If it's NOT about money (instead of merely publicity) for these major aerospace contractors, then why'd Boeing's CEO have to step down recently? They want money and more of it. Boeing and Lockheed are monopolists and they've acted to thwart the emergence of competitive prizes.
Meanwhile, as for your assertion that LockMart was on two competing teams, try four. This was published at Space.com a while back:
"Four science proposals backed by Lockheed Martin Space Systems swept NASA’s Mars Scout competition, all but assuring the Denver-based company a leading role in the $350 million mission the space agency plans to launch to the red planet in 2007. NASA officials selected the proposals from a field of 25 Dec. 6 for six months and $500,000 worth of additional study each. NASA plans to pick one of the four by August for development as the agency’s first Mars mission selected via a wide-open competition. James Crocker, vice president of space exploration systems at Lockheed Martin, said he was surprised and humbled to learn that all four finalists were backed by his company. Lockheed Martin backed nine proposals in all."
Meanwhile, your assertions are interesting regarding how much money would be required to fund an effective Mars-related prize. We won't know unless we try. Right now we're paying for too many failures. The cost of launching remains too high in the USA, for example, even as we pour tens of billions into projects like re-inventing the space capsule I mean Orbital Spaceplane.
I'm sorry that you don't think I "get it". I prefer enlightenment over insults though, and you tend to maintain a modestly healthy balance, fortunately. I've learned from you occasionally and I wish you a Happy 2004 and beyond.
Space/Science » in reply to re: You don't get it.
If it's NOT about money for these contractors, why'd Boeing's CEO have to step down recently?
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?