Mike Griffin, Master Manipulator

If Lori Garver pushes her agenda it's called presidential advice.

If Mike Griffin pushes his agenda it's called suspicious lobbying.

One of them wants a space program and the other wants a climate study. Go Griffin

"...Armstrong and Cernan were greeted at the door of this room by Mike Griffin. This synchs with the widely-held suspicon that not only did Griffin help write Neil Armstrong's prepared comments..."

Really?! They shook hands, therefore Griffin must have written Armstrong's speech. I shake a dozen hands before some of my presentations and speeches (guess that means I don't write any of my own material!)

Seriously, that's a pretty poor shred of evidence. Certainly, Griffin could have written his speech, but there's quite a logic gap in going from shaking hands to writing a speech.

I guarantee you that Armstrong's smart enough to prepare his own speech.

Now we know why both Armstrong and Cernan had problems telling the difference between the Vision and Constellation and why they thought Constellation was widely accepted. Two rocket engineers and a pilot, all full of themselves.

Its too bad; Armstrong and Cernan, if they'd spoken logically, intelligently, and from the heart, could have made a difference.

As it was their logic was largely not coherent and they made little difference.

Armstrong, especially, was the one ace up the sleeve who could have had a serious influence but he shot himself in the foot today.

If the story is true, Griffin really screwed the pooch this time. Why doesn't he get out and stay out of this; he has done a lot of harm and it could get much worse.

Someone has to lead the charge against Obama's space program. If $19 billion is the high water mark for the NASA budget, as Senator Rockefeller indicated, then the United States will be stuck in low Earth orbit for the next 50 years. One of the problems with Obama's space program is that the political decision was made not to go any where and to develope technology. Somebody, at some time in the futurewill have to make the political decision to leave low Earth orbit. Obama's program will cost us the opportunity.

Armstrong's testimony had all of Mike's talking points.

How pathetic it is that Griffin is willing to go to such desperate measures to save his legacy.

What a despicable individual. This man has no shame.

Sorry Keith, the real men of this nation stood up today and told it like it was. You can try to make it into some puppet show if you'd like or you can thoughfully listen to what they are trying to tell you. Cernan stole the show (yes your puppet show), if anyone was looking for a hero to stand up, it was him. He was the last man on the moon and is now the vital first step back to exploration. Thank you Gene, there are many in this nation who stood up and cheered.

Lori's agenda is to spend hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars for NASA to go nowhere and to build nothing. Armstrong was right. We need to return to the Moon-- this time to stay!

Marcel F. Williams

Yes, $19B is the high water mark for NASA's budget.. it has been since Apollo. There's no more money. Why is this so hard for people to understand? So the choice becomes, do you want to whine about the lack of money to support a program that requires more, or can you get behind a program that plans to develop technology to support a program that is executable within the current budget?

If this was Griffin's ploy to change the course of events, he must be quite saddened. Cernan was pathetic, particularly that wind up where he just ran out of time to justify why going back to the Moon, the theory about the bailout is weak and didnt go over well...the "check a box for NASA" was not only as bad off as the "bailout" (from a reality standpoint) but pretty lame.

It is to bad that Gene picked this way to go out...

Robert G. Oler

Oh good lord

First of all, one is a government employee, and the other is not. And why is it that people can't be both for climate monitoring and human spaceflight

And regarding who stole the show, it wasn't Cernan

Senator Rockefeller did a great job. He is the best friend of human spaceflight, if we ever hope for it to progress beyond the hero worship stage

...she earned a bachelor's degree in political science and economics from Colorado College. Her focus turned to space when she accepted a job working for Sen. John Glenn...She since has served in a variety of senior roles in the nonprofit, government and commercial sectors.

Garver worked at the newly formed National Space Society...becoming its second executive director..She served as the society's primary spokesperson, making frequent appearances on national television and regularly testifying on Capitol Hill. During that time, she also earned a master's degree in science, technology and public policy from George Washington University...

So this is the background of the person directing the future of NASA? Her focus turned to space? And this person is now directing NASA? Oh sorry that is Bolden, right?

The nation and the world are almost bankrupt and some of these guys want a moon base.

We can't afford to use the space station. And they want a moon base.

In fairness to Griffin I think he is doing what he thinks is right and that he, Cernan and Armstrong, just don't get it.

There is a signal lack of confidence implied by the arguments against the new plan.

OK, multi-administration, multi-decade projects in a democracy are really hard but NASA pulls of this remarkable feat all the time.

And people now talk about Apollo as the last HSF success amongst a string of failures but that was hadly the view at the time. At the time, walking on the moon was something sane people scarcely dared dream of. Totally far fetched. NASA went and actually did it! It told us that the human race could do anything if it wanted to.

NASA astounded everyone and it should be aiming to astound again. Neither building Constellation nor returning to the moon are far fetched anymore. To astound, NASA needs to think about things to do when we get there (wherever it is we go).

I love the idea of robotics, teleoperated from orbit, preparing the ground. In situ fabrication and resource utilisation. A real space ship - room to swing a cat, closed cycle life support, food production, medical facilities. Bring on Dark Star.

So it will be 15 years before anyone is ready to fly. Did timescales like that ever stop scientific missions?

The programme needs a steady supply of interim deliverables, sub goals, but NASA is producing that already.

What's not to like?

"This synchs with the widely-held suspicon that not only did Griffin help write Neil Armstrong's prepared comments...."

So when are suspicions proof?

Astronaut Neil Armstrong is an American Hero - an engineer, test pilot and professor. Do you really think he is not capable of thinking for himself? He is a reticent person, so when he does speak up, I assume it is because he has strongly held views, not that he is being manipulated.

The hearings today will not change the path of ObamaSpace as it moves through Congress.

It is Bolden's job to align the troops behind the plan. This is done by command in the military; At NASA there are folks who will wait out a change in leadership and require a different approach to get them aligned behind a plan.

NASA is going to be churning for some time as Obama Space unfolds.

Egad.

Interesting that there seems to be a lot of situational parallels between Griffin's CxP bungle-mania and the old Soviet failures, (as well as foreboding for the new,bold,commercial, gamechange-a-mania).

Just a few:

Korolev only sold lunar landing mission to leadership in order to get N1 built.
Korolev: Korolev and later Mishin couldn't admit they had miscalculated the minimum payload mass needed -- that would result in the whole project being killed. They wanted to see the N1 built for a range of manned space projects to earth orbit, moon, and Mars.

N1 - 'inherently flawed design?'
Kamanin: N1 may one day fly, but it can never be a reliable booster due to the inherent design flaws
Glushko: There was a fundamental error in gas dynamics in the design of the N1.

Over-automated approach to spacecraft design.
Kamanin: Korolev, Keldysh, Mishin, and Feoktistov are all dedicated to automated spacecraft - 'over-automation'

Personal Incompetence
Poor leadership in government.
Mishin: 'Stagnation' in leadership - superficial and contradictory orders from leadership…'Korolev too could have lost his job'.
Kamanin: No qualified Soviet government leadership in space research. Ustinov and Smirnov operate without rhyme or reason or plan.
Chertok: The entire record of the leadership was one of hundreds of failed decisions.

Lack of Soviet quality control.
Kamanin: This can only point to widespread poor quality control in the factories. There is no discipline at these factories, and few qualified workers. The investigative commissions can cite specific reasons for each failure all they want, but as far as Kamanin is concerned, there is a general problem in the Soviet industrial system.

At the next level was the total lack of support for manned space projects by the Soviet military, who at the same time were required to provide the bulk of the funding. A similar antipathy existed within the American military. (one result was that no American military manned space project, except a few military shuttle flights, ever reached flight status). In the Soviet Union, the rocketry industry had an absolute priority to beat the US in the missile race. This was seen as a matter of national survival, and the civilian space program always took a back seat to the ICBM programs. Therefore even though the moon project was authorised by the VPK Military-Industrial Commission, many ministries and factories not reporting to the VPK simply refused to deliver the equipment required. This led to work-arounds and delays.

My fav:
Failure of Vasiliy Kharchev and Chertok to capture Wernher Von Braun.
Tyulin: "this is all Chertok's fault. In 1945 he should have stolen Von Braun from the Americans". "True", Chertok replied, "my adventure with Vasiliy Kharchev didn't turn out too well".

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/whynrace.htm

rofl, whoever thunk that gifted folks are easily replaceable are due for a rethunk, hmmmmmm?

And all that's to come and everything under the sun is in tune
but the sun is eclipsed by the moon.

Keith posted this comment at 9:23, syncing with my widely-held suspicion that alien beings residing in M923 are manipulating his brain waves to sabotage our space program. Beware! These master manipulators will stop at nothing to further their evil schemes! NOTHING! BRAH-HA-HA-HA!!!

Keith, are you serious? You really think that a former administrator has the power to swing Armstrong and Cernan into saying what he wants them to say?

This is madness. What possible leverage could Griffin have over Armstrong and Cernan that would make them dismiss their logic and opinion and say exactly what Griffin wants them to say? Do you think that nostalgia would compel these two men to go before Congress and buck the president? Armstrong? Pushed around and manipulated by this great evil named Griffin?

"According to eye witnesses," "this synchs up", I don't know, Keith. You might need to rename your website, "NASA Watch Through Keith's Lens".

First, isn't there a government agency called the NOAA that is responsible for atmospheric study or has everyone just forgotten about them and put all the brunt on NASA? Why isn't NOAA involved in the earth studies argument and funding?
NASA has always been about exploration and development! Without goals and well-guided steps for development, we have nothing.
It saddens me that we need to believe or even want to think that two American heros, Armstrong and Cernan (let's not forget Lovell), would require the help of Griffin to appear before anyone much less Congress on issues regarding America's Manned Space Program. Now, where's the proof that any of these men are profitting by there stand before Congress? Why would they need to support Griffin and not other former NASA administrators? Why would it be so hard to believe that these men, on their own, believe that return to the moon with a permanent base is not a good, if not great, idea?
Shame on all of us for seeking to diminish their stature and their service to this country!

