A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

...Lockheed Ruins Eight 123' Coast Guard Cutters!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 20th 07, 04:24 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 705
Default ...Lockheed Ruins Eight 123' Coast Guard Cutters!



"They stopped after ruining eight boats..."




This is the company that is to rebuild our manned space
program. Was Lockheed the better choice, or were
they just better connected?



Coast Guard's Deepwater program blasted
By Maria Recio

Seattle Times
Nation and World
Sun May 20, 2007

WASHINGTON - When the Coast Guard's first large cutter
in 35 years was christened in November at Northrop Grumman's
Pascagoula, Miss., shipyard, it was a gleaming symbol of the
service's ambitious $24 billion Deepwater program to update its
aging fleet.

Six months later, Deepwater is listing under a storm of congressional
criticism for design mistakes, cost overruns and lax oversight.
A botched program to lengthen existing patrol boats from 110 feet
to 123 feet has forced the Coast Guard to cancel the conversions
and scrap eight ships.

The Pascagoula-built National Security Cutter, at 418 feet the crown
jewel of the Deepwater program, is under scrutiny for metal fatigue
that critics say shortens its 30-year life to less than five years.

Four government audits have criticized management of the project,
which involves 91 new ships and 240 aircraft. Some of those vessels
would be based in Washington state waters.

"Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., calls the failed 110-foot conversion
program "the poster child" of what's wrong with Deepwater.

"They stopped after ruining eight boats," said Taylor, a former
Coast Guard reservist who commanded patrol boats. "What angers
me is we have eight ruined boats, $100 million spent and no one
is held accountable. No one has been demoted."

The 13-foot section added to lengthen the ships ended up
causing the hull to buckle under the stress of rough waters."

The Coast Guard has responded to the hammering from lawmakers by
taking oversight of Deepwater from the contractor, Integrated Coast Guard
Systems (ICGS), a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and
Northrop Grumman; canceling the conversions; and making design
modifications to the National Security Cutter.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...epwater20.html






Ads
  #2  
Old May 20th 07, 04:36 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default ...Lockheed Ruins Eight 123' Coast Guard Cutters!

On Sun, 20 May 2007 11:24:00 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:



"They stopped after ruining eight boats..."




This is the company that is to rebuild our manned space
program. Was Lockheed the better choice, or were
they just better connected?


Did you even read it?

The Coast Guard has responded to the hammering from lawmakers by
taking oversight of Deepwater from the contractor, Integrated Coast Guard
Systems (ICGS), a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and
Northrop Grumman; canceling the conversions; and making design

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There were only two bidders for Orion--Lockheed Martin and Northrop
Grumman.
  #3  
Old May 20th 07, 04:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default ...Lockheed Ruins Eight 123' Coast Guard Cutters!

Jonathan wrote:

"They stopped after ruining eight boats..."




This is the company that is to rebuild our manned space
program.


Whatever did you expect?

Stupidity, fraud, bankruptcy, incompetence, greed, theft and criminality
are now America's, and indeed American's, most redeeming and endearing
qualities, as evidenced by the actions of the Bush administration.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
  #4  
Old May 20th 07, 05:42 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Andre Lieven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 261
Default ...Lockheed Ruins Eight 123' Coast Guard Cutters!

kT ) writes:
Jonathan wrote:

"They stopped after ruining eight boats..."

This is the company that is to rebuild our manned space
program.


Whatever did you expect?

Stupidity, fraud, bankruptcy, incompetence, greed, theft and criminality
are now America's, and indeed American's, most redeeming and endearing
qualities, as evidenced by the actions of the Bush administration.


This is also a serious rebuttal to the neocon loons who claim that only
government agencies can **** up like this.

It shows up their knee jerk anti gov't ideology as being simple lunacy.

Andre

  #5  
Old May 20th 07, 07:16 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 705
Default ...Lockheed Ruins Eight 123' Coast Guard Cutters!


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 May 2007 11:24:00 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in

The Coast Guard has responded to the hammering from lawmakers by
taking oversight of Deepwater from the contractor, Integrated Coast Guard
Systems (ICGS), a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and
Northrop Grumman; canceling the conversions; and making design


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



So your statement of fact means what? That we should
expect better work with Orion? Or worse work?
When they can toss a hundred million bucks into
the sea and no one is held accountable, no one
gets fired, why should we expect any different
with this project?

In fact I'm counting on incompetence by Lockheed
to delay Orion until a new administration is in power.
Ya know that old saying, 'you have to hit bottom
before you know there's a problem'. Applies here.

NASA hasn't quite hit bottom yet.
But after a couple more years of wasting money
on a trip to nowhere, Congress will respond as
with the Deepwater program...trash the whole thing
and start over.

An opportunity for a major policy swing is coming soon!


Jonathan

s


  #6  
Old May 20th 07, 07:40 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 705
Default ...Lockheed Ruins Eight 123' Coast Guard Cutters!


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 May 2007 11:24:00 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow


Did you even read it?



Did you? Lockheeds response...

"ICGS and its suppliers are meeting the terms contracted
by the Coast Guard."


Meeting the terms? Ya mean flushing $100 million to sink
eight perfectly good boats was-in-the-contract???

Building eight of these
http://www.uscg.mil/deepwater/gallery/nscgallery.htm
with only a five year lifespan is meeting the terms?







  #7  
Old May 20th 07, 07:50 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default ...Lockheed Ruins Eight 123' Coast Guard Cutters!

On Sun, 20 May 2007 14:16:29 -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 11:24:00 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in

The Coast Guard has responded to the hammering from lawmakers by
taking oversight of Deepwater from the contractor, Integrated Coast Guard
Systems (ICGS), a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and
Northrop Grumman; canceling 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?

  #8  
Old May 20th 07, 07:52 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default ...Lockheed Ruins Eight 123' Coast Guard Cutters!

On Sun, 20 May 2007 14:40:42 -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 11:24:00 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow


Did you even read it?



Did you? Lockheeds response...

"ICGS and its suppliers are meeting the terms contracted
by the Coast Guard."


Meeting the terms? Ya mean flushing $100 million to sink
eight perfectly good boats was-in-the-contract???

Building eight of these
http://www.uscg.mil/deepwater/gallery/nscgallery.htm
with only a five year lifespan is meeting the terms?


I'm not defending Lockheed Martin (or Northrop Grumman, who is part of
their team for this project). I'm simply pointing out that your
question about whether they were the better selection for Orion is
meaningless, in terms of this article.
  #9  
Old May 20th 07, 07:59 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default ...Lockheed Ruins Eight 123' Coast Guard Cutters!

On May 20, 11:16 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

...

On Sun, 20 May 2007 11:24:00 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in


The Coast Guard has responded to the hammering from lawmakers by
taking oversight of Deepwater from the contractor, Integrated Coast Guard
Systems (ICGS), a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and
Northrop Grumman; canceling the conversions; and making design

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


So your statement of fact means what? That we should
expect better work with Orion? Or worse work?
When they can toss a hundred million bucks into
the sea and no one is held accountable, no one
gets fired, why should we expect any different
with this project?

In fact I'm counting on incompetence by Lockheed
to delay Orion until a new administration is in power.
Ya know that old saying, 'you have to hit bottom
before you know there's a problem'. Applies here.

NASA hasn't quite hit bottom yet.
But after a couple more years of wasting money
on a trip to nowhere, Congress will respond as
with the Deepwater program...trash the whole thing
and start over.

An opportunity for a major policy swing is coming soon!

Jonathan


What part of our government has not been operating pretty much exactly
like Hitler's Third Reich, and otherwise on behalf of their Jewish
minions?

You do realize that our mutually perpetrated cold-war was 100+% hocus
pocus, as in orchestrated, don't you?

Besides all the mostly innocent dead folks, how many all-inclusive
trillions per decade did that phony cold-war fiasco cost all of us?

Is there something about our government that's actually the whole
truth and nothing but the truth?
-
Brad Guth

  #10  
Old May 20th 07, 10:17 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 705
Default ...Lockheed Ruins Eight 123' Coast Guard Cutters!


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 May 2007 14:16:29 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" [email protected]

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



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.