Griffin Remarks for AIAA Space 2005 Conference, 31 August 2005

Griffin Remarks for AIAA Space 2005 Conference, 31 August 2005
courtesy K. Cowing, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1059

Eighteen months ago, President Bush committed this nation to a new direction
in space, and set forth a fresh, clear mission for NASA. The President's
directive gave all of us who are privileged to work in this business a
challenge bold enough to last a lifetime. Indeed, it is a challenge big
enough to last several lifetimes.

The Exploration Vision commits our nation to the exploration of the Solar
System, beginning with a return of humans to the Moon by the end of the next
decade, and from there to subsequent voyages to Mars. I'm here today to
discuss something of how we plan to reach these goals. But let me start by
discussing our progress in returning the Space Shuttle to flight.

etc

In article ,
"Jim Oberg" wrote:

Griffin Remarks for AIAA Space 2005 Conference, 31 August 2005
courtesy K. Cowing, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1059

Thanks, Jim. I find reason for hope in this bit:

"But the Station is expensive to sustain, if we continue to rely upon a
government-only approach to that effort. As I stated earlier this year,
one strategy NASA will employ to meet our future needs is to utilize, to
the fullest extent possible, commercially-developed cargo resupply and,
ultimately, crew rotation capabilities for the International Space
Station. Indeed, we will issue this fall a request for proposal for such
capabilities, with the development to be done on a commercial basis,
much like that in the commercial communications satellite market. This
is a priority for NASA. Utilizing the market offered by the
International Space station's requirements for cargo and crew will spur
true competition in the private sector, will result in savings that can
be applied elsewhere in the program, and will promote further commercial
opportunities in the aerospace sector."

Here's hoping it's true!

- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

This confirms the EDS + LSAM on heavy lift [125t] and CEV on CLV
approach.

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
.. .
Griffin Remarks for AIAA Space 2005 Conference, 31 August 2005
courtesy K. Cowing, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1059




"Perhaps all of us would be speaking Portuguese today, but eventually Portugal
tired, and England made an even greater commitment to the exploration,
discovery, and settlement of new territories. The decisions that nations
make to explore, or not, matter."



So this is why we're going to the Moon and Mars?

This borders on a religious-like faith that if we go, then
something good and rewarding will result. Somehow
someday, somewhere something spectacular!

That's the plan!

To randomly stumble about the heavens in search
for a reason to be there..... No no wait a minute, it just
dawned on me what's really going on here. This huge
long-term program is being justified with nothing but fluff.
Talk of glorious adventure and untold discoveries.
Warnings of falling behind and the lessons of history.

It's not that they don't have a clear goal, they CAN'T
tell us what the true motivation is.


".... the President's National Security Policy Directive requires
NASA and the Department of Defense to coordinate their
plans and requirements in this area."



So this program /is/ all about securing our future after all, as I've insisted
it should. Just with somewhat different tactics, as in military tactics.
This is the big push to militarize space. Disguised with science fiction-like
cliché's such as.... "Lets see what's out there".

Orwell would be proud!

I get it now. Why try to produce new energy sources in space, when
we can just take whatever we need from others on earth.


So this new Nasa vision comes from a Presidential National Security
Policy Directive. Well folks, let's review /all/ the other NSPD's and
see if any ....trends...might pop-up!


National Security Presidential Directives [NSPD]
George W. Bush Administration
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/

Organization of the National Security Council System 13 Feb 01
NSPD 2 [tasks the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study of quality of life]
NSPD 3
NSPD 4 [Review of U.S. nuclear offensive and defensive postures]
NSPD 5 [Review of U.S. intelligence] 9 May 01
NSPD 6
NSPD 7
NSPD 8 National Director and Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism
NSPD 9 Defeating the Terrorist Threat to the United States 25 October 01
NSPD 14 [Nuclear Weapons Planning Guidance]
NSPD 15 National Space Policy Review [resulting in U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing
Policy, 25 April 2003] 28 June 02
NSPD 16 [To Develop Guidelines for Offensive Cyber-Warfare] XX July 02(?)
NSPD 17 [National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction] (unclassified
versio)
14 Sep 02(classified)
NSPD XX(?) [Authorizing Training for Iraqi Opposition Forces] 03 Oct 02(?)
NSPD 18 Supporting Democracy in Colombia Nov 02
NSPD 19 [Review of Defense Trade Export Policy]
NSPD 21 Support for Inspections in Iraq Nov 02
NSPD 22 Trafficking in Persons Dec 02
NSPD 23 National Policy on Ballistic Missile Defense 16 Dec 02
NSPD 24 [Post-War Iraq Reconstruction] 20 January 2003
NSPD 25 [directs U.S. government agencies to attack the vulnerabilities of drug
trafficking organizations]
NSPD 26 Intelligence Priorities
NSPD 27 U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Space Policy 25 April 2003
NSPD 28 Nuclear Weapons Command, Control, Safety, and Security (source)
NSPD 29 [Transition to Democracy in Cuba] 30 November 2003
NSPD 31 ["Vision" for NASA and Goals for Space Science]
NSPD 32 [Latin America Policy]
NSPD 33 Biodefense for the 21st Century 28 April 2004
NSPD 34 Fiscal Year 2004-2012 Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan May 2004
NSPD 35 Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization May 2004
NSPD 36 United States Government Operations in Iraq 11 May 2004
NSPD 40 U.S. Space Transportation Policy 21 December 2004
NSPD 41 Maritime Security Policy 21 December 2004
NSPD 43 Domestic Nuclear Detection





Gee!






"First, both NASA and DoD will utilize the Evolved Expendable
Launch Vehicle for national security, civil, and science missions
in the 5-20 metric ton class to the maximum extent possible."

"The agreement also calls upon NASA and DoD to explore mutually
beneficial cooperation for new upper stage development, advanced
materials, other new propulsion technologies, and potential ride-sharing
on manned and unmanned missions. The NASA-DoD agreement
complements the work initiated....:"

"Thus, since commencing my tenure as Administrator, I have worked
with my DoD colleagues on this crucial topic. On August 5th, Ron Sega
and I formalized these results with a letter outlining our agreement on our
respective requirements for future launch systems. Responding to the
policy, the agreement stipulates that separating human-rated space
exploration from unmanned payload launch will best achieve reliable
and affordable assured access to space,..."



Jonathan


Space Solar Power Home
http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/



s







Eighteen months ago, President Bush committed this nation to a new direction
in space, and set forth a fresh, clear mission for NASA. The President's
directive gave all of us who are privileged to work in this business a
challenge bold enough to last a lifetime. Indeed, it is a challenge big
enough to last several lifetimes.

The Exploration Vision commits our nation to the exploration of the Solar
System, beginning with a return of humans to the Moon by the end of the next
decade, and from there to subsequent voyages to Mars. I'm here today to
discuss something of how we plan to reach these goals. But let me start by
discussing our progress in returning the Space Shuttle to flight.

etc

Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
"Jim Oberg" wrote:

Griffin Remarks for AIAA Space 2005 Conference, 31 August 2005
courtesy K. Cowing, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1059

Thanks, Jim. I find reason for hope in this bit:

"But the Station is expensive to sustain, if we continue to rely upon a
government-only approach to that effort. As I stated earlier this year,
one strategy NASA will employ to meet our future needs is to utilize, to
the fullest extent possible, commercially-developed cargo resupply and,
ultimately, crew rotation capabilities for the International Space
Station.

http://www.bealaerospace.com/spacenews.htm
" We correctly targeted the alive and well geo-stationary market and
additionally hoped for some space station resupply missions. We were
naively lured into business by NASA's constant remarks about wanting
to encourage privatization and new launch service providers.

When Congress and NASA targeted $10 billion to fund competing launch
systems, we threw in the towel. We simply could not compete with such
government funded boondoggles."

Emphasis on "NASA's constant remarks about wanting to encourage
privatization"

-kert

kert wrote:

http://www.bealaerospace.com/spacenews.htm
" We correctly targeted the alive and well geo-stationary market and
additionally hoped for some space station resupply missions. We were
naively lured into business by NASA's constant remarks about wanting
to encourage privatization and new launch service providers.

When Congress and NASA targeted $10 billion to fund competing launch
systems, we threw in the towel. We simply could not compete with such
government funded boondoggles."

Emphasis on "NASA's constant remarks about wanting to encourage
privatization"

Doesn't seem to be stopping SpaceX, now does it?

I think a more plausible theory is that Beal screwed up somewhere
(in technology or marketing).

Paul

It might look like that, but analyze it from the
other direction -- the greatest discoveries, and many
of the greatest inventions, depended on somebody
stumbling around with the faith that something would
be found, or even just stumbling around until tripping
over something and saying, "Huh? That's funny...'

Nothing 'religious' about it, J -- it's
historical extrapolation, and the only
'faith' is in existing precedents being
repeatable.

"jonathan" wrote
This borders on a religious-like faith that if we go, then
something good and rewarding will result. Somehow
someday, somewhere something spectacular!

That's the plan!

To randomly stumble about the heavens in search
for a reason to be there..... No no wait a minute, it just
dawned on me what's really going on here. This huge
long-term program is being justified with nothing but fluff.

In article ,
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

kert wrote:

http://www.bealaerospace.com/spacenews.htm
" We correctly targeted the alive and well geo-stationary market and
additionally hoped for some space station resupply missions. We were
naively lured into business by NASA's constant remarks about wanting
to encourage privatization and new launch service providers.

When Congress and NASA targeted $10 billion to fund competing launch
systems, we threw in the towel. We simply could not compete with such
government funded boondoggles."

Emphasis on "NASA's constant remarks about wanting to encourage
privatization"

Doesn't seem to be stopping SpaceX, now does it?

I think a more plausible theory is that Beal screwed up somewhere
(in technology or marketing).

They did seem to want to do everything the hard way (that is, re-invent
it themselves) but has not the law also changed in the interim? Gov
agencies must now buy commercial services when available? Yes, any
clever Administrator can get around such a requirement, but Griffin
seems to have his head and his heart in the right place.

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
kert wrote:

http://www.bealaerospace.com/spacenews.htm
" We correctly targeted the alive and well geo-stationary market and
additionally hoped for some space station resupply missions. We were
naively lured into business by NASA's constant remarks about wanting
to encourage privatization and new launch service providers.

When Congress and NASA targeted $10 billion to fund competing launch
systems, we threw in the towel. We simply could not compete with such
government funded boondoggles."

Emphasis on "NASA's constant remarks about wanting to encourage
privatization"

Doesn't seem to be stopping SpaceX, now does it?

I think a more plausible theory is that Beal screwed up somewhere
(in technology or marketing).

Paul

Its 2005, things have changed a bit ( and btw, it hasnt been free
sailing for SpaceX either, with the Kistler dispute and their launch
pad troubles )
SpaceX ( smartly ) attacks a bit different market, initially, than Beal
planned to. Musk is not yet in direct competition with EELVs.
Different ventures have different levels of "misfortunes" they can
take. Obviously, NASA's changing policies wasnt the sole factor that
killed Beal's venture, but, it was undeniably a contributing factor
nevertheless. How big, remains debatable of course.

-kert

In article . com,
"kert" wrote:

http://www.bealaerospace.com/spacenews.htm
" We correctly targeted the alive and well geo-stationary market and
additionally hoped for some space station resupply missions. We were
naively lured into business by NASA's constant remarks about wanting
to encourage privatization and new launch service providers.

When Congress and NASA targeted $10 billion to fund competing launch
systems, we threw in the towel. We simply could not compete with such
government funded boondoggles."

Emphasis on "NASA's constant remarks about wanting to encourage
privatization"

Yes, I know, but the current Administrator seems more serious about it
to me than previous ones. Griffin continues:

"Indeed, we will issue this fall a request for proposal for such
capabilities, with the development to be done on a commercial basis,
much like that in the commercial communications satellite market. This
is a priority for NASA. Utilizing the market offered by the
International Space station's requirements for cargo and crew will spur
true competition in the private sector, will result in savings that can
be applied elsewhere in the program, and will promote further commercial
opportunities in the aerospace sector."

Has NASA ever issued such a request for proposals before?

Best,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'