I find all this rather ironic, appropriate and *darkly* charming: I am a huge, lifelong Star Trek fan and appreciate the analogy. I have also admired Mike Griffin since I had first heard of him in the early 1990s. When he became NASA Administrator, I was pleased, even though I thought Sean O'Keefe was a gutsy man who had endured a trial by fire that no NASA head would ever want.

Although at first I applauded the Constellation/Ares paradigm, as I learned more and shed some of my naievte, I became puzzled and suspicious about it's path, one that had diverged from the logical and pragmatic -- that of combined, complimentary EELV and Shuttle C launchers, or even something beginning with 'D'. I began to wonder if Mike Griffin had become the chief actor in a grand space opera (like Spock or Kirk), reciting lines that must at times have been like swallowing cold, stale pork.

As the Ares costs, delays and problems began to mount, I wondered if he might transform from the proverbial 'Naked Emporer' into someone who had at last awakened, falling back on his formidable engineering credentials to finally throw away the 'Ares Kool-Aid'?

In 'Star Trek', Kirk and Spock always succeeded because they combined their different but complimentary talents to achieve a victory. In my heart, I know that Mike Griffin WANTS to succeed in getting Americans to leave Earth Orbit and achieve great things once more. But perhaps only now, he is starting to reconcile the dual, Kirk & Spock sides of his nature to play a risky game, one that may end up saving America's manned space program.

But only if he's lucky, and maybe even then, only at the cost of his own career. I hope not. But none of us can deny that NASA's future right now is at its most fragile since the loss of the crew of Columbia.

With hard work, a swallowing of pride and some real, gold-plated luck, Mike Griffin has a chance to redeem his legacy and become a heroic figure.

I wish him that luck in spades.

“It will appear irrational - heck it will be irrational - to say that we've built a Space Station we cannot use, that we're throwing away a $100 billion investment, when the cost of saving it is merely to continue flying Shuttle.”

This is space-cadet thinking: the reality – as well as the “political reality” – is that there was never any kind of return expected, nor possible, from the $100 billions. Thus this was not an “investment” (investments are made expressly with the intention to earn a return). Rather it was and is an “expense”: thus the government quite rationally deems the money as “sunk” irrecoverably.

Continuing to operate the Shuttle, on the other hand, is an ongoing expense, which is avoidable, especially in consideration of the fact that there is no expected return.

I’d say: mail the keys and the deed to Moscow.

4 step solution:

1) Drop Ares 1 immediately.
2) Move Orion to a manrated Delta 4 HLV.
3) Redirect all Ares 1 funds into Orion and manrating the Delta 4 HLV.
4) Fly shuttle till Orion is ready. (a mix of stretching existing missions and newly added.)

"4 step solution:"

Ok. Then what?

I didn't think so.

"I’d say: mail the keys and the deed to Moscow."

Yes, ask the French about allowing Fort Duquesne to morph into Fort Pitt.