XPost: sci.physics, sci.astro
From: invalid@invalid.com
On 6/12/2018 5:44 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
> In article , droleary@
> 2017usenet1.subsume.com says...
>>
>> 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.
>
> I have an engineering degree. When developing new things, engineers
> work with what they have today because they've got schedules and
> deadlines to meet. You're talking about technologies not yet invented.
> That's research, not development. The two are not the same.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Again, to an engineer the future is what you can do with existing tech.
> SpaceX has reduced launch costs beyond what any of the competition can
> deliver. They arguably didn't use any new technology at all. DC-X
> proved VTVL as a viable take of and landing mode. SpaceX applied that
> to Falcon 9's first stage.
>
>>> 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. 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.
>
> Actually moving freight by rail is the cheapest way to move a ton of
> goods from point a to point b, assuming you can connect the two by rail.
> Aircraft have the advantage of speed, so your Amazon order gets there
> overnight instead of in a week or two, but you're paying for Amazon
> Prime, which isn't exactly cheap now is it?
>
> Two different sets of requirements lead to two completely different
> vehicles. That's how engineering optimization works.
>
>>> 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.
>
> As an engineer I quite simply can't do that. There is no *proven*
> existing tech that is cheaper than liquid fueled rocket engines for
> reaching orbit.
>
> What you are trying to get me to admit is that eventually, some day,
> there may be something better. Sure, there might. Also, monkeys might
> fly out of my butt. I'm not waiting for sci-fi to become reality. I'm
> working with what I've got today. Again, that's what engineers do.
>
> Jeff
>
laws of physics do not change, and they constrain possable solutions,
engineers make stuff real, and that stuff complies with physical laws.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
