PDA

View Full Version : New NASA administrator



ToSeek
2005-Mar-11, 09:31 PM
Bush Nominates Michael Griffin to Head NASA, Replacing O'Keefe (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=azV5lbjV.pDo&refer=us)


Michael D. Griffin, the head of Johns Hopkins University's [Applied Physics Lab] space department, was nominated to be the administrator of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration, the White House announced today.

Interesting choice. I did not know Griffin when I was at APL.

publiusr
2005-Mar-11, 09:45 PM
This is good news. He is pro-HLLV.

http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_040412.html

"Michael Griffin, NASA’s associate administrator for exploration from 1991-1993, says the most logical approach, all things considered, is to spend the $3 billion or $4 billion it would cost to build a shuttle-derived heavy lifter and forget about EELV-driven approaches."

“No matter what lunar or Mars architecture is chosen, a lot of mass will have to be moved through LEO, or through some other staging point,” Griffin told Space News. “I would argue that 100 [metric tons] represents a reasonable place to start, and that shuttle-derived systems can get us to that point more cheaply than other systems. No one would favor a clean-sheet approach more than would I, but unless more money is made available for it than I think likely, we won’t get it. I dislike giving up something we have in favor of something we might get.”

"Griffin also said...that...he takes a “dim view” of approaches that would rely on orbital staging and assembly operations..."

HypersonicMan
2005-Mar-11, 11:13 PM
I think it's a pretty good choice, but I may be rather biased since I'm doing my Masters thesis research at APL. I'm not working in the Space Department, but I nearly did before I decided to go to the University of Arizona for my PhD instead of staying here in DC. He's pretty well liked there, and I'm sure a lot of folks will be sad to see him going on to bigger and (fingers-crossed) better things.

01101001
2005-Mar-12, 05:30 AM
Too bad, Richard C. Hoagland.

Warning. Danger ahead. Eye-protection is advised. Vote Hoagland (http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page764.html?theme=light)

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Mar-12, 05:58 AM
The guy has a zillion engineering degrees, and may have some priciples he'll stand by (http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/03/administrator_a.html). I'll be interested to see how this goes.

Maksutov
2005-Mar-12, 06:03 AM
Perhaps there's still hope for Hubble and the Voyagers after all.

BTW, I've got a $1 bill sitting on my computer desk in an envelope, waiting for an address to send it to, in case it's needed to keep the V'gers going for another year. Hopefully there are 3,999,999 others out there ready to do the same thing if necessary.

Archer17
2005-Mar-12, 06:07 AM
Perhaps there's still hope for Hubble and the Voyagers after all.

BTW, I've got a $1 bill sitting on my computer desk in an envelope, waiting for an address to send it to, in case it's needed to keep the V'gers going for another year. Hopefully there are 3,999,999 others out there ready to do the same thing if necessary.I'll do the same .. heck my wife just said she'd will toss in a bone (I'm blessed).

Doodler
2005-Mar-12, 07:22 AM
Throw me in for a c-note. God knows I've burned a hundred bucks on much less worthwhile things.

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Mar-12, 07:26 PM
Holy cow. I may be in love with this guy. In a statement to the House Science Committee (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=12151), he said



But the more important question is whether the return to be obtained from the use of ISS to support exploration objectives is worth the money yet to be invested in its completion. The nation, through the NASA budget, plans to allocate $32 B to ISS (including ISS transport) through 2016, and another $28 B to shuttle operations through 2011. This total of $60 B is significantly higher than NASA's current allocation for human lunar return. It is beyond reason to believe that ISS can help to fulfill any objective, or set of objectives, for space exploration that would be worth the $60 B remaining to be invested in the program.


I've been advocating dumping ISS for some time now. The only reason given by the White House that we are still building it is to not disappoint our international partners. So we're going to spend $60B to support them, while starving hugely successful programs like Voyager, MER, and, oh yes, Hubble.

When politics becomes the critical deciding factor in space exploration, we go nowhere. It must play its hand, of course, because we are dealing with nations, but when it becomes an impediment of this magnitude, it's time to rethink what we're doing. I certainly hope Mr. Griffin will do exactly that.

Crazieman
2005-Mar-12, 11:29 PM
This guy seems perfect. Keep old, functional, viable probes while axing the ISS which has been a gigantic drain for low-orbit futzing.

I just hope he carries more charisma than O'Keefe and can help get the public on board some of these new projects, including the manned space initiative.

Doodler
2005-Mar-13, 01:57 PM
Where's Publiusr? He's gonna love this one.


NASA should initiate development of a heavy lift launch vehicle having a payload capacity of at least 100 metric tons to low Earth orbit (LEO). Such a vehicle is the single most important physical asset enabling human exploration of the solar system. The use of shuttle-derived systems offers what is quite likely to be the most costeffective near-term approach.

Looks like you got your wish, chief.

ToSeek
2005-Mar-13, 02:30 PM
Where's Publiusr? He's gonna love this one.


NASA should initiate development of a heavy lift launch vehicle having a payload capacity of at least 100 metric tons to low Earth orbit (LEO). Such a vehicle is the single most important physical asset enabling human exploration of the solar system. The use of shuttle-derived systems offers what is quite likely to be the most costeffective near-term approach.

Looks like you got your wish, chief.

Look up. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=432690#432690)

TravisM
2005-Mar-13, 02:41 PM
I saw this thismorning and nearly choked on my coffee! =D> Applied Physics!?!?!?! YES! A Real Scientist!!

Again: =D>

Doodler
2005-Mar-13, 03:04 PM
Where's Publiusr? He's gonna love this one.


NASA should initiate development of a heavy lift launch vehicle having a payload capacity of at least 100 metric tons to low Earth orbit (LEO). Such a vehicle is the single most important physical asset enabling human exploration of the solar system. The use of shuttle-derived systems offers what is quite likely to be the most costeffective near-term approach.

Looks like you got your wish, chief.

Look up. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=432690#432690)

Note to self, read entire thread before posting. #-o #-o #-o

BigJim
2005-Mar-16, 01:32 AM
When's the confirmation hearing, anyone know?

Jpax2003
2005-Mar-16, 05:35 AM
Harry Stonecipher is also available.

publiusr
2005-Mar-16, 07:35 PM
A little too available, I'd say.

I thought they still put bromide tablets in the water cooler to keep the suits libido in line.

Stonefossil was a MacDoug man who replaced Condit. I think he was secretly ticked that Boeing Bought his company out and did subconscious, anal-retentive things to keep Boeing down--probably the real reason he was fired. Boeing seems back in Capital Hill's good graces--which means they must have dug something up on a Senator or a General.

That is how the space industry works, people.


Glad to see Griff supports heavy lift. If the Bushies try to get him to budge, he will tell them to "pack sand."

John Kierein
2005-Mar-17, 01:26 PM
Here's what the AGU syas about Griffin. Not much to say really.

************************************************** **
ASLA 05-09: Bush Nominates New NASA Administrator
************************************************** **

On 11 March, President Bush announced the nomination of Michael Griffin as
NASA's 11th Administrator. The nomination comes nearly three months
after former Administrator Sean O'Keefe announced his resignation and
less than three weeks after O'Keefe's official departure from the agency.

Griffin currently serves as Head of the Space Department at the Johns Hopkins
University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). He has also spent time at
Orbital Sciences Corporation, NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, and the
Computer Sciences Program. Griffin was chief of NASA's exploration
office from 1991 to 1993 and is expected to be an advocate of President
Bush's Vision for Space Exploration (Moon-Mars) program.

Griffin holds a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from the University of
Maryland and five Master's degrees in Aerospace Science, Electrical
Engineering, Applied Physics, Civil Engineering, and Business
Administration. He began his academic career with a undergraduate degree
in Physics from Johns Hopkins University.

Congress has reacted positively to Griffin's nomination. The House of
Representatives Science Committee Chair Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) said,
"We are extremely pleased that the President has nominated Mike Griffin to
be NASA Administrator. He has broad expertise, knows NASA inside and
out, and is an imaginative and creative thinker and leader. He is also
known for his candor and directness. We look very forward to working
with Dr. Griffin at this critical time for NASA."

Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Space
in the House Science Committee commented that "Dr. Griffin has an
impressive background in space-related fields, and I am encouraged by his
nomination to be the next NASA Administrator. I look forward to working
with him on the full range of issues facing NASA."

Griffin now awaits confirmation by the U.S. Senate, which has yet to set a
date for his confirmation hearings.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2005-Mar-18, 12:47 PM
I've been advocating dumping ISS for some time now. The only reason given by the White House that we are still building it is to not disappoint our international partners. So we're going to spend $60B to support them, while starving hugely successful programs like Voyager, MER, and, oh yes, Hubble.




