...White House "Rump Group" created the Vision...who were they???

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:28:41 -0500, "Jonathan"
wrote:


Yes, perhaps another attempt to
develop low-cost access to space would have been better, but after the
X-33 and X-34 fiascoes of the Clinton Administration, can you really
fault Bush for taking a different path?


Wasn't the x-33 and x-34 FIASCOS built by Lockheed?
So who benefited from the different path? And why did
Lockheed still get the big Vision contract after
these fiascos?

Look at the ten year chart of Lockheed. When the
Vision was announced in Feb 04 EVERYONE knew
Lockhed was to benefit from the Vision as soon as it was
announced....two and half years.. before the contract
was signed.

This chart shows it was common knowledge in Wall Street
that Lockheed was a 'lock' to get the contract. Just
as they knew when Bush took office in early 2000.

Look at the chart....
http://bigcharts.marke****ch.com/qui...eq=2&ti me=13

Brian Thorn wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:28:41 -0500, "Jonathan"
wrote:

We all know President Bush announced his Vision for
Space Exploration in early 2004. My question is who
came up with the idea?

What idea? Going back to the Moon and then on the Mars? Gee! Nobody
would EVER have thought of THAT! It must be all them Evil Republicans
and their Military Industrial Complex cronies!

What the **** problem do you have with 'We do not think it is in the
best interests of the Human Race and the Planet Earth that the United
States spend ungodly (indeed, nonexistent) sums of money to militarize
space, as they have the surface of the earth, and to return to the moon
with Apollo era technology'.

You neocon pseudo fascists all think the same.

There is not a shred of creativity in you.

--
The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org

My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:33:06 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:28:41 -0500, "Jonathan"
wrote:


Yes, perhaps another attempt to
develop low-cost access to space would have been better, but after the
X-33 and X-34 fiascoes of the Clinton Administration, can you really
fault Bush for taking a different path?


Wasn't the x-33 and x-34 FIASCOS built by Lockheed?

No. You don't know what you're talking about.

So who benefited from the different path?

Any major aerospace company was going to benefit from a major new
space initiative. Intelligent and knowledgable analysts understand
this. The other kind...well. You demonstrate the other kind.

And why did
Lockheed still get the big Vision contract after
these fiascos?

Maybe because they put in a better proposal than Northrop/Boeing, and
did a better job in Phase I? And the part of Lockheed responsible for
X-33 was a completely different part of the company than the one that
bid Orion (which was the old Martin Marietta Corporation)?

You are clueless.

Look at the ten year chart of Lockheed. When the
Vision was announced in Feb 04 EVERYONE knew
Lockhed was to benefit from the Vision as soon as it was
announced....two and half years.. before the contract
was signed.

This chart shows it was common knowledge in Wall Street
that Lockheed was a 'lock' to get the contract.

Bull****.

All they knew was that Lockheed Martin would get its share. That's
politics. But keep that tinfoil hat on tight.

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:33:06 -0500, "Jonathan"
wrote:

Yes, perhaps another attempt to
develop low-cost access to space would have been better, but after the
X-33 and X-34 fiascoes of the Clinton Administration, can you really
fault Bush for taking a different path?


Wasn't the x-33 and x-34 FIASCOS built by Lockheed?

X-34 was Orbital Sciences.

So who benefited from the different path? And why did
Lockheed still get the big Vision contract after
these fiascos?

They had a 50/50 chance against a company (Boeing) which had gotten
caught cheating on two military procurement contracts in the previous
five years. And LockMart isn't exactly a slouch at building
spacecraft. It's not like you're asking "Why did General Motors still
get the big Vision contract?"

Look at the ten year chart of Lockheed. When the
Vision was announced in Feb 04

January 11, 2004.

EVERYONE knew
Lockhed was to benefit from the Vision as soon as it was
announced....two and half years.. before the contract
was signed.

Exactly. It was clear that the big aerospace companies were going to
benefit, as I said. There are only two. The smaller companies will
like benefit too, as subcontractors.

This chart shows it was common knowledge in Wall Street
that Lockheed was a 'lock' to get the contract.

