You keep your realistic percentages out of this, white man!
Don’t knock yourself out trying too hard to find what you are obviously trying to avoid. Hey, let’s focus our hidden cameras on this page on the Saturn V launch vehicle:
[ul]
[li]Formal contract with Boeing for the S-IC - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA announced the signing of a formal contract with The Boeing Company for the S-IC (first stage) of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the largest rocket unit under development in the United States. The $418,820,967 agreement called for the development and manufacture of one ground test and ten flight articles. Preliminary development of the S-IC, which was powered by five F-1 engines, had been in progress since December 1961 under a $50 million interim contract. Booster fabrication would take place primarily at the Michoud Operations Plant, New Orleans, La., but some advance testing would be done at MSFC and the Mississippi Test Operations facility.[/li][li]Contract for production of the S-II stage signed - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA announced the signing of a contract with the Space and Information Systems Division of NAA for the development and production of the second stage (S-II) of the Saturn C-5 launch vehicle. The $319.9-million contract, under the direction of Marshall Space Flight Center, covered the production of nine live flight stages, one inert flight stage, and several ground-test units for the advanced Saturn launch vehicle. NAA had been selected on September 11, 1961, to develop the S-II.[/li][li]Douglas named contractor for Saturn S-IVB stage - . Nation: USA. Related Persons: von Braun. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo Lunar Landing. NASA announced that Douglas Aircraft had been selected for negotiation of a contract to modify the Saturn S-IV stage by installing a single 200,000-pound-thrust, Rocketdyne J-2 liquid-hydrogen/liquid-oxygen engine instead of six 15,000-pound-thrust P. & W. hydrogen/oxygen engines. Known as S-IVB, this modified stage will be used in advanced Saturn configurations for manned circumlunar Apollo missions.[/li][li]Contracts to Rocketdyne for production of the Saturn’s F-1 and J-2 rocket engines - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Summary: NASA awarded three contracts totaling an estimated $289 million to NAA’s Rocketdyne Division for the further development and production of the F-1 and J-2 rocket engines.[/li][li] IBM to build the instrument units for the Saturn launch vehicles - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA selected IBM, Federal Systems Division, to develop and build the instrument units (IU) for the Saturn IB and Saturn V launch vehicles. (IBM had been chosen by NASA in October 1963 to design and build the IU data adapters and digital guidance computers and to integrate and check out the IUs.) Under this new contract, expected to be worth over $175 million, IBM would supply the structure and the environmental control system. NASA would furnish the telemetry system and the stabilized platform (ST-124M) of the guidance system. MSFC would manage the contract.[/li][/ul]
How about the Apollo LM?
[ul]
[li]Definitive contract formalized for the Apollo Lunar Excursion Module - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM. NASA announced signing of the contract with Grumman for development of the LEM. Company officials had signed the document on January 21 and, following legal reviews, NASA Headquarters had formally approved the agreement on March 7. Under the fixed-fee contract (NAS 9-1100) ($362.5 million for costs and $25.4 million in fees) Grumman was authorized to design, fabricate, and deliver nine ground test and 11 flight vehicles. The contractor would also provide mission support for Apollo flights. MSC outlined a developmental approach, incorporated into the contract as “Exhibit B, Technical Approach,” that became the “framework within which the initial design and operational modes” of the LEM were developed.[/li][li]RCA named as subcontractor for Apollo LEM electronics subsystems and for engineering support - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; LM Communications; LM Guidance. NASA announced its concurrence in Grumman’s selection of RCA as subcontractor for the LEM electronics subsystems and for engineering support. Under the $40 million contract, RCA was responsible for five LEM subsystem areas: systems engineering support, communications, radar, inflight testing, and ground support. RCA would also fabricate electronic components of the LEM stabilization and control system. (Engineers and scientists from RCA had been working at Grumman on specific projects since February.)[/li][li]Pratt and Whitney to develop fuel cells for the Apollo LEM - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; LM Electrical. Grumman selected Pratt and Whitney to develop fuel cells for the LEM. Current LEM design called for three cells, supplemented by a battery for power during peak consumption beyond what the cells could deliver. Grumman and Pratt and Whitney completed contract negotiations on August 27, and MSC issued a letter go-ahead on September 5. Including fees and royalties, the contract was worth $9.411 million.[/li][li]Marquardt begins development of the Apollo LEM reaction control thrusters - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; LM RCS. Summary: Grumman directed the Marquardt Corporation to begin development of the LEM reaction control system thrusters. Negotiations had begun on March 11 on the definitive subcontract, a cost-plus-incentive-fee type with a total estimated cost of $10,871,186.[/li][li]Hamilton Standard began development of the ECS for the Apollo LEM - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; LM ECS. Grumman authorized Hamilton Standard to begin development of the environmental control system (ECS) for the LEM. The cost-plus-incentive-fee contract was valued at $8,371,465. The parts of the ECS to be supplied by Hamilton Standard were specified by Grumman.[/li][li]Selection of five organizations for Apollo LEM guidance and navigation equipment - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; CSM Guidance; LM Guidance. NASA Headquarters announced the selection of five organizations for contract negotiations totaling $60 million for the development, fabrication, and testing of LEM guidance and navigation equipment: (1) MIT, overall direction; (2) Raytheon, LEM guidance computer; (3) AC Spark Plug, inertial measurement unit, gyroscopes, navigation base, power and servo assembly, coupling display unit, and assembly and testing of the complete guidance and navigation system; (4) Kollsman Instrument Corporation, scanning telescope, sextant, and map and data viewer; and (5) Sperry Gyroscope Company, accelerometers.[/li][li]Apollo subcontract with Rocketdyne for the LEM descent engine - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; LM Descent Propulsion. Summary: MSC approved Grumman’s $19,383,822 cost-plus-fixed-fee subcontract with Rocketdyne for the LEM descent engine development program…[/li][li]Ryan selected for Apollo landing radar - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; LM Guidance. Summary: RCA, contractor to Grumman for the LEM rendezvous and landing radars, chose Ryan Aeronautical Company as vendor for the landing radar. The contract was signed March 16, 1964.[/li][li]Selection of four companies as major Apollo LEM subcontractors - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; LM Ascent Propulsion; LM Descent Propulsion; LM ECS; LM RCS. Grumman and NASA announced the selection of four companies as major LEM subcontractors:[/li]Rocketdyne for the descent engine
Bell Aerosystems Company for the ascent engine
The Marquardt Corporation for the reaction control system
Hamilton Standard for the environmental control system
[/ul]
Or the Apollo CSM:
[ul]
[li]First Apollo development contract - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Class: Moon. Type: Manned lunar spacecraft. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM; CSM Guidance; CSM Source Selection. NASA selected MIT’s Instrumentation Laboratory to develop the guidance-navigation system for Project Apollo spacecraft. This first major Apollo contract was required since guidance-navigation system is basic to overall Apollo mission. The Instrumentation Laboratory of MIT, a nonprofit organization headed by C. Stark Draper, has been involved in a variety of guidance and navigation systems developments for 20 years. This first major Apollo contract had a long lead-time, was basic to the overall Apollo mission, and would be directed by STG.[/li][li]North American awarded Apollo prime contract - . Nation: USA. Related Persons: Webb. Program: Apollo. Class: Moon. Type: Manned lunar spacecraft. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM; Apollo Lunar Landing; CSM Source Selection. Despite an announcement at Martin on 27 November that they had won the Apollo program, the decision was reversed at the highest levels of the US government. NASA announced instead that the Space and Information Systems Division of North American Aviation, Inc., had been selected to design and build the Apollo spacecraft. The official line: ‘the decision by NASA Administrator James E. Webb followed a comprehensive evaluation of five industry proposals by nearly 200 scientists and engineers representing both NASA and DOD. Webb had received the Source Evaluation Board findings on November 24. Although technical evaluations were very close, NAA had been selected on the basis of experience, technical competence, and cost’. NAA would be responsible for the design and development of the command module and service module. NASA expected that a separate contract for the lunar landing system would be awarded within the next six months. The MIT Instrumentation Laboratory had previously been assigned the development of the Apollo spacecraft guidance and navigation system. Both the NAA and MIT contracts would be under the direction of MSC.[/li][li]Four major subcontractors for Apollo - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM; CSM Parachute. NAA’s Space and Information Systems Division selected four companies as subcontractors to design and build four of the major Apollo spacecraft systems. The Collins Radio Company, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, received the telecommunications systems contract, worth more than $40 million; Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company, Minneapolis, Minn., received the stabilization and control systems contract, $30 million; AiResearch Manufacturing Company, division of The Garrett Corporation, Los Angeles, Calif., was awarded the environmental control system contract, $10 million; and Radioplane Division of Northrop Corporation, Van Nuys, Calif., was selected for the parachute landing system contract, worth more than $1 million. The total cost for the initial phase of the NAA contract was expected to exceed $400 million.[/li][li]General Electric selected for Apollo support - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. NASA announced that the General Electric Company had been selected for a major supporting role in the Apollo project, to provide integration analysis of the total space vehicle (including booster-spacecraft interface), ensure reliability of the entire space vehicle, and develop and operate a checkout system.[/li][li]Marquardt to build the reaction control rocket engines for the Apollo spacecraft - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM; CSM RCS. Summary: The Marquardt Corporation was selected by NAA’s Space and Information Systems Division to design and build the reaction control rocket engines for the Apollo spacecraft.[/li][li]Aerojet-General named for the Apollo service module propulsion system - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM; CSM SPS. Summary: The Aerojet-General Corporation was named by NAA as a subcontractor for the Apollo service module propulsion system.[/li][li]Contract for the Apollo spacecraft fuel cell to Pratt & Whitney - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM; CSM Fuel Cell. Summary: NAA awarded a development contract for the Apollo spacecraft fuel cell to Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division of United Aircraft Corporation.[/li][li]Three contractors for the Apollo guidance and navigation system - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM; CSM Guidance. NASA announced the selection of three companies for the negotiation of production contracts for major components of the Apollo spacecraft guidance and navigation system under development by the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory. The largest of the contracts, for $16 million, would be negotiated with AC Spark Plug Division of General Motor Corporation for fabrication of the inertial, gyroscope-stabilized platform of the Apollo spacecraft; for development and construction of ground support and checkout equipment; and for assembling and testing all parts of the system. The second contract, for $2 million, would be negotiated with the Raytheon Company to manufacture the digital computer aboard the spacecraft. Under the third contract, for about $2 million, Kollsman Instrument Corporation would build the optical subsystems, including a space sextant, sunfinders, and navigation display equipment.[/ul][/li]
Yes, it’s all Whitey, concerted in a vast overarching conspiracy, holding down the enlightened multicultural pioneers from achieving greatness and benefit to society at large. We gather once a year in a secret underground lair buried deep within Mt. Rushmore to discuss what can be done to keep those troublesome Negros and uppity Asians from getting above their stations as gas station clerks and elevator operators. What an intriguing, well demarcated, highly contrived world you live in, tailor-made for your personal martyrdom.
Stranger
And speaking of NASA procurement, I’m sure NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden would agree with you…
[quote=“Stranger_On_A_Train, post:82, topic:689005”]
Don’t knock yourself out trying too hard to find what you are obviously trying to avoid. Hey, let’s focus our hidden cameras on this page on the Saturn V launch vehicle:
[ul]
[li]Formal contract with Boeing for the S-IC - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA announced the signing of a formal contract with The Boeing Company for the S-IC (first stage) of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the largest rocket unit under development in the United States. The $418,820,967 agreement called for the development and manufacture of one ground test and ten flight articles. Preliminary development of the S-IC, which was powered by five F-1 engines, had been in progress since December 1961 under a $50 million interim contract. Booster fabrication would take place primarily at the Michoud Operations Plant, New Orleans, La., but some advance testing would be done at MSFC and the Mississippi Test Operations facility.[/li][li]Contract for production of the S-II stage signed - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA announced the signing of a contract with the Space and Information Systems Division of NAA for the development and production of the second stage (S-II) of the Saturn C-5 launch vehicle. The $319.9-million contract, under the direction of Marshall Space Flight Center, covered the production of nine live flight stages, one inert flight stage, and several ground-test units for the advanced Saturn launch vehicle. NAA had been selected on September 11, 1961, to develop the S-II.[/li][li]Douglas named contractor for Saturn S-IVB stage - . Nation: USA. Related Persons: von Braun. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo Lunar Landing. NASA announced that Douglas Aircraft had been selected for negotiation of a contract to modify the Saturn S-IV stage by installing a single 200,000-pound-thrust, Rocketdyne J-2 liquid-hydrogen/liquid-oxygen engine instead of six 15,000-pound-thrust P. & W. hydrogen/oxygen engines. Known as S-IVB, this modified stage will be used in advanced Saturn configurations for manned circumlunar Apollo missions.[/li][li]Contracts to Rocketdyne for production of the Saturn’s F-1 and J-2 rocket engines - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Summary: NASA awarded three contracts totaling an estimated $289 million to NAA’s Rocketdyne Division for the further development and production of the F-1 and J-2 rocket engines.[/li][li] IBM to build the instrument units for the Saturn launch vehicles - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA selected IBM, Federal Systems Division, to develop and build the instrument units (IU) for the Saturn IB and Saturn V launch vehicles. (IBM had been chosen by NASA in October 1963 to design and build the IU data adapters and digital guidance computers and to integrate and check out the IUs.) Under this new contract, expected to be worth over $175 million, IBM would supply the structure and the environmental control system. NASA would furnish the telemetry system and the stabilized platform (ST-124M) of the guidance system. MSFC would manage the contract.[/li][/ul]
How about the Apollo LM?
[ul]
[li]Definitive contract formalized for the Apollo Lunar Excursion Module - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM. NASA announced signing of the contract with Grumman for development of the LEM. Company officials had signed the document on January 21 and, following legal reviews, NASA Headquarters had formally approved the agreement on March 7. Under the fixed-fee contract (NAS 9-1100) ($362.5 million for costs and $25.4 million in fees) Grumman was authorized to design, fabricate, and deliver nine ground test and 11 flight vehicles. The contractor would also provide mission support for Apollo flights. MSC outlined a developmental approach, incorporated into the contract as “Exhibit B, Technical Approach,” that became the “framework within which the initial design and operational modes” of the LEM were developed.[/li][li]RCA named as subcontractor for Apollo LEM electronics subsystems and for engineering support - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; LM Communications; LM Guidance. NASA announced its concurrence in Grumman’s selection of RCA as subcontractor for the LEM electronics subsystems and for engineering support. Under the $40 million contract, RCA was responsible for five LEM subsystem areas: systems engineering support, communications, radar, inflight testing, and ground support. RCA would also fabricate electronic components of the LEM stabilization and control system. (Engineers and scientists from RCA had been working at Grumman on specific projects since February.)[/li][li]Pratt and Whitney to develop fuel cells for the Apollo LEM - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; LM Electrical. Grumman selected Pratt and Whitney to develop fuel cells for the LEM. Current LEM design called for three cells, supplemented by a battery for power during peak consumption beyond what the cells could deliver. Grumman and Pratt and Whitney completed contract negotiations on August 27, and MSC issued a letter go-ahead on September 5. Including fees and royalties, the contract was worth $9.411 million.[/li][li]Marquardt begins development of the Apollo LEM reaction control thrusters - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; LM RCS. Summary: Grumman directed the Marquardt Corporation to begin development of the LEM reaction control system thrusters. Negotiations had begun on March 11 on the definitive subcontract, a cost-plus-incentive-fee type with a total estimated cost of $10,871,186.[/li][li]Hamilton Standard began development of the ECS for the Apollo LEM - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; LM ECS. Grumman authorized Hamilton Standard to begin development of the environmental control system (ECS) for the LEM. The cost-plus-incentive-fee contract was valued at $8,371,465. The parts of the ECS to be supplied by Hamilton Standard were specified by Grumman.[/li][li]Selection of five organizations for Apollo LEM guidance and navigation equipment - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; CSM Guidance; LM Guidance. NASA Headquarters announced the selection of five organizations for contract negotiations totaling $60 million for the development, fabrication, and testing of LEM guidance and navigation equipment: (1) MIT, overall direction; (2) Raytheon, LEM guidance computer; (3) AC Spark Plug, inertial measurement unit, gyroscopes, navigation base, power and servo assembly, coupling display unit, and assembly and testing of the complete guidance and navigation system; (4) Kollsman Instrument Corporation, scanning telescope, sextant, and map and data viewer; and (5) Sperry Gyroscope Company, accelerometers.[/li][li]Apollo subcontract with Rocketdyne for the LEM descent engine - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; LM Descent Propulsion. Summary: MSC approved Grumman’s $19,383,822 cost-plus-fixed-fee subcontract with Rocketdyne for the LEM descent engine development program…[/li][li]Ryan selected for Apollo landing radar - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; LM Guidance. Summary: RCA, contractor to Grumman for the LEM rendezvous and landing radars, chose Ryan Aeronautical Company as vendor for the landing radar. The contract was signed March 16, 1964.[/li][li]Selection of four companies as major Apollo LEM subcontractors - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; LM Ascent Propulsion; LM Descent Propulsion; LM ECS; LM RCS. Grumman and NASA announced the selection of four companies as major LEM subcontractors:[/li]Rocketdyne for the descent engine
Bell Aerosystems Company for the ascent engine
The Marquardt Corporation for the reaction control system
Hamilton Standard for the environmental control system
[/ul]
Or the Apollo CSM:
[ul]
[li]First Apollo development contract - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Class: Moon. Type: Manned lunar spacecraft. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM; CSM Guidance; CSM Source Selection. NASA selected MIT’s Instrumentation Laboratory to develop the guidance-navigation system for Project Apollo spacecraft. This first major Apollo contract was required since guidance-navigation system is basic to overall Apollo mission. The Instrumentation Laboratory of MIT, a nonprofit organization headed by C. Stark Draper, has been involved in a variety of guidance and navigation systems developments for 20 years. This first major Apollo contract had a long lead-time, was basic to the overall Apollo mission, and would be directed by STG.[/li][li]North American awarded Apollo prime contract - . Nation: USA. Related Persons: Webb. Program: Apollo. Class: Moon. Type: Manned lunar spacecraft. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM; Apollo Lunar Landing; CSM Source Selection. Despite an announcement at Martin on 27 November that they had won the Apollo program, the decision was reversed at the highest levels of the US government. NASA announced instead that the Space and Information Systems Division of North American Aviation, Inc., had been selected to design and build the Apollo spacecraft. The official line: ‘the decision by NASA Administrator James E. Webb followed a comprehensive evaluation of five industry proposals by nearly 200 scientists and engineers representing both NASA and DOD. Webb had received the Source Evaluation Board findings on November 24. Although technical evaluations were very close, NAA had been selected on the basis of experience, technical competence, and cost’. NAA would be responsible for the design and development of the command module and service module. NASA expected that a separate contract for the lunar landing system would be awarded within the next six months. The MIT Instrumentation Laboratory had previously been assigned the development of the Apollo spacecraft guidance and navigation system. Both the NAA and MIT contracts would be under the direction of MSC.[/li][li]Four major subcontractors for Apollo - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM; CSM Parachute. NAA’s Space and Information Systems Division selected four companies as subcontractors to design and build four of the major Apollo spacecraft systems. The Collins Radio Company, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, received the telecommunications systems contract, worth more than $40 million; Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company, Minneapolis, Minn., received the stabilization and control systems contract, $30 million; AiResearch Manufacturing Company, division of The Garrett Corporation, Los Angeles, Calif., was awarded the environmental control system contract, $10 million; and Radioplane Division of Northrop Corporation, Van Nuys, Calif., was selected for the parachute landing system contract, worth more than $1 million. The total cost for the initial phase of the NAA contract was expected to exceed $400 million.[/li][li]General Electric selected for Apollo support - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. NASA announced that the General Electric Company had been selected for a major supporting role in the Apollo project, to provide integration analysis of the total space vehicle (including booster-spacecraft interface), ensure reliability of the entire space vehicle, and develop and operate a checkout system.[/li][li]Marquardt to build the reaction control rocket engines for the Apollo spacecraft - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM; CSM RCS. Summary: The Marquardt Corporation was selected by NAA’s Space and Information Systems Division to design and build the reaction control rocket engines for the Apollo spacecraft.[/li][li]Aerojet-General named for the Apollo service module propulsion system - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM; CSM SPS. Summary: The Aerojet-General Corporation was named by NAA as a subcontractor for the Apollo service module propulsion system.[/li][li]Contract for the Apollo spacecraft fuel cell to Pratt & Whitney - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM; CSM Fuel Cell. Summary: NAA awarded a development contract for the Apollo spacecraft fuel cell to Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division of United Aircraft Corporation.[/li][li]Three contractors for the Apollo guidance and navigation system - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM; CSM Guidance. NASA announced the selection of three companies for the negotiation of production contracts for major components of the Apollo spacecraft guidance and navigation system under development by the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory. The largest of the contracts, for $16 million, would be negotiated with AC Spark Plug Division of General Motor Corporation for fabrication of the inertial, gyroscope-stabilized platform of the Apollo spacecraft; for development and construction of ground support and checkout equipment; and for assembling and testing all parts of the system. The second contract, for $2 million, would be negotiated with the Raytheon Company to manufacture the digital computer aboard the spacecraft. Under the third contract, for about $2 million, Kollsman Instrument Corporation would build the optical subsystems, including a space sextant, sunfinders, and navigation display equipment.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Thank you. Again, I did look through your cite and did not see this. This GQ, I am not sure why you seem to be upset about pointing it out. I know other posters took your posts as the gospel because you ostensibly work for NASA (do you, don’t you?). I don’t have those stars in my eyes because, frankly, I don’t know you, your username, or your posting style. In any case, I’ll take note of your username and make sure not to ask you for clarification in the future.
Oh, please, you can stop with the eye-rolling sarcasm; I don’t buy into this post-racialism bullshit, so try that crap with the Clippers players or on Harpo on The Color Purple. I don’t buy into it because white people still treat blacks like shit and if you need a cite, start a thread in GD and I’ll be more than happy to provide it. In fact, sir, I can show you racism on this very message board about how blacks are stupid, violent, genetically inferior. This isn’t martyrdom, it’s the god damned truth. So please. Lastly, no one thinks white people get together in some conspiratorial secret dungeon in Mount Rushmore, mainly because you wouldn’t pay for the roads that lead to it anyway. You’d let them languish and crumble before privatizing it just the way ya’ll did with your education system. But fuck it, let’s do the math. Walk with me here.
U.S President: 43/44 white
U.S Vice President: 44/44 white
U.S President Tempore: 51/51 white
Speaker of the House: 61/61 white
Senate Majority Leader: 50/50 white
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: 17/17 white
Supreme Court Justices: 109/112 white (sans Marshall, Thomas, Sotomayor - did I miss any other minority justices? Anyone?)
Ok, those are the leaders of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branch of the U.S government. Did I miss anyone? Ok, let’s add them together 44+44+51+61+50+17+112 = 379. Let’s divide 379 by 375 and it equals 98.9% or rounding it off to 99% white. Go ahead, check my math please. The people who lead the U.S government have been white; how and why this is controversial is beyond me. I swear, this place is like The Village, where racism is the “thing” we do not speak except when it comes to our supposed low IQ and performance on standardized tests :rolleyes:.
- Honesty
Oops. The VP was 47/47 not 44/44, so that’d be 382/375 which would be 98.1% or rounding it off 98% white. Not quite 99% but very close.
Damn, my math sucks. Actually, it would be 382/378 (sans Obama, Thomas, Marshall, and Sotomayor) which is <drum roll> 99% white.
- Honesty
This is some of the most obtuse horseshit I have ever seen outside of an MDA confab. Seriously, all you have to do is click on any one of the links and search for the wide array of contractors cited by name. Hell, if you just search for “contract” you’ll see 62 matches under Saturn V, 177 matches under Apollo LM, and 306 under Apollo CSM. Every single item listed is copied verbatim from those pages, referencing well-known contractors like Boeing, Douglas, Chrysler, IBM, Draper Labs, TRW, Rocketdyne, Aerojet, Marquardt, Rockwell, Grumman, Raytheon, North American Aviation, et cetera. If you make even a cursory effort to look up the history on those contractors (or their successors, as most have in one way or another been absorbed by Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, or Raytheon) you will find extensive detail on exactly what they did to provide entire systems, stages, vehicles, integration support, and systems engineering services for that program. If you can’t find that, it is blatant and willful ignorance on your part.
And as for the “white people are all oppressors” schtick, it goes so far beyond patent dishonesty that it ranges into a certain type of behavior that is totally and completely inappropriate for this forum.
Stranger
Dude, if you’re going to call me a liar, just go ahead and say it. I clicked on Apollo 13 and 17 and didn’t see any contractors so I stopped looking. Your cite is a wall of text written in 8 - 10 font. I am not going to keep pecking at my keyboard trying to run through your cite. In fact, NO ONE ELSE EXCEPT YOU was able to point out what the hell you were talking about. How was I supposed to know to do a search for “contract” on the search engine? Do I look psychic? Look, I thanked you for providing the cite. I also thanked you for highlighting it. I am not sure what else you want me to do.
I don’t believe white people are all oppressors, those are your words, not mine, so you can get rid of the quotation marks. I am merely pointing out that the laws that are legislated, deliberated, signed, adjudicated are by mostly white people. I am sorry this is controversial, I even took a tally of all of the leaders of the U.S government since 1776 to support it and came up with around 99% white. You’re more than welcome to prove me wrong (my math is far from exceptional) or you can claim that I think white people are all oppressors. The latter is much easier, I know.
I am also sorry that it’s inappropriate for this forum, I can only hope you have the same feelings when the SDMB hosts its monthly “BLKS R DUMB” threads with the blessing of the moderators. Audre Lorde once wrote that “Your silence will not protect you.” She was wrong. It is abundantly clear that your silence is your armor, shield, and sword. It protects you just fine.
- Honesty
How did this turn into a “white people” thing? 
Have you seen the logos for the major defense contractors? White backgrounds. Connect the dots, sheeple!
The USN built virtually all its own warships in the Navy Yards in the wooden ship era. Starting in the steel warship era in 1880’s until the early 1970’s both private and Navy yards built USN warships, including nuclear submarines. The Navy stopped doing that because it was obvious it cost more to build in Navy Yards, and also some particular cost overruns and the infamous accident at Mare Island where negligence allowed the nuclear attack sub Guitarro to sink at her dock while under construction. That was the end of the line for the Navy Yards building new ships, though they still exist to repair USN ships alongside private sector yards.
IMO a lot of the posts have gone around and around about the fact that the defense contracting system as a whole is not a ‘free market’ enterprise. There’s basically only one customer, the DoD*, and usually few competitors. And the DoD (perhaps necessarily) dictates how the contractors operate in very minute detail. That said, there’s no reason to believe, and the history of Navy Yards (and the Army arsenals as well, which used to produce a lot of weapons) demonstrates, that the weapons would cost any less if built entirely by government agencies.
It’s not really a private sector activity even when performed by private companies, but as with private v public in general, it’s an illusion that removing profit and ‘high CEO salaries’ would just save money. It would save money on that end, but cost more money in other places when the incentive to save money is weakened by removing the profit/bonus motive. It would seem that in the century and a half since socialism was invented that the repeated and ample proof of this general idea would be enough for it to be accepted as common knowledge. It doesn’t cost less when you take out profit motive and just rely on ‘sense of duty’ for people to do an efficient job, not in making stuff.
*US weapons firms export some products, but usually ones developed under DoD control and DoD also heavily controls the export process. Under the Foreign Military Sales program for example the foreign country legally can’t be offered a lower price for the weapon than the DoD pays, if it’s something the DoD also buys, which it usually is. Even weapons exports are not really, for the most part, like regular private business.
Beats me, and the complaint is all the more obtuse for the fact that it was also “white people” who promoted the development of rocket propulsion and space exploration (Tsiolkovsky, Goddard, Von Braun, Oberth, Traux, et cetera), white politicians who championed and funded it (Kennedy, Johnson), mostly white engineers and scientists who developed the systems, and a totally Wonder Bread astronaut corps up until the 'Eighties when Guion Bluford flew on STS-8, all owing to he lack of opportunities for minorities in science and technical fields.
Stranger
<sigh> Sorry, my bad. I get carried away sometimes. Apologies to Stranger as well, I shouldn’t have bitten your head off.
A rat done bit [DEL][COLOR=“Black”]my[/DEL][/COLOR] his sister Nell? :eek:
Linky for those cats not hip with the jive!
CMC fnord!