Author Topic: Blue Origin - New Shepard third flight and landing (Reuse)  (Read 56011 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28466
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8331
  • Likes Given: 5479
Re: Blue Origin - New Shepard third flight and landing (Reuse)
« Reply #140 on: 03/12/2016 12:35 AM »
Right. There is no substitute for cleverness and true innovation. You can't just take one side in a reliability vs cost trade-off, you have to improve both sides. That is also hard. But real improvements can and have been made.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8574
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4757
  • Likes Given: 888
Re: Blue Origin - New Shepard third flight and landing (Reuse)
« Reply #141 on: 03/19/2016 06:56 PM »
They can test many of these machines with less valuable payloads over and over before humans ever go on board.

There's no payload market that can support the number of flights required to make a dent in the statistical likelihood of fatalities. 100 flights isn't even getting started.
100 flights actually is, especially if you analyze near-misses (which could give you up to another order of magnitude, depending on the result of the analysis). That's 2-3 nines, potentially better than any expendable launch system ever.

You don't need to know the statistical likelihood of fatalities to 5 sigma.


...there's an important distinction here: A lot of our discussions on risk in spaceflight are in context of expendable systems, and the correct conclusion there is to stop being so risk-averse and just fly it after a few test flights. To be cheap, you pretty much have to sacrifice reliability, and to be reliable, you have to sacrifice economy.

Fast-turnaround reusable systems completely change that. If you lose one in ten or even 1 in 100 of your launches, then your system won't be economical because you have to keep replacing the vehicle. If you make it more reliable, you actually improve your economics since you don't have to keep building new launch vehicles all the time. And the other way is true, too: proving reliability is easy as proving you can do fast, cheap turnaround a bunch of times (such as that 100 figure I throw out there). And if you're doing daily flights, then it only takes you 3 months, which is less than it may take to do pure paper safety analyses on expendable vehicles.
Especially when it is the FIRST 100, not some random sample of 100...
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline leaflion

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • United States
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Blue Origin - New Shepard third flight and landing (Reuse)
« Reply #142 on: 03/20/2016 02:21 AM »
I think we all could agree that if they were to do 100 successful test flights in a row before flying humans it would be many times safer than any other manned spaceflight system's 1st human flight.*  Probably safer even than some systems' final flight.

I substaintually doubt there will be 100 test flights by then, but I guess I just said that there probably don't need to be.  That said, if they can find enough non-human payloads, and make as much from those as human flights, why not?  This also seems unlikely though.

*That has flown a human.   CST-100 could challenge that, since Atlas V has such an outstanding record and a lot of flights under its belt.

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8651
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3585
  • Likes Given: 842
Re: Blue Origin - New Shepard third flight and landing (Reuse)
« Reply #143 on: 03/20/2016 02:25 AM »
I think we all could agree that if they were to do 100 successful test flights in a row before flying humans

Who said anything about successful?

I hear those things are awfully loud. It glides as softly as a cloud. What's it called? Monowhale!

Tags: