OSUfan88

OSUfan88 t1_jamu519 wrote

It's slightly complicated, and depends on how you measure.

Many consider the Falcon 9 Block 5 to currently have the lowest chance of failure of any rocket. That being said, An earlier version had a failure on ascent (and 1 more on the pad testing).

Atlas V has never had a total mission failure, so you can't get better than "100% mission success". That being said, it has had some partial failures. People can debate the semantics of whether it is or not, and depending on which metrics they find most important, be correct. It can be said that it's an EXTREMELY safe rocket in it's current form.

edit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/11fyw2y/falcon_landings_are_now_more_reliable_than_any/

Here is an awesome post which makes the case that Falcon 9 landings are now more reliable than any rocket ever. The basis of this is that Falcon 9 has successfully landed 101 times consecutively. The highest any non-SpaceX rocket has had success launching is the Delta II, with 100 consecutive successful launches.

16

OSUfan88 t1_j19i5xm wrote

Not things that are closer than that distance.

The point was, a vast majority of the dark matter in the Milk Way is generated near the center of the galaxy, which is thousands of lightyears away.

Since antimatter and matter will immediately annihilate with any contact, it's a pretty wild thought that a particle could travel that distance, and not come in contact with anything. Even "empty space" is filled with particles. In our solar system, there's about a thousand atoms/cubic meter of "empty" space. Some areas in the galaxy will be less dense than this, while others much more dense (especially when you approach the center of the Galaxy).

2