Agreed, except I'd say that we will *never* get there by evolving the
status quo, if by status quo we mean repeated failed attempts at
repeating Apollo (e.g., SLS/Orion) and keeping NASA in charge. It would
be like evolving a third leg. There's nothing there to work with. But
with things like (hopefully) today's Starhopper flight, the status quo
is on the verge of first being massively disrupted, and then
disintegrated. A decade from now, it will most likely have gone the way
of the non-avian dinosaurs.
On 2019-08-26 08:58, Henry Vanderbilt wrote:
I've been staying out of this, other than making a few basic points at
the start, because (mundane work aside) it's been obvious that the
core disagreement is over fundamental assumptions. Bill tends to base
his positions on the status quo (with an occasional nod to incremental
evolution thereof.) Others here, myself included, assume the status
quo is both highly sub-optimal and practically capable of radical
improvement, and look at what steps might form useful parts of such
radical improvement.
Bill was kind enough to sum up the fundamental difference in
assumptions here: "...a depot will only make sense—if ever—in a far
future where there is heavy traffic w/i the Earth-moon system." I
agree - save for one word, "far". "Far future" I read as implying
this only coming about as a generations-from-now result of incremental
evolution of the current status quo. (I trust Bill will correct me if
I'm wrong.)
Mind, I do tend to agree that the current status quo, if it ever did
get there (no sure thing) would take a long long LONG time to evolve
there left to its own devices. But my take is that this
less-than-optimal status quo is practically subject to radical
improvement and should NOT be left to its own devices, that we need to
look at all practical ways to redirect the not inconsiderable
resources it currently pours into bureaucratic self-perpetuation into
instead practical near-term outward expansion. IOW, I'm a
troublemaker.
I suspect I would find near-unanimous agreement among Bill's various
disputants here that "heavy traffic w/i the Earth-Moon system" is both
practical within the relatively near future IF done outside the
confines of the current status quo, and would bring with it benefits
that would justify a considerable redirection of investment into the
transportation infrastructure required.
My advice to all: When you must argue these things, focus on the
fundamental differences, and beware getting drawn down into the weeds
that grow in status quo soil.
Henry
On 8/25/2019 4:54 PM, William Claybaugh wrote:
... Which reveals that depot’s only make sense for beyond LEO missions. A trivial but useful understanding.
But an understanding that means that a depot will only make sense—if ever—in a far future where there is heavy traffic w/i the Earth-moon system.
