Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday July 28 2016, @10:01AM   Printer-friendly
from the whippersnappers dept.

Ars Technica reports on an American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics forum in Salt Lake City with the provocative title, "Launch Vehicle Reusability: Holy Grail, Chasing Our Tail, or Somewhere in Between?"

Moderator Dan Dumbacher said of the panel, "We purposefully tried to get a good cross-section of those who have been working on it." However, the panel included no one actually building reusable rockets and relied heavily on the old-guard perspective. Dumbacher himself, now a professor at Purdue University, previously managed development of the Space Launch System rocket for NASA, and he expressed doubt about the viability of reusable launch vehicles in 2014 by essentially saying that because NASA couldn't do it, it was difficult to see how others could.

[...] The panel featured three men tied to the reusable but costly space shuttle in one way or another. Gary Payton, a visiting professor at the United States Air Force Academy, is a former shuttle astronaut. Doug Bradley is chief engineer of advanced space & launch at Aerojet Rocketdyne, which built the shuttle's reusable engines. And Ben Goldberg is director of technology at Orbital ATK, which manufactured the shuttle's solid rocket boosters.

The discussion was predictably negative, even dismissive. (Think tones of IBM, Honeywell, Burroughs, Amdahl, DEC when a couple of punks debuted a new "computer" at a Homebrew Computer Club meeting in Menlo Park.) But, reality happens...

So where were the representatives of the new space companies actually building reusable launch systems in 2016 and flying them into space? Dumbacher addressed that question more than halfway through the two-hour discussion: SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic were all invited, but "unfortunately were unable to attend due to other commitments." Perhaps instead of debating the question, they're just getting on with the job.[emphasis added]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aiwarrior on Thursday July 28 2016, @11:25AM

    by aiwarrior (1812) on Thursday July 28 2016, @11:25AM (#381132) Journal

    Completely agree.

    I think there is credit to give to Musk, no doubt. The problem is that people are now creating a mythos that is simply not true, the one of the garage company. These (Bezos and Musk) were already very very rich people with huge experience in business. Even dismissing the fact they were already very successful persons, also dismissing prior institutions like NASA and it's role in funding and contracts for the business part is just plain idiot and idolatry.

    I really prefer the mythological Jesus/Budda/Mohamed that probably didn't actually exist than the creation of new demi-gods. One is based purely on faith, the other is based on biasing and misinterpretation of data.

    I am just a bit sad that nowadays people don't use critical thought to achieve balanced perceptions of reality. The world would be fairer.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3