Re: GRIFFIN'S DRIVE FOR SHUTTLE-DERIVED


"Pat Flannery" <flanner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1196hsb14c7uree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>
> >
> >No they're not. This is the same logic that Feynman slams when the
> >engineers saw 2/3rds of O-rings burned through and still claimed it "had
a
> >safety margin" when in reality the O-ring was never supposed to even burn
at
> >all. So there was in reality no margin left.
> >
> >
>
> Of course in this case we are talking about a motor for use on an
> unmanned vehicle. The SRB is a whole other ball of wax, and expected to
> have a far higher level of reliability, even if that means overbuilding
> it to gain reliability at the expense of performance.

Really? So Boeing builds "man-rated 747s" and "cargo-rated 747s" that have
a lower level of reliability?

"I'm sorry paying customer, but your cargo landed up in the Atlantic. But
hey it was 10% cheaper to launch. Oh and I got a great deal on my car
insurance!"


>
> Pat


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GRIFFINS DRIVE FOR SHUTTLE-DERIVED
    ... "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote: ... >> it to gain reliability at the expense of performance. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: GRIFFINS DRIVE FOR SHUTTLE-DERIVED
    ... >Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: ... Boeing doesn't build a "less ... >If you could make a completely unmanned cargo aircraft that you knew ... >decide to cut back the reliability factor some in favor of lower cost ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Quantcast