Griffin is seen bringing valuable skills, experience to difficult job of running NASA
Full Plate
Science and engineering polymath Michael D. Griffin faces easy confirmation as the next NASA administrator, but some pretty rough sledding after that. By most accounts, though, he's up to the job.
"Mike is one of the most knowledgeable space professionals I know," says Dennis Fitzgerald, deputy director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). "Besides the white socks and the slide rule, he can also manage."
To do the job he's been handed, the 55-year-old Griffin will need all of the skills provided by his seven degrees--including a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering, an MBA and master's degrees in applied physics and various engineering disciplines--and his long experience in high-tech government and industry. That experience spans classified and unclassified programs, including a stint finding new technology for the CIA. He has also managed secret space hardware programs in his current role as head of the Space Dept. at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.
But exploring space has always been a unifying theme in Griffin's resume, even when he was working on military programs. As deputy director for technology at the old Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, Griffin oversaw development of the Clementine lunar orbiter, which used the Moon as a target to test sensors and software for missile defense and discovered strong hints of water ice at the lunar poles.
As NASA administrator, one of his early tasks will be to spearhead the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), set for launch in 2008 to follow up on the Clementine findings. The LRO is to be the first robotic mission in President Bush's long-term plan to move human exploration beyond low Earth orbit, a plan that has its roots in the Space Exploration Initiative propounded by the president's father when he was in the White House.
Griffin oversaw that work as associate NASA administrator for exploration, and watched it founder on Capitol Hill when lawmakers balked at its $450-billion, 30-year pricetag. Perhaps with that lesson in mind, the current Bush White House has avoided a topline estimate for its plan to use the Moon as a testing ground for the gear humans would need to explore Mars. Instead, the administration opted for a pay-as-you-go approach that faces its first serious congressional debate this year.
Shepherding the president's plan through that debate will be at least as challenging as finding the technology to fulfill it. While few doubt his technical ability, Griffin's friends concede he lacks the political acuity of his predecessor, Sean O'Keefe, who left the agency at the end of February for a better-paying job at Louisiana State University.
"Being politically astute is not his strongest skill," says Pedro Rustan, NRO director, advanced systems and technology. "But he can think on his feet, and he's a very quick study."
Senate Republicans want to move out on Griffin's nomination in early April, as soon after the two-week Easter recess as possible. Griffin already has the support from leaders of both parties he will need for confirmation.
"I am pleased President Bush is sending us a nominee with a strong technical background," stated Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), who chairs the Senate Commerce space subcommittee. Within the larger problem of selling the president's space vision on Capitol Hill, Griffin will also have several thorny sub-issues to finesse. One of the most pressing involves the future of the Hubble Space Telescope. O'Keefe drew heavy flak when he scrubbed a shuttle mission to service the orbiting observatory and upgrade its instruments, and Griffin is sure to feel pressure to reconsider that decision.
Although some congressional support exists for reinstating a robotic servicing mission O'Keefe had also abandoned as too difficult (AW&ST Mar. 7, p. 19), the NRO's Rustan suggests Griffin may look for a different technical compromise. An orbiting telescope using the new Hubble instruments originally intended for installation by shuttle astronauts could be built for "a few hundred million dollars" as a gap-filler until the next-generation James Webb Space Telescope is launched, Rustan says. Lightweight adaptive optics to collect the light from distant stars could be substituted for the heavy and expensive mirror on the Hubble, he suggested.
Bush's plan calls for retiring the space shuttle by the end of 2010, once assembly of the International Space Station (ISS) is complete. In congressional testimony and published opinion pieces, Griffin has called for shutting down the "operationally fragile" space plane as soon as possible. But he has also ridiculed as unacceptably expensive the idea of using the Atlas V and Delta IV expendable rockets to launch exploration hardware. Instead, he has supported the option of scrapping the shuttle orbiter and using its external tank, solid boosters and cryogenic main engines to build a shuttle-derived heavy lifter for exploration.
Similarly, Griffin will have no problem with Bush's plan to abandon the ISS after 2014. "The goals of the nation's human spaceflight program must be set high enough to justify the cost and the risk associated with the endeavor--and a few people circling Earth in the [ISS] does not meet this standard," he wrote in an opinion piece published Mar. 8, 2004, in Space News.
NASA has taken a "spiral development, system of systems" approach to procuring the hardware it will need to carry out Bush's exploration plan, and Griffin literally wrote the book on the subject. Published in 1991, Space Vehicle Design, co-authored with James R. French, is pitched to systems engineers and promotes multidisciplinary teamwork as "the most powerful tool at the disposal of the systems engineer."
Rustan, who has worked for, above and with Griffin, says his friend is an adept technical manager who is hard to buffalo. "He can quickly tell who is out there adding value to the organization and who is just filling a job," he says.
THAT SKILL WILL COME in handy as NASA downsizes and restructures to tighten focus on its exploration mission, but Griffin will be hard-pressed to sell reductions in force to worried congressmen who represent NASA field centers. Shortly after his nomination was announced Mar. 11, he got a call from Rep. Bud Cramer (D-Ala.), whose district includes the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville.
"I welcomed him to the position and quickly reminded him that we've got some tough issues that we need to settle with regard to Marshall and with regard to programs that will fulfill the President's vision to return to the Moon and [go] on to Mars," Cramer told The Huntsville Times.
Nor can traditional aerospace contractors view Griffin's nomination with complete equanimity. As president and CEO of In-Q-Tel, a CIA proprietary, Griffin oversaw the search for new technology from nontraditional sources to serve intelligence community requirements, and he has praised entrepreneur Elon Musk's do-it-yourself approach in developing his Falcon launch vehicle without becoming "hostage to engine or solid rocket motor vendors" (AW&ST Mar. 29, 2004, p. 51).
But as the contractors and grass-roots space exploration advocates circle the wagons around the Bush plan, they will find little to worry about in Griffin's commitment to it. He actively sought the administrator's job, and he has supported Bush's program since it was announced in January 2004.
"Only the Moon, Mars and the nearer asteroids are within reach of the next few generations," he said a year ago. "And that is where the president's vision has directed us."
Space Scientists Said To Be Interested in NASA Exploration Plans
Aviation Week & Space Technology
03/21/2005, page 17
Edited by Frank Morring, Jr.
Science Cooperation
Space scientists from 22 countries are working on possible areas of cooperation and collaboration with NASA on President Bush's long-term exploration program, following a 21/2-day "International Workshop on Exploration Science" sponsored by the U.S. agency. With their space agencies already conducting or planning robotic lunar exploration (AW&ST Oct. 11, 2004, p. 38), scientists from Europe, Japan, India and China agreed to work with NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter team in the months ahead on ways to coordinate the efforts. The event at the University of Maryland also produced similar calls for cooperation in the exploration of Mars, including a sample-return mission, as well as possible flights to the outer planets like the Cassini/Huygens exploration of Saturn. Other potential areas of joint or collaborative activity include space telescopes for astronomy and Earth-like planet-finding, the study of the Sun and cooperation among different nations planning synthetic aperture radar satellites for Earth science. "It was a superbly successful dialogue," says Ghassem R. Asrar, deputy associate NASA administrator for science.
Indeed, Mr. Griffin has a full plate--the troubles and problems are numerous.
And I too support the creation of a shuttle derived booster--it's really the only way to preserve most of the currently infrastructure (VAB, Shuttle Processing Facility, and Launch Control, among others.) Until a suitable post-Shuttle development program is funded to fruition, then a "Shuttle-C" might be it for a while.
I think it foolish to completely scrap the shuttle program--it would be much better to phase out the 'flawed' components (i.e., the orbiter,) and use and upgrade what's left until a new booster comes on line. This preserves the access to space.
Also, using a Shuttle-C in conjunction with the EELV makes sense in the aspect of system redundancy--should a flaw show up grounding one system for a couple of years, the other system could presumably pick up the slack. Perhaps the aerospace engineering concept of redundancy should be extended to launch infrastructure as well. I always thought it somewhat foolish for the US Space Program to rely exclusively on the Shuttle for crewed access to space(I understand the tight budgets forced them to this, but still.) Although, if I am not mistaken, the Russians have exclusively relied on their Soyuz booster for launching crews into space.
Just curious..... is the SSME pod on the "Shuttle-C" recoverable -- or is that just one of several design options ? .....presumably, if it isn't recoverable, then the engines won't be the high-performance SSMEs, but some sort of cheaper, lower-performing disposable units ? ....what then of the valuable SSME technology ? ...end of the line ?
Yes, an SSME pod could be engineered to be reusable, although I have read that early designs for the Shuttle-C anticipated that there would be surplus Shuttle SSME's that had flown 10-15 times and were 'derated' for manned purposes because of safety, but could be flown one more time on an expendible Shuttle-C mission. Nice way to get 'one more' use out of these expensive pieces of hardware.
Although, lately there has been some interest in possibly utilizing a Russian engine once used to power the Energia 2nd stage: the RD-0120 engine is a Russian 'version' of the SSME that also utilizes LH2/LO2, but uses two turbopumps on a common shaft spun by one turbine. This greatly simplifies the vibration and engine controls necessary for the machine to run--while still generating nearly the same thrust and Isp performance as an SSME. Also, the RD-0120 uses a milled chamber, which is simpler to build, because the cooling channels are cut into the solid piece of metal forming the bell of the motor. Once the channels are cut, then a relatively thin liner is deposited over the channels to create the hot side of the engine de Levaal nozzle.
