“in other words, you live off the government.”

No, my paychecks came from the companies I worked for. And my companies provided goods and services to the government, so using your narrow definition, probably 1/2 the U.S. “live off the government”.

Of course you also missed the commercial part, which sold products to the consumer market, but since some of those people work for the government, you would probably tag that work as living off the government too.

I assume you work in an industry that is not tainted by government money?

But the true dichotomy is that you make it sound bad, but yet you obviously want a government-run space program. Your right & left brain must be arguing all the time – that explains your blog posts…

“Humans never learned to permanently colonize Europe after leaving Africa until we learned how to use fire in a more sophisticated manner. So sometimes you have to use your technological know how to survive in non-tropical alien environments! Or do you think that all humans should have simply remained in Africa:-)”

Again with the fact checking Marcel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus#Use_of_tools

“Homo erectus remains one of the most successful and long-lived species of Homo.” (ibid.) With a Fossil range: 1.9–0.1 MegaYears I would posit these were pretty successful colonists! Humans (H. sap. sap.) a generous 200,000 years and counting. (But for how long!)

As to the rest.
Air:
How much Nitrogen is on the Moon?
Plenty? I think not! Perhaps you have some references?

Water:
Let’s take Paul Spudis’s values = 600,000,000t at North pole, say it’s all Water ice (Not a given) = m^3
= 1.2 km^3 for two poles worth (Not a given.)
To put this in a UK terrestrial context.
Lake Windemere = ~1km^3; Windermere has a pop. = 8,245 (WikiFact) although the lake obviously supports other villages.
Closer to home? Lake Mead = 35.2 km^3 and that is STILL running dry!
Plenty? I think not! Perhaps you have some references?

1/6th g:
A small spinning habitat in LEO could also provide us with that information. For a fraction of the cost! With the added bonus that if 1/6 g was a fatal condition in the long term, we could try say: 1/5th g merely by increasing the rotation or letting out a bit of tether.

Where was I “abusive”? Specifically?

You hurled insults and called me names. Where did I do that to you? Specifically?

“…and take whatever I say out of context.”

If you think I’m taking you out of context, then explain your words. Explain why you use extreme vocabular like “fanatics… certainly doomed to fail… nearly destroyed America… You people are the enemy.” Put it in context for us.

“You are a troll.”

Again, I’m not the poster who made false statements about exploration architectures being built in 10-ton increments and human space flight starting with HLVs, and then proceeded to insult every other poster on the board.

False statements and broad insults — that’s trolling.

“I will post the views I want to discuss”

Post whatever views you want.

But don’t make false statements and expect not to be called on it.

And don’t throw insults and engage in namecalling and expect not to be called on it.

“… and never answer to a jerk like you.”

There you go again with the namecalling and insults. What’s your major malfunction? Why can’t you engage in an adult conversation?

“Goodbye.”

Adios.

Troll? Look in the mirror.

You are the enemy, the clueless masses who do know anything about spaceflight.

Who would want to talk to you? You are abusive and take whatever I say out of context. You are a troll. I will post the views I want to discuss, and never answer to a jerk like you. Goodbye.

But space flight does.”

Space flight has never begun begin with heavy lift. The first human space flight programs like Mercury and Gemini didn’t use HLVs. And the Soviet and Chinese human space flight programs have never employed HLVs operationally.

And space flight programs aren’t maintained by heavy lift, either. ISS today is serviced by Soyuzes and Progresses that don’t launch on HLVs.

But historically, the high costs of HLVs do end human space flight programs, sometimes before they start. Saturn V proved to be too expensive to maintain for more than a handful of Apollo missions. And the Energia was too expensive for the Soviets to pursue past flight testing.

“That is not ‘rhetoric.'”

Your posts are chock full of rhetoric. Here’s a few examples just from one paragraph:

“You newspace fanatics… certainly doomed to fail… nearly destroyed America… You people are the enemy.”

Your apocalyptic language makes you sound like you belong in a mental institution. Tone down the rhetoric.

And for the third time, look in the mirror before you hurl stones through your glass house. It’s hypocritical to accuse other posters of writing things you’re guilty of writing in your own posts.

“I can see why there are only a small number of people posting. Trolls like that major tom drive everyone away. What a jerk.”

If you have something you want to say to me, address me directly. If you’re going to hurl insults and engage in namecalling, at least be adult enough not to do so in responses to other posters.

Again, grow up or go away.

Sigh…

OK, so in addition to being ignorant of the economics of space launch, you’re ignorant about economics in general. Imagine my shock.

Sorry, that should have been “evolvable” but the Firefox spellchecker apparently doesn’t like that word. Revolvable, however, it thinks is just fine, though it’s not what I had intended.

MichaelC wrote in response:

“But space flight does.”

…and in a way he is right. If we allow another NASA budget meltdown because of a new NASA HLV, it might be the end of NASA Space Flight.

U.S. Commercial Space and International Space Programs will do just fine without a HLV, TYVM.