4 ms·
It's pretty much 1/3 the depth which is suspiciously close to a 3x safety factor which is what I've always heard engineers use. They certainly seemed cavalier w
by jamincan 3y ago
It's pretty much 1/3 the depth which is suspiciously close to a 3x safety factor which is what I've always heard engineers use. They certainly seemed cavalier with safety, so it wouldn't surprise me if they reasoned about it in that way.
- hef19898 3y agoAnd there is a reason it is called safety factor. Whether it is 10, 5, 3 or 1.1 doesn't matter, it is not be used.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y agoA rocket might have a factor of safety of around 1.1. This is because at 1.3, they’ll never leave the ground. This is why they are so carefully monitored and tested, and still fail. It’s all relative. Good engineering doesn’t mean higher number. No one knows what the FOS for this sub was. Given the information from the CEO, things like that were just slowing down innovation! EDIT: Not all rockets, just using an example.
- plegresl 3y agoFalcon 9 uses a factory of safety of 1.4: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/164283main_2nd_exp_conf_24_Commercial%20Opportunities_SpaceX_MrEMusk.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/164283main_2nd_exp_conf_24_Commerci...
- 2-718-281-828 3y agovery interesting point!