I didn’t say policy should be, let alone expected to be logical. Now you’re assembling a strawman.

I just said that if someone is going to falsely accuse me of writing, and believing, things that I didn’t and don’t, and wants other people to believe it, that they should have some basis for it, in facts and logic. None was provided.

And clearly logic doesn’t work with such people, which is why we shouldn’t take what he or she writes here seriously.

That attitude is why space is and has been marginalize politically. You may wish the political world works a particular fashion like the laws os physics, but the world works the way it does and doesn’t care about logic. As Spock would say, Humans are Illogical. So why do you think policy must be logical? Or logical arguments will work? Especially when they haven’t so far?

If you can’t exercise logic, and you repeatedly get your facts wrong, I wonder why you think that anyone should take anything you write seriously. Forget about knives — you didn’t even bring a spork.

One reason I think many space advocates like you have problems with space policy is you think it should work like a wiring diagram. That is not how humans work, not even space policy decision makers and especially not Angel investors.

That I believe is one of the key reasons most policies push by space advocates, like New Space, end up losing to opponents of space flight.

Basing Space Policy on “debate” logic is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. You will lose every time to the emotion and politics of the real world.

NASA’s problems with X-33 did cool off investment interest in that it signaled that the technical risk for RLVs was still too high for their comfort level. Their cancellation of the project increased that preceived risk – “If NASA could solve the problem why do you think your start-up could?

Now as a space expert you know the problems was related to thte specific design selected by NASA and the very tight funding constraints used for the program.

But to the investment community it looked like NASA tried and failed to make the technological leap.

But don’t believe me. Ask the people who were actually trying to finance their RLVs in that time frame. Try Kistler, USL, TGV, etc. and ask how the investment community cooled. It only got new vigor from SpaceShipOne.

I claimed that a particular NASA action had no impact on investor’s decisions (a claim I later modified).

Only someone completely innocent of any understanding of logic (or another possibility–someone disingenuous, and sufficiently scornful of the intelligence of people reading this blog) would say that this was equivalent to a general claim that ““what NASA does has no impact on investors.”

Know anyone like that? I do.

I guess by you definition any investor who is not willing to invest in New Space is “naive”.

No. Once again, work on the logic thing. Though perhaps it’s a futile request. You seem to be incapable of it.

Yes, but what didn’t kill RLV funding was the X-33 disaster, either in its selection, or its funding, or in its failure. That’s a ridiculous notion. The smart RLV investment was oblivious to X-33, which was always irrelevant to actual, flying RLVs.

In which you claimed NASA’s action had no impact on investor’s decisions? Then claimed it would on only stupid investors?

But I overstated it. There are no doubt some naive investors who thought that X-33 proved that reusables wouldn’t work.

I guess by you definition any investor who is not willing to invest in New Space is “naive”.

Sheesh….

Ok, so you did change it. Just wanted to make sure.

I later amended that remark. Please try to keep up.

And saying that NASA’s actions on X-33 had no impact is not the same thing as saying that what NASA does in general has no impact. Sorry, it’s that pesky logic thing again. So I’m still waiting for you to provide some evidence for your latest fantasy of what I said.