Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

"Young People's attitude" links back to TTM, Rand.

Posted by John Breen III at January 2, 2007 09:22 AM

That pretty much covers it.

I was a kid when that "One Small Step" was taken and I was excited because I believed (wrongly) that it was the first step of many which would lead to me being able to go someday.

When we cancelled the Apollo program I pretty much gave up on NASA. I'm just sorry it took so long for private industry to get in on the act because by the time they get it down to a price point I might aspire to I'll be to old, or dead, to go.

Posted by Fuloydo at January 2, 2007 09:46 AM

I think this is being way over-analyzed.

So most late teens twentysomethings don't seem very interested in space. It was this way 20 yeas ago too. Water is still wet and the sky is still blue.

People in this demoraphic are interested in going to college, getting laid, getting wasted etc, etc. In other words, they are still same self-absorbed kids as every post WWII generation.

Its called being a young adult and its nothing new.

Fortunately, it isn't fatal for the most part to either them or NASA or spaceflight in general.

They may be too lazy to care enought to support the VSE but they are also too lazy to care enough to kill it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 2, 2007 09:48 AM

Mike,
Your theory sounds great and all, but how does it explain the much higher interest level in NewSpace ventures among the same audience? If space in general were the boring thing, why would NewSpace score so much better than NASA?

I may just be projecting (becuase I was still in that age group last fall when the survey came out), but I think Rand has hit the nail on the head. ESAS is so retro it isn't even funny.

Well, if Griffin doesn't change things, someone else a few years down the road will, or NASA will be neutered. Life goes on. People and agencies who refuse to learn eventually get marginalized.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at January 2, 2007 10:03 AM

Jon,

I think you are right, you are projecting. When the kids are asked if they themselves would like to go into space, they answer yes. It is an easy answer to give.

That does not mean there is absolutely any depth of thought behind that answer and it does not tell you whether they hae given it much if any previous consideration.

Frankly, when I see studies about support of r opposition for x, I tend to be highly dismissive.

All they tend to do is illustrate support or opposition and tell us absolutely nothing about how deep or shallow that support or opposition is.

Remember all the support Kerry had amongst the youth and how they were going to turn out and save him?

Occams Razor.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 2, 2007 10:14 AM

"I may just be projecting (becuase I was still in that age group last fall when the survey came out), "

And you, I, and almost everyone on this board are outliers on this subject and far from represent what Joe Sixpack or Joey Jr. feels about this issue.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 2, 2007 10:16 AM

I'm somewhat half way between Mike and Rand on this one. It's certainly true that college students are more interested in studying, getting a job, and hooking up than anything that lays too far in the future. Griffin is probably correct that as these folks grow up and the return to the Moon draws nearer, that support for such things will increase.

But there is something to be said about not only fostering participation in such ventures, but also mentioning endeavors that are happening in the nearer term. The same survey suggests that the youths really like space tourism, commercial space, and--oddly enough--the Mars Rovers. NASA ought to give a mention about its involvement in COTS and the Centennial Challenges as well as improve their use of the medium.

Of course Rand and Jon are indulging in wishfull thinking when they imagine that this bit of news means NASA is "illrelevant". Overall support for the Vision, according to the same survey, remains quite high. The problem with the youths remains that of public relations, not in cancelling the return to the Moon and doing whatever it is Rand and Jon want to do.

One disquieting fact that came out in the survey. Roughly a quarter of the folks in the 18-25 year old demographic doubt that the Apollo Moon landings ever took place. That is something that needs fixing.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 2, 2007 10:22 AM

Also, I just checked with the Dittmar Study, which I think Rand and Jon have not bothered to read yet. Support for going back to the Moon has a great deal of support even from young people, at about 61 percent. So much for illrelevance.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 2, 2007 10:44 AM

I didn't say that NASA is currently irrelevant, Mark. But continue on with the straw men.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 2, 2007 10:47 AM

Ok, that figure was about awareness (my bad), but it looks like a plurality of youth (45 to 40 percent) still support the exploration plan. Much lower than the overall population, but proof that the youths of America agree with Rand and Jon.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at January 2, 2007 10:49 AM

I see this as a positive thing. It is very good to know that the younger generation expects less from the government and more from private individuals.

NASA image is as good as it is going to get right now. A propaganda campaign won't do much, because the new generation is looking at results, not dreams. And if they do get dreaming, the older generations will remind them of what was done before, and what was never followed through. NASA's not pushing any boundaries anytime soon, and that's just not sexy.

Posted by Leland at January 2, 2007 11:12 AM

I think the present situation with "big space" is stagnant and will not change or stimulate interest. With Microlaunchers I am trying to "nucleate" a creation of a new culture of participants in a way anagolous to that which happened with computers 30 years ago. The time is right for a new paradygm.

Posted by Charles Pooley at January 2, 2007 01:59 PM

In the last 22 years, 8 Canadians have gone to space as NASA astronauts. In the last 22 years, thousands of Canadians have won the 6/49 lottery. I imagine that a similar ratio holds true for Americans.

Perhaps if the odds of going to space as a NASA astronaut were better than the odds of winning the lottery, there might be more interest in NASA on the part of young people. And perhaps that is why the interest in private space ventures is so much higher than the interest in NASA.

Posted by Ed Minchau at January 2, 2007 02:55 PM

... and on that basis, maybe they should turn operation of NASA over to Sam Dinkin.

Posted by Ed Minchau at January 2, 2007 02:58 PM

Old people seem to like ESAS because they want to see someone go to the Moon again like when they were kids. Young people don't care because they know that person won't be one of them.

Posted by canttellya at January 2, 2007 03:20 PM

...51 percent—of young people surveyed considered NASA “irrelevant or very irrelevant”, while just 32 percent believed NASA was “relevant or very relevant”.

Herein lies the problem.

The pollsters didn't ask about the pollees about, Madonna, Britney, PS2, MTV, "fitty cent", Sirius Radio, cars with loud stereos and pipes, Howard Stern etc. Or in how they viewed NASA compared to their silly specious lives. THAT would have pushed NASA right off the scale.

Shallow, selfish people leading shallow, selfish lives don't want to be taxed for anything.

Posted by Steve at January 2, 2007 06:34 PM

> People in this demoraphic are interested in going to college, getting laid,
> getting wasted etc, etc. In other words, they are still same self-absorbed
> kids as every post WWII generation.

Make sure you tell them that the next time you're in Afghanistan. Or Iraq. Since those "self-absorbed kids" are fighting to protect your butt.

Those "self-absorbed kids" have stood watch over you your entire life, and how do libs recognize their service and sacrifice? With half-assed comments like yours.

> Or in how they viewed NASA compared to their silly specious lives.
> Shallow, selfish people leading shallow, selfish lives don't
> want to be taxed for anything.

Is that the current argument for NASA? That anyone who wants to keep what he's earned is shallow and selfish?

You don't like people spending money on Playstations and Sirius radios instead of giving it to the government? So the government can turn around and buy the things you want? Things you can't or won't pay for yourself?

What does that make you?

Posted by at January 2, 2007 07:45 PM

Steve, Mark, Mike, etc,
I find it amusing when I see older people who want to saddle "Generation Y" kids with tons of future debt and a waste of a space agency ripping on them for being "selfish" and "shallow". I may be just barely over that age limit, but I think that such arrogance is just that--arrogance. I know a lot of selfish, shallow Baby Boomers as well.

The whole self-absorbed bit really fails to explain why a firm 61% majority stated that they found NewSpace/space tourism as relevant or very relevant. If all they cared about was getting laid, or college scores, or partying, or whatever the pathetic insult is, why are they so relatively interested in NewSpace? Why don' they also say that these new space ventures are also irrelevant to them?

Maybe if you guys stopped being so smug and paternalistic, you might actually learn something from us whippersnappers. Or you could just go on dislocating your shoulders patting yourselves on the backs for being so much more mature and selfless.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at January 2, 2007 07:50 PM

"Make sure you tell them that the next time you're in Afghanistan. Or Iraq. Since those "self-absorbed kids" are fighting to protect your butt.

Those "self-absorbed kids" have stood watch over you your entire life, and how do libs recognize their service and sacrifice? With half-assed comments like yours. "

Please remove your head from your ass before you post again.

First, I stood watch over your crainally/rectially inverted ass for eight years and you are welcome.

Second, I doubt they polled anyone in theatre so a thinking person would instantly surmise I was not referring to service members who make up a tiny sliver of that demographic.

Any more dumb remarks or questions Mr. Anonymous poster?

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 2, 2007 08:23 PM

You don't like people spending money on Playstations and Sirius radios instead of giving it to the government?

If "space explorers" got themselves a Sirius deal and began selling "X Prize Cup 2007" for Playstation 2 then maybe we could go to space without government money.

Get that Bigelow habitat up there and let LM human-rate a light crew taxi for the Atlas 401 (on its own dime, or better yet Nike's dime & Coca Cola's dime) and send people up there.

Posted by Bill White at January 2, 2007 08:28 PM

"I may be just barely over that age limit, but I think that such arrogance is just that--arrogance. I know a lot of selfish, shallow Baby Boomers as well."

Arrogance? I think its calling a spade a spade.

Baby Boomers? Thank God I am a Gen Xer by virtue of a year. Glad I missed being a part of the hippie generation. If you are looking for a defense of boomers, you won't find it from me.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 2, 2007 08:28 PM

PS -- I mostly see NewSpace & OldSpace arguing about how tax revenue should be spent and very little about bringing new money to the table.

Maybe the young guys want to old guys to go away so they can feed at the trough of federal largess.

Posted by Bill White at January 2, 2007 08:30 PM

This last generation grew up with Moore’s law and have in my opinion rightly come to the economic decision to most care about technology sectors that quickly and cost effectively significantly change and improve their lives. In comparison the NASA manned space division has not even doubled in performance over fifty years, and hence obviously does not warrant any significant R&D investment at all. Frankly I am amazed that the youth give NASA as much attention as they do, NASA has not earnt it. I think this is a great testament to the underlying value of space R&D and NASA’s success in monopolising it for the last two generations. However, by their complete lack of technological progress, in a world that has very much been otherwise, NASA has effectively proved to the youth of today that they, (and unfortunately by association to a large extent space), is not worth investing in.

To think that NASA, itself a baby boomer, (note the vested interests and sympathies), should continue to receive stupid levels of funding to do nothing while so many other more promising technological fields receive nothing, well that really is selfish.

Posted by pete at January 2, 2007 09:33 PM

regardless of what are the attitudes of this or that generation, theres always one thing that remains popular with young people, and especially in america. That is, becoming someone important, making gobs of money along the way, and have their names written in the history books.
Space offers a lot of opportunities for that, also in near future, its just that most of the people dont know that. They think of it as a barren, void place, of interest of only to scientists and very expensive by laws of physics
This perception has to change, and NASA does not appear to be part of the solution.

Posted by kert at January 2, 2007 11:11 PM

People in this demoraphic are interested in going to college, getting laid, getting wasted etc, etc. In other words, they are still same self-absorbed kids as every post WWII generation.

Go to hell Mike. We self absorbed college kids get NASA's "message" with the VSE loud and clear, and that "message" is "business as usual".

As a member of the 18-25 group, I'm fed up of NASA's bullshit about opening up 'frontiers'. We all know that what they are really doing is wasting $100B of future revenue from my generation, in order to pad the next quarter returns of Lockheed and ATK, and place a few dozen useless flags and footprints on a barren wasteland.

Get your greedy babyboomer paws out of our hip pockets, and quit deliberately sabotaging private efforts to get me and my generation into space.

Posted by Adrasteia at January 3, 2007 02:30 AM

The public isn't looking for heroes in space. They want to be the heroes and heroines themselves. That's what the Utube revolution is all about.

Not quite, Rand. That's what the YouTube revolution is supposed to be about. But if you look closely at phenomena like YouTube, or Digg.com, MySpace, et cetera, what you'll find is that the reality belies the appearance (and the underlying philosophy): in fact a very small percentage of users are actual significant contributors. For most users, sites with "user-generated" content are little more than TV on the Internet. Their interaction is entirely passive.

So while I can readily believe a majority of young people say they want to go to space personally (just the way most 4th graders say they intend to be President when they grow up), I also strongly doubt the proposition that they'll do anything to actually act on that thought. They will, in fact, be quite content to mostly observe.

What YouTube and its ilk have done, however, is hugely lower the capital cost of entry for video (or some other form of info/entertainment) production. You can now make and distribute a "film" or political tirade for a teensy fraction of its historical cost. Not surprisingly, that has greatly broadened the number of actual, active producers, even if it has not, contra Time's fatuous "Man of the Year" assertion, broadened it so far as to include everybody.

And this seems to be the real similarity to your hopes for space exploration. You hope that something might happen (or has already happened) that would greatly lower the cost of entry for operators in space, and that this will lead to an explosion of innovation and interest such as YouTube et al. has enjoyed.

Fair enough. But...with YouTube, we can easily point to the enabling event(s), namely, the invention of the image-displaying browser, and the huge reductions in the cost of powerful microprocessors and high-quality CCDs.

Where is the similar enabling event for space exploration? What has happened in the last 20 years that could plausibly be expected to greatly lower the cost of entry for space exploration? I'm damned if I can see anything, much as I wish I could. The wonders of the early 21st century are in networked computing, microprocessors, and biology -- none of which do diddly-squat to lower the cost of lofting tons to orbit.

Also, insofar as the relevance of the opinion of twentysomethings is concerned: it's noteworthy that they pay a tiny fraction of taxes, since most people's income rises with their age (duh). Folks often hope that attitudes present in a man when he's 20 will be somehow preserved in amber until he's 35 and paying serious tax money -- but that seems unlikely. Opinions change with age, indeed, more so with age than with nearly anything else.

Posted by Carl Pham at January 3, 2007 02:39 AM

Carl, aptly said, however you seem to be begging for someone to say this; NASA’s official job, like NACA with the development of aircraft, was/is to lower the entry barriers to space, to help develop the breakthroughs necessary to make space happen. Obviously NASA has not accomplished its primary job description, and most here know how easily and cheaply this job description could be accomplished assuming real intent, but further, its presence has likely actually had a negative impact on the democratisation of space.

Hence the dismissiveness of the younger generations seems entirely justified. What is of more interest to me is that older generations do not share this NASA dismissiveness to the same extent - probably due to vested interests, childhood memories of Apollo, and in some cases a lack of experience with how technological developments can be otherwise. If I knew less of history, I too would doubt that NASA ever landed on the moon, such an accomplishment does not fit with the NASA of today, the one they are more familiar with.

Posted by pete at January 3, 2007 05:13 AM

"Go to hell Mike. We self absorbed college kids get NASA's "message" with the VSE loud and clear, and that "message" is "business as usual"."

Eat shit and die moron!

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 3, 2007 08:58 AM

Eat shit and die moron!

Ah, what a wonderful defense of your original argument. Truly, your deeply intellectual argumentation has no peer.

(clap clap)

Posted by Paul Dietz at January 3, 2007 09:06 AM

Got to hell Paul!

Now what are you going to offer as a response?

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 3, 2007 09:11 AM

Oh, I am sorry: Why don't you go to Hell Paul?

There, it is spelled right this time. When I want to precipitate a deeply intellectual argumentation that has no peer, I tell someone to 'Go to Hell!'

Is that what works for your Paul? How do you perciitate a a deeply intellectual response? Do you find personal nsult works best for you?

Do tell............

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 3, 2007 09:17 AM

> How do you perciitate a a deeply intellectual response? Do you find personal insult works best for you?

Well, obviously you do, Mike. You start out by labelling everyone born since World War II as "self-absorbed kids" and progress to "Eat shit and die moron!" Such a high level of intellectual discourse.

And what have these people done to offend you? They "selfishly" want to keep some of the money they've earned and spend it on things they want instead of "unselfishly" giving it all to the government to buy things Mike Pucket wants (and things everyone else should be forced to pay for).

This is what passes for virtue in the modern world: taking other people's money for whatever you consider to be the public good, so that you don't have to go out and earn the money yourself.

Has anyone read "The Virtue of Selfishness"?

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx

Posted by at January 3, 2007 10:12 AM

Yes, you seem fed up, because you are starting to spew it out.

$100B? Where did that come from? CEV is $3.9B and CLV is $5B. Higher end estimates come up to $12B.

The "stick" might pad ATK's revenue, but Lockheed Martin will be lucky to see a 1% bump. If you think NewSpace companies are more virtuos because they are not using taxpayers' dollars, then you really are consuming BS.

"Barren Wasteland"? What a BS argument. Your brain is a barren wasteland, but fortunately, you seem to be in school thus suggesting someone has taken an interest in developing it into something useful. Give them time, you might find it to be a rewarding experience. Besides, compared to the moon, space is far more barren, yet you seem excited to go there.

Posted by Leland at January 3, 2007 10:19 AM

"Well, obviously you do, Mike. You start out by labelling everyone born since World War II as "self-absorbed kids" and progress to "Eat shit and die moron!" Such a high level of intellectual discourse. "

Really Anonymous Moron? Where did I say 'everyone'? Why are you still posting with your head stuck up your ass? Please keep moving the goalposts and making strawman arguments. No one else will notice I am sure.

