4 ms·
It seems like there is a wall in reliability with getting chemical rockets much more reliable than about 99% - 99.5%. SpaceX and Blue Origin are doing cool thin
by planteen 10y ago
It seems like there is a wall in reliability with getting chemical rockets much more reliable than about 99% - 99.5%. SpaceX and Blue Origin are doing cool things, but I don't see them being any more reliable than previous generations of chemical rockets.
If an elevator could provide more 9s of reliability, that could be huge.
- oliwaw 10y agoBut cost is also at issue. For cargo, it might make sense to take on 0.5-1.0% risk versus the massive investments necessary for the development of a space elevator. And when we're talking about human spaceflight, consider the work SpaceX and Blue are putting into in-flight abort and propulsive landing - SpaceX's Crew Dragon should be much safer than the Space Shuttle, for example.
- planteen 10y agoYeah for cargo I agree. I was thinking more along the lines for human rating. Propulsive landing helps for some failure modes but not all. Like I don't think it would have helped the CRS-7 failure had that been manned.
- hLHEDuYtSh 10y agoIt actually would have helped on CRS-7 -- That capsule was fine until it hit the water. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/07/saving-spaceship-dragon-contingency-chute/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/07/saving-spaceship-dra...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]