Currently the SSME only uses a milled chamber for the high pressure main combustion chamber, while the Russian unit uses milling for the whole engine. An entirely 'milled' engine is tighter from a leak point of view, and is more robust with only a slight weight penalty. The overall design is thus capable of being cheaper and more resusable than an SSME.
A lot of neet info on this topic can be found at:
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0120.htm
and at:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/energia.html
Interestingly, there has been some interest in using RD-0120's as a replacement engine for both the Shuttle and the Shuttle-C launcher. A little Cold War Irony there!
Anyhow, a propulsion module could be encapsulated into a reentry hull with a parachute, floatation aids, and GPS tracking beacons and dye markers for ease of recovery.
Somekind of ballast/floatation system will be needed to ensure an 'engine up' configuration for an ocean splash down. All that is needed then is probably some noise makers to make sure that sea birds don't decide to roost on the nozzle bells, and create problems needing 'additional cleanup and refurbishment.'
I once looked at a Shuttle-C design that would use a cluster of 8 SSME's and 4 OMS pods for primary and RCS propulsion., and would take off with 4 SRB's. However, one of the things that is a perpetual menace to Space Shuttles, their crews, and landing/launch support personell is the presence of the monomethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide hypergolic propellants used by the OMS and the RCS systems. Both are highly toxic and corrosive and can be environmental hazards. There has been a company interested in creating a replacement OMS engine burning liquid oxygen and ethyl alcohol. Apparenly LOX and Ethyl Alcohol can provide good performance for OMS operations with similar thrust levels. I'm not sure if LO2 and alcohol are being explored as a propellant for RCS although I think gasseous O2 and H2 ought to work pretty well for that. Anyways, the huge complexities involved with using so much hypergolic propellants for OMS and RCS (with the associated comnplex plumbing) for such a large Shuttle-C seemed to make such an endeavour difficult or impossible. I never fleshed the design out more than just a few conceptual drawings....
I received an email a few months back from someone at NASA writing a white paper on a STS derived HLV. It would use an extended ET with a second stage with payload and wrapped with a total of 6 SRB's. I think she estimated 400,000 lbs. to LEO. I'll have to send her an email to see where the proposal is at these days.
quote: Originally posted by: GoogleNaut "Anyhow, a propulsion module could be encapsulated into a reentry hull with a parachute, floatation aids, and GPS tracking beacons and dye markers for ease of recovery..... "
And how would the propulsion module de-orbit ? ....as part of the cargo bay + nose cone fuselage, or separately ? ....if separately, at what point do the two separate, and how does the cargo get delivered/manoeuvred to its intended destination ? ( ISS ?) ....an orbiting space tug might be required if the cargo is simply dumped in a parking orbit, without any means to stear & dock itself to its intended target.
If the engines aren't SSMEs, then are we basically talking about a completely re-designed vehicle ? ....i.e. not just a shuttle minus the wings, rudder, landing gear and crew cabin ? ....or is it a completely different beast anyway, with entirely different dimensions and no shuttle-type payload bay doors ?
Seems like there's an awful lot of possibilities and choices to be made !! ....unlikely that everyone will be happy with whatever choice Griffin/NASA makes.
The conceptual design I came up with actually had two propulsion modules with a modified (stretched) ET in between. The aft end of the propellant tank mated with the main propulsion module. This contained the 8 SSME and 4 OMS pods with all of the associated RCS thrusters.
This module, upon delivery of cargo to a presumed large space station would decouple from the tank and deorbit on its own power. The tank, I considered to be a part of the cargo, and would be uses for raw materials for an expanded station.
Meanwhile, between the forward end of the ET and the forward payload fairing was another propulsion module: this was the Forward RCS Module, analogous to the Shuttle's forward RCS system in its nose. This forward module could seperate from a docked payload and independently reenter for a seperate splash down. Originally I had considered having the two modules dock and then reenter as together as one module, but problems with automated docking, recovery not to mention an integrated heat shield design would really complicate this. Falure of one module to dock properly would likely result in the destruction of both modules! Better to have them reenter indendently. Besides, nobody has ever had a stack of modules splash down together before. The smaller forward RCS module is likely to suffer when the larger (and much heavy) main propulsion module pile drives it into the ocean even after parachutes have opened! Perhaps the forward module could even be made to be expendible....
Anyways, it's a do-able concept that could result in an evolutionary design. Preserving and reusing infrastructure can help reduce development costs--although the problem here is getting too locked into a fixxed design that stagnates with time. Sometimes, a fresh start is needed to incorporate new ideas and philosophies. The very stuff of progress...
Are you a lobbyist? What's your area of expertise? I'm a little bit leary of all the personal info--especially when no background info is given. If you would like to discuss details I can get you into touch with the correct people. Please e-mail me at: orionspulse@yahoo.com