Tell me go to hell and I will tell you to eat shit. What a hypocrite you are to ignore that little fact. Cause and effect.

I see you are not capable of providing a high level of intellectual discorse either so what was the point of your post? Irony? Proving my original assertion? If so, thanks for doing it so well.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 3, 2007 10:29 AM

Well, the level of discourse on this post certainly seems to have degenerated.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 3, 2007 10:33 AM

Now what are you going to offer as a response?

I will simply note that the person you were responding to did not just post a content-free ejaculation, but followed up with a reasoned argument demonstrating why he felt that way.

Your insult was, well, without intellectual content at all. All noise, no value.

Posted by Paul Dietz at January 3, 2007 11:09 AM

Paul, when one wants to engage me in a resoned argument, they do not lead off with "Go to hell Mike".

I don't care if they write the entire Gettysburg Address afterwards. It does not matter how fine your arguments are when you chosse to lead them off with a unprovoked personal attack.

What is so hard to understand about that simple concept somehow you seem incapible of grasping it?

Perhaps you should read the thread Rand posted today where he links to Jane Gault because I think you are falling into a similar trap here.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 3, 2007 11:28 AM

> Where did I say 'everyone'?

Not "everyone," Mike, "everyone born since World War II: "they are still same self-absorbed kids as every post WWII generation."

You didn't read my words or your own correctly, or else you read them correctly but chose not to quote them correctly.

You started the namecalling. Now you're claiming victim status because other people reciprocated.

Ayn Rand said her Objectivist philosophy was based on reason while the collectivist philosophy was based on emotion. I'm not sure if that's correct but your style of argument supports her thesis.

It does not support your thesis that "kids" who don't want to pay for your gimmees are morally inferior. The "self-absorbed kids" are willing to go out and work for Playstations, Sirius radios and other things they want (which you don't want them to have). Why can't you work for the things you want, instead of asking the government to give them to you and then insulting anyone who says no?

Posted by at January 3, 2007 11:57 AM

"they are still same self-absorbed kids as AS FOUND IN every post WWII generation."

There, are you happy now? Everyone else here seems to have understood what I meant without being so explicit.

"You started the namecalling. Now you're claiming victim status because other people reciprocated"

And you took what I wrote as a personal insult? One so personal that you had to launch into a nonsense strawman tirade about my owing my security to some such....?

You want some objectivest reasoning? If Ayn Rand were here, she would tell you to pull your head out of your ass. Can't get more objectivist than that.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 3, 2007 12:07 PM

And: Methinks thou doest protest too much. I seem to have struck a nerve. If anyone is proving anyones thesis, it seems to be you and your wounded ego.

I think someone needs to call a waahambulance and get you an emergency delivery of Vagisil. If you don't get that sand out of your mangina soon, I am afraid it might prove fatal.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 3, 2007 12:14 PM

> And you took what I wrote as a personal insult?

No, I took it as a general insult, hurled at anyone and everyone who prefers to spend his money on things he wants rather than things you want.

The difference being that "self-absorbed kids" are spending their own money while you want to spend other people's money.

There is nothing childish about working for what you want. There is nothing grown up about demanding that someone else (Santa, parents, government) give you everything you want, then hurling insults if you don't get it.

> You want some objectivest reasoning? If Ayn Rand were here, she would
> tell you to pull your head out of your ass.

Do you have a point, Mike, other than the fact that the government didn't bring everything you wanted this year and you're blaming all of us? We get that, Mike. There's no reason to keep repeating it.

If you're just trying to prove that you can't argue with logic rather than namecalling, we get that, too.

Posted by at January 3, 2007 12:39 PM

Paul, when one wants to engage me in a resoned argument, they do not lead off with "Go to hell Mike".

Mike, I really do not care about your idiosyncratic reactions, in this or anything else. I merely observe that the previous poster provided intellectual content, while you did not. Your own conversational fetishes are of zero importance.

Posted by Paul Dietz at January 3, 2007 03:03 PM

> $100B? Where did that come from? CEV is $3.9B and CLV is $5B.

NASA. The estimate is $106 billion, just through the first the first landing.

Where do you get your numbers from, Leland? CEV alone is estimated at $15 billion.

http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full05/feb17/charter.pdf

> Besides, compared to the moon, space is far more barren, yet you seem
> excited to go there.

You miss the point, Leland. I'm sure he would be just as excited to go to the Moon, but NASA is not doing anything to enable ordinary people to go to the Moon.

Right now, you can buy a cislunar flight from Space Adventures for around $100 million but there are no takers. ESAS will do nothing to reduce that cost. In fact, it will increase it. Why should anyone be excited by that?

Posted by Edward Wright at January 3, 2007 07:44 PM

Ed,

According to NASA, Constellation is expected to be over $200B over the lifetime. However, Lockheed Martin's contract to build CEV through 2013 is only $3.9 billion with a potential option up to $3.5 billion beyond that term (http://www.space.com/news/060831_nasa_cev_contract.html). What NASA's charges for developmental and operational costs to the taxpayer doesn't pad Lockheed Martin's or ATK's quarterly numbers. I don't disagree that NASA is costly, but I would like to stop the anti-corporation rhetoric and hyperbole.

As far as the point, I didn't miss it. His point was clear that the moon is simply a barren wasteland, which is exactly why I decided to call him on the "bullshit". The moon is certainly far more than a barren wasteland. My point was that history is full of people who looked at things as "barren wastelands" only for someone else to come along and see an opportunity. Ordinary people don't visit places they consider "barren wastelands".

Seriously Ed, I have lots of respect for you, but you are not convincing here. Hypothetically, if you were a private corporation with a moon vehicle, I'm not convinced you'd make a sell simply on the basis you were private and not NASA, when the customers opinion is that the destination is a wasteland.

Posted by Leland at January 4, 2007 08:07 AM

> Lockheed Martin's contract to build CEV through 2013 is only $3.9 billion with a potential option
> up to $3.5 billion beyond that term

Leland, the key words are "through 2013." That's not the same as "through the first lunar landing in 2020."

Option is simply a contract term. The Schedule B work and sustained engineering (another $750 million) are not optional if Orion is going to carry humans to the Moon by 2020.

The article also states that "post-development spacecraft delivery orders could begin as early as Sept. 8, 2009, and run through Sept. 7, 2019... [and] the estimated value of those orders will be negotiated based on future manifest requirements and knowledge gained through the DDT&E process."

Those delivery orders probably account for the difference between the $8.5 billion stated in this article and the $15 billion NASA stated to Congress.

> What NASA's charges for developmental and operational costs to the taxpayer doesn't pad Lockheed Martin's
> or ATK's quarterly numbers.

Taxpayers don't really care whether the money goes to Lockheed, ATK, or NASA employees.

> The moon is certainly far more than a barren wasteland.

Wasteland (noun): land that is uncultivated or barren; A place, era, or aspect of life considered as lacking in spiritual, aesthetic, or other humanizing qualities, a vacuum; an uninhabited wilderness

Those sound like very good descriptions to me. There is no cultivated land on the Moon and no inhabitants. There's certainly plenty of vacuum (although the dictionary probably didn't mean it quite so literally).

> if you were a private corporation with a moon vehicle, I'm not convinced you'd make a sell
> simply on the basis you were private and not NASA

No, you'd have to make the sale on the basis that you were cheaper than the Russian/Space Adventures lunar Soyuz flights (for which there are no takers). Until that cost comes down, the Moon will remain a wasteland.

NASA is not doing anything to reduce the cost. They're increasing it. That's why people aren't interested.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 4, 2007 09:57 AM

"Paul, when one wants to engage me in a resoned argument, they do not lead off with "Go to hell Mike".

So to apparently is any microscopic trace of common sense on your part if that is how your thought process works. Normal people do not rationalize day to day conversation like Data on Star Trek. Normal peole do not feel obliged to engage in an enlightenend debate with someone who leads off with an Ad Homenim attack. I am not aware of any debating conventions that require likewise either.

I hope you are capable of comprehending that simple and near universal truth.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 4, 2007 01:40 PM

"The difference being that "self-absorbed kids" are spending their own money while you want to spend other people's money. "

No, they are spending mommies and daddies Kelso.

"There is nothing childish about working for what you want. There is nothing grown up about demanding that someone else (Santa, parents, government) give you everything you want, then hurling insults if you don't get it."

That is all well and good. But I think you need to make that point to someone who was actually trying to argue it.

> You want some objectivest reasoning? If Ayn Rand were here, she would
> tell you to pull your head out of your ass.

