Author Topic: Griffin comments on analysis paralysis and risk tolerance  (Read 6530 times)

Offline zapkitty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Griffin comments on analysis paralysis and risk tolerance
« Reply #20 on: 07/14/2009 07:37 PM »
Quote from: zapkitty

2. Ares V scaled down to a reasonable capacity and
3. suitably increased launch rate,

2. Already happening - less clear if any HLV survives.
3. You are simply out of your mind - not possible in this environment, unfortunately.

Er... that was a rather ungraceful reference to a single LV/two launch architecture...

See, you'd automatically double the launch rate of the single LV, right?

... whaddya mean "wrong"? ;)

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Griffin comments on analysis paralysis and risk tolerance
« Reply #21 on: 07/14/2009 07:46 PM »
I doubt you'd automatically double the rate.  The remaining "larger-than-Ares I/diet version of Ares V" would be significantly larger than needed for ISS so almost all that work would go elsewhere (as it should--hopefully to SpaceX) and you'd only be left with the heavier launches, significantly less than twice as many launches.

There were good reasons to build two launchers.  I'm surprised Augustine hasn't identified them and started already to lean toward Direct 3.

Offline fredm6463

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 118
  • Me at nozzle of SRB at KSC Visitor Complex
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Griffin comments on analysis paralysis and risk tolerance
« Reply #22 on: 07/14/2009 08:25 PM »
I think once problems began cropping up with Ares I, such as thrust oscillation and then the fact that Ares I would NOT be capable of launching a full fledged Orion Lunar capsule that would carry six people and land on land, then NASA should have started looking for alternative designs, such as DIRECT.

NASA has been wasting time and money to make up for the modifications of Ares I to mitigate the initial design problems and thusly forcing reduction in the capability of the Orion spacecraft to perform as it was originally conceived. These should have been a wake up call to all in NASA and the contractors, that Griffin's Ares I/AresV was not the best way to go and they should have immediately started looking at the alternatives.

But Griffin's stubbornness to continue with Ares I regardless of increasing problems, has been the single most cause of delay and has caused the increased gap we now face in US manned space flight.

Mr. Griffin may have been a "great" engineer, but he was NOT good as a manager/administrator for NASA, nor for the future of the American space program because of his EGO.

If Ares I is the recommendation of the Augustine panel, then the US will have a very much degraded Orion capsule that 1) cannot land on land, 2) cannot be used as an unmanned spacecraft and 3) will not carry six people to the ISS and be a (one craft) lifeboat for the full six person ISS crew, and 4) not to mention many other capabilities that Lockheed Martin was designing Orion to have.


« Last Edit: 07/14/2009 08:26 PM by fredm6463 »

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: Griffin comments on analysis paralysis and risk tolerance
« Reply #23 on: 07/14/2009 10:17 PM »
But Griffin's stubbornness to continue with Ares I regardless of increasing problems, has been the single most cause of delay and has caused the increased gap we now face in US manned space flight.

There are other culpable NASA managers who did not speak up in favor of other suitable solutions that existed before Ares or ESAS or the VSE, in fact the same solutions Griffin supported in May 2003.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6202
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2323
  • Likes Given: 782
Re: Griffin comments on analysis paralysis and risk tolerance
« Reply #24 on: 07/14/2009 11:30 PM »
My unimportant opinion is he believed and continues to believe there is no problem in the world that engineering can not solve.  But sometimes all of the engineering talent in the world will not fix a problem. Sometimes you just have too admit the design is not worth the effort, physics won and move on. Having a large amount of combined experience and harvesting the wisdom of your team is about the only way to avoid getting painted into a corner that has no escape hatch and even then it still happens sometimes, when people get desperate, as in times of war.

I am glad that whole episode is now behind us.

Or, when failure is not an option, success can be very, very expensive...

I prefer "Failure is not an option--it comes standard". 

Any plan that doesn't account for things failing along the way (no big increase in NASA budget, engines or stages weighing more or providing less performance than expected, MSFC being MSFC) is not likely to work very well.

~Jon

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9700
  • Liked: 1411
  • Likes Given: 877
Re: Griffin comments on analysis paralysis and risk tolerance
« Reply #25 on: 07/15/2009 06:14 PM »
The real problem with Ares I isn't the first stage (ATK has a five-segment booster assembled, nearly ready to fire in Utah right now), it isn't really thrust oscillation (that's solvable, though a tough engineering problem).  It is, or will be, J-2X falling short of its original design goals. 
 - Ed Kyle

Do we know for a fact that there is a problem with the J-2X? I know that there was some discussion of this on this forum a few months ago. But I believe that it was never officially confirmed.
« Last Edit: 07/15/2009 06:34 PM by yg1968 »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17811
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 463
  • Likes Given: 4467
Re: Griffin comments on analysis paralysis and risk tolerance
« Reply #26 on: 07/15/2009 08:09 PM »
The real problem with Ares I isn't the first stage (ATK has a five-segment booster assembled, nearly ready to fire in Utah right now), it isn't really thrust oscillation (that's solvable, though a tough engineering problem).  It is, or will be, J-2X falling short of its original design goals. 
 - Ed Kyle

Do we know for a fact that there is a problem with the J-2X? I know that there was some discussion of this on this forum a few months ago. But I believe that it was never officially confirmed.

Yes it is certain. Chris wrote up about it (don't ask me with dial-up to find it, please). ISP took a hit for sure (from 448.2 vac to 445.0 sec), and schedule delays aren't helping.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Online Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Griffin comments on analysis paralysis and risk tolerance
« Reply #27 on: 07/15/2009 08:26 PM »
Pride goeth before the fall.  But ego never knows when to stop.

Would someone please serve this guy a big helping of STFU already?

Mark S.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9700
  • Liked: 1411
  • Likes Given: 877
Re: Griffin comments on analysis paralysis and risk tolerance
« Reply #28 on: 07/15/2009 09:35 PM »
The real problem with Ares I isn't the first stage (ATK has a five-segment booster assembled, nearly ready to fire in Utah right now), it isn't really thrust oscillation (that's solvable, though a tough engineering problem).  It is, or will be, J-2X falling short of its original design goals. 
 - Ed Kyle

Do we know for a fact that there is a problem with the J-2X? I know that there was some discussion of this on this forum a few months ago. But I believe that it was never officially confirmed.

Yes it is certain. Chris wrote up about it (don't ask me with dial-up to find it, please). ISP took a hit for sure (from 448.2 vac to 445.0 sec), and schedule delays aren't helping.

Actually, Chris wrote that he wasn't certain in his article (and I don't believe that it was later confirmed):

Quote
Issues with the Ares I Upper Stage engine, J-2X, have also been noted, although no specific information has been made available due to the classified nature of certain vehicle elements.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/03/aresorion-slipping-18-months-shuttle-extension-upper-hand/
« Last Edit: 07/15/2009 10:18 PM by yg1968 »

Tags: