EELV Cost Almost Doubles

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:32:18 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

True, but having absolutely nothing to do with my point. The mammals
essentially don't have a track record. The dinosaurs do.

I'd prefer no track record to a bad one. At least one has a chance...

In message
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

(Derek Lyons) :

Yet... Surrey hasn't an operational system in place. Until then,
they don't have a track record.

I thought that they already were on some British satellites.

SSTL are one of the most prolific satellite builders in the world.

http://www.sstl.co.uk/

Anthony

In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:
The dinosaurs' track record looks better only if you disregard their
failures and count just successes...

True, but having absolutely nothing to do with my point.

On the contrary, it's exactly on point. You're claiming that the
dinosaurs are a better choice because of their track record; my point is
that there is no foundation for that claim. Their track record is
*bigger* but it's not *better*. There's no valid basis for claiming that
the mammals' successes are accidents and the dinosaurs' aren't, which was
the original issue.

The mammals essentially don't have a track record. The dinosaurs do.

My claim is that the difference between the track records of the two isn't
statistically significant -- it reflects differences in opportunity to
try, rather than any clear difference in ability to deliver. Take an
equally small sample of the dinosaurs' attempts, and it would probably
look worse, not better. Lockheed Martin couldn't even make the SR-71-
carried LASRE aerospike engine demonstrator work, never mind the X-33
aerospike-propelled vehicle.

An interesting recent dinosaur/mammal comparison, albeit one for which
final returns aren't in yet, is the Galileo precursor satellites...
...Last I heard, the Surrey effort is more or less on
schedule and on budget... while the dinosaur gang, despite having been
given several times as much money to start with, is reporting huge cost
overruns and is muttering about not being able to finish at all...

Yet... Surrey hasn't an operational system in place. Until then,
they don't have a track record.

On the contrary, Surrey has a long track record of building and flying
inexpensive satellites that generally work. This is their first navsat,
true... but the dinosaur consortium in question has never built a navsat
either.

So why is it, exactly, that you claim Surrey has no track record and the
dinosaurs do?
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

(Henry Spencer) :

In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:

Yet... Surrey hasn't an operational system in place. Until then,
they don't have a track record.

On the contrary, Surrey has a long track record of building and flying
inexpensive satellites that generally work. This is their first navsat,
true... but the dinosaur consortium in question has never built a navsat
either.

So why is it, exactly, that you claim Surrey has no track record and the
dinosaurs do?

http://www.sstl.co.uk/index.php?loc=...8e3a76890ed32d
says they have been involved in 23 satellites.

http://www.sstl.co.uk/index.php?loc=24
says they have made a profit for 10 out of the last 11 years

http://www.sstl.co.uk/index.php?loc=25
That they have be lanuching since 1978

If this is no track record what does take to get into the business?

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:
The dinosaurs' track record looks better only if you disregard their
failures and count just successes...

True, but having absolutely nothing to do with my point.

On the contrary, it's exactly on point. You're claiming that the
dinosaurs are a better choice because of their track record;

I made no such claim.

my point is that there is no foundation for that claim. Their track record is
*bigger* but it's not *better*. There's no valid basis for claiming that
the mammals' successes are accidents and the dinosaurs' aren't, which was
the original issue.

The dinosaurs track record stretches back decades, the mammals record
in most cases, doesn't. In a rational world, this shouldn't matter,
but it does.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL