In Leaked Email, NASA Chief Vents On Shuttle Program's End 424
jerryasher writes "In a leaked memo, NASA Administrator Mike Griffin discusses 'the jihad' to prematurely terminate the Shuttle and what that means for the International Space Station. One implication: there may come a long interval when only our Russian Allies are aboard the Space Station. Add that bit of irony to your new cold war kit and then wonder why Griffin discusses why we wouldn't sabotage the Space Station, and how and why the memo got leaked in the first place."
So let's stop faffing around (Score:4, Interesting)
And get something new and awesomer in the skies to replace it.
Something that could get people going wow again would be nice.
Re:Source of leak? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And he's absolutely right (Score:4, Interesting)
You can not realistically budget the fact that alot the people that made parts for the space shuttle have already changed jobs because of a mandated stop in orders. Any company that exclusivly worked building components itself either retooled the machines, sold them off or more unlikely left them taking up costly space in storage.
You would need to wave one hell of a magical wand to reverse changing your mind at this point. Its along the lines of saying to 'Just use the same rockets.' to get to space and to the moon that were used previously before the space shuttle.
Except the capacity to do that was also mandated to end in order to bring online shuttle. Deja vu.
Pfft, more misdirection (Score:1, Interesting)
It's hard to sift what's really going on anymore..
This is the same Mike Griffin that has advocated shutting down manned space programs for AGES..
Re:And he's absolutely right (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be akin to pumping money into the Wright Brothers in the hopes of getting the 747 faster. The problem isn't that SpaceX lacks cash, the problem is that they aren't anywhere near a booster to replace the Soyuz let alone a capsule to replace the Soyuz. (Yes, the Russians call the booster 'Soyuz' and the capsule 'Soyuz'.)
Gotta wonder what affect the election will have? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a serious question since McCain has already said the Russians should be thrown out of the G8 Summit. How likely is he going to be to continue cooperating with the Russians or how happy are they going to be dealing with some one that speaks openly against them? The Cold War is coming back at a very bad time for the ISS.
Re:So let's stop faffing around (Score:5, Interesting)
"Why do it now? Why not let the next administration decide?"
Because the problem is so large, and such an emergency, that it /must/ be dealt with right now. Word is that that without the bailout, we had two weeks before the shit hit the fan.
It's true what's been said, that Fannie and Freddie were "too big to fail." Failure without a buyout would have caused...utter chaos - literally runs on the banks not seen since 1929.
And I'm not kidding about criminal lack of oversight. We already know the books were cooked over there to make things look rosier than they were.
The CEOs of Fannie and Freddie lost their jobs because of that. BFD. They probably deserve jail time, but I won't hold my breath.
I lived through the RISDIC crisis, and this is the same stuff, just writ REALLY LARGE. 9 percent of all home loans, nationally, in arrears or in default? What? Here in Rhode Island, it's 32 percent. Apparently that's for real, and this stuff has just started. Trust me, this has just started.
And we still want to go to Mars. Har. Unlikely.
--
BMO
Re:And he's absolutely right (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:And he's absolutely right (Score:5, Interesting)
We're talking about the ISS not ICBMs, please refrain from randomly changing the subject unless your desire is to amuse me with your incompetence. You know that floating pierce of crap that was mainly created to let multiple nations work together and has been heavily outsourced to Russia already?
The ISS was by design a joint project and otherwise idiotic design decisions were made for that reason. The Russians have provided support not only as part of the normal design but also during times when the shuttle fleet was grounded. The Russians also own part of the station and will own even more of it once it's finished (the European and Japanese likewise own other parts of the station).
If they US didn't want to outsource the ISS then they shouldn't have made it a joint project.
My problem with the article (Score:1, Interesting)
Having lived through one such gap in my lifetime I have to say they seem brief at first, but can extend some. A lot more than you would think at first.
It is not acceptable to me to surrender U.S. spaceflight capability. Not for one minute. Not for 12 years. Not at all. Dammit do we have to let the rest of the world own space? Did you hear? There's a lot more space in space than there is land on land. And more resources. There are entire moons made of hydrocarbons. And the conquering of space leads to us learning valuable lessons that help everyone stuck to this ball of mud. And then there's that whole "an 8' length of rebar dropped from low earth orbit can destroy any tank ever made" thing.
Hey, I heard that a retail 12 megapixel camera attached to a retail telescope can, from orbit, discriminate objects as small as fingerprints, and that advanced video analysis software can identify an individual by his gait if not by his impossible-to-mask facial features. Doesn't that make you wonder what the kind or money that launches stuff into orbit could buy? Could they scan you for cancer? Do I have your attention yet?
Obligatory Toynbee Tiles [blogspot.com] reference. If you don't know what they are, it behooves you to find out.
I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but no. Just no. We will not surrender space. It is not in our national interest to do so. If the odds of survival are 1:9 we'll still have enough volunteers that filtering them is the biggest challenge of the endeavor. Money is not an issue.
Re:So let's stop faffing around (Score:5, Interesting)
"Somehow, I suppose the occupation of Iraq must be profitable after all, otherwise it would only be logical to withdraw troops from there. Same for Afghanistan."
We need a -1 Naive tag.
You need to read up on the Project for a New American Century.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm [newamericancentury.org]
Please note the date.
Please note who the members of PNAC are and who signed the Mission Statement.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm [newamericancentury.org]
Let me know when you finish screaming.
--
BMO
We might not sabotage the ISS... (Score:2, Interesting)
Might the Russians decide to sabotage the ISS? How badly do they need us to keep the thing running? Sounds like they don't need us at all.
Here's a wacky idea so bear with me. Could the Russians "steal" the ISS? They have the capability to dock with the ISS but we will not (without their cooperation) between 2011 and 2014. That date of our being unable to reach the station may come sooner if Russia becomes even less "friendly" and the date we can reach the station might be pushed back because of technical difficulties, further budget diversions, etc.
What would they do with the ISS if given free reign over its operation for four years? What COULD they do with the ISS in four years? They could arm it. They could turn it into a spying platform. They could let it rot and fall into the ocean.
I'm sure someone is thinking, why would they arm it? What could they possibly shoot from orbit that they can't already shoot from the ground? If they start to militarize it as a platform for spying then it becomes a target. They might feel the need to put an anti missile defense system to keep the US Navy from putting a SM-3 in a coincident orbit.
That's all crazy talk. The Russians would never use ISS as a military platform, right?
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No. If it did... (Score:2, Interesting)
I have a few problem with the way that anonymous sources are frequently used.
The first problem I have is that anonymous sources are frequently used as a shorthand for "I'm lazy." You can't read a news story these days without seeing an anonymous source in there. And that is, I suspect, because the anonymous source is the first and only person the reporter talked to. Probably there are people who'd be willing to go on record with the same information, but the reporter doesn't even bother to look for them.
The second problem is a consequence of the laziness: modern reporters stop asking questions when they get the answers they want. Sometimes, those answers are ones which reinforce their own beliefs. More often, it's the answers which are "higher impact" or "more newsworthy." In other words, the anonymous source who claims that this is all a big political conspiracy with accompanying coverup gets published. Unfortunately, because the source is "a high-ranking government official who asked not to be named," you don't know that the information comes from a low-level bureaucrat who was just passed over for promotion because everyone thinks he's crazy.
Which brings me to the meta-problem: With anonymous sources, you have to trust that the reporter will be skeptical of his source and try to find ways to prove him wrong. How many reporters do you think actually do that?
In all honesty, anonymous sources are a terrible idea which should never have been allowed to happen. Yes, they were valuable with Watergate. But as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. The mere fact that anonymous sources aren't always full of shit and complete lies -- by either the reporter or his source, and I don't know which is more common -- does not in any way suggest that they are, on the whole, beneficial.
