|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
...Lockheed Ruins Eight 123' Coast Guard Cutters!
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
...Lockheed Ruins Eight 123' Coast Guard Cutters!
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... 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, Their name is first. It's their baby. And yes I was bashing Lockheed since they deserve it. Even you, an unabashed NASA apologist, admitted their actions are hard to defend. Yet attempt to defend Lockheed by diverting the debate to a rigged bidding process. That I find rather amusing, and I'm happy to start a new debate over that particular process if you like. As I'm certain that debate will uncover all sorts of new material with which to highlight the emptiness and corruption behind the "Vision". when it was clearly a joint LM/NG fiasco. But you'll continue to flounder and defend it, because you incapable of admitting error. And you got that fact, a joint LM/NG project, from my original post. 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"? Say something negative about NASA, come on, I dare you~ You're even more of an idiot than you've previously played. And you argue with me just for the sake of it, not on merit. Which is why you always lose these debates. Hint: the loser is the one that ends up shouting personal insults. Jonathan s |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
...Lockheed Ruins Eight 123' Coast Guard Cutters!
On May 20, 11:42 am, (Andre Lieven) wrote:
It shows up their knee jerk anti gov't ideology as being simple lunacy. Andre I am sure that you are aware since you post some really good stuff "elsewhere" Naval wise that USNI PRoceedings has had some very very good information on this...including for full members some interviews with some of the USCG officers who were a part of the "fiasco". It truly is a fiasco. There are problems from the government end, but LM just really shafted the USCG...the Commandant is just about beside himself on this. Robert |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
...Lockheed Ruins Eight 123' Coast Guard Cutters!
Borderline wrote: I am sure that you are aware since you post some really good stuff "elsewhere" Naval wise that USNI PRoceedings has had some very very good information on this...including for full members some interviews with some of the USCG officers who were a part of the "fiasco". It truly is a fiasco. There are problems from the government end, but LM just really shafted the USCG...the Commandant is just about beside himself on this. It hit "60 Minutes" tonight, BTW. Pat |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
...Lockheed Ruins Eight 123' Coast Guard Cutters! | Jonathan | History | 14 | May 21st 07 05:42 AM |
On Coast-to-Coast radio show tonight -- Aldrin and Hoagland | Jim Oberg | Policy | 3 | August 5th 06 09:20 PM |
Nancy Lieder (Planet_X Lady) On Coast To Coast AM on Tuesday! | Rudolph_X | Astronomy Misc | 89 | September 6th 05 08:32 PM |
WALTER CRONKITE SLAMS C-CRANE CRANK RADIO ON COAST TO COAST! | Lon 742212 | Astronomy Misc | 1 | April 28th 05 03:26 AM |
ANYONE CATCH Richard Hoagland on Coast to Coast on Wednesday Night | Gordon Gekko IDCC on the Nasdaq | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | September 1st 03 09:16 PM |