Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Doggydog123579 t1_j16ss03 wrote

Reply to comment by fabulousmarco in The European Vega-C rocket was lost shortly after lift-off from French Guiana on Tuesday with two Airbus satellites on board by DoremusJessup

I don't disagree, my issue was with his claim they are super reliable while also saying we don't have enough data to say they are statistically better. The Shuttle was supposed to be super reliable and look what happened to it.

1

toodroot t1_j1740hi wrote

u/fabulousmarco appears to have read what I actually meant. I did not say the thing you're having an issue with.

If you want to talk about Shuttle, the fact that the SRBs were recovered several times with eroded O-rings before the Challenger "accident" kind of blows any statistical analysis out of the water.

1

Doggydog123579 t1_j1788cj wrote

The problem appears to be you misreading what I meant, though it doesn't help i was hastily typing it out on my phone. I fully understand what you mean and never even actually said one rocket was more reliable. My original post was me pointing out he forgot a failure, and me then pointing out Falcon 9s perfect record if I arbitrarily specify Block 5.

The argument is happening because you haven't answered my question. If the rockets are reliable enough we need thousands of launches to get the required data set, how are you determining they are reliable enough to require said data set to compare?

0

toodroot t1_j17jvoo wrote

u/fabulousmarco answered your question.

Here's the wikipedia article on the overall topic.

1

Doggydog123579 t1_j17kzph wrote

Put another way, How do you know they are similar enough that a sample size of 1-200 isnt enough to determine which is more reliable.

1

Doggydog123579 t1_j17k8rb wrote

You dodged again. Im not asking about statistical probabilities. You said Falcon 9 and Ariane 5 are reliable enough we cant compare them without a thousand flights. How do you know that.

0