NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
International Space Station (ISS) => ISS Section => Topic started by: kcowing on 12/10/2005 04:04 am
-
What Mike Griffin Really Thinks About NRC's Space Station Report
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/12/mike_griffins_p.html
-
Damn, Griffin really doesn't 'sound' like one would assume from press conferences etc.
Brilliant at times, arrogant in places. It's a great read but I believe he's wrong on the assumption about the general reaction of returning to the Moon as the same as support for the ISS. I also don't think these Internationals are "annoyed and impatient" - they come across as cheated and let down (on ISS construction).
I also get the impression he's missing the international alliances being made on exploration - ones that do not include NASA.
Other than that I like style - sounds a bit like a Yorkshireman with the "do it" as opposed to "what do you think?" :)
Awesome stuff Keith.
-
He's no lightweight, but seems to be unaware of outside opinion?
-
You have to like the way he's written this e-mail. He is a very clever man, but comes across pretty unintimadating via the TV. This e-mail shows a different side of him.
-
Well if you're the head of NASA you've got to be able to communicate, that's a given, despite obviously needing to do the job. I think it's deluded to think other agencies will be willing to work with NASA when they have their own plans in effect and NASA has not delievered on their ISS agreements.
-
If NASA builds the "highway" system, I think the Internationals' plans will be left by the wayside. Who wants to tramp through the brambles when they can ride on the road?
-
The problem they will have is if they wait and the money isn't forthcoming for the VSE implementation during the timeline, then they are again waiting for NASA. Once bitten twice shy with the ISS experience.
-
How can emails like this get out? I don't understand how private Mike Griffin emails can find there way to a website? NASA should have better protection or do I not understand something here?
-
Orbiter Obvious - 10/12/2005 7:11 PM
How can emails like this get out? I don't understand how private Mike Griffin emails can find there way to a website? NASA should have better protection or do I not understand something here?
You don't understand something ;)
Keith is former NASA. He obviously knows people at the top. See how that e-mail has a number of high end NASA people on the cc? It just takes one of those on the cc to foward the e-mail....Keith might know any or all of them from Griffin downwards (and that's his business, not ours).
So pretend for a second you used to work with Bill Parsons (thinking of a name you'll recognise from STS-114) and he wanted to pass this on to you...he's on the cc ("Parsons, William W. (SSC-AA00)") thus would be able to. (Totally pretend senario to explain how, if with the right contacts, you could potentially get hold of something like this.)
-
But they aren't moving ahead with any of their own plans either, except for robotic science missions. No heavy lift plans at all. It's hard to explore the planets on hot air alone, though they and the Russians seem to be giving it their best shot.
-
Orbiter Obvious - 10/12/2005 1:11 PM
How can emails like this get out? I don't understand how private Mike Griffin emails can find there way to a website? NASA should have better protection or do I not understand something here?
Mike Griffin - and all of the individuals on these emails - are NASA civil servants. They are not supposed to use government email systems for 'private' email. These emails are official government communications -i.e. verything he sends via his nasa.gov email account is official government business. If he wishes to send private email he can use non-governmental means to do so - but if the content of those emails sent via private email accounts includes official government business then they also fall in the same category as email sent from his government account.
-
Thanks. Sorry I didn't word my question very well. I didn't mean to suggest it was a private e-mail of his like hotmail or AOL, I was just facinated how you managed to aquire it without someone hacking into NASA email which I also didn't mean to suggest. I didn't realize you would have means to know how to get hold of these sorts of things.
I sound like I'm prying now so I'll just say that's really cool and rare to see. Don't really understand what its about but I just liked reading how Griffin writes an email.
-
Scotty? Gerst? What sort of tight ship is Mike running there? ;)
-
How does Griffin stand up against the likes of O'Keefe and Goldin? I know he's everyones cup of tea with the VSE and O'Keefe wasn't liked for reasons such as cancelling Hubble and I read on another message board that he wasn't one that liked to take a decision.
Looking at this e-mail, how does he come across in comparison?
-
Never did get that about O'Keefe. He cancelled the HSM after the CAIB went heavy on the need for ISS Safe Haven (not possible with a trip to Hubble). He just had to deal with familes after Columbia, I don't know how much a space telescope would have seemed viable to risk another seven astronauts and an orbiter at that time after having been "on watch" during STS-107.
