Comments on: Is a circumlunar mission in NASA’s plans?

By: Carnival of Space #157: The 2010 ISDC Round-Up Edition - Out of the Cradle

Carnival of Space #157: The 2010 ISDC Round-Up Edition - Out of the Cradle — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 06:47:56 +0000

[…] Is a circumlunar mission in NASAâ€™s plans? – SpacePolitics.com […]

By: Gary Church

Gary Church — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 04:09:04 +0000

It is sad huh? You stink Rand, you are pathetic. Your whole “regular” crew is a bunch of con artists playing space fantasy football. Space clowns with no money.

“Orion on the sidemount has already been dismissed as technically impractical.”

Really? Where did you hear that?

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 00:05:35 +0000

@brobof- FYI, not everyone in the United States (who pays for this space program and NASA TV, not the ‘world’) watches NASA Select nor has routine access to it. Furthermore, the point was, Bolden tried to weight Obama’s speech at KSC before a prescreened crowd in a CAFB hanger ( with follow-up comments by proponents of the plan hardly) with equal importance to JFK’s Special Message to a joint session of Congress, (the elected appropriators) that was televised to the nation in 1961. There is virtually no comparison.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Mon, 31 May 2010 23:56:21 +0000

@brobof- The comment was referenced to Smith, not you, and he earned the rebuff based on his own misleading and self-serving commentary.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Mon, 31 May 2010 21:50:55 +0000

Itâ€™s too bad â€“ he seemed like he was becoming lucid and willing to engage.

I suspect that it has something to do with his meds, and when and how much he takes them. We had someone on sci.space.* a few years ago who was bipolar, and you could tell which pole he was on from the latest posting. In fact, some of us tried to find out if he had family or anyone taking care of him when it seemed to get worse. You can also occasionally see people exhibit symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia on line. It’s very sad.

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Mon, 31 May 2010 15:55:16 +0000

Gary Church wrote:

“Enemies Of Nasa odor. You people are out to corner a market and tear down a government agency that has previously had that corner.”

Since when is the Federal government tasked with trying to “corner a market” to keep that market away from private enterprise? The job of the government is to create the opportunity for American BUSINESS to corner markets FOR increasing our federal tax base. NASA can NEVER fullfill that role. It is expressly ordering not to.

The business of America is business, not to establish stalinist government monopolies.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Mon, 31 May 2010 15:47:44 +0000

Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ May 31st, 2010 at 3:38 am

Concur on all points. It’s too bad – he seemed like he was becoming lucid and willing to engage…

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Mon, 31 May 2010 15:42:56 +0000

richardb wrote @ May 31st, 2010 at 8:16 am

People get divorced all the time, and though it may affect them personally, it’s usually not a big deal professionally (unless you’re a politician).

“After all, who wants to invest their own money with a broke man? Some here evidently would.”

All he said was that he was out of cash, which is the liquid part of his wealth. He is still the largest single shareholder in SpaceX, as well as having investments in many other companies, so he is still a wealthy person (even after the divorce). Besides, he has not added to his investment in SpaceX in a number of years, and the company is operating off of it’s current cash on hand and payments from completed COTS milestones ($200+ so far) and launch deposits.

As another poster has pointed out, it’s not uncommon for rich people to “run out of cash” prior to a divorce preceding – you want to be as “poor” as possible when you’re dividing up the assets with your ex.

Post divorce, he’ll still be far richer than I’ll ever be.

By: brobof

brobof — Mon, 31 May 2010 15:20:00 +0000

DCSCA wrote @ May 30th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
“Obamaâ€™s little speech was delivered to a pre-selected audience on CAFB with follow up from proponents. Thereâ€™s little comparison between the two, dummy.”
Er it was delivered to the world via NASA TV. I know because I live in the World and I watched it! Your MSS may have covered it but probably didn’t as the bulk of their viewers couldn’t give a flying fig about HSF. Given the quality of debate from some commentators on this and other threads, I’m not surprised. Case in point: your last word. Uncalled for.

By: richardb

richardb — Mon, 31 May 2010 12:16:20 +0000

The point of the Forbes story isn’t that he is in divorce and whether he is playing games with the ex-Musk. The point is Musk is failing as a businessman despite his great gifts as businessman, visionary and salesman.
Like it or not, his failures do very much impact Space X. After all, who wants to invest their own money with a broke man? Some here evidently would.

But not people with any sense.

You’ve got the Obama plan dying politically. You’ve got Musk with grave financial problems only cured by government handouts in pursuit of a highly doubtful IPO. These are the people we entrust the future of HSF for America? More likely it’s the future with no HSF.