|
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
 Posted - 02/03/2003 : 07:53:59
|
It seems that the Shuttle Program (and thus COLOMBIA) was privitized by NASA back in '96. Today's issue of Financial Times (3 Feb; page 2) reads:quote:
'Privatisation' under scrutiny
"The Columbia accident presents the first serious test of the decision by Nasa [sic] in the mid-1990s in effect to privatise the space shuttle operations by handing over day-to-day management to Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
United Space Alliance (USA) was set up as a 50-50 joint venture by the two aerospace and defence companies in 1996 under a contract worth some $12bn over 10 years."
Etc.
Up until now, I had thought that NASA was totally in charge of all aspects of Space: management, operations, maintenance, research----everything.
I haven't heard a word otherwise even though I've been listening to the episode unfold since waiting for the local station to break in order to watch Colombia land at Cape Canaveral.
(The Financial Times is a substantial newspaper; I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of their story.)
Comments, anyone?
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
tw101356
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
 Posted - 02/03/2003 : 10:35:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
It seems that the Shuttle Program (and thus COLOMBIA) was privitized by NASA back in '96. Today's issue of Financial Times (3 Feb; page 2) reads:<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">'Privatisation' under scrutiny
"The Columbia accident presents the first serious test of the decision by Nasa [sic] in the mid-1990s in effect to privatise the space shuttle operations by handing over day-to-day management to Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
United Space Alliance (USA) was set up as a 50-50 joint venture by the two aerospace and defence companies in 1996 under a contract worth some $12bn over 10 years."
Etc.
Up until now, I had thought that NASA was totally in charge of all aspects of Space: management, operations, maintenance, research----everything.
I haven't heard a word otherwise even though I've been listening to the episode unfold since waiting for the local station to break in order to watch Colombia land at Cape Canaveral.
(The Financial Times is a substantial newspaper; I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of their story.)
Comments, anyone?
[/quote]
All fact. United Space Alliance is one of my company's customers
and I've worked with them on occasion. There's also other companies
handling things like facilities maint. and security.
- Henry
|
- TW
|
 |
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2003 : 10:53:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tw101356
All fact. United Space Alliance is one of my company's customers
and I've worked with them on occasion. There's also other companies
handling things like facilities maint. and security.
- Henry
Ah. I knew that JPL (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov) was managed for NASA by CalTech and that the entire (--brilliantly successful--) NEAR mission to the asteroid Eros was done for NASA by the Applied Physics Lab at John Hopkins University but I never imagined that the highly visible shuttle program had been turned over to private interests.
To me, privatizing the shuttle program is sort of like saying "fighter aircraft are too ??[dangerous; technical]?? for government to run, so let's contract out all fighter (and bomber?) Wings to private industry."
I was very much taken aback by FT's news story. Is there any reason that so little info ever hit the press? (CalTech/JPL has never hidden; JHU's APL always claimed full credit for NEAR's successes and even its one close disaster.)
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
