>>>By the way, Lockheed was part of the team that was to have built ARES."
Lockheed nevertheless won the bidding war for that year, because its Mars monopoly is so pervasive that it actually bid against itself (!):
NASA HQ press release (#03-256): "NASA Â [has] selected Phoenix, an innovative and relatively low cost mission, to study the red planet, as the first Mars Scout mission. The Phoenix lander mission is scheduled for launch in 2007. Â The 2007 Scout mission joins a growing list of spacecraft aimed at exploring Mars. It also represents NASA's first fully competed opportunity for a dedicated science-driven mission...Principal Investigator, Dr. Peter Smith of the University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz., leads the Phoenix mission in a partnership with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif., and Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Denver. Â In addition, the Canadian Space Agency is contributing a meteorological package that includes a lidar sensor to study polar climate." Â
SPACEPROJECTS.COM: One thing that NASA isn't eagerly volunteering is that a significant portion of the "victorious" Phoenix mission was already paid for by U.S. taxpayers during the 1999 Mars debacle era.
-----------------------------
Meanwhile, as for your assertion that prizes wouldn't work for Mars missions, please feel free to buttress that "justification" for not giving the idea a shot, pursuant to Congressional approval that basically already exists:
http://www.SpaceProjects.com/prizes
LockMart has gotten somewhere around a billion dollars to "study" Mars sample returns, and I think that money should have been offered as a competitive prize for Mars sample returns, instead.
-----------------------------
As for your assertion that LockHeed loses face when it conveniently screws up like it did in 1999 in order to get more funding for Mars programs, please elaborate on your "MIL" related assertion. Does Lockheed not continue to be the most favored contractor where Mars is concerned?
Space/Science » in reply to re: You don't understand contracting Rich. What is of more benefit success or failure when selling your services?
Lockheed "won" the 2007 Mars "Phoenix" bid, and ALSO a billion+ dollars Mars sample return award...
The whole thread (40 posts)
- Perhaps Beagle 2 constructor Astrium WANTED it to fail, in order to get better funding?
- re: You don't understand contracting Rich. What is of more benefit success or failure when selling your services?
- Failure is an orphan, success is owned by all.
- Maybe You Just Get What You Paid For
- Indeed
- With COMPETITIVE prizes, if entrepreneurs fail, taxpayers pay NADA.
- How can we know UNLESS competitive prizes are finally offered with all those tax dollars?
- As usual, Mark is spot on. (n/t)
- Indeed
- Just plain silly
- You are such a goof (n/t)
- re: Perhaps Beagle 2 constructor Astrium WANTED it to fail, in order to get better funding?