Sure, I would like to see a HSM-4, but I can understand his decision at the time. I have a feeling he'd of been taken to the cleaners if he had insisted on keeping HSM-4 during the aftermath of 107. I'm also a bit unsure now that HSM-4 doesn't even have a back-up (300 style) plan. No Safe Haven, no back up orbiter rescue mission. Won't happen unless they've had a run of zero ET foam liberation from the danger zones, imho.
He always seems to get a bad rap, mainly because of that decision. I know the guy literally slept four hours a day during a lot of his administration, from a documentary they showed over here. So he hardly could be classed as someone who didn't at least try.
Goldin - only know a bit about him during the X-33.
-
The HSM has no back up in case of emergancy???
-
One pad will be out of use for upgrading by the time the HSM-4 is set to launch. While they may have another orbiter ready, they'd never launch again in time. With the ISS, that's not a problem as they are extending how long they can support a Shuttle crew on the outpost for longer periods - as they expand the ISS.
-
Chris Bergin - 11/12/2005 9:38 AM
One pad will be out of use for upgrading by the time the HSM-4 is set to launch. While they may have another orbiter ready, they'd never launch again in time. With the ISS, that's not a problem as they are extending how long they can support a Shuttle crew on the outpost for longer periods - as they expand the ISS.
I probably missed this in an earlier thread, but what's the schedule for taking one of the shuttle pads offline?
Edit: Doh! Read that wrong. OK, revised question: When is Pad A coming back online?
Thanks.
-
The way it looks at present is one of the pads will be begining modification mid-2007. Previously it was thought that there would be a mothballing to save money, but last I heard was modification. HSM4 is looking like first quarter 2008, maybe later as the schedule transpires. So even holding two pads open is not an option.
-
Flightstar - 11/12/2005 10:02 AM
The way it looks at present is one of the pads will be begining modification mid-2007. Previously it was thought that there would be a mothballing to save money, but last I heard was modification. HSM4 is looking like first quarter 2008, maybe later as the schedule transpires. So even holding two pads open is not an option.
Hypothetically, would it be feasible to prepare a rescue vehicle as far as possible for launch, roll back and store it in VAB High Bay 2 (for example) and then process the orbiter/stack assigned to the mission for launch? I guess the other question is safety in the VAB...
There was at least one rollback very late in the pad processing flow -- STS-96. In that case, they rolled back out to the pad and launched seven days later; here's the rollback processing report:
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/status/stsstat/1999/may/5-20-99s.htm
Thanks,
Philip Sloss
-
Certainly is possible, but I've heard such counter points as follows.
Dedicating one orbiter towards such preparations could cause problems with the schedule timeline, such as should a standdown be called once the HSM is heading home then we really don't want to be leaving a stacked Shuttle in the VAB or on the pad. Destacking undesirable, then you worry about timelines of a stacked/unstacked shuttle all the way up to RCS and hypergols.
I also don't think we'd want to be rushing a rescue via the speeded up processing contingency, which I personally think is dangerous. I also don't think that higher management want to appear unconfident with the HSM by working on a rescue mission.
-
Flight, do you think the HSM is a good idea?
-
Launch Fan - 11/12/2005 9:36 AM
Flight, do you think the HSM is a good idea?
As in reference to the safety of such a mission? Yes. Let me put it this way.
If you have children of your own, you have confidence in their abilities and want them to strive for what they are capable for?
The Shuttle Orbiters are like our children. Might be dificult to understand, but they each are cared for as such and I know astronauts that fly in them feel similar. They each have their own personalities and quirks and we have former techs and engineers who still come in to see them. Columbia's loss was like losing a close family member, she was something so very special. It was amazing that she confirmed what we knew in her last seconds.
-
I don't know if I should ask but what happened in those final few seconds??
-
Going way off topic, so everyone please set up a relevant new thread on the specific section of the forum to continue talk past what is the topic subject here.
-
psloss - 11/12/2005 10:06 AM
Hypothetically, would it be feasible to prepare a rescue vehicle as far as possible for launch, roll back and store it in VAB High Bay 2 (for example) and then process the orbiter/stack assigned to the mission for launch? I guess the other question is safety in the VAB...
