Slashdot Mirror
New NASA Administrator Named
CheshireCatCO writes "The Bush Administration has nominated Mike Griffin as the new chief administrator of NASA. Griffin currently heads the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University and holds degrees in physics, civil, electrical, and aerospace engineering and aerospace science, as well as an MBA. (How did he ever have time to do anything else?) He was also part of the Strategic Defense Initiative in the 80s."
Why build a new one, when Russia already has one?
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
He was also part of the Strategic Defense Initiative in the 80s
Given how much of a waste of money the SDI program was (or should I say is), I hope his work at NASA is better. Otherwise, we might end up with an planetary defense system on the moon to protect us from Martian terrorists.
--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox
Wired article as proof
At least this guy hasn't bemoaned the very institution to which he's been assigned.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Actually, this is a Very Good idea for three reasons:
(1) the nominee is Not a Beancounter;
(2) the nominee is not an astronaut married to the Space Shuttle/Space Station welfare system;
(3) the nominee knws some science and engineering.
-- Jonathan Vos Post
What, you mean the SDI wasn't real work?
Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
Press Release: http://www.jhuapl.edu/newscenter/pressreleases/20
Does anyone know whether this means there's a chance for the Hubble? Maybe he will be more inclined to save it than the current NASA administration.
hes trying to avoid real work? have you ever tried to get an engineering degree? Or even better Three engineering degrees? These arent degrees in psychology or art appreciation...
Well, he was part of the SDI...
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
Can he understand his little brother, or what? And what's with the talking dog?
Nasawatch has great coverage of the nomination with some interesting quotes.
In synopsis, Griffin has been willing eschew political expediency and stand on principle.
Real work? Like heading the Space Department, a group with more than 600 people, which is the 2nd-largest group at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory?
As for your doubts that he actually built stuff, according to that first link above he helped design the Delta 180 missile components of the SDI program. He was also SDI's deputy of technology, associate administrator for exploration at NASA, and COO of In-Q-Tel (a private CIA-funded group to invest in relevent technology companies). He also had leadership positions at Orbital Sciences Corporation, and tech jobs at NASA JPL and Computer Science Corporation.
Regardless of whether you agree w/ SDI and the other jobs, you cannot doubt the fact that he has had both engineering and management positions, and apparently been rather successful and has a buttload of experience.
So back to your quote above, I'd say you'd make a pretty lousy hiring manager if you just judged their time in school without putting their work experience into context.
Prior to being at JHU's APL for the second time, Dr. Griffin was also the "president and chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, a private, non-profit enterprise funded by the Central Intelligence Agency to identify and invest in companies developing cutting-edge technologies that serve national security interests."
Some may be familiar with In-Q-Tel as the CIA's private venture firm.
He had just rejoined APL last April. He was with APL in the 1980s, and left to become the technology chief for the Strategic Defense Initiative.
To expand a bit on what the summary said, "in addition to a doctorate in aerospace engineering, he holds master's degrees in aerospace science, electrical engineering, applied physics, civil engineering and business administration, and a bachelor's degree in physics." He is also the president-elect of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
There's no question he is not only a skilled academic with a clear appreciation for space sciences, but a competent administrator and manager as well, and experienced with Washington politics to boot. Let's hope he does well for NASA.
Time for nasa to get off its scared little ass and start realizing that space is a new frontier and there will be accidents and mistakes.
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
At first glance, I thought that the story read:
... holds degrees in physics, evil, electrical, and aerospace ...
But I wonder if a degree in evil would be such a bad thing?
bash: rtfm: command not found
And this is why the internet is still a sucky form of communication. How's this for you?
[sarcasm]What, you mean the SDI wasn't real work?[/sarcasm]
Happy?
Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
He was also part of the Strategic Defense Initiative in the 80s.
I won't go so far as to say that this should automatically disqualify him, only because he is a science/engineering geek and it is possible to live in that realm and not mix politics. However, the "Star Wars" initiative was a horrible idea. Now it has regained momentum -- 'National Missle Defense' under GWB, interesting how this choice to head NASA supported Reagan's SDI...Hmm...
The cold war is OVER. The best way to achieve nuclear disarmament or even come CLOSE is to give the impression at least, to other countries that you aren't preparing for an oncoming nuclear attack.
Uses lots of words, says nothing... check.
Knows what the real purpose of NASA is... check.
