|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
...White House "Rump Group" created the Vision...who were they???
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 was the pre-history of the Vision that intends to guide our national space policy for the next forty years or more? All I have found so far follows... "Surprisingly, much of the early work on the new policy was made by a group of anonymous junior White House staffers who, by the book's account, had a genuine interest in space exploration and sought to create a new vision that would reinvigorate the space agency. This "Splinter Group" spent months meeting informally, reviewing white papers and proposals, before inviting more senior advisers and, eventually, NASA officials into the discussion. This led to the creation of two "Rump Groups" that narrowed down proposals for a new exploration plan, keeping in mind fiscal limitations that ruled out any plan that required significant additional funding for NASA. The result of these deliberations, spread out over most of 2003, was a plan the President approved on December 19 and announced to the world at NASA Headquarters on January 14." http://www.thespacereview.com/article/198/1 I would like to know who the ..."anonymous junior staffers" of the 'Splinter Group' were. Who were the Nasa officials? Who were the members of the 'Rump Group'? The Sphincter Group. They couldn't sew it up, apparently. -- 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
...White House "Rump Group" created the Vision...who were they???
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:28:41 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: We all know President Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration in early 2004. My question is who came up with the idea? What was the pre-history of the Vision that intends to guide our national space policy for the next forty years or more? All I have found so far follows... "Surprisingly, much of the early work on the new policy was made by a group of anonymous junior White House staffers who, by the book's account, had a genuine interest in space exploration and sought to create a new vision that would reinvigorate the space agency. This "Splinter Group" spent months meeting informally, reviewing white papers and proposals, before inviting more senior advisers and, eventually, NASA officials into the discussion. This led to the creation of two "Rump Groups" that narrowed down proposals for a new exploration plan, keeping in mind fiscal limitations that ruled out any plan that required significant additional funding for NASA. The result of these deliberations, spread out over most of 2003, was a plan the President approved on December 19 and announced to the world at NASA Headquarters on January 14." http://www.thespacereview.com/article/198/1 I would like to know who the ..."anonymous junior staffers" of the 'Splinter Group' were. Who were the Nasa officials? Who were the members of the 'Rump Group'? Who put this idea into the head of our President? 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. There is nothing in the VSE that intrinsically benefits Lockheed. You're a conspiratorial idiot. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
...Meet the Chairman of the "Vision" Implementation Commission
And y'all think this is about going to the moon.
Executive Order: President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy Sec. 3. Mission. (a) The mission of the Commission shall be to provide recommendations to the President, in accordance with this order, on implementation of the vision outlined in the President's policy statement entitled "A Renewed Spirit of Discovery" and the Presidents Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2005 (collectively, "Policy"). (b) The Commission shall examine and make recommendations to the President regarding: (i) A science research agenda to be conducted on the Moon and other destinations as well as human and robotic science activities that advance our capacity to achieve the Policy; (ii) The exploration of technologies, demonstrations, and strategies, including the use of lunar and other in situ natural resources, that could be used for sustainable human and robotic exploration; (iii) Criteria that could be used to select future destinations for human exploration; http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040130-7.html President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy Chairman Edward C. Aldridge Jr. has served in many top U.S. Defense Department and defense industry jobs, including as the 16th Air Force secretary from June 1986 until 1988. From 1988 to 1992, he was president of the Electronic Systems Company division of McDonnell Douglas, and later became CEO of The Aerospace Corporation. Aldridge was confirmed as the Pentagon's top weapons buyer *** on May 8, 2001. As the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, he had responsibility for acquisition, research and development, logistics, advanced technology, international programs, environmental security, nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and the industrial base. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside...oration_Policy Guys just face it, the Defense Dept, and especially the defense contractors, own Nasa, they own our space policy and they are lining their pockets while stealing our future. s |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
...Meet the Chairman of the "Vision" Implementation Commission
Jonathan wrote:
And y'all think this is about going to the moon. Executive Order: President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy Sec. 3. Mission. (a) The mission of the Commission shall be to provide recommendations to the President, in accordance with this order, on implementation of the vision outlined in the President's policy statement entitled "A Renewed Spirit of Discovery" and the Presidents Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2005 (collectively, "Policy"). (b) The Commission shall examine and make recommendations to the President regarding: (i) A science research agenda to be conducted on the Moon and other destinations as well as human and robotic science activities that advance our capacity to achieve the Policy; (ii) The exploration of technologies, demonstrations, and strategies, including the use of lunar and other in situ natural resources, that could be used for sustainable human and robotic exploration; (iii) Criteria that could be used to select future destinations for human exploration; http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040130-7.html President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy Chairman Edward C. Aldridge Jr. has served in many top U.S. Defense Department and defense industry jobs, including as the 16th Air Force secretary from June 1986 until 1988. From 1988 to 1992, he was president of the Electronic Systems Company division of McDonnell Douglas, and later became CEO of The Aerospace Corporation. Aldridge was confirmed as the Pentagon's top weapons buyer *** on May 8, 2001. As the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, he had responsibility for acquisition, research and development, logistics, advanced technology, international programs, environmental security, nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and the industrial base. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside...oration_Policy Guys just face it, the Defense Dept, and especially the defense contractors, own Nasa, they own our space policy and they are lining their pockets while stealing our future. I tend to agree with your well researched assessment. I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist, but it appears to me NASA simply does not want to facilitate the shift of manned space flight to the private sector, nor do they appear to desire any civilian colonization of space. Just the throwaway design of the Ares demonstrates that, where you have high energy core stages which cannot make it to orbit to be reused, because they are carrying these tremendously heavy interplanetary missions. Just switching to EELV TSTO or stage and a half will result in the delivery of many core stages, upper stages and engines to LEO, where any manner of craft and hotel resorts may be cobbled together by design. NASA wants to explore with the big rockets, others want to sell seats. NASA just needs to concentrate on the big rockets and Earth. All that exploration stuff will come on its own time. -- 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
...White House "Rump Group" created the Vision...who were they???
