"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 May 2007 14:16:29 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" write@bell
the conversions; and making design

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There were only two bidders for Orion--Lockheed Martin and Northrop
Grumman.


So your statement of fact means what?

It means that the notion that Northrop Grumman would have been a
better selection, based on your "evidence," is hilariously dumb.

What was your point, if not that?

I see you snipped this part, because it was what I was responding to:

Was Lockheed the better choice, or were they just better connected?


Get your facts straight please.

There were initially eleven bidders, three finally submitted
bids and Grumman was partnered with Boeing. t-space, that
included Rutan, was the third bidder. Although Nasa seems
to be rather secretive about whether t-space submitted a bid or not.
http://www.comspacewatch.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14924

For starters, you're blind to the obvious that this bid was
rigged from day one. And you're also blind to the kind
of products corruption produces.

The $24 billion Deepwater project I just posted about is what
we can expect more of with the CEV.

Face it, NASA is saddled with an ignorant goal created by and for
a corrupt conglomerate. Your beloved NASA is being raped
and you don't even know it.



Jonathan



s