backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 51 comment(s) - last by FPP.. on Jun 19 at 7:09 PM

Griffin wishes his replacement the best, but has some early criticisms

Former NASA administrator Michael Griffin has left his post as the official lead man for the U.S. space agency, but remains skeptical of his replacement appointed by President Barack Obama, Charles Bolden.

Even though Griffin believes Bolden is qualified for the job, he's concerned regarding Bolden's decision to study and review the NASA manned spaceflight program.

"This review is not, in my judgment, necessary from a technical point of view," Griffin recently said during an interview.  "But it does seem to be necessary if we are going to quiet some of the criticism of what NASA is doing, and if we are going to get the new administration on board."

There was previous concern over a growing rift between NASA and President Obama when he was still out on the campaign trail.  Both Griffin and President Obama said the report posted in the Orlando Sentinel was "wrong" and overblown, with Griffin understanding he'd be replaced when Obama won the election.

Bolden already is facing a turbulent time as NASA administrator, and that likely won't get any easier in the near future.  The U.S. space agency faces budget issues, an aging shuttle fleet, an unfinished ISS, and a several year reliance on Russia to get supplies and astronauts to space.

Space experts are extremely curious to see how Bolden handles these issues, as Americans and politicians are watching his actions closely.

A 10-member group led by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augstine will meet next week in the first of several public meetings to discuss NASA's future.  One such topic is the manned space program, which could eventually see the "scope, budget and timetable" of the mission altered.

Final results must be turned over to the White House in August.

Griffin will spend his time in retirement by serving as professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and will make speaking appearances across the country.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I don't get it.
By DarkElfa on 6/13/2009 6:34:05 PM , Rating: 2
Why not just build some new shuttles with updated electronics and materials since they work well and keep things going well while they design a better replacement.




RE: I don't get it.
By theflux on 6/13/2009 6:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
Because the shuttle is extremely expensive compared to throw-away booster solutions. The current design, even updated, is a dead end at the current point in time.


RE: I don't get it.
By ChuckDriver on 6/14/2009 11:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because the shuttle is extremely expensive compared to throw-away booster solutions. The current design, even updated, is a dead end at the current point in time.


I've heard that the shuttle is more expensive to get people into space than the Saturn V, but is there a single-use rocket that can carry cargo like an ISS module into space for less money?

I'm not for building new shuttles. However, with all the money going around for "shovel ready" projects, I wouldn't mind if ~$5B went to extending the service life of the existing orbiters.


Why are we cutting back NASA's budget again?
By Boze on 6/14/2009 3:24:38 PM , Rating: 3
A not insignificant part of this president's campaign was based on the desire to improve America's standing in technological fields, or so I thought.

Can someone explain to me why we're cutting back spending on the one government agency that has consistently provided us with massive, important, and useful technological developments?

I really can't see how President Obama and his administration can justify any budget cuts, or put into a position of power someone who would stand idly by and allow it to happen. Science for the sake of science should be reason enough to perform any well-thought out science, but science that has a high propensity to directly benefit mankind should be valued even more highly.

Its truly a shame that as of right now, our nation's leadership are paying lip service only to the idea.




By ianweck on 6/14/2009 4:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well he has to pay for his first four months in office somehow doesn't he?


By mindless1 on 6/14/2009 4:57:51 PM , Rating: 1
It's happening because the American public doesn't attribute tech advances made by the space agency to which president is in office, while they may sooner do so if the funds are diverted to something else.

Plus, Obama is convinced he'll force us to live so cleanly we'll never need to leave the planet.


Wow color me surprised.
By SiliconAddict on 6/14/2009 2:37:35 AM , Rating: 3
Former guy is pissed that the new guy comes in and wants to do a top down review of what has been going on in the Bush Era. a.k.a the dark ages of science. Shocked I say! Shocked!




Michael Griffin
By CalWorthing on 6/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Griffin
By ViroMan on 6/13/2009 7:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
Well if your a kid and you can already hardly afford to play WOW(has a subscription fee) and your daddy halves your allowance... I don't think you could keep playing WOW much longer.


By Casual Observer on 6/13/2009 7:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that the plan is to dumb down NASA, or maybe you do!




