On Tue, 20 May 2008 18:17:56 -0700 (PDT), Sir Gilligan Horry
<Sir.Gilligan.Horry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 21, 10:48 am, www.freedomtofascism.com <tr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:14:46 -0400,www.freedomtofascism.com<tr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 20 May 2008 05:12:04 -0700 (PDT), Sir Gilligan Horry
>> ><Sir.Gilligan.Ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >>It may not be the aliens that "allowed the Chinese and Russian space
>> >>missions" ...
>>
>> >The Chinese are on the moon right now. Why aren't you?
>>
>> >Did Armstrong scare you?
>>
>> <crickets>
>
>My verification word this moment is holy ****!
http://www.bjreview.com.cn/science/txt/2008-05/12/content_116255.htm
" China plans to launch a man into space and eventually land on the moon.
While such pursuits aim at heightening national pride and legitimizing the
communist party's rule, they also spread fears over China's underlying
intentions. Putting a man in space would confirm not only China's
technological advance, but also its military capabilities, missile
technology in particular. While it has emphasized the domestic benefits of
its space program, China has been tight-lipped about the military and
foreign policy implications. A Chinese space launch could be perceived as
threatening to the US and its broad array of satellite-directed weapons
and
communications. The author suggests that China should consider how its
program is perceived by the US, but also whether putting a man in space is
the worth the potential economic and political costs. – YaleGlobal"
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=2448
Conflict of interest skuttles NASA missions:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/ap_on_sc/nasa_conflict
Inspector General: Conflict of interest on NASA review board By SETH
BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Wed Apr 30, 6:14 PM ET
Relevant excerpt:
"The board consists of 19 members charged with providing "independent"
*****sments of the project designed by NASA but built by private firms.
However, nearly one-third of them work for those firms. Four of the six
contractor employees were also stockholders in companies making money off
the NASA project."
WA****NGTON - A board set up to review construction of the space****p to
return astronauts to the moon is loaded with employees of the very
contractors they are supposed to scrutinize, breaking federal law, a
government watchdog says.
The board chairman, former Skylab astronaut Ed Gibson, and five other
members work for companies hired by NASA on the multibillion-dollar space
shuttle replacement program.
The NASA inspector general, the agency's in-house watchdog, calls that a
conflict of interest and recommends suspending the six board members.
NASA contends that in the specialized field of aerospace, most of the
experts either work for NASA or its contractors. The agency regularly has
to
deal with this on review boards, said NASA spokesman David Steitz.
The board was set up to oversee NASA's new Orion crew capsule project, but
not the moon rocket that sits under the capsule. Plans call for astronauts
to return to the moon by 2020 and the Orion would take them there.
The board consists of 19 members charged with providing "independent"
*****sments of the project designed by NASA but built by private firms.
However, nearly one-third of them work for those firms. Four of the six
contractor employees were also stockholders in companies making money off
the NASA project.
The conflicts include two powerful space and defense contractors: Science
Applications International Corp. (SAIC) of San Diego and Lockheed Martin
Corp. of Bethesda, Md.
Gibson and former NASA flight director Neil Hutchinson are vice presidents
and stockholders of SAIC, which has a $51.4 million contract for Orion
test
facilities. Another board member is an SAIC employee. A former top NASA
official, Jack Garman, works for and owns stock in Lockheed Martin, the
prime builder of Orion with a $4.3 billion contract. Two other board
members
work for contractors MEI Technologies of Houston and Gray Research Inc. of
Huntsville, Ala.
In a response from NASA in the re****t, Scott Pace, an associate
administrator, said there is no need to suspend or replace the board
members
in conflict. Pace said the standards for the board's independence are
being
rewritten. The inspector general's office called that response
"nonresponsive."
An expert on government ethics said the conflict was "a flagrant abuse and
Congress should investigate."
"Not only is NASA ready to challenge the laws of physics, it appears more
than willing to challenge the laws of Congress," said New York University
professor Paul Light.
House Science Committee Chairman Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., said he believes
"NASA will take whatever steps are required to eliminate any conflicts of
interest."
This is not just bureaucratic nitpicking, Light said. Independent
oversight
is crucial and that means separate from the contractors NASA uses so
often,
he said. He pointed out that NASA lost a $125 million Mars probe in 1999
because a contractor, Lockheed Martin, used English measurements while
NASA
had been using metric measurements for years.
In a NASA self-*****sment of any potential conflict of interest, Gibson
wrote that there is no conflict between him and SAIC where he is an
officer.
He said SAIC provides only technical services and that he created a
"firewall" between him and SAIC's work on Orion; he said he is barred from
discussing Orion work with company employees. SAIC did not have any
comment.
However, the inspector general auditors wrote that these assurances were
not
"adequate to remedy his independence impairment."
This is the second major conflict of interest problem NASA has had with a
board recent months. Last December, NASA announced it was delaying by two
years its planned half-billion-dollar 2011 unmanned probe to Mars. because
of an unspecified conflict of interest in the board formed to pick a
contractor.
___
On the Net:
NASA Inspector General's re****t:
http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/re****ts/FY08/IG-08-018.pdf
|
