Griffin Remarks for AIAA Space 2005 Conference, 31 August 2005

In article ,
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

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...'

And stumbling about in space (with multi-gigadollar
projects) is better than stumbling about in terrestrial
labs? You can do a whole lot more stumbling down here
for your research dollar.

Unless you have some reason to think that space stumbling
is going to be more productive than non-space stumbling,
your point would suggest that space isn't a good place
to do this random exploration.

There's good reason to think that space stumbling will be more
productive at developing space (*) than stumbling around on the Earth.
And that's the sort of development that Griffin was referring to: that
which leads to expansion of humanity beyond the Earth.

(*) ...where by "developing space" I mean learning to live and work in
space, as well as developing the infrastructure that makes such living
and working in space easier, safer, and more affordable.

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

Joe Strout wrote:
There's good reason to think that space stumbling will be more
productive at developing space (*) than stumbling around on the Earth.

Yet, you fail to provide the reason. Instead you substitute circular
log "stumbling around in space will be more productive in developing
ways to stumble around in space".

And that's the sort of development that Griffin was referring to: that
which leads to expansion of humanity beyond the Earth.

Only the wildest dreams lead to any useful expansion I.E. completely
self sufficient. Anything less is living behing a canvas seawall.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

In article ,
(Derek Lyons) wrote:

Joe Strout wrote:
There's good reason to think that space stumbling will be more
productive at developing space (*) than stumbling around on the Earth.

Yet, you fail to provide the reason. Instead you substitute circular
log "stumbling around in space will be more productive in developing
ways to stumble around in space".

That's not circular; that's obvious. You get better at doing things
that you do. If you want to be the best spaghetti eater in the world,
should you work out at the gym, read a lot of books, or eat a lot of
spaghetti?

Similarly, the best way to improve at working in space is to work in
space. This is called learning from experience. I can't imagine why
you had difficulty with this concept.

And that's the sort of development that Griffin was referring to: that
which leads to expansion of humanity beyond the Earth.

Only the wildest dreams lead to any useful expansion I.E. completely
self sufficient. Anything less is living behing a canvas seawall.

Unless you're talking about some limited timeframe, this is complete
nonsense. Humanity *will* live with self-sufficiency beyond Earth
someday; the only question is when and who that will be.

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

Joe Strout wrote:
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?
Yes, look up the AAS program and what became of it.

Here's a good place to start:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/arc...aryHudson.html

-kert

"Second, NASA will initiate development of a Crew Launch Vehicle,
derived from Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters with a new upper
stage, for human spaceflight missions. Consistent with my belief that
we can't afford to have a four-year gap in our nation's human
spaceflight capability, we will bring this vehicle online in the
2011-12 time frame."

So its full speed ahead for the White Elepant.

A HLV with 125 tons capability. 100 tons would be cheaper I assume.
What are the design changes needed to take the HLV from 100 tons to 125
tons?

In article ,
nmp wrote:

Similarly, the best way to improve at working in space is to work in
space. This is called learning from experience. I can't imagine why
you had difficulty with this concept.

I guess they were meaning that you did not provide a reason *why* anyone
would want to improve at working space in the first place.

Ah, well that would have been a valid question.

Unless you're talking about some limited timeframe, this is complete
nonsense. Humanity *will* live with self-sufficiency beyond Earth
someday; the only question is when and who that will be.

Now *that* is romantic. Nothing wrong with that, but it still is. You
may have a hard time selling projects based on romanticism, unless that
romanticism is shared with a majority.

It's not romanticism; it's population dynamics. Any population of
reproducing organisms will expand to fill all available niches. As
human technology progresses, space becomes an available niche. Ergo, we
will expand into it.

People who argue against this point, I think need to go back and study
some basic principles of biology.

The only possible way this would not (eventually) happen is if we are
completely wiped out. But that seems unlikely (though not impossible).

When? Not in 200 years (so says my crystal ball)

It'll be hard to say exactly when "self sufficiency" is achieved.
Certainly within 200 years I would expect that any reasonable definition
of it would be satisfied, but then we'll always have people like Derek
who adopt unreasonable definitions to support their views (such as
claiming that SS1 didn't actually reach space, for example).

Of course I could be wrong, in that it might take longer. It's only
inevitable that it will happen *eventually*, not that it will happen in
any particular timeframe.

Who? Does not matter. They will be a race/nation of their own, not having
much interests in common with those on Earth that sent them anyway. After
all, you said "self sufficient".

Well, whether it matters or not is a judgment call, but it is an
interesting question to some. Will that independent race/nation be
speaking mostly English, or mostly Chinese? Or maybe Japanese or
Russian, or something else? It may not matter to you, but it will
matter to them, at least as much as what language we're communicating in
now matters to us. That was apparently Griffin's point, anyway, and it
seems a reasonable one to me.

Best,
- Joe

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

In article . com,
"kert" wrote:

Has NASA ever issued such a request for proposals before?
Yes, look up the AAS program and what became of it.

Here's a good place to start:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/arc...aryHudson.html

Good point.

Well, here's hoping that this time it will work out better!

- Joe

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

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
.. .

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...'


Absolutely that is an essential part of the process. But my hobby
tells me that a random search, dreaming or inspiration is exactly half of
the creative process. The chaotic half. But for this system to
self-organize, to take on a life of it's own and reach full
potential, the other half of static or tangible benefits must
be in balance with the random component.
At the same time.

My hobby tells me that any system that is dominated by
one realm, or the other, is unnatural and weak.

The math also tells me that if we start with the random
component first, in order to later find the tangible, that
this is a linear approach that prevents both aspects from
occurring at once. The system cannot reach potential or
even survive long with ...one after the other.

But beginning with the tangible realm, if the goal is large
enough, can and will inspire the dreams and with it a chaotic
frantic search. The two exist at once and the system
spontaneously organizes.

The power of evolution and nature is applied and the best
possible outcome is virtually assured. You won't even have
to 'maintain' it. A proper design will grow, fund and drive us
into the future all by itself.




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


Pattern recognition! This is the core, the heart and soul
of the chaos and complexity sciences. And a careful
scientific examination of such global patterns teaches
us how to design a system which produces the
patterns, or output, we desire.

I feel we should be beyond a simple random search
by now. This system, Nasa's long term goals, connects
strongly to all our hopes and dreams. It effects the future
for us all, even to the very core of our existence with
the search for life elsewhere.

It's too important not to try our very best to make sure that this time
'we get it right'. We should have a tangible goal that goes to the heart
of our greatest future fears and dreams. Our oil and blood mix freely now.
And energy prophecies inspire post-apocalyptic nightmares
or infinite 'di-lithium' dreams.

A Trekkian Utopia is possible.

As I read the Nasa Administrator's speech, my instincts told me Nasa
just might've 'sold it's soul' for another ride to the moon.
Please, let that not be true. Please!


"Say it aint so, Joe"



Jonathan

s




"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.

richard schumacher wrote:

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?

You mean, there was a law prohibiting them from launching geostationary
satellites for commercial customers (their intended market)?

Paul

Joe Strout wrote:

There's good reason to think that space stumbling will be more
productive at developing space (*) than stumbling around on the Earth.

I disagree. To date, stumbling around in space has produced
very little in the way of developing space. Development
(as opposed to discovery) is driven by market demand, of which
space doesn't have anywhere near enough.

Paul