Get it through you thick skull! Orion is nothing more than "Block 3 Apollo" You are not going back to the Moon to stay using a retro spam can! Apollo died because it was too expensive. Not only do you want to revive Apollo, you want to tell the taxpayer to keep his mouth shut and checkbook open.
NO! NO! NO! NO!

If we are going back to the Moon to stay, we will need a 2nd generation shuttle and a real space ship.
Not this return to the past.

I have read Armstrong's prepared text and I found it made numerous good points. Does anyone want to refute his comments, or just stay with character assassinations?

Does Congress listen to astronauts? (Referring to those astronauts that haven't been elected to congress.)

Does "Battle For The Planet of the Apes" or "Beyond the Planet of the Apes" or "Escape from the Planet of the Apes" ring any bells here?

"If we are going back to the Moon to stay, we will need a 2nd generation shuttle and a real space ship."

Unfortunately, there is no interest in the government in going to the moon. Rather, they are making Mars their target, one that is so far in the future no specific hardware development needs to be done (ie we won't be going anywhere).

It would seem that designing a newer shuttle and a true space ship would be good near term projects. I don't recall any real NASA research on fixing the problems with the shuttle. What's been announced is all future stuff.

Keith:

You clearly have your own personal reasons for disliking Mike Griffin, which you have made clear on many occasions. Mike Griffin has a number of outspoken critics, as well as a significant loyal following of supporters.

However, it looks like Bolden is now in the running for the least popular NASA administrator. I suspect that if it were put to a vote by NASA employees (let alone contractors!), he would win a no-confidence motion from a clear majority almost as large as John Holdren and Lori Garver.

Nelson

Since I'm not an advocate of the very expensive Ares I/V architecture and favor a cheaper and faster to develop shuttle derived architecture, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. But you can visit my blog spot if you want to know what I'm for.

Marcel F. Williams

Suppose we "zoom out" for a moment. NASA receives less than 6/10 of 1% of the Federal budget, compared to about 30% for defense and 40% for entitlement programs. If NASA received 1% of the budget, which could be compensated for in either or both of these two areas with very little relative impact, it could carry out Obama's agenda, Constellation, and more. Small price to pay for efforts that create real jobs and inspire students to pursue STEM, which the administration says are priorities. Why are we (monetarily) picking the fly poop out of the pepper?

I'll take GRIFFIN over OBAMA ANY DAY!! And DEFINITELY will take Armstrong and Cernan over anyone else I've seen in this debate!

After reading Armstrong's comments I am struck that he supported both the Ares 1 as being the safest system out there and that he was promoting the 5.5 segment Ares V(VI) configuration.

These are two extremely detailed technical solutions, the latter of which has not been pushed even by ESMD for a while. The 5.5 segment booster version of the Ares (which presumes the sixth engine as well), was going to cost an enormous amount of money AND it still missed the required target mass to TLI. Additionally, the missions to Mars that this booster would have still requires as many as six or seven Ares heavy launches for one Humans to Mars mission.

It would take until sometime in the 2020's before it was ready, and by NASA's own admissions the first Ares 1 launch was pushed back until the late 20-teens timeframe.

This makes both systems a huge monetary expenditure with nothing to show until well after Obama leaves office, presuming a second term.

What is wrong with this picture?

Indeed NASA is being burned to the ground by this debate right now. The last that I heard it does not look like NASA will get a FY-11 budget until next spring and if congress flips and goes to the deficit hawks like it is shaping up to be, NASA will have two multibillion dollar zombie programs that are ripe for termination.

We have entered the worst of all worlds for the agency and the centers that are fighting right now are going to be very disappointed at what happens next year to their budgets.

You are right and have hit the heart of the discussion that needs to be settled.

Armstrong appeared confused by how much of the Constellation/Ares plan was actually reviewed and vouched for by independent panels vs edicted. I suspect that Dr Griffin might have had something to do with the confusion and ofuscation? Interestingly however Armstrong still seemed to hold open the hope of ditching the ballistic capsule approach for a fly-back vehicle; maybe he does not remember that this 'decision' was never discussed openly prior to the Griffin Apollo steroidal decision.

It sounds like Armstrong, Cernan and the Constellation supporters are giving the Congress an ultimatum: "Pay up; we want an extra $3 billion a year, in which case the US will ditch ISS in 2015, or an extra $5 billion, a $23 billion total NASA budget, in which case you can keep ISS."

Maybe this ultimatum will work, although it looks like the Congress and President are no longer interested in bailing out industries.

Without the extra money, we are still stuck in the same situation. Constellation is unaffordable and sustainable. There should be an affordable way forward, but the Obama plan is nonsensical and a non-sequitor; the Orion emergency return vehicle in not necessary and a waste of resources. Deferring decision on an HLV makes no sense. And NASA has not offered a workable plan.