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message There is nothing in the VSE that intrinsically benefits Lockheed. You're a conspiratorial idiot. You're kidding right? No company, except for maybe Halliburton, has benefited from the war more than Lockheed. A 'project' that seems to suffer from the same difficulties in justification as the Vision. Funny about that, it seems they decide first, then come up with reasons ...later. Now Lockheed takes over as the prime contractor for the Vision. And even gets the much sought after immigration security contract. When Bush was governor of Texas, he even tried to get Lockheed to take over the Welfare dept, of all things. Lockheed Wins Contract to Build NASA's New Spaceship By Renae Merle Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, September 1, 2006; Page A01 Lockheed Martin Corp. won a multibillion-dollar contract yesterday to build a vehicle to replace NASA's space shuttles, put a human on the moon for the first time since 1972 and be the precursor to a manned spaceship to Mars. It was a somewhat unexpected win for Lockheed, the Pentagon's largest contractor. The other competitor, Northrop Grumman, was considered the front-runner because along with its subcontractor, Boeing Co., it has been involved with all of the country's manned space programs. Lockheed also has had a long history with NASA, though not entirely positive, and not predominantly with manned vehicles. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...083101067.html And more and more Lockheed Team Ousts Sikorsky for $6.1B Marine One Contract Navy Official: 'No Political Influences" in Award http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsid...t/sf050214.htm Federal contracts up 86% under Bush; Halliburton rises 600% Published: Monday June 19, 2006 Top contractor Lockheed got contracts larger than budget of Congress, Dept. of Interior http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Re...nder_0619.html Close Friend Of Bush At Center Of Coast Guard Contract Fiasco Donald "Boysie" Bollinger, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Bollinger Shipyards, "has been a friend of George W. Bush for a quarter century." CQ Today reported in 2004 that "Bollinger has known Bush since 1980? and has twice served as Bush's Louisiana campaign chair. In 2004, Bollinger became a Bush "Super Ranger" after "bringing in more than $300,000? for the campaign. Bollinger Shipyards is part of an emerging scandal over the costly Coast Guard fleet-building program. Four years ago, the Coast Guard - "in an astonishing abdication of responsibility" - handed off the $17 billion program to Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman "to plan, supervise and deliver the new vessels and helicopters." (The program is now "foundering" as the estimated cost of the program has ballooned to $24 billion. Continuing problems have "delayed the arrival of any new ships or aircraft.") Bollinger Shipyards is a business partner of the two military contracting giants http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/15/bollinger-bush/ Making Money on Terrorism William D. Hartung In fiscal year 2002, the Big Three received a total of more than $42 billion in Pentagon contracts, of which Lockheed Martin got $17 billion, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040223/hartung It's called corruption. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
...White House "Rump Group" created the Vision...who were they???
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 23:13:02 -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 There is nothing in the VSE that intrinsically benefits Lockheed. You're a conspiratorial idiot. You're kidding right? No company, except for maybe Halliburton, has benefited from the war more than Lockheed. You're kidding, right? The VSE has nothing to do with the war. A 'project' that seems to suffer from the same difficulties in justification as the Vision. Funny about that, it seems they decide first, then come up with reasons ...later. Now Lockheed takes over as the prime contractor for the Vision. irrelevant new stories about Lockheed snipped I guess you don't know what the word "intrinsically" means. Go invest in a dictionary. Or learn how to look stuff up on line. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
...White House "Rump Group" created the Vision...who were they???
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... Now Lockheed takes over as the prime contractor for the Vision. irrelevant new stories about Lockheed snipped I guess you don't know what the word "intrinsically" means. Go invest in a dictionary. Or learn how to look stuff up on line. Yet again I must completely destroy your response. And it's so easy. Look at the 10 y chart of Lockheed. It has two clear turning points. The first one is the ...minute...Bush takes office...it tripled. The second is the ...minute...Bush announced the Vision in Feb 04....it doubled. The market clearly understands the /intrinsic/ value of Lockheed when associated with Bush and Nasa. Look at the facts.... http://bigcharts.marke****ch.com/qui...eq=2&ti me=13 And while you're at it, scroll down and look at the news stories for Lockheed from only...yesterday. I count $1.3 billion in contracts Lockheed signed....yesterday. Sheez, I don't even have to look for this stuff, it just pops up everywhere. And if you still don't get it, take a look at how the feeding frenzy works from this Lockheed story also from .....yesterday. This is just ..it's...it's...infamous! US Rep. expects Congress to add extra ships to defense budget WASHINGTON (Marke****ch) -- U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., said Wednesday that lawmakers will try to add extra ships to the Navy budget, in addition to whatever the Pentagon requests. Taylor told Dow Jones Newswires that President George W. Bush isn't fully focused on military needs as the White House prepares its 2008 budget proposal. As a result, Congress ought to use earmarks or other tools to step in, he said. "We have to find a way to put more ships in the budget than the President's requesting," "Remember, the President's request is more based on dollars than the needs of the nation" ~ohmygosh ...Bush isn't focused on military needs...but on dollars.....gawd~ http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...MT&si d=14274 s |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
...White House "Rump Group" created the Vision...who were they???
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:05:14 -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 ... Now Lockheed takes over as the prime contractor for the Vision. irrelevant new stories about Lockheed snipped I guess you don't know what the word "intrinsically" means. Go invest in a dictionary. Or learn how to look stuff up on line. Yet again I must completely destroy your response. And it's so easy. laughing uproariously Look at the 10 y chart of Lockheed. It has two clear turning points. The first one is the ...minute...Bush takes office...it tripled. The second is the ...minute...Bush announced the Vision in Feb 04....it doubled. And what happened to other space stocks, like Boeing? There's nothing unique about Lockheed Martin. And we're still waiting for, you know, *evidence* for your tinfoil hat theory that the president consulted with LM before announcing VSE, and that this influenced the announcement. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
...White House "Rump Group" created the Vision...who were they???
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! :-) 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, 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, can you really fault Bush for taking a different path? 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. 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? 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. (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. 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. Brian |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
...White House "Rump Group" created the Vision...who were they???
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:05:14 -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 ... Now Lockheed takes over as the prime contractor for the Vision. irrelevant new stories about Lockheed snipped I guess you don't know what the word "intrinsically" means. Go invest in a dictionary. Or learn how to look stuff up on line. Yet again I must completely destroy your response. And it's so easy. laughing uproariously Look at the 10 y chart of Lockheed. It has two clear turning points. The first one is the ...minute...Bush takes office...it tripled. The second is the ...minute...Bush announced the Vision in Feb 04....it doubled. And what happened to other space stocks, like Boeing? There's nothing unique about Lockheed Martin. Really! If you want to know how the war in Iraq really started. It was set in motion by the Bruce Jackson the director of strategic planning for Lockheed Martin. He has publicly bragged that he wrote the republican platform on foreign policy. And he's one of the Presidents closest campaign advisors. Short of a video of the President admitting he's a Lockheed shill, the evidence couldn't be more obvious. That is, to an unbiased observer. Of course maybe you're correct and it's all a big innocent set of coincidences. Or dumb luck I guess. Ya, that's it. In comparison, Nasa is a minor conquest. Lockheed Stock and Two Smoking Barrells http://www.playboy.com/magazine/feat...eed/index.html (the girly pics might just get you to read it) s And we're still waiting for, you know, *evidence* for your tinfoil hat theory that the president consulted with LM before announcing VSE, and that this influenced the announcement. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
...White House "Rump Group" created the Vision...who were they??? | kT | Policy | 73 | January 26th 07 10:41 AM |
...White House "Rump Group" created the Vision...who were they??? | kT | History | 37 | January 26th 07 10:16 AM |
Article on supposedly "unprecedented" heights of White House interference at NASA | Jim Oberg | Policy | 69 | February 19th 06 02:10 AM |
Article on supposedly "unprecedented" heights of White House interference at NASA | Jim Oberg | History | 73 | February 19th 06 02:10 AM |
Article on supposedly "unprecedented" heights of White House interference at NASA | Eric Chomko | Space Science Misc | 0 | February 15th 06 09:21 AM |