It shows no such thing. It actually shows a steep rise beginning with
the end of the dot-com bubble burst in mid-2000, with a huge peak in
the aftermath of 9/11 when war looked inevitable, and then a return to
a steady rise through today. The stock value actually went down in the
weeks following the VSE announcement.

Boeing's (stock symbol BA) stocks show the same pattern...

"http://bigcharts.marke****ch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=ba&sid=0&o_symb=ba&freq=2&time =13"

As does Northrop-Grumman's (NOC)...

"http://bigcharts.marke****ch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=noc&sid=0&o_symb=noc&freq=2&ti me=13"

Orbital Sciences (ORB) shows a more modest climb after tanking badly
during the dot-com burst in 1999-2000...

"http://bigcharts.marke****ch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=orb&sid=0&o_symb=orb&freq=2&ti me=13"

So does British Aerospace (BAESY)...

"http://bigcharts.marke****ch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=BAESY&sid=0&o_symb=BAESY&freq= 2&time=13"


Brian

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:33:09 -0600, kT wrote:


You neocon pseudo fascists all think the same.

I'm stuck in the middle of an ice-storm today. I needed a laugh.
Thanks!

Brian

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 18:09:05 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Look at the ten year chart of Lockheed. When the
Vision was announced in Feb 04

January 11, 2004.

14th, not that it matters.

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:33:09 -0600, kT wrote:


You neocon pseudo fascists all think the same.

I'm stuck in the middle of an ice-storm today. I needed a laugh.
Thanks!


I'm astonished that anyone here actually believes that
President Bush's motivation is to save the world from
an asteroid or other calamity by building colonies.

This is a huge program designed to maintain
our aerospace capabilities for future military
needs, as they arise. This is a gigantic make-work
program for the military industrial contractors.

If you think Bush and Cheney are moved by
visions of grandiose space colonies that
usher in a trekkian utopia....you need to
aquaint yourself with this concept

Main Entry: na·ive
1 : marked by unaffected simplicity : ARTLESS, INGENUOUS
2 a : deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment;


The first thing Bush did was to establish this
commission, staffed by the aerospace insiders
such as the CEO of Lockheed etc. Then came
the commissions on moon and mars and
finally the vision. It's no coincidence the commission
on implementing the Vision ran the weapons acquisition
office for the Defense Dept. The industry wanted a
new program to keep them happily afloat
and the Vision is what they got.

We get nothing, at least they could've come
up with a military industrial welfare program that
also benefited society. But then they'd have
to actually accomplish something, produce
a product that mattered to us. With the Vision they
don't have to create anything new or valuable
for society, just repeat what's been done before.
And watch society go ho-hum-been-there-done-that
-who-cares. Which is just fine with them.

As they don't care what we think about it.

Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commiss...space_Industry

Here is their final report
http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/aerospace/...inalReport.pdf

Read it, how many times is defense used in this report?
Answer: 270 times

How many times is the word colony used?

Answer: 1






Brian

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:15:25 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:33:09 -0600, kT wrote:


You neocon pseudo fascists all think the same.

I'm stuck in the middle of an ice-storm today. I needed a laugh.
Thanks!


I'm astonished that anyone here actually believes that
President Bush's motivation is to save the world from
an asteroid or other calamity by building colonies.

I'm astonished that anyone here (including you) would put forth such a
lunatic straw man.

OK. Well, actually, not. Putting forth lunatic straw men is all you
can do, since you have no actual arguments against things people have
actually claimed.

rest of lunatic straw man snipped

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:28:41 -0500, "Jonathan"
wrote:

We all know President Bush announced his Vision for
Space Exploration in early 2004. My question is who
came up with the idea?

What idea? Going back to the Moon and then on the Mars? Gee! Nobody
would EVER have thought of THAT! It must be all them Evil Republicans
and their Military Industrial Complex cronies! :-)


Why the smiley face Thorn? Tommorrow Libby goes on trial and said GOP
and MIC cronies will be under the microscope. With the Dems in Congress
now don't expect any soft treatment. Just because his daddy's name is
on the CIA buidling doesn't mean his administration has full access to
the agency. Some heads are going to roll when Libby sings. I hope that
in the very least Cheney gives up the roll list of the Energy Task
Force he had secret meetings with when he was getting his instructions
to invade Iraq.


