4 ms·
Are individual rockets and subs considered safer after each trip? I thought it was the opposite since they endure so much stress, and one has to do expensive in
by paulryanrogers 3y ago
Are individual rockets and subs considered safer after each trip? I thought it was the opposite since they endure so much stress, and one has to do expensive inspections and scans to ensure they're still flight/dive worthy.
- lukew3 3y agoI think that's why there is a bathtub curve. New rockets are more risky because they could have manufacturing flaws and old ones may be worn to the point they fail. The middle is the safest because they have been thoroughly tested but not worn. We seek to find how many times is the limit.
- ralfd 3y ago> New rockets are more risky It’s important to note that this is technically not true. It is an assumption that is true for other stuff and -maybe- could be true for rockets but 1) the last hundred Falcon 9 launches worked flawlessly regardless if the booster was new or not and 2) every other rocket company launches only new rockets.
- asadotzler 3y agoWould you rather fly on an airplain's maiden flight or its second flight. For me, the wear is far less a concern than a quality control failure at manufacture. I want flight proven but I also don't want the flight leader in the fleet. There's a sweet spot between, "they're still working out bugs from the factory" and "the core, non-replaceable systems are starting to wear out." My guess is that's around 20 or so flights for an F9 booster, maybe a bit more.