Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,014
- Reactions
- 8,289
Don't know about that 95% reliability though. If it's cargo, yea, maybe. Just don't put that on the brochure if that cargo is more than electronics; and maybe contain astronauts.
I'm not sure how you could get a 95% reliability to be honest. How would the engineer work that out?
I mean, are all the parts around 95% or some parts must be 100% while others are 90%, others less important 70% etc.
I know there are tolerances and no need to get it 100% but then how do you fudge the 5% tolerance? Might as well try to get close to 100%.
Kudos to Musk and his team of geniuses... But i'd go with the folks at NASA. Try to get it 100% and the result might reach maybe 95%.
The idea is that simply going for Those last few percentage points of reliability causes you to spend a lot more money with demishing returns, eg adding back up components of the back ups etc.
Off course we are talking about cargo flights, which almost all launches are.
There are reasons to go for reliability sometimes, eg human, and that could be achieved by using the new rockets for humans and older ones for cargo.
But spending an extra $500 Million to reduce the risk of losing a $50million cargo from 1 in 20 to 1 in 1000 doesn’t make sense, unless you are spending the governments money and a spotless carreer is important to you.