There were some recent stories posted by Upi and spacedaily, they wrote something like 'human exploration of the planets cannot be done without the 'extensive long-term engineering and medical research that can only be conducted in International Space Stations low-Earth orbit'.

That's how much I recall, I don't know how much of the news item was just the writers feeling and opinion because I don't remember a lot of facts or much data posted in the article, but the news item was very pro-ISS and finishing the Space Station

I think the news articles came out about the 12th of March

Spacewriter
2005-Mar-18, 02:52 PM
MT,

A long time ago we used to have these meetings called the Case for Mars (and I guess they still do, but I haven't been to one in ages). In the early days one scenario we used to talk about quite a bit was a human presence at LEO where people would live and work on spacecraft that go elsewhere. The big question was: where do the materials come from for these spacecraft? The answer at the time was: lunar mining, for a variety of reasons including lower gravity well from which to get the ores, metals, etc. It seemed pretty elegant, but of course the devil is in the details. ISS and any LEO habitat situation is incredibly expensive and difficult to start up -- as we've found out. That would be fine if we had the political will to see the science and technical hassles through to solution. But, as we've seen with ISS, we don't have that political will, or at the least, the will gets subverted by other issues. Lunar mining would be a huge subversion of political will, not the least of which because unless it was multinational effort (probably involving the UN), it would never happen.

What all those elegant ideas have devolved to today is what we have orbiting above, and it isn't a solution anymore.

joema
2005-Mar-18, 04:16 PM
There are some inaccuracies in the story http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_040412.html

It states the shuttle can lift 27.5 metric tons (60,627 lbs) to LEO. In fact the shuttle's heaviest ever payload was about 22.7 metric tons (50,000 lbs) on STS-93, Chandra X-Ray telescope.

By contrast Delta IV Heavy can lift 25.8 metric tons (56,879 lbs) to LEO.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delheavy.htm

Each Delta IV Heavy costs $254 million. NASA now charges about $1 billion for a non-ISS shuttle launch: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0534.pdf

A shuttle-derived heavy lifter would be considerably cheaper, and have much higher LEO payload. However development costs should be evaluated against uprated EELV options. E.g. Delta IV Heavy derivatives could lift Saturn V-class payloads (100 metric tons):
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/product_card/pc_d4_tech_print.pdf

publiusr
2005-Mar-18, 07:10 PM
It would also throw away fewer engines. If you wanted to launch 100 tons into orbit--it would take five, three-core Delta IVs (throwing away 15 RS-68s) and five upper-stages. A single HLLV with only three RS-68s/or SSMEs could place that same load up there in one shot--and if one hydrogen engine burned out--you could burn the others longer in its place.

Five such 100 tons pods, and ISS could have been done.

HLLVs are actually far less expensive than EELVs. But Boeing won't tell you that because they are trying to sell engines and pawn their albatross on us.

Delta IV has no such engine-out capability, with each engine feeding from only on CBC. Plus, the Delta IV is turning out to be a real pad-sitter. That last Delta IV heavy was there 370 some odd days. Those are Titan IV numbers. The current Issue of Space News states that the decision on heavy lift cannot be made by Griff alone. The President's plan insists that both the Pentagon and NASA must agree on HLLVs--otherwise the EELV only policy stands.

So now we have to work on General John Jumper and Rumsfeld. Teets is moving on. The problem is, Pete Worden, an HLLV Air Force man--was hated by his fellow Air Force men. You have to understand--the AF runs the Pentagon--and they want money for one fighter plane after another. They have starved space over many years. For a long time, Boeing's largest rocket was the Energiya-strap-on Zenit SEA LAUNCH booster, with its single, four nozzle RD-170.

Lockheed-Martin uses the half strength, two-nozzle RD-180 for Atlas V--also slow off the pad now that they abandoned the original Atlas balloon tanks.

So both Boeing and Lockmart use Russian HLLV tech--while saying they don't need HLLVs.

Fah!

Can you imagine the telling the Air Farce that they had to fly MiGs from now on? Do you think they would put up with it? No. What the fighter-jocks want, the fighter jocks get--with the space people kept off in a corner.

That has got to change. Hopefully, Griff will wail into them. Call that "hand-waving" if you want. Big Lift advocates have had enough of sitting on our hands.