dsfportree at hotmail.com
Thu Jul 6 09:45:06 EDT 2017
Sure, all launching organizations experience delays for lots of reasons, especially when working with new hardware. My argument, though, is that for the SpaceX business model to work, they need to avoid delays because they need to launch a fairly incredible number of rockets per annum. Forty successful launches per year was what I read (IIRC) a while back in AW & ST. So, any delay is an important problem, and continued delays threaten achievement of profitability. No giant Mars cities if they can't get their basic Earth-orbital satellite launchers off the ground routinely.
David S. F. Portree
dsfportree at hotmail.com<mailto:dsfportree at hotmail.com>
From: FPSPACE <fpspace-bounces at mail.friends-partners.org> on behalf of Chris Jones <clj at panix.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 7:15 AM
To: FPSPACE at mail.friends-partners.org
Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] correction/update
On 07/06/17 12:53 AM, David Portree wrote:
> For the sake of argument (and because I am a curmudgeon), I'm going to
> call this a partial success because of the delays
I googled ULA launch delays, and discovered multiple delays (both Delta
and Atlas) for various launches in the past year. If you're going to
insist on calling those partial successes, you can't continue to claim a
long unbroken string of successes on their behalf either.
FPSPACE mailing list
FPSPACE at mail.friends-partners.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the FPSPACE