cutting the cheaper launchers

In a message dated 3/5/01 11:11:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mejames@... writes:

<< Many years ago after spending some time working at a NASA contractor
bidding on proposals and projects, I wrote a letter to a number of
congressmen trying to get them to consider replacing NASA with a
different system. The current system is totally inept. First of all
they ask for things that don't make sense Then they assign people to
oversee the bid/project that are incompetent. The competent ones don't
ever seem to have any power. Then they change their minds constantly
about what it is they want. Who gets what contract is not at all based
on what is in the proposal. It was a very frustrating experience. I am
always amazed when NASA manages to accomplish anything.
Mitchell James >>

Sometimes if you throw enough money at a problem, that problem will
eventually get solved if not efficiently. Most contractors realize that it is
important to give NASA something for all the money its spending, because they
want additional contracts in the future. NASA was created during the
Eisenhower Administration, but acheived most of its growth during the Kennedy
and Johnson Administrations. The general philosophy of those two
administrations was that the US is a rich country, so therefore it can afford
to spend alot of money to solve societies problems, how it was spend was not
so much of a concern as much as the fact that it did get spent. Spending
money was considered good for the economy because it increased demand which
in turn stimulates production, that it also causes inflation was of little
concern so long as it keeps unemployment down. The bottom line was not
important for government institutions and NASA was one of those institutions
that was created to get Americans to the Moon no matter what. That mindset
has not entirely left NASA, and it shows up in the traditional way NASA used
to do business with its contractors.

Tom Kalbfus