Excuses, excuses.

Don't put in curse words! Just what we don't want to listen to, how we "f**king humans" f**ked up their waters ... blah,blah,blah.

Personally I would go with Cisco, I've found them to be more reliable and easier to get the info you need troubleshooting wise. Juniper is Ok, but depending on the equipment, not as reliable as Cisco. Course wise there are plenty from tech colleges to dedicated courses from VARs, all though they tend to be somewhat more costly.You haven't explained what kind of network, ie. is this a flat topography? typically all vlans, layer 3 routing going on? it's sounds like a rather small network. If it's pretty flat then focus on the switching mostly for learning, routing is another level and could cause you a lot of headaches, both in design and troubleshooting. Then you have to throw in network security, firewalls,IPS/IDS, no matter how small a network, you will need these. It's a lot for someone to learn right off the bat, but should be doable after a few years.

I'm basing on their track record so far, which is impressive. I believe they can do it, it's not about words this time.

China doesn't, yet, right now things are so dicey with heir economy, as they are trying to slow it due to inflation. My bet still on Musk, it's not only about the U.S Government to do it.

This is good for China, but whats much, much more impressive is a private company has started making plans on putting a man on Mars within 10-20 years (SpaceX). Its one thing for a government to commit to space travel, but its amazing for a private company to do that! SpaceX is already do amazing things with their launch capabilities.

Or kill their own people for speaking out against them, Noooo....

Throw in this that a lot of people have wireless routers, it would be impossible to tell, even if you track down the IP address to the physical address, that it was being used by you or your family. One could always say "I had an open wi-fi connection", and it would impossible to say who was behind that IP address.

I agree with you in most of what you say, I am fiscal conservative and don't like the way government spends our tax dollars, but I have to say $20 billion a year for NASA isn't that big a part of the rampant spending going on, and actually has more to offer in return than any Government Agency. IMHO there things that need development that can only happen if we spend some money to do it. Although I hold out hope for a market driven space program it isn't quit there yet and it definitely wasn't there yet 20-30 years ago. In this case there would be no private industry that could put men in orbit or beyond without Government program before it.

Some of these may sound "white elephants" but there are no companies willing to take the risk, only way it can be done is by a non-market driven entity, ie. Government, that has less risk if something does not work. Also private companies sadly don't look beyond the 10 year horizon, limiting the technology leap.

I would prefer it being market driven, its usually costs less and is technically better. I just don't see that happening. Now if we could convince private companies that there is a large exploitable market out there, ie. mining rare earth metals, who knows, it may open up a door.

Also to this statement,

And since there was no real long term "Orion" nuclear bomb experimentation, just one experiment was done, I had to assume NERVA.

Yes true, but I was answering the post by MozeeToby;

What you really are arguing is the way its being done (methodology), yes we have had a lot of promises that haven't come true, but they are not technical promises. Yes we could use mass productions ( although I don't think this would lower he cost drastically for launch costs, as Atlas rockets are already mass produced and don't add to substantial cost reductions, all though it is better than the shuttle cost-wise) The type of improvement I was talking about was technical, I do not see how, even with what you sited (they are still chemical rockets), that a chemical rocket can be made vastly safer, cheaper. and more reliable due to the tonnage of explosive chemicals needed. In this regard, a chemical rocket will always be large controlled (most of the time) bomb, that could could go off at any time. As compared to a electromagnetic launcher that relies on electrical power, this prevents the need to carry a lot of fuel (still need some but it will increase the safety factor) And being based on an electrical source it can be redundant and reliable.

These are all inherent in the technology itself and doesn't discuss about bureaucratic falseness that most of the issues you mention, stem from. Your pointing out issues with methodology the technologies failed or can be successful. Sure I agree with you, their can be improvements on the methodology ie. manufacturing and how a rocket is used, but not improving the technology itself.

Never said it would be cheap or small. I doubt that any launch system will be cheap, but it will bring down the launch costs, something like this will be necessary for routine travel to space.

Well that depends, there are a few man made mega-structures around today. It's a matter of scale. And I don't envision a dynamically suspended rail, but I believe it's do-able, if pushing the limits of construction. And yes a electromagnetic launcher may have a "dumb" payload, but most likely will have some power to maneuver, ie. thrusters, small rockets engines, etc. to help once it lifts off the launcher.

Yes it comparable to what we have now, after all it has to be near term to be of any use. The key is to lower launch costs and improve reliability and safety.

I would say it isn't like an electromagnetic launcher, chemical rockets are well known and pretty much at the top of it's technology curve, ie. it won't get better than it is. While an electromagnetic launcher is still relatively new and has many years of development to lower costs and be "perfected".

While I agree with you, imagine if one nuclear powered rocket failed? If there had been nuclear derived shuttle and either Columbia or Challenger accident occurred? We are after all talking a minimum of 5GW reactors. It would have set back the space program years if not canceled it out right. Out of either type, chemical or nuclear chemical is still safer, thats why we still have them.

I do see more hope for a Scram-Jet type launcher, or electromagnetic launcher. Both are much better than either chemical or nuclear. Once we are in the vacuum of space there is plasma and engines much like VASIMER, or even nuclear thermal.

I'm not sure what you mean by "failures"? Maybe it didn't meet your expectations but definitely not failures. We have what we due to politics and limitations of reality not "Failures" of concepts or of what NASA has accomplished.

Like everything else, Reality seldom matches our expectations.