Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I guess Mike Griffin doesn't want to stay at NASA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I guess Mike Griffin doesn't want to stay at NASA

    Caveat: Maybe this is political. I put it here because the subject is NASA

    Is Griffin insane? Obama is going to be President. This can't help NASA or Constellation. And it seems to me like a guaranteed ticket out for him.



    NASA has become a transition problem for Obama

    CAPE CANAVERAL – NASA administrator Mike Griffin is not cooperating with President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team, is obstructing its efforts to get information and has told its leader that she is “not qualified” to judge his rocket program, the Orlando Sentinel has learned. In a heated 40-minute conversation last week with Lori Garver, a former NASA associate administrator who heads the space transition team, a red-faced Griffin demanded to speak directly to Obama, according to witnesses.
    In addition, Griffin is scripting NASA employees and civilian contractors on what they can tell the transition team and has warned aerospace executives not to criticize the agency’s moon program, sources said.
    Griffin’s resistance is part of a no-holds-barred effort to preserve the Constellation program, the delayed and over-budget moon rocket that is his signature project.


    ...


    When team members arrived three weeks ago, they asked the agency, among other things, to quantify how much could be saved by canceling Ares I. Though they also asked what it would take to accelerate the program, the fact that the team could even consider scrapping the program was enough to spur Griffin and his supporters into action
    According to industry officials, Griffin started calling heads of companies working for NASA, demanding that they either tell the Obama team that they support Constellation or refrain from talking about alternatives.
    The companies, worried that Griffin may remain and somehow punish them if they ignore his wishes, have by and large complied.
    One consultant said that when Garver invited “several” mid-level aerospace executives to speak to the team, their bosses told them not to go and warned that anything said had to be cleared first with NASA because Griffin had demanded it.
    Documents and e-mails obtained by the Sentinel confirm NASA’s efforts to coordinate what’s said.


    ...


    Tensions were on public display last week at the NASA library, as overheard by guests at a book party.
    According to people who were present, Logsdon, a space historian, told a group of about 50 people he had just learned that President John F. Kennedy’s transition team had completely ignored NASA.
    Griffin responded, in a loud voice, “I wish the Obama team would come and talk to me.”
    Alan Ladwig, a transition team member who was at the party with Garver, shouted out: “Well, we’re here now, Mike.”
    Soon after, Garver and Griffin engaged in what witnesses said was an animated conversation. Some overheard parts of it.
    “Mike, I don’t understand what the problem is. We are just trying to look under the hood,” Garver said.
    “If you are looking under the hood, then you are calling me a liar,” Griffin replied. “Because it means you don’t trust what I say is under the hood.
    WTF?
    Chuck
    秋音的爸爸

  • #2
    YES, Mike Griffin is crazy. He's also NUTS. NASA has lost many a good rocket engineer because of his single minded devotion to Ares I. In short: Obama's people are very justified in any suspicions they have about Griffin and what's been going on in the Constellation program.

    Most of us on Space.Com and NASASpaceFlight.com have known this since Ares I was continued even after logic dictated otherwise. This even after half the rocket jocks at NASA either quit in frustration or went along to get along while working underground on the Direct 2 project - an expendable booster for manned missions that makes Ares I look like a pipsqueak.

    Griffin also isn't above lying to Congress and any one else that'll listen, saying Direct 2 or other proposals (including SpaceX's Dragon) won't work when they threaten his baby.

    At least 10 times now the Orion spaceship has had to be downsized drastically and lost important capabilities because Ares I couldn't lift it, and the cuts are not done. Now it's down to a 4 man crew for ISS missions while SpaceX's Dragon can carry a 7 man crew on the same mission. What about the moon? While SpaceX hasn't mentioned it in a while the Dragon was designed to be moon=capable with an upgraded heat shield and a service module. It's also just over half the weight of Orion.

    Ares I and Orion were said to cost at least 2-3 billion to develop and cost about $800 million for each launch, but that was before all the development fiasco's. God knows what they would cost to finish now and their move to full flight status (though manned test flights will occur before this) now looks to be 2016 because Ares I won't be ready until at least 2013 with 2014 more likely.

