You claimed that Thompson was a respected member of the “investment community”. I produced multiple sources demonstrating that he is not a member, respected or otherwise, of the investment community.

That’s not an “attack” on Thompson. You were just wrong, fella.

It’s okay. You’re easily duped by paid shills. You’re just a lowly technician, after all.

“Forbes, of course, is widely respected in the investment community.”

Of course it is. But that doesn’t mean that everyone who writes for Forbes is a member (respected or otherwise) of the “investment community”.

That’s like thinking that everyone who writes for a newspaper has a degree in journalism. Only a flaming idiot would think that.

Or someone who’s just cranking to crank.

“The failures of Space X [sic] to meet schedule”

Sorry, fella. It’s not SpaceX’s “failure” if NASA technicians do not finish their reviews in time for a launch:

“…liftoff would be held up while NASA was double-checking changes in the flight software.”

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/03/11525131-spacex-chief-wants-to-be-spaceflier?lite

“Congress can investigate the failure of the firm to meet its contractual obligations”

Congress can investigate anything it wants, but NASA technicians not finishing software reviews in time for a scheduled launch is not a failure of SpaceX or any other firm “to meet its contractual obligations”.

Equating a government agency being behind schedule to the contractual failure of a private firm is a big crock of false equivalency, fella.

“or simply ice it out of the competition via down select [sic]”

Congress can’t ice anyone out of any downselect. Government agencies run procurements, not Congress.

You have no idea how your government works, do you fella?

“First you try to pitch Space X as representing the U.S. space program, now you back away from your ‘flags and footprints’ pitch.”

I never made any pitch about “footprints”, and I’ve only mentioned “flags” in the context of correcting your false statements about the existence of federal regulations governing their use on space vehicles.

And I did not back away from my earlier statements. Not only will these vehicles represent the program for the next decade or more — they will be the only U.S. human space launch program for the next decade or more.

It’s just a fact that SLS/MPCV won’t fly operationally until 2021 at the earliest, if ever.

I know it sucks to back the slower team, but it’s time to face reality, fella.

“Dragons as currently configured cannot support human life and do not have an independently verified ECS capable of supporting a crew”

Sorry, fella. The Dragon that SpaceX orbited and returned last year verified a “pressurized, environmentally-controlled, volume @ 10–46 degrees Celsius (50–115 °F), relative humidity 25~75%, and 13.9~14.9 psia air pressure (958.4~1027 hPa)”.

“Human life” does very well in those conditions, fella.

“Pay the $2.”

Unless you work for the bank that holds the mortgage on my house, I’m certain that I don’t owe you or anyone else two dollars.

Get some help for your delusions, fella.

And again, early in this thread, you repeatedly claimed that the commercial crew program was not the least expensive human space flight program in U.S. history, but you never provided a dollar figure and reference to back up your claim.

Please do get around to doing that. It’s been 20-odd days.

Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock…

10 m3 (350 cu ft) interior pressurized, environmentally-controlled, volume @ 10–46 degrees Celsius (50–115 °F), relative humidity 25~75%, and 13.9~14.9 psia air pressure (958.4~1027 hPa).”

This is misleading, of course. Dragons as currently configured cannot support human life and do not have an independently verified ECS capable of supporting a crew nor an independently verified LAS.

“Oh, and regardless what you think, those two articles had nothing to do with “the investment community” LOL Forbes is a ‘bible’ to the investment community. Prove him wrong. Meet a schedule. Get operational. Fly something. Nothing has changed in a year. Tick-tock, tick tock….

@Dark Blue Nine wrote @ May 13th, 2012 at 11:28 pm

“The writer of those articles, Loren Thompson, is not a member of the “investment community”.

=yawn= You’re scared The fear of down selection does that. So you attack Thompson, not what Thompson says (a year ago no less, and Space X has yet to get operational and fly.) LOL Forbes, of course, is widely respected in the investment community. =sigh= Your desperation is showing as the investment community has Space X pretty well pegged. Congress is getting wise as well. “No matter how much a fella like you insists on being a flaming idiot, the schedule slippage is due to NASA, not SpaceX.” Except its not- Space X initiated the delays, not NASA- and your desperate spin has been repeatedly refuted on this and other threads by others as well. It’s an old trick by cornered shills to attack the messenger, not the message. “SpaceX isn’t going to ask NASA to delay a launch because NASA technicians are behind schedule. Those NASA technicians are going to ask NASA for the delay.” LOL Desperate spin- trying to blame NASA for Space X’s failure to meet schedule. Pay the $2. Better still, meet a schedule. The smartest way to move on from it is for Space X to get operational. Throwing chaff and spin doesn’t fly. Neither does Space X. Space X has had a year ot get it right. It’s Space X’s rocket to fly, not NASA’s. Space X has been contracted to deliver goods and services, not have an ‘open-ended test program’ financed on the backs of the taxpayers. The failures of Space X to meet schedule have moved from the realm of technical snafus into a disturbing demonstration of sloppy management and poor business practices; both red flags to the investment community. Thompson’s pieces reaffirm this. Which makes down selecting all the more terrifying to Musketeers and their shills.

“It has nothing to do with “God” or “representation”. For better or worse, Dragon and other commercial vehicles _will be the only_ transport for the U.S. human space flight program for at least the next decade and likely more.” First you try to pitch Space X as representing the U.S. space program, now you back away from your ‘flags and footprints’ pitch. Desperation. The traffic doesn’t justify the expenditure of taxpayer funds to subsidize CC to the doomed ISS. It’s redundant. It’s a waste. Soyuz is operating. So is Progress for cargo. Purchasing seats to access LEO to ferry a few astronauts over five years to the doomed ISS to meet minimal contractual obligations is all that’s necessary. Subsidizing commercial crew development to LEO is a waste of dwindling respurces and a ticket to no place, going in circles. The failure of Space X to meet schedule remains a troublesome fact and Congress can investigate the failure of the firm to meet its contractual obligations or simply ice it out of the competition via down select. It’s getting chilly for Musketeers. Tick-tock, tick-tock…

The writer of those articles, Loren Thompson, is not a member of the “investment community”. If you moved in policy circles, you’d know that Thompson is not a professional investor and is instead a paid consultant and lobbyist for certain aerospace and defense firms that are competitors to SpaceX:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/05/24/spacex-responds-to-forbes-contributor-loren-thompson/

Even outside the launch business, Thompson is well known for being bought and paid for by major military firms:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/tag/loren-thompson/

Thompson is also known for espousing some unsavory positions in defense of military atrocities:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Loren_B._Thompson

Still can’t get anything right, can you, fella? You’re so easily suckered.

We can’t really expect a mere technician, and a lousy one at that, to be able to tell the difference between an investor and lobbyist.

But anyone with common sense would check their sources before posting them.

You must not have much common sense, fella.

But you’re probably just cranking to crank.

Right?

“It was Space X that asked for the delays; not NASA. Whether you like it or not, that’s the truth.”

Sorry, fella, but it’s not the truth. NASA had to delay the launch so that NASA technicians could finish reviewing flight software:

“…liftoff would be held up while NASA was double-checking changes in the flight software.”

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/03/11525131-spacex-chief-wants-to-be-spaceflier?lite

SpaceX isn’t going to ask NASA to delay a launch because NASA technicians are behind schedule. Those NASA technicians are going to ask NASA for the delay.

No matter how much a fella like you insists on being a flaming idiot, the schedule slippage is due to NASA, not SpaceX.

“And it certainly does not represent the U.S. space program, thank God.”

It has nothing to do with “God” or “representation”. For better or worse, Dragon and other commercial vehicles _will be the only_ transport for the U.S. human space flight program for at least the next decade and likely more.

If you want that to change, then MPCV/SLS has to become operational before 2021.

Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock…

Now you are agreeing with a conservative think-tank? Boy, you will do anything to not like SpaceX, huh?

Of course you forgot to look at the disclaimer at the end of those articles by Loren Thompson, which said:

“Loren Thompson is Chief Operating Officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute and Chief Executive Officer of the private consultancy Source Associates. The Lexington Institute receives money from many of the nation’s leading defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin and other space launch providers. Source Associates provides technical services to several companies that compete in space launch, including Lockheed Martin.”

Even though he is paid by the competition of SpaceX, Thompson still had this to say about SpaceX:

“I said that Musk “epitomizes the American entrepreneurial spirit,” that he has risked over $100 million of his own money on the venture, that SpaceX seems to be “doing all the things necessary to minimize costs,” and that the company “has delivered much of what it promised.” I also conceded that some of the congressional opposition to SpaceX is politically motivated.”

Oh, and regardless what you think, those two articles had nothing to do with “the investment community”, so your silly assertions continue to be unsupported by anything resembling facts. How unusual.

“Funny how you use commercial firms like McDonald’s as an argument for sending U.S. taxpayer dollars and jobs overseas, but you abhor the involvement of commercial firms like SpaceX in the U.S. human space flight program.”

There’s nothing funny about it- as the investment community is well aware of the Space X follies:
:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/05/31/the-case-against-spacex-part-ii/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/05/23/what-nasa-risks-by-betting-on-elon-musks-spacex

“to make unAmerican arguments ..” LOL in fact, Forbes makes some very American arguments indeed- and in case you need reminded, Space X represents Space X, not the U.S., and as a corporation, ows no loyaties to any nation-state.

It was Space X that asked for the delays; not NASA. Whether you like it or not, that’s the truth.

“Dragon and its ilk not only represent U.S. human space flight launch for the next decade or more — they will be the U.S. human space flight launch program for the next decade or more.”

=yawn= Space X represents Space X and it’s a false equivalency to even attempt to try to lump Space X in with experienced aerospace contractors as a crutch.

“SpaceX is a private corporation, but it’s currently the only domestic launch capability supporting the U.S. civil human space flight program.”

Except it’s not- it remains non-operational and is conducting an ‘open-ended test program.’ And it certainly does not represent the U.S. space program, thank God.

It’s not SpaceX’s fault that NASA technicians didn’t finish reviewing the flight software in time for the launch.

“…liftoff would be held up while NASA was double-checking changes in the flight software.”

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/03/11525131-spacex-chief-wants-to-be-spaceflier?lite

No matter how much a fella like you insists on being a flaming idiot, the schedule slippage is due to NASA, not SpaceX.

“It was Space X that asked for the delays; not NASA.”

Why would SpaceX ask NASA to delay a launch so that NASA technicians could review software?

You are a really lousy technician, fella.

“It’s time for Congress to hold hearings and investigate Space X”

Why would Congress investigate SpaceX for NASA’s inability to finish a software review before the scheduled launch date? If anyone in Congress actually got their panties in a twist and wanted to put pressure on flight schedules involving astronauts’ lives (highly unlikely), they’d hold hearings and investigate NASA for this launch slip, not SpaceX.

We all know that you’re just a lowly technician and things like public policy, the English langauge, and numbers higher than five mystify you. But even you can surely understand that if you want to investigate a delay, you investigate the party at cause for the delay.

“and again, biting the hand that feeds you”

NASA doesn’t feed me.

You’re getting delusional there, fella.

“there’s a gov’t reg,. for nomenclature and insignia positioning on gov’t hardware”

No. There is a regulation regarding whether the NASA logo can be used on spacecraft, specifically § 1221.110 Use of the NASA Insignia, which states:

“The NASA Insignia is authorized for use on the following:…

(5) Spacecraft, aircraft, automobiles, trucks and similar vehicles owned by, leased to, or contractor-furnished to NASA, or produced for NASA by contractors, but excluding NASA-owned vehicles used and operated by contractors for the conduct of contractor business.”

But this regulation says nothing about “positioning” of the NASA logo, or any other “insignia” or “nomenclature”, including the U.S. flag.

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

“In case you haven’t noticed, thre’s a McDonald’s in Red Square and Rolls royce dealerships all across Moscow.”

NASA isn’t sending U.S. taxpayer dollars to McDonalds or Rolls Royce, and neither corporation is supporting a brutal regime in Syria.

Funny how you use commercial firms like McDonald’s as an argument for sending U.S. taxpayer dollars and jobs overseas, but you abhor the involvement of commercial firms like SpaceX in the U.S. human space flight program.

Might hypocritical there fella.

One could even say you’re engaging in a lot of false equivalency.

But with irrational arguments like this, maybe you’re just crankin’ to crank?

“you’re the one promoting it”

I see. So I’m responsible for your irrational hatred of SpaceX, which leads you to make unAmerican arguments about sending nearly $2 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars and thousands of American jobs overseas to a country that supports a brutal dictator’s crackdown on his own people seeking democracy in Syria?

I’m the one who put these ugly thoughts and twisted arguments into your head?

Right…

Not too big on personal responsibility, are you, fella?

“Space X is a ‘private corporation’ and represents Space X, not the United States space program”

SpaceX is a private corporation, but it’s currently the only domestic launch capability supporting the U.S. civil human space flight program. And with MPCV/SLS not scheduled to begin regular flights until sometime after 2021 at the earliest (if ever), commercial vehicles like Dragon, Cygnus, CST-100, and Dreamchaser will remain the only domestic launch capability supporting the U.S. civil human space flight program for another decade or more.

Whether you like it or not, Dragon and its ilk not only represent U.S. human space flight launch for the next decade or more — they will be the U.S. human space flight launch program for the next decade or more.

And that’s not SpaceX’s or any other commercial firm’s fault. That’s NASA, Congress, and prior Administrations’ fault for repeatedly failing to develop a civil alternative to the Space Shuttle.

Time to deal with reality, fella.

“do not have an independently verified ECS”

Dragon’s ECS was verified during the COTS 1 mission. It maintained a pressurized, thermally controlled, and breathable atmosphere throughout the flight. Here are the stats:

10 m3 (350 cu ft) interior pressurized, environmentally-controlled, volume @ 10–46 degrees Celsius (50–115 °F), relative humidity 25~75%, and 13.9~14.9 psia air pressure (958.4~1027 hPa).

Even the world’s lousiest technician should have been able to look that up and get it right, fella.

You must be crankin to crank.

“the ISS is an international platform, not a uniquely ‘American.’ [sic]”

Where did I say that it wasn’t?

You’re hallucinating, fella.

“There is no CCHSF program- it’s a paper project w/paper projections.”

Successful CST-100 drop tests are not “paper projects”:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/05/boeing-performs-drop-test-of-its-new-space-capsule/

Successful Dreamchaser wind tunnel and structure tests are not “paper projects”:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/04/27/snc-completes-wind-tunnel-testing-on-dream-chaser/

http://www.aero-news.net/subsite.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=f13d188b-2716-4c8f-94a5-7ebf8fe1d084

Blue Origin’s new BE-3 engine currently sitting on a test stand is not a “paper project”:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/04/22/cool-blue-origin-engine-picture/

The only way you could equate these flights, tests, and engines to paper projects is if you were repeatedly engaging in false equivalency.

But you don’t do that, do you, fella?

You must just be crankin to crank.

“Yet government HSF programs have soared for half a century.”

No, they havn’t. NASA “soared” nobody in 1976-1981, during the Apollo/Space Shuttle gap, and in 1987, after the Challenger accident. That’s seven years short of a half-century.

Still can’t count to 50, can you, fella?

Hell I am sure the military would let spaceX goto north korea or iran and start building rockets.

Gawd you are such a maroon …. eyeroll and yawn.

Still waiting for the documents supporting your claim that anyone could build a freakin’ ballistic rocket in their backyard, in the early 60’s, and launch humans.

Last time I looked if an american company goes overseas theu are still accountable to the US. Unless they defect.

The soviet union is a sovergn state .. a U.S. corporation isn’t a state, they are subject to the state. … sheesh.

Nothing is stopping Space X from building a facility on its own dime and launching orbiting and safely recovering a manned spacecraft. No doubt you expect the PRC and the Russians to get U.S. gov’t approvale before launching humans into space. Last time we checked, Russia didn’t ask permission from JFK to fly Gagarin. It’s a big planet- they don’t have to fly from the US of A. =eyeroll=

@Dark Blue Nine wrote @ May 6th, 2012 at 1:03 am

“NASA technicians, not anyone at SpaceX, needed more time with the flight software…” =yawn= “Don’t be a flaming idiot, fella. The schedule slippage[s] is/are due to SpaceX, not NASA.”.:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/003/120501delay/

It was Space X that asked for the delays; not NASA. It is Space X that keeps failing to meet schedule and lobbyed for consolidating test flights as they were falling behind. This is symptomatic of a firm plagued w/poor management, unable to meet its contractual obligations on time.
It’s time for Congress to hold hearings and investigate Space X and why they habitually fail to meet schedule. Space X was contracted to delicver goods and services, not to be financed to operate an ‘open-ended test program.’

“For what?” You’re worried. For failure to meet their contractual obligations for a strart- and again, biting the hand that feeds you isn’t good management practice either… or smart PR… trying to spin Space X’s failures to meet contractual schedule obligations on ‘NASA technicians’ when the failure to meet schedule and initiate delays is repeatedly the fault of Space X. Maybe Space X should call the Russians- their software has been gettin their hardware- the Progress supply ships- up to LEO space platforms for over 34 years. Trying to blame NASA for Space X delays should go over well at the Congressional hearings. =eyeroll=

“By tradition, all spacecraft associated with the U.S. civil human space flight program bear the U.S. flag.”

OFGS ‘tradition’…. LOL No- there’s a gov’t reg,. for nomenclature and insignia positioning on gov’t hardware- air and spacecraft. =eyeroll= Even weight is a consideration. And national origin/ ID. yes. Ownership, yes. That’s why Space X’s logo is prominently displayed on a Dragon. And Rockwell/North American logos were not emblazoned along the side of Shuttle or Apollo, respectively, etc. =eyeroll=

“That is some irrational, unAmerican hatred there. Wow. Just wow.” Yes, and as a Space X advocate, you’re the one promoting it: “Whether you like it or not, Dragons are representing that program.” Space X is a ‘private corporation’ and represents Space X, not the United States space program- and corporations owe no alliegence ot any nation -state. Even NASA directed press inquiries to Space X regarding launch delays- Space X is launching the rocket, not NASA. =eyeroll= And whether you like it or not, Space X’s Dragons, which cannot carry crews, remain non-operational for cargo runs (having only test flown a few kilos of cheese) – and do not have an independently verified ECS nor an independently verified LAS do NOT represent the space program of the United States, thank God. Anymore than American Airlines is the national carrier for the US government. And whether yuo like it or not, the ISS is an international platform, not a uniquely ‘American.’

“Speaking of which, early in this thread, you repeatedly claimed that the commercial crew program was not the least expensive human space flight program in U.S. history.”

LOL False equivalency. And you’re desperate for it. There is no CCHSF program- it’s a paper project w/paper projections. =eyeroll= Shuttle was billed as a 100 flight per bird program w/ two week turn arounds that would pay its way. LOL That went well. Reagan sold the space station as a $1/$15 billion Cold War project. That went well. Yet government HSF programs have soared for half a century. And the costs vs. projections a matter of record. Commercial HSF, orbital flight, has nothing but paper. You want some street cred- fly somebody. Get somebody up, around and down safely. Some firm will, but It’s a safe bet it won’t be on a Dragon.

“You are actually arguing to send nearly $2 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars and thousands of U.S. jobs to a regime that actively opposes U.S. interests in the U.N. and is sending troops to Syria to support a brutal dictatorship and kill democratic activists there.” =eyeroll= No,.its a matter of smart planning to buy seats on an existing operational system while disengaging from LEO operations, minimize exposure, and press on w/BEO operatrions. But you’re back to ‘flags and footprints’ and saving a few jobs and Cold War saber rattling- and we’re in an INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP with them. Incredibly myopic. In case you haven’t noticed, thre’s a McDonald’s in Red Square and Rolls royce dealerships all across Moscow. You wanna boycott Mickey Dees, too? How ‘un-American.’ LOL You’d do well to look around your own environment and check on what’s actually ‘made in the PRC,’ too… they’re still ‘Red’ you know and not very ‘democratic.’ Globalization is here. And the ISS is an international platform whether you like it or not. Apologies or any typos.

Nothing is stopping Space X from building a facility on its own dime and launching orbiting and safely recovering a manned spacecraft. No doubt you expect the PRC and the Russians to get U.S. gov’t approvale before launching humans into space. Last time we checked, Russia didn’t ask permission from JFK to fly Gagarin. It’s a big planet- they don’t have to fly from the US of A. =eyeroll=

@Dark Blue Nine wrote @ May 6th, 2012 at 1:03 am

“NASA technicians, not anyone at SpaceX, needed more time with the flight software…” =yawn= “Don’t be a flaming idiot, fella. The schedule slippage[s] is/are due to SpaceX, not NASA.”.:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/003/120501delay/

It was Space X that asked for the delays; not NASA. It is Space X that keeps failing to meet schedule and lobbyed for consolidating test flights as they were falling behind. This is symptomatic of a firm plagued w/poor management, unable to meet its contractual obligations on time.
It’s time for Congress to hold hearings and investigate Space X and why they habitually fail to meet schedule. Space X was contracted to delicver goods and services, not to be financed to operate an ‘open-ended test program.’

“For what?” You’re worried. For failure to meet their contractual obligations for a strart- and again, biting the hand that feeds you isn’t good management practice either… or smart PR… trying to spin Space X’s failures to meet contractual schedule obligations on ‘NASA technicians’ when the failure to meet schedule and initiate delays is repeatedly the fault of Space X. Maybe Space X should call the Russians- their software has been gettin their hardware- the Progress supply ships- up to LEO space platforms for over 34 years. Trying to blame NASA for Space X delays should go over well at the Congressional hearings. =eyeroll=

“By tradition, all spacecraft associated with the U.S. civil human space flight program bear the U.S. flag.”

OFGS ‘tradition’…. LOL No- there’s a gov’t reg,. for nomenclature and insignia positioning on gov’t hardware- air and spacecraft. =eyeroll= Even weight is a consideration. And national origin/ ID. yes. Ownership, yes. That’s why Space X’s logo is prominently displayed on a Dragon. And Rockwell/North American logos were not emblazoned along the side of Shuttle or Apollo, respectively, etc. =eyeroll=

“That is some irrational, unAmerican hatred there. Wow. Just wow.” Yes, and as a Space X advocate, you’re the one promoting it: “Whether you like it or not, Dragons are representing that program.” Space X is a ‘private corporation’ and represents Space X, not the United States space program- and corporations owe no alliegence ot any nation -state. Even NASA directed press inquiries to Space X regarding launch delays- Space X is launching the rocket, not NASA. =eyeroll= And whether you like it or not, Space X’s Dragons, which cannot carry crews, remain non-operational for cargo runs (having only test flown a few kilos of cheese) – and do not have an independently verified ECS nor an independently verified LAS do NOT represent the space program of the United States, thank God. Anymore than American Airlines is the national carrier for the US government. And whether yuo like it or not, the ISS is an international platform, not a uniquely ‘American.’

“Speaking of which, early in this thread, you repeatedly claimed that the commercial crew program was not the least expensive human space flight program in U.S. history.”

LOL False equivalency. And you’re desperate for it. There is no CCHSF program- it’s a paper project w/paper projections. =eyeroll= Shuttle was billed as a 100 flight per bird program w/ two week turn arounds that would pay its way. LOL That went well. Reagan sold the space station as a $1/$15 billion Cold War project. That went well. Yet government HSF programs have soared for half a century. And the costs vs. projections a matter of record. Commercial HSF, orbital flight, has nothing but paper. You want some street cred- fly somebody. Get somebody up, around and down safely. Some firm will, but It’s a safe bet it won’t be on a Dragon.

“You are actually arguing to send nearly $2 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars and thousands of U.S. jobs to a regime that actively opposes U.S. interests in the U.N. and is sending troops to Syria to support a brutal dictatorship and kill democratic activists there.” =eyeroll= No,.its a matter of smart planning to buy seats on an existing operational system while disengaging from BEO operations, minimize exposure, and press on w/BEO operatrions. But you’re back to ‘flags and footprints’ and saving a few jobs and Cold War saber rattling- and we’re in an INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP with them. Incredibly myopic. In case you haven’t noticed, thre’s a McDonald’s in Red Square and Rolls royce dealerships all across Moscow. You wanna boycott Mickey Dees, too? How ‘un-American.’ LOL You’d do well to look around your own environment and check on what’s actually ‘made in the PRC,’ too… they’re still ‘Red’ you know and not very ‘democratic.’ Globalization is here, fella. And the ISS is an international platform whether you like it or not.