MarkWhittington writes "Has NASA become a problem for the Obama transition? If one believes a recent story in the Orlando Sentinel, the transition team at NASA, led by former NASA Associate Administrator Lori Garver, is running into some bureaucratic obstruction." Specifically, according to this article NASA Administrator Michael Griffin made calls to aerospace industry executives asking them to stonewall if asked about benefits to be gained by canceling the current US efforts to revisit the moon; we mentioned last month that cutting Aries and Orion is apparently an idea under strong consideration by the Obama transition team.
No worries, mate. If Griffin launched the attack they would have to cut the number of missiles back because they went over budget, the missiles would arrive so late that the cities would have plenty of time to evacuate, and the vast majority of them would either completely miss their target or malfunction before they even left the pad.
From the article:
Michael Griffin, noting that no one on Lori Garver's team has any engineering expertise, suggested that Garver was "not qualified" to judge the Constellation program. Garver will not comment about the conversation, but has hinted that there will be a new administrator chosen at NASA shortly and that there will be change to NASA policy."
Seriously? You wiki link to a dodge? Minus the glaringly obvious choices of Aries [wikipedia.org] the astrology sign, Aries [wikipedia.org] the constellation, Ares [wikipedia.org] the fraking GOD, or the tiny tidbit that there is, in fact, another rocket named Aries [wikipedia.org]. Your wikifu is weak young one.
Well, Bush's line is only the "we gotta get to the moon then mars on the cheap". Griffin is using an idea that's been floating around for about 15 years on his Mars plan, and the Moon plan is just bigger, better Apollo. Griffin has also been a supporter of what Constellation basically is since 1995 (according to Zubrick, The Case for Mars), well before he was even aware there was a Bush line to tow. Most likely, he wants Constellation to happen because the concept is something he feels ownership towards, and doesn't want Obama to get rid of it and divert the money to the black hole known as the education budget.
IANAAE (I am not an aerospace engineer) but to me, Ares looks silly. Solid rocket boosters do not burn smoothly, they have a big problem with thrust oscillation. The designers actually worry that these vibrations will incapacitate or kill the crew.
To quote a real expert...also known as Resonant Burning - described as vortices that shed within the solid rocket motors during combustion due to the shearing of internal flow at propellant discontinuities - the issue relates to when the frequency of thrust oscillations is coincident with the acoustic modes of the motor cavity.
Solids work fine when grouped together with liquid stages, but a single solid booster just seems wrong.
IAAAE (I am an aerospace engineer) and Ares looks silly. Solid rockets should never be used for manned vehicles. The capsule idea is the way to go but the LV is a bad choice IMHO.
Well at least back up your reasons for dismissing the Ares vehicle as "silly."
I'm an aerospace engineer too, but that doesn't necessarily qualify me to opine on the subject of solid rockets.
As YAAE, I think it looks silly for several reasons. The first and most important one: you can't actually test fire the engine you're going to trust your life to! You can inspect it, and you can test the process, but you can't test the actual article. Furthermore, the propellant grain is susceptible to handling damage and manufacturing defects, so there is reason to want to test it. There are cases where solids in proximity to humans are reasonable -- small solid motors for ballistic parachutes, for example. Or signal flares. In those cases, you can reasonably test two or three orders of magnitude more devices than will be tested for Ares (mostly because they're smaller). The other cases where solids are better is where readily storable propellants are required, like for most missiles. That doesn't apply here. (There are plenty of other reasons as well, but I won't bother going into them.)
The mistake that leads to thinking solids are a good choice is comparing them to the SSME and other engines like it as if that was the only alternative. It's not. The best design to compare it to is probably LOX/Kerosene running at a modest chamber pressure, with a pump feed (gas generator cycle) where the pump and its drive system are heavier than they could be, but simpler in design and with more margin (and hence more reliable and cheaper). It doesn't need to be a turbopump -- piston machinery works too. For a large system, though, the turbopump is probably enough lighter to be better, but it should really have more resemblance to industrial turbomachinery than conventional rocket machinery. Yes, that won't hit the maximum possible Isp or mass ratio for the stage. But that isn't as important on a first stage (or really, anywhere you'd consider using a large solid -- even the low-performance LOX/Kero rocket will beat the solid). What is important are things like design cost, manufacturing cost, and reliability.
Michael Griffin is the best thing to happen to NASA since the Apollo program. If Obama cans his ass, he will have lied about everything he said about maintaining the space program.
Well, I will say that Obama has been quite vague on whether he'll keep NASA well funded. It seems like something he's not inclined to do on his own without pressure from the public. On the other hand, the transition team not only asked how much would be saved if the program was canned but also asked how much it would cost to accelerate it, so it looks like they're looking at all options.
That aside, I can't really say that this kind of behavior that should be rewarded or even tolerated in a subordinate. The whole hiding of information and acting like double checking his figures suggests that he's lying about something makes it look like he genuinely has something bad to hide too. I mean, can you imagine keeping *your* job after telling your incoming boss the same thing (and even pressuring business partners to withhold info from him too)?
Even if Obama keeps the program, which I hope he does, Griffin does need to "Go." Right out the door.
If "Griffin is 1000% correct here", that means he's absolutely right on all accounts. You don't have to read much about the Ares program to realize there's more than a little dissent among the ranks about some of the design decisions here. You also seem to equate replacing Griffin, who silences opposition as best as he can through demotions instead of communal discourse, with disbanding the entire space program. Seriously, who makes that kind of absolute?
If we can find a replacement who can listen to the educated engineers who think the program is too risky or that it can be done more efficiently, or if we can efficiently accelerate the whole program, why not do it? Seems to me that there's more than enough disagreement on the entire program that there's room for improvement. Nobody seems to think he's got the right compromise between all the objectives.
Griffin is dead-set on Ares because it is his pet project. He brought it with him from the university think tank that Bush pulled him from. It is not a good architecture, and even now NASA engineers are fighting basic laws of physics to get the thing to fly.
The ESAS committee rubber-stamped Ares because that's what Griffin wanted. It is not the best approach. Especially when they decided to drop the Space Shuttle Main Engine in favor of the RS68 engine due to cost. The RS68 is cheaper, but much less efficient than the SSME. Once they dropped the SSME, they should have convened another committee to re-evaluate all options using the RS68 numbers.
The DIRECT project is where we need to be. Check it out, check the numbers. NASA has been sitting on this for almost three years now. It's ridiculous.
Reliability was not the primary issue. The SSME's are very reliable and have a very good track record. But they are designed to be flown and re-flown for up to 25 missions. And with Ares (or DIRECT or any non-Shuttle rocket), the engines will not be re-used. They will crash into the ocean when the fuel is used up and the stage is disposed of.
But the SSME costs upwards of $60 million each, whereas the RS-68 only costs about $25 million.
Finally, I am not saying that it was the wrong decision to make. I am saying that they should have re-evaluated all options when the main engines were changed out. That decision completely destroyed the basis for the ESAS committee's recommendations.
Griffin may be, as you say, 100% correct here but telling contractors and others to "support Constellation and not discuss alternatives" as well as demanding "mid-level executives from not meeting with the transition team" is INTOLERABLE (from TFA). Considering this comes from an accredited journalist from a reputable news organization (at least I've heard of them previously), their claims of having witnesses, documents and e-mails to back them up should be taken seriously.
Perhaps Griffin is one of the few Bush appointees who isn't corrupt, incompetent or so politically/religiously biased as to commit criminal acts (justice department I'm looking at you). On the other hand considering the absolute disasters this administration has led us into regarding war, international relations, energy policies, the economy, the environment, civil/human rights, politicization of science, corruption of the judiciary, (oh and did I remember the war on terror?) I think anyone with half a brain would look upon anyone Bush would pick with extreme skepticism.
The shuttle HAS been a disaster for the last 25 years. If his plan has decent merit hopefully it will be allowed to continue. Hopefully Obama's team will consider not just the plan itself but the costs of any delay/change to a new one and will make the best choice accordingly. Of course there is a risk that they may not but we did not elect the president of NASA, we elected the PRESIDENT OF THE USA to make these decisions for us. Even as an avid space buff I have to respect that there ARE things more important than NASA. Considering Obama's top level appointments so far I have confidence that they'll do a good job.
If Griffin's plan is good, he will always be known as the one who got the ball rolling and pushed it through difficult and uncertain times. (Maybe he feels so entitled at NASA because under Bush everyone around him WAS an idiot). IF THE ALLEGATIONS from the newspaper ARE TRUE though, he, with his resorting to tactics reminiscent of his other Bushies, has proven that he does not have the character to lead NASA. Let Ares go without him.
The space shuttle has been the most expensive and epic failure in the history of aerospace technology. Not one single rivet from that program should ever be used again.
Don't be such a Drama Queen... The Shuttle program is a screwed up kludge, but, like many screwed up kludges (say, for example, the Internet), you can move forward instead of constantly reinventing the V2. The Shuttle (and it's attendant support programs and staff) work pretty well. Some spectacular failures - both of them directly attributable to managerial decisions gone wrong. But the damn thing actually works.
NASA should work on a next gen system that doesn't use recycled Shuttle components. But that's a long ways away. Orion / Constellation is (are) a reasonable interim solution.
No, they do not. They were originally supposed to be run like airliners, with a cost much lower than expendable rockets. They utterly and completely failed at that goal.
Such stories as Post-its [wikipedia.org] demonstrate that though something may, at the outset, have an intended goal, it's actual best use may be far off that mark.
I hear this argument a lot; "x sucks because it was supposed to be y and it's not". The question is really; is there any utility to x? For what it did, the shuttle program was successful. What it did didn't happen to be what it set out to do, but only a very narrowly defined vision will see that as a failure.
The real tragedy here is how much of the taxpayers' money has been wasted on this lobbyist-driven boondoggle over the decades, and what we could have achieved in space, had we spent that money wisely.
This is also a common refrain, "Think of what we could have done if we spent the money wisely!" What is never included is what else is needed. Money may be a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient - unless you spend orders of magnitude more. Does that seem like a familiar pattern?
NASA has a $17B 2008 budget. Ten times that was dropped by Congress in a tax rebate early this year. More than forty times that was given to the Administration as discretionary bailout spending. Neither of these expenditures is guaranteed to achieve the goal they set out to do, and even if they succeed have no direct permanent benefit to society; forestalling economic collapse is all well and good, but only if you also go in and fix underlying issues.
On the other hand, NASA provides tangible benefits to science, and science has always, in the long run, improved society both culturally and economically. Knowledge gleaned is not lost. As a tax payer, I will far more readily spend $17B a year, even if it's vastly inefficient, for small, tangible scientific advances, than spend ten times that much to cover up major problems in the economy. Nothing is gained by axing NASA, and even less is gained by claiming that NASA is totally and irrevocably useless and has always been.
Long story short: our resource investment in NASA is low, and the claims of it's inefficiency are entirely out of proportion to it's actual inefficiency, meaning that such claims are inherently deceptive.
Today, Griffin replied, calling the charges "simply wrong."
"I am appalled by any accusations of intimidation, and encourage a free and open exchange of information with the contractor community," Griffin said. "I would like to reiterate what I have stated in a previous email to all NASA Officials: we must make every effort to 'lean forward,' to answer questions promptly, openly and accurately."
What is with the entitlement mentality within government? I am sure the article blows what actually happened way out of proportion, but if there *was* any sort of conversation asking industry partners to stonewall, resist, camoflage or otherwise derail the effort to understand the risk/reward of future space efforts, everyone involved within the government should be canned. If I did anything of the sort at my place of work, I'd be out on my ass so quickly!
Massive inefficiency is just how the government works.
This (or a perception of it) is a phenomenon specific to the US (and, apparently, a few other countries such as UK). Governments seems to work quite efficiently in a lot of other countries around the world. Maybe you should fix whatever is wrong with yours, instead of whining about how it's too inefficient to trust it with anything (why even bother having it at all, if it's always counterproductive?).
Any Large organization runs more inefficient then smaller ones (unless the small ones are just poorly managed) Lets take a look at labor. For a small organization say 9 people. 1 Boss at 2x salary and 8 people at x salary. average salary is 1.11x With 0.8888 productivity
Now Here is a larger organization (a Larger Small - Midsize company) 1 Boss at 3x salary 8 Managers at 2x salary 64 Employees at x salary average salary is 1.14x With 0.8767 productivity
Secondly Americans don't want an efficient government, they system was designed to be inefficient on purpose. Efficiencies a trade off from compromise (A good compromise is when both sides are equally unhappy), being too efficient creates a situation where one side wins big and the other side looses big. Also an efficient government can lead to corruption and other evils and dictatorships, which is very dangerous.
Third, if you think your government is efficient then you are probably getting a bunch of propaganda from the government. Say for example some countries are creating record debt for themselves because of socialized healthcare. So the people are happy but there is a fundamental problems that need to be addressed.
Forth American Government is an open government, besides what the conspiracy nuts thinks. You can turn to CSPAN and watch on TV the debate for nearly every bill being passed. So you can see all the problems, while other more closed governments will hide this. Thus seeming more efficient
Actually, I'm Russian, so don't tell me about your "bad" and "inefficient" government. I know what a truly bad and corrupt government is from first-hand experience.
I also have enough European friends to know what a government can be, and I've seen it for myself as well when I studied in NZ for two years.
Massive inefficiency is just how the government works.
Massive inefficiency is how the government works when put in the hands of government-hating people who want to prove just how inefficient government can be. It doesn't have to be that inefficient.
For some reason the submission goes to a site that mentions the original articles appeared at the Orlando sentinel, but doesn't link to the articles. So here they are:
HQ Special: A Message from the NASA Administrator A recent report in the Orlando Sentinel suggested that NASA is not cooperating with members of President-elect Obama's transition team currently working at Headquarters. This report, largely supported by anonymous sources and hearsay, is simply wrong.
I would like to reiterate what I have stated in a previous e-mail to all NASA Officials: we must make every effort to "lean forward," to answer questions promptly, openly and accurately.
We are fully cooperating with transition team members. Since mid-November, the agency has provided 414 documents and 185 responses to 191 requests. There are six outstanding responses, and the agency will meet the deadline for those queries.
Also, we strongly urge full and free cooperation by companies performing work for NASA. I am appalled by any accusations of intimidation, and encourage a free and open exchange of information with the contractor community.
The transition team's work is too important to become mired in unsupported and anonymous allegations. The President-elect's transition team deserves everyone's complete cooperation.
Michael D. Griffin Administrator
Point of contact: David Mould, Office of Public Affairs, 202-358-1898
Obama has nothing against NASA. He has EVERYTHING against Mike (global warming is a myth) Griffin, a known Bush lackey and a incompetent manager. Ask anyone in the know about Orion and Ares and they will tell you while it WILL work, it is horribly designed and way over budget for what it is and its DIRECTLY contributed to Griffin, unlike other unmanned programs that where running before he took over and lost funding due to him and Bush's "lets get a American on Mars without spending any more money" ploy.
Griffins job is canned, he's just drawing out the hanging right now and trying to wrap it in a Obama hates NASA spin, not a Obama hates incompetent Bush republican flunkies spin.
Anything other than the current climate is non-optimal for the current crop of human beings, as the places we live, the technology we utilize, and our very ways of life are a direct response to the local environments we populate. Change that environment, and a *lot* of people will suffer (African drought, anyone?), as they will be maladapted to the new climate.
Of course, humans can change. But when climate change is happening very rapidly (as is the case now), neither we, nor other species, will be able to compensate fast enough, and the results can be devastating.
As such, Griffin's statement is, at best, extremely naive, bordering on ignorant.
It is unfortunate that we've come to this point in American history, but the truth is probably that we can't afford a grandiose space program right now.
NASA will still exist, but the bureaucrats running it need to go. NASA will have a chance at manned space flight, but they need to figure out a way to do it cheaper. The rest of the nation has tightened its belt, the rest of the nation is concerned about the ballooning debt, NASA isn't exempt from the changes.
If I had my choice, I'd much rather see the billions spent on a shuttle launch go toward turning children into future aerospace engineers.
If you spend billions on a shuttle launch you ensure jobs for people who want to go into aerospace. Take the money away from that so you do not have any shuttle launchings and you have pretty much removed it from most people's minds.
I remember growing up in the 80's and the shuttle launches were a big thing. Now it hardly receives any coverage. It would be great to have a president with a mind for the future like JFK. Granted he wasn't perfect but it is better than a rehash of FDR ideas that have put us in the place we are in. That's my $.02. Go ahead and mod me down now.
And the problem is that NASA/etc. focuses so much on inspiring the 3rd graders, yet don't seem to care so much once those kids get to high school and can actually develop that interest into something useful towards their future.
I also taught high school, and you are right that high school kids get left out. But I think it's less the fault of NASA and more the fault of high schools. High school is so rigid and change-adverse that any attempts by an outside agency to come in is usually shot down. This is even more evident with the focus on high stakes testing.
...sadly, I think many slashdotters are going to be disappointed as NASA funding under Obama takes a backseat to a number of other programs that are targeted at much larger domestic constituencies.
If i was an American i would be much more concerned with military spending than with NASA. The various spy organizations and domestic surveillance programs alone makes the NASA budget look like weekly allowence. Add the military spending and NASAs budget is just silly in comparison.
If there is one area where money is spent for nothing its in the military.
We can't just "un-retire the shuttle," mainly because it is a bloated, out-of-date, foam-shedding death trap.
Besides, with everyone talking about creating jobs, how does it make sense to cut NASA hard and put tons of people who are working on Ares out of work?
Here's the thing. The economy ain't so hot (I gno, rite!) so how does it make sense to employ a relatively small number of people at a relatively high salary when that money (one BILLION dollars!) could go to some other project that could influence thousands more workers?
Easy, pull troops out of Iraq. Amazing, I just increased NASA's budget by well, well over 100 fold per year.
In other news where is the rival Jupiter delivery system that scientist and engineers were working on after-hours?
The U.S. didn't "defeat" the Soviet Union. It was just an unsustainable system from the get-go. If the U.S. had never developed any sort of space program beyond launching satellites and ICBM technology; the Soviets would have beat their chests, bragged about their great victories in manned flight, rubbed it in with a few more advancements, then eventually realized that it was a waste of money with little potential and abandoned it. It didn't make any real difference in the end. It was all Korolev could do to get funding for the program in the first place, and he would have lost it quickly if the Americans had simply refused to play ball.
Social Security buys Billions and Billions in Treasury bonds every year for this exact reason. Currently, more money is coming in, then going out, and they hold it in trust. However, congress likes to "borrow" against that money, and give an IOU, so thats going to bite us in the ass too.
Umm, no.
What happens is that the SS revenue is spent on Social Security every year. Then the leftover funds are transferred to the General Fund, in exchange for NO INTEREST T-Bills. Then the money is spent.
When SS needs more money than is coming in every year, they will NOT be able to miraculously redeem those NO INTEREST T-bills. What will happen is that the Government will issue more interest bearing T-Bills to pay the difference. Sort of exactly like the deficit spending they're doing now that people hate so much.
This will continue until and unless the government raises SS taxes on the working people to cover the difference. Which will, of course, happen right away - the government doesn't really want to admit that the "Social Security Trust Fund" is a meaningless example of flim-flammery.
Net effect: we pay taxes, government spends the revenue gained any way it damn well pleases. SS Trust Fund NEVER gets used (because if it were used, we'd realize it's non-existant), and that wall-safe full of NO INTEREST T-Bills just keeps getting fuller till the end of time.
A more reasonable solution is for everyone to support their own parents with the increased money they'll have from not dumping their money into the social security black hole.
Yes, that way whoever has the most kids gets the best retirement. Anybody who reaches old age childless, or whose children die (for example, killed on active service in the armed forces) is clearly a waster who has contributed nothing to society and deserves to be thrown on the scrapheap.
Unless there's a flaw in your argument, of course...
A more reasonable solution is for everyone to support their own parents with the increased money they'll have from not dumping their money into the social security black hole.
If we could rely on people to do what's right in the real world, we wouldn't need government in the first place.
I hate to be an ass... (Score:5, Insightful)
... but if I were Obama, Michael Griffin would be so fricken canned.
Re:I hate to be an ass... (Score:5, Funny)
He can't do that. Peter Griffin has rockets that could be converted into makeshift missiles and used to bombard Washington.
Then Griffin would declare the US disbanded, replaced by a Galactic Empire with Griffin as Emperor.
I say give him the cash to keep him quiet. Better that than we all end up slaving in the Uranium mines on Pluto.
Parent
Re:I hate to be an ass... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I hate to be an ass... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I hate to be an ass... (Score:5, Informative)
Toeing. Not towing. Much less work.
Parent
Re:I hate to be an ass... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? You wiki link to a dodge? Minus the glaringly obvious choices of Aries [wikipedia.org] the astrology sign, Aries [wikipedia.org] the constellation, Ares [wikipedia.org] the fraking GOD, or the tiny tidbit that there is, in fact, another rocket named Aries [wikipedia.org]. Your wikifu is weak young one.
Parent
Re:I hate to be an ass... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I hate to be an ass... (Score:5, Informative)
IANAAE (I am not an aerospace engineer) but to me, Ares looks silly. Solid rocket boosters do not burn smoothly, they have a big problem with thrust oscillation. The designers actually worry that these vibrations will incapacitate or kill the crew.
To quote a real expert...also known as Resonant Burning - described as vortices that shed within the solid rocket motors during combustion due to the shearing of internal flow at propellant discontinuities - the issue relates to when the frequency of thrust oscillations is coincident with the acoustic modes of the motor cavity.
Solids work fine when grouped together with liquid stages, but a single solid booster just seems wrong.
Parent
Re:I hate to be an ass... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I hate to be an ass... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I hate to be an ass... (Score:5, Informative)
As YAAE, I think it looks silly for several reasons. The first and most important one: you can't actually test fire the engine you're going to trust your life to! You can inspect it, and you can test the process, but you can't test the actual article. Furthermore, the propellant grain is susceptible to handling damage and manufacturing defects, so there is reason to want to test it. There are cases where solids in proximity to humans are reasonable -- small solid motors for ballistic parachutes, for example. Or signal flares. In those cases, you can reasonably test two or three orders of magnitude more devices than will be tested for Ares (mostly because they're smaller). The other cases where solids are better is where readily storable propellants are required, like for most missiles. That doesn't apply here. (There are plenty of other reasons as well, but I won't bother going into them.)
The mistake that leads to thinking solids are a good choice is comparing them to the SSME and other engines like it as if that was the only alternative. It's not. The best design to compare it to is probably LOX/Kerosene running at a modest chamber pressure, with a pump feed (gas generator cycle) where the pump and its drive system are heavier than they could be, but simpler in design and with more margin (and hence more reliable and cheaper). It doesn't need to be a turbopump -- piston machinery works too. For a large system, though, the turbopump is probably enough lighter to be better, but it should really have more resemblance to industrial turbomachinery than conventional rocket machinery. Yes, that won't hit the maximum possible Isp or mass ratio for the stage. But that isn't as important on a first stage (or really, anywhere you'd consider using a large solid -- even the low-performance LOX/Kero rocket will beat the solid). What is important are things like design cost, manufacturing cost, and reliability.
Parent
Re:I hate to be an ass... (Score:5, Insightful)
Michael Griffin is the best thing to happen to NASA since the Apollo program. If Obama cans his ass, he will have lied about everything he said about maintaining the space program.
Well, I will say that Obama has been quite vague on whether he'll keep NASA well funded. It seems like something he's not inclined to do on his own without pressure from the public. On the other hand, the transition team not only asked how much would be saved if the program was canned but also asked how much it would cost to accelerate it, so it looks like they're looking at all options.
That aside, I can't really say that this kind of behavior that should be rewarded or even tolerated in a subordinate. The whole hiding of information and acting like double checking his figures suggests that he's lying about something makes it look like he genuinely has something bad to hide too. I mean, can you imagine keeping *your* job after telling your incoming boss the same thing (and even pressuring business partners to withhold info from him too)?
Even if Obama keeps the program, which I hope he does, Griffin does need to "Go." Right out the door.
Parent
Re:I hate to be an ass... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're wrong, flat out wrong.
If "Griffin is 1000% correct here", that means he's absolutely right on all accounts. You don't have to read much about the Ares program to realize there's more than a little dissent among the ranks about some of the design decisions here. You also seem to equate replacing Griffin, who silences opposition as best as he can through demotions instead of communal discourse, with disbanding the entire space program. Seriously, who makes that kind of absolute?
If we can find a replacement who can listen to the educated engineers who think the program is too risky or that it can be done more efficiently, or if we can efficiently accelerate the whole program, why not do it? Seems to me that there's more than enough disagreement on the entire program that there's room for improvement. Nobody seems to think he's got the right compromise between all the objectives.
Parent
These aren't the rockets you're looking for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Griffin is dead-set on Ares because it is his pet project. He brought it with him from the university think tank that Bush pulled him from. It is not a good architecture, and even now NASA engineers are fighting basic laws of physics to get the thing to fly.
The ESAS committee rubber-stamped Ares because that's what Griffin wanted. It is not the best approach. Especially when they decided to drop the Space Shuttle Main Engine in favor of the RS68 engine due to cost. The RS68 is cheaper, but much less efficient than the SSME. Once they dropped the SSME, they should have convened another committee to re-evaluate all options using the RS68 numbers.
The DIRECT project is where we need to be. Check it out, check the numbers. NASA has been sitting on this for almost three years now. It's ridiculous.
www.directlauncher.com [directlauncher.com]
Parent
Re:These aren't the rockets you're looking for... (Score:5, Informative)
Reliability was not the primary issue. The SSME's are very reliable and have a very good track record. But they are designed to be flown and re-flown for up to 25 missions. And with Ares (or DIRECT or any non-Shuttle rocket), the engines will not be re-used. They will crash into the ocean when the fuel is used up and the stage is disposed of.
But the SSME costs upwards of $60 million each, whereas the RS-68 only costs about $25 million.
Finally, I am not saying that it was the wrong decision to make. I am saying that they should have re-evaluated all options when the main engines were changed out. That decision completely destroyed the basis for the ESAS committee's recommendations.
Parent
His alleged behavior is inexcusable (Score:5, Insightful)
Griffin may be, as you say, 100% correct here but telling contractors and others to "support Constellation and not discuss alternatives" as well as demanding "mid-level executives from not meeting with the transition team" is INTOLERABLE (from TFA). Considering this comes from an accredited journalist from a reputable news organization (at least I've heard of them previously), their claims of having witnesses, documents and e-mails to back them up should be taken seriously.
Perhaps Griffin is one of the few Bush appointees who isn't corrupt, incompetent or so politically/religiously biased as to commit criminal acts (justice department I'm looking at you). On the other hand considering the absolute disasters this administration has led us into regarding war, international relations, energy policies, the economy, the environment, civil/human rights, politicization of science, corruption of the judiciary, (oh and did I remember the war on terror?) I think anyone with half a brain would look upon anyone Bush would pick with extreme skepticism.
The shuttle HAS been a disaster for the last 25 years. If his plan has decent merit hopefully it will be allowed to continue. Hopefully Obama's team will consider not just the plan itself but the costs of any delay/change to a new one and will make the best choice accordingly. Of course there is a risk that they may not but we did not elect the president of NASA, we elected the PRESIDENT OF THE USA to make these decisions for us. Even as an avid space buff I have to respect that there ARE things more important than NASA. Considering Obama's top level appointments so far I have confidence that they'll do a good job.
If Griffin's plan is good, he will always be known as the one who got the ball rolling and pushed it through difficult and uncertain times. (Maybe he feels so entitled at NASA because under Bush everyone around him WAS an idiot). IF THE ALLEGATIONS from the newspaper ARE TRUE though, he, with his resorting to tactics reminiscent of his other Bushies, has proven that he does not have the character to lead NASA. Let Ares go without him.
Parent
Re:I hate to be an ass... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't be such a Drama Queen... The Shuttle program is a screwed up kludge, but, like many screwed up kludges (say, for example, the Internet), you can move forward instead of constantly reinventing the V2. The Shuttle (and it's attendant support programs and staff) work pretty well. Some spectacular failures - both of them directly attributable to managerial decisions gone wrong. But the damn thing actually works.
NASA should work on a next gen system that doesn't use recycled Shuttle components. But that's a long ways away. Orion / Constellation is (are) a reasonable interim solution.
Parent
Common Refrains Lacking Insight (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they do not. They were originally supposed to be run like airliners, with a cost much lower than expendable rockets. They utterly and completely failed at that goal.
Such stories as Post-its [wikipedia.org] demonstrate that though something may, at the outset, have an intended goal, it's actual best use may be far off that mark.
I hear this argument a lot; "x sucks because it was supposed to be y and it's not". The question is really; is there any utility to x? For what it did, the shuttle program was successful. What it did didn't happen to be what it set out to do, but only a very narrowly defined vision will see that as a failure.
The real tragedy here is how much of the taxpayers' money has been wasted on this lobbyist-driven boondoggle over the decades, and what we could have achieved in space, had we spent that money wisely.
This is also a common refrain, "Think of what we could have done if we spent the money wisely!" What is never included is what else is needed. Money may be a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient - unless you spend orders of magnitude more. Does that seem like a familiar pattern?
NASA has a $17B 2008 budget. Ten times that was dropped by Congress in a tax rebate early this year. More than forty times that was given to the Administration as discretionary bailout spending. Neither of these expenditures is guaranteed to achieve the goal they set out to do, and even if they succeed have no direct permanent benefit to society; forestalling economic collapse is all well and good, but only if you also go in and fix underlying issues.
On the other hand, NASA provides tangible benefits to science, and science has always, in the long run, improved society both culturally and economically. Knowledge gleaned is not lost. As a tax payer, I will far more readily spend $17B a year, even if it's vastly inefficient, for small, tangible scientific advances, than spend ten times that much to cover up major problems in the economy. Nothing is gained by axing NASA, and even less is gained by claiming that NASA is totally and irrevocably useless and has always been.
Long story short: our resource investment in NASA is low, and the claims of it's inefficiency are entirely out of proportion to it's actual inefficiency, meaning that such claims are inherently deceptive.
Parent
Re:I hate to be an ass... (Score:5, Informative)
This article is pure flame bait, Neither Griffin nor the Transition team have stated that any infighting has been occuring.
In fact the transition team has NASA's full attention, read Griffins Response before you make your kneejerk reactions slashdot:
http://www.space.com/news/081211-nasa-obama-transition.html [space.com]
Parent
Re:I hate to be an ass... (Score:5, Informative)
And Griffins Reply:
Today, Griffin replied, calling the charges "simply wrong."
"I am appalled by any accusations of intimidation, and encourage a free and open exchange of information with the contractor community," Griffin said. "I would like to reiterate what I have stated in a previous email to all NASA Officials: we must make every effort to 'lean forward,' to answer questions promptly, openly and accurately."
Parent
Obstruction == Fired (Score:5, Insightful)
What is with the entitlement mentality within government? I am sure the article blows what actually happened way out of proportion, but if there *was* any sort of conversation asking industry partners to stonewall, resist, camoflage or otherwise derail the effort to understand the risk/reward of future space efforts, everyone involved within the government should be canned. If I did anything of the sort at my place of work, I'd be out on my ass so quickly!
Re:Obstruction == Fired (Score:5, Insightful)
This (or a perception of it) is a phenomenon specific to the US (and, apparently, a few other countries such as UK). Governments seems to work quite efficiently in a lot of other countries around the world. Maybe you should fix whatever is wrong with yours, instead of whining about how it's too inefficient to trust it with anything (why even bother having it at all, if it's always counterproductive?).
Parent
Re:Obstruction == Fired (Score:5, Insightful)
A not uncommon illusion created by distance. The further away from a government you are, the better it seems to work.
Parent
Re:Obstruction == Fired (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Obstruction == Fired (Score:4, Interesting)
Or that is what they tell you...
Any Large organization runs more inefficient then smaller ones (unless the small ones are just poorly managed)
Lets take a look at labor.
For a small organization say 9 people.
1 Boss at 2x salary and 8 people at x salary.
average salary is 1.11x
With 0.8888 productivity
Now Here is a larger organization (a Larger Small - Midsize company)
1 Boss at 3x salary
8 Managers at 2x salary
64 Employees at x salary
average salary is 1.14x
With 0.8767 productivity
Secondly Americans don't want an efficient government, they system was designed to be inefficient on purpose. Efficiencies a trade off from compromise (A good compromise is when both sides are equally unhappy), being too efficient creates a situation where one side wins big and the other side looses big. Also an efficient government can lead to corruption and other evils and dictatorships, which is very dangerous.
Third, if you think your government is efficient then you are probably getting a bunch of propaganda from the government. Say for example some countries are creating record debt for themselves because of socialized healthcare. So the people are happy but there is a fundamental problems that need to be addressed.
Forth American Government is an open government, besides what the conspiracy nuts thinks. You can turn to CSPAN and watch on TV the debate for nearly every bill being passed. So you can see all the problems, while other more closed governments will hide this. Thus seeming more efficient
Parent
Re:Obstruction == Fired (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I'm Russian, so don't tell me about your "bad" and "inefficient" government. I know what a truly bad and corrupt government is from first-hand experience.
I also have enough European friends to know what a government can be, and I've seen it for myself as well when I studied in NZ for two years.
Other questions?
Parent
Re:Obstruction == Fired (Score:4, Insightful)
Massive inefficiency is how the government works when put in the hands of government-hating people who want to prove just how inefficient government can be. It doesn't have to be that inefficient.
Parent
The original articles (Score:5, Informative)
For some reason the submission goes to a site that mentions the original articles appeared at the Orlando sentinel, but doesn't link to the articles. So here they are:
December 11: NASA chief Griffin bucks Obama's transition team [orlandosentinel.com]
and
December 12: NASA chief insists he's cooperating with Obama's team [orlandosentinel.com]
Re:The original articles (Score:5, Informative)
I work at NASA and got this message yesterday:
HQ Special: A Message from the NASA Administrator
A recent report in the Orlando Sentinel suggested that NASA is not cooperating with members of President-elect Obama's transition team currently working at Headquarters. This report, largely supported by anonymous sources and hearsay, is simply wrong.
I would like to reiterate what I have stated in a previous e-mail to all NASA Officials: we must make every effort to "lean forward," to answer questions promptly, openly and accurately.
We are fully cooperating with transition team members. Since mid-November, the agency has provided 414 documents and 185 responses to 191 requests. There are six outstanding responses, and the agency will meet the deadline for those queries.
Also, we strongly urge full and free cooperation by companies performing work for NASA. I am appalled by any accusations of intimidation, and encourage a free and open exchange of information with the contractor community.
The transition team's work is too important to become mired in unsupported and anonymous allegations. The President-elect's transition team deserves everyone's complete cooperation.
Michael D. Griffin
Administrator
Point of contact: David Mould, Office of Public Affairs, 202-358-1898
Parent
Lets get it straight here (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama has nothing against NASA. He has EVERYTHING against Mike (global warming is a myth) Griffin, a known Bush lackey and a incompetent manager. Ask anyone in the know about Orion and Ares and they will tell you while it WILL work, it is horribly designed and way over budget for what it is and its DIRECTLY contributed to Griffin, unlike other unmanned programs that where running before he took over and lost funding due to him and Bush's "lets get a American on Mars without spending any more money" ploy.
Griffins job is canned, he's just drawing out the hanging right now and trying to wrap it in a Obama hates NASA spin, not a Obama hates incompetent Bush republican flunkies spin.
Re:Frankly (Score:5, Insightful)
we don't know what the optimal climate is.
Anything other than the current climate is non-optimal for the current crop of human beings, as the places we live, the technology we utilize, and our very ways of life are a direct response to the local environments we populate. Change that environment, and a *lot* of people will suffer (African drought, anyone?), as they will be maladapted to the new climate.
Of course, humans can change. But when climate change is happening very rapidly (as is the case now), neither we, nor other species, will be able to compensate fast enough, and the results can be devastating.
As such, Griffin's statement is, at best, extremely naive, bordering on ignorant.
Parent
No Money? No Problem! (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA will still exist, but the bureaucrats running it need to go. NASA will have a chance at manned space flight, but they need to figure out a way to do it cheaper. The rest of the nation has tightened its belt, the rest of the nation is concerned about the ballooning debt, NASA isn't exempt from the changes.
If I had my choice, I'd much rather see the billions spent on a shuttle launch go toward turning children into future aerospace engineers.
Re:No Money? No Problem! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No Money? No Problem! (Score:5, Insightful)
And the problem is that NASA/etc. focuses so much on inspiring the 3rd graders, yet don't seem to care so much once those kids get to high school and can actually develop that interest into something useful towards their future.
Parent
Re:No Money? No Problem! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Analogy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Analogy (Score:5, Funny)
theres a car analogy in there somewhere
Parent
NASA Chief "appalled" by these accusations (Score:5, Informative)
This was an easy article to find, that's following up this story... Being on Space.com, it was on Slashdot's side bar... ;)
http://www.space.com/news/081211-nasa-obama-transition.html [space.com]
Sadly (Score:4, Insightful)
...sadly, I think many slashdotters are going to be disappointed as NASA funding under Obama takes a backseat to a number of other programs that are targeted at much larger domestic constituencies.
Griffin's leadership (Score:4, Funny)
You're doing a heck of a job, Griffie!
Nasa is chump change. (Score:5, Insightful)
If i was an American i would be much more concerned with military spending than with NASA. The various spy organizations and domestic surveillance programs alone makes the NASA budget look like weekly allowence. Add the military spending and NASAs budget is just silly in comparison.
If there is one area where money is spent for nothing its in the military.
Re:Tight financial times = time for cuts... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Tight financial times = time for cuts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing. The economy ain't so hot (I gno, rite!) so how does it make sense to employ a relatively small number of people at a relatively high salary when that money (one BILLION dollars!) could go to some other project that could influence thousands more workers?
Easy, pull troops out of Iraq. Amazing, I just increased NASA's budget by well, well over 100 fold per year.
In other news where is the rival Jupiter delivery system that scientist and engineers were working on after-hours?
Parent
Re:Who would have thought? (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA defeated the communist Soviet Union by outspending them in the specific industry of aerospace technology.
Wait, what? Did I miss a piece of history somewhere along the way where the Soviet Union was "beaten", rather than fizzled out?
Parent
Re:Who would have thought? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Who would have thought? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Who would have thought? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:We NEED to cut our spending. (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm, no.
What happens is that the SS revenue is spent on Social Security every year. Then the leftover funds are transferred to the General Fund, in exchange for NO INTEREST T-Bills. Then the money is spent.
When SS needs more money than is coming in every year, they will NOT be able to miraculously redeem those NO INTEREST T-bills. What will happen is that the Government will issue more interest bearing T-Bills to pay the difference. Sort of exactly like the deficit spending they're doing now that people hate so much.
This will continue until and unless the government raises SS taxes on the working people to cover the difference. Which will, of course, happen right away - the government doesn't really want to admit that the "Social Security Trust Fund" is a meaningless example of flim-flammery.
Net effect: we pay taxes, government spends the revenue gained any way it damn well pleases. SS Trust Fund NEVER gets used (because if it were used, we'd realize it's non-existant), and that wall-safe full of NO INTEREST T-Bills just keeps getting fuller till the end of time.
Parent
Re:We NEED to cut our spending. (Score:5, Insightful)
A more reasonable solution is for everyone to support their own parents with the increased money they'll have from not dumping their money into the social security black hole.
Yes, that way whoever has the most kids gets the best retirement. Anybody who reaches old age childless, or whose children die (for example, killed on active service in the armed forces) is clearly a waster who has contributed nothing to society and deserves to be thrown on the scrapheap.
Unless there's a flaw in your argument, of course...
Parent
Re:We NEED to cut our spending. (Score:4, Insightful)
A more reasonable solution is for everyone to support their own parents with the increased money they'll have from not dumping their money into the social security black hole.
If we could rely on people to do what's right in the real world, we wouldn't need government in the first place.
Parent