My first statement:

“so when the railroads were in their infancy in the U.S. and Congress stepped in and used it’s powers under the commerce clause and passed a federal statuary scheme that preempted all state and local law .. that was just “decentralized” planning?”

A complete paragraph about what congress did WHEN railroads WERE in their infancy.

Second SEPERATE statement:

““Finally, in December 1917 the ICC recommended federal control of the railroad industry to ensure efficient operation. The resulting efficiencies were to go beyond simply easing the congestion and expediting the flow of goods; they were to bring all parties—management, labor, investors, and shippers—together in a harmonious whole working on behalf of the national interest.””

I START with what congress did when railroads were in their infancy and ENDED with the FINALLY in 1917.

You are freakin’ amazing that you think you can eliminate everything in between infancy and 1917 like it doesn’t even exist and then state this total nonsense:

“so when the railroads were in their infancy…in December 1917 “

You said that:

“Their adolescence, in the 1820s and 1830s when railroads as we know them, carrying cargo and passengers from city to city, were being built across … the United States. “

In 1830 england 98 miles of track and the U.S. had 39 miles .. and you call this adoloescence? THAT is nuts. By 1850 the U.S. only 8500 miles of track. Still only baby steps considering we would increase that number by a factor of 20. We didn’t break 100,000 miles until moving towards 1900.

I will stand by my statements over the nutty comments you made and the deception in the way you quoted me.

Which highways are these? The highways of preposterous metaphor? Or the highways of cult dogma, on which thou shalt build and from which thou shalt not stray?

Stunning.

Somebody who has actual studied the history of railroads could accurately state that they were in their infancy when coal and ore wagons were pulled by on rails from mine mouths to port by the Renaissance. They might say they had a second infancy in the first two decades of the 1800s when steam engines were harnessed to pull these wagons. Their adolescence, in the 1820s and 1830s when railroads as we know them, carrying cargo and passengers from city to city, were being built across England and the East Coast of the United States.

But now we’re supposed to ignore all that long history and put the infancy of the railroad in…1917!

Ignorance of the future is excusable — everybody is ignorant of the future. Ignorance of the past, OTOH….

The envolvment thought .. did nothing to prevent individuals or companies from pursuing, building innovating the various transportation products.

there is a difference between building a train engine, as an individual company, and the government deciding what is in the best interest of the nation for laying out where the tracks will go. Infrasture and transportation devices .. are two seperate things.

I am argueing that government should approach space transporation just like ALL other forms for transportation, and layout how to get the infrastructure in place that promotes the ability for commercial firms to build the “trains planes and automobiles” for use on the space “highways”.

This has happened with all our transportation systems. EXCEPT for space. That transportation has been the NASA’s wheelhouse from day one and the usual suspects have fought to keep it that way rather than commercializing it like all other forms of transportation.

Finally, in December 1917 the ICC recommended federal control of the railroad industry to ensure efficient operation.

I can’t quite recall . . . was there anything else going on in December 1917? Like maybe a war?

The Wilson administration took over a lot of things during WWI, and thought about taking over a lot more. I can’t remember to what extent they actually did assume control of the railroads, but no “federal control” lasted beyond the end of the war. Fortunately for “efficient operation”.

Re: Romeny and “”restore”:

The simple fact is that we could hve had DIRECT nd two manned launch systems with no disruption to our tech base for the money wasted on ATK’s Ares 1.

Given that Ares 1 would be an astronaut killer, as long as I am able I will remind everyone about its .7 G osicllations.

Yep, it’ll sure be interesting to see who’s prediction is correct in the long run. I don’t know a lot about U.S. politics but seems like Romney just doesn’t inspire much of anything. I think the appropriate term is ‘bland’. And SLS, well you can’t help but look at the failed Cx Program as a comparison.
ATK’s Liberty was scrubbed on a weak technical case. If you applied that criteria to SLS, you’d reach exactly the same conclusion and scrub it as well.

“Finally, in December 1917 the ICC recommended federal control of the railroad industry to ensure efficient operation. The resulting efficiencies were to go beyond simply easing the congestion and expediting the flow of goods; they were to bring all parties—management, labor, investors, and shippers—together in a harmonious whole working on behalf of the national interest.”

Just more decentralized planning no doubt. The interstate highway system? more decentralized planning. We have had transportation boards and planning of infrastrucure since … always..

Just because the government sets out infrastructure requirements and or guidelines does not mean individuals are not free to pursue their own interests INSIDE those guidelines for providing tranportation systems to the commercial markets.

Aviation is controled at the federal level, state air laws are routinely struck down by courts. Air traffic control.. more infrastructure. I just do not buy it. The government has been involved heavily in all transportation as far as getting a handle on the infrastructure.