I don't know the reputation of Ford vs Chevy to understand any nuance you might have been trying to convey there, but it's not the difference between having redundant systems and not having redundant systems, it's the question of if you do it through multiple identical units, or via dissimilar systems that perform the same function.
Quote I don't know the reputation of Ford vs Chevy to understand any nuance you might have been trying to convey there, but it's not the difference between having redundant systems and not having redundant systems, it's the question of if you do it through multiple identical units, or via dissimilar systems that perform the same function. Ford and Chevy are classical automotive rivals. They are "dissimilar systems that perform the same function". Maybe the rocket analogy fails. Could an F9 be used to launch the same thing a DIV could?
The point being discussed was that ULA, with Common Avionics, would have increased risk of having to stand down both Atlas and Delta if an issue occurred on one vehicle due to the increasing commonality between the two. ...Moving payloads from one EELV to the other is a nice concept, but in practice requires a fair amount of integration to occur in advance and may even require hardware modifications to the launch vehicle depending on the spacecraft.