3 ms·
> If it's just unreliability then it might be a hard problem to solve. It might, but it certainly helps having a ton of them around. Given that they used 42 of
by Octoth0rpe 5mo ago
> If it's just unreliability then it might be a hard problem to solve.
It might, but it certainly helps having a ton of them around. Given that they used 42 of them today and 2 failed in some fashion, we'll call that a 1:21 failure rate. On a more typical rocket with say 10 engines (eg falcon 9), there's a good chance they wouldn't have seen the same failure till flight 3.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- brianwawok 5mo agoIt’s something like up to 6 can fail and it keeps going, seems pretty good. I know they did some stuff like remove a heat tile to get failure feedback, wonder if engine was planned or accidental
- NetMageSCW 5mo agoAccidental since they didn’t make the sub-orbit they were aiming for and thus couldn’t test engine re-light.
- avmich 5mo ago> Given that they used 42 of them today 20+10+3=33 on the booster, 3+3=6 on the Ship, total 39. I remember Elon said they want to add 2 engines to the first stage, but that still would be 41. Where's the 42th supposed to be?
- Octoth0rpe 5mo agoI messed up, for some reason I had it in my head that there were 9 on starship, so 33 + 9 = 42.
- mlyle 5mo agoAdjusted wald intv'l gives us for 2 observed out of 39 gives us a "true" failure rate from 1 in 200 to 1 in 6 (95% CI).