I got magazines and comic books for that. And that's coming from a Millennial.

No mention in the review of that very well done brawl with the white suits? Because that was quite the delightful surprise and deserves a good amount of praise, especially for a show that isn't exactly action-oriented. Hell, it did so better than most action-oriented shows do. Low on the cuts, shot wide so you could…

That…that doesn't even make sense… Do you want to plant the freakin' money in the ground so that grain can suddenly pop out? What are you talking about, directly?

Disagreeing has nothing to do with it. Your unreasonableness is because you refuse to accept certain facts regarding the results that flow out of publicly funded space exploration. That has nothing to do with opinions we might hold.

Of course not. Because who cares about being reasonable, right?

Sure you are. Sadly your satisfaction is in no way an indication that you were correct regarding your arguments about the nature of publicly funded space exploration. And you weren't. And it wasn't even an ideological difference we were having, you simply represented some facts completely wrong.

And that's why I, as a fellow non-American, kept including words like "and similar organisations" and notably ESA exactly to keep with the "publicly funded space exploration" thing you were going on about. What counts for NASA counts for ESA as well. But you do you, but maybe next time come with arguments that are a…

I'm sorry but now you're just making stuff up. You did suggest defunding NASA as you wanted no public money to go to space exploration, you called that a 'waste'. That you have a problem with, you responded with that sentiment not just to me but to other people as well. And NASA is publicly funded. The implied premise…

What are you talking about?! I did argue your points! I directly addressed your premise regarding NASA's results being 'speculative' and did so again when you called their results 'trickle down' and did so again when you talked about 'direct' benefits to humankind. Like, I literally used the words you used, how is…

No it's not just a good of the trickle-down variety. Highly efficient water filtration systems we developed through the International Space Station is not a trickle down benefit. LEO satellites that track deforestation and desertification so we can combat that more effectively are not a trickle-down good. Finding…

""Space exploration" offers but speculative returns."

But…NASA's budget isn't padded? It's freakin' paltry compared to everything else, as I've already explained. And I've already explained how it helps in solid ways by giving some examples, something that you keep ignoring. Do you know what NASA's Earth Sciences Division does? Do you even know that researching our solar…

If you're talking about public money then your assessment of '500 billion dollars' is nothing short of ridiculous and so I stand by my assessment that you need some more education on space-related matters.

"My proposal of rather than $500 Billion in Space Exploration accidentally giving some tech that does what people already did for a bit less inconvenience, to instead take 1/5000th of that and do something directly for the poor— this is clear. So cllear it's "simplistic"? Maybe."

Ah! Fair enough. Though to be fair, the Concorde wasn't exactly a fantastic succes. But now with around 40 years of aeronautics progress behind us, who knows maybe we'll get supersonic passenger travel again. Though going by recent developments, there seems to be a bigger emphasis on things like fuel efficiency and…

SST being…? My guess is Single Stage To Orbit, and you're missing a few letters. But I could be wrong.

A way for billionaires to dick-swing at each other? That's a ridiculously cynical way to look at is, as if people with lots of money are unable to care about exploration and furthering human kind. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep an eye on them, power is always risky and money is power, but c'mon dude they're still…

There's no "should" about it to be honest, space exploration has already given myriad of technological advances that improve people's lives. That includes poor people. You're giving an extremely simplistic and unrealistic depiction of how progress really works here and extremely simplistic depiction of the problems we…

The middleman being the runaway military spending? Considering that the likes of NASA and ESA are civilian organisations and not military ones; sure, cut that military spending, that's fine with me.

So it's called a near-total failure here, but it actually was tested successfully and it's downfall was just getting caught in the collapse of the USSR? Doesn't sound as much as failure and more like bad luck.