Not wanting to get too far out on a limb, Sunday’s Florida Today features an article headlined “Election may affect NASA future”. The article doesn’t directly address what the next president might do to change space policy, but rather looks at the debate about whether the Ares 1 is the best vehicle to implement NASA’s exploration plans. This provided another opportunity for NASA administrator Mike Griffin to complain that the criticism about the vehicle is just sour grapes from United Launch Alliance:
“It’s just noise. It’s people who would like to sell Atlas 5 trying to use methods outside the market. They are trying to use political methods to get people to buy their product instead of another product,” Griffin said.
“This is not an argument between NASA and anyone else. This is an argument between a losing contractor and a winning contractor by a losing contractor that (thinks) the winner should be overturned,” he said. “Sorry.”
The article does reference a ULA statement that supports the current implementation of the Vision, er, Space Exploration Policy, “including the Ares launch vehicle element that is critical to its success.”
In a related note, a reader points out an AP article about a Hillary Clinton appearance in Houston Saturday night where she reiterated her previous position on NASA. “I believe we need to keep funding our next generation of spacecraft,” the article quoted Clinton as saying. (Interesting, the Houston Chronicle article about her speech made no mention of her statement, despite the obvious local interest in the topic.)
“It’s just noise. It’s people who would like to sell Atlas 5 trying to use methods outside the market. They are trying to use political methods to get people to buy their product instead of another product,†Griffin said.
You can tell Griffin skipped class the day irony was being discussed.
They must have covered public relations on that day, too.
I’m with Allen (and Bob),
“‘This is not an argument between NASA and anyone else. This is an argument between a losing contractor and a winning contractor by a losing contractor that (thinks) the winner should be overturned,’ he said. ‘Sorry.'”
I’d buy that if they actually did a fairly competed contract and ATK still won. Instead, ATK was given an uncompeted sole-source contract. When you combine that with the whole issue of Doc Horowitz’s involvement with both NASA on the specifications writing side, then ATK on sales side, then NASA again on the execution side…there’s room for more than just sour grapes.
~Jon
ATK was given an uncompeted sole-source contract. When you combine that with the whole issue of Doc Horowitz’s involvement with both NASA on the specifications writing side, then ATK on sales side, then NASA again on the execution side…there’s room for more than just sour grapes.
I’m actually surprised that no investigative reporter has ever dug into this. It could have been a very juicy story. I would in fact expect a protest from Boeing or Lockmart, but I guess they figure that they don’t want to jeopardize future NASA contracts by complaining.
No doubt there is a really, deep conspiracy going on here.
No doubt there is a really, deep conspiracy going on here.
No mark, all the conspiracies are just against you.
Unless NASA’s budget is increased from ~$17.6 billion per year it won’t matter much in the long run because ESAS could very well prove unattainable at that funding level.
For those opposed to ESAS, I would suggest there is a better chance of scrapping it and going Atlas V with Obama rather than Clinton or McCain as the latter two may very well stick with the Stick and the heavy Orion but continue underfunding NASA meaning a longer gap, a delay or cancellation of Ares V, and a whole lot of money spent for very little in results.
In my opinion we need to either increase funding of ESAS or cancel it and turn to another plan.
“No doubt there is a really, deep conspiracy going on here.”
Proof? Evidence?
FWIW…
I think that Mark was making a pathetic (and failed) attempt at sarcasm, anon.