You’re advancing that link in an attempt to refute arguments offered by flip, Elmar and me, but it’s a strawman because we’re not claiming spending money on space exploration is a waste, only that by using commercial space trucking there would be more money left over in NASA’s budget for real exploration.

This!!

Also, am hoping that you’re well done there in NZ.

One image, and it’s probably built on scenes other people have written about, is a restaurant/nightclub on the Moon with huge windows looking out across the lunar landscape, with the Earth in the black sky, people floating across the dance floor the songs like Mancini’s Moon River.

Reminds me of retro 50s ads.

#151 Andrew W

Mmmm, I doubt he’s got anything. Except for a sudden urge to disappear.

… And that my dears, is enough for me. Started a new job last week and have less time for the song that never ends.

MTU has been around here for a while. Not only did he change his mind on global warming (was ‘contrarian’ before, agrees with science now) but he’s also been here under different pseudonyms over that period of time. I can never quite work out whether he’s trolling or serious.

#144 MTU

If NASA isn’t flying American astronauts to our Moon and further then in what sense is it exploring space? (At least humans~wise.)

Apparently robots just invent themselves out of thin air. How is a bot not human space exploration. (Yeah I knew what you meant. I nitpick because really it’s a stupid point to say that only humans-in-space is ‘exploration’)

Serious reply to *what* though?

In #92 the difference between sponsorship and doing it themselves
In #118, How much longer? and the question of time being a factor.
In pretty much all of the posts, the lack of money on NASA’s part
Oh and specifically…. are you campaigning for more space stuff in Australia?

I can’t be bothered going through the posts to find all of my points. But you haven’t exactly been clear about your opinions. Just that you think the cancellation is wrong.

I don’t know, I thought a discussion meant that I post something and then you actually reply to the content (and not the side snarkiness), and then I reply back and so on. If you want to trade snark then hey, I’ve got plenty. But I actually got involved in this thread because of the discussion. Book editors are taught that if you want to make a change to the text, then you not only have to provide reasons why, but you have to offer some suggestions for improvements. And you have to argue them with detail. From my time here at BAblog, it’s clear this also applies to science. I see no detail in your problem with the cancellation/creation of corporate space. Just whining.

Yes, I guess the answer I gave was well, flip, what your username is.

It’s not short for flippant, believe it or not. It’s from a play. (Aussie bogan male if you can’t tell )

But then, some things *are* pretty clear-cut & Black and White. I think this is one of those.

Once again, I am unconvinced by your argument. See my above comments about budgets and economics being first. Budgets may be black and white, but the choices that you make with that budget aren’t. A lot of factors come into play, like chosing between two companies that offer the same product at the same price. Which one do you go for? The one that’s most earth-friendly? The one with better customer service? Etc. As far as I’m concerned NASA has a lot of different ways to achieve their aims. And even a maths-failure artist like me knows about prioritising money and making sure it goes where it needs to go.

If you want to say what you’re actually asking there – & this response isn’t enough for you – please try again & I’ll try and give a better serious answer.

Not sure I could have been any clearer. You do like to duck and cover sometimes. See comments about repetition. I’ve asked specific questions, that have yes/no answers, or clarification of a detail, or a timeline. You’ve given me ambiguity in return.

Glad I gave you a laugh. yep, it is funny – but then at least I spelt “ignorance” right!

Actually, it made me laugh not for the spelling mistake, but because you also had missing punctuation. Go reread, it’s pretty ironic.

When has Elmar_M *ever* said anything that was good or been fair about NASA and what it has achieved? He seems from my reading of his comments to have a totally biased anti-NASA view on everything and be unwilling to give them any credit for anything good they’ve done, ever.

As noted on another thread recently, someone can disagree with a policy or action, but still be pro-whatever. (You are the example of this. You disagree with NASA, but are still very much for them. The fact you accused him of being anti-NASA is darn stupid and hypocritical, and another example of your trait to ignore anything that doesn’t suit)

I’m pretty sure I’ve already stated that Constellation should be funded for long enough and sufficently enough that it gets built and gets to fly. However long that is.

And if, as you acknowledge, there is not enough money to go around for everything (most people would rather fund health care than space if they had to choose between the two), then there would be a stop-date for programs that have not shown progress. I’m asking what yours is. The fact that you don’t seem to have a specific one suggests you’re not being very realistic, nor willing to let go of a program when/if it needs to be let go of.

They should, of course, keep checking its progress and a series of deadlines for particular steps is probably a good thing – but long enough to see it gets a proper red-hot chance of working.

According to the people who oversee it, there has been this time/consideration. But according to you, these people don’t know what they’re talking about.

This is the government we’re talking about – do they ever do anything “cheap” anyhow?

I suspect trying to do things in space too cheaply could be very nasty case of “false economy” – fatal even.

You missed my point, or you choose to ignore it. You accused someone of creating a conspiracy – and did the internet version of yelling at them for it – and I showed that Murphy’s Law exists in creating something. Nobody has to plan for things to go wrong for them to make a less-than-perfect design.

Firts priority -get teh craft built as wellas possible, as safe as can be made reasonable, as impressive and capable as can be possibly done. Economics should be secondary – and remember the money is spent on Earth & helps the national economy, provides jobs and boosts national confidence.

Every artist in the world can attest to this belief being unlikely to do anything for you in the real world. In fact, I clung onto that belief for 20 years until I figured out that if I put money first, I will more likely be able to get what I want done. (In fact, I make more money now as an artist by first considering the financial side of things) It’s a nice idea, but completely bull in the real world. For every business that closes, there’s probably about 20 artists who failed, gave up, took a ‘normal’ job, or bankrupted themselves. If it were that easy to put economics second, then there’d be a lot more artists earning a lot more money.

I don’t believe you’ve ever had to run your own business. If you did, maybe you’d be better able to grasp the concept of budgets.

I’ve lost interest in this discussion, so haven’t really come back to read what you’ve said. If I notice anything particularly interesting I’ll reply… but don’t hold your breath.

(No, it’s not me running away scared. Just had too much work and other stuff to worry about this week and I’m battling time on a few deadlines)