No Conflict of Interest Here

Did you hear who just got selected as the new head of Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at NASA? None other than your friendly Shaft-shill, Scott Horowitz. Though I’m not entirely sure how the heirarchy at NASA is currently organized, the fact that Centennial Challenges is run out of ESMD doesn’t seem to bode well. I’m sure Scott will make sure that the Innovative Programs NASA has been talking about will get plenty of money and attention. After all, since those alt.space commercial projects like commercial ISS resupply aren’t on the critical path, their funding can’t possibly be considered expendable when the Shaft goes over budget, right? I mean, I’m sure that Scott would rather see his company’s vehicle only used for VSE. No interest whatsoever in those ISS resupply and crew transfer missions.

No conflict of interest here. Nope, none at all. Nothing to see people. These aren’t the noids you were looking for. Move along.

The following two tabs change content below.
Jonathan Goff

Jonathan Goff

President/CEO at Altius Space Machines
Jonathan Goff is a space technologist, inventor, and serial space entrepreneur who created the Selenian Boondocks blog. Jon was a co-founder of Masten Space Systems, and is the founder and CEO of Altius Space Machines, a space robotics startup in Broomfield, CO. His family includes his wife, Tiffany, and five boys: Jarom (deceased), Jonathan, James, Peter, and Andrew. Jon has a BS in Manufacturing Engineering (1999) and an MS in Mechanical Engineering (2007) from Brigham Young University, and served an LDS proselytizing mission in Olongapo, Philippines from 2000-2002.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to No Conflict of Interest Here

  1. Kelly Starks says:

    Oh joy. They murged conflict of interest, with the reinforcement of the “astronaut mafia”. All to implemnt a Apollo retread concept.

    Put back in the fudal lord center directors at Marshall and Johnson and the old NASA will really leep forward.

    AAHHHH!!!!!!!!

  2. Anonymous says:

    While I kind of agree with your observations Kelly, could you please check your spelling before you post next time? It doesn’t help the cause to make comments with poor spelling. Just for the fun of it, I’ll let you work out where the mistakes were.

  3. Kelly Starks says:

    Lets just say I’m infamous for bad spelling.

  4. murphydyne says:

    As I noted back in “Stakeholders or suppliers?” back in August,

    “I’m getting an uncomfortable feeling of way too much quid pro status quo going on behind the curtain.”

    I’m glad that some folks, like Rand Simberg over at “Transterrestrial Musings” are continuing to harp on the fact that we really do need to have a national public strategic debate about just what it is we’re doing this space thing for, what we expect to get out of it, and what ends it will serve.

    All the possibilities should be laid out before the American people, from GEO solar power sats to asteroid mining to Lunar polar bases to a handful of scientists to Mars to look for water.

    And I don’t think that NASA should be the one to pick and choose what it wants to do. At least in the private sector one can sell one’s equity stake if the the company consistently exhibits poor choices and business models. The taxpayers of this country -can’t- divest themselves of their NASA shareholdings to apply that capital to other ends. If someone doesn’t like where NASA is going, all they can do is keep throwing good money after bad.

    I truly believe that the American people will adequately fund a NASA that they feel works for them. There’s just too much of a disconnect right now for that to happen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *