August 4, 2008
Mike Griffin's Evolving Opinion On ISS and Shuttle
NASA's Griffin Tells Forum Crowd There Are No Guarantees In Space Travel, Aero-News.net
"The US and its partners have invested $100 billion in the [ISS]," said Griffin, "so it does seem short-sighted to not spend the $3 billion a year to maintain the Shuttle. " Directing his comments to the children in the audience, "Sometimes Washington does silly things."
What Mike Griffin *Really* Thinks About NRC's Space Station Report (2005 posting)
"I'm copying a bunch of folks on this note because it concerns the nucleus of a strategic problem for us in going forward with the VSE. Bottom line, we're going to have to answer the specific issues in this report. We're going to have to define the program of activity for ISS that obtains from it the utility that it can provide. We may NOT be able to fund that activity at present; I consider that almost a fact on the ground. But we can put in place the kind of peer-reviewed science that we WOULD do, given the money, and that we WILL do, when we can afford it."
Why the U.S. should return to the moon and venture on to Mars, (edited transcript), USA Today (2005)
"Q: In retrospect, was the shuttle program a mistake?
Griffin: My opinion is that it was.
Q: Was the space station a mistake?
Griffin: I would not have built the space station. We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can."
Editor's note: First the ISS and the Shuttle were "mistakes" (Griffin's own words). Now their imminent demise is "short sighted".
Posted by kcowing at August 4, 2008 12:56 PM
I beg to differ.
I will concede that the shuttle is a flawed concept. When dollars per pound to low earth orbit is your overriding metric carrying all that mass up just to fly it back is never going to be cost effective. That's why Ares/Orion is going with the earlier capsule mode where the vehicle is just sufficient to get you up and back.
That said, the knowledge gained in the whole shuttle "experiment" is incalcuable. The spinoffs alone more than pay back the time and money spent.
As for ISS, what value do you place on a permanent shirtsleeve environment in low earth orbit? We now have three separate modules up there dedicated to science operations, all in an environment either horribly expensive or impossible to recreate on the ground.
With ESA/Ariane rockets for unmanned logistics and Russian Soyuz for crew changeout we can ride out the gap in US manned space capability if necessary. Of course the correct answer would be for Congress to allocate additional funding to keep the shuttle fleet operational for two to four ISS service flights a year until Ares/Orion is checked out and flight rated. Three billion a year more or less, about the price of a Navy destroyer or a couple of advanced bombers.
Re: your editorial note: I don't see the contradiction.
If you look at his "mistakes" quotes _in context_, he was refering to the projects and the final products as being flawed. With 20/20 hindsight, does anybody completely disagree both systems could have been better designed and managed?
But now, NASA's missions are running into conflict with its budgets. After all this investment, and now that you have the shuttle and station that--while flawed--work, being forced to abandon them now does seem more than a little "short sighted."
It's like building a house, but having problems with the zoning and construction, so it ends up costing way more than you expected and being way less of a house than you wanted. After its all done, painted and ready to move in you decide: "To heck with it, I'm just gonna walk away." Yeah, there were problems, but walking away would also be a mistake.
Posted by: JJMach at August 4, 2008 1:50 PMHindsight is always 20-20, isn't it, Mike?
You inherited the STS from our parents...
You inherited the ISS from the end of the Cold War...
Stop whining and finish the damn thing before you ask for more money for the next big thing!
"How can you have any pudding if you don't finish yer meat?!!!"
Posted by: Dave H. at August 4, 2008 2:29 PMI have to agree with JJMach -- I don't think "mistake" and "short-sighted" with respect to the same thing (ISS or Shuttle) are necessarily contradictory in this case.
For example, it would be a mistake for me to drive my car into a ditch, but short-sighted of me to then light it on fire in the hopes that the explosion would throw it clear of the ditch....
Posted by: DaveR at August 4, 2008 5:00 PMI don't think Mike Griffin would know a mistake if it slapped him in the face. After all, Ares I is the brainchild of him and Scott Horowitz. He foisted that abomination on us and it cannot succeed. We do not have the money to make such a Rube Goldberg concept capable of flight. It's imminent failure could be the end of human space flight for the U.S. If we could make it fly, it would make the Shuttle look efficient and inexpensive. $1 billion per flight, minimum, guaranteed.
Posted by: roger at August 6, 2008 8:56 PM