A Vision Statement Of Sorts
NASA Boss Michael Griffin is saying there's between a 3 to 5 billion dollar shortfall to doing the rest of the 19 scheduled shuttle launches. It sounds like laying the ground work to retring the fleet, but that's just my speculation; he denies it in the Q&A section by saying he doesn't want to lose those people by simply cancelling the programme. Now, that's a kind of doublespeak is it not?
In the mean time he's telling us the international community is gung-ho about kicking on to the moon, Mars and beyond.
"The partnership has proven stronger than the stresses and strains which have been imposed on it, which have been great," Griffin said. "It has held together. If the United States is able to keep the commitments we've made to the station partners, I think we can take that partnership to the moon."
The ISS partners endured the grounding of the shuttles after the Columbia accident, cancellation of station components because of money and time limits, and the reshaping of U.S. space policy toward missions to the moon and Mars. Still, Griffin said his initial meetings with his counterparts from Russia, Canada, Europe and Japan only give him hope for future world space coalitions.
"Every time I speak to one of our international partners, they are gung-ho in every possible way about wanting to take this partnership forged on the space station to the moon and Mars. They want to do that," Griffin said.
The NASA boss spent a whirlwind day on the Space Coast. He met with workers at Kennedy Space Center and spoke to several hundred space-industry leaders gathered at the Florida Space 2005 conference. Then, he spent an hour answering questions about the space program's challenges and goals with Florida Today reporters and editors.
Hamstrung somewhat by requirements that he not disclose internal Bush Administration discussions about the 2007 budget, Griffin tried to quell lingering worries that even more shuttle flights might have to be cut to balance the budget later this decade.
Griffin said the agency has pitched several alternatives to the White House, which is preparing the next federal budget. Internal memos obtained by Florida Today indicate one option under review is slowing shuttle processing to one shift, working on one mission at a time and creating savings through the elimination of what could be thousands of jobs.
"It would be no secret to you that whatever area we decide to do less of would have its supporters who would be very upset by that, as would Florida if we decided to do less shuttle," Griffin said. "So, we are working to find every bit of fiscal synergy that we can so we can do what we want to do and we do not have to sacrifice what are valuable programs."
For now, he said, the agency plans 18 missions to the station and one flight to service the Hubble Space Telescope. Griffin acknowledged NASA must cut its bills because those flights will cost at least $3 billion more through 2010 than projected in the current federal spending plan.
There's also a Q&A at the bottom which is interesting.
Question: On why it's a bad idea to cut spending on space exploration to pay for short-term problems:
Answer: "Seven-tenths of 1% of the national budget is not a large figure, and even I don't argue that it should be a large figure. These are long-term investments, but there's a huge difference between seven-tenths of 1% and nothing. We need to invest the small fraction that we do invest in these long-term, high-payoff enterprises because that is what makes America great. There has to be something beyond our current problems because there are always current problems."
Q: On his previously quoted comments that the space shuttle and space station programs were "mistakes":
A: "The United States needs to be a space-faring nation. It needs to be able to operate in low Earth orbit and beyond. We had the moon, and we gave it up. That was a mistake. That's what I'm talking about ... So it absolutely was not that the shuttle was a mistake."
Q: On the loss of foam insulation during the launch of Discovery:
A: "We were largely successful (at solving the foam problem). We clearly need to get it right this next time because, if we don't, we are in danger of losing the confidence of our White House and Congressional stakeholders."
Q: On whether the agency will push to build its next spaceship and rockets here:
A: "No. NASA is not going to tell private contractors to move their factories from the state where the winner happens to reside ... to Florida. We launch from Florida. We'll integrate the launch vehicles and payloads here in Florida because it makes technical sense to do that. If the state of Florida wishes to make whatever contractor wins whatever job a better offer than the state he is in, have at it, but NASA is not going to interfere in that."
Q: On why it's a bad idea to cancel the shuttle program early:
A: "It would be a mistake to bring the shuttle program to a halt. It would be a mistake to send all of the people home and then some years later ask them to come back to work on the new system. We would not get those people back. We would lose an enormous base of essential experience that we would have to recreate. We're not going to need every single person presently working on the shuttle working on the new system. If we did, then the new system would be as expensive as the old one and no one will be happy. What we need to do is take some of the people working on the shuttle today and let them do other things so we can do more."
Q: On what the nation might learn on Mars that's worth the investment:
A: "What was there about the New World that would have been important in the year 1500 to Europeans who were perfectly happy with the lifestyle they enjoyed at that time? There were hundreds of years of investment by the Old World in the New World before it finally paid off. There are lessons there in terms of keeping commitments and strategic investments vs. worrying every year about hurricanes."
Q: On the cost of the plan to send humans back to the moon and on to Mars:
A: "We are talking about using the money already allocated to NASA on different things."
Notably, the answer he gives to the question of Mars is the 'Zubrin' answer.
He's Dead, Jim, But Not As We Know It
They're sending the ashes of dead actor James Doohan (a.k.a. 'Scotty From Star Trek") into space but the launch has been delayed.
The Falcon One was slated to take James Doohan’s ashes into orbit as per last request of the 85-year-old actor, but the launch was scrubbed after engineers found something amiss in a test fire of the rocket. No details were supplied, though it’s probably something to do with those dilithium crystals or Klingon sabateurs.
Doohan’s ashy remains are now scheduled to go into orbit sometime in January.
He rests in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill...
No comments:
Post a Comment