> 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'.