I don’t know Gilbrech from Adam, but this doesn’t seem like much of a recommendation to me. Pointing out safety problems after losing a mission or crew is much easier than pointing them out before such a tragedy occurs. I also don’t understand why a NASA employee at any level would be worried about “contractors’ ire”.

Not a knock against Gilbrech, but I’d argue that this “character testimony” (if you wil), at least as decribed, is not a point in Gilbrech’s favor, either.

Personally, even not knowing the man, I have very high expectations for Gilbrech to fix of a lot of the mess his predecessor left behind. But even if he’s so inclined, I’m also very doubtful that Gilbrech will be allowed to take the necessary steps, given who his boss is.

My 2 cents… FWIW…

No, I imagine they’ll muddle along for the next 15 months and then the next president will have to sort out the mess. Probably in Spring 2009.

Enjoy your delusions, Stephen.

History will at least be able to use all these great quotes as an example of how far off everyone elses thinking was. At least their public positions anyway.

And no I don’t believe in conspiracy theories, they take way to much competency and coordination to pull off. Ironically we wouldn’t have these problems if they had the necessary skills needed to pull off a “conspiracy” in the first place. What is going on is based largely on ego being projected thru bully tactics.

Anyway there is not much more point in engaging you further, the reality of all of this will be evident soon enough.

Peace, keep up the good work.

This is how Washington works: If people tell you that they are in a position to influence NASA and/or Griffin do, then they most certainly are not in such a position.

The people who actually do have such capabilities never say such things.

They don’t need to.

I would suggest that maybe some information is so sensitive and tightly held that its very publication at NASA Watch would reveal its source, hence the problem you mentioned and the disconnect between us on our respective view of what is actually going on.

Tee hee hee – the answer would get some people fired …

I fully agree . . . and even when I don’t, your analysis is worth a lot more than two cents!

An EELV-derived cargo solution would keep competitive pressure on SpaceX while also providing a commercial solution. If your goal is to jump start a commercial space cargo industry — rather than develop new technology — (which is my goal) than such a development is ideal. Once EELV and SpaceX (if they get that far) are competing for Space Station delivery, probably also with foreign solutions, there will be an incentive to reduce costs and develop new technology — and in that case the $500 million may prove to be enough.

— Donald