Griffin on Loss of U.S. Space Leadership

On 17 Feb 2006 14:20:43 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

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.

Most wouldn't view it that way. They're still in thrall to NASA--this
worship of the NASA manned spaceflight program is a holdover from
Apollo (another way in which that program was really a disaster in
terms of getting us seriously into space).

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.

No, I think that he's quite sincere, wants to get back to the moon,
and a straight shooter. He's mistaken, but not attempting to mislead
in that respect.

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.

That may indeed be the case. Fortunately, others are more serious
about space--we don't have to rely on NASA.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:16:32 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(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".

Sorry, I meant an actual prospector, not an orbiter. Is there a
consensus that LRO will completely resolve the issue?

Dunno. NASA's site suggests it will:

http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/missions/index.html

The third and sixth priorities seem to address the issue:

quote
The measurement investigations that respond to each of the following
measurement sets that have been defined as having the highest priority:

+ Characterization of deep space radiation in Lunar orbit
+ Geodetic global topography
+ High spatial resolution hydrogen mapping
+ Temperature mapping in polar shadowed regions
+ Imaging of surface in permanently shadowed regions
+ Identification of near-surface water ice in polar cold traps
+ Assessment of features for landing sites
+ Characterization of polar region lighting environment
/quote

--
JRF

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

The Response Hear is Really Been? insurmountable and "I thank" all
who have shown appreciation on this Day?

I will continue this endevoure - on Earth as I May - Given all causes?
- ehem? Anyway's I'll Be / Bee Back to see you again?

The Master of Disaster - the epitome of linguistics - the Joe of
- all - " say where is that Guy"?

Space Person?



"finite systems" wrote in message
news:uvrJf.34562$B94.10217@pd7tw3no...

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.

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...



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.


Sounds like something a committee put together, a little bit
of everything for everyone, followed by a whole lot of
bickering and confusion. I decided to take a look at
how Nasa started, see if they had a clearer idea of their destiny
back then. To see what Nasa was supposed to ....symbolize.

This is what I found.


NASA "Meatball" Logo

Bringing back memories of NASA's early successes, this logo dates
back to 1959, when the National Advisory Committee on
Aeronautics (NACA) metamorphosed into an agency that
would advance both space and aeronautics

In the "meatball" design, the sphere represents a planet, the stars
represent space, the red chevron is a wing representing aeronautics
and then there is an orbiting spacecraft going around the wing.

"It's a design nightmare," sighs Greg Patt, Graphics Manager for
Lewis' Publishing Services contractor, Cortez III. "It doesn't
print well on laser printers because of the gradations on the
airfoil, and it can't be used at less than 5/8 inch because the
stars disappear and the type becomes illegible."

It is hard to match the meatball's blue background on color copiers,
and the lettering and airfoil do not contrast enough on black & white
copiers. Because of its dark blue background, two versions are used:
the basic version is used against light backgrounds and that version
surrounded by a thin white line is used against dark backgrounds.
In addition, its round shape makes it difficult to artfully place type
around or near it

One last problem? People like to play around with the design, using
as a screen background, adding or taking away elements, or making
it three dimensional. Although this may look interesting, it violates
one of the basic rules of logos--that they should be used consistently
so that they immediately bring the companies or organizations
they represent to mind.

http://history.nasa.gov/meatball.htm


I think Nasa's logo pretty much says it all.
It's simple really, garbage in...garbage out.


Jonathan

s
















- Ed Kyle

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:16:32 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(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".

Sorry, I meant an actual prospector, not an orbiter. Is there a
consensus that LRO will completely resolve the issue?

I've Not Had a chance to puruse the environmet - but - the thing I
like about You is that You could my Mentor through this process?

Space "2" "-" Person? " ? But that is Just Me / me?



"jonathan" wrote in message
. ..

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...



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.


Sounds like something a committee put together, a little bit
of everything for everyone, followed by a whole lot of
bickering and confusion. I decided to take a look at
how Nasa started, see if they had a clearer idea of their destiny
back then. To see what Nasa was supposed to ....symbolize.

This is what I found.


NASA "Meatball" Logo

Bringing back memories of NASA's early successes, this logo dates
back to 1959, when the National Advisory Committee on
Aeronautics (NACA) metamorphosed into an agency that
would advance both space and aeronautics

In the "meatball" design, the sphere represents a planet, the stars
represent space, the red chevron is a wing representing aeronautics
and then there is an orbiting spacecraft going around the wing.

"It's a design nightmare," sighs Greg Patt, Graphics Manager for
Lewis' Publishing Services contractor, Cortez III. "It doesn't
print well on laser printers because of the gradations on the
airfoil, and it can't be used at less than 5/8 inch because the
stars disappear and the type becomes illegible."

It is hard to match the meatball's blue background on color copiers,
and the lettering and airfoil do not contrast enough on black & white
copiers. Because of its dark blue background, two versions are used:
the basic version is used against light backgrounds and that version
surrounded by a thin white line is used against dark backgrounds.
In addition, its round shape makes it difficult to artfully place type
around or near it

One last problem? People like to play around with the design, using
as a screen background, adding or taking away elements, or making
it three dimensional. Although this may look interesting, it violates
one of the basic rules of logos--that they should be used consistently
so that they immediately bring the companies or organizations
they represent to mind.

http://history.nasa.gov/meatball.htm


I think Nasa's logo pretty much says it all.
It's simple really, garbage in...garbage out.


Jonathan

s
















- Ed Kyle

it wont provide the ground truth. Why could they not have just funded
the IceBreaker mission which was already designed and planned ?

-kert

Rand Simberg wrote:
Most wouldn't view it that way. They're still in thrall to NASA--this
worship of the NASA manned spaceflight program is a holdover from
Apollo (another way in which that program was really a disaster in
terms of getting us seriously into space).

How on earth was Apollo a disaster? The only problem was that it did
not continue.

That may indeed be the case. Fortunately, others are more serious
about space--we don't have to rely on NASA.

The ESA is certainly catching up fast.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 18 Feb 2006 07:28:39 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Stephen
Horgan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Most wouldn't view it that way. They're still in thrall to NASA--this
worship of the NASA manned spaceflight program is a holdover from
Apollo (another way in which that program was really a disaster in
terms of getting us seriously into space).

How on earth was Apollo a disaster?

By establishing a very expensive paradigm of how human spaceflight is
done.

If there is a much cheaper basic approach then it has escaped everyone,
national agencies and private companies, for decades.

The only problem was that it did not continue.

There was a good reason it didn't continue.

That may indeed be the case. Fortunately, others are more serious
about space--we don't have to rely on NASA.

The ESA is certainly catching up fast.

Not really.

The Chinese then?

On 18 Feb 2006 01:50:56 -0800, "kert" wrote:

it wont provide the ground truth. Why could they not have just funded
the IceBreaker mission which was already designed and planned ?

-kert

The lunar poles are still a large region. You need to know where to
land first. That's LRO's job: reconnaisance. The lander is set for
2010, two years later. That is pretty fast in NASA terms.

Brian