I just wanted to confirm something real fast. In your table for the decrease in loading time, at first glance it seems like the effect of surface oxygen increases with the surface delay before it begins, which is counterintuitive. Upon reading further, I see that the decrease is between no oxygen and the combination between the surface delay and the surface oxygen. So for these entries:
Delay=0, O2_time=60, savings = 116min
Delay=240, O2_time=60, savings = 347min
those savings times are really between the entry and Delay=0, O2_time=0. My reading of this indicates that the following would be true:
Delay=0, O2_time=60, savings vs no delay, no O2 = 116min and
Delay=240, O2_time=60, savings vs 240min delay, no O2 = 107min
which makes more sense in that delaying the O2 application will have a decreased effect. Now, my impression of this is still not really an apples-to-apples comparison, because the total times are different. In other words, I'd interpret the following (substituting "air" for "delay"):
air_time=0, O2_time=60, savings vs (air_time=60min, O2_time=0) = 56min and
air_time=240, O2_time=60, savings vs (air_time=300min, O2_time=0)= 47min
Can you let me know if this is a correct interpretation?
My conclusions based on these numbers sort of indicate that surface oxygen is of limited value if the savings are applied to the blanket "24 hour" rule. I'm interested in seeing your calculations for the no-fly time and how much shorter than the recommendations they are. Are they in a previous edition of TDM?