Sounds perfect.
about oil discovery on Mars.
Oh, come on, Buckaroo Banzai was a hard-rocking particle physicist neurosurgeon who saved the world from invaders from the 8th dimension.
Mmmm... come to think of it, maybe they're both fictional. Say, I wonder if a fictional character's ever been confirmed by the senate before...
He was a nerd/geek. It's not like he was getting laid or being invited to parties or anything.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
and millions of IQ scores show (see the Bell Curve book data)
using the above reference pretty much makes your argument a troll.
The arguments made in that book have been pretty well repudiated (Gould, Pinker etc).
As another reply has said, get some balls, and stop whining
Real work? Like heading the Space Department, a group with more than 600 people,
Management - Doesn't count.
he helped design the Delta 180 missile components of the SDI program.
Yeah, but so did I, through my tax dollars. You can get away with stretching reality quite a bit on a resume by saying you "helped" or "contributed to" or "had involvement with" a project...
He was also SDI's deputy of technology, associate administrator for exploration at NASA, and COO of In-Q-Tel
Management, management, and... management.
He also had leadership positions at Orbital Sciences Corporation
Do I need to say it again?
and tech jobs at NASA JPL and Computer Science Corporation.
Okay, that could mean something. Or it could mean he worked a help-desk. Too vague...
I'd say you'd make a pretty lousy hiring manager if you just judged their time in school without putting their work experience into context.
I agree completely. But as you have so kindly put Griffin's work experience into context... I'd say we have a real winner here, boys! Seriously over-educated in the sciences, yet he's never held an actual job? waaaaaaay too suspicious. I could almost forgive the education (I hope someday to have a list like that myself) if he had some real work experience, but NO ONE with an interest in the hard and applied science proceeds to jump to the dark side and work as a manager their entire career... They might accidentally end up there, but only after a fairly long career doing "real" work.
Let me know when it comes out that he believes in creationism, and only went into aerospace to disprove that whole pesky heliocentric "theory".
While googling around for some background on Griffin, I found a rough transcript of a House Subcommittee hearing concerning NASA FY '93 appropriations on sci.space, which has an interesting exchange concerning a manned mission to the Moon and Mars:
Obviously, $400G is $400 billion, not $400 grand.
He goes on to champion the "lighter, cheaper, smarter" ethos, mentions nuclear propulsion as a possible option, and at that time regarded the recent collapse of the Soviet Union as presenting the sort of opportunity similar to the one that brought Von Braun to the US (acknowledging their current lead in heavy lift capability). He even says "I'm not too proud to ride a Russian vehicle if it gets us there".
As for Griffin's private sector experience, that's been the rule rather than the exception for NASA's ten former administrators. Frosch and O'Keefe came from academia, Truly from the military (and NASA). The other seven had served as either engineers or administrators for aeronautics- or space-related companies.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Right or wrong, the arguments in such a book will
be strongly opposed by the politically-correct
establishment. Those who fight against this sort
of book will do so with complete disregard for the
facts. If any sort of unfair IQ distribution is
proven, many people's worldview is threatened.
So the book is fought with the same intensity with
which people fight the teaching of evolution.
So I take your "pretty well repudiated" with a
40-carat grain of salt.
At least no one lost their lives.
Using such FU logic, we should shut down the gender that screwed those up, eh? Or maybe it's their race in this case? I'm sure you've got a good sterotype to entertain us with...
Here, have a quarter. Quit your whining and start doing something productive.
I really hate to have to ask this, but is Mr. Griffin a deeply religious christian like so many of Bush's appointees? I'm not trolling nor am I saying being a religious person is a bad thing. But a number of Bush appointees are very religious, and seem to have no problems pushing the christian agenda in their government jobs.
These multiple mars failures are all clearly the "new female Regime" results. Or perhaps we forgot to put any heaters on the explosive bolts preventing cruise stage separation causing the DS2 and lander to burn up in the atmosphere on the previous joke-of-a-mission.
Of course, all missions went perfect, and no Mars-lander was ever lost until that darn women-law.
Seriously, more missions have been lost than there were successful missions. Now go find something else to blame women of!
Please have an honest debate and not knee jerk censoring. We are all adults here.
I'm not very sure of that..
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
Afghanistan has held elections with US aid (hence by definition we are no longer at war with them).
The US is not at war, I don't know why intelligent people continue to say this.
Actually, this appointment is irrelevent. As someone who works with people at NASA (on the science end), I have seen up close and personal the Bush strategy for NASA. A more telling story appears in today's Washington Post concerning NASA job cuts. NASA expects to cut 15% of its workforce by 2006. The excuse given is that they need to streamline to go to Mars. The real reason is that Bush wants to turn NASA and other government agencies into organizations which convert govt. funds into private contracts. So how do you do that? Cut the permanent staff and put all NASA projects up for bids. We are currently in the "passive cut" phase. NASA employees nearing retirement have been offered a $25,000 package to just go away. For some centers, most of the staff have been offered such a packacge. NASA/Ames for example had 1400 of its 1470 employees receive such an offer. Since you can't do science through bids to private entities, this means that NASA is done with science (and no...sending man to Mars has very little science associated with it). People bitch that NASA has had no direction for the past 25 years. NASA has been the crown jewel of US science from Hubble to Spitzer to Galileo but that is just not sci fi enough to capture the imagination of the American public. Almost all similar projects that were on the drawing board are now gone. What's left of NASA's staff after the passive cuts phase will be absorbed by universities as all NASA scientists must pay themselves (or at least justify) their salaries through their grants anyway at this point. NASA is fast becoming a 16 billion dollar kickback to Big Biz. They will not be going to Mars any time soon if ever.
NASA doesn't need someone who can build a rocket engine. As chief, he wont be building anything himself. His job is to MANAGE and LEAD. And he has the knowledge and experience to do just that.
and terrifying ;-)
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
It's a problem, sure, but an engineering/physics problem that will have solutions. One such solution is dramatized in Kim Stanley Robinson's well researched Red Mars.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
Let me get this straight. Because he has more advanced degrees than you or I will ever have, and because he's held a lot of fairly responsible jobs on technical projects, he's a creationist. ...ye gods, sign me up for the God-loving, if this is what it gets! Seriously, are you just trolling?
In Soviet Russia, Rockets Launch You!
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
You also criticize a guy that loves science for jumping to the 'dark side' of management. But just what kind of manager are you looking for at NASA anyway? Someone that doesn't like science?
and how do you argue against the scientists who were suddenly changing their minds on issues having to do with the environment?
How do you argue for the tried appointments of people by the bush administration to positions when they came straight from industry lobbying positions.
People who are blind to *some* of the things that have been done through appointments of this administration should be shot.
the second sentance was a deadly serious question:
is he truely interested in science and exploration, or will he follow the corporate interests as some of the other bush appointments.
from Wonkette.com:
"A press release announces Bush's pick to head NASA. Michael D. Griffith "received a bachelor's degree in Physics from Johns Hopkins University; a master's degree in Aerospace Science from Catholic University of America; a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Maryland; a master's degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Southern California; a master's degree in Applied Physics from Johns Hopkins University; a master's degree in Business Administration from Loyola College; and a master's degree in Civil Engineering from The George Washington University." Yes, that's a B.A., a Ph. D., and five M.A.s.
An operative offered a shorter version of the story: "Bush Nominates Virgin."
Hm... I went through three rounds of rejected submission attempts earlier trying to submit this story, several hours before this version was posted. In any case, here's my version of the submission, which has many more links:
NASA Watch, New Scientist, and Space Ref report that Dr. Michael D. Griffin has been nominated as the next administrator of NASA, to replace Sean O'Keefe. As NASA head, Griffin will be tasked with implementing the Vision for Space Exploration. Griffin is currently head of the Space Department at the Applied Physics Laboratory at JHU, is president-elect of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and has a doctorate in aerospace engineering. He's noted for being passionate about space exploration and having strong management experience. His nomination has been praised by a number of groups, including the Planetary Society, the National Space Society, and House Science Committee Democrats and Republicans. In the past, Mike Griffin has testified to Congress on the future of human spaceflight, the vision for space exploration, and the danger of asteroid impacts. He was also rebuked in the early 90s for pointing out problems with the space station's review process.
As for my own thoughts, I think Griffin is an excellent pick. I'm amazed that they were able to find somebody with as much technical expertise as him who also has such a large amount of experience with managing large organizations. According to the space.com article, Griffin can be expected to make maximum use of the emerging commercial spaceflight industry.
In the past he's also said the following, which I approve of highly: "What is needed is to retire the Shuttle Orbiter, and its expensive support infrastructure," Griffin wrote. "It simply does not serve the needs of exploration and it is too expensive, to logistically fragile, and insufficiently safe for continued use as a low Earth orbit transport vehicle."
In the past he's been highly in favor of the government constructing a new heavy-lift launch vehicle, which I somewhat disagree with. Such an endeavor could easily end up being a bottomless money pit. Hopefully SpaceX's low-cost launches in the coming months will help raise awareness of frequently-launched smaller vehicles.
In congressional testimony he gave last year, Michael Griffin outlined a number of questions which he felt Congress and NASA need to ask. This list was pretty interesting, because many of them are the sorts of things which NASA is notorious for ignoring. It's refreshing to know that these questions are at least on the radar of NASA's new head:
(bolding mine)
# Why does spaceflight - human or robotic - cost so much more than other comparably complex human activities, and what can be done to remedy the situation?
# Is a serious program of human space exploration sustainable, given the "cost of doing business" presently associated with the enterprise?
# What incentives can be offered to proven and well-established aerospace contractors to devise innovative and cost-effective, yet safe and reliable, approaches to building a new human spaceflight infrastructure?
# Where and how does NASA intend to engage the entrepreneurial high-tech culture which has made our nation the envy of so many others, in so many areas other than aerospace? What can we do to bring the engine of capitalism to spaceflight?
# What is the proper role of prizes, or of pay-for-performance contracts, in stimulating and encouraging the high-tech community to devote its attention to aerospace?
# Can or should the Congress establish prizes for specific accomplishments in spaceflight, independently of NASA?
# What is NASA's proper role in the development of new space systems, beyond setting requirements to be met through competition in industry?
# What is NASA's proper role, as an agency of the U.S. government, in the conduct of future spaceflight operations?
# If the exploration of new worlds requires technologies and skills beyond those presently available within NASA - and it clearly does - how are the skills of other agencies and laboratories to be used effectively in the service of the larger mission? How will the overall effort be directed?
# Given that we as a nation will spend a certain amount each year on civil space activities, what would Americans prefer to see this money used for? What vision for space exploration excites people enough to cause them to believe that the money they spend on it is well spent? Can a reasonable consensus even be found? How do we know?
# Is the United States interested in leading an international program of space exploration? Which nations might be competitors, and which might be partners? How and in what role do we view our potential partners in the enterprise? What do our potential partners think about this? How do we know?
Read his resume - he's a lobbyist with a science degree. Does this amaze anyone?
But this isn't scientific news if you ask me.
Whatever NASA does in projects may be science news, but the name of a new whomever who decides what they do or how they do it certainly isn't.
All it can lead to is speculation regarding how this may impact NASA's general policy and decision making style. Sounds more like corporate analysis to me.
Since Shuttle launches and servicing missions are disproportionately expensive compared to non-Shuttle launches, I personally would support the idea of building a successor to Hubble and launching it with another launch vehicle, such as the Delta IV Heavy.
I figure you could build a more modern telescope with the knowledge that we gained with Hubble. We could make the mirror larger in diameter to give it more light gathering capability, give it a more sensitive imager and sensors, and even use adaptive optics.
But whatever we do, we need to get something working (that operates in visible wavelengths)
This passage is pretty funny. While Griffin is strictly talking science and using sound logic, the other guy is just plain politicking:
Hall: Where are folks who did $400G estimate? Gone, in a nursing home?
Griffin: Different mission. I liked BMW a lot more, but Toyota gets me back and forth.
Hall: I'd prefer if you drove a Ford.
That's what kills our government. The entire process is stripped of logic and is replaced by emotional statements that don't get much done, but are effective at swaying public opinion. Seriously though, Griffin was trying to state factual arguments while the other guy was burning up my tax money thinking of something useless to say.
He hasn't had time to do anything else. He's a complete academic. His work in the Star Wars industry is the clincher: all he's good for is achieving budgets, not any actual mission success. He's the perfect shill for the Republicans' new increased NASA budget: another conduit for military contractor corporation handouts that produce nothing but disaster.
--
make install -not war
No. I made that comment because he basically sounds like an overeducated bureaucrat, that our science-hating president chose for the position. We have:
- Torturers in charge of the upholding
the law and homeland insecurity;
- A homophobic creationist in charge of
educating the nation's youth, and author of
the bill that cannot have any effect but to
try to bankrupt our public school system
(considering the simple fact that if you
have a distribution with more than one
value, then by definition you have samples
below the mean);
- An anti-environmental secretary of the
interior, who has singlehandedly done
more to gut our preexisting environmental
protection laws than the oil companies could
ever dream of;
- A pro-wage-slavery and opponent of safe
workplaces in charge of Labor;
- Daddy's General in charge of our Department
of Imperialism;
- A Secretary of State that has publically
admitted she "do[es] not believe in the Community
of Nations", and who completely failed to foresee
the biggest event in history in her actual field
of expertise, the former Soviet Union - ie, its
collapse;
- A guy who failed miserably at leading
the EPA, shuffled around to head of HHS;
- And finally, a secretary of agriculture that
doesn't see a need to test our food supply for
its safety, and who, as governor of Nebraska,
personally tried to make "March for Jesus Day"
and later, "Back to the Bible Day" state holidays.
And let's not forget a few of the more memorable non-cabinet appointments, Mr. Jerry "Gay Plague" Thacker, to a presidential HIV advisory committee; A war criminal in charge of the National Security Council; And a new head of the EPA that thinks we should put low-income housing on "only a little bit" dangerously polluted sites...And you really wonder why I might just think that, lacking actual work-related qualifications, Griffin might prefer epicycles to relativity?
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
So you criticize this guy for having too many management jobs, and then use that as the argument for why he's unfit for the top management job as NASA?
Yes, I do.
A "good" manager can make a tough, boring job at least tolerable if not outright self-deprecatingly fun. A "bad" manager can make a dream job with great coworkers into a living hell.
"Good" managers invariable do not start out life saying "I want to manage". They start out as "one of the boys" doing real work, and over time they (usually accidentally) trickle up through leading small teams to heading projects to leading deparments.
"Bad" managers start out in management or finance. They have impressive qualifications, then spout utter crap like "TQA", and hold increasingly frequent meetings to find out why your project completion date keeps slipping further into the future.
Griffin has an impressive-sounding education, but has never done "real" work in the field. That, IMO, puts him very solidly in category #2, "Bad" managers.
But just what kind of manager are you looking for at NASA anyway? Someone that doesn't like science?
No - I want someone that DOES science rather than someone that watches others do science. Or at the very least, has done so in the past. But this guy? He's done nothing but watch. Football fans don't necessarily make good players, nor do they necessarily make good coaches.
Yes, I do wonder why you automatically assume everyone this government picks is an evil man. Wait, no I don't- you're exceptionally bitter, and projecting your hatred of W onto every single person he associates with. There is absolutely no real reason to believe that Griffith is a bad person for the job, MUCH LESS a creationist.
Ever seen the satellite imagery of Energia's destrictive power when blows up on the pad?
Oy, those Rooskeys ain't brave... they CRAZY!!
And we complain about Shuttle safety. NASA PR needs to just start advertising Russian "safety" and people will lay off. Bigtime!
-Pie
Yes, I do wonder why you automatically assume everyone this government picks is an evil man.
Because Poisoning the well only counts as a logical fallacy when you can't demonstrate that every single person that drinks from the well ends up dead five minutes later.
In this case, I provided the list of bodies. Feel free to go ahead and take a drink anyway.
projecting your hatred of W onto every single person he associates with
"Hatred" != "Pity", but in this case, since he only associates with yes-men, I can safely presume that anyone he likes, I will probably not.
There is absolutely no real reason to believe that Griffith is a bad person for the job
Except for his total lack of "real" work experience. Don't forget that.
But on the other point, I will concede that I have no basis for calling him a creationist - In fact, given his high level of education, statistically speaking he most likely does not believe in such superstitious drivel.
1) You list two doublings of raw tax income increases across nearly twenty-five years. Are you factoring in combined inflation and currency (dollar) depriciation into your numbers?
2) As a percentage of GDP, how much more or less does the federal government take in through taxation between 1980 vs. 2005?
3) How much of the federal budget is used to pay interest on the debt vs. military spending vs. spending programs such as NSF, DOE, Education, HUD, Medicare/Medicaid, etc?
4) If one were to end Social Security, would ending the payrol tax be appropriate? If so, how would one pay for the military and service debt? Cut all social programs from the federal budget and there is still a significant shortfall. Or would you keep the payroll tax and end S.S. at the same time?
