That's what Roger Launius says that launch technology is.

Anthropomorphising technologies? Is solar power a "cheerful" technology"?

And as Clark Lindsey points out, his comparing what's happening with today's emerging suborbital industry with Pan Am's selling of reservations back in the sixties is equally bizarre.

Between him and Alex Roland, one wonders if there are any NASA or space historians (other than Dwayne Day) who aren't clueless.

He says he's seen this type of bubble in the past? When? Where? What's going on now is without historical precedent.

I prefer goofy technologies myself.

Preferably from Acme.

Here's the full quote:

His doubt is based on a combination of finances and safety. “This is an angry technology, it is hard to control. At what level are you willing to expand resources to control it - and at what point do you say we’re not going to do it?”

Hmmm, I suspect by "angry technology" he means the potential for proliferation and escalation inherent in a technology that can have military application. The clue is the emphasis on "control". Why else would we need to "expand resources" or chose not to "do it" based on the cost of control?

It's interesting that he presents the "it's a bubble" argument followed by the "angry technology" argument. If I understand correctly, he's basically saying "It's not going to happen because it's infeasible and we have to control this infeasible technology because it can be used for scary military purposes." Sounds like he's throwing out several arguments in the hope that one or more of them sticks.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize.

> He says he's seen this type of bubble in the past? When? Where?

Microcomputers?

Roger Lanius is the Mike Myers of space history. "If it isn't NASA, it's crap!!!"

"Don't drive angry!"

- Phil Conners, to Puxatauney Phil. Groundhog Day.

No immediate relation to me, I hope!