Reality and Future

Jeff Greason is a rational person who simply gets it. It is mind boggling how completely opposite from someone like Mike Griffin he is.

See Jeff’s presentation with the Augustine Panel.

Paraphrasing, “we could go to Mars with Ares V but we shouldn’t – cause we couldn’t stay anyway”. Exactly. That’s the problem with NASA. (or the major one)

I bet he will be ignored completely.

Also, I would like to work for that guy. Too bad because of ITAR I couldn’t work in the USA.

This entry was posted in Architecture, Demotivation, Depot, ESA, Global, industry, ISRU, Lunar, Motivation, NASA, RLV:s, Spacecraft and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Reality and Future

  1. GL,
    Fortunately, I think he has a lot of kindred spirits on this committee. Notice that he mentioned that it was the consensus of his subcommittee that depots should be one of the recommendations. It wasn’t just him. There are a lot of good people on that committee, and while many of them aren’t yet convinced that we can do without HLVs, can you even imagine the thought that we could do without HLVs being taken seriously 5 years ago? Jeff isn’t a marginal member of that team. While it still remains to be seen if the end result is good and useful, I’d give these guys the benefit of the doubt. They’re trying to do something extremely complicated with way too little time or resources.


  2. .

    support NOW my “Money for Mars” proposal explained here:


  3. kert says:

    Again, of the original VSE CEV proposals in 2004 majority planned to do without HLV ( Andrews, Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, SAIC, Schafer, SpaceHab , t/Space )

    So the thought that we could do without HLV WAS taken seriously by majority in the industry.
    I.e. eveyone not involved in STS infrastructure cash streams ..

  4. gravityloss says:

    It is horrible how much ESAS, Doug Stanley, Mike Griffin and I don’t know who else, could distort facts, intimidate dissenters, and delay and hamper progress. 🙁

    Maybe some, or even most of them acted in good faith. It is bizarre how bad the multi-launch analysis is in ESAS (and huge thanks for Jon Goff for exposing that!). Doug Stanley can’t be that stupid. It is a mystery. Some kind of investigation is warranted. The whole thing goes directly against the VSE requirements like posted here during the first Augustine panel session. (Stuff like using commercial suppliers.)

    I hope NASA could do much more of its decision making openly from now on. It should lead to much better results.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *