Quote from: Blackstar on 12/12/2008 01:29 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 12/12/2008 01:34 amOther papers rehashing the same thing, mixing it up with examples of 50 attendees into "50 witnesses of the argument".Chris is right. I was there, 20 feet away. I heard and saw no "argument." And other stuff in the article about the party is exaggerated.Don't believe everything you read, even if it satisfies your pre-conceived notions.Unfortunately, once a meme-set has escaped into the noosphere, it doesn't matter what insiders and witnesses know or say, but rather how many are hearing the story, for whom its meme-set content constitutes the sum total of their knowledge of the subject.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 12/12/2008 01:34 amOther papers rehashing the same thing, mixing it up with examples of 50 attendees into "50 witnesses of the argument".Chris is right. I was there, 20 feet away. I heard and saw no "argument." And other stuff in the article about the party is exaggerated.Don't believe everything you read, even if it satisfies your pre-conceived notions.
Other papers rehashing the same thing, mixing it up with examples of 50 attendees into "50 witnesses of the argument".
Quote from: RedSky on 12/12/2008 12:26 amAnd another follow-up from the Sentinel...And like clockwork, there's the second effort based on the denial of the original rumor article, as pre-empted.Other papers rehashing the same thing, mixing it up with examples of 50 attendees into "50 witnesses of the argument".Come on guys, isn't it obvious how the game is played yet?Meanwhile, Griffin's going to lose his job over this, you can see it coming, because the media will keep rehashing this over and over again, in a cyclonic wave of falling over each other to make this as big a scandal as possible, negating any facts, until the pressure claims its victim.The main problem being that Joe Public will once again see NASA as a waste of money, and the year will once again end with a negative, despite four successful shuttle missions, Pheonix, etc.
And another follow-up from the Sentinel...
Quote from: khallow on 12/12/2008 03:03 amThere's strong pressure on NASA to deliver a viable Ares I project by Obama's inauguration. I gather the Ares I-X was supposed to be that proof, but it's been delayed till Fall 2009.Huh? Ares I-X was on the "books" for April '09 for a LONG time, then was moved back. I never heard any talk of moving it up to mid-January, what do you have to back that up?
There's strong pressure on NASA to deliver a viable Ares I project by Obama's inauguration. I gather the Ares I-X was supposed to be that proof, but it's been delayed till Fall 2009.
Rush mentioned it too, though in contex of Obama team malfeasence.
It is worth remembering that the Orlando Sentinel has published several anti-Ares (and pro-Direct) articles in recent months, hyping the Thrust Oscillation Hysteria (now debunked), and so forth. It stands to reason that the Sentinel's space editor has no love for Mr. Griffin, for whatever reason.
The Sentinel should issue an apology.
Quote from: rdale on 12/12/2008 03:19 amHuh? Ares I-X was on the "books" for April '09 for a LONG time, then was moved back. I never heard any talk of moving it up to mid-January, what do you have to back that up?Odds are good that a new administrator won't cancel a launch that is three months away. Odds are not as good for a launch more than half a year away.
Huh? Ares I-X was on the "books" for April '09 for a LONG time, then was moved back. I never heard any talk of moving it up to mid-January, what do you have to back that up?
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Griffin made one enormous mistake when he came on board, and that was to assume his solution to the VSE mandate could survive multiple election cycles and presidential transitions. That was utter folly. At a minimum, he needed to make sure a manned CEV had reached orbit by Fall of 2008 (ie, before the election). If that had been put before everything else (inlcuding his own favored architecture), it could have been done, and had he done it, it would be likely whoever won the election would have kept him on as a glorious success, and that would have bought him all the years out to 2016 to get to the Moon.History proves this out time and again. Kennedy wanted to get men to the Moon before he left office at the beginning of 1969. But for Apollo 1 (and the mistakes that led up to it), it's likely the first manned landing would have been in late 1968. Nixon wanted the Shuttle to fly by 1976. Reagan made a mistake letting the space station get out of hand. He should have made it small enough to fly by 1988. As it was, Clinton decided to "brand" it for himself, and then made sure at least a little bit of it flew before he left office. You can argue details all you want, but the fact is, the election cycle in this country, and the swing back and forth between party-in-power spoilage, determines outcomes much more than anything else. Deciding on an architecture that put men on the Moon eight election cycles down the road, and which wouldn't show a single tangible *result* for five cycles, was just plain stupid. Obama may make any kind of decision at all, including the really bad one he suggested at the beginning of his campaign. But if he wants to make Constellation his own, he's only got one rational course. Extend Shuttle to 2011 (ie., 2 to 4 more flights), make sure Orion is aloft by 2012 (during his run for reelection!), and make sure an American crew lands on the Moon before election day 2016 (nail down that part of his legacy and boost his chosen successor's chances of victory). I can think of several ways he can achieve that (EELV+Jupiter seems a pretty good bet, if you ask me). But it's too late now for a flat budget to handle it. I guess we'llfind out in the next few months.
If he succeeds in making the continuation of the Constellation program a Mike Griffin vs. Barack Obama pissing contest, he should expect to see the program cancelled as a means of establishing just who is in charge. You can do some element of this maneuvering and politicking subtly and behind the scenes, but once it comes out into the open you've left your boss with no choice but to come down hard.
It's a shame that one person with an Agenda can do so much harm to an Agency.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/11/2008 08:57 pmIt is worth remembering that the Orlando Sentinel has published several anti-Ares (and pro-Direct) articles in recent months, hyping the Thrust Oscillation Hysteria (now debunked), and so forth. It stands to reason that the Sentinel's space editor has no love for Mr. Griffin, for whatever reason.Sure, it's debunked to the point where the current design won't see TO killing astronauts. It will only shake them bad enough that they won't be able to throw switches... (rolls eyes).Sure the Orlando Sentinel has been doing its best to point out the failings of Ares I. The failings are glaring, even when you remove the media hype.