4 ms·

Jeez dude, these were just random programs off the top of my head to illustrate industry distrust of launch vehicle promises. My comment wasn't meant to initiat

Jeez dude, these were just random programs off the top of my head to illustrate industry distrust of launch vehicle promises. My comment wasn't meant to initiate a debate but offer the perspective of someone who is quite literally writing proposals about launch vehicle selection for NASA missions. But hey, you can read Wikipedia, so... In any case to those reasonable out there, don't worry. If SpaceX can prove reliable launch to orbit and deliver on their promises, change will come. It's kind of silly to write articles about how everyone should change the way they operate NOW because change is coming. Of course it's coming, everyone accepts it's likely, and things will move quickly once it does and is proven. What more do the fanboys want!?

panick21_ 5y ago
> Jeez dude, these were just random programs off the top of my head to illustrate industry distrust of launch vehicle promises. What you are insinuating is that people are unable to difference between a suborbital technology demonstrator and powerpoint vehicles and multi-billion $ projects that are deep in development. And non of the projects you mentioned would have a comparable impact to Starship. Maybe VentureStar but that was at best decades away. You can just throw out some random projects and use them to justify non-action. If VentureStar had actually seriously gone forward the same kind of almost the rethinking would have been necessary. And even if it in the end didn't happen, it would have been valuable to do. > perspective of someone who is quite literally writing proposals about launch vehicle selection for NASA missions. But hey, you can read Wikipedia, so... So making bad arguments can be justified from authority. Good to know. > It's kind of silly to write articles about how everyone should change the way they operate NOW because change is coming. There are many years of lead time, choices are only gone go into actual products and missions year from now. Now is exactly the right time to start planning and rethinking approaches. When Commercial Cargo was made, much of the need private industry didn't exist. And yet they did it, because they were locking forward and adjusted their operations. Back then there was massive critic of NASA even from win NASA itself that this was a bad idea and it was never gone work. And that is what kick started the New Space movement. That kind of thinking is what is needed. Plan projects now and get them rolling that could take advantage of the capabilities in a few years. > What more do the fanboys want!? Putting yourself as the reasonable authority and then ranting about 'fanboys' makes you look silly. The auther of the article works for JPL, but I guess he is a 'fanboy'.
- spacemark 5y ago
  Man, there you go again, trying to turn this into a debate where we pick apart everything the opponent says line by line. What a waste of time. Take care, good luck with your mental health.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    There you go again, responding with insults rather then arguments. A debating in a forum that is about debating articles about technology shocking.
    - spacemark 5y ago
      Apologies, my last sentence was unprofessional and unhelpful. I was not at my best in that comment. My other points stand, though. Everyone in the industry that's paying attention knows that Starship, IF it delivers on its promises, will change the game. It's a strawman to say those in industry are ignorant of this. Yet we've heard Starship-esque promises many times before, spoken with just as much fervor and certainty as displayed by your friend the JPL blogger. I don't perceive this as a forum for ruthless debate but rather sharing ideas in an atmosphere of cooperation. Debate closes off context and undermines trust, which in turn limits communication bandwidth severely and often destroys it entirely. The act of debate can most certainly be productive, but in an open and unbounded forum where the ruleset of "debate" - and thus its goals - are undefined, competitive framing has a consistent tendency to devolve into semantics and entrenchment of positions rather than productive insight. Of course, you're free to pick my statements apart further, if you find that productive. But I will spend my time elsewhere.

panick21_ 5y ago

> Jeez dude, these were just random programs off the top of my head to illustrate industry distrust of launch vehicle promises. What you are insinuating is that people are unable to difference between a suborbital technology demonstrator and powerpoint vehicles and multi-billion $ projects that are deep in development. And non of the projects you mentioned would have a comparable impact to Starship. Maybe VentureStar but that was at best decades away. You can just throw out some random projects and use them to justify non-action. If VentureStar had actually seriously gone forward the same kind of almost the rethinking would have been necessary. And even if it in the end didn't happen, it would have been valuable to do. > perspective of someone who is quite literally writing proposals about launch vehicle selection for NASA missions. But hey, you can read Wikipedia, so... So making bad arguments can be justified from authority. Good to know. > It's kind of silly to write articles about how everyone should change the way they operate NOW because change is coming. There are many years of lead time, choices are only gone go into actual products and missions year from now. Now is exactly the right time to start planning and rethinking approaches. When Commercial Cargo was made, much of the need private industry didn't exist. And yet they did it, because they were locking forward and adjusted their operations. Back then there was massive critic of NASA even from win NASA itself that this was a bad idea and it was never gone work. And that is what kick started the New Space movement. That kind of thinking is what is needed. Plan projects now and get them rolling that could take advantage of the capabilities in a few years. > What more do the fanboys want!? Putting yourself as the reasonable authority and then ranting about 'fanboys' makes you look silly. The auther of the article works for JPL, but I guess he is a 'fanboy'.

spacemark 5y ago
Man, there you go again, trying to turn this into a debate where we pick apart everything the opponent says line by line. What a waste of time. Take care, good luck with your mental health.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  There you go again, responding with insults rather then arguments. A debating in a forum that is about debating articles about technology shocking.
  - spacemark 5y ago
    Apologies, my last sentence was unprofessional and unhelpful. I was not at my best in that comment. My other points stand, though. Everyone in the industry that's paying attention knows that Starship, IF it delivers on its promises, will change the game. It's a strawman to say those in industry are ignorant of this. Yet we've heard Starship-esque promises many times before, spoken with just as much fervor and certainty as displayed by your friend the JPL blogger. I don't perceive this as a forum for ruthless debate but rather sharing ideas in an atmosphere of cooperation. Debate closes off context and undermines trust, which in turn limits communication bandwidth severely and often destroys it entirely. The act of debate can most certainly be productive, but in an open and unbounded forum where the ruleset of "debate" - and thus its goals - are undefined, competitive framing has a consistent tendency to devolve into semantics and entrenchment of positions rather than productive insight. Of course, you're free to pick my statements apart further, if you find that productive. But I will spend my time elsewhere.