2 ms·
Irrelevant. My point was that you can essentially prove the design is sound before you even build the thing. Rapid failure/iteration is not the only way to buil
by 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
Irrelevant. My point was that you can essentially prove the design is sound before you even build the thing. Rapid failure/iteration is not the only way to build rockets.
- avmich 3y ago"Can" doesn't mean you "should", and for such a price it's a doubtful proposition.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago>My point was that you can essentially prove the design is sound before you even build the thing That depends on your design and if you need experimentally derived inputs
- throwaway4aday 3y agoNot if you're using new engines, new fuel systems, new heat shielding, new materials for the body, and making both the booster and second stage fully reusable by landing them with the help of a never before tried system that catches them before they touch the ground.
- stetrain 3y agoNASA has blown up a lot of RS-25s over decades in testing to get to that point. And a couple of Shuttles. When half your components have decades of reliability under their belt of course it’s easier to have a successful first launch. If your development methodology results in a product that is unsustainable to launch due to costs and scalability, that absolutely seems relevant to whether that methodology was successful.