Making Sure The Workforce Gets The Message

This is very true. The transition team doesn't have the engineers. So they ask the engineers what information to pass up the chain of command. Someone has to digest that though: the President or President-elect does not have the time to read precise information, nor, in all due respect, would he understand it. Mike Griffin's ludicrous request to talk to the President-elect and his inappropriate conduct towards this transition team leader, Lori Garver, tells me that he does not respect this process. Here's some news, Mike: When elections happen, things change. Maybe you've heard that word lately. Now it's here.

Boy, this should be a red flag to Obama, his administration and the Transition Teams. The chutzpah being displayed here is off the scale and should serve as a warning as to how things would be if certain people are kept around. It may be one thing to stand on your soapbox but to pull your civil servant and contractor employees into the argument - as nothing more than pawns to get your way - is so far out of bounds it's scary.

Well all looks great for SMD and ARMD
Given the relationship with the FAA, NOAA, DOE, DOD and the NSF.

Mike is on record for stating the ISS would not be funded past 2015 and it needs to find a home other then NASA. I think the Congress was not very amused with this thinking given the past history and NASA its spending habits. This is the whole reason O'keef was brought in and the orbiter was destroyed short after. Now JSC has the largest budget in NASA and is trying to make headway, however it is difficult moving forward with the effort on the "new" rocket.

I hope the new Congress also weighs in and it will in Febuary.

I hope Mike is reading this in good faith and his replacement will need to have a discussion with him it appears.

He should have no difficulty receiving high-quality information from NASA. Engineers are painfully honest and insist on presenting any assumptions used in their decision process. Therefore a conclusion can only be challenged when an erroneous assumption can be identified. Because this approach is somewhat unfamiliar in business and politics, its importance is often overlooked.

It is time someone took a hard look at the decisions made by the current adminstration and the lack of synergy between NASA and other federal agencies for the best interest in the use of publics funds.

This should be a change for the better with all good intentions.

Let me think about this. What would be the best way to ensure that the current direction the program is taking is abandoned, and a new one is adopted (such as switching Orion to one of the EELVs)?

Step 1: Throw up roadblocks in front of the transition team. Engage in name calling, question the credentials of the people you need to make a good impression with.

Step 2: Send out easily intercepted messages telling all of your subordinants and contractors to 'toe the party line or else'. Simultaneously, make sure that any statements supporting the current program direction get as much airplay as possible.

Step 3: Claim that all of the alternatives (such as use of EELVs) have been extensively studied, but don't actually provide any of those studies and discuss them with the transition team in an open and candid manner.

Step 4: Let it be known you will only stay on if your personal views on the direction of the program are adhered to.

Step 5: Demand to have a one-on-one meeting with the incoming president, to let him know what it is that you think he should decide.

Result:
The result is almost inevitable: You will be shown the door as quickly as possible, and the positions you have been advocating will be substantially modified if not completely abandoned.

My god, Michael Griffin isn't a political fool after all. He is taking every step needed if he himself started to question the wisdom of the current program, and he wanted to step aside in an environment which would allow his sucessor to have a free hand in crafting a new policy.

Brilliant. My hat is off to you Dr. Griffin. How could we have ever doubted you?

"Therefore a conclusion can only be challenged when an erroneous assumption can be identified."

Wow. I wasn't quite sure how I felt about the whole Griffin thing until now. Recently, Griffin's and Stern's actions have convinced me that NASA needs a real administrator - someone who understands the effects of their words and cations, and can play politics accordingly. Enough of the Spocks. I think we need someone from the outside. Way outside.

Anon and JAFO, you're missing the point of Armstrong's WSJ letter. If you know anything about Armstrong and how he has conducted himself after his historic Apollo 11 mission, you would know what a thunder clap this will cause in both aerospace and Congressional circles. To my knowledge, Neil Armstrong has on no previous occasion injected himself into the politics of NASA. Now he has. His views cannot simply be dismissed. And you can be sure that Armstrong's initiative to write this letter did not come from Dr. Griffin.

Armstrong's letter will serve as a red flag to the President-elect and his senior staff, but not in the way indicated above. The red flag is that the Obama NASA transition team wanted to be a part of determining Space policy going forward and that effort has garnered a public and not-so very positive comment from Armstrong, never mind the stated desire Sen. Nelson and Rep. Gorton, men who President Obama might need someday, that Dr. Griffin stay and the Constellation program continue. FYI, the roll of any staffer is not to cause a public debate but to work quietly in the background and leave the publicity stuff to higher up's.

Editor's note: My sources report that this letter was written for Armstrong by NASA.

I look around at other agencies and see no evidence of the kind of pig-headed resistance to the work of transition teams as the current situation at NASA. Mike Griffin knows very well that he serves at the pleasure of the President and a new administration has the right to select their own political appointees and agency heads. James Webb, who guided the agency during the build up to Apollo, had more of a case to remain at the helm of the agency than Griffin, yet he turned in his resignation when Nixon won the election. But I guess Mike thinks he's more irreplaceable than the man who is considered to be the gold-standard of NASA Administrators. Griffin, or members of his kitchen cabinet, continue to denigrate the work and qualifications of the NASA Review Team and are offended that they have the nerve to ask questions.

The "save Mikie" machine has even dragged Neil Armstrong into the fray, but provided him with less than accurate information about the work of the transition team. If Armstrong wasn't sure about the accuracy of the WSJ article that inferred the transition team was making DECISIONS on "extending the life of the aging space shuttle and accelerating its replacement" perhaps he should have investigated before putting his credibility at stake. The job of the transition team is to ask questions and gather information and they have made it clear they are not making decisions.

Armstrong's statement that "engineers are painfully honest" and follow an "approach (that) is somewhat unfamiliar in business and politics" is laughable. It's so reassuring to know that engineers are such saints and never let their own agendas or preferences color their decisions -- unlike those ungodly business executives and politicians.

To date, President-elect Obama has made outstanding selections for cabinet secretary positions and agency heads. When it is time to announce new leadership at NASA the selection process established by the Personnel Team at the Obama-Biden Transition Office will identify a superior choice to guide the agency in the future. He or she may not have four masters degrees and think they are always the smartest guy in the room, but hopefully tthat individual will have a personality, political acumen, and leadership skills that are sorely lacking in the status quo. Neil Armstrong will be happy too -- I hear the NASA Review Team has nothing to do with that decision.

I worked with Neil during the Apollo Program and he never said much...this time he doen't know what he's talking about...He's been away from NASA too long to know that if today's NASA engineer challenges Constellation...they're not team players...today's management cannot in any way be compared with what we had in Apollo.

I do not understand Neil Armstrong's attitude toward the President-elect and his Transition Team. In 23 days, Barack Obama WILL BE the President of the United States. At that time, the decisions as to what the approaches will be in human and robotic space exploration, the disposition of the Shuttle, Constellation and the ISS, will be HIS!

Obama has shown, by his actions thusfar, since the election, that he intends to "hit the ground running", hence the activities and fact-finding actions of the Transition Team.

The attitude that all the decisions should be left to NASA is, IMHO, wrong. This attitude is exactly what has gotten this country's economy in such a mess! Facts need to be gathered...yes, technical facts from engineers and scientists at NASA, as well as from NASA administration. But once the Transition Team, and, after Obama is sworn in, by whatever group of advisors he has chosen, the decisions will be up to President Obama...and, of course, the new Congress (which holds onto the purse strings)...with the new Administration's requests!

Sorry, Mr. Armstrong, but I must disagree with you on this.

Hopefully, we will come out of all this termoil with a revised space program that will allow the United States to continue its leadership in science, technology and especially in space exploration!

Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

Obama won't talk to Griffin directly so far. This is very troubling. I wonder if he would listen to Armstrong even?

Not a word from Obama about NASA since before the election.
This is very troubling.

Regarding Jim Hillhouse's comments, "Armstrong's letter will serve as a red flag to the President-elect and his senior staff, but not in the way indicated above. The red flag is that the Obama NASA transition team wanted to be a part of determining Space policy going forward..."

If you are correct, perhaps Armstrong should have spoken up a long time ago, when OMB started making space policy.

If what the statement says about decisions made by engineers is true, can some defender of one of the "Alternative" concepts please list mistaken assumptions currently held by NASA that were used in deciding to go with the current system?

Well I'm very sure Obama has spoke with the agency Heads of:
FAA, NOAA, DOE, DOD and the NSF and even the NIH, FEMA and the CDC.

The topic of NASA may have be brought up for discussion so I have heard.

I'm not at all worried.

Funding constraints are an assumption. Suppose the funding was more constrained combined with initially erroneous assumptions about the levels at which other parts of NASA would operate or transform?

Very much the same can be said of the Shuttle, a program that in it's time was the result of a great "deal of thought and analysis" and which was "limited by the funding constraints, and compromises" that had to be made. Even though the Shuttle was fashioned into a challenging but credible program it did not, with all due respect to Mr. Armstrong, meet initial goals at all (not even close) as regards safety, recurring cost, launches per year, tonnage per year or performance/lift per launch. But that's all secondary - more importantly lack of strategic thinking meant that a program that was pulled off eventually, such as the Shuttle, proceeded to decimate other parts of NASA and other NASA goals for the next 2 decades.

It's one thing to succeed tactically. The matter of if Cx is credible and within constraints (which increase with every passing day as regards probable budget growth for NASA or any discretionary agencies 10 to 15 years out), for example, is a tactical matter. It's whole other matter as to how such an enterprise fits within the broader agency health posture. Is R&D essentially undone? Does development become operations only to have to be rediscovered again a decade or more later? Do science and robotic probes suffer because the transportation now leaves little funding for what goes inside the truck?

These are the real questions to be informed about and which NASA management (and maybe the engineers) should lend insight to as we go forward.

I am too troubled by the lack of attention (at least publicly) towards the manned space program. I would hope that he will make an effort to actually support both publicly and $$$$ the program. Pres. Bush made no such efforts regrettably. A lot of time was wasted as a result.
I mean think about it, in the time we will be without the ability to fly into space (5-6 yrs) we went from never having flown in space to completeing both the Mercury & Gemini programs and starting the Apollo program. All that without the benefit of the experience and advances in technology we enjoy today. It is because of the mentallity that has been allowed ot fester within NASA & the contractors that every single thing we do has to last at least 20 yrs before we actually do anything! Enough with this garbage! Get moving or get out of the way!!!

Good. Yes, people need to be reminded who backs NASA's current direction and that Obama shouldn't try to change course for these 'high-inertia' projects... and also of all the good points Mike makes in his speeches.

This IS politics after all.

The president-elect has chosen his representatives who are tasked with cataloging the status quo at NASA and reporting back to him with an informative snapshot of current status quo.

I don't see where it was stated that this team will be making any decisions one way or another - they're essentially liason, not Directors-elect.

President Obama can select a six-year-old for the position if he chooses. Common sense dictates that he select someone who is familiar with the organization and it's workings. At the level of Director or Liason, the people involved do not have to be engineers, just accurate.

And our current president has a history of appointing seriously misfit individuals to lead key organizations. These people have been directly or indirectly responsible for loss of life, liberty or property. At least the president-elect has chosen people who are competent in regards to NASA (and know which end of the rocket they're looking at) to survey NASA and give him visibility into the organization and its goals.

Griffin seems to be holding onto the his new launch systems in spite of serious concerns, sensible debate and common sense. It's when NASA allows itself to make high-level decisions colored with pride that things go boom.

And now we have a prospective launch system that has repeatedly indicated serious issues that jeopardize the crew, material and good will of NASA. Are we developing the next generation of launch vehicles or preparing the next class of Arlington National Cemetary residents?

The alternative system that he's afraid of is less expensive, more extensible or adaptable, and less likely to kill its occupants. Covering his ears with his hands and singing 'La La La La...' isn't going to change the facts.

If what the statement says about decisions made by engineers is true, can some defender of one of the "Alternative" concepts please list mistaken assumptions currently held by NASA that were used in deciding to go with the current system?

How can we tell what the mistaken assumptions were when NASA won't even tell us what the assumptions were?

Joy Cohen wrote:
"The alternative system that he's afraid of is less expensive, more extensible or adaptable, and less likely to kill its occupants".

These kind of statements are where all credibility is lost. Where is the data that says your favorite rocket is less expensive? How do you even measure "extensibility"? And WHERE do you find reliability numbers for any rocket that are better than Ares I? Do you even know what the latest estimates are? I didn't think so.

"Obama won't talk to Griffin directly so far. This is very troubling. I wonder if he would listen to Armstrong even?

Not a word from Obama about NASA since before the election.
This is very troubling. "

Jack Burton:
When was the last time an incoming President-elect talked to a NASA administrator? (instead of world leaders, his new cabinet, etc.) Much less a former astronaut.

You need to get real. Obama will not talk to Mike Griffin during this transition, and probably won't ever.

We are in the middle of a gargantuan economic crisis, and our status in the world is in dire need of re-shaping. As an outsider to the Space Community, I feel I must remind you, and anyone who agrees with you, that NASA is a sub-cabinet agency, and decisions made there are not NEARLY the scale of other things the President-elect has to deal with. A whole different ballpark.

If what the statement says about decisions made by engineers is true, can some defender of one of the "Alternative" concepts please list mistaken assumptions currently held by NASA that were used in deciding to go with the current system?

WHERE do you find reliability numbers for any rocket that are better than Ares I?

Or alternatively, where do you get your reliability numbers for Ares I - a rocket which has never flown, in order to compare them with reliability numbers of rockets which have flown numerous times before, and indeed are flying right now.

Rocket science paradigms are like any other scientific paradigms; you should have very good evidence before even attempting to overthrow an existing paradigm, otherwise you run the risk of being laughed off the podium, or in this case, disgraced. Science is rife with the laughable and ungraceful.

Also, reliability isn't the only quantifiable metric in town.

anon;

"I feel I must remind you, and anyone who agrees with you, that NASA is a sub-cabinet agency, and decisions made there are not NEARLY the scale of other things the President-elect has to deal with. A whole different ballpark."

It appears that you have an axe to gind against the manned space program, what, did one of your pet "welfare/illegals give aways" not get the level of funding you felt the tax payers like myself owe it??? Also need I remind you that if we allow ourselves to become a bit player in the space community then we certainly run the risk of ceeding the high ground in matters of defense. Oh but that is certainly not any of your concern, just so long as you can stand up and puff up over your contribution to making sure that the illegals nad the welfare croud get their fare share no matter what the real cost is!

"I feel I must remind you, and anyone who agrees with you, that NASA is a sub-cabinet agency, and decisions made there are not NEARLY the scale of other things the President-elect has to deal with. A whole different ballpark."

It appears that you have an axe to gind against the manned space program, what, did one of your pet "welfare/illegals give aways" not get the level of funding you felt the tax payers like myself owe it??? Also need I remind you that if we allow ourselves to become a bit player in the space community then we certainly run the risk of ceeding the high ground in matters of defense. Oh but that is certainly not any of your concern, just so long as you can stand up and puff up over your contribution to making sure that the illegals nad the welfare croud get their fare share no matter what the real cost is!

This is a ludicrous (mis)interpretation of a simple statement of reality.

One can be opposed to this particular architecture, and this particular administrator, while being neither opposed to "the manned space program" or in favor of "illegals on welfare" (where do these loony tunes come from)?

" Obama shouldn't try to change course for these 'high-inertia' projects"

That is one of the most asinine reasons for maintaining a program. Just plain stupid. I can't believe that someone with the intelligence to operate a PC and find a message board like this would say such a thing. Just like no sense in changing the course of a supertanker heading for shoal

Dr. Prunesquallor,
"Where is the data that says your favorite rocket is less expensive? How do you even measure "extensibility"? And WHERE do you find reliability numbers for any rocket that are better than Ares I?"

They are called EELV's and OSP showed that they were less expensive and just as safe.

They are called EELV's and OSP showed that they were less expensive and just as safe.

Huh? Can anyone parse this for me? OSP - Orbital Space Plane? Isn't that something that never left the drawing board, much less ever flew? How could something like that demonstrate anything? Perhaps you mean OSTP.

I can't believe that someone with the intelligence to operate a PC and find a message board like this would say such a thing.

Could you expand this into a full paragraph please? I might agree somewhat with whatever it is that you are trying to say if I could understand what it is you are trying to say, but unless you can fill out your thoughts into a cogent paragraph, I won't be able to 'grok' your thoughts.

I would be great if we could have one big flyoff, where evolution would select the fittest by mere survival, but NASA refuses to fly the EELVs, Boeing and Lockheed refuse even to offer them for service, instead offering up yet another frankenstein concoction. Ares I is many years away from flying, and is fraught with technical and financial problems which could very well be fatal, and on top of that we'll soon have an entire army of small liquid powered COTS vehicles to choose from at our disposal, besides the fact that we have three space shuttles and an entire fleet of international vehicles at our disposal, the Soyoz and Progress being the most reliable vehicle in history.

I'm in no way bashing the EELVs here, but the American public reminds me of a family flush with cash, who can't decide on a vehicle in the used car lot, simply because they are continually arguing over the preferred color of paint, and because they can see those lovely unpainted shiny and metallic new models next door, and are wondering what next years models might look like.

When is everyone going to realize that the simple fact is we screwed up big time when we pitched Apollo into the round file back in the '70s, and now we've got to pay the piper if we want to go back to the Moon? It's going to cost essentially the same -- a LOT -- to re-invent the wheel: EELVs, Aries I/V, or whatever.

"Editor's note: My sources report that this letter was written for Armstrong by NASA."

That's a serious charge, Keith. If it's true and these are not really Neil Armstrong's words, then he doesn't possess the high level of integrity that so many of us credit him with. If it's not true then you possess exactly the level of integrity that so may of us credit you with.

I never said anything about welfare, illegals, or anything...?

Engineering Led,

The comment weren't directed at you,but in the interest of helping the mentally challenged such as you.

1. The work on EELV's for OSP showed that they would be cheaper than Ares and just as "safe"

2.Boeing and Lockheed no longer operate the EELV's, ULA does. Boeing and LM were supporting Planetspace and ULA doesn't build spacecraft, so ULA would have to be a LV supplier to another group, which didn't exist.

1. The work on EELV's for OSP showed that they would be cheaper than Ares and just as "safe"

I can only assume they didn't arrive at this result by demonstration. My confusion also arises from both the lack of any demostrative result, for example, actually flying the vehicle, and the fact that both the OSP (Orbital Space Plane) preliminary work on flying a possible OSP on an EELV, and the extensive OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy) study of the EELVs in general, preceded the existance of the Ares I, the former by years, the latter by months. So I am unsure how you could have possibly come to your stated conclusion. I suggest you google it out.

2.Boeing and Lockheed no longer operate the EELV's, ULA does. Boeing and LM were supporting Planetspace and ULA doesn't build spacecraft, so ULA would have to be a LV supplier to another group, which didn't exist.

Certainly one could imagine a scenario where Boeing and Lockheed provided the vehicles to NASA, and USA or ULA handled the operation of the vehicles. I don't see how it would be impossible to negotiate the manufacture, sale and operation of these vehicles, since it would be in the national interest to do so. It certainly would be in the manufacturer's interest to sell them, and it would be in the interest of both USA and ULA to operate them, and it would be in the American interest to have them flying soon.

And furthermore, since artificial credit is very easy to come by nowadays, one can imagine that it would be easy for the average American family to afford them, if they could only come to an agreement as to which color they should be, and where they'd like to take their children on vacation.

I suggest unpainted metal, and a long leisurely vacation, visiting many planets, moons and asteroids along the way.

James Webb, who guided the agency during the build up to Apollo, had more of a case to remain at the helm of the agency than Griffin, yet he turned in his resignation when Nixon won the election. But I guess Mike thinks he's more irreplaceable than the man who is considered to be the gold-standard of NASA Administrators.

Nope. James Webb resigned on 7 October 1968, 29 days before the election. His reasons for resigning were either 1) disagreement with LBJ over NASA budget cuts, 2) belief that sending Apollo 8 to the moon was too risky, or 3) some combination of the above.

Of course Obama should talk to Griffin personally and take the words of the first man on the moon to heart.

The man has made several references to Apollo no?
He invokes NASA accomplishments when it suits his needs.

Don't defend the man because other president elects didn't.
This is a unique sitution.

NASA is at critical point, this isn't business as usual.
That is why Armstrong, Lovell, Crippen and others are trying to get his attention.

Obama was courting Florida big time pre election and said 2 billion more for NASA.

Now?

Crickets.

Probably because he was never serious is my fear.

Engineering Led,

"My confusion" There is the crux of the problem. I know it must be hard for you to grasp concepts like this. The Disney channel would be better for you

"Certainly one could imagine a scenario where Boeing and Lockheed provided the vehicles to NASA, and USA or ULA handled the operation of the vehicles."

Only you could "imagine" it, because it is not reality.
1. USA has nothing to do with EELV's nor never will. USA was created only to handle LC-39 launch operations and JSC manned flight operations.

2. ULA was specifically formed to provide EELV's to the US Gov't. Boeing and Lockheed don't play a role

If it's true and these are not really Neil Armstrong's words, then he doesn't possess the high level of integrity that so many of us credit him with.

When did it become an attack on someone's integrity to report that they didn't necessarily write all their own letters? As long as they agree with and approve of them, there's nothing wrong with signing a letter that someone else has drafted. Executives and politicians do it all the time. Is it an attack on Ronald Reagan's integrity to point out that Peggy Noonan wrote some of his speeches?

What would the vast growing population of unemployed in this country think if Obama stopped talking about them and decided to go over to NASA and answer Mike Griffin's request? What would our soldiers think? What would every single other world leader who wants the President-elect's ear think?

NASA may be at a critical moment, but the world is at a critical moment too, and whether we like it or not, NASA is not anywhere near the top of Obama's to-do list.

Only you could "imagine" it, because it is not reality.

Lots of things that people 'imagine' go on to become 'reality'. I can only imagine that you have no imagination.

USA has nothing to do with EELV's nor never will. USA was created only to handle LC-39 launch operations and JSC manned flight operations.

And if JSC is flying EELVs from LC-39? Then what?

ULA was specifically formed to provide EELV's to the US Gov't. Boeing and Lockheed don't play a role

But they certainly play a role in the Ares I upper stage and Orion capsule. Now I read ULA wants to become launch vehicle 'designers' in addition to 'operators' and 'manufacturers'. Once can only wonder what Boeing and Lockheed think of that.

I see litigation in the future. I'm flexible. Mr. Obama seems fairly flexible. ULA and USA seem pretty flexible. The only players that don't seem to flexible in this entire fiasco to me are NASA, Boeing, Lockheed, ATK and ... you.

Perhaps it's time that Boeing might be interested in an Ares I upper stage variant. That would just be icing on the cake.

And if JSC is flying EELVs from LC-39? Then what?

ULA will operate them

"Now I read ULA wants to become launch vehicle 'designers' in addition to 'operators' and 'manufacturers'"

They can only on derivatives of Atlas and Delta and not new vehicles.

"play a role in the Ares I upper stage and Orion capsule"

Which means nothing wrt EELV's

"ULA and USA seem pretty flexible"

You have no insight into that.
You see nothing into the future, you understand nothing.

Your "flexibility" means nothing since you have no impact, no leverage, no means of affecting anything or change. You don't produce anything of substance. You don't do anything other than flail at a keyboard in your mother's basement

2 billion more for NASA

I think Obama may have heard about this while still in the Senate prior to the close of Congress for the next session.
I think the suggestion is still open and not yet closed for FY09

I think the bill can be brought to the floor again if someone will do so.

we shall see in Febuary

You see nothing into the future, you understand nothing.

