3 ms·

> your idea of reliability is different from what is typically referred to How does it differ, in your view? I think my view is standard among professionals.

> your idea of reliability is different from what is typically referred to How does it differ, in your view? I think my view is standard among professionals. > a reused rocket has already proven that it can do the job It's the same with any used equipment, but as described, used equipment isn't generally considered more reliable. > it'd be hard to call something genuinely reusable if it got less reliable after the first use. All durable technology is reusable - cars, phones, etc. But almost none (that I can think of) are considered more reliable after they are used. Reliability is just one component of cost, and the overall cost of reuse is much less than buying new - buying a new car for each trip wouldn't be worth the cost. There is some uncertainty about reliability in brand new things, but that is easily reduced through testing. SpaceX fans seem to live, like so many today, in an alternate reality where they repeat their 'team' propaganda without the filter of skepticism. Just think about it for a moment - is a used car necessarily more reliable?

dotnet00 3y ago
I figured you had a different idea of reliability because I figure you couldn't seriously be saying that something that has been used is less reliable than something that has literally never done the thing it's supposed to do. Cars, phones etc all have to do the thing they're designed to do before they're sold to consumers. In that way they're all "flight proven" like SpaceX's boosters. By the point of a used sale, the price drops because you don't know how a random consumer will have treated the item. There's a lot of irony in you accusing SpaceX fans of living in an alternate reality and repeating team propaganda without skepticism.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Cars, phones etc all have to do the thing they're designed to do before they're sold to consumers. Do you mean that someone individually uses each product sold? I don't think so. Things wear down in use. It's just reality. Not only does the market value drop, but accounting systems recognize it through depreciation. You've tried to redefine 'used' as superior reliability, but that's only in the rhetorical world where 'war is peace', 'freedom is slavery', etc. There is uncertainty to brand new, untested technology, but that's not what we're talking about. There is uncertainty to a more limited extent in unused individual products, but I've already addressed that. I don't know what team you think I'm on?

dotnet00 3y ago

I figured you had a different idea of reliability because I figure you couldn't seriously be saying that something that has been used is less reliable than something that has literally never done the thing it's supposed to do. Cars, phones etc all have to do the thing they're designed to do before they're sold to consumers. In that way they're all "flight proven" like SpaceX's boosters. By the point of a used sale, the price drops because you don't know how a random consumer will have treated the item. There's a lot of irony in you accusing SpaceX fans of living in an alternate reality and repeating team propaganda without skepticism.

wolverine876 3y ago
> Cars, phones etc all have to do the thing they're designed to do before they're sold to consumers. Do you mean that someone individually uses each product sold? I don't think so. Things wear down in use. It's just reality. Not only does the market value drop, but accounting systems recognize it through depreciation. You've tried to redefine 'used' as superior reliability, but that's only in the rhetorical world where 'war is peace', 'freedom is slavery', etc. There is uncertainty to brand new, untested technology, but that's not what we're talking about. There is uncertainty to a more limited extent in unused individual products, but I've already addressed that. I don't know what team you think I'm on?