Bullshit. The law [nasa.gov] authorizing NASA directs NASA at numerous points to plan and promote things that fall under "having vision".

Only if you're under the influence of sufficient drugs to be having hallucinations, or have a complete lack of understanding of the English language. Given your posting history and complete lack of connection to reality, it's hard to discern which is the case. (Not that it matters, as the end result is the same.)
 

Decades is the usual shortest time frame discussed for this sort of thing anyway. You're not in disagreement with most "space fanboys" on that. I think it's a bit dishonest to downplay someone's ambitions as delusions and hallucinations while simultaneously admitting that the only real problem is that you think their estimates of time to achievements are mildly ambitious.

Space fanboys never discuss time-frames, as that requires doing a painful thing that they never voluntarily do - which is deal with reality. (And estimation of time-to-achieve is hardly the only problem with their fantasies, err..., ambitions.)

NASA will again look inept and directionless

Only to the clueless that don't realize that NASA is an organization that executes the policies of others subject to the funding whims of yet others. (I.E. pretty much everyone sadly.)

Part of the reasoning was that the scientific developments driven would then flow out into the broader economy, powering the US forwards. It was pretty successful in that regard.

It was almost entirely unsuccessful in that regard. Despite the efforts of generations of NASA PAO's to convince people otherwise, the reality is that space program is a net consumer of technology and has produced very little that has subsequently made it's way out into the general economy.
 

This would entirely be the land of make believe, but just imagine what NASA could have achieved by today if it had continued to receive sponsorship and support at the same level as it did for the Apollo program...

Sponsorship and support when during the Apollo program? If you actually look at the funding, it's pretty much define by a sharp spike in '63-'65, followed by an almost equally sharp decline in '65-'67 and a gradual decrease from there onwards. By the time we landed on the Moon, the program was already running on fumes.

they're handicapped by a management structure that's too fat and doesn't have an aggressive vision for the future. NASA depends too much on contractors that can't produce anything on budget and there's no penalty for not performing.

NASA is not supposed to have vision - they're a branch of the Executive Department and carry out the policies of the Executive as funded by Congress. Ditto for contractors, NASA has always relied on contractors.
 

If we're going to explore space then we have to face the fact that it's unlikely we're going to get there with NASA as it exists today.

NASA is an engineering and scientific agency (with an overlay of flags-and-footprints) and always has been, not an exploratory agency. They do not exist to feed the wet dreams and masturbation fantasies of the space fanboys.
 

And we have to find a way to fund that exploration so it's more insulated from politics. Otherwise we're stuck on this rock until a giant comet, asteroid or neutron star wanders by or we get fried by our own sun or a gamma ray burst.

Exploration has always been about money, not as in funding, but as in making it by the bucketload. Space exploration pretty much no chance of doing so, and thus is unlikely to ever be funded. (See the above about wet dreams.) As far as using space to avoid some planetary disaster... you're hallucinating. We know so little about what will be required we can barely describe the known unknowns. Even with significant investment, that's unlikely to change for decades, maybe centuries.
 
Seriously, the problem isn't NASA. The problem is clueless space fanboys who have somehow decided the world should provide them with and endless supply of willing supermodels and free supercars - and who blame reality for failing to live up to their fantasies.

The only possible way for someone to think I'm confusing the two is to be even more ignorant and clueless than the poster I was replying to. Not an easy feat, I salute you!

And imagine the users setting drinks on top of it! At least with a box, if you knock your drink over, it's on the floor. HERE.... it can drain your entire soda into the mobo ports (back) or fan intake. (front) I think that will be the biggest problem this case has, getting users out of the habbit of setting things on top of their case.

What kind of moron gets in the habit of putting liquids on top of their case in the first place?

*sigh* Not only are you ignorant, you seem doggedly determined to remain that way.
 

So those documents are based on first hand knowledge and tested results and people who read them are likely to succeed at building the bombs, right?

Those documents are on science, physics, chemistry, and engineering. They aren't bomb making instructions, they're the science behind the instructions - and thus it doesn't matter what the bomb making experience of the writers are. It's a critical difference and one you seem determined to remain blind to.
 

Because my point is that there's a ton of "howto" stuff out there

There's also a ton of solid science out there - and so long as you insist on not even trying to grasp the difference between actual science and handwaving how-to's you haven't the requisite intellectual equipment to have a point. You're just a parrot repeating phrases you have no grasp of the meaning of.

Yup. I own a powerful desktop, an iPhone, and a low end tablet... but when I start a project of any significance, the first thing I reach for is my trusty steno pad. (A habit learned at my mother's knee forty years ago.)

I can do a write up for how to build a nuclear bomb for my terrorist brothers based on my rudimentary undergraduate physics education, but there's no way in hell those instructions would actually produce anything useful.

Just because you're ignorant - that doesn't mean everyone else is. There's a lot of stuff openly available for the use of those that aren't [ignorant].

Since gender balance isn't a requirement in this instance, you're just blowing smoke. (Further enhanced by the need to make shit up to claim intellectual superiority - failing to realize that such is proof positive of quite the opposite.)

I suspect chargers are cheaper than battery packs. Also, swapping a pack invites mechanical failure, while a wired charger has a lesser chance, and a wireless charger none at all.

Are the drugs you're on actually legal? Or have large portions of your brain been surgically removed? Because your reply indicates that you in no way comprehended what I wrote. Hell, it doesn't indicate any significant connection to the real world.

Why must everything be gender balanced? Why not let women do what they want instead of trying to force them in to places that aren't necessarily their thing?

When a huge chunk of the human race chooses en masse not to participate in something when there's no particular reason they shouldn't - the intelligent person wonders why and tries to correct the problem. Folks like you just ask vapid questions and perpetuate ignorance and bias.

That's the purpose of interviewing that man - to figure out if he had anything to do with illegal activities or not. Apparently he didn't. So what's the problem?

The problem is that there is a lot of very paranoid people absolutely (and groundlessly) convinced that if the police are talking to them, the police are coming after them. Personally. With malice aforethought. They've never heard of investigations, or due dilegence... or if they have heard of them, they discard them because the police are after them.

Two countries separated by a common language... :) What you call a refit, we call an overhaul. What I meant by refit in my original message was that period where the crew is swapped and maintenance performed between at-sea patrol periods. (Which is done in Faslane.)