XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.astro
From: fjmccall@gmail.com
Doc O'Leary wrote on Wed, 13 Jun
2018 12:57:19 -0000 (UTC):
>For your reference, records indicate that
>Jeff Findley wrote:
>
>> In article , droleary@
>> 2017usenet1.subsume.com says...
>> >
>> > For your reference, records indicate that
>> > Jeff Findley wrote:
>> >
>> > > Sure, sure, Star Trek style transporters with infinite range. I'll get
>> > > right on that.
>> >
>> > No, you won?t. But you apparently *will* use it as a straw man to avoid
>> > actually addressing the likelihood that new technologies developed in
>> > the future will change the economies of space launches. Hell, that?s
>> > essentially what SpaceX is demonstrating today.
>>
>> Bullshit. SpaceX is not demonstrating any new technologies. They've
>> combined existing technologies in novel ways to solve the problems
>> involved in building Merlin engines and Falcon launch vehicles. There
>> is zero new tech in them. If you believe differently, name a new
>> technology they're using in their engines, launch vehicles, Dragon, and
>> etc.
>
> Of *course* there’s no “new technology” in *anything* that’s
>in the world today. Your engineering mindset has you in a motivated
>reasoning spiral. The fact remains that, over the course of time,
>new technologies have been developed that have made their way into
>space programs. SpaceX is taking advantage of some of those
>technologies today. It is a safe bet that such innovations will occur
>in the future, and somebody will take advantage of them.
>
And it's an even safer bet that none of those 'new technologies' are
going to replace "throwing stuff aft to move forward". A space
elevator on Earth requires not 'new technology', but 'new physics'.
--
"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)
|