You may remember that back in late 2002, Sean O'Keefe had basically
gotten NASA spending and accounting under control (Bush inherited a
mess when he took office) and there was moderate speculation that a
post-ISS NASA space project was going to have to get started soon,
almost certainly during Bush's first term, since the big spending on
ISS was winding down. Then came the Columbia accident,

No, the mess started with the Columbia accident. Sorry your
blame-Clinton ruse is over as no one is buying that crap any longer. It
is about time Bush took responsibility for his failures. Thorn, both
shuttle disasters happened on the watches of GOP presidents. They took
their eyes of the ball.

and later the
CAIB's recommendation that NASA have a clearly-defined goal. Returning
to the Moon is hardly a wildly outrageous idea that could only have
come from Evil Corporate America. Yes, perhaps another attempt to
develop low-cost access to space would have been better, but after the
X-33 and X-34 fiascoes of the Clinton Administration,

Why not blame JSC, Texas and the Republicans? Makes about as much
sense.

can you really
fault Bush for taking a different path?

You mean after the Columbia failure?

Less than a year after
Columbia, Bush announced a return to the moon before 2020 and then on
to Mars at an unspecified later date. His father had also attempted to
launch a new manned lunar program in 1989, so Dubya's announcement was
not a shock.

Other than the fact that his father's inability to return to the moon
is now followed by his son's claim to want to go. What makes you think
that Bush Jr. will succeed where Bush Sr. failed? Hell, use Iraq as an
example if you like.

Who put this idea into the head of our President?

All the people here who've been complaining for 20 years that all
America does in space is go around in circles endlessly?

You mean we should believe W when he makes the same claim as HW?
Why!?!?

I think we have a right to know, at the very least
we should know so we can gauge their competence
and independence of such entities as Lockheed etc.

When Bush 41 announced SEI in 1989, there were half a dozen large
aerospace companies (McDonnell-Douglas, Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop,
Rockwell, and Grumman.) When Bush 41 proposed we go back to the Moon,
there was no "this is just corporate welfare for Lockheed!" criticism.

There was no success either! Did we go? If we had then there would be
no reason for VSE, right?

(SEI was killed by NASA's own stupidity, not Lockheed involvement
necessary.) Now we're really down to only two major aerospace
companies, LockMart and Boeing (which consolidated into giants under
Clinton, Northrop-Grumman being unable to build anything big without
Airbus's politically unpopular help.) So if Dubya & Co. decide to
give NASA a goal again (which the CAIB and others had urged, and a
follow-on to ISS was coming due as ISS spending began to drop off) it
was inevitable that LockMart would benefit, so the conspiracy theories
are flying fast and furious. But, alas for the True Believers, this is
still not a case of corporate welfare for Lockheed and Boeing.

What is it then?


Yes, it is questionable that LockMart won the Orion contract over
Boeing, but there was a 50/50 chance anyway. And it was Boeing that
got caught cheating on the EELV bid and the KC-767 scandal (which
could well have been in the back of NASA management's minds) so it is
far from irrefutable evidence of Lockheed rigging the deal.

Boy the paragragh above is more reason that we need COTS to work than
anything else short of the new technology and the road to actual CATS.

Eric

Brian

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:15:25 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:33:09 -0600, kT wrote:


You neocon pseudo fascists all think the same.

I'm stuck in the middle of an ice-storm today. I needed a laugh.
Thanks!


I'm astonished that anyone here actually believes that
President Bush's motivation is to save the world from
an asteroid or other calamity by building colonies.

I'm astonished that anyone here (including you) would put forth such a
lunatic straw man.

Wait, is this a double entendre? Bush is the lunatic strawman, right?
For his VSE?


OK. Well, actually, not. Putting forth lunatic straw men is all you
can do, since you have no actual arguments against things people have
actually claimed.

rest of lunatic straw man snipped