    Total development cost for SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Dragon has been estimated at under $300 million and should cost under $100 million for each launch, a small fraction of what NASA is spending just on Ares I and Orion. Falcon 9, Dragons launcher, will have its maiden flight sometime in the next 3 months as it was shipped to Cape Canaveral's LC-40 pad this week. The first unmanned Dragon is set to fly a few months after that (likey June or July '09) with two more flights shortly after that, the last being a full cargo delivery to the ISS in early 2010.

    Better yet Dragon is designed to be reusable and convertible - it can do manned, cargo or a mix of both. Dump all of the seats and install cargo racks and it's an automated cargo hauler. Plug in the manned override panel and put the seats back in and it's again a piloted spaceship that retains its cargo remote control capabilities. Dump some seats and instead of a crew of 7 you could have enhanced cargo capacity in a 1-4 man ship. It can carry 2500 kg of pressurized cargo plus more, small satellites or experiments, in the unpressurized 'trunk' - the thing that looks like a service module that also houses the solar panels. 1200 kg of on-board thruster propellant gives unmanned mission lengths of up to 2 years.

    LC-40, former home of the mighty Titan IV, is now SpaceX's pad as they signed a deal with the USAF last year. Most flights will be Falcon 9's with the Falcon 9 Heavy coming around 2010/11.

    F9 Heavy is slated to loft about 29.6 mT (~5 more mT's than the space shuttle) to LEO and about 15 mT (>11 mT more than the space shuttle) to GTO (geosynchronous transfer orbit), far beyond the capabilities of Ares I which will be lucky to loft 19-20 mT to LEO and AFAIK has no GTO capability.
    Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 11 December 2008, 20:50.
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

    Comment


    • #3
      I remember when Griffin took the helm at NASA, it was with much fanfare over his engineering background and the promise he could provide the agency with a much-needed new focus. Now it seems fairly obvious he's as infected with the "not invented here" mindset as most of his predecessors.

      He's doing as much to render NASA irrelevent as Proxmire and Mondale did. But Griffin's supposed to be working for the agency, not against it.

      Kevin

      Comment


      • #4
        Griffin's NIH attitude just makes me ill.
        Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 11 December 2008, 21:02.
        Dr. Mordrid
        ----------------------------
        An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

        I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

        Comment


        • #5
          Correction: now I really am ill.....got some updated numbers...

          Ares I alone (not counting Orion!) is now estimated to cost $30 billion to finish.

          The entire EELV program (Atlas V and Delta IV) only cost $3 billion.

          Then there is SpaceX......
          Dr. Mordrid
          ----------------------------
          An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

          I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Dr Mordrid View Post
            Correction: now I really am ill.....got some updated numbers...

            Ares I alone (not counting Orion!) is now estimated to cost $30 billion to finish.

            The entire EELV program (Atlas V and Delta IV) only cost $3 billion.

            Then there is SpaceX......
            and that is adjusted for the inflation? (if yes....OMG )
            If there's artificial intelligence, there's bound to be some artificial stupidity.

            Jeremy Clarkson "806 brake horsepower..and that on that limp wrist faerie liquid the Americans call petrol, if you run it on the more explosive jungle juice we have in Europe you'd be getting 850 brake horsepower..."

            Comment


            • #7
              Yes, all numbers in current dollars.
              Dr. Mordrid
              ----------------------------
              An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

              I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

              Comment


              • #8
                someone needs to take nasas mastercard and cut it in peices
                If there's artificial intelligence, there's bound to be some artificial stupidity.

                Jeremy Clarkson "806 brake horsepower..and that on that limp wrist faerie liquid the Americans call petrol, if you run it on the more explosive jungle juice we have in Europe you'd be getting 850 brake horsepower..."

                Comment


                • #9
                  NASA needs to have the hardware development business taken away from them entirely. They need to concentrate on Mission development and associated hardware requirements, and then bid out the hardware development to private industry. It seems elementary. Think of the R&D funding that could be saved. Maybe NASA could actually get something done for a change.

                  This will never happen, of course, because way too many congresspeople have way too many vested interests to protect. Damned shame.

                  RIP, NASA.

                  Kevin

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What makes it really maddening is that early studies showed the concept had problems before they even started spending significant dev dollars which is why insiders started working on the Direct & Direct 2 concepts, both of which use largely unmodified shuttle hardware.

                    That and the whole COTS program supporting outside companies like SpaceX's work on Dragon was because it became obvious Ares I wouldn't be ready before the shuttle is retired in 2010. Some startups fell by the way-side for lack of funding, some are stil talking but not cutting appreciable metal, but SpaceX is flying. Bigtime.