The Ares program is a failure
By DustinD on 6/15/2009 10:41:39 AM , Rating: 2
Ares I can only lift a bare bones stripped out Orion capsule that does not even have the original number of seats and has to act as Ares I’s third stage. A capsule that has caused a large uproar from the astronauts office over safety issues. It is way behind schedule and over budget. Ares V is simply not going to happen given its development costs, it would have failed even if the economy never tanked.

Griffin was able to keep most of Ares I's problems a secret before the election, but document leaks from inside NASA such as the ESAS (Exploration Systems Architecture Study) appendices are really taking their toll on the program’s support. It has prompted harsh criticism from the ULA (United Launch Alliance) because the ESAS report went so far as to lie about the known capabilities of the existing EELV (evolved expendable launch vehicle) fleet. The original analysis even arbitrarily changed the requirements for inline vehicles to give them a very large advantage over their competitors.

I personally think the best option is the http://www.directlauncher.com architecture given the current budget and political realities such as saving the shuttle work force. It also would allow NASA to bring back the moon base and have a real chance of going to Mars. It also can close the shuttle/Ares flight gap.




The whole Point is
By FPP on 6/19/2009 7:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
...to install Astronaut uncle tom as the head head and then mine the NASA budget. They've already trimmed $640(?) million out. Obama likes NASA less than the KKK, and it shows. Hopefully, congress will get a set nd deal with this sham.




Bush appointees
By SilverTrine on 6/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: Bush appointees
By Ringold on 6/13/2009 8:49:46 PM , Rating: 1
MSNBC, even more left-wing then CNN, tore in to Obama a bit tonight over Obama appointees, specifically ambassadors to certain allies, such as France, Japan, & the UK. They were all campaign fund raisers, none with any foreign policy experience at all. If approved, they'll now spend some years living in what looked to me like nice palaces.

MSNBC may have been feeling guilty at poor journalism and even tossed in the admission that Obama had criticized Bush for doing the exact same thing with ambassador posts during his campaign. Chaaaange!

Anyway, enjoy it while it lasts. Once the public gets tired of the Democrats BS, they'll be "fired" and the pendulum swings back. Then Democrats will be circulated out of their political posts throughout government and it'll be their turn to take parting shots as their replacement cronies come in.


RE: Bush appointees
By nixoofta on 6/14/2009 4:01:49 AM , Rating: 3
Mr. Mackey: "Why, Clyde? Why did you do it?"
Clyde: "I dunno."
Mr. Mackey: "You got a whole school here clyde! M'kay?, you got over 300 people that need to use the boys room!, and you decide your gonna be a comedian M'kay?, and pinch one off in the urinal! and leave it laying there for everyone to look at!"
[Clyde begins to chuckle.]
Mr. Mackey: "M'kay?, M'kay? You think it's funny but nobody else does, there gonna walk in that bathroom and see your rancid dukey propped up against the back of the wall like a brown ragdoll!
[Clyde starts laughing.]


9 step plan to success
By icanhascpu on 6/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: 9 step plan to success
By masaauk on 6/13/2009 7:33:16 PM , Rating: 5
Almost every single step in your 9 step plan was a contradiction of some other step.


RE: 9 step plan to success
By DigitalFreak on 6/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: 9 step plan to success
By icanhascpu on 6/14/2009 1:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
I mistype two words and I can't spell? Hi troll.


RE: 9 step plan to success
By Boze on 6/14/2009 3:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I take issue with your post less for the fact that you can't spell and more for the terrible punctuation, grammar, and generally speaking, ideas.

If you'd spent at least a little time on that post instead of speeding through the "Preview" section, you could have reviewed both the puncutation, spelling, grammar, and ideas you presented.

The whole purpose of the "Preview" button is to allow you to proofread.


RE: 9 step plan to success
By icanhascpu on 6/14/2009 4:43:36 PM , Rating: 1
So what you're saying is you rather be a petty jackass than make any counterpoints.

Interesting.


RE: 9 step plan to success
By icanhascpu on 6/14/2009 1:13:56 AM , Rating: 2
Do tell.


