3 ms·
With airplanes, a lot of maintenance routines depends on the number of cycles (takeoffs+landings). No one knows how many cycles this sub was safe to perform, bu
by eCa 3y ago
With airplanes, a lot of maintenance routines depends on the number of cycles (takeoffs+landings). No one knows how many cycles this sub was safe to perform, but just because it had successfully performed N dives, does not imply that N+1 is safe (or even N for that matter).
- jacquesm 3y ago> No one knows how many cycles this sub was safe to perform One less than the number that it did.
- stcredzero 3y agoOnly if you want 0 dives as a safety margin.
- jcranmer 3y agoThat is on-brand for the CEO here.
- jacquesm 3y agoFor this design that may not have been a bad choice.
- stcredzero 3y ago"Sir, you should consider having a safety margin that's not a negative integer."
- sleepybrett 3y agoBut there is data to back that up on planes that are 'battle tested' you can compute failure rates over a ton of data. With something like this, a custom '1 off'... not unless you build a bunch of them and pilot them to depth (hopefully by remote) and wait for failures.
- _cenw 3y agoThe most obvious instance of this is probably the Comet 1. It took about 3000 cycles (about half of them simulated in a tank) to reproduce the catastrophic failure.