Griffin on Loss of U.S. Space Leadership

I am puzzled by Griffin's House committee statement of 2/16/06.

In it ("http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19658")

He says:

"There are several reasons not to delay the CEV further. First and
foremost is increased risk to the Vision due to an extended gap
in our Nation's ability to launch humans into space. ... A longer
gap in U.S. human spaceflight capabilities will increase risk and
overall costs and lead to even more delays. In addition, the U.S.
may risk a perceived, if not a real, loss of leadership in space
exploration if we are unable to launch our astronauts into space
for an extended period when other nations are establishing or
building on their own abilities to do so."

During the same presentation, Griffin said:

"NASA needed to take budgeted funds from the Science and
Exploration budget projections for FY 2007-11 in order to ensure
that enough funds were available to the Space Shuttle and the
ISS. Thus, NASA cannot afford the costs of starting some new
space science missions, like a mission to Jupiter's moon Europa,
or the nextgeneration space astrophysics missions beyond the
James Webb Space Telescope, at this time."

In my opinion, the only "leadership" that the U.S. currently
provides in space is in the unmanned science and exploration
efforts that Griffin is proposing to gut. The U.S. long ago lost
its leadership position in manned spaceflight to Russia, which
for the past several years has provided the only seat-rides to
orbit. The International Space Station itself is built around a
Russian core.

It seems to me that Griffin's plans will simply eliminate U.S.
unmanned space science leadership for the return of only
getting NASA back on a par with the Russians in manned
flight.

A better approach, IMO, would have been to shut shuttle
down three years ago. A slightly less better approach
might be to shut it down now.

- Ed Kyle

Do You know Holly?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 17 Feb 2006 12:13:21 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In my opinion, the only "leadership" that the U.S. currently
provides in space is in the unmanned science and exploration
efforts that Griffin is proposing to gut. The U.S. long ago lost
its leadership position in manned spaceflight to Russia, which
for the past several years has provided the only seat-rides to
orbit. The International Space Station itself is built around a
Russian core.

Well, that may be your opinion, but it's obviously not the opinion of
Griffin's audience on the Hill. Most people in Washington apparently
consider a fancy hangar queen to be superior to less-capable vehicles
that are actually being flown, and that having such hangar queens
demonstrates "leadership."

What I don't understand is why we aren't rushing an unmanned mission
to the lunar poles to resolve the water issue ASAP. It seems to me
that exploration architecture plans would be strongly driven by the
answer to that question.

I think She is USAF Officer Randomly "working" in USA +?

"finite systems" wrote in message
news:ImrJf.34464$B94.17248@pd7tw3no...

Do You know Holly?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 17 Feb 2006 12:13:21 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In my opinion, the only "leadership" that the U.S. currently
provides in space is in the unmanned science and exploration
efforts that Griffin is proposing to gut. The U.S. long ago lost
its leadership position in manned spaceflight to Russia, which
for the past several years has provided the only seat-rides to
orbit. The International Space Station itself is built around a
Russian core.

Well, that may be your opinion, but it's obviously not the opinion of
Griffin's audience on the Hill. Most people in Washington apparently
consider a fancy hangar queen to be superior to less-capable vehicles
that are actually being flown, and that having such hangar queens
demonstrates "leadership."

What I don't understand is why we aren't rushing an unmanned mission
to the lunar poles to resolve the water issue ASAP. It seems to me
that exploration architecture plans would be strongly driven by the
answer to that question.

She is said to make 8 +? this year but is at a Networking - 29 + Just for
1?

"finite systems" wrote in message
news:eqrJf.34499$B94.30536@pd7tw3no...

I think She is USAF Officer Randomly "working" in USA +?

"finite systems" wrote in message
news:ImrJf.34464$B94.17248@pd7tw3no...

Do You know Holly?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 17 Feb 2006 12:13:21 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In my opinion, the only "leadership" that the U.S. currently
provides in space is in the unmanned science and exploration
efforts that Griffin is proposing to gut. The U.S. long ago lost
its leadership position in manned spaceflight to Russia, which
for the past several years has provided the only seat-rides to
orbit. The International Space Station itself is built around a
Russian core.

Well, that may be your opinion, but it's obviously not the opinion of
Griffin's audience on the Hill. Most people in Washington apparently
consider a fancy hangar queen to be superior to less-capable vehicles
that are actually being flown, and that having such hangar queens
demonstrates "leadership."

What I don't understand is why we aren't rushing an unmanned mission
to the lunar poles to resolve the water issue ASAP. It seems to me
that exploration architecture plans would be strongly driven by the
answer to that question.

I Don't know?

Casper

"finite systems" wrote in message
news:xsrJf.34440$sa3.32186@pd7tw1no...

She is said to make 8 +? this year but is at a Networking - 29 + Just for
1?

"finite systems" wrote in message
news:eqrJf.34499$B94.30536@pd7tw3no...

I think She is USAF Officer Randomly "working" in USA +?

"finite systems" wrote in message
news:ImrJf.34464$B94.17248@pd7tw3no...

Do You know Holly?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 17 Feb 2006 12:13:21 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a
way as to indicate that:

In my opinion, the only "leadership" that the U.S. currently
provides in space is in the unmanned science and exploration
efforts that Griffin is proposing to gut. The U.S. long ago lost
its leadership position in manned spaceflight to Russia, which
for the past several years has provided the only seat-rides to
orbit. The International Space Station itself is built around a
Russian core.

Well, that may be your opinion, but it's obviously not the opinion
of
Griffin's audience on the Hill. Most people in Washington
apparently
consider a fancy hangar queen to be superior to less-capable
vehicles
that are actually being flown, and that having such hangar queens
demonstrates "leadership."

What I don't understand is why we aren't rushing an unmanned mission
to the lunar poles to resolve the water issue ASAP. It seems to me
that exploration architecture plans would be strongly driven by the
answer to that question.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 17 Feb 2006 12:13:21 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In my opinion, the only "leadership" that the U.S. currently
provides in space is in the unmanned science and exploration
efforts that Griffin is proposing to gut. The U.S. long ago lost
its leadership position in manned spaceflight to Russia, which
for the past several years has provided the only seat-rides to
orbit. The International Space Station itself is built around a
Russian core.

Well, that may be your opinion, but it's obviously not the opinion of
Griffin's audience on the Hill. Most people in Washington apparently
consider a fancy hangar queen to be superior to less-capable vehicles
that are actually being flown, and that having such hangar queens
demonstrates "leadership."

It doesn't make any sense, does it? This hasn't been
a "status quo" government in other areas, what with all
of the world-wide cage-rattling, at a cost of hundreds of
billions of dollars, that it has authorized.

Shutting down shuttle now would be an real example
of leadership.

What I don't understand is why we aren't rushing an unmanned mission
to the lunar poles to resolve the water issue ASAP. It seems to me
that exploration architecture plans would be strongly driven by the
answer to that question.

Maybe Griffin knows that NASA isn't really going to send
people to the Moon.

I suspect that when all is said and done, NASA will be
left with a program based only on a CEV, a CEV launcher
(either stick or EELV based), part of a decaying space
station, and bits and pieces of unmanned exploration that
JPL and other centers manage to protect.

- Ed Kyle

Griffin could be trying to create a stark choice for the congress in
order that they either decide to kill shuttle and station or to fund
shuttle, station, CEV, and science at a full level at once.

NASA is a big congressional jobs program, and, as such, the president
and his man only have so much to say about what choices are made there.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 17 Feb 2006 12:13:21 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In my opinion, the only "leadership" that the U.S. currently
provides in space is in the unmanned science and exploration
efforts that Griffin is proposing to gut. The U.S. long ago lost
its leadership position in manned spaceflight to Russia, which
for the past several years has provided the only seat-rides to
orbit. The International Space Station itself is built around a
Russian core.

Well, that may be your opinion, but it's obviously not the opinion of
Griffin's audience on the Hill. Most people in Washington apparently
consider a fancy hangar queen to be superior to less-capable vehicles
that are actually being flown, and that having such hangar queens
demonstrates "leadership."


Guys, the problem with leadership is the goal they've set.
Or better, the lack of one. This 'vision' of returning to
the Moon lacks all the basic elements needed for
success. As a goal, it fails to inspire because it
isn't about discovery as we've 'done that'.
So all that's left to inspire are the tangible benefits
from such a long term goal as to
the Moon and Mars.

And guess what, there are NONE.
To speak of.

As a goal this vision fails in every respect.
So of course it will not succeed. Everyone
in Congress is sitting around waiting for
Bush to leave office.

Waiting for a new goal. And until one is found
that has discovery ...AND... tangible benefits
we will continue to drift in space.

Pity, a real pity, because Nasa could be doing
something like solving the world's energy crisis
of the future. Which would have the kicker of
solving the world's warming problem at the
same time.

The magnificent tangible benefits of such a logical
and obvious goal would immediately inspire
legions of supporters and money.

Such a goal cannot fail. The one we have
cannot succeed.

Why doesn't anyone see the obvious?
Setting goals is not rocket science ya know.


Jonathan

s






What I don't understand is why we aren't rushing an unmanned mission
to the lunar poles to resolve the water issue ASAP. It seems to me
that exploration architecture plans would be strongly driven by the
answer to that question.

On 17 Feb 2006 12:13:21 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In my opinion, the only "leadership" that the U.S. currently
provides in space is in the unmanned science and exploration
efforts that Griffin is proposing to gut. The U.S. long ago lost
its leadership position in manned spaceflight to Russia, which
for the past several years has provided the only seat-rides to
orbit. The International Space Station itself is built around a
Russian core.

Well, that may be your opinion, but it's obviously not the opinion of
Griffin's audience on the Hill. Most people in Washington apparently
consider a fancy hangar queen to be superior to less-capable vehicles
that are actually being flown, and that having such hangar queens
demonstrates "leadership."

What I don't understand is why we aren't rushing an unmanned mission
to the lunar poles to resolve the water issue ASAP. It seems to me
that exploration architecture plans would be strongly driven by the
answer to that question.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

What I don't understand is why we aren't rushing an unmanned mission
to the lunar poles to resolve the water issue ASAP. It seems to me
that exploration architecture plans would be strongly driven by the
answer to that question.

LRO was initiated shortly after the VSE announcement and is planned for a
2008 launch. That is about as close as NASA can get to "ASAP".

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.