XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.astro   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   Doc O'Leary   wrote on Mon, 11 Jun   
   2018 22:50:22 -0000 (UTC):   
      
   >For your reference, records indicate that   
   >Jeff Findley  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> Balloon launch isn't worth the trades which have to be made, IMHO.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Certainly not today, no, or people would be doing it.  But as I keep   
   >saying, new technologies keep popping up all the time that might make   
   >it viable in the future, at least for a few use cases.   
   >   
      
   Certainly not tomorrow or the next day, either.  Just what are these   
   magical "new technologies" that keep "popping up all the time"?   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> By your definition, a passenger carrying aircraft is "waste" because it   
   >> flies from one destination to another while carrying passengers.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Yes; that is true by any definition.  Just because it’s (arguably) the   
   >least wasteful mode of transportation we currently have says nothing   
   >about how we might travel in the future.   
   >   
      
   If you want to talk about "how we might travel in the future", you   
   need to come up with some suggestions (that aren't PFM).   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> They don't give a rat's ass about the "waste" of the   
   >> actual aircraft having to fly there and back.   
   >>   
   >   
   >That same logic could have been used regarding ship or train travel   
   >prior to the airplane’s dominance.   
   >   
      
   Nope.  Ships and trains went 'there and back', too.  Logic really   
   isn't your strong suit, is it?   
      
   >   
   >The point being that they *will*   
   >care as soon as a new technology comes along that allows more   
   >efficient travel.  What that might be in reality is unknown, but   
   >clearly something like teleportation or Futurama-style tubes are   
   >sci-fi ways of moving just the bits that need to be moved from one   
   >location to another.   
   >   
      
   In other words, you're postulating some unspecified 'magic'.  You're   
   posting into the wrong newsgroup.  See the 'sci' at the front?  That   
   means SCIENCE.  That means you can't just wave your arms and fly to   
   the Moon.  You have to actually put forward the scientific basis for   
   why you can do so.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> When your hardware costs more than two   
   >> orders of magnitude more than your propellant does, it makes a hell of a   
   >> lot of sense to "expend" a bit of propellant to get your expensive   
   >> hardware back intact.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Yes.  And I’m just wondering why you can’t just take the next step and   
   >admit that eliminating that expensive hardware *completely* would   
   >represent a cost saving of two orders of magnitude!  You wrote it, but   
   >it’s like you weren’t really thinking about what your words actually   
   >meant.   
   >   
      
   Because this is a SCIENCE newsgroup, you twat!  Yes, magic would be   
   nice.  We don't have it and never will.  Get over it.   
      
      
   --   
   "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is   
    only stupid."   
                               -- Heinrich Heine   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)