However, last price of 36 suggests this one isn't 'all but decided' yet. Are we better not getting ahead of ourselves or should we clarify matters on first claim before drawing up rules for another?
There are a number of questions when judging this claim:
1. It has to be transport, right? So does this mean testing of new supersonic jet wouldn't count nor do military flights that are for military operations or pilot training?
The suggestion of "standard industry surveys" seems to me to point to military operation and training not counting. In addition, we aren't likely to get details of military flight easily or more likely at all.
2. What is Mach 2.5 in space?
3. Presumably discarded parts like rocket fairings don't count. Guess there are lots of reason for this: The flight is orbital even if the fairings don't go that far, the transport is of the rocket's payload, the purpose of the fairings is protection of the payload not transport, the fairing flight might count but there is zero payload with them, and/or the fairings are not a vehicle in their own right having own means of propulsion. (Just trying to understand the rules here.)
4: "majority of the distance is covered without benefit of locally available gasses as the primary propulsion reaction mass" What does this mean? Does it mean any rocket containing its own fuel qualifies even if it flies at low level? Or does it have to be flying above something like 26Km (I am using this as approx height https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft) suggests might be possible)?
5 Is niobium the judge still around, and if not who decides issues such as above? Is it just the new judge whoever that turns out to be?
6. Should a new judge be needed should they be appointed before or after a discussion such as this?
Plenty to ponder?
Disclosure I hold +1425 in this claim.
> On 03 August 2018 at 15:38 James Bowery <email@example.com> wrote:
> Author: Neal Gafter mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Wed May 27, 2009 06:19 pm
> > > The claim Sorb is about whether "Suborbital transportation will exceed
> > high-mach air transportation by the year 2020".
> > If they're both zero, I presume this will be judged FALSE/0 (i.e., zero does
> > not exceed zero). Am I correct?
> > Regards,
> > Neal
> > > WSJ April 2018: Supersonic Flight Prepares for Takeoff (Again) https://www.wsj.com/articles/supersonic-flight-prepares-for-takeoff-again-1522850332
> Defense News August 2018: One possible job for SpaceX’s BFR rocket? Taking the Air Force’s cargo in and out of space. http://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/08/02/one-possible-job-for-spacexs-bfr-taking-the-air-forces-cargo-in-and-out-of-space/
> > > One possible job for SpaceX’s BFR rocket? Taking the Air Force’s cargo in and out of space.
> > “Think about this. Thirty minutes, 150 metric tons, [and] less than the cost of a C-5,” he continued. In comparison, it would take the service’s cargo aircraft take anywhere from eight to 10 hours to get to the other side of the world.
> > >
> This is turning into a real problem in more two ways:
> 1) As Neal points out, there is a distinct possibility the both numbers could be "judged" 0.
> 2) There is a distinct possibility that 2021 will see non-zero numbers reported.
> Both of these problems could be addressed by a new claim pushing the year out to, say, 2025, or by a scaled claim of some sort.