On Sun, 20 May 2007 17:17:48 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
"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.
I did.
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
None of that obviates the hilarious fact that you used this to beat up
on LM alone, when it was clearly a joint LM/NG fiasco. But you'll
continue to flounder and defend it, because you incapable of admitting
error.
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.
My "beloved NASA"?
You're even more of an idiot than you've previously played.