>>17556304 (lb/pb)

>document posted doesn't look like a Rand report

Dunno. We'll know if it's real or not by how hard they try to discredit and bury it.

Link is the word "document" in second paragraph highlighted in blue for those who are color challenged.

https://nyadagbladet.se/utrikes/shocking-document-how-the-us-planned-the-war-and-energy-crisis-in-europe/

Watching the Artemis fueling exercise and seeing the V2 tier carbon flaps to steer the solid boosters like those that doomed Challenger. Solid boosters (because once lit, cannot be throttled or shut down) were initially rejected for the Shuttle but "budget considerations" dictated their use, dooming those astronauts years before they flew, and fell.

Apollo, Vietnam, the Shuttle, the SSC boondoggle, the Great Society. Boy, those were some good years for the MIC!

Now we're using engines designed 50 years ago that have been previously flown, some several times. The SLS was hopelessly obsolete when first designed and is now totally outclassed by StarShip. They're racing to be the first to launch to orbit, cutting corners and making mistakes. I'll be surprised if it survives its first flight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/fired-up-engines-and-motors-put-artemis-mission-in-motion.html