Michael Griffin's Nutty Response is Up.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26756

Clearly this guy needs to go, and soon.

On Jan 23, 10:56*am, kT wrote:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26756

Clearly this guy needs to go, and soon.

The phrase, "...utilizing ISS if it makes sense", is most puzzling.

Why are we building something if we question it's utilization?! We
better start seeing sense in ISS and fast!

Eric Chomko wrote:

On Jan 23, 10:56 am, kT wrote:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26756

Clearly this guy needs to go, and soon.

The phrase, "...utilizing ISS if it makes sense", is most puzzling.

Why are we building something if we question it's utilization?! We
better start seeing sense in ISS and fast!

That would involve growing plants in space, apparently, or building a
launch vehicle capable of reaching it, with very high launch rates.

The whole paper is a classic exercise in delusional thinking.

Not that George W. Bush gave him much to work with.

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 10:56 am, kT wrote:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26756

Clearly this guy needs to go, and soon.

The phrase, "...utilizing ISS if it makes sense", is most puzzling.

Why are we building something if we question it's utilization?! We
better start seeing sense in ISS and fast!

How about the parts where he talks about commercial access to ISS, only to
later confirm that part of the reason the Ares I/Ares V architecture was
chosen was so flights to ISS wouldn't be using a launch vehicle that's far
too big for the job!

How are potential investors going to view putting *their* money into
commercial access to ISS when NASA's next generation launch vehicle, Ares I,
has been chosen partly because it is best suited to launching Orion to ISS?

This was part of his discussion of why the small/big launcher architecture,
for lunar missions, was chosen over a dual (identical launcher) launch
architecture. In other words, why an approach similar to DIRECT was not
chosen.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

Treading water in case new President cancels everything and alters the
goals?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 10:56 am, kT wrote:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26756

Clearly this guy needs to go, and soon.

The phrase, "...utilizing ISS if it makes sense", is most puzzling.

Why are we building something if we question it's utilization?! We
better start seeing sense in ISS and fast!

How about the parts where he talks about commercial access to ISS, only to
later confirm that part of the reason the Ares I/Ares V architecture was
chosen was so flights to ISS wouldn't be using a launch vehicle that's far
too big for the job!

How are potential investors going to view putting *their* money into
commercial access to ISS when NASA's next generation launch vehicle, Ares
I, has been chosen partly because it is best suited to launching Orion to
ISS?

This was part of his discussion of why the small/big launcher
architecture, for lunar missions, was chosen over a dual (identical
launcher) launch architecture. In other words, why an approach similar to
DIRECT was not chosen.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

On Wednesday 23 January 2008 15:35, Jeff Findley wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:56 am, kT wrote:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26756

How about the parts where he talks about commercial access to ISS, only to
later confirm that part of the reason the Ares I/Ares V architecture was
chosen was so flights to ISS wouldn't be using a launch vehicle that's far
too big for the job!

How are potential investors going to view putting *their* money into
commercial access to ISS when NASA's next generation launch vehicle, Ares
I, has been chosen partly because it is best suited to launching Orion to
ISS?

... This lesser requirement [of LEO] is one that, in my judgment,
can be met today by a bold commercial developer, operating without
the close oversight of the U.S. government, with the goal of
offering transportation for cargo and crew to LEO on a
fee-for-service basis.

... enabling the development of commercial space transportation to
LEO - that can be met if we in government are willing to create a
protected niche for it. To provide that niche, we must set the
requirements for the next-generation government spaceflight system
at the lunar-transportation level, well above the LEO threshold.

Now again, common sense dictates that we cannot hold the ISS
hostage to fortune; we cannot gamble the fate of a
multi-tens-of-billions-of-dollar facility on the success of a
commercial operation, so the CEV must be able to operate
efficiently in LEO if necessary. But we can create a clear
financial incentive for commercial success, based on the financial
disincentive of using government transportation to LEO at what
will be an inherently higher price.

Ares I is backup in case those commercial capabilities don't
materialize. Ares is purposely optimized for the moon to leave a
niche for commercial ventures.

-paul-

Paul E. Black wrote:

Ares I is

a result of Micheal Griffin's ego.

It has no other quantifiable redeeming characteristics.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:34:13 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Paul E.
Black" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Ares I is backup in case those commercial capabilities don't
materialize. Ares is purposely optimized for the moon to leave a
niche for commercial ventures.

It is not in any way optimized for the moon. Its mission is to deliver
Orion to LEO. The Orion gets to the moon via an Ares V.

"Paul E. Black" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday 23 January 2008 15:35, Jeff Findley wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:56 am, kT wrote:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26756

How about the parts where he talks about commercial access to ISS, only
to
later confirm that part of the reason the Ares I/Ares V architecture was
chosen was so flights to ISS wouldn't be using a launch vehicle that's
far
too big for the job!

How are potential investors going to view putting *their* money into
commercial access to ISS when NASA's next generation launch vehicle, Ares
I, has been chosen partly because it is best suited to launching Orion to
ISS?

... This lesser requirement [of LEO] is one that, in my judgment,
can be met today by a bold commercial developer, operating without
the close oversight of the U.S. government, with the goal of
offering transportation for cargo and crew to LEO on a
fee-for-service basis.

... enabling the development of commercial space transportation to
LEO - that can be met if we in government are willing to create a
protected niche for it. To provide that niche, we must set the
requirements for the next-generation government spaceflight system
at the lunar-transportation level, well above the LEO threshold.

Now again, common sense dictates that we cannot hold the ISS
hostage to fortune; we cannot gamble the fate of a
multi-tens-of-billions-of-dollar facility on the success of a
commercial operation, so the CEV must be able to operate
efficiently in LEO if necessary. But we can create a clear
financial incentive for commercial success, based on the financial
disincentive of using government transportation to LEO at what
will be an inherently higher price.

Ares I is backup in case those commercial capabilities don't
materialize. Ares is purposely optimized for the moon to leave a
niche for commercial ventures.

Not really. Optimization for the lunar mission would give you two launches
on an identical launch vehicle. Here's what Griffin said:

However, the decision to employ EOR in the lunar transportation
architecture implies nothing about how the payload should be
split. Indeed, the most obvious split involves launching two
identical vehicles with approximately equal payloads, mating
them in orbit, and proceeding to the Moon. When EOR was
considered for Apollo, it was this method that was to be employed,
and it offers several advantages. Non-recurring costs are lower
because only one launch vehicle development is required,
recurring costs are amortized over a larger number of flights of
a single vehicle, and the knowledge of system reliability is
enhanced by the more rapid accumulation of flight experience.

However, this architectural approach carries significant
liabilities when we consider the broader requirements of the
policy framework discussed earlier. As with the single-launch
architecture, dual-launch EOR of identical vehicles is vastly
overdesigned for ISS logistics. It is one thing to design a
lunar transportation system and, if necessary, use it to service
ISS while accepting some reduction in cost-effectiveness relative
to a system optimized for LEO access. As noted earlier, such a
plan backstops the requirement to sustain ISS without offering
government competition in what we hope will prove to be a
commercial market niche. But it is quite another thing to render
government logistics support to ISS so expensive that the Station
is immediately judged to be not worth the cost of its support.
Dual- launch EOR with vehicles of similar payload class does not
meet the requirement to support the ISS in any sort of
cost-effective manner.

In other words, they'll buy commercial flights to ISS, but they also chose
Ares I and Ares V over a single middle-sized launch vehicle (lower
development and fixed costs than Ares I and Ares V) in order to provide more
cost effective ISS support using Orion.

To me this is all backwards. If they took the single launch vehicle route
(i.e. similar to DIRECT), then they'd have more incentive to buy commercial
flights to ISS since they'd be far cheaper than a single flight of a
dual-SRB shuttle derived launch vehicle.

Griffin does go on to even greater B.S.:

On the other end of the scale, we must judge any proposed
architecture against the requirements for Mars. We aren't
going there now, but one day we will, and it will be within
the expected operating lifetime of the system we are
designing today. We know already that, when we go, we are
going to need a Mars ship with a LEO mass equivalent of
about a million pounds, give or take a bit. I'm trying for
one-significant-digit accuracy here, but think "Space
Station", in terms of mass.

The US won't be going to Mars for decades. A Mars mission won't happen for
decades, if it ever does. Why worry about that now? If you chose a dual
launch lunar architecture, you could still upgrade it in the future (the
DIRECT proposal outlines several future growth options).

But, I personally don't believe NASA ought to be building *any* shuttle
derived launch vehicle. But if they must, it should be one, not two.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

Clearly this guy needs to go, and soon.

because....

The phrase, "...utilizing ISS if it makes sense", is most puzzling.

not using it if doesn't make sense. Puzzling for what reason?

Why are we building something if we question its [utility]?

The main question that ISS answers is whether or not we are able to build a
space station. To date the astronauts spend most of their time
troubleshooting software and working on the environmental systems, etc.

! We
better start seeing sense in ISS and fast!

good idea


How about the parts where he talks about commercial access to ISS, only
to later confirm that part of the reason the Ares I/Ares V architecture
was chosen was so flights to ISS wouldn't be using a launch vehicle
that's far too big for the job!

Well yeah ...$500 million per launch on STS adds up.

How are potential investors going to view putting *their* money into
commercial access to ISS when NASA's next generation launch vehicle, Ares
I, has been chosen partly because it is best suited to launching Orion to
ISS?

Yeah I dunno. I think the Russians would have a better $ deal.
Commercialization of space is probably the latest buzz word.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com