Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Space Operations Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: China Dominating Orbital Space
SYSOP    2/13/2013 5:40:31 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
TonoFonseca    Percentages   2/13/2013 10:05:54 AM
If I was a taikonaut, and they told me, "Oh, there's only a six percent chance the rocket will blow up", I wouldn't get anywhere near it.  Even if it was only 2%, I wouldn't get on it.  
 
Quote    Reply

American God       2/13/2013 12:00:52 PM
You would not have wanted to ride the American Space Shuttle either, then. The numbers are roughly comparable.
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Wrong.   2/13/2013 12:35:50 PM
6 failures per 100 launches is 6%.
 
2 failures per 135 launches  is 1.47%.
 
The Shuttle fleet is on average 4 times safer than ANY Long March.
 
B.
You would not have wanted to ride the American Space Shuttle either, then. The numbers are roughly comparable.
 
Quote    Reply

American God       2/13/2013 3:15:52 PM
1 accident in first 25 launches was about 4%, in the early years. Probably actually somewhat higher IMHO, I think we were lucky.
 
By late in the program, it had been reduced to around 1%. The configuration of the shuttle orbiter, side mounted below the main fuel tank, meant that the Columbia scenario was an irreducible risk which could not be mitigated at any feasible cost. So you weren't going to do much better. Hence the decision to end the program and move on to something else.
 
In any event, he said 2% was still unacceptable. I doubt the difference between 2% and 1% would be that profound.
 
Spaceflight is still a risky business, no matter how you do it.
 
Quote    Reply

DClanton       2/14/2013 12:25:39 AM
"Even if it was only 2%, I wouldn't get on it. " You must never drive a car or walk down the street either as the chances of dying performing every day activities are much much higher than space flight ever will be.
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    You are still wrong.   2/14/2013 12:44:01 AM
Challenger was mission 51, so 2%, not 4%. Right where NASA internal stats said it WOULD be. 
 
B

 

In any event, he said 2% was still unacceptable. I doubt the difference between 2% and 1% would be that profound.

 

Spaceflight is still a risky business, no matter how you do it.
 
Quote    Reply

American God    No. You are...   2/14/2013 10:20:02 AM
Belisarius, you need to check your sources.
 
 
Challenger mission 51-L was the 25th shuttle flight.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_shuttle_missions
" target="_blank">link
 
 
Quote    Reply

American God       2/14/2013 12:58:28 PM
Not really - if your chances of dying in a single car ride to work daily were 2%, your chances of surviving a  year of commuting would be approaching nil. Measurable in parts per ten thousand. Space is "safer" only because a launch is a very rare event. The lifetime record is seven missions. Chance of surviving seven missions with a 2% loss rate is around 87%. So chance of death about 13%. Enough to make one pause. At some point, the math becomes rather akin to that of USAAF bomber crews in early WWII.
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Shrug    2/14/2013 6:42:44 PM
  My mistake in sequence, does NOT change the predicted loss rate 1 in 50 shuttle launches at all. So you are still wrong. 
 
B
 
 
Quote    Reply

American God       2/14/2013 7:15:54 PM
If you're going to troll the site, better up your game. "I can't get my numbers correct but I'm still right" is pretty weak.
 
 
In any event, any further exchange here is clearly pointless, as you do not seem to be able to grasp any semblance of my point. So long, and thanks for all the fish.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics