When SpaceX flies somebody, DCSCA will just say flying somebody is useless anyway. One only can wonder why then not flying anybody can be used as argument against.

But eh, it is not like I expect from DCSCA anything resembling consistency, logic or honesty.

“Space X has flown nobody. That’s reality.”

In response to what Hiram said:

“If SpaceX can make getting tons into orbit cheaper, then that’s also a pretty damned good result”

See, this is the problem you have DCSCA – you are focused on “fly somebody”, but the metric SpaceX is focused on is “lowering the cost to access space”.

Do you understand the difference?

Given enough time and money, anyone can “fly somebody”, but that is not sustainable. You should have learned that from Apollo, and if not that, then the Shuttle.

The only way we’ll expand out into space is if someone starts focusing on reducing the cost to access space – for any type of payload.

THAT is what SpaceX is focused on, not your ridiculous “fly somebody” drivel.

Get a clue Bub!

that about says it!

“What Gingrich said was a tweet. A slogany tweet. It sounded interesting.”

Only to Lunar-tics that pine for a massive taxpayer-funded government program to send a few people back to the Moon.

I don’t know about you, but I understood it when he said it, and rejected it for the same reasons I reject other Return To The Moon For Glory plans. And I didn’t even need a detailed 1,000 white paper to give me enough information.

“Why don’t they ask for a WORD?… Or maybe a letter?”

OK, I guess we’ve explored all the edges of this topic…

I think you miss the point entirely.

What Gingrich said was a tweet. A slogany tweet. It sounded interesting. Until you look at the details. The plan is not the tweet. The plan is the details that represents thoughtful assessment. Exactly as I said, his tweet wasn’t a thoughtful assessment, and thoughtful assessment made the tweet bite the dust.

“but the committee was only looking for ideas, not fully formed and detailed plans.”

Again, point entirely missed. The committee, one year into their deliberations is NOT looking for tweety ideas. If they are, they’re crashing. The committee needs to be converging on fully formed rationale for the ideas they want to articulate.

Think about it. “All they were looking for is ideas.” NO! That’s a simplistic slogan in itself. Sort of a self-righteous one. That’s not all they are looking for by any stretch of the imagination, and that’s why asking for tweets at this advanced stage is a crappy idea.

Why don’t they ask for a WORD? Just one. One that will inspire and stimulate, and assure a sustainable program. C’mon. There must be a great word we should give them. Or maybe a letter? I’m proud to vote for “c”. That’ll set ‘em right. I need to send them a “c” right away. Bet they’ll be able to use it, and we’ll see it used throughout their report. Yay!

“A slogan is a short but memorable piece of text that advocates a plan.”

From Wikipedia:

“A slogan is a memorable motto or phrase used in a political, commercial, religious, and other context as a repetitive expression of an idea or purpose.”

For me, I think of slogans as advertising, but that is not the same as a one sentence description of something.

“But they’re not the plan.”

Agreed, but the committee was only looking for ideas, not fully formed and detailed plans.

“Actually, you underestimate Newt Gingrich if you think he doesn’t have carefully tuned messages that would energize lots of people. He didn’t say what he said because he’s politically dumb. In fact, with his Moon-or-bust slogan, he had a lot of people cheering. Of course, those are the people who don’t work with numbers.”

I think by the end there you nullified what you said at the beginning, and you identified what the problem is with Newt – what he says sounds interesting, UNTIL you look at the details.

“But if you want to argue something with anything approaching conviction, you’ll need a few more characters.”

And again, all they were looking for were ideas.

Nope. Hope you don’t. That’s not what I wanted. But actually the public submitted a lot of detailed white papers, and at least some were thoughtful assessments. In requesting white papers, the committee reached out to the public and asked for real thinking. Those who can’t supply real thinking, but can only think in slogans or tweets, ought to just keep quiet. At some level, that’s the sad thing about Twitter. It encourages crappy communication and thereby makes the communicator feel fulfilled.

“Look, if you can’t articulate a short statement that elicits a ‘tell me more’ statement from people, then you’ve failed.”

Failed at what? Failed at articulating something in a short statement? Yep, I’ll agree with that entirely. Kind of obvious, really. But that’s not what this is about. This is about giving the NAS committee something they can really sink their teeth into. If all you can supply is 126 characters, you’ve succeeded, perhaps, in supplying a slogan, which is not very useful. Maybe they can sink their gums into that and call it successful.

“Just because it’s a short statement doesn’t make it a slogan.”

But I think it does. A slogan is a short but memorable piece of text that advocates a plan. Slogans are important! But they’re not the plan. It is amazing how people confuse slogans with real plans. Mainly because whatever your slogan is, I can come up with a compelling slogan that rejects it. My counter slogan will sound good! A slogan isn’t a convincing argument. It’s a flag that you wave. It’s not the army that’s carrying it.

“Elect me, and I’ll waste your money going back to the Moon”.

Good slogan. Actually, you underestimate Newt Gingrich if you think he doesn’t have carefully tuned messages that would energize lots of people. He didn’t say what he said because he’s politically dumb. In fact, with his Moon-or-bust slogan, he had a lot of people cheering. Of course, those are the people who don’t work with numbers.

Let me say that in a tweety kind of wired, rah-rah space advocacy way, 126 characters are great. If that floats your boat, go for it. But if you want to argue something with anything approaching conviction, you’ll need a few more characters. As I said, if at this late stage in their deliberations, the NAC committee really needs tweets, they’re headed straight for failure.

Well, if you haven’t done it, it’s not going to happen. Better give that some thoughtful assessment.