I have a hard time believing this was drawn 2.5 years ago. Also, the watermark says 2016, not 2015. It's likely this CGI was originally uploaded in 2015 and then successively modified and reuploaded over time, including a couple days ago when the photos came out.Amusing how this artist's rendering of 2 1/2 years ago pretty much nailed the final shape, down to every antenna:
It was progressively updated to improve accuracy:Amusing how this artist's rendering of 2 1/2 years ago pretty much nailed the final shape, down to every antenna:
Why we still can't settle on 128 vs 112
It's 112 for sure. Otherwise they would have shown it. It's that simple.
A little disappointing but that's the way it is. Think it this way: maybe they save the space for something more important than a few VLS.
They just decided to show the neatest, loeast revealing pictures with the offical launch.Why don't we stop guessing how many VLS they got and wait for them to show us? To be honest, all the argument back and forth is so exhausting and pointless...
This then brings up another question. Why do they seem to be hiding the aft section? All the photos seem to only point at the front part?
Why don't we stop guessing how many VLS they got and wait for them to show us? To be honest, all the argument back and forth is so exhausting and pointless...
This then brings up another question. Why do they seem to be hiding the aft section? All the photos seem to only point at the front part?