I'd argue not that much actually _riding_ on this, it might just blow up on the launchpad or it might go up in the air. Either way they will try again in a few months.
So the difference between success (defined by musk as getting far away enough from the launchpad not to damage it) and failure (rud on pad) is a few months on the development timeline and money to rebuild the (quite complicated) tower.
Will be fun to watch either way, unless its a scrub.
If they have, like, 3 consecutive launchpad explosions over the next few years, then maybe we'd start talking about the whole project being in trouble.
If it actually does the whole flightpath then that will be pretty amazing.
The other question, why is this important: Its the biggest, most re-usable most ambitious rocket ever made. The 33 engines, apart from being numerous, are of a design more ambitious/challenging than any other rocket engine we've ever seen.
>> Even each one of the 33 engines has more complicated design than any other rocket engine we've ever seen.
I was with you up to there. Spacex loves simple designs. The Raptor seems much simpler that the Space Shuttle main engines for example. Moat advanced design maybe, but not sure about "complicsted".
ok maybe complicated is the wrong word, but my understanding is that full-flow staged combustion was rated as very hard to develop verging on impossible a decade or two ago
Complicated can be more than physical complication. I understand (though I could be wrong) that these engines have a much more finicky timing sequence for things like startup than other engine types. I think calling that sort of thing a complication fair.
So I simplified a bit. Overall turnover is the same as revenue. Usually turnover is referred to as a ratio of accounts payable actually paid in a period or stock sold in a period.
Personnel turnover is also not an absolute number but a ratio of people to people leaving. So in this case turnover is the same as they are ratios but for personnel rather than widgets.
To be honest it didn't really achieve a great deal. The Murdoch papers still have a pretty heavy influence over British politics - they stuck with Boris long after he should've been done, it was only when they turned on him it that he was finished, for example.
Oh definitely. It was like a slightly visible victory that didn't actually make much difference to the murdoch empire. I remember seeing murdoch in that select committee having to answer questions. That was something unprecedented(and almost a custard pie that arguably swung things in his favour). But no long term difference
NOTW closed but then I think they started publishing the Sun on Sunday instead?
NI/BSkyB merger was scuppered but now its back on the cards I think?
So the difference between success (defined by musk as getting far away enough from the launchpad not to damage it) and failure (rud on pad) is a few months on the development timeline and money to rebuild the (quite complicated) tower.
Will be fun to watch either way, unless its a scrub.
If they have, like, 3 consecutive launchpad explosions over the next few years, then maybe we'd start talking about the whole project being in trouble.
If it actually does the whole flightpath then that will be pretty amazing.
The other question, why is this important: Its the biggest, most re-usable most ambitious rocket ever made. The 33 engines, apart from being numerous, are of a design more ambitious/challenging than any other rocket engine we've ever seen.
(edit: engine adjectives)