There was at least one rollback very late in the pad processing flow -- STS-96. In that case, they rolled back out to the pad and launched seven days later; here's the rollback processing report:
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/status/stsstat/1999/may/5-20-99s.htm
Thanks,
Philip Sloss
Hey Philip, glad to see you made it over to this forum too ;)
Instead of preparing a very expensive dedicated rescue flight, the way they'd probably do it is to just prep. the next flight a little early for its mission - in the same way as Atlantis' STS-300 rescue mission was were mostly prepared before the STS-114 RTF flight launched. If there were a problem, the next orbiter is already stacked, but not yet flight-ready. You've got a few weeks to get it ready to go as a rescue flight in a stripped-down state - assuming you're willing to fly at all still.
This tells me that HSM-4 would have to be before the very last flight planned to the ISS, otherwise you don't have another mission afterwards.
As it currently stands, I believe some time in late '07 is currently "pencilled in" as a general target point for those involved in planning such a flight.
Ross.
-
Hi Ross,
Since this is off-topic, I replied in a new thread here (hope I did that right, Chris; apologies if not):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1016
Philip
-
Perfect, Philip :)
-
Griffin seems concerned about the media and public seeing the Moon target as the same as the ISS. I find that strange. Anyone esle?
-
STS Tony - 11/12/2005 2:52 PM
Griffin seems concerned about the media and public seeing the Moon target as the same as the ISS. I find that strange. Anyone esle?
I do.
He seems to not understand WHY people aren't all that positive about the ISS. Because those reasons, cost for what you get, ISS and Moon are different animals.
-
At least he's caring about PR. More than some of the previous administrators.
-
STS Tony - 11/12/2005 3:52 PM
Griffin seems concerned about the media and public seeing the Moon target as the same as the ISS. I find that strange. Anyone esle?
I don't. He's concerned that the public will go completely limp on all space exploration, and rightly so. Comments on another thread by a person who is interested in space exemplifies this danger:
Maybe this is an exciting trip down memory lane for those old enough to remember the Apollo missions, but speaking from the younger generation, I'd rather watch a Shuttle mission to the ISS than go back to the Moon. I mean, I can watch those missions on video from the 1960s.
I know I'll get flamed for that, but nothing has sold me yet. Maybe a moon base will (not in the planning yet) or a trip to Mars (not in the planning yet and I don't know how many people will be following a SIX MONTH trip inbetween).
Just not sold on this.
Again, this from someone who cares enough to speak up. Think of the tide of apathy that swells in those that remain silent (unless they vote).
Of course if they don't vote then they don't matter, so long as they keep paying taxes...
-
So the general feeling is Griffin looks like the right man for the job.
However how long is he set to be in the role? Is it like a set amount of time, or can it last as long and as short as they want?
-
Andy L - 12/12/2005 6:54 PM
So the general feeling is Griffin looks like the right man for the job.
However how long is he set to be in the role? Is it like a set amount of time, or can it last as long and as short as they want?
I personally think Mike Griffin is the single best thing to have happened to NASA since Kennedy and von Braun.
When he joined earlier in the year he did an interview where he said he was planning to leave NASA in four years, when the Administration changes at the end of 2008.
His more recent interview with SpaceflightNow.com he is quoted leaving that decision to the next President, so it looks likely that he now would like to stay on longer.
He has always said that his primary goal is to create enough momentum and direction to ensure that NASA's new direction was set in stone by the time he leaves.
Ross.
-
I've been impressed with his skills in leading the agency. I haven't been impressed with his media skills. Yet I know which one of the two I'd rather have him being good at!
-
Relative to previous admins, I think his media skills are fine. He gives routine interviews, appears before Congress several times a year, takes a stand on tough issues, and has a long network of private sector friends and advocacy groups behind him. He's a space nerd through and through, and that's what I like about him.
If I had to name a negative aspect to his character, though, it is that he comes across as a bit of a know-it-all, and he seems to be increasingly buying into his own hype ("I am NASA's savior!" etc.)
-
Regardless of him disliking the Shuttle, he makes no bones about making sure everyone knows it. Nothing like shattering the moral of the majority of your contractor workforce.
Yes, he's got great ideas, but all he's messed with a huge workforce in Florida, run by the brother of the President. Not the smartest move.
-
I doubt that would be an issue. Also it was misrepresentations, according to a Griffin statement, that USA Today can be blamed for, rather than Griffin and the imfamous "mistake" quote.