Does that mean that Newtons laws are suddenly invalid?

Your "flexibility" means nothing since you have no impact, no leverage, no means of affecting anything or change. You don't produce anything of substance.

I guess then submitting suggestions to change.gov would be a 'hopeless' endeavor. The post you are referring to was almost entirely sarcasm, I apologize for being so subtle.

Let me reiterate in clearer terms :

Boeing and Lockheed OWN ULA.

Boeing and Lockheed will profit from any use of the Delta IV Heavy or any Atlas V variants in the Constellation architecture.

Boeing, Lockheed and ATK profit from Ares I contracts.

Boeing, Lockheed and ATK profit from any Ares I contract cancellations.

Boeing, Lockheed and ATK would have profited had their PlanetSpace proposal been accepted for the Cargo Resupply Services contract.

Who have been the losers then these last five years?

The American public. That is about to change. It's going to change because the Obama transition team is listening to the American public for a change. Why are you opposed to change, and so opposed to listening to suggestions for change?

Just wondering. Change is coming whether you like it or not.

"Why are you opposed to change, and so opposed to listening to suggestions for change?

Just wondering. Change is coming whether you like it or not."

I am not opposed to change, I am an agent of change. I just know the ground rules from which to operate such change.

But as usual, you are wrong. Lockheed has no vested interest in Ares I contracts. It has the Orion contract, which can be reworked to suit any launch vehicle.

So Lockheed would have more of an interest in EELV's than Ares I.

"Space science is also the only wildcard that can keep nations from devouring each other."

I agree with you on this, and I agree that NASA issues, especially international SHOULD be near the top of the incoming President's list, but by no means do I think it is. If it was, he would be talking about it... :-/

Well. I do agree with Engineering Lead this time around about the usual players and their benefitting in each and every scenario. And also on quite a few of his posting on this thread! Actually if could go past the Shuttle hardware and other winged fantasy we may be able to agree on more stuff.

Had we had more competition this would not happen. ULA??? Almost comical if it were not so sad. People should remember that the purpose of a publicly traded corporation is to satisfy its stockholders, nothing but. All the gimmick about National Security is just that.

Finally however great a man Neil Armstrong is, he should probably consider how much he wants to be part of this problem. Especially that I haven't heard of him in the past many years due to his somewhat retreat out of this business. With all due respect, of course!

NASA's current Ares/Orion program and its overruns are directly tracable to NASA NOT having engineering talent, and learning on the job from the contractor workforce (who are forced to be deferential to the NASA customer, due to the golden rule). Witness the stated desire of the Ares program to train the Marshall workforce, and the continual changing of program requirements on Orion (water, land, ISS, the moon ... why not trade study it a bit more?)

Niel's idea that NASA has excellent engineering talent is obviously a holdover from his own Apollo experience, and briefings from individual NASA engineers who are used to being the smartest kids in the class.

However, building a program requires more than just smart kids wanting to emulate their Dads. In a publicly funded endeavor, it requires public outreach, political science, and decidedly non-engineering talents.

I for one am tired of the bashing of Ms. Garver. She is dedicated to NASA's success, and the intellectual arrogance of Mike Griffin and his petition to be retained is nauseating.

Lets fly on the rockets we have, build what we need to build, and get on with exploration.

DenverDave,
I agree, Ares is nearly complete and the test flight is just a few months away. Let's fly the damn thing and move forward. Why would you start all over when the Ares is ready to go? They've spent all this time and money on designing it and it is just A FEW MONTHS from flying and you would change to something totally different?
I can understand if the test flight was years away but it's only a few months. Let's find out if it works first.
Then if it does we will have something that works AND something that is man rated. I can't imagine not allowing a test flight at this late stage in the game...

The test flight that is just a few months away is not a real test of Ares-1 Different first stage configuration, dummy upperstage, etc... It's a tick a checkbox on a checklist kind of thing ("see taxpayers, we are making progress") A phony in other words. Just thought you'd like to know.

RocketScientist couldn't be more correct. Ares I-X is nothing like what the Ares rocket will be. Take it from somebody on the inside who knows...