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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Touché) by tibman on Thursday July 28 2016, @04:21PM

    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 28 2016, @04:21PM (#381240)

    I often hear people say "it's impossible" at my work. What they really mean is that it will be difficult. They are too lazy to do it, or too scared to risk failure, or are playing politics (because they don't want said thing to happen).

    --
    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=1, Touché=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 28 2016, @07:01PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 28 2016, @07:01PM (#381283) Journal

    Maybe the word they should use is Infeasible, or Not Cost Effective.

    There are plenty of times I want to say Impossible, but I think about what would it really take, explain it, and see if the costs change anyone's mind. Or see if they have a more efficient plan to make it happen.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday July 28 2016, @07:31PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Thursday July 28 2016, @07:31PM (#381295)

      I'm actively campaigning to get priorities reshuffled to get us out of a project which not impossible, but so f-ed up and resource-hogging that the "wasted opportunities" list is getting truly scary.
      They obsess about the dollars that are highly likely if we spend another 3 to 6 months on it, instead of selling the high-demand features we could be releasing in a much shorter timeframe.

    • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday July 28 2016, @08:03PM

      by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Thursday July 28 2016, @08:03PM (#381303) Journal

      That's the best way to go about it.

      Impossible = I can't be arsed to do it at the moment. Bother me 10 more times about this same thing I've already told you is impossible over the next couple months.

      Will take 3 years of dedicated effort, at least 2 new hires, and nothing I'm currently doing on a daily basis will get done so make that 3 new hires = Ready, willing, and on board, boss! Just give the word!

      My favorite is “Why can't it just work and be easy, like Google?” If I'm feeling generous I'll point them in the direction of one of these [wikipedia.org] and let Google give them sticker shock for me.

  • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday July 28 2016, @08:23PM

    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday July 28 2016, @08:23PM (#381311)

    "What was the Sherlock Holmes principle? 'Once you have discounted the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
    I reject that entirely. The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it which the merely improbable lacks. How often have you been presented with an apparently rational explanation of something that works in all respects other than one, which is just that it is hopelessly improbable? Your instinct is to say 'Yes, but he or she simply wouldn't do that.'
    - Dirk Gently