They said Monte Carlo testing so I'm pretty sure the 10% more likely comes
from running lots and lots of simulations and X% of them succeed. You are
right that if the number is not in the high 90's it won't amortize the
extra costs associated with landing. But maybe he misspoke and meant 10%
lower chance of failure, for example that could mean 0.45% chance of
failure instead of 0.5%.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Yeah, why would it be 10% more likely to land?
At this point, shouldn't it be ~100% likely to land? Are they saying it
takes it from 90% to 99%?
Or, if those aren't the kind of numbers they're looking at, how are they
ever going to get 10 landings in a row?
Should be an interesting test.
On 20 December 2015 at 22:15, Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
And Elon Musk's twitter feed now shows this:
"Just reviewed mission params w SpaceX team. Monte Carlo runs show tmrw
night has a 10% higher chance of a good landing. Punting 24 hrs."
Hmm. Winds? FWIW, the Canaveral weather includes a "beach hazard
bulletin" warning of rough surf and strong offshore winds this evening.
On 12/20/2015 11:30 AM, (Redacted sender monsieurboo for DMARC) wrote:
And the SpaceX link for live video of the action is quite simply their
current home page:
http://www.spacex.com/
Cheers,
Mark L.
Subject: [AR] Re: F9 Launch/Update Thread
From: Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 09:51:19 -0700
SpaceX worked through the issues and got their static fire test done
late Friday. They currently hope to launch in a brief window at 8:29 pm
eastern Sunday. (Next window would be Tuesday.) Best wishes to their
operations crew for a successful flight in time for all to be home for
Christmas.
--
-Ian Woollard
Sent from my Turing machine