What does this NASA administrator's tweeted statement mean? What is the context?

Question: Would a similar statement about taxpayer money used in SLS/Boeing or the JWST (delays and cost overruns started circa 20111 and continue) be equally or more appropriate, or are delays with Commercial Crew even more egregious? Is this Jim Bridenstine tweet just a bit of "space snark" or do the sentiments reflect a legitimate beef?

The only information I have so far on why this question was so quickly put on hold is @DavidHammen's comment which includes:

Given the multiple opinions posted on that twitter thread, there's no knowing what Bridenstine actually meant by that tweet.

How can someone know that "there's no knowing" something?

I don't think some comments in twitter matter in any way, much less prove that no fact-based answer are possible for this question.

The quick and silent hold prevents any answers being posted thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. This seems like "nobody can possibly know the answer, therefore nobody will have a chance to post one".

One fact-based answer was already posted within 3 hours, which seems to run completely contrary to the hold reason:

...but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.

Why is this quick blocking of any further answers considered the best possible course of action here? Why no suggestions how to modify/improve? The insta-close without allow the community vote or post answers seems to be a vote of no confidence of the community's ability to:

  • generate good quality fact-based answers
  • discuss and decide if the question should be held or improved.

I don't think that vote of no confidence in this community is warranted.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I mean, there were comments. Some questions can't be saved, perhaps the close voters felt this was a case where no guidance would help. Hammen's comment seems to indicate that to me. $\endgroup$
    – called2voyage Mod
    Sep 29 '19 at 13:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There was more than one comment, just not by the close voters. Close voters aren't required to add new comments where others already exist. I think you're being a little disingenuous by leading with "without comments". If the close votes were misplaced, the community will reopen it. I think things are working normally here. $\endgroup$
    – called2voyage Mod
    Sep 29 '19 at 13:38
  • $\begingroup$ So I may be missing something. I see one comment about the closability from DH who cast a close vote, and linked to it in this meta question. The 2nd vote is from a mod without further comments. I don't understand what "Speculative, Space-X fanboyism..." even means so I'm not counting it, and am not consciously being "disingenuous". I don't think that DH's logic that some twitter comments exist therefore nobody can answer this question is enough to block further SE answers. Anyway let's see what happens. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Sep 29 '19 at 13:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I openly voted to close, with a comment. A moderator joined me in that decision. And that is all it takes. Most of your questions are very good, @uhoh. But some of them are bad, and a very few of them are just awful. I typically let the questions that are only bad slide. I viewed the referenced question as beyond bad. In my opinion, of course. I downvoted and voted to close because I thought this question was, well, just awful, by the standards of this site. (continued) $\endgroup$ Sep 29 '19 at 15:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is no way to even know whether Bridenstine wrote that tweet, and there's no way to know what was on the tweeter's mind when that tweet was written. Any answers will inherently be opinion based. $\endgroup$ Sep 29 '19 at 15:55
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidHammen but there is already one well-received answer that is fact-based. Have you down voted it yet and added a complaint that it can't possibly answer the question because it isn't primarily opinion-based and only opinion-based answers are possible? If not, I see a potential inconsistency. If one good answer was posted in 3 hours, we can't be sure that other's wouldn't have been in the next 24 or 48. Why make sure we can't find out? $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Sep 29 '19 at 16:30
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I agreed with David Hammen's reason that this is very opinion based. Asking for the context of statements can work, but notice how the first part of your question doesn't even do that, it asks about comparing it to a hypothetical statement. $\endgroup$ Sep 29 '19 at 17:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ From here, the question follows standard SE procedure, with the opinion of more users deciding if it gets reopened or not. $\endgroup$ Sep 29 '19 at 17:15
  • $\begingroup$ @Hohmannfan okay thanks for the feedback. It's late here, I'll check to see what's hapenning in the morning, and after sufficient coffee see if rewording is in the cards. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Sep 29 '19 at 17:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .