I see that Mark Whittington has found a new place to self-publish his ever-illogical ignorance.
Note that the commenters are unremittingly clueless as well.
[Sunday afternoon update]
Just in case anyone ever bothers to read Mark’s web site, he is now (as often, and hilariously stupidly) claiming that I have “leaped the length of my” (imaginary, just like the “Internet Rocketeers Club”) “chain,” once again demonstrating his complete inability to accurately discern human emotions. He also accused me of lying, with zero basis, since I never claimed that he wasn’t being paid. But then, as always, reading comprehension has never been been his strong suit, either.
I can see someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
Actually, Rand, speaking of illogical ignorance, I am paid for work for Yahoo News. Just to clear that matter up for you.
Also, again speaking of logic, I can see that your arguments are just as calm, well considered, and reasonably articulated as ever.
I am paid for work for Yahoo News.
If so, that’s frightening.
Didn’t Yahoo used to be important?
Didn’t Yahoo used to be important?
Yes, I wonder how Mark is “paid.” Flat rate (as AOL does, or rather, did until Arianna took over, me)? Or on some formula based on hittage? If so, he can’t be paid much.
Hey, Whittington is where he belongs; trolling through the lowest common denominator of thought. If no one pays him any attention he will whither and die on the vine.
speaking of illogical ignorance, I am paid for work for Yahoo News
You said it! What was Yahoo thinking?!?
While I am not inclined to reveal my private financial information, my upfront fee for commentary and my stipend based on page views are quite substantial.
By the way, since you are thinking it, your links do not by and large cause any great uptick in page views. But thanks for any you send my way (g).
I am by no means a space expert. But it seems to me that making NASA more of an overseer or partner with privateers would be a better use of LESS money. And before anyone says I’ve got no cards in the gub’ment money game, I’m drawing SSD every month. I don’t want to lose ‘funding’, but see the necessity in cutting back EVERY Federal program by 10% to 25% as a start, and we need to do it immediately.
.
I get that jobs would be lost and that people and areas would lose money, but it’s money WE DON”T HAVE!!
.
I did like some of the comments though. Clueless doesn’t even start to describe the comments Rand. And generally being clueless is a lifestyle and generally doesn’t encompass just a single issue in my experience. I loved comments like this, as they seem to prove my statement that, cluelessness is all encompassing,
.
.
.
“Before you call space ex a waste of money, it provides jobs, finds us faster ways to fly planes, and helps speed up research on every day items, like toothpaste(invented in the 60’s)…”
.
.
.
1960’s!? And just what makes him think NASA had anything to do with toothpaste? Although it could be, he thinks halitosis in confined spaces caused NASA to send Pepsodent to the moon?
.
“Houston, we have a problem, but it isn’t cavities!”
.
I’m guessing he thinks the Obama mandated NASA / Muslim love fest is a good idea too? I read about three or four pages worth but this was the best for cluelessness of those I read,
.
.
.
NASA can build a heavy lift vehicle – they have had the capability since the 1950’s – The Moral Majority just refuses to allow it because of atmospheric pollution.
.
.
.
I’m guessing this (young) nut doesn’t get that the Moral Majority was dismantled years ago. Which leaves out the facts that the MM was a Right-Wing group, of mostly Evangelical Christian Conservatives and that concern over the environment was not part of their platform.
.
Environmentalist are generally left-wing activists and liberal voters, who ARE concerned with the environment above all else in general. It is those people who have complained that NASA launches cause every weather phenomenon from hurricanes and floods to droughts and expanded deserts.
.
And neither party has been exactly supportive of NASA in years. Except to use the JOBS issue as a vote getting ploy.
.
.
.
Mr. Whittington,
I’m Joe Average tax payer. I was 7 when Scott Carpenter went up. I grew UP with the space race, I was an avid fan. It killed me when the general public lost interest NASA in favor of other places to spend money. It seemed short sighted then and I haven’t changed my mind.
.
I have no engineering degree, but I spent my career, working on machinery, and computer controlled industrial equipment. I started on lawnmowers as a kid and end up as an I/C Tech and co-gen plant operator after being a power plant and propulsion tech in the Navy. On top of that, I’m a pretty fair shade tree mechanic.
