Re: Problems with Griffin's exploration architecture

Jeff Findley wrote:

Hopefully this will be the beginning of the end of shuttle derived launch
vehicles.  That's the one piece of Griffin's architecture that insures NASA
retains much of the (expensive) shuttle facilities and the standing army
that fills them.


Would this also be the end of Griffin?  It seems he's staked
himself on this option, and if it's nixed it damages his
ability to lead.

	Paul
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How did NASA get it so wrong
    ... I certainly *dont*. ... > But NASA must have had a team of 100s working on this. ... > nothing that close to the final architecture. ... > BoeLock to push their EELVs, but there were other serious proposals. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Lunar Architecture Poll Results
    ... >>Well - grumble, grumble, a lot of the support is only because the ... >>architecture could have been worse. ... > I do not support that conclusion. ... > exception of the government not wanting to pay for it and setting NASA ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: SpaceDev Claims Lunar Missions Can Be Completed For Less Than $10Bn
    ... :say to NASA: ... they could just insist that NASA uses private operators ... can't be met with existing commercial architecture. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: SpaceDev Claims Lunar Missions Can Be Completed For Less Than $10Bn
    ... >> Joe Strout wrote: ... >> architecture that NASA could undertake at a much lower cost than NASA's ... >> that SpaceDev believes anyone other than NASA is going to come along ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • What should they do when (if) they get there?
    ... Assuming NASA gets to the moon with its proposed architecture, ... The NASA architecture seems to be optimised for putting 4 crew on to ... Site prospecting should be done from orbit, and by robotic landers ...
    (sci.space.policy)