Day’s essay shows he hasn’t even bothered to go to Ad Astra’s site to see video feeds of VASIMR (which Day misspells as “VASIMIR,” further showing his lack of research) operating in lab tests. Not sims like the video-game science on display in Kyopenhagen this past week, but actual hardware in a vac tank, operating as it would when bolted onto the ISS.
If Mr. Day is indicative of the quality of investigative journalism at TSR, why should anyone bother to visit for actual space reports?
Good gravy. So people who passionately advocate particular technologies or approaches to space are psychologically damaged neurotics. [And people who criticize or question the CRU conclusions or ObamaCare are racist Nazis.]
The kind of language and argument Day uses is classic debate squelching stuff. “I’m tired of listening to you, so just shut up. If you don’t shut up I’m going to call you crazy.”
I think I’m missing the point of this post because I don’t get the “VIP BLOT” reference. Googling just brought up this post.
“Very Important Panel” and “Big Long Oak Table”.
From the first link:
Technological advancement seldom originates from Very Important Panels of highly credentialed bigwigs sitting around Big Long Oak Tables in Washington DC
Thanks. Not sure how I missed that.
Rand,
I read articles like Dwayne and I am just amazed at the huge gap between how space policy experts see space and its promise for the future. He seems to still be living in the space paradigms of the past. Its no wonder the nation’s space policy is in such a mess if this thinking is main stream in Washington.
There is a great book by John A. Bryne called “The Whiz Kids” that details how McNamara and his team invented and applied the principles of “decision science” to first the auto industry and then government decision making. Reading it explains a lot about how we got here and what happens when visionary leaders are replaced with number crunchers.
I read articles like Dwayne and I am just amazed at the huge gap between how space policy experts see space and its promise for the future.
I don’t think it’s even that complicated. His argument is pure, unmitigated red versus blue stuff. It’s the same exact argument that was constantly being pushed during the Bush 43 administration: conservatives aren’t merely our opponents, they have clinical mental problems. I recall more than one psychological study that came out claiming that conservatives have no compassion, grew up in strict, controlling environments, are more likely to be physically abusive, etc. And it must have been true (so went the tacit MSM argument) because they had Science to back them up.
Just transfer that into the debate over space policy and you have commercial space fetishists. You know, just like people who wear zipper masks and get off on being degraded.
Day’s essay shows he hasn’t even bothered to go to Ad Astra’s site to see video feeds of VASIMR (which Day misspells as “VASIMIR,” further showing his lack of research) operating in lab tests. Not sims like the video-game science on display in Kyopenhagen this past week, but actual hardware in a vac tank, operating as it would when bolted onto the ISS.
If Mr. Day is indicative of the quality of investigative journalism at TSR, why should anyone bother to visit for actual space reports?
Good gravy. So people who passionately advocate particular technologies or approaches to space are psychologically damaged neurotics. [And people who criticize or question the CRU conclusions or ObamaCare are racist Nazis.]
The kind of language and argument Day uses is classic debate squelching stuff. “I’m tired of listening to you, so just shut up. If you don’t shut up I’m going to call you crazy.”
I think I’m missing the point of this post because I don’t get the “VIP BLOT” reference. Googling just brought up this post.
“Very Important Panel” and “Big Long Oak Table”.
From the first link:
Thanks. Not sure how I missed that.
Rand,
I read articles like Dwayne and I am just amazed at the huge gap between how space policy experts see space and its promise for the future. He seems to still be living in the space paradigms of the past. Its no wonder the nation’s space policy is in such a mess if this thinking is main stream in Washington.
There is a great book by John A. Bryne called “The Whiz Kids” that details how McNamara and his team invented and applied the principles of “decision science” to first the auto industry and then government decision making. Reading it explains a lot about how we got here and what happens when visionary leaders are replaced with number crunchers.
I read articles like Dwayne and I am just amazed at the huge gap between how space policy experts see space and its promise for the future.
I don’t think it’s even that complicated. His argument is pure, unmitigated red versus blue stuff. It’s the same exact argument that was constantly being pushed during the Bush 43 administration: conservatives aren’t merely our opponents, they have clinical mental problems. I recall more than one psychological study that came out claiming that conservatives have no compassion, grew up in strict, controlling environments, are more likely to be physically abusive, etc. And it must have been true (so went the tacit MSM argument) because they had Science to back them up.
Just transfer that into the debate over space policy and you have commercial space fetishists. You know, just like people who wear zipper masks and get off on being degraded.