Earlier Chris wrote: You don't know NASA's history nor do you seem inclined to read it. You don't reply to anything I write, but do go off on tangents.

EP wrote: Since the facts on NASA's history presented in the earlier post are easily verified, and entirely undeniable, note the denial mechanisms. It is particularly fascinating that this denial extends to very basic levels, and especial note should be made of the very basic perceptual interference.

Chris writes: Yeah, I know I pointed that NASA history is easily found to be read...on your assertion FBC was created before Goldin came in to office...these are from articles after MPL went missing...

***Goldin didn't call for any major changes to NASA's "faster, better, cheaper" approach. The policy was started after the 1993 disappearance of the $1 billion Mars Observer and was intended to spread risk over several missions. An investigation determined that the Observer probably exploded while its fuel lines were being pressurized.***

http://www.floridatoday.com/space/explore/stories/1999b/120899a.htm

***Mars Observer's loss prompted NASA chief Dan Goldin to inaugurate his "faster, better, cheaper" approach to planetary exploration. The agency planned a series of smaller, less sophisticated orbiters to recover lost scientific data originally charged to the Observer.***

http://www.space.com/peopleinterviews/shirley_Q&A_000121.html

Some where I have Goldin in his own words saying "I was under pressure from Congress after Mars Observers's failure to come up with a better plan for exploration of Mars"...or words to that effect.

Earlier Chris wrote: "I give up! An ideal Mars Suit weight would depend on the "gravity" of the spacecraft taking you to Mars and the duration it's used, but about 60 to 80 pounds is usually mentioned."

EP wrote: Notice the escape mechanism. Reacting to the topic of the lack of public interest in sending men to Mars, the individual escapes to the topic of Mars suits for which there is no demand.

Chris writes: Hum, you have a very short attention span. In your typical arrogance you wrote that MCP suits were physically impossible. Which is wrong! Only an idiot would write such nonsense without researching first! (Ed claims to be a reporter, folks) And in this suggestion made out like you where an expert on Spacesuits so I asked you how much an ideal Mars suit should weigh and you as always never answered the question (given at least three opportunities to do so). This has nothing to do with if there is a demand for Mars Suits... That is just you dodging the question. You're no expert on any of this you are just an arrogant pain in the behind!

Chris wrote: "I know this is pointless but provide evidence of your claims and people here will think about it otherwise it is in the dustbin of useless BS."

EP wrote: Note that due to the perceptual problems no amount of evidence will ever suffice - it is simply not percieved because of the fantasies, fantasies which satisfy certain very basic psyhcological needs.

Chris writes: As I noted above it would be pointless to ask for evidence of Ed's assertions about public interest in manned Mars mission going down when we send probes to Mars. You have provided no evidence, but your own words! What a surprise.

Earlier EP wrote: In terms of engineering man-hours, it is quite easy to show that the NASA Reference mission has limited engineering detail in comparison with earlier efforts.

Earlier Chris wrote: "Then do so dipstick!"

EP wrote: It would be a complete waste of my time to do it for the limited number of Mars Nuts who congregate here - in other words, work to no personal benefit, and for that matter for no benefit at all.

Chris writes: No benefit? Other than proving you are not a liar. It's "easy", but he won't do it? The three possible answers to why Ed won't give us the engineering evidence he cliams would be easy to generate. He can't generate it himself! There is non! Or it proves his statements wrong! Want to bet it would prove him wrong or open him to criticism for being done wrongly.

--Chris Vancil