Doc O'Leary wrote on Tue, 12 Jun
2018 15:00:13 -0000 (UTC):

For your reference, records indicate that
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Doc O'Leary wrote on Mon, 11 Jun
2018 22:35:20 -0000 (UTC):

Chicken and egg. The fact is that we *do* sometimes have to
elaborately engineer spacecraft in order to make them small enough to
fit into a nose cone or payload bay of a rocket.


Head and ass. Cite for such payloads? Be specific. You're posting
into a 'sci' newsgroup. Handwavium is not sufficient.

Then I must say I note a lack of citations for your own claims.


I haven't made any claims.


Mine
are easy enough to demonstrate. I can literally link to just about
*any* payload that unfolds to deploy as evidence. Let’s start with
the obvious:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#/media/File:JWST_launch_configuration.png


Not a good example. Things like solar arrays are launched folded
because they can't take acceleration without snapping off, not because
they're 'too bulky'. Try again?

A different launch
vehicle/process might allow us more flexibility when it comes to
approaching those very real problems.


What 'very real problems' would those be?

Asked and answered. Your willful ignorance is not compelling.


I only asked it once and you never answered. Claim fails.

We're constrained by the real world. Magic materials are right out.


Straw man. All I?m saying is that it?s foolish to completely discount
new technologies simply because they?re not the rockets you know so
well from the past.


Go look up what 'straw man' means. It manifestly does NOT mean
pointing out reality.

Then you need to look up the definition yourself, because I did not
suggest anything magical. I simply made note of the fact that new
technologies come along all the time. In light of that, it is
foolish to be so dismissive of anything but rockets as launch
vehicles for all stages of space travel.


It is foolish NOT to be dismissive of airy claims for 'magic'
justified by handwavium. You are in the wrong newsgroup.



Cite some of these 'new technologies' and what
it takes for them to work. Be specific. You're crossposting into a
'sci' newsgroup. Handwavium is not sufficient.


It actually is. My argument is not *for* any one technology. It is
simply that rockets have obvious limits, have inherent inefficiencies,
and it’s worthwhile to keep our options open when it comes to thinking
about different ways to get things into orbit and beyond.


No, it actually isn't. Congratulations on demonstrating that you
don't know **** about either science or engineering.



What do you propose to
replace rockets with, other than 'magic'?


You continue to build this same straw man. Don’t be a dick. Please
save your thread****ting for Facebook or Twitter.


You continue to flap your arms and make chicken noises, insisting you
can fly to the Moon that way. Don't be a dip****. You are in the
wrong newsgroup.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson