Griffin Characterizes Freelance Proposals as "Noise"

[JimMcDade]

This is an excerpt from the SPACE NEWS Sept. 2, 2008 interview with NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. Griffin characterized freelance proposals such as DIRECT 2.0 as--- "noise".



Griffin also pointed out that extending the Shuttle program beyond 2010 will not shorten the gap between the Shuttle and Ares unless additional funding becomes available. Specifically griffin said, "The gap won't narrow if shuttle is flown past 2010; it will just be displaced in time. You don't reduce the gap by continuing to fly shuttle unless new money is provided. You just move the gap out to some other period of time. Unless money is provided to build news systems in parallel to flying existing systems there will always be a gap. This part's not rocket science, guys."



Likewise, I am baffled that anybody would suggest extending STS operations beyond 2010. In fact, I am still opposed to the HST servicing mission, as the decision to fly that mission was purely political and it defies the wisdom of the CAIB/FTF recommendations. And now, here is that excerpt about the noisemakers.



What can you do as NASA administrator to keep the community from losing faith and freelancing on new policy directions?


The full interview is at : http://www.space.com/news/080907-griffin-interview.html



What can you do as NASA administrator to keep the community from losing faith and freelancing on new policy directions?


(Griffin) I don't think I have any ability to keep the broader community from, as you say, freelancing. We live in a democracy. That's an artifact of life in a democracy and if you consider the broader context I don't think I'd want it to be any different.


Since I took the job I have relied on the strength of our technical arguments to reinforce the path we've chosen.


So far what you've referred to as freelancing has amounted to nothing more than noise because no one has produced an alternative which is safer, cheaper or available in a more timely way than the architecture we've recommended. And for that reason our oversight committees in Congress and our oversight branch in the White House have not chosen to redirect us. In brief we have the most sensible path given the available money. And I am always confident that more dialogue really doesn't serve to do anything except validate that conclusion. My responsibility is to keep our programs moving forward as they've been outlined. I'm sure that the proponents of alternative paths are acting in what they believe to be good faith. I am absolutely certain of that. I never suspect evil intent. I do, however, realize that not all of those people are as informed as they ought to be. So far the conclusions that have been brought to us just have not held up to engineering scrutiny.

[Andrew]

I'm sure that the proponents of alternative paths are acting in what they believe to be good faith. I am absolutely certain of that. I never suspect evil intent. I do, however, realize that not all of those people are as informed as they ought to be. So far the conclusions that have been brought to us just have not held up to engineering scrutiny.

It's amazing that Griffin is confident that the DIRECTers have no evil intent...but that they consistently maintain the opposite with him.

-Andrew

[JimMcDade]

Griffin is displaying a lot more class than some people would after being drug through the mud and slime by critics. I am sure that many of the true-believers in the Apollo Moon Hoax, Big Foot, and leprechauns are also "acting in what they believe to be good faith" as Griffin says.

It's not always easy to determine what motivates people to step out of line and "Raise Cain" about this or that. The professional and personal experience of an individual can provide obvious clues about their motivations, but not always.

The gist of Griffin's remark about freelancers (i.e DIRECT 2.0) is that he holds the position that there is just nothing of substance to be found in their claims.

I am currently working with a friend of DIRECT 2.0 who is presenting me with some actual engineering-based objections and information about Ares I. That is a refreshing change from the obnoxious street mob mentality and harassment that comes from some other DIRECT 2.0 supporters. I am protecting his/her identity for obvious reasons. This person has a strong background in space launch systems. He/she is an actual working engineer, although he is not a NASA employee or a direct ARES I program engineer.

I am evaluating this engineering-oriented position and I will report the results here on InsideKSC. I am aware that this engineer is taking a minority position relative to NASA managers and most Ares I engineers, but it would be foolish to dismiss or ignore a qualified dissenter just because they have arrive at a different conclusion from the majority. Don't get me wrong, I am firmly in the pro-Ares I camp, but I do not have a closed mind, particularly when someone presents a well-constructed case that is accompanied by proper documentation and information.

It is not possible to review some of the Ares I studies and documentation that is rightly protected from distribution by federal law or NASA policy. My source has access to some internal materials, but he/she is taking extra care to avoid improper or illegal information sharing. Unlike may of the DIRECT 2.0 supporters, this source understands that objective, rational people require much more than just bombastic claims or inadequately supported contentions to accept an argument. The less qualified DIRECT 2.0 supporters really hurt their own cause by simply borrowing from the well-worn conspiracy theory play-book of appealing to human emotion and fear. The source that I am working with understands those continuing errors from DIRECT 2.0 bloggers and posters, and he is sacrificing some of his own time to lay out the technical issues as logically and as orderly as is possible under the circumstances.

In the end, I hope that the InsideKSC readers will be able to see an acceptable presentation of this engineer's argument. But please remember, the fact that although an argument is solid and valid still does not mean that it has to be accepted by all. Argument is a process, and there will certainly be counter-arguments to follow.

I just hope that we can reduce this controversy to disagreements that are based on factual and technical information while ignoring alleged political and administrative conspiracy theories that may or may not just be imagined. I will do my best to filter truth-obscuring rumors and political angles out of the presentation to come.

This process is time-consuming and sometimes difficult, so please be patient.