Re: NASA Administrator Griffin on NRC Review of ISS Science and LunarPlans

["Patrick Q. Collins"<collins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mark,

Thanks as always for the various interesting items you manage to 
find!  And I think your reading between the lines below is right.
"First make your plan - then think about what you want to do..."
It's the only model Nasa knows since it started as a cold war
institution.  Not a job I would choose :-)

However, if the solicitations for commercial flights to 
orbit work out - which obviously Nasa wouldn't do if it could 
avoid it, but money pressures are getting pretty tight, I guess
 - then that might be enough to get passengers flying to and
from Bigelow's balloon-hotel, and so on...  Anyway, fingers 
crossed.

      Patrick


> FYI,
> 
> The top brass at NASA are worried about their future - worried enough to release
> this candid e-mail communication discussing how worried they are.  What I am
> seeing, reading between the lines, is that Griffin and his management team have
> inherited a train wreck in progress and are despirately trying to figure out how
> to survive it.
> 
> "Internal Memos from NASA Administrator Michael Griffin regarding the
> NRC report 'Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station'"
> NASA E-mail via Space.Ref
> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18960
> 
> : Editor's note: The email exchanges below occurred between Mike
> : Griffin and his senior staff between 22/23 November 2005 in
> : reaction to the release of the NRC Report: Review of NASA Plans for
> : the International Space Station.
> 
> : All-
> 
> : Thanks to Trish. This is helpful. I've read the report, and there
> : is not much good in it for us. Not surprising, however, coming from
> : Len Fisk.
> 
> : I'm copying a bunch of folks on this note because it concerns the
> : nucleus of a strategic problem for us in going forward with the
> : VSE. Bottom line, we're going to have to answer the specific issues
> : in this report. We're going to have to define the program of
> : activity for ISS that obtains from it the utility that it can
> : provide. We may NOT be able to fund that activity at present; I
> : consider that almost a fact on the ground. But we can put in place
> : the kind of peer-reviewed science that we WOULD do, given the
> : money, and that we WILL do, when we can afford it. This is the "non
> : SMD science" to which Trish refers.
> 
> : Scotty/Gerst, defining the program that gets the most out of ISS
> : for Exploration is squarely in your court. But others can and will
> : help where possible.
> 
> : The next step out is the Moon. We're going to get, and probably
> : already are getting, the same criticisms as for ISS. This is
> : the "why go to the Moon?" theme.
> 
> : We've got the architecture in place and generally accepted. That's
> : the "interstate highway" analogy I've made. So now, we need to
> : start talking about those exit ramps I've referred to. What ARE we
> : going to do on the Moon? To what end? And with whom? I have ideas,
> : of course. (I ALWAYS have ideas; it's a given.) But my ideas don't
> : matter. Now is the time to start working with our own science
> : community and with the Internationals to define the program of
> : lunar activity that makes the most sense to the most people. I keep
> : saying -- because it's true -- that it's not the trip that matters,
> : it's the destination, and what we do there. We got to get started
> : on this.
> 
> : Shana will be taking the lead on working with Obie and the
> : International Partners to get started down the track on pulling
> : together an international coalition. They are annoyed and impatient
> : with our delays since the Vision speech. We need to be, and be seen
> : to be, proactive in seeking their involvement. We need to work with
> : them, not prescribe to them, regarding what we can do together on
> : the Moon.
> 
> : Beyond the Moon is Mars, robots first. Most of the Internationals
> : are at present more interested in Mars, as I hear the gossip. Fine,
> : we can't tell them what to be interested in. But our road to Mars
> : goes through the Moon, and we should be able to enlist them to join
> : on that path.
> 
> : Everyone on this address list wants to be part of making
> : Exploration what NASA does. It won't survive if all we worry about
> : is getting there. That was the essential first step. But it has to
> : sell itself on what it is that we DO there. The kind of criticism
> : we're receiving in connection with the ISS, in the report Trish
> : references, needs to be addressed for ISS, and needs to be "headed
> : off at the pass" for the Moon.
> 
> : Mary and Scotty, what we do at our destinations is in your
> : bailiwick. But let's resolve to get some runway behind us on this,
> : and soon.
> 
> : Mike
> 
> -- 
> Mark Reiff <markreiff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> -- 
> Space Future        | To unsubscribe send email with the subject "unsubscribe"
> www.spacefuture.com | to "sf-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx".
> 


-- 
Space Future        | To unsubscribe send email with the subject "unsubscribe"
www.spacefuture.com | to "sf-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx".