|
+
Appendices 1-1 through 1-6
Appendix 1-1: The article that
appeared in the JSC/NASA Space news Roundup, announcing the Lunar
Prospector Project and asking for volunteer help in developing
the spacecraft and doing the mission. View
image
Appendix 1-2: The letter Preston Carter and I wrote to the Space
Studies Institute (SSI), expressing our concerns about the poor
performance of the SSI members of the Lunar Prospector Team
and the need to replace them with competent personnel. View
image
Appendix 1-3: A draft of the memo that I sent to Gregg Maryniak
at the Space Studies Institute regarding the need for Preston
Carter to be the point-man between the Lunar Prospector Project
and Omni Systems Inc. during the Lunar Prospector Spacecraft
Design Study that Omni was to conduct. Note that in the 1st
paragraph of Point 1, I stated that, “… one of the major goals
of the Lunar Prospector Project to demonstrate a quicker, less
costly and better way of doing lunar (and planetary) science
missions.” Several years later, NASA announced the Discovery
Program that was to determine how to do lunar and planetary
missions “Faster, Better, Cheaper” and Lunar Prospector was
selected as the first pear-reviewed, competitively selected
Discovery Mission in February 1995.
Note also that, because we had so few resources in the “Early
Years” of the project, Preston Carter and I used the back of
the sheets on which I printed this draft to layout our organizational
chart for our volunteer engineering organization, Lunar Exploration
Inc., and the chart shows through from the back of the paper. View
image 1, View
image 2, View
image 3
Appendix 1-4: Because of various Space Studies Institute (SSI)
violations of the Consortium Agreement, which served as the
basis for the cooperation between SSI and Lunar Exploration
Inc. (LEI) on the Lunar Prospector Project, I wrote this draft
of a letter to SSI, demanding changes in the Consortium Agreement
that would rectify the situation. The draft was sent to Jay
Cuclis, LEI’s pro bono lawyer at the firm of Vinson & Elkins,
so he could prepare it as a legal document and send it to SSI. View
image
Appendix 1-5: The solicitation letter that the Space Studies
Institute (SSI) sent out in September 1990 that was sent to
Preston Carter and me, by a friend, a couple of days after I
drafted the letter reproduced in Appendix 1-4. This SSI letter
again portrayed the Lunar Prospector Mission as solely an SSI
venture, rather than a cooperative program between SSI and Lunar
Exploration Inc. and confirmed that SSI had not lived up to
its duties defined in the Consortium Agreement. Instead of starting
to solicit the several million dollars that we needed for the
construction of the spacecraft at the start of the Phase B Design
Study in the fall of 1989, so we could start construction immediately
after the completion of the design study in June 1990, SSI was
starting a halfhearted attempt to solicit the money nearly a
year late, a fact that added to the concerns that Preston and
I had concerning SSI’s ability to support the project. View
image
Appendix 1-6: A newspaper article that appeared in the Houston
Post as a result of the Lunar Exploration Inc. Press Conference
that was held on October 17, 1990. View
image
+
Appendices 1-7 through 1-12
Appendix 1-7: A letter that
Gregg Maryniak faxed to Preston Carter and me, justifiably complaining
about statements that Preston had made in our less than successful
Lunar Exploration Inc. Press Conference that was held on October
17, 1990 – statements that I too was unhappy about. That was the
second time in the history of the project that Gregg and I were
on the same side of an issue that related to the management of
the project, rather than being opponents, as was usually the case. View
image
Appendix 1-8: The letter from Yuri Semyenov indicating that NPO
Energia wanted to commit to the launch of Lunar Prospector and
wanted to invite us to go to Moscow in December 1990 to finalize
the deal. View
image
Appendix 1-9: The letter that Astronaut Tom Stafford wrote on
behalf of the Lunar Prospector Project after we had presented
our case to the Synthesis Group that Tom chaired. View
image
Appendix 1-10: The letter from Wes Huntress in which he responded
negatively, in typical NASA bureaucratic lingo, to a progress
report that I had sent to NASA Administrator, Admiral Richard
Truly somewhat earlier. View
image
Appendix 1-11: The short rejection letter from John McMahon,
President and CEO of Lockheed Missiles & Space Company,
that I received in response to my request that Lockheed give
the Lunar Prospector Project a million dollars and other forms
of support. View
image
Appendix 1-12: The cover letter for the Unsolicited Proposal
that I sent to NASA requesting support for the Lunar Prospector
Project.View
image
+
Appendices 2-1
Appendix 2-1: The unsigned
letter that Don Damon sent to me during the Lunar Prospector Proposal
effort in the fall of 1994, confirming that Lockheed Launch Vehicles
and Services would launch Lunar Prospector to its translunar trajectory
on a Lockheed Launch Vehicle 2 (LLV2) with a Star 37 kick motor
for $25 million. View
image
+
Appendices 3-1 through 3-3
Appendix 3-1: The e-mail that
NASA/Ames Scott Hubbard originally sent to Ames’ Dan Cathcart
in a fit of childish anger, without bothering to find out what
the fact of the situation were, and that Dan forwarded to Lockheed’s
Maryann Williamson, that led to my being locked out of Lockheed
like a common criminal. View
image
Appendix 3-2: The “Whoops!” e-mail that Ames’s PR person, David
Morse, sent to all the individuals involved in Scott’s Hubbard’s
fiasco (Appendix 3-1) – except the victim, me – explaining that
Lockheed’s Buddy Nelson had indeed properly informed NASA/Ames
about my appearance in a Channel 4 TV interview and that he,
David, had dropped the ball. View
image
Appendix 3-3: The e-mail that Lockheed’s Maryann Williamson
wrote in response to the Scott Hubbard’s e-mail (Appendix 3-1)
that started the lockout procedure that ended with my being
locked out of Lockheed like a common criminal for several days. View
image
+
Appendices 4-1 through 4-7
Appendix 4-1: The letter I
sent to Wes Huntress requesting the removal of Scott Hubbard from
the Lunar Prospector Project. View
image 1, View
image 2
Appendix 4-2: The letter I sent to Lockheed’s Mel Brashears
requesting that Lockheed split the $4 million fee that it was
getting for the Lunar Prospector Project with my non-profit,
tax-exempt institute, the Lunar Research Institute. View
image
Appendix 4-3: Wes Huntress’ rejection letter to my request
(Appendix 4-1) to have Scott Hubbard removed from the Lunar
Prospector Project. View
image
Appendix 4-4: The obsequious letter that Lockheed VP, Mike Coats,
wrote to NASA Headquarters defending poor Scott Hubbard again
my unjust allegations and my request to have him removed from
the Lunar Prospector Project. View
image
Appendix 4-5: My reply to Coats’ obsequious letter (Appendix
4-4). View
image
Appendix 4-6: Lockheed’s rejection of my request that Lockheed
split the $4 million fee that it was getting for the Lunar Prospector
Project with my non-profit, tax-exempt institute, the Lunar
Research Institute (see appendix 4-2). View
image
Appendix 4-7: The unintelligible letter I got from NASA’s
George Withbroe in response to my trying to make sure that NASA
had enough money for the data reduction of Lunar Prospector
data, in which it was “clear”, if one understood NASA gobbledygook,
that there was no money for the reduction of the data. View
image
+
Appendices E-1 through E-3
Appendix E-1: The letter I
wrote to NASA Administrator, Dan Goldin, defending the “Faster,
Better, Cheaper” approach to lunar and planetary missions in response
to the attacks on it after the two Mars Mission failures in late
1999. View
image
Appendix E-2: My testimony to the Congressional Committee
on Science in response to the attacks on the “Faster, Better,
Cheaper” approach to lunar and planetary missions after the
two Mars Mission failures in late 1999. View
image
Appendix E-3: The letter I wrote to Congressman Sensenbrenner
after I testified to the Congressional Committee on Science
regarding the utility of the “Faster, Better, Cheaper” approach
to lunar and planetary missions and the need to reform NASA. View
image
|