Chem rockets can't achieve the efficiency of jet engines because they carry their own fuel and oxidizer. Jets only carry fuel and thus need to propel less weight. Rockets also must generate enough thrust to support the entire vehicle weight. Jets normally fly at thrust-to-weight ratios below one, by having wings that rest on the surrounding medium (air, lift). Rockets must also propel their payloads under these conditions to ~330,000 ft. Commercial airliners reach cruising altitude at 35-40,000 ft. The climb gulps fuel, but the following cruise sips it; rockets are climbing the entire time. This is all scraped from undergrad propulsion, but I think it's right.

One solution is to combine propulsion methods, to use airbreathing propulsion for atmospheric flight and rockets beyond. This could be either a combined-cycle engine (turbine with a rocket in the spindle), or something like SpaceShipOne/White Knight, where a jet-powered platform brings a rocket-ship to altitude. Chemical rocket costs aren't just limited by rocket makers trying to maximize profits on limited launches. They're inherently less efficient than airbreathing propulsion, but aren't limited by the atmosphere.

(nt)

Did anyone else notice the story submitter's alias links to a sex toy shopping site?

It's only accepted as long as infighting between developers continues to waste energy on all sides. A war of attrition that's characterized open source for so long that no one knows any better (1984, war is peace). A "benevolent dictator" should roundup the sound guys and stop their fucking around. Mark Shuttleworth shaped Ubuntu up to be the ONLY decent desktop linux distro, Guido van Rossum made Python a uniquely usable and efficient programming language (ditching backwards compatibility with the 3.0 release), and Steve Jobs carried Apple out of the gutter. So many open source projects flounder without strong (and sometimes arbitrary appearing) direction.

Fantastic investment when the extent of enemy combatants' airpower are RPG's that can't hit anything above a few hundred feet, and much of your population has no running water.

Huh?

How many meetings do you have?
This always gets a laugh, valuable when potential engineering hires usually seem quite dry. Meetings usually waste time, and their answer will give you a better idea of how much real work you can actually achieve.

What's your relationship with academia?
This question is good if you're interested in more researchy-work, or have grad school on the horizon (or in your past). Companies that associate with universities tend to do more serious research. If you plan to attend grad school, working for a company connected with academia will get you a letter of recommendation appearing much stronger to the professors who handle PhD admissions.

Is there a dresscode?
You'll probably know the answer to this beforehand, but some companies aren't so clear. The aeronautical engineering field is generally business-casual, but I've interviewed at two aero companies where anything goes. For some people, this can be a significant workplace comfort issue and indicative of overall work environment.

How selective are you with tuition reimbursement?
Most engineering companies will compensate you for taking courses at a nearby university (or online). Some companies only pay for courses related to your work, others will let you take courses in anything. It can be a nice perk to finally take that astronomy or life drawing course you couldn't squeeze in during undergrad.