Addendum: When someone (at least) seems to know a lot about a subject area and have to dismiss Wikipedia without sources, it is just funny. Or sad. The origin

Addendum: When someone (at least) seems to know a lot about a subject area and have to dismiss Wikipedia without sources, it is just funny. Or sad. The original claim was -- "NASA is good at doing very big and actually pretty efficient projects when you take reliability into account." To support that weird statement, dogma1138 had to make multiple unsupported claims about the Space Shuttle. Like "unique" statements about the horrendous costs and that a NASA administrator is misrepresented about the Shuttle eating the budget (despite other quotes in the same document support that was his position). Enough for me, I feel a bit dirty.