NASA changing opinion on the Direct HLV launcher.

In article 84bbe013-3376-4fcd-bcbc-d6f6d36c2c30
@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

How much percentage of your personal income is public funded?

Not a whole heck of a lot. I work for a private company (Siemens PLM
Solutions). If you dig deeper, the CAE software I help develop is
mostly sold to companies, not the US government.

You can always scale back any of Mook's fly-by-rocket notions, such as
a 1/8th or 1/10th scale should be rather easy.

But Mook's not proposing that. He's claiming he can go from nothing to
a full scale vehicle based on small bits and pieces of technology which
have never flown at that scale.

Remember that 99.9% of it would be supercomputer R&D plus extensively
flight simulated before the first of any scale version is actually
created. You've heard about such computers and their extensive
engineering and complex analytical software, haven't you?

Again, this is b.s. That's not how R&D works. To actually make
progress (and find out what you *don't* know), you actually have to
build and fly vehicles. Mook thinks he can build and fly the final
version of his vehicles without losing a bunch to R&D failures. He's
kidding himself and b.s.'ing you into believing this flawed assumption.

The primary failure of the DC-X/DC-XA program wasn't the fact that they
lost a vehicle during a test flight. The primary failure was the
assumption that they'd only need one vehicle. Mook is making the same
flawed assumption.

Jeff
--
42

On Nov 1, 6:32*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 84bbe013-3376-4fcd-bcbc-d6f6d36c2c30
@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...



How much percentage of your personal income is public funded?

Not a whole heck of a lot. *I work for a private company (Siemens PLM
Solutions). *If you dig deeper, the CAE software I help develop is
mostly sold to companies, not the US government. *

You can always scale back any of Mook's fly-by-rocket notions, such as
a 1/8th or 1/10th scale should be rather easy.

But Mook's not proposing that. *He's claiming he can go from nothing to
a full scale vehicle based on small bits and pieces of technology which
have never flown at that scale.
That's just one of those funny quirks about our bipolar Mook. Trust
me, he wouldn't get his always way if there was 50/50 public funding.


Remember that 99.9% of it would be supercomputer R&D plus extensively
flight simulated before the first of any scale version is actually
created. *You've heard about such computers and their extensive
engineering and complex analytical software, haven't you?

Again, this is b.s. *That's not how R&D works. *To actually make
progress (and find out what you *don't* know), you actually have to
build and fly vehicles. *Mook thinks he can build and fly the final
version of his vehicles without losing a bunch to R&D failures. *He's
kidding himself and b.s.'ing you into believing this flawed assumption.

The primary failure of the DC-X/DC-XA program wasn't the fact that they
lost a vehicle during a test flight. *The primary failure was the
assumption that they'd only need one vehicle. *Mook is making the same
flawed assumption.

Jeff
--
42

Most of what Mook has suggested isn't exactly unproven, although we do
have to keep our eye on him, because Mook tends to go much further
over the edge than anyone else would dare.

~ BG