The first clue that he is wrong about the whole analysis is the systems he chooses to compare with. Do you know what the X is in the name of the X-1 and X-15? He simply ignores the fact that experimental aircraft don't get tested in flight for hundreds of times before their first commercial flight, whereas for example Spaceship Twos will have more flights under their belts than ALL the Shuttles to date before the first spaceflight participate touches his behind to a seat.
Safety contrary to his statements about it is the very first thing the systems engineer looks at. Bell again is just either showing his complete ignorance of systems or just trying to spread worries and misinformation. I don't think he tells the truth when he says he is a supporter of New Space and is in fact trying again to just be controversial.
His article if on paper would best be used to line a pet's cage!
Space/Science » in reply to Rocket plane reliability
Bell is clearly not an engineering systems analyst as nearly every assumption he makes is wrong.
The whole thread (21 posts)
- Rocket plane reliability
- Reliability is more of a maintenance issue.
- Bell is clearly not an engineering systems analyst as nearly every assumption he makes is wrong.
- re: Bell is clearly not an engineering systems analyst as nearly every assumption he makes is wrong.
- Typical Bell
- The hybrid engines used for SS1 and SS2 are far safer than the engines used on any X plane.
- Ditto.
