how much money could be realistically freed up?

And as Griffin's email seems to imply, if it's true that the schedule for flying Ares/Orion depends on funding levels more than anything else, if the funds freed up by defunding the ISS and an early shuttle decommissioning were channeled into Ares/Orion instead, could the Ares launch date be moved up to perhaps 2013 or 2012?

I don't know what Griffin's line of thinking is on this, but there are diminishing returns in terms of funds vs. lead time for an operational article.  You still need time to gather data and get feedback, and there is a very limited pool of people with specific experiences to achieve goals, especially in as niche discipline as manned space flight. 

These cannot be mitigated with money.  Where this diminishing return curve maxes out is open to debate however.

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
What an interesting scenario!  A bit rash perhaps?  (understatment of the year  ;D)  That would be about the worst thing we could do with respect to our relationship with Europe/Russia (and these relationships should always be a very important consideration when formulating what to do next, IMO).

Additionally, the problem of Ares/Orion speedup (as I have read up to this point) is that even if they threw several billion extra dollars at it, the program could really only be sped up around nine months.  Now as much as I am hoping for some additional funding for NASA in the near future, I think that would be a waste of $$ for such a small return on investment.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2008 04:04 pm by EE Scott »
Scott

siatwork

  • Guest
...
What really bothers me is that if billions and billions are spent on extending the shuttle for the sole purpose of going to the ISS, the extension will come at the cost of delays in the lunar exploration program-as Griffin himself points out--not to mention "what that does for U.S. leadership in space in the long term."
...

As far as ISS is concerned the would-be shuttle extension past assembly would be "a nice thing to have" what with the up- and down-mass, but really more of a symbol ("look ma [congress], we can still launch people on our own [until Orion]").  As a way to preserve some STS tooling, I don't know, some folks seem to like that idea in itself...

Offline Warren Platts

Another thing I found interesting was the OMB and OSTP references (the "jihad" to get rid of the shuttle. Josh Bolton was former director of the OMB and apparently part of the anti-shuttle, anti-space station faction, and Bolton is now of course White House Chief of Staff.

Here's from an older article on this faction and their effect on space policy:
Quote
According to multiple government and industry sources, Shawcross [White House examiner of the OMB] is believed to represent a group of mid-level White House staffers who shepherded Griffin through his confirmation and his early months as Administrator. This group constitutes a faction that has been hostile to the Shuttle and station's role at the center of the human spaceflight program, and have believed for years that termination of both projects were needed to reinvigorate U.S. space policy and make room for more advanced exploration missions, such as lunar bases and manned trips to Mars.

Quietly, and out of the limelight, this group has collectively played a crucial role in the drafting and implementation of President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration. In the process, they also repeatedly clashed with O'Keefe during his tenure, something widely known in Washington space policy circles but rarely reported in the news media.

It's pretty clear from Griffin's memo that there would be little hand wringing within the present administration if the ISS were defunded now rather than in 2016. It will be interesting to see how the next administration handles it. McCain has sent his own memo that suggested keeping the shuttle going as an option. If the effect on lunar exploration were clearly explained to him, however, he could change his mind on the shuttle.

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
It's pretty clear from Griffin's memo that there would be little hand wringing within the present administration if the ISS were defunded now rather than in 2016.
Unless there's corroboration from another source, it doesn't seem that clear.  By this thinking, this is the same administration that could have proposed giving up on ISS and Shuttle after the Columbia accident.  At a time when there may have been a better political opportunity to do so, there was no attempt to kill ISS.  In fact, the opposite was true: the ISS was viewed as important enough that the Bush Administration endorsed continuing Shuttle in order to finish ISS assembly before concentrating on exploration goals.  Congress officially endorsed those goals in the 2005 authorization.

This or any administration would have to cooperate with Congress and the international partners to do something as drastic as killing ISS at the current time.

And this is a Congress that has already signaled strong support for finishing ISS assembly and utilizing the station through the next decade.

Offline bubbagret

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 74
What really bothers me is that if billions and billions are spent on extending the shuttle for the sole purpose of going to the ISS...

Maybe not the sole purpose…

It seems that with the present atmosphere and all of the talk of shuttle extensions, one of the prime reasons for development of the Ares 1, aka: continued employment and engineering of the solids to fill the solids “gap” until needed by Ares 5, would be considerably reduced. With the shuttle possibly flying until ~ 2016, production and employment could continue and engineering could continue on the solids at a reduced rate thus freeing up money for other developments (not taking in to account the cost of flying shuttle).

If the moneys saved (via engineering deferment on the 5.5 segs) were shifted to development and human rating the RS68, which is being and will have to be done for Ares 5, the accelerated RS68 schedule would be beneficial to shifting favorability from the Ares 1 solid launcher to a suddenly more palatable DIVH based launcher, which conversely would also have the benefit of reducing total recurring costs in the Delta line via increased production rate of CCB’s to fill the need for both NASA and the defense sector (collapse of the launch market and reduced manufacturing being one of the principal cost drivers on Delta).

Presumptively, with the shift to Delta to loft the Orion, the actual timeline for initial use of Orion could possibly be accelerated (if all the talk of being able to human rate the Delta in a quicker fashion is true).

This then brings up yet another interesting scenario:

Forward to ~ 2014:

•   Shuttle flying 2 to 3 missions yearly to resupply ISS, spares in place and contracts extended.
•   Orion on Delta to enter service.
•   ATK building 4 seg boosters for shuttle and slowly engineering 5.5 seg boosters for Ares 5.
•   ?

With spares in place for shuttle till 2016 and Orion/DIVH taking over human duties ~ 2014, throw in the possibility of flying shuttle unmanned via RCO capability for the last few years to fulfill contracts. And that leaves us with what?

•   No gap (keep American population happy)
•   Hubble SM5 (keep Astronomy happy)
•   ISS utilization (keep “the partners” happy)
•   5.5 seg engineering for Ares 5 (keep ATK happy)

Now, what about that J2X???

(COTS?)

?...

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
With spares in place for shuttle till 2016 and Orion/DIVH taking over human duties ~ 2014, throw in the possibility of flying shuttle unmanned via RCO capability for the last few years to fulfill contracts.
Can't just throw unmanned shuttle in.  It's not a done deal and is probably not worth the cost to make it happen.  It would be much cheaper and less risky overall to fly all the missions with crews.

Offline bubbagret

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 74
With spares in place for shuttle till 2016 and Orion/DIVH taking over human duties ~ 2014, throw in the possibility of flying shuttle unmanned via RCO capability for the last few years to fulfill contracts.
Can't just throw unmanned shuttle in.  It's not a done deal and is probably not worth the cost to make it happen.  It would be much cheaper and less risky overall to fly all the missions with crews.

Just nibbling on bits and pieces in Chris's story.

None of this, I realize, is actually a done deal. As for less risky, risk is part of why I threw in the RCO twist.

Lots of people bring up the risk involved in launching crew on the shuttle. So if Orion does become available, in the speculated time frame from my previous supposition (and the costs were not prohibitive), the RCO option is available to reduce that crew risk. That is, if orion does turn out to be so much safer than shuttle.

Having a reason for Orion before Ares 5 is available and the end of the shuttle program (reduced crew risk) becomes real, yet having the shuttle available for more mundane tasks (after all, by then we've got the spares and contracts available) might just be tenable.

But then again, (COTS?)

Well, anyways, speculation is kinda fun!

Wouldn't this be even more interesting if we were all speculating about the OVERLAP instead of the GAP?

Offline Warren Platts

It's pretty clear from Griffin's memo that there would be little hand wringing within the present administration if the ISS were defunded now rather than in 2016.
Unless there's corroboration from another source, it doesn't seem that clear.  By this thinking, this is the same administration that could have proposed giving up on ISS and Shuttle after the Columbia accident.  At a time when there may have been a better political opportunity to do so, there was no attempt to kill ISS.  In fact, the opposite was true: the ISS was viewed as important enough that the Bush Administration endorsed continuing Shuttle in order to finish ISS assembly before concentrating on exploration goals.  Congress officially endorsed those goals in the 2005 authorization.
Here's an old article from 2005:

Quote
According to multiple government and industry sources, Shawcross [OMB examiner] is believed to represent a group of mid-level White House staffers who shepherded Griffin through his confirmation and his early months as Administrator. This group constitutes a faction that has been hostile to the Shuttle and station's role at the center of the human spaceflight program, and have believed for years that termination of both projects were needed to reinvigorate U.S. space policy and make room for more advanced exploration missions, such as lunar bases and manned trips to Mars.

Moreover, the administration did kill the shuttle, but as a compromise, they proposed not doing it until 2010.

I'm in the middle of Bob Woodward's War Within that details how the decision to go for the troop "surge" in Iraq was arrived at. There was in fact little consensus. But it was recognized that the current strategy was not working.

Similarly, after the Columbia disaster, similar discussions and policy reviews must have taken place regarding the future of the space program. They would have recognized that "staying the course" was going nowhere. President Bush himself would have wanted a "bold stroke". Apparently, the neocon faction led by Bolton and Shawcroft wanted to kill the shuttle and the ISS (Griffin referred to this push as a "jihad" remember), but the State Department under Secretary Rice allied itself with the NASA leadership, and so the grand compromise was reached where the ISS would be completed to keep our allies happy, and the INKSNA waiver was granted.

So with the current troubles, Russia is in more disfavor than when it was merely passing nuclear technology to Iran. Don't be surprised if some actions are taken like shutting down a crucial supplier somewhere in order to make the death of the shuttle a fait accompli that can't be reversed by a future administration.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
With spares in place for shuttle till 2016 and Orion/DIVH taking over human duties ~ 2014, throw in the possibility of flying shuttle unmanned via RCO capability for the last few years to fulfill contracts.
Can't just throw unmanned shuttle in.  It's not a done deal and is probably not worth the cost to make it happen.  It would be much cheaper and less risky overall to fly all the missions with crews.

Just nibbling on bits and pieces in Chris's story.

None of this, I realize, is actually a done deal. As for less risky, risk is part of why I threw in the RCO twist.

Lots of people bring up the risk involved in launching crew on the shuttle. So if Orion does become available, in the speculated time frame from my previous supposition (and the costs were not prohibitive), the RCO option is available to reduce that crew risk. That is, if orion does turn out to be so much safer than shuttle.

Chris, responses like this one are the reason I get on you about RCO. There is much misunderstanding about what RCO can do and what it cannot, and this post is a prime example.

bubbagret, RCO is not an option for doing entire unmanned shuttle flights. It is not capable of automating prox ops and docking to the station. It is only intended for unmanned deorbit/entry/landing, and even then it is limited to flipping the five or six switches the crew must flip during deorbit/entry/landing. It is a MacGuyver-esque "hack" intended to provide some non-zero probability of intact return of a damaged orbiter.

Let me state that a little more strongly. If SSP started working today on a capability to do an entire shuttle flight unmanned, not only would RCO not be the solution, it would not even be PART of the solution. It is not robust enough, provides no actual automation (only remote control) and it is limited to only those particular switches.
JRF

Offline bubbagret

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 74
Quote from: Jorge
[/quote
Just nibbling on bits and pieces in Chris's story.

None of this, I realize, is actually a done deal. As for less risky, risk is part of why I threw in the RCO twist.

Lots of people bring up the risk involved in launching crew on the shuttle. So if Orion does become available, in the speculated time frame from my previous supposition (and the costs were not prohibitive), the RCO option is available to reduce that crew risk. That is, if orion does turn out to be so much safer than shuttle.

Chris, responses like this one are the reason I get on you about RCO. There is much misunderstanding about what RCO can do and what it cannot, and this post is a prime example.

bubbagret, RCO is not an option for doing entire unmanned shuttle flights. It is not capable of automating prox ops and docking to the station. It is only intended for unmanned deorbit/entry/landing, and even then it is limited to flipping the five or six switches the crew must flip during deorbit/entry/landing. It is a MacGuyver-esque "hack" intended to provide some non-zero probability of intact return of a damaged orbiter.

Let me state that a little more strongly. If SSP started working today on a capability to do an entire shuttle flight unmanned, not only would RCO not be the solution, it would not even be PART of the solution. It is not robust enough, provides no actual automation (only remote control) and it is limited to only those particular switches.
[/quote]

Ride shuttle up, ride Orion down... or whatever.

Not trying to light any fires Jorge, just throwin' seeds out to see if they grow.

There's still plenty of time left before Orion (or Ares ?) becomes a reality and carries people. And it's a heck of a lot safer speculating here than it it is in the stock market these days! (I hope) ;-)

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Who leaked the memo?

The memo is in the form of a .jpeg file apparently made by someone with one of those handheld scanners. The person who did it was obviously left handed. That tells me it wasn't leaked from either Griffin or anybody he sent it to; they would have just sent the email via email, or at least simply mailed a clean copy to the Orlando Sentinal.

Thus, I'm thinking someone saw a hard copy of the thing laying around on a desk somewhere, and surreptitiously made a personal copy with the hand scanner. Perhaps an intern, or even a janitor. 
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline glanmor05

  • BWFC Fan
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • It's not all tea and medals!
  • Blackpool, England
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 0
Wow!  I love this stuff!  Why left handed (not just using his/her left hand)?
"Through struggles, to the stars."

Offline Warren Platts

Wow!  I love this stuff!  Why left handed (not just using his/her left hand)?
I don't know. You might be right. Or maybe the scanner is designed to be used by the left hand. But either way, it looks more like a stolen document rather than an intentionally leaked document.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1