View Single Post
  #39  
Old June 13th 18, 10:35 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.astro,rec.arts.sf.science
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Towards routine, reusable space launch.

Doc O'Leary wrote on Wed, 13 Jun
2018 12:57:19 -0000 (UTC):

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article , droleary@
2017usenet1.subsume.com says...

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Findley wrote:

Sure, sure, Star Trek style transporters with infinite range. I'll get
right on that.

No, you won?t. But you apparently *will* use it as a straw man to avoid
actually addressing the likelihood that new technologies developed in
the future will change the economies of space launches. Hell, that?s
essentially what SpaceX is demonstrating today.


Bull****. SpaceX is not demonstrating any new technologies. They've
combined existing technologies in novel ways to solve the problems
involved in building Merlin engines and Falcon launch vehicles. There
is zero new tech in them. If you believe differently, name a new
technology they're using in their engines, launch vehicles, Dragon, and
etc.


Sigh Of *course* there’s no “new technology” in *anything* that’s
in the world today. Your engineering mindset has you in a motivated
reasoning spiral. The fact remains that, over the course of time,
new technologies have been developed that have made their way into
space programs. SpaceX is taking advantage of some of those
technologies today. It is a safe bet that such innovations will occur
in the future, and somebody will take advantage of them.


And it's an even safer bet that none of those 'new technologies' are
going to replace "throwing stuff aft to move forward". A space
elevator on Earth requires not 'new technology', but 'new physics'.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn