Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by wolfram74 1164 days ago
also: this model is 9 meters in diameter, and will already be more robust to weather effects than the f9, the 18 meter diameter model would be a beast if ever built.
1 comments

Sorry, I didn't necessarily mean from a physical reliability perspective. I was speaking to launch/timetable reliability.
I’d be curious how many scrubs are technically necessary, vs precautionary.

If war is afoot you’re willing to take far more risks, with the weather and with sensor glitches.

I imagine there's a lot to go into it. For example, if it's a one-of-a-kind weapon with a long lead time to develop, they probably have a pretty low risk threshold.
Exactly, but what if you're sending dumb munitions, a couple of tanks, or relief to a disaster zone?

You could spare to blow all that during takeoff. Whatever, let's try again in four hours.

Launch windows generally aren't open-ended and typically only last a few hours because they are orbit-dependent. That's why when a launch is scrubbed, a window often doesn't open again until days later.
I doubt that matters for point-to-point deliveries like this.