Space shuttles carry two tons of lead blocks to compensate for designerror

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:38:47 -0500, 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 Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:54:24 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"NASA administrator Daniel Goldin has acknowledged that the agency really
"had no choice," given the Bush administration's decision to clamp a
$14.5-billion limit on the agency's budget for FY02, leaving a $1-billion
shortfall in funding for the International Space Station."
http://www.aiaa.org/Aerospace/Articl...hiveIssueID=13

And the evidence that this was because the Bush administration wanted
to kill the nonsensical X-33 program to provide Lockheed with a lunar
program is...?


I guess you're not aware of the long standing relationships between
Lockheed and Bush. With Bush, what Lockheed wants, Lockheed
gets.

So, if Lockheed (by the way, in case you haven't been able to keep up,
it's Lockheed Martin) was so "in bed with Bush," why didn't they get
both X-33 and the lunar mission?

Geez, what an idiot you are.


You have no business or political common sense at all.

Are you asking me why wouldn't Lockheed want to develop
the technology that allows start-ups to take over the launch
business? Is that what you're asking???

Are you asking me why Lockheed would rather have
a long term highly exclusive and very expensive project
like the Vision instead???

Please tell me you're not asking questions with such
obvious answers.

No, I'm asking question with the idiotic answers that you've provided.