XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.astro   
   From: alain245@videotron.ca   
      
   On Jun/13/2018 at 5:35 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :   
   > 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'.   
      
   It would be possible to build a space elevator using materials available   
   today without any major new technology. But that wouldn't be economical.   
   Not even remotely close to being economical. New materials would be   
   needed to build a sane space elevator, but new physics isn't needed.   
      
   See for instance   
   http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Space-Elevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf   
      
      
   Alain Fournier   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)