                    The only other option is renting rides from Russia, which NASA is of course paying 50% more for than the space tourist fees Russia is charing civilians. This, the Soyuz safety issue, the chill in relations between Russia and the US and many congressmen wanting to spend the money here vs. giving it to Russia is making things interesting.

                    Now you know why many inside NASA play go along to get along while secretly rooting on SpaceX and Direct 2. Doing it in public would not help their job security with the Griffin-ista's in the front office.

                    Side note: one interesting Direct concept is the Jupiter III heavy lifter: two shuttle fuel tanks, four shuttle SRB's and several shuttle main engines in the core cluster with a total LEO lift of ~230 metric tons...2x that of Ares V and almost 4x times that of Saturn V.

                    Probably hear that thing all the way from the Cape to Virginia, Texas and Jamaica

                    Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 12 December 2008, 13:25.
                    Dr. Mordrid
                    ----------------------------
                    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Oh c'mon..."Soyuz safety issue"?...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yes, "Soyuz safety issue" - an issue that has building for more than a decade. The incident below brought it to a head after a series of such incidents.

                        Turns out the Soyuz separation system isn't (and hasn't been) working right and one of the modules is staying connected to the return vehicle, not exactly a safe re-entry configuration. This wasn't an isolated incident either - several missions dating back to the early 90's have had the same or similar things happen, so it's a design flaw.

                        At least part of the cause has been traced to the explosive bolts used to perform the separation, one of which had to be removed while another Soyuz was docked at ISS this last summer to prevent a problem on re-entry at the end of that mission.

                        Also: the problem of the hatch nearly burning through during re-entry in the mission noted below is not the first time that has happened. It also happened on the previous Soyuz mission.

                        Congress is NOT happy with the whole situation, especially because NASA (read: Griffin & Co.) still wants to fly some of our missions on Soyuz even if a COTS alternative is ready to fill the "shuttle gap".

                        Universe Today article...

                        April 22nd, 2008

                        Soyuz Capsule Hatch Nearly Burned Up and Crew's Lives Were on a "Razor's Edge"

                        First, Russian space officials tried to cover up the emergency landing of the Soyuz descent capsule on Saturday. Then they blamed the crew for changing their flight plan without communicating with mission control. Compounding the problem, an official cited a bad omen as a contributing factor to the hard landing. Within a couple of days, the truth behind the Soyuz "ballistic re-entry" began to come to light. Today, even more shocking revelations are being reported, including how the escape hatch nearly failed during the uncontrolled, fiery re-entry…

                        On Sunday, the Universe Today reported on the off-target landing of the Russian Soyuz descent capsule carrying South Korea's first astronaut, Yi So-yeon, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko and NASA record breaker (for most time spent in space) American Peggy Whitson back from the International Space Station (ISS). The capsule had landed short of its intended target, 20 minutes behind schedule. The authorities later blamed the mishap on a change in flight plan and suggested the crew were to blame. Then, surprisingly, Federal Space Agency chief Anatoly Perminov placed some of the blame on the female dominant crew, saying women on board space missions were bad luck.

                        Yesterday, I reported on some updates to the drama that had unfolded. Apparently, even before the rescue helicopters had located the capsule, the Russian space agency publicised the crew's safe return, covering up the fact they had no idea where they were. What's more, the helicopters had been sent to the wrong location, and it was by chance that the capsule's parachutes were spotted. The capsule had landed in a zone reserved for emergency touch-downs and the crew suffered a "hard landing". Not being able to send a signal to mission control, the crew remained upside down, strapped to their seats for 25 minutes. Malenchenko was able to unlatch himself to get outside to use a satellite phone. Some news agencies reported that the parachute had even caught alight and set the surrounding vegetation on fire.

                        Today, even more revelations have been reported. According to an unnamed Russian space official, the capsule had entered the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner. Rather than the capsule's heat shield taking the frictional re-entry burn, the escape hatch became exposed and bore the brunt of the high temperatures outside. The hatch sustained substantial damage. The antenna was also exposed to the heat, completely burning it up, explaining why the crew were unable to communicate with the ground. A valve that equalizes cabin with atmospheric pressure was also damaged.


                        "The fact that the entire crew ended up whole and undamaged is a great success. Everything could have turned out much worse. You could say the situation was on a razor's edge." - Anonymous Russian space official involved in the descent investigation.

                        Russian Federal Space Agency spokesman, Alexander Vorobyov, continued to downplay the series of events saying that antennae were regularly damaged during capsule re-entries. He rated Saturday's event as a "3", where "5" on the scale would be critical.

                        This troubled landing has naturally raised questions about the safety record of the Soyuz capsules currently being used. This is the second time in a row (and the third since 2003) that there have been serious problems during re-entry of Soyuz capsules. The official continued to say that there can be no guarantee that this will not happen again:

                        "Considering that this situation has repeated itself, it is obvious that the technological discipline in preparing space equipment for a flight is declining. There is no guarantee that the crew of a Soyuz spacecraft landing a half a year from now would not face the same difficulties." - Anonymous Russian space official

                        During the confusion as to where the Soyuz capsule had landed, there are unconfirmed reports that the U.S. Defence Department tracked the off-target landing and pinpointed its location for Russian helicopters. NASA is reserving comment until the Russian Federal Space Agency finds the cause of the uncontrolled descent.

                        Investigators suspect that the ballistic re-entry was caused by an electrical short in the cable that connects the crew capsule's control panel with the Soyuz descent hardware. A short circuit in this cable can automatically trigger the ballistic re-entry mode and there is little the crew could have done to prevent it.

                        Sources: The Associated Press, New Scientist

                        SpaceFlightNow article on TMA-12....


                        Bolt removed from Soyuz, placed in blast-proof case

                        BY WILLIAM HARWOOD
                        STORY WRITTEN FOR CBS NEWS "SPACE PLACE" & USED WITH PERMISSION
                        Posted: July 10, 2008

                        Space station cosmonauts Sergei Volkov and Oleg Kononenko cut open insulation on their Soyuz re-entry vehicle today, successfully removed an explosive bolt from a suspect connector and locked it in a blast-proof sleeve for return to Earth. The unprecedented space surgery was ordered to help Russian engineers troubleshoot a module separation problem that caused steep, rougher-than-usual descents during the most recent two Soyuz landings.

                        "The MLI (multi-layer insulation) is flying around again," one of the cosmonauts commented as the operation proceeded.

                        "We've ravaged the vehicle," agreed the other, according to an interpreter in Russian mission control.

                        After cutting through the insulation, the cosmonauts struggled to remove a locking wire from the target pyrobolt. Then, using a hex wrench, they finally succeeded in unscrewing the bolt from its housing.

                        "Be careful, be very careful," mission control urged. The pyrobolt had the explosive potential of an M-80 firework, but Russian flight controllers said it would be virtually impossible to accidentally detonate. Even so, the cosmonauts were repeatedly told to take their time and "be very careful."

                        Finally, at 6:44 p.m., with both cosmonauts hunched over the gaping wound in the Soyuz insulation, Volkov successfully disconnected the explosive bolt and slipped it into the cylindrical blast canister.

                        "It is in!"

                        "Good. Thanks, God," one of the spacewalkers said.

                        "It is in."

                        "Disabled the mine," someone quipped.

                        With the explosive bolt safely locked in its canister, the cosmonauts turned their attention to photographing the work site and beginning work to cover up the cut in the protective insulation. A final task, to install a docking target on the Zvezda command module's upper port, was deferred to a more routine spacewalk next week.

                        The Soyuz is made up of three connected sections, but only one of them - the central descent module - is designed to carry a crew back to Earth. Just before atmospheric entry, explosive bolts fire, severing connections holding the modules together. During the two most recent Soyuz entries, the lower propulsion module failed to cleanly separate from the crew cabin, presumably because at least one of the five connectors holding it in place did not release properly.

                        Each connector features two redundant pyrobolts. The bolt removed today was from the same connector suspected of hanging up in the previous two Soyuz entries. As part of the pyrobolt removal procedure, the spacewalkers opened the connector in question, leaving the other four connectors intact. If nothing else, that should help ensure no hang up in that area of the module interface when Volkov, Kononenko and a U.S. space tourist use the Soyuz TMA-12 spacecraft to return to Earth in October.
                        Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 12 December 2008, 21:07.
                        Dr. Mordrid
                        ----------------------------
                        An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                        I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X