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.
Jonathan Goff
Latest posts by Jonathan Goff (see all)
- An Updated Propellant Depot Taxonomy Part VI: Roving Depots - February 22, 2021
- An Updated Propellant Depot Taxonomy Part V: Human Spaceflight Fixed Depots (Low-Orbit) - February 16, 2021
- An Updated Propellant Depot Taxonomy Part IV: Smallsat Launcher Refueling Depots - November 14, 2020
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!!!!!!!!
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.
Lets just say I’m infamous for bad spelling.
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.