Mark Whittington reads a prognosticative puff piece by various NASA officials, and thinks that it's somehow a rebuttal to all the critics of the program.

What do you expect, Mark? That they're going to say it's not going to survive? It's not like any of them are going to be around and accountable six years from now. Is there anything they could tell you that you wouldn't believe? Did you know that the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

Well, at least he admits his confusion.

To paraphrase the old expression, I can only see what I read on the internet (g). On the one hand I've counted at least three times in the past year or so certain people confidently predicting the imminent collapse of the Orion/Ares project. Not one of those predictions have come true. Not has there yet been any slips that have not been caused by outside (read Congressional) action.

This contrasts with the history of the space station when we heard about slips and overruns on a depressingly regular basis.

I don't know if the prediction of a 50 percent chance of a manned launch in 2013 will play out or not. But I have to say that so far it's the supporters of Orion/Ares who have the greater credibility.

You know, Mark, it's a lot easier to test the predictions of people who say something is "imminent," than of someone who says that something will happen in six years.

You said nothing to rebut my post. Not that I'm surprised.

>
There are bench marks that have to be met along the way, of course. If those start to slip, then we'll certainly know something.

To paraphrase the old expression, I can only see what I read on the internet (g).

Really? A self-styled "journalist" and "space policy analyst" has no source of information except reading quotes from NASA officials on the Internet?

So, tell us again why we should take your ideas as gospel, while rejecting "internet rocketeers" like Elon Musk or Burt Rutan?

Not has there yet been any slips that have not been caused by outside (read Congressional) action.

When all else fails, blame Congress.

Or the Russians.

Or Nixon.

This has been the bleat of the Apollo cult for 30 years. Apollo, Shuttle, NASP, X-33, X-34 and all the others would have been successful, long-term programs if not for "outside" actions.

So, all of Orion's problems are due to Congress not giving NASA unlimited money? Okay, let's say you're right about that, Mark.

How does that justify your fixed belief that Orion will be successful? Do you expect Congress to relinquish control over the NASA budget? Do you think George W. Bush is going to be reelected to a third term with Tom Delay retaking control of Congress? Or maybe Brian Swiderski will win on a third party ticket, abolish DoD, and give the money to NASA?

You blame Congress for NASA's failures, yet you want a perennial, super-expensive Apollo program that's dependent on Congress funding something it hasn't been willing to fund in the past.

You don't see any contradiction in that?

Didn't a former astronaut say that something was going to be happening on a specific date this month that would kill the Ares? I'm not sure if it was John Glenn or John Young... anybody remember that?

I'm not sure if it was John Glenn or John Young... anybody remember that?

John Young, but remember, he's retired, and according to Mark no one who isn't currently working for NASA has any knowledge of how to go to the Moon.

The Men in Black "flashy thing" them during the exit interview. :-)

Yeah I guess the guy who has been in space on more different launch systems than anyone else would probably only be guessing.

But Ed, that makes the guy just an astronaut that pushes buttons, not a engineer.

This posting is in jest only, any or all references to the truth may be in error.