Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dragonfly who wrote (1384)	6/23/1998 2:25:00 PM
From: Jeff Vayda	Respond to of 29987

Dfly: Rocket launches do not lend themselves to statistics. Each launch cycle is reviewed and improved upon. Failures are investigated and fixes implemented. Sometimes the fixes make things better and some fixes may make another component weaker, not to show up until still another component is later weakened. This makes a comparison with previous event tenuous at best. I am sure there are people out there who will stand on a chair and shout how valuable their statistical methods are. It is not a perfect indicator but the insurance industry has to have some bench mark in which to rank the launchers. You are free to try to use these numbers in your investment decisions. I only use launch success/failure ratios in an overall context: The current incarnation of Deltas are more reliable than the Zenits. Jeff Vayda

To: Dragonfly who wrote (1384)	6/23/1998 2:27:00 PM
From: waitwatchwander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

Dragonfly, I would only hope that there is some sort of trend towards reliability in the launch numbers. Otherwise, what have they learned?

To: Dragonfly who wrote (1384)	6/23/1998 2:29:00 PM
From: Rocket Scientist	Respond to of 29987

DF--If the probability of success of each of three launches was really 82% then the probability of success of all three launches would be .82.82.82= 55% and the probability of one or more failures would be 45%. I've seen this 82% number posted also, and I discount it as a very top level, historical average that doesn't take account of learning, design changes since the failure etc. that would improve the reliability (or systemic changes at the FSU manufacturers hat might drive the reliability down.) --RS