"Do you have a point, Mike, other than the fact that the government didn't bring everything you wanted this year and you're blaming all of us? We get that, Mike. There's no reason to keep repeating it."

You do have a point and it is apparently found on the top of your head. You keep repeating strawman criticisms of points I never made. What is your major malfunction? Where did I idscuss consumer spending or newspace in my postings?? Others have adressed it but I have not. I think your trolley has jumped its 'objectivist' track.

You have engages in perhaps the longest running strawman tirade in the history of this board. that is a pretty good objectivist accomplishment.

If you're just trying to prove that you can't argue with logic rather than namecalling, we get that, too."

And you are trying to prove that you are incapible of making a coherent argument. I am bearing you over the head with a cluebat but you seem to bee too hard headed for it to have effect.

Here is my original post repeated:

I think this is being way over-analyzed.

So most late teens twentysomethings don't seem very interested in space. It was this way 20 yeas ago too. Water is still wet and the sky is still blue.

People in this demoraphic are interested in going to college, getting laid, getting wasted etc, etc. In other words, they are still same self-absorbed kids as every post WWII generation.

Its called being a young adult and its nothing new.

Fortunately, it isn't fatal for the most part to either them or NASA or spaceflight in general.

They may be too lazy to care enought to support the VSE but they are also too lazy to care enough to kill it.

Yep, certainly the most scathing attack on newspace (of which I support but do not feel it is necessary for NASA to cease to exist for it to be sucessful) in the history of Transterrestrial. Also the most overwhelming lack of gratitude for those who serve our country in uniform ever (of whom I was one for eight years just a few years ago).

Please, read before you post and make sure MY NAME is attached to what you are responding to.

You might want to pick one for yourself too.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 4, 2007 01:55 PM

>> There is nothing grown up about demanding that someone else (Santa, parents,
>> government) give you everything you want, then hurling insults if you don't
>> get it."

> That is all well and good. But I think you need to make that point to someone
> who was actually trying to argue it.

Yes, someone who calls people lazy and selfish because they don't want to pay taxes to fund his Vision for Space Exploration. Such as "Mike Puckett."

You get mad because people want to spend money on things that entertain them (Playstations and Sirius radios) rather than things that entertain you (Ares rockets and Orion capsules).

Then you get mad because I point out you're asking for other people's money. Too bad. You're not funding Ares and Orion with your own money. You're asking the government to fund the things you want with other people's money. If my saying that embarasses you, then you must see something wrong in what you're doing.

Posted by at January 4, 2007 08:21 PM

Ed,

3.5 + 3.9 = 15 which is something close to 100?

or is it

3.5 + 3.9 + .75 = 8.5 which is something close to 15 which gets you to 100?

My point is the logic of Adrasteia's comment makes a claim that NASA is spending $100 billion dollars to pad the pockets of 2 companies in the effort to go somewhere he describes as a barren wasteland. That's all BS of course, but you are welcome to continue to defend it.

Posted by Leland at January 5, 2007 06:55 AM

"You get mad because people want to spend money on things that entertain them (Playstations and Sirius radios) rather than things that entertain you (Ares rockets and Orion capsules). "

Where did I address disposible income and consumer electronics? I did not. Why are you so dean retarded that you are incapible of comprehending basic english?

"Then you get mad because I point out you're asking for other people's money."

Because I never did ask for other peoples money. You are now even more the retard.
How many times are you going to keep making the same moronic strawman arguments?

"Too bad. You're not funding Ares and Orion with your own money. You're asking the government to fund the things you want with other people's money. If my saying that embarasses you, then you must see something wrong in what you're doing. "

If your inability to read and comprehend english at a 6th grade level fails to humilate you, nothing will. Please get back on your intellectual short bus and get yourself to some special ed pronto.

When are you going to find my ties to the Trilaterlist's, The Greys, The Kennedy assination or The Bilderbergs in my original post and take me to task on them. I am sure you imagination can fill in the missing facts and enable you to construct some more retarded strawman arguments if you try a little bit. The others are getting quite old now.

If you wish to discuss points I actually made, I will entertain that with the dignity it deserves. If you wish to continue to make absurd strawman arguments, I will also continue to adress that with the dignity it deserves.

"Posted by Anonymous Short-Bus Retard at January 4, 2007 08:21 PM"

There, now you have a board name that makes sense.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 5, 2007 09:36 AM

Post a comment