4 ms·
100% success matters when you need to hit a launch window for interplanetary transit. or when you have spacecraft that are integrating sensors from dozens of co
by localplume 3y ago
100% success matters when you need to hit a launch window for interplanetary transit. or when you have spacecraft that are integrating sensors from dozens of commercial and academic partners. 100% success matters when rockets are actually launching payloads. what is the evidence that this fail fast method is superior to the already tried and tested method? everyone just assumes that. the differences between spx starship and SLS go far beyond just that method anyway so you cannot possibly compare
- burnished 3y agoYour comment was dead when I got to it - I disagree with your words but vouched because I think being skeptical is valuable (terms and conditions may apply, etc). I can't personally attest to this but another commenter mentioned that this was what the soviets did as part of a space race with a smaller budget. You should note that success rate is crucial once you are in production and ready to go - judging overall success against that bar while developing and testing is nonsense. Finally - I think everyone learns faster by trying more things and making more mistakes? I wouldnt blame you for wanting to see that studied - kind of a neat question after all - but it seems like you are assuming one method or another was picked because it was superior as opposed to a reality of material constraints. I feel like if NASA had budget for blowing up more rockets to prove/disprove points that they would be doing so. Actually now that I say it out loud I can't imagine anyone choosing 'not rocket'.