“More false equivalency. In case you need reminding, SpaceX has failed to launch, orbit and return anybody safely from space.”

That is total nonsense.

Microsoft has not launched a human into space either, Why are not riding them? They are not spending anything trying to send someone into space today, and they have not said they are trying to launch anyone soon. But that shouldn’t matter you should chew them out just like SpaceX.

SpaceX has not said they would launch anyone soon, they are not spending trying to put someone in space tomorrow, but you say a company not trying to do something, at all, should be launching people.

So you should start chewing out every company in the United States that is not currently spending money on trying to launch humans even if they say they are not currently trying to launch someone.

your logic …. defies logic.

In case you need reminding, SpaceX is not trying to launch anyone yesterday today or tomorrow.

Guess what?

SpaceX does not plan on launching anyone for YEARS.

So to imply they should be launching YEARS before they say they will… is bat shit crazy.

That is total insanity on a bun.

I could use your same insanely twisted logic and say you to you:

DCSCA still has not launched anyone into space … tick tock tick tock,

Do you see how insane that looks when I write that? Thats how insane you look saying SpaceX has not launched anyone yet. Either has Microsoft. Stop acting like you are insane.

No, it’s not. Falcon 9 has launched to orbit successfully twice. Dragon has been to orbit and back. All for less than the cost of one Ares I-X suborbital test flight.

Contrast that with NASA’s record over the last decade (2000s), where Ares I never got past a suborbital test, and Orion slipped year-for-year. SLS and MPCV are now doing the same.

Or contrast it with NASA’s record over the 1990s, where X-38/CRV, X-33/VentureStar, SLI/OSP, and CTV all wound up in non-orbiting and mostly non-flying programmatic and technical dead-ends.

It’s “false equivalency” to claim that NASA has the same track record over the past two decades as SpaceX. They don’t. NASA has nothing but failures to show for tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. SpaceX does not.

“Government space programs have nothing to prove.”

The old NASA has nothing to prove. But today’s NASA does. NASA hasn’t successfully developed a new space transportation system (manned or otherwise) in 30 years.

If NASA still wants to be in the human space transport game, then it has to prove that it can develop a new human launch vehicle, or at least a capsule, through at least unmanned orbital tests and do so affordably and on a useful schedule. If they don’t, then by definition, they won’t be in this game any longer. Despite being given multiple mandates to develop a new human space transport system, tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars, and 20-odd years, NASA has failed to do so. Repeatedly.

When it comes to space transportation, today’s NASA has everything to prove. Apollo and Shuttle were great, but the NASA organization and the people that developed those systems are long gone.

I don’t claim that I’m a soldier because my grandfather fought four combat engagements in the Pacific Theater in WWII. I’m not. I’m a civilian.

Same goes for NASA. We shouldn’t claim that today’s NASA is a successful human space transport systems development organization just because the NASA of two generations ago developed Apollo. Today’s NASA organization, management, and workforce has failed for 20+ years just to get a new space transport system to orbit. SpaceX has not.

“I prefer government space programs and space companies that actually get into space, like COTS and SpaceX..”

More false equivalency. In case you need reminding, SpaceX has failed to launch, orbit and return anybody safely from space. They are not operational and have yet to service the ISS w/cargoed flights. . They have flown a wheel of cheese.

Government space agencies have been flying payloads into orbit since 1957 and humans for over half a cerntury since 1961– including nine trips out to the moon with six landings.

Government space programs have nothing to prove. They have assumed the risk and earned credibility. Commercial space fims like SpaceX have everything to prove because they have failed to take the risk. A risk w/o the crutch of government to socialize that risk on the many to benefit a select few.

No, it doesn’t. During the scheduled launch window, it will not be May 1 anywhere in the world. It will be April 29 in the far east, but nowhere will it be May 1.

“but you don’t get anything right, do you.”

I’m not the one who doesn’t understand how time zones work. That would be you.

“But you do love those SpaceX press release, don’t you.”

I prefer government space programs and space companies that actually get into space, like COTS and SpaceX, over ones that suffer year-for-year delays for more than a half-decade, like Orion. I strongly prefer the former when it costs a fraction of the latter.

Neither has anything to do with press releases.

Well, that depends on the media outlet. It’s not a matter of misinterpretation but lousy PR by NASA– which once was pretty good That kind of footage just reinforced the wrong perceptions. When somebody asks what they’re dooing up there on a $100 billion space station, they show footage of Petit and his angey bird. Wrong stuff, not thev right stuff. . We tried to lobby the news division to carry more science based reports. At one point memos went out suggesting they run Hubble images every Friday behind the closing credits of the nightly news but executive producers resisted.

@Dark Blue Nine wrote @ March 14th, 2012 at 8:31 am

April 30– May 1– depends on yuor time zone, fool- but you don’t get anything right, do you. But you do love those SpaceX press release, don’t you.

Governmnt managed and operated space programs have been flying payloads into orbit since 1957 and humans into space for half a century.

And in case you need reminded SpaceX has flown nobody. And they’ve orbited a wheel of cheese. IF they ever do manage to fly some cargo up to the ISS they’ll be repeating what Progress has been doing for thirty years. April 30 means everything to you– but nothing to the rest of the business community. Just another date to miss on a SpaceX press release which updates another scheduled dated slipped. Very poor managment not being capable of keeping to schedule– something the marketplace expects from well run, commercial, for profit ‘free enterprised’ firms.

With over a hundred experiments going on at any one time the media has ample opportunity to provide news segments towards the science but we both know that news outlets are rarely interested in the hard sciences, unless it can be offered up in a sound bite.

My point was towards DCSCA and his endless misrepresentations. The idea that anyone on the ISS never gets any down time but should be working every waking minute is silly.

I have no faith that the media is really interested in anything other than how can a story increase the eyeballs to the station/website.

You’re quoting yourself, you idiot.

“And you like those SpaceX press releases promising everything but doing nothing, dontcha.”

No, I prefer a company and government programs that actually get their launch vehicles and space capsules to orbit, like SpaceX and COTS have, over ones that spend billions of taxpayer dollars only to slip their schedule year-for-year, like Orion.

“What’s the latest schedule slip for SpaceX…May, June… July…”

The COTS 2/3 flight to ISS was just confirmed for April 30 yesterday.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20120313/SPACE/120313021/SpaceX-targeting-April-30-launch-Dragon-ISS?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CHome%7Cs

You can’t get anything, right, can you?

No, you said that– which actually betrays you own fantasies about it.

Really, DCSCA? Are we at the “NO YOU’RE DUMB” level now?

It is a resource availible to source, though.

A resource that can not be economically exploited as compared to the alternatives is useless. This is very much the case for all lunar resources right now, and it sure as hell isn’t going to change under a purely government-operated space program.

But if you want to pitch the lack of O2 in lunar rocks or that lunar pole H20 doesn’t have it, go for it.

And we’re back to “No you said that”

Could someone please explain the term ‘crankin to crank’.

Don’t tell me you haven’t noticed their tendency to obsessive-compulsively repeat certain, meaningless catchphrases?
“Tick-tock”, “ticket to no place” are other examples.

“Could someone please explain the term ‘crankin to crank’.”

It’s a made up phrase by DCSCA, and he/she/it uses it when he/she/it has no retort to facts and logic. Every time you see it written you know he/she/it has lost an argument.