5 ms·

If you had the luxury of throwing away bridges or planes or space shuttles to test every possible circumstance, then I guess eventually the safety factor could

If you had the luxury of throwing away bridges or planes or space shuttles to test every possible circumstance, then I guess eventually the safety factor could conceivably come down to 1.0, right? You would've satisfied yourself that nothing in the real world was not in your simulations?

whatshisface 5y ago
A safety factor of 1.5x does not guarantee that nature will not throw 1.6x the expected force at you. That's why the author of the article calls it a "libation," because it isn't related to anyone's knowledge about the uncertainties in the situation at hand.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  The author's point of view here is somewhat undermined by his own article, in which he points out that the figure has been adjusted downwards over time in response to experience - in other words, it has been empirically determined. It might not be the most efficient or flexible way to handle risk, but it is not just a faith-based number, either.
preinheimer 5y ago
I don't think so. - You'd also need to let them stand for 100 years or something to get a better view of all possible weather events. Oh wait, weather events are becoming more extreme. - Materials of production are imperfect. We're well past poorly made cast iron, but maybe something wasn't quite perfect when that bolt was cast. - Improper usage or external emergencies may still impact usage.
ajuc 5y ago
> If you had the luxury of throwing away bridges or planes or space shuttles to test every possible circumstance, then I guess eventually the safety factor could conceivably come down to 1.0, right? You would've satisfied yourself that nothing in the real world was not in your simulations? Isn't that the main advantage Space X has over NASA?
- ghaff 5y ago
  It's not really Space X vs. NASA. NASA doesn't build rockets. ULA is probably the relevant comparison. NASA's also not really into exploding rockets so saying Space X is about shaving safety factors is pretty simplistic.

whatshisface 5y ago

A safety factor of 1.5x does not guarantee that nature will not throw 1.6x the expected force at you. That's why the author of the article calls it a "libation," because it isn't related to anyone's knowledge about the uncertainties in the situation at hand.

mannykannot 5y ago
The author's point of view here is somewhat undermined by his own article, in which he points out that the figure has been adjusted downwards over time in response to experience - in other words, it has been empirically determined. It might not be the most efficient or flexible way to handle risk, but it is not just a faith-based number, either.

preinheimer 5y ago

I don't think so. - You'd also need to let them stand for 100 years or something to get a better view of all possible weather events. Oh wait, weather events are becoming more extreme. - Materials of production are imperfect. We're well past poorly made cast iron, but maybe something wasn't quite perfect when that bolt was cast. - Improper usage or external emergencies may still impact usage.

ajuc 5y ago

> If you had the luxury of throwing away bridges or planes or space shuttles to test every possible circumstance, then I guess eventually the safety factor could conceivably come down to 1.0, right? You would've satisfied yourself that nothing in the real world was not in your simulations? Isn't that the main advantage Space X has over NASA?

ghaff 5y ago
It's not really Space X vs. NASA. NASA doesn't build rockets. ULA is probably the relevant comparison. NASA's also not really into exploding rockets so saying Space X is about shaving safety factors is pretty simplistic.