Seriously, look at how little it takes to get a bald-faced lie into print these days. I'll choose an example likely to be popular on Slashdot. Someone from McCain's group calls up a reporter from Fox News. The McCain person says "Run a story saying that Obama has an illegitimate child in Kenya." The FNC person does it, claiming "a high-level source with personal knowledge of the candidate, who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter." (Note: The description of the source and his reason for anonymity is strictly true.) Then CNN, CBS, et al. pick up the story, quoting FNC as the source. It ends up one of those unchallengeable lies, where Obama can deny (honestly) until he's blue in the face, but many people will never believe him. And because CNN, CBS, et al. don't know who the source is, they can't challenge him themselves. Only FNC knows the source, and since they're part of the game to begin with, they surely won't challenge him.
This is the sort of thing which you get when you allow anonymous sources. It happens a hell of a lot more often than the Watergate kind, and I believe that, on the whole, it outweighs the occasional benefits.
Re:Source of leak? (Score:3, Interesting)
Err... Are you completely ignoring emotional harm and mental health?
Re:Source of leak? (Score:3, Interesting)
You are talking to the wrong person. I am not one to be easily offended. I, however, am not the majority of society. I'd suggest that you spend a few days walking around calling every woman you see "cum dumpster" (to her face) including your time at work. Lemme know how that works out for you.
Re:Deregulation caused the crisis. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So let's stop faffing around (Score:1, Interesting)
"And we still want to go to Mars. Har. Unlikely."
When did we become so pathetic that:
a) We think we are the only ones/nation that can go to Mars. You act like the US was the first to launch a satellite into space (we should have been, see Goddard and the dates of his experiments/engineering). China will probably get there before anyone, and, well, I'd rather live in the US from a government, political, and environment standpoint even if we don't get there at all.
b) Depend so greatly on government that only government spending will get us there any time soon?
c) Don't think we could go now? With the level of ingenuity and knowledge at NASA, we should have been there during this or the prior administration; there has been a general lack of really wanting to on a leadership level. It really has little to do with budget, except to use the budget as a tool of blame. Even without the war, we wouldn't be so far ahead of where we are now.
On (c), I seem to recall several ideas years ago that were possible then. We just don't really want to go. The robots are fine for now.
Re:Fannie Mae Democrat Blame (Score:1, Interesting)
Far be it from me to question the impartiality and objectivity of the Journal's OpEd (web) pages, but this is basically bollocks.
What Democrats have been resisting is efforts to deregulate Mae/Mac even more. Given how well deregulating the rest of the mortgage market has worked, they seem to be right in doing so.
Paulson is right, though. Mae/Mac should either be 100% public or 100% private. Any quasi-public scheme where the stockholders reap all the profits while the taxpayers assume all the risk is going to end badly for the latter.
Re:Safer? (Score:4, Interesting)
I strongly disagree with the sentiment that a reusable vehicle capable of spaceflight is something impossible to design.
I would agree, however, that the Shuttle should have been kept as a prototype and have gone through several more revisions since its original development. Furthermore, relying upon only a single vehicle type was a massive mistake for NASA and should never have happened... at least beyond the initial deployment of the Columbia and perhaps the Challenger.
Vehicles like the DC-X, Dynasoar, and a whole bunch of other failed NASA designs... many of which never even made it beyond a paper study, even though some of them had actual hardware built as well.... should have either received more political support or at least should have been deployed between the early 1980's and today. Unfortunately, the last manned spacecraft design to make it into space that came from a NASA engineer/designer was the Space Shuttle... and that was originally drawn up in the 1960's by Von Braun's shop in Huntsville even though Von Braun wasn't directly responsible for it. At least they were real rocket scientists who had flown actual hardware before they made that design.
Re:Engineering (Score:3, Interesting)
STS was a good idea that became compromised. Almost all of the original concepts had the external tank as an actual vehicle itself with wings and the main engines mounted on it. The orbiter was generally on top or ahead of the tank/carrier in a safer position than it is on the STS.
Note also that in the two STS accidents the crew cabin emerged from the initial failure mainly intact. Both times. There is no reason why a detachable crew cabin couldn't be designed that would rocket away from a failing orbiter. Even in the hypersonic regime the cabin would protect the astronauts until the altitude and speed were low enough for ejection.
My point is that a lot of knowledge and technology has been developed by the shuttle program. At great expense in dollars and lives. People know why it's expensive (probably due to onerous maintenance and overhaul, plus paperwork introduced for CYA purposes after Challenger) and a follow-on program would be able to fix the expense and safety problems.
Maybe I'm just one of those people who gets annoyed when logical solutions are avoided because they are hard.
At MSFC, they think they're Cold Warriors. (Score:4, Interesting)
When I went down to Marshall Space Flight Centre last year, I saw it all laid bare. NASA is still stuck in the Cold War.
All the presentations were highly nationalistic, and the histories omit the Russians except as adversaries. The TVs at the cafeteria were set to Fox News. And in private moments, the engineers are still griping about the switch to metric units for the Ares rocket. Some of them don't even know what a Newton is!
I don't know why NASA continues to persist in this mindset, but it's not going to help them in their long-term goals.
Re:allowing speech is hard (Score:2, Interesting)
off topic
This is VERY off topic, but I think he mentioned something about baselessness. It looks like you believe anything your talk-radio buddies tell you. So far I've heard nothing but the truth from real liberals I know about Palin (she's a hockey-mom who went from small town mayor to big, rich state governor, she's young and pretty, she is for Republican big government -- anti-abortion, pro-big-military, pro-jail-for-anyone-but-her-friends).
He also commented that things like "I think" are used a lot by rabid Republicans to avoid being trapped in lies. I would also add the phrase "tried to" seems to show up a lot. And the idea that criticizing any powerful group is usually going to result in being compared to something nefarious -- in some cases BROWNSHIRTS -- of course, people who were alive back then know that the BROWNSHIRTS were not criticizing the powers that be, THEY WERE THE POWERS THAT BE and did a lot more than just exercise their free speech. One more inconvenient truth that talk-radio seems to be able to ignore with ease.
Re:allowing speech is hard (Score:3, Interesting)
You haven't made any partisan attacks. The GGP did. Your points are pretty much dead on.
As for your idea of tax cuts... a cut in taxes do not mean a cut in revenue. (See Laffer Curve) Government tax receipts since Bush's tax cuts have been at an all time high. Unfortunately, government spending is at an all time... er... higher. I think that McCain looked at the numbers and said, "Well, what do you know! Tax cuts can mean more revenue." and changed his position. Besides, an economic downturn, or more accurately, slow-down in growth, is not the best time to raise taxes. Taxes need to be raised when the economy is growing out of control causing inflation.
As for Palin, yeah, she's not perfect. But her record is not bad. I would even say that she has one of the best records for any governor in the country. Alaska loves her and she does have a solid record of reform. She is not at all partisan and to truly want what is best, regardless of what party is behind the idea.
Re:allowing speech is hard (Score:3, Interesting)
What made the Republican read like a Nazi convention is the fact that the crowds would cheer anything put out to them. If the tone sounded sufficiently 'American' they were on their feet cheering.
Whether it was hateful, sarcastic, dishonest stuff about the Democrats, Palin's pregnant daughter or McCain telling them that THEY had failed for 8 years. Didn't matter. As long as the inflection, followed by a cheering crowd, made for an impression of 'enthusiasm', they were cheering away.
Very little content. Much of it misleading or outright dishonest. But lots of cheering.
Scary
P.S. The Dems had a lot of showbiz unity too, but they are in fact unified in their policy proposals. And, of course, they haven't gone all Orwellian with language in any way comparable to the 'up is down' Republicans.