.
If it ever worked, I can generally make it go roundy roundy, undugga dugga again.
As I said, I’m not an schooled engineer, and given my interest in NASA and my knowledge of ‘how things work’, I do pretty well with understanding how things get engineered and built from inception to the field. I have a simple question.
.
If we can ramp UP to 130 tons ‘later’, why not just build for that ‘now’?
.
If a customer calls Western Star or Boeing for a bigger, stronger product, those companies don’t start by throwing OUT all the OLD designs, and begin by building a pick-up truck or glider and then ‘ramp up’ to what the customer really needs . But to this lay person THAT is what you propose.
.
If NASA is going to be THE heavy lift provider, why CAN’T we just build the unit we need?
There is a simple reason why Boeing and Western Star don’t start small and ‘ramp up’. It costs too much money to start from scratch on every new product.
And btw Mark, get out of aisle three please.
While I am not inclined to reveal my private financial information, my upfront fee for commentary and my stipend based on page views are quite substantial.
This is why journalists and some (wannabe) sci-fi authors are part of the Shuttle political industrial complex.
MPM – Not a penny of my income comes from the aerospace industry, old or new.
Speaking only for myself, I may have followed one or two of Rand’s links to a WhittingtonPost over the years, but not recently.
Maybe Rand’s links don’t count for much because most of us have already seen what a car accident looks like. 😉
MPM – Not a penny of my income comes from the aerospace industry, old or new.
It is influenced by what your readership wants to read and to the degree you depend on sources inside the aerospace industry (including imagery and events) it is dependent on what your sources want you to write. That applies to all journalists and bloggers of course, not just in the aerospace industry.
MPM – Nope, by my understanding of the issues. Unlike some bloggers, I do not chase readers by giving them what I think they want to hear. My sources give me stuff because they know I will give things a fair hearing and will base my analysis on the facts and not on any other consideration,
Rand – Using terms like “Vanity Press” and “self published” have specific meanings. For someone who pretends to be so high on truth and logic, you certainly like to run and hide when you fall short in those departments. I don’t expect an apology. Maybe not even an aknowledgement that you were wrong, That sort of thing is just not in you.
Mark, where “facts” means stuff you made up right?
Maybe not even an aknowledgement that you were wrong, That sort of thing is just not in you.
If you are getting paid, then I was wrong. I’m never unwilling to admit when I’m wrong. I rarely see you do so, when you are so often.
But I still didn’t “lie.” To call someone a liar used to be fighting words, but it’s hard to be insulted, or have one’s integrity impugned, by the likes of you.
Regardless of the quality of work; I applaud anyone willing to work. Which is why I give a few bucks to the homeless guy that washes the windshield on the $500 car I bought from a junk yard six or so years ago (which still has original junkyard dirt… and 42mpg.)
Any opinion, right or wrong, is valuable if it provides links to sources.
ken, I bet your car is still cleaner than Mark’s tactics.
I don’t know who Whittington’s sources are, but his “analysis” doesn’t square with my experience or that of any of my colleagues in the aerospace industry. Everyone I personally know who read that op-ed said it came across as shilling against the Administration, rather than a fair and balanced study of space policy.
I can only conclude that Whittington’s sources are same sort of politicos, who engage in the substitution of politics for engineering judgment, that put us in this situation to begin with and threaten to make things worse by imposing contradictory budget, schedule, and technical constraints on NASA.
Unlike some bloggers, I do not chase readers by giving them what I think they want to hear.
Readers will decide whether to read your stuff based on that all the same. Having sampled your work I know that I rarely bother reading it anymore and I doubt I’m the only one. Given that Yahoo News (nomen est omen?) is willing you pay you money for it suggests that there are currently sufficiently many readers who feel otherwise. Hardly surprising since $3.5B of federal spending on the shuttle industrial complex each year should buy it a considerable number of fans. In any event your opinion influences your monetary worth as an author and your worth to various publishers and media outlets.
My sources give me stuff because they know I will give things a fair hearing and will base my analysis on the facts and not on any other consideration
That must be some strange new meaning of the words ‘fair’ and ‘fact’. It seems more likely to me that they agree with your opinions and that their continued support depends on continued sharing of opinions.