XPost: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.policy   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   Doc O'Leary   wrote on Tue, 12 Jun   
   2018 15:20:22 -0000 (UTC):   
      
   >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.   
   >   
      
   Actually you are, but you're too thick to recognize the implications   
   of your position.   
      
   >   
   >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.   
   >   
      
   You're not going to move "towards routine, reusable space launch" with   
   technologies that you CANNOT build today and that you cannot even   
   describe a scientific theoretical basis for.  It has EVERYTHING to do   
   with today's technology and if you think there's something other than   
   rockets, either trot it out or STFU.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   Right now there IS no path to 'deep space'.  It's sad, but get over   
   it.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   He thinks that your 'magic' technology that breaks the laws of physics   
   is "butt-monkeys unlikely".  I agree with him.  So does anyone sane   
   with any knowledge of science and engineering.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   I don't think you know what science is.  What it is NOT is airy   
   speculation about 'new magic' in the sweet by and by.   
      
      
   --   
   "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)