Comga - 11/4/2008 6:49 AM1) That only makes sense, but I am coming more to your perspective that little of this matters. Mislabeled Excel graphs, rocket cartoons, ever "improving" engines that never get to the launch pad, whatever! 2) All that really matters is that they work through their launch manifest in some small multiple of the time projected with a decent rate of success, with success defined as getting to the target orbits.
iamlucky13 - 10/4/2008 4:36 PMSpeaking of which, I'm impressed with the stated degree of improvement between the 1 and the 1e. 140% increase in LEO mass from a 70% increase in launch mass.
Analyst - 11/4/2008 5:37 AMQuoteComga - 11/4/2008 6:49 AM1) That only makes sense, but I am coming more to your perspective that little of this matters. Mislabeled Excel graphs, rocket cartoons, ever "improving" engines that never get to the launch pad, whatever! 2) All that really matters is that they work through their launch manifest in some small multiple of the time projected with a decent rate of success, with success defined as getting to the target orbits.You are right in general. But to predict if and when 2) will happen you can use 1) as a proxy of how they work in general. (snip) Analyst
aero313 - 11/4/2008 7:33 AMQuoteiamlucky13 - 10/4/2008 4:36 PMSpeaking of which, I'm impressed with the stated degree of improvement between the 1 and the 1e. 140% increase in LEO mass from a 70% increase in launch mass.You impress easily. DEMONSTRATED improvement would be impressive. Right now it's just paper with no understanding of the assumptions in the numbers. Just like their ad in this week's AvWeek where they show their supposed launch manifest. Note that the first three dates all have an asterisk that notes the dates are delivery to the launch site, not actual launch date.