RE: 9 step plan to success
By ianweck on 6/14/2009 4:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
Serious question, can somebody explain to me why none of this is a good idea? Because at first it doesn't seem so whacky. thx


RE: 9 step plan to success
By Ratinator on 6/15/2009 12:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
Because the US system is made up of Democrats and Republicans.....his ideas unfortunately are a mix of both and god forbid any be a Liberal.


RE: 9 step plan to success
By scrapsma54 on 6/14/2009 3:49:48 AM , Rating: 2
Rated back up for the Hulk smash to the blind's faces.


RE: 9 step plan to success
By lainofthewired on 6/14/2009 2:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
10. ???
11. Profit!

*runs off*


RE: 9 step plan to success
By unableton on 6/16/2009 9:40:27 AM , Rating: 2
unamusedreactionimage.jpg


RE: 9 step plan to success
By ipay on 6/15/2009 5:23:17 AM , Rating: 2
I live in South Africa, where #2 on your list has pretty much ensured that maximum line speed is 4Mbps and we pay $9 per GB of bandwidth. When there's no-one to compete against, there's no incentive to spend money on infrastructure.

Be careful what you wish for.


RE: 9 step plan to success
By djc208 on 6/15/2009 8:51:21 AM , Rating: 2
While I like #4, I have to argue that no one spends money on pie-in-the-sky research like the military. While much of it is to create more effective war machines, much of it is to help save soldier's lives or keep them off the battlefield all together, and much of this pays commercial dividends.

Look at the response and results of the autonomous vehicle challange. That technology can and is being moved to civilian purposes. New medical technologies, better safety gear, and the golden child of military funding: the GPS system. All help to show that while war is never a good thing, out of that spending has come a lot of social benefits, your freedom not withstanding.


Socialism sucks
By Rob94hawk on 6/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Socialism sucks
By SiliconAddict on 6/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Socialism sucks
By Rob94hawk on 6/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Socialism sucks
By Donkey2008 on 6/14/2009 7:27:55 PM , Rating: 1
Ask the state of Californina how what is working? Your statement regarding California's distribution of wealth is ambiguous. Was there some point you were trying to make? Do you have any specific examples?

Not hatin here, just trying to figure out what the heck you mean exactly.


RE: Socialism sucks
By Rob94hawk on 6/14/2009 10:42:48 PM , Rating: 1
I can explain how socialism is destroying California. I can give you an example which goes on every day in my hospital. An illegal immigrant from mexico delivers in my hospital, fresh from the border. Never paid a cent in any taxes you see on your yearly W-2. Now that child and mother are entitled to WIC, medicaid, housing, and food stamps all at the expense of the American taxpayers. The mother doesn't have to know english because my in my hospital, as others, it is law that WE have to provide a translator. So now you take just that one example and multiply it by one million (and we know it's more) and you will see how socialism is exploited and abused.

There's a big difference between being compassionate and being abused. I have no problem helping Americans that need it but you can bet your sweet ass I am against those that are exploiting it.

Socialism is a failure not only because it's being abused but because the contributors are being outnumbered by the users and abusers.

This is real life. Some of you better wake up.


RE: Socialism sucks
By Viditor on 6/15/2009 7:01:43 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Now that child and mother are entitled to WIC, medicaid, housing, and food stamps all at the expense of the American taxpayers


The child is, the mother is not...
In fact there are currently 10s of thousands of US naturalized kids who must live in Central and South America because their families have been deported.

Now, if you want to see what happens when a government tries to save the few dollars we spend on that treatment, you don't have to look any farther than Afghanistan.
Almost ALL terrorists come from families with no hope or money whatsoever...they have nothing to lose.

In fact, one of the biggest programs Al Queda has going is to try and stop the US from helping and feeding the poor in the Middle East. They are quite aware that a "friend in need" is shaped for life by those who can help him/her.

While I do believe in giving because it's the human thing to do, you can justify it as enlightened self-interest as well...


RE: Socialism sucks
By Chaser on 6/15/2009 9:16:29 AM , Rating: 2
Really? Every member of the 9-11 team had graduate degrees, some post graduate degrees, many from top U.S. Ivy league universities, one was a doctor two were attorneys.

