XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.astro   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   Doc O'Leary   wrote on Mon, 11 Jun   
   2018 22:35:20 -0000 (UTC):   
      
   >For your reference, records indicate that   
   >Fred J. McCall  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Doc O'Leary   wrote on Mon, 11 Jun   
   >> 2018 03:16:38 -0000 (UTC):   
   >>   
   >> >Like I said, it might not *currently* be viable, but as an alternative   
   >> >technology it brings new sets of trade-offs to the table such that a few   
   >> >tweaks here and there might make it viable for certain kinds of launches   
   >> >(e.g., ?bulky? items that are hard to make aerodynamically efficient   
   >> >benefit from starting at the highest possible altitude).   
   >> >   
   >>   
   >> And just what such items do we send to space?   
   >>   
   >   
   >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.   
      
   >   
   >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?   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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.  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.   
      
   >> >Hope for bigger things.  I fully believe that, for a society to be   
   >> >advanced enough to make a space elevator project realistic, it?s value   
   >> >would be more incremental than revolutionary.  Rockets are the best we   
   >> >have right now, but we?re stuffed if that?s the best we can do.   
   >> >   
   >>   
   >> Just why are we 'stuffed'?  Be specific.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Because rockets have only taken humans as far as the Moon, but we   
   >haven’t gone to the Moon in decades, and we’ll likely see all the   
   >people who *have* been to the Moon dead before we ever return there.   
   >*Maybe* the promise of a Mars colony is achievable with rockets, but   
   >probably not in the lifetime of anyone walking on Earth today.  And   
   >even in 1000 lifetimes, rockets aren’t going to take us to explore   
   >another planet around another star.   
   >   
      
   So, not 'stuffed' at all, then.  As I thought.  What do you propose to   
   replace rockets with, other than 'magic'?   
      
      
   --   
   "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar   
    territory."   
                                         --G. Behn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)