|
|
|
 VIP Interview
Michael Griffin
NASA Administrator
FLUG REVUE spoke to the head of NASA about international cooperation and the new Moon programme.
FLUG REVUE: How important is international cooperation to NASA?
Michael Griffin: Germany is a hugely valued partner of the United States, both through the European Space Agency and in bilateral cooperation. Cooperative programmes bring us a lot that we cannot obtain by ourselves. The International Space Station is a foothold in space for us human beings. It is the most amazing engineering project ever done. It is more difficult than Apollo was. And while it is unquestionably true that the Space Station could not be built without the United States, it would not be useful without our partners, because three-quarters of the scientific capability of the station comes from international partners. So when we work together in constructive and intelligent ways, dividing the work in a manner appropriate to our means, we can accomplish great things, things far greater than any nation could accomplish by itself.
FLUG REVUE: What are the long-term goals of NASA and what role do other countries play in these goals?
Griffin: It is the American belief that we need to go beyond specific applications which are no longer on the frontier and push the state-of-the-art to its farthest reaches. We can only do a little of that. Clearly, almost all the US government's money comes, as yours does, from today's people and is used to solve today's problems. But there must be some investment in the future to leave a legacy for our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. If we don't do that, we are not being good stewards of our money and their future.
FLUG REVUE: What are the priorities of NASA and what role do other countries play in these goals?
Griffin: I have tried to narrow our priorities down to a manageable list and I actually announced them when I was confirmed by our Senate, so our priorities are, first and foremost, to finish the Space Station with the Space Shuttle. And to do that in a safe manner. We don't want to lose any more crews. Our second priority is to retire the Shuttle in 2010 and replace it as soon as possible thereafter with a new crew vehicle. We are calling it Orion.
After that, our goals are to make progress on developing and crafting a lunar architecture for the Moon that will allow us to involve international and commercial partners where it makes sense. That is why we are having discussions with your country and others from the start. We want to do that in a way that leaves a path forward to Mars because we don't want to have to develop hardware twice over.
In the midst of all that, we want to conduct a robust programme of space and Earth science. We are in the middle of a transition and transitions cost money. I have struggled very hard to make sure that the budgetary impact on space science is minimised. And finally, we want to have a capable aeronautics programme.
FLUG REVUE: Aerospace companies are afraid that NASA is concentrating too much on its space activities to the neglect of aeronautics.
Griffin: I can understand why there should be such fears. I would point out a couple of things. We have this year for the first time in over 20 years undertaken a US Government-wide effort led by NASA to define a future plan in aeronautics for our nation. And for the first time ever that plan has been backed by the strength of an executive order by the US President. The plan ratifies NASA's intent to get back to the development of fundamental aeronautical scientific research and to get away from some of the less focussed demonstration work that we had been doing. Some of our aeronautics budgets have undergone a decline. I am hopeful that as the coherence of our new approach to aeronautics becomes clear, policy makers will make a choice to invest more heavily in this discipline. But I think we had some necessary consolidation work to do in the aeronautics discipline before we could move forward again.
FLUG REVUE: The shape of the new space transportation system has come under fire from critics who say it looks too similar to Apollo.
Griffin: The capsule approach is very workable for spaceflight. It certainly is not the only approach. When I combine that statement with another statement, our choice becomes very clear. We do not have enough money to develop and own two separate vehicles, one to get into and out of earth orbit and another one to go to and from the Moon. We will only get one vehicle.
So the vehicle that goes to and from the Moon must be able to re-enter the earth's atmosphere at very high speed with heat loadings three times higher than those which occur during Earth orbit and it must be able to survive. A wing shape cannot do that with today's technology. So if people are not satisfied that after 50 years of human spaceflight we end up with a capsule that looks what we had two generations ago, my answer to them is, “Sorry, your approval was not required.” It does what it has to do because of the physics of the problem.
FLUG REVUE: If a gap should occur after the retirement of the Shuttle fleet until Orion is ready to fly, is it conceivable that NASA might buy transportation capacity from Russia?
Griffin: We have obligations to you as our partners and of course we have other obligations. We do have legislative permission to buy services from the Russians and that is our plan to meet our obligations. When the Space Station programme was originally crafted, the intent was that these services would be provided by the Shuttle for everyone. And that was our contribution to the common systems' operating cost. The Shuttle is not the vehicle we once hoped it was in terms of safety and reliability, so we are replacing it. We are not able to replace it without a gap. That's not your fault, so purchasing services from Russia is part of our obligations to you. That will cost us extra money. That goes into the category of collateral damage from the loss of the Shuttle.
FLUG REVUE: Would NASA be prepared to participate in an international cooperative programme without having the lead role?
Griffin: We know that our capabilities are significant, but limited. We truly value the partnerships that produced Cassini and Huygens and that produced the ISS. The United States has a leading role in most of the space programmes only because we spend the most money. I have tried very hard and I will continue to try very hard not to throw that weight around. If humanity chooses to return to the Moon or go to Mars, it won't happen without the United States and that is what it means to be in a leading role. Now, can we do that collaboratively and with respect for each other and with sensitivity to each other's concerns and admiration for each other's capabilities? I think we can. It's the simple fact of the magnitude of the financial investment.
Europe has a population of about 450 million people and is as rich as we are. You could choose to take a leading role in a space programme. These are choices we make as a society. If you decide to invest more and to undertake a new, cutting-edge frontier project of your own and invite us to join, then of course, we will join. We do not control the choices that you make as a society.
From FLUG REVUE 3/2007
|
|
|
|
|