Makes it sound like the Pentagon.
The Ugly and Hidden Side of Nasa.
- Thread starter duranduran
- Start date
- Status
So every time you encounter some obstacles you just give up and write off the HUGE investment and go home?
NASA has been doing this and over.
Yes but sometimes seemingly minor issues can take for ever to iron out.
Just look the Osprey (can't remember it's model designation). 20 years of design and testing and the thing still isn't viable for full service (they are still flying but people are stil dying in them).
Also much of the money NASA spents flows directly on the private sector who actually build the things and if you look at their history that's well a lot of the waste occurs. The projects run over budget and don't meet specs but because they are done under NASA auspices, it the agency that carries the can for some-one else's charlie fox.
And unless those organisations could see a quid in it for them being things off their own bat I don't see the sort of work they do for NASA being done at all.
Yes the Osprey has had $40 billion wasted on it and it has killed over 30 people.It's very unstable.To commit further fraud and cover up it's shortcoming's they are now planning a quad tilt rotor which will be more stable.
Nasa should do the engineering/manufacturing in-house as it would be more cost effective and give them continuity.The website gives you lotsand lots of info how the x-33 was given to Lockheed on a no competiton basis but cancelled EVEN AFTER the engineers had solved the problems!
Lockheed also managed the shuttle and so a conflict of interest occurred if the x-33 had succeeded as they would lose money.
NASA does not have the capability to do all off their engineering and manufacturing in-house. They don't have the manpower to do that.
The x33 was given to lockheed because they designed it. There was a competiton announced years ago when NASA decided they wanted a new space plane. Lockheed's design, the x33, won. They could have given the contract to build it to someone else, but it seems to me that it was most efficient to let the people who designed it build it.
As for Lockheed managing the shuttle, that is a little misleading. The shuttle is managed by USA (United Space Alliance), a joint venture between Lockheed and Boeing. As far as I know, it is a completely seperate entity.
Besides, with the Shuttle, the only client is NASA. The way the x33 was set to be operated, NASA would be one of many clients. They would probably be the biggest client, but there was the possibility of more business from the x33 (Venturestar) then there was with the shuttle. It would be in Lockheed's best interest for the x33 to suceed.
No one wanted the x33 to fail. NASA administration does not operate in a vacuum (pardon the pun). They are not handed a blank check by congress. Congress for the most part decides which projects within NASA get what money.
duranduran, I'm not going to indulge whatever this vendetta you have against NASA is for much longer. You make accusation after accusation, but only cite one source (that isn't Wikipedia, thank you) which is obviously biased toward your position. Do you have a source that shows the other side of the coin, or are you relying on people here to provide that for you?
Also, if you believe you have so much evidence of a corrupt organization, then why not do something that actually might change things? Antagonistically making your case on an Internet BBS isn't exactly going to change anything.
That's what I'm wondering about myself. What'S the M.O. here that duranduran has against NASA? It's like he's a former disgruntled employee or something.
I asked you to type Nasa corruption in a search engine for an unbiased multiplicity of sources.
You're the one that's presenting the argument, duranduran. Therefore, the burden of proof rests with you.
Present the evidence yourself. Don't make people go look for it, because after the antagonistic tone with which you've approached this entire subject, that's a sure way to make certain nobody goes looking for it.
Present the evidence yourself. Don't make people go look for it, because after the antagonistic tone with which you've approached this entire subject, that's a sure way to make certain nobody goes looking for it.
Bah, the osprey flies just fine. they fly around northern NJ a lot out of Picatinny where they are developing weapons mounts for them. When you are developing a new type of aircraft, crashes happen and, unfortunately, people loose their lives.
It's just nipping at the heels now, but I think these guys might be the ones to break the "Government Only" mark on space travel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spaceship_Company
I gave you the sites and you said they were biased.Even though one site hosted multiple articles.
If I give you a different site you will say they are biased.
Hence why I gave you a general search term.
But, duranduran, you're the one making the case here. The burden of proof rests on your head to prove that they are, in fact, guilty.
Linking to a site that only presents one side of the case is hardly using an unbiased source, and asking people to do your work for you usually doesn't engender a lot of willingness to do these searches on your behalf, especially when you are antagonistic about it.
Linking to a site that only presents one side of the case is hardly using an unbiased source, and asking people to do your work for you usually doesn't engender a lot of willingness to do these searches on your behalf, especially when you are antagonistic about it.
So you think telling the truth or exposing corruption in big organisations is antagonistic?
- Status