I really get tired of this, "generosity will cure terrorists" kumbaya speak. Like everything else that makes some people feel good history has shown but it's done nothing to improve anything and actually makes things worse. We HAVE been generous, the world has. For example, every concession made by Israel, which was inspired and sugested by other "caring" countries and organizations like the U.N. and the U.S., whether it was giving up land to or softening border restrictions the results less than inspiring. What HAS been proven to be effective however is a tough stance and measured reprisals from terrorist activities.

And please try not and make your post as utterly ridiculous by trying to relate the generations of foreigners that exploit the U.S. benefit system with push button citizenship, welfare, money and housing to sick terrorists. Like the poster above you need to seriously speak to a nurse in a southern CA maternity ward. In some hospitals 80% of the babies delivered are from undocumented aliens from Mexico that can't speak a word of english. But by virtue of her child being technically born in the U.S. its her ticket to taxpayer benefits for life, all while the state of CA is on the verge of (an entire state, mind you) bankruptcy.

I love you do gooders that feel good using other people's money to be the generous "champions of fairness" for everyone else. If you need to ease your conscious that much to feel better I do know the IRS accepts checks.

And the next time you post use some common sense.


RE: Socialism sucks
By Rob94hawk on 6/15/2009 11:01:22 AM , Rating: 2
[quote]The child is, the mother is not...[/quote]

To the poster that made this idiotic statement: How naive are you, really?

And to the poster above me, well said.


RE: Socialism sucks
By Ratinator on 6/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Socialism sucks
By ianweck on 6/14/2009 4:22:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Idiots like you probably want to start up a good 'o McCarthy era witch hunt.


Wait, didn't McCarthy go after Communists?


RE: Socialism sucks
By Viditor on 6/14/2009 6:52:58 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Wait, didn't McCarthy go after Communists?


Actually, no he didn't...
He went after anyone that threatened his agenda and LABELED them communists...
In those days it was like a terrorist label is today.


RE: Socialism sucks
By Griswold on 6/14/2009 4:21:33 AM , Rating: 3
"so he can give more money to [...] and welfare recipients."

So, why exactly are you complaining, dumbass? You're obviously on the winning side!


RE: Socialism sucks
By Rob94hawk on 6/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Socialism sucks
By dark matter on 6/14/2009 10:21:58 AM , Rating: 1
How much of your paycheck goes to cover the illegal war in Iraq. I guess a days operation costs you the taxpayer as much as 6 months worth of medicare to these "illegal immigrants". Also you are kind of forgetting that EVERYONE other than the native Indians are immigrants, or sons of immigrants. Did you forget that part in your history lesson?

As for socialism sucks, perhaps you should have a word with Bush about that. He didn't go to war with Iraq over Oil, or even WMD, but because Saddam was a nasty man, apparently.

Is the Iraq war not the biggest and greatest kind of socialism going? It's certainly costing you a lot more than providing a bit money to a poor woman giving birth.

But then, you never had a mummy or a daddy. Only a nanny, and this is probably why you are unable to show even the slighest bit of humanity.


RE: Socialism sucks
By JediJeb on 6/14/2009 12:06:17 PM , Rating: 5
First off you can't even call the Native Americans non-immigrants since they migrated here from Asia thousands of years ago. But right now Legal versus Illegal Immigrant status depends on what society and laws are governing a country. I for one have no problem with Legal Immigrants, those willing to come here and work AND pay their taxes and obey the laws.

There used to be meaning in the phrases like " Earn your keep" and at one time "You don't work you don't eat" was the rule. During the Great Depression my Grandfather and four of his brothers traveled 500 miles to find work to keep their families feed and clothed. They lived in tents or run down boarding houses to save money so more could be sent home because they were committed to supporting themselves and their families. They did not take government handouts then because they believed each person should make their own way.

I see people right now who when they lose their job, would rather just sit and draw unemployment than have to move or travel to make a living. I am not saying that unemployment is not good, it is, it is very useful to support you as you look for work, but you should also be willing to look everywhere for work and be ready to change your standard of living if you have to. I think too many today have grown up playing video games and think life comes with a "Save Game" button so they can try that next level and not lose what they had before. Well life doesn't come with that button, it also doesn't have hacks for "God Mode" to make it easy.

Failure is a word noone likes but everyone should know. Failure has practically been removed from schools and childhood sports to prevent damage to self esteem. The problem is failure is one of the experiences that increases character and can actually build self esteem, once the pain of experiencing it has passed.

quote:
But then, you never had a mummy or a daddy. Only a nanny, and this is probably why you are unable to show even the slighest bit of humanity.

I know this was directed at the previous poster, but it is funny because nanny seems to exactly describe the whole welfare system today and socialism in particular. Also showing humanity to people runs both ways. By definition it means to show compassion, sympathy or consideration to. If I act with humanity towards the down and out, doesn't it then make them inconsiderate, non-compassionate and unsympathetic if they do not try to take what was given to them and build on it and eventually become a contributor to the system that helped them? I used to have a guy come by and knock on my door asking for money. A few times I gave him $100 to feed himself or pay rent. Then one time he came wanting money for food, I went to the pantry and gathered a box of food and gave it to him. He never returned because he only wanted the money to buy drugs. Did I show a lack of humanity by cutting off his money supply when he wasn't using it to help make himself better? No, and if I had continued to provide him with assistance that he would only squander then I would have actually been acting inhumanly by fostering his destructive habits. The Social Welfare System in this country acts humanely when it helps someone through a rough time and they turn things around. It acts inhumanely when it only fosters laziness and destructive habits. Destructive habits both toward the person and the society. Constantly drawing money away from even the moderately successful persons in a society lowers morale and that is a destructive act to them and society as a whole.

As for the blame, well you can't blame the Democrats or the Republicans, or Bush or Obama. They are in power because WE put them there. If every citizen would read the Constitution and understand it and the power it gives us, then when those that we elected don't do what we think is good, we should vote them out, or if in midterm recall them. The proof it can be done is already there, just look at how Arnold first became governor of California. The power belongs to the people of this country, we are just too concerned with our evening TV show, or the weekend at the beach, or taking the kids to an activity 5 nights a week to care anymore. I am as guilty as anyone in letting trivial matters keep me from what should be important, but until we all get off our collective backsides and get involved in how OUR country is run, then it will always belong to bureaucrats and politicians. And to be honest, the more we allow the government to do for us, the less we will care about being involved.


RE: Socialism sucks
By GaryJohnson on 6/14/2009 11:34:35 AM , Rating: 2
They already collect around 30%. So explain how 30% is ok, but 45% is socialism?

Capitalism is really defined by it's use of capital, ie: money. So I'm thinking under socialism, the villainified evil twin of capitalism as it's being portrayed lately, there would be no capital. You wouldn't even get a pay check. The tax rate would be 100%. So long as you have any money at all and a choice of how to spend it, it's not socialism.


RE: Socialism sucks
By JediJeb on 6/14/2009 12:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
What you said is correct. But also in true socialism, everyone is required to work for the benefit of all society. Everyone from the President down to the floor sweepers should also have the exact same type of house and car, and have the same quality of food and cloths. The problem then becomes, what do you do with the ones who will not work? Do you still provide for them? Do you remove them from the society?


RE: Socialism sucks
By Regs on 6/14/2009 5:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
exact same type of house and car, and have the same quality of food and cloths.


No, that is communism.

quote:
The quick 'n' easy way to remember the difference between Socialism and Communism is: Socialism is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their DEEDS ," whereas Communism is "from each according to their ability to each according to their NEEDS ."


RE: Socialism sucks
By GaryJohnson on 6/14/2009 7:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
That problem exists under capitalism as well. What do we do with people in the United States who could but won't work? I presume the moral judgements we've made as a society as to what to do with those people would persist if we were to transition to a socialist system.


RE: Socialism sucks
By ipay on 6/15/2009 5:30:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What do we do with people in the United States who could but won't work?


The correct thing to do would be to use them as fuel in power stations that provide cheaper electricity for the people who do work. Unemployment would drop drastically and so would welfare spending - everyone wins.


RE: Socialism sucks
By RjBass on 6/15/2009 10:44:58 AM , Rating: 1
This entire "Socialism Sucks" conversation, sucks.


RE: Socialism sucks
By FPP on 6/19/2009 7:09:41 PM , Rating: 2
No kidding. The wholw endgame here is to install astronaut uncle Tom as the Head Head and then mine the NASA budget. Obama likes NASA and space exploration about as much as the KKK.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki