Bill, I'm sure there is wisdom in there and thanks! But what I'm really interested in is what you think about SLS. Monroe > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [AR] Re: SLS > From: Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, January 13, 2015 3:30 pm > To: "arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rand Simberg > <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > When one has no significant management or engineering experience *and* is > emotionally captured by a belief, then denial is the inevitable consequence: > we can see that here or in the open loop hydraulics discussion. > > Ultimately--in my experience--managers (and others) who either deny or ignore > warning signs of organizational dysfunction just get bitten on the ass again. > But those who have no actual responsibility rarely face the consequences of > such beliefs and so continue to assert their typically increasingly obviously > silly claims. > > In time, this too will pass.... > > Bill > > Sometimes, change > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 13, 2015, at 15:16, <timwilson3@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Actually ,there's a lot of "new" in both of them. Do a little research. > > > > ---- Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> There is nothing "new" about either of them. It was just hyping NASA's > >> current waste of money. > >> > >> On 2015-01-12 18:37, Monroe L. King Jr. wrote: > >>> That and the capsule test yes. > >>> > >>>> -------- Original Message -------- > >>>> Subject: [AR] Re: SLS > >>>> From: "Ray Rocket" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender > >>>> "ar0cketman@xxxxxxxxx" for DMARC) > >>>> Date: Mon, January 12, 2015 7:02 pm > >>>> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I believe he is referring to the recent RS-25 full duration static > >>>> test. > >>>> > >>>> http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/rs-25-engine-testing-blazes-forward-for-nasas-space-launch-system/index.html > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, 1/12/15, Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I have no idea what you're talking about. > >> > >> > > > >