XPost: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.policy   
   From: droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com   
      
   For your reference, records indicate that   
   Jeff Findley  wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I never claimed they were.  The topic of the thread is *not* “what can   
   I build today”, it’s “Towards routine, reusable space launch.”  That   
   has nothing to do with today’s technology, and nobody has made the   
   case that continued use of rockets (even reusable ones) can make it   
   happen.   
      
   > Two different sets of requirements lead to two completely different   
   > vehicles.  That's how engineering optimization works.   
      
   Indeed.  Which is why I argue that rockets alone are unlikely to be the   
   only path to space.  And they *definitely* are not the path to deep   
   space.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Really?  You think new technologies are butt-monkeys unlikely?  Then   
   let’s get you retired, man, because you are *not* allowing your field   
   to innovate nearly as much as it needs to.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Then you should be looking in engineering newsgroups for that kind of   
   discussion.  Science is about more than just using your current tools.   
      
   --   
   "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."   
   River Tam, Trash, Firefly   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)