XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, sci.space.policy, sci.physics   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   J. Clarke  wrote on Wed, 06 Jun 2018   
   20:54:31 -0400:   
      
   >On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 06:50:15 -0400, Jeff Findley   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>In article , jclarke.873638   
   >>@gmail.com says...   
   >>> >   
   >>> >Just because you are unwilling or unable to do the math yourself doesn't   
   >>> >mean the math is wrong.  Math is math.   
   >>>   
   >>> But math is not physics.  If the math does not accurately describe the   
   >>> physics then the math is irrelevant.   
   >>   
   >>Fine, then you don't understand the physics involved.  Got it.   
   >   
   >So anyone who recognizes that math is not physics "doesn't understand   
   >the physics"?  Is that your argument?   
   >   
      
   No, I think his 'argument' is that anyone who doesn't realize that   
   physics is based on math is not a physicist.   
      
   >>> >We've had this debate a long, long time ago in the sci.space newsgroups.   
   >>> >The fact is that there are many stages which are theoretically capable   
   >>> >of performing SSTO with minimal payload.   
   >>>   
   >>> According to you.   
   >>   
   >>According to pretty much anyone who's run the simulations which is quite   
   >>a few people.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Run _which_ simulations?  Tell us of someone who has "run the   
   >simulations" using code that has been used in the performance   
   >calculations that resulted in an actual payload being delivered to   
   >orbit.   
   >   
      
   Simulations don't 'deliver payload to orbit', so you're back to your   
   argument that because no one ever wasted the money to do it that it's   
   not possible.   
      
   >>> >No one has ever done it   
   >>> >because the cost to get that payload into orbit is typically higher than   
   >>> >it would be if you just used a smaller TSTO (or higher number of   
   >>> >stages).  In other words, it just makes no sense to fly a disposable   
   >>> >SSTO.  That and the "serious" space organizations just wouldn't do   
   >>> >anything like this.  They've lost the drive to do anything innovative   
   >>> >like this.   
   >>> >   
   >>> >Now a *reusable* SSTO is a whole other kettle of fish.  I'd imagine that   
   >>> >we'll see BFS do an SSTO flight.  Why?  #1 because it will be reusable,   
   >>> >so the cost of the flight will be a small multiplier on top of the   
   >>> >propellant costs.  #2 it would be a useful test flight since BFS will be   
   >>> >tested before the BFR first stage.  #3 because Elon Musk likes to do   
   >>> >things that promote his products in a highly visible way.  To be the   
   >>> >first to launch an land a reusable SSTO will be one for the record books   
   >>> >for sure.  #4 Musk has already said that BFS will be SSTO capable.   
   >>>   
   >>> Musk says a lot of things.  Some of them turn out to be true.   
   >>   
   >>Agreed.  And if BFR/BFS is half as good as Musk says it will be, it will   
   >>still revolutionize the launch industry well beyond what Falcon has   
   >>done.  And for a point of reference, Falcon currently has 60% of the   
   >>world's commercial launch market.  They'll pretty much have worked   
   >>through their substantial backlog by the end of this year and their   
   >>number of launches will actually drop in 2019 because of it.   
   >>   
   >   
   >None of which is relevant to the point under discussion.   
   >   
      
   The only 'point' here appears to be atop your head.   
      
      
   --   
   "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   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)