Great Griffin/ESAS Discussion At Space Politics

On 18 May 2007 16:42:25 -0700, in a place far, far away, surfduke
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Ares I is a dead stick for sure, (LOL). We need to use the EELV
systems for LEO. We also need to build a good heavy lift booster using
the existing work force, (That will keep the folks on the job, (and
give Us the Moon, NEA, and Mars programs needed to get the fire back
in the crowd)). As for the Money not being there, (Once the shuttle is
off the books, (We have the funding needed for future Human Space
Flight). If You want to bitch about the program, (Go ahead). Just make
sure You give options for Your view, of what We should do instead of
what the path is now. It is childish, (and shows major ignorance of
the real world), to say things are just so bad, (and funding so
short), that We need to just give up. Be proud of Your past, (and
support the future)!

Randomly capitalizing word might make you look more rational, and less
like a netkook. Not a lot, but still...

Rand Simberg wrote:
Gee, once in a while, Pat is capable of putting up a sane post.


We've gotten our money's worth out of the unmanned planetary program,
but as far as our post-Skylab manned program goes it's been like putting
money into an electric blender... there's a loud whirring noise for a
while and only sludge comes out.
It's getting to the point where I seriously doubt they can even make a
new manned spacecraft no matter how much time and money they throw at
it. The whole thing is completely dysfunctional.

Pat

On May 18, 4:19 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2007 17:33:31 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:





Allen Thomson wrote:
Just read it, and it's excellent. I wonder who "anonymous" is.

Usenet isn't totally dead, but it sure has gone downhill since a
decade ago -- and the S/N was remarkably low even then. Oh, well, as
long as there's a searchable archive it's still useful as a filing
cabinet.

That really was a good discussion.
I think one of the problems NASA has is that if you try to cut anything
at all, you've stepped on someone's toes, and they will take it to their
congressperson and get it reinstated. So NASA embodies the Peter
Principle; it's risen to the level of its own bureaucratic
iincompetence, and if you give it more money it just starts frittering
it away on more pork-barrel programs, so that it is in a perpetual state
of being underfunded no matter how much money is tossed at it.
It might be best to just let the thing die, and then start over with
something a lot more modest that only does a few things, but does them
well, sort of like going over to the old NACA model.

Gee, once in a while, Pat is capable of putting up a sane post.

Generally Rand, when you want to encourage good behaviour, adding some
commentary to their post (instead of just a one liner) might be a good
idea...

Of course in this situation, there isn't much to say--Pat hit it right
on the head. The worst thing for NASA at this point would be to
reward its incompetence by giving it more money. The amount they
deliver compared to the amount they spend is already so poor, that why
should any space enthusiast try to encourage Congress to keep throwing
even more good money after bad? I keep holding out a tiny shred of
hope for NASA to reform itself (it isn't absolutely impossible, and
after all, there are a lot of competent and talented people still
working there). But at the same time I'm not holding my breath
either.

~Jon

~Jon

On May 18, 8:34 pm, Jonathan Goff wrote:


~Jon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes.

The problem is not just "NASA". NASA is an organization full (or at
least partially staffed) of good people who work in an organization
with 1) no leadership, 2) no well defined goals, and 3) no parameters
for to define success or failure. Organization defines group efforts
for people, they can do worse, but rarely do better then the
organization is set up to do. The "goals" if there are any is simply
for the project to continue or the money to continue. Nothing else
really matters.

There are additional political problems. but even if those were fixed
as long as the organizational ones remain. It isnt going anywhere.

Robert

On 18 May 2007 18:34:54 -0700, in a place far, far away, Jonathan Goff
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:


Gee, once in a while, Pat is capable of putting up a sane post.

Generally Rand, when you want to encourage good behaviour, adding some
commentary to their post (instead of just a one liner) might be a good
idea...

While good general advice, it's hard to imagine it would make much
difference in Pat's case.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 May 2007 17:33:31 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Allen Thomson wrote:
Just read it, and it's excellent. I wonder who "anonymous" is.

Usenet isn't totally dead, but it sure has gone downhill since a
decade ago -- and the S/N was remarkably low even then. Oh, well, as
long as there's a searchable archive it's still useful as a filing
cabinet.

That really was a good discussion.
I think one of the problems NASA has is that if you try to cut anything
at all, you've stepped on someone's toes, and they will take it to their
congressperson and get it reinstated. So NASA embodies the Peter
Principle; it's risen to the level of its own bureaucratic
iincompetence, and if you give it more money it just starts frittering
it away on more pork-barrel programs, so that it is in a perpetual state
of being underfunded no matter how much money is tossed at it.
It might be best to just let the thing die, and then start over with
something a lot more modest that only does a few things, but does them
well, sort of like going over to the old NACA model.

Gee, once in a while, Pat is capable of putting up a sane post.


Oh come on! Waving a white flag! When all seems lost, that it
NOT the time to give up and establish tiny goals or ambitions.

JUST THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.

Come on fellas, doesn't anyone see that this exact situation
is in fact a monstrous opportunity for dramatic change???
When all the crap and politics and mistakes seem
overwhelming, that is the time to reinvent the
entire program. But not in a way that diminishes
NASA, in a way that makes it relevant and popular
again.

You folks appear to value scientific or rational thought.
So think of a new goal for NASA in terms of a simple
max/min equation. Where the goal is to maximize
public support with the minimum amount of cost.

HOW DO YOU DO THAT?

Are you going to regain public support by reorganizing?
By eliminating programs? By a successful moon landing?
What is the cheapest 'vehicle' for regaining the maximum
amount of support? It's not any of those, they all cost
lots od ...money.

AN IDEA!

Costs nothing. Politics/concepts/goals is the place
for an agency to become reborn.

But to maximize the effect the idea has on generating
public support it must be a really GOOD idea.
It must be an idea that appeals to the most possible.

To the leftists and the environmental agenda
To the military and the geopolitical agenda
To the contractors and their corporate agenda
To NASA and its future structure.
To the politicians, left or right.
And so on.

But most importantly, it must resonate with the
taxpayers while doing all of the above.

An idea that appeals to EVERYONE is very simple
to construct in theory. All you have to do is
put together an idea that produces a
........BETTER FUTURE.

As a better future is better for everyone...EVERYONE
.....on the above list and then some. I mean is this
really that difficult a concept??????????

And endless supply of clean and cheap energy.

Next to, oh say, FREE MONEY, I dare anyone
to find an idea that can create a brighter
future for more people.

Most such optimum ideas generally take the form
of a flippin' pipe-dream some two centuries off.
But in this case, to my complete astonishment, it turns
out we've already spent some $50 million doing detailed
research. And legislation and budget requests were
all lined up like ducks in a row to proceed full steam
with this idea.

I didn't know any of that before I concluded Space
Solar Power is the most logical choice.
Complexity science teaches you to begin with
the output/effect/future ...first. Then extrapolate
back to the present reality.

Once I went through that exercize, and just last
week discovered you folks were already there
and ready to go...it's like WTF!

WTF happened?

So this idea isn't a pipe-dream at all.
All that everyone in these discussions
want is well within their grasp. So creating
this change requires no money, no new
hardware, we need only to stand up and say
this is the obvious choice. And it'll happen.

The new support/money/hardware will follow.

Since the idea of Space Solar Power can create
a better future...by an order of magnitude than
the present malaise ridden moon-evny.
It will appeal to the Public/Congress/Contractors
by an order of magniture more.

It's no more complicated than this.

If you tell the people they are going to pay through the nose
for something that benefits only someone else.
They're going to tell you to take a flippin leap off a cliff.

If you give them what they want and need, while
creating a stronger Country/Economy/Environment
.....Future. They will say "Good Idea"

"Go for it. And here's a blank check.""

Just like they did when Kennedy came up
with his idea. You guys seem to think the
path to an Apollo-like resurgence is to
re-do Apollo.

No no no no no no.......jesus...NO.

The path is to look at the effects of his idea
and reproduce them. It must appeal to the
dreamers and the here-and-now.

It must solve our current ..and..future problems.
It must balance tangible returns to society
and pure discovery.

Space Solar Power does all that, and in a nearly
flawless way.

I'm astonished this is not obvious to everyone.
Doesn't anyone here try to design a goal
with a fraction of the effort they use to
design a piece of hardware?

You should try it, as that's what your problem is.

No direction that makes sense.



Jonathan


s

Rand Simberg wrote:
This is the kind of thing we used to do here before the trolls took
over.

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/05...g-for-griffin/

This is trash talk. Griffin is a former Star Wars idiot and yet
another mediocre NASA administrator.

wrote:

Rand Simberg wrote:

This is the kind of thing we used to do here before the trolls took
over.

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/05...g-for-griffin/

Actually, no Rand, we still do it here, you've just tuned it out.

What Jeff has done has been basically to recreate the old board, in
Wordpress blog format, which is admirable. He needs an AJAX front end.

This is trash talk. Griffin is a former Star Wars idiot and yet
another mediocre NASA administrator.

True. But the problems remain, his ESAS is not workable.

I've recently come up with a new alternative :

http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=302

We can do this, we really can.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

wrote:

This is trash talk. Griffin is a former Star Wars idiot and yet
another mediocre NASA administrator.


He was in on SDI? This I've got to look up.

Pat

On May 22, 12:54 am, Pat Flannery wrote:

He was in on SDI? This I've got to look up.

Yep: http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_admin.html In In-Q-
Tel too.

Actually, there was a period of time in the mid-1980s, maybe 1984-1988
or so, when SDI attracted some pretty bright people, both govies and
contractors. Things went steeply downhill after that, bottomed out in
the 1990s when BMDO was a definite backwater(*) and have only modestly
recovered in these MDA days. (Though I think the last MDA director,
General Kadish, was pretty good.)

(*) "Turkey farm" seems unkind.