Kurt,

I am not missing the point.

I was well aware, and by the time I made the submission, well prepared to a reception from the "you were a nobody who had nothing in his resume to suggest he knew what he was talking about" position.

Which part of "40 page submission" did you not understand?

However, when a retired USMC colonel read it (former doctrine design consultant to the USMC, and subject expert published author), he told me that I need to take 20 pages out because the people reading it wouldn't be able to relate to the information; its not taught at the USMC.

Unfortunatelly at the time I only had the 'front end' solution, which was half-a-solution, but still better than the dead end they faced, and still face.

As of three months ago the best the USMC could do is swim the Danube on a bad weather day...as long as no one is shooting at them.

The head of the GDLS facility that managed the cancelled program is a former USMC officer :-)

Murphy's Law says "if it's stupid but it works, it's not stupid", and my proposal wasn't even remotely stupid.

In fact innovation doesn't come from expereince, or education, or being 'somebody'.
Robert Clifford never finished high school.

Bill Gates never had experience in managing a software company
Mark Zuckerberg was a nobody when he started Facebook, with LOTS of website developers around more educated and expereinced than he and his co-designers of Facebook.

To quote Zuckerberg, "it's OK to break things"..."to make them better".

Greg

On 22 June 2015 at 13:40, Kurt Feltenberger <kurt@thepaw.org> wrote:

On 6/21/2015 11:30 PM, Greg Chalik wrote:

Kurt,

By this stage the project in question was cancelled by the Congress for various reasons.

Most external analysts agreed that the design it was trying to achieve was operationally unsuitable to the doctrine, which was soon abandoned by the USMC.

Moreover, you don't know how the USMC came to require the cancelled design, which it worked on from 1996 to 2010 as part of that project, but which had its genensis with a US Army project at Ft Eustis in the early 1950s.

In general if a design is unachievable after two decades, then my submission was as good as any.

No, not necessarily...it just means that a suitable solution wasn't found. Your submission could still be so far off base and full of fail that it would make the Chauchaut look like an outstanding weapon.

Literally hundereds of military officers and engineers had been on the program by the time it was cancelled.

Was the problem that they failed to find the right technological solutions?

No, the problem, confirmed through several interviews, was that NO ONE ASKED THE QUESTION - what problem is this design solving?

If your company had tried for 20 years to remain competitive in the market, and failed, adn you were facing bankrupcy, I think you would consider my paper :-) If not you, then your accountant.

The program in question spent $3.5 billion by the date of cancellation. This is irrecoverable.

Greg

You're missing the entire point of what I'm trying to say, Greg, or simply ignoring it because you don't like what it says. The bottom line is that you submitted a paper and, I apologize for the term, you were a nobody who had nothing in his resume to suggest he knew what he was talking about. This isn't a summer blockbuster where the guy no one has ever heard of and has absolutely no track record in the subject rides in on his fry oil powered pickup truck and saves the day with something that no one every remotely conceived.

--
Kurt Feltenberger
kurt@thepaw.org/kfeltenberger@yahoo.com
“Before today, I was scared to live, after today, I'm scared I'm not living enough." - Me
----- The Traveller Mailing List Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com To unsubscribe from this list please goto http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=JydxSB9tZc6TS63HiAHJcg6SAwighNGJ