Curious,
--Maynard
Your definition of good and bad managers only applies to first-level managers, or managers who left engineering within the past few years, in my experience. I've found that people too into the engineering do a very poor job at being Nth level managers - they do a poor job of paying equal attention to *all* of their job requirements, and the non-geeky stuff is just as critical at that level.
My best experience with corporate VPs has not been with the former engineers, who typically did a poor job working within a heirarchy, but with the MBA sorts who loved engineering as laymen. Those guys are the best to work for: in my experience they care about the products, and the engineers as people, without expecting to understand the technical details of each project.
There's nothing more painful than an engineer trying to manage engineering projects once the field has moved beyond what he knows. "I don't understand this new stuff, it can't be as good as the stuff I know!" Please, spare me.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Also consider that news networks and the like probably didn't feel the need to say "He soldered crap for a few years." or "His eyes no longer function entirely due to his time in the cubicle farm at Boeing-Douglas-Marietta." They skip right to the perceived "important" positions, which to the news media, is management.
I rather like these quotes from Griffin:
... Can America, through its mastery of human space flight, have a similar influence on the cultures and societies of the future, those yet to evolve in the solar system as well as those here on Earth? I think so, and I think our descendants will consider it to have been worth twenty cents per day."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10683
"So, recognizing that others may differ, for me the single overarching goal of human space flight is the human settlement of the solar system, and eventually beyond. I can think of no lesser purpose sufficient to justify the difficulty of the enterprise, and no greater purpose is possible."
"What the U.S. gains from a robust, focused program of human space exploration is the opportunity to carry the principles and values of western philosophy and culture along with the inevitable outward migration of humanity into the solar system. Is this valuable? The answer must depend on one's worldview, I suppose. But consider a map of the world today, and notice the range of nations in which English is spoken as a primary language, and in which variations on British systems of justice, politics, culture, and economics thrive today. Was the centuries-long development of the British Empire, based upon Britain's primacy in the maritime arts, a misguided use of resources? I believe not.
"The necessary requirements of human expansion into the solar system cannot be met without a greatly increased program of unmanned scientific exploration. This can only be seen as a "win-win" for all those involved in any aspect of space exploration. In the end, it comes down to letting robots and humans each do what they do best."
"For interplanetary flight, something more than chemical propulsion is clearly needed for other than return to the moon or, possibly, the first expeditions to Mars. Nuclear propulsion makes the most sense to me; several options are available, including both nuclear-thermal and nuclear-electric concepts. We once had an operating, ground-tested (though not flight-tested) nuclear-thermal upper stage intended for use on the Saturn V. The program was cancelled thirty years ago, when it became clear that a Mars mission was not in the nation's immediate future. Numerous nuclear fusion concepts potentially applicable to space propulsion exist, most notably those involving electrostatic confinement of the nuclear core, but none of these is receiving more than token funding. There also exist a number of promising approaches to electric propulsion, notably the Vasimir engine concept. In the long run, some form of nuclear-electric propulsion is likely to offer the best combination of efficiency and packaging capability for interplanetary flight."
"I have alluded above to some of the technical hurdles that we face in a commitment to a permanent program of human space exploration. Broadly, the tools necessary for this enterprise include:
* Heavy-lift launch capability, in the 100 metric ton to LEO class or greater.
* Reliable, efficient, and cost effective transportation to LEO for moderate size payloads.
* Compact space qualified nuclear power systems.
* Nuclear and nuclear-electric upper stage vehicles for application to interplanetary flight.
* Space and planetary surface habitat and human suit technology.
* Technology and systems for utilizing the in situ resources of the moon, Mars, and asteroids.
* Reliable and routine Earth-to-LEO crew transfer systems."
"I will repeat only briefly my remarks above concerning ISS; we should do what is necessary to bring the program to an orderly completion while respecting our international partnership agreements, obtaining where possible as much scientific value as we can from the enterprise while accommodating ourselves to the fact that such value is inevitably limited."
"Regarding the Space
The "cheating" is the same as what software
developers do all the time. To test one part
of the system while the rest is incomplete,
you rig something up as needed. Thus the "ICBM"
gets a homing beacon, etc.
Building the whole system without first testing
the individual components would be foolish.
Problems are fully expected. If they were not,
we could just do away with testing entirely!