>>40937478
>>40951210
The Globeheads will try to argue they were denied the budget or some internal administrative issues, but that misses the point that each decade they were 'planning' to go back, so given the green light and money at any point they should have some kind of plan that could be implemented relatively easily with 70's technology, then 80's technology, then 90's technology ... etc.

It's like arguing that Terry Gilliam didn't at any given point have a script, cast, and plan for the film, 'The Man Who Killed Don Quixote', (a film infamous for languishing in Development Hell for 30 years and suffering delays and misfortune):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Killed_Don_Quixote

It's like saying that if someone just walked up and handed Gilliam a billion dollars at any point he would have had to start completely from scratch figuring out how to make the film he'd desperately been trying to make for decades.

Absurd.

Gilliam had actual scripts, rewrites, casting, negotiations, production plans, and legit failed attempts to show for all that time. But NASA doesn't even have so much as a plan that can be immediately implemented with a few up-to-the-minute tech updates, let alone a moon rocket that exploded on the pad or some shit like that.

ie. IF they had the political budget and winds behind them in the 90's you'd expect to see something like a LM with carbon fibre legs or some shit running something like Windows 95 at the very least, right? It's not fucking rocket science ... okay well I guess it is ... but it's not fucking brain surgery at that point IF you've done it before. You're either going to do minor upgrades on existing ideas or major changes based on current tech. If you couldn't make any major changes work you could easily default back to the previous plan.

That's why it's so obvious NASA is full of shit and always has been.
>Also Kylo Ren's hair is a bird, so their argument is invalid