A lot of great discussion on Griffin and ESAS over at Space Politics. Consensus is that he and it are a disaster in the making, with the only defender of this ongoing slow-motion train wreck being Mark Whittington, who doesn't even seem to be aware of the difference between ESAS and VSE. From "anonymous" (who unlike many of the anonymouses here, is the opposite of a moron):

“Don’t take his money and tell him not to slash things, and to keep his original schedule. Something will slip, or something will be cancelled. Poor guy is getting yelled at for doing both!”

Actually, under Griffin, both have happened. Despite billions of dollars of cuts to science and aeronautics programs and the cancellation of any actual human space exploration development during the remainder of this Administration’s term, Griffin still couldn’t develop, change, or adopt a path of action that would prevent the post-Shuttle gap — Griffin’s own, self-professed, topmost priority — from more than doubling in the space of just two years. I don’t deny that both the White House and Congress have not lived up to their budget promises, but a failure to adapt to change — at least enough to preserve your topmost priority — is the very definition of ineffectual leadership.

(As an aside, I don’t agree with Griffin’s priorities, but by his own goals, he’s doing terribly.)

Griffin deserves serious criticism for implementing a human space flight development plan that was fiscally and politically unsustainable and then for staying with that flawed plan regardless of the plan’s growing technical issues, its threat to getting any actual human space exploration underway, and the large negative impact its had on NASA’s other programs.

(Another aside, but because both have played large roles in essentially throwing away rare political opportunities to get a sustainable human space exploration effort underway, I would rank Griffin up there with Truly as one of NASA’s worst Administrators. Not that my rankings means squat, but that could change if Griffin changes course over the next year or so. But unless the next White House keeps him onboard — nearly impossible under a Democratic White House and unlikely even under a Republican White House — time is running out.)

[and from another comment]

...I personally think that trading the start of actual exploration hardware development for a duplicative Ares 1 launch vehicle and an oversized Orion capsule is the greatest tragedy and error of Griffin’s tenure (on par with Truly’s insufficient response to — and maybe sinking of — Bush I’s Space Exploration Initiative) and of the ESAS recommendations. But even if one is a fan of Ares 1/Orion, it’s very hard to argue that we are not sacrificing very rare and valuable window of political opportunity to get the camel’s nose under the tent with regard to actual human exploration hardware development for Griffin’s chosen LEO capability.

Yup.

The "valuable window of opportunity" business makes it sound like people are outright afraid of the next Administration, especially if it is the Obama Administration or the Hillary Clinton Administration. It sounds defeatist, frankly. Is that really the best way to prepare for the future? How would you ask Obama or Clinton in particular for the NASA policy that you want?

The window of opportunity refers to the fact that it's the end of the Bush administration. Any new administration, even a Republican one, is likely to review the situation, and decide whether to continue to move forward with it. Mike has less than two years to show some results.

Let's just suppose that Griffin won't pull the Taj Mahal out of a top hat in the next 20 months. Presumably the next admnistration won't just review "the situation", which will probably suck from the sound of it, but also input from the space community. So what would you ask for? It will be a new day then, won't it?

Cute, Rand, but it does not address the point I made in the other forum. There is no evidence that VSE is on the verge of collapse. Just continuing to repeat the mantra does not constitute evidence.

I certainly would ask that they actually start focusing on doing stuff in space rather than developing a new launch vehicle. While the EELV's appear (assuming you believe the Exploration Systems Architecture Study or ESAS report) somewhat less capable (slightly smaller payloads, shorter launch windows, and slightly lower reliability) than the corresponding Ares I, you have to balance that against the costs (frankly, I don't buy the ESAS cost estimates).

Further, I don't see the need for the Ares V or some other heavy launch vehicle. Sure it'll take some work to figure out orbital assembly and propellant storage and transfer, but that approach leverages launch platforms we currently have. Sure, I believe Mars Direct is a capable plan (it would be the primary customer for an HLV), but I don't see it as the only path to Mars.

Keep in mind once NASA starts buying commercial launch, it provides incentive to build larger commercial launch vehicles. I would love a commercial HLV supported in part by NASA business.

But if the decision to develope an HLV sticks (which it probably will): Ares V, DIRECT, or some other variant, then it still makes sense to discontinue the Ares I so as to speed the new HLV.

Rand has presented plenty of evidence, Mark, and everyone here knows it.

Apart from making yourself look uninformed, what purpose does it serve to deny the facts?

Edward - What "facts" are those? Rand has stated opinion, not buttressed by any evidence. Name calling is not going to change that.

> Sure it'll take some work to figure out orbital assembly and propellant storage
> and transfer, but that approach leverages launch platforms we currently have.

It would also develop capabilities that can be leveraged for commercial and military uses.

We need to ask ourselves: what should NASA be doing? Should its purpose be to help develop technology and capabilities for the economic and military development of space, as the NACA did for commercial and military aviation?

Or should NASA be a planetary science exploration agency, like the US Geological Survey or Lewis and Clark's Corps of Discovery? In that case, NASA should concentrate on doing science at the destination and let the private sector provide the transportation to get there and back.

Of course, Mark will protest that there is no private company that's providing manned flights to the Moon at this exact moment. That's irrelevant, of course, because NASA isn't flying to the Moon at this exact moment, either. There is no reason to think private enterprise couldn't develop such a capability as soon or sooner than NASA, if they had the US government as an anchor customer. (If you include private companies making use of Russian hardware, it's a virtual certainty.)

The third alternative is that NASA could continue doing what it's done for forty years. Building its own rockets so it can send its own astronauts on expensive junkets. If it does, it will never be able to afford to send very many astronauts or to do much science at the destination. If they manage to establish a base on the Moon, it will be simply a repeat of ISS at a new destination.

> Edward - What "facts" are those? Rand has stated opinion, not buttressed
> by any evidence. Name calling is not going to change that.

Anyone who reads Rand's stuff on a regular basis knows better, Mark -- and no one has called you any names.

What purpose does it serve for you to play dumb? Do you think if you deny the facts, we must accept your views?

What evidence is there to buttress your opinions, Mark? Where are your facts and figures?

Hello, Mark???

I can't hear your "evidence" over the crickets chirping.

Speak up, son! :-)

Edward:

Spot on. Griffin is doing rather well in post, at achieving the purposes of NASA.

The purposes of NASA are: Keep thousands of bureaucrats in jobs. Provide a large supply of pork to keep congressmen in jobs and make large amounts of cash for their friends in the aerospace industry.

And most important, keep mankind out of space as a place to work and live for as long as possible, preferably forever, in order to preserve the American Imperium and the status quo, particularly regarding energy supply.

The purpose of NASA is supposed to be the promotion of advances in spaceflight. That it most certainly isn't.