3 ms·

I think the logic is that the chance of an explosion is a lot higher during the loading of the fuel, but is pretty stable once it is loaded. But I still like y

by aqme28 9y ago

I think the logic is that the chance of an explosion is a lot higher during the loading of the fuel, but is pretty stable once it is loaded. But I still like your reasoning a lot.

mikeash 9y ago
I’d rather take a higher chance of survivable failure than a lower chance of certain death. Fault tolerance is better than being brittle and trying to never fail. But I’m just a software guy so this is just uninformed opinion!
- loeg 9y ago
  I think it really depends on the actual numbers for both "chance" and "survivable." You want to minimize something like the product of "chance of occurrence" (frequency) times "chance of death, if event occurs" (severity). The numbers really matter.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Right, but those numbers aren’t really known. You can estimate, but that’s always error-prone. (NASA famously estimated the Shuttle’s loss of crew risk at 1 in 100,000, when the actual rate was about 1 in 70, for example.) Still, I’d be really interested in seeing the estimated numbers here.
    - afterburner 9y ago
      There was poor math and methodology behind that 1 in 100,000 estimate though. I don't think that level of error should be held against an estimate made with rigourous and scientifically valid methodology. https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/roge...
    - loeg 9y ago
      > Right, but those numbers aren’t really known. We agree! :) I was just pointing out that your first comment expressing a preference for one style over another presupposes the relative magnitude of those numbers. I would also be interested in actual data.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        Yeah, if you boil it down my argument is basically that the escape system seems to be more than good enough to offset the fuel loading risk.
- hinkley 9y ago
  In software there are unfortunately a lot of people who disagree with you.

by aqme28 9y ago

I think the logic is that the chance of an explosion is a lot higher during the loading of the fuel, but is pretty stable once it is loaded. But I still like your reasoning a lot.

mikeash 9y ago

I’d rather take a higher chance of survivable failure than a lower chance of certain death. Fault tolerance is better than being brittle and trying to never fail. But I’m just a software guy so this is just uninformed opinion!

loeg 9y ago
I think it really depends on the actual numbers for both "chance" and "survivable." You want to minimize something like the product of "chance of occurrence" (frequency) times "chance of death, if event occurs" (severity). The numbers really matter.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Right, but those numbers aren’t really known. You can estimate, but that’s always error-prone. (NASA famously estimated the Shuttle’s loss of crew risk at 1 in 100,000, when the actual rate was about 1 in 70, for example.) Still, I’d be really interested in seeing the estimated numbers here.
  - afterburner 9y ago
    There was poor math and methodology behind that 1 in 100,000 estimate though. I don't think that level of error should be held against an estimate made with rigourous and scientifically valid methodology. https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/roge...
  - loeg 9y ago
    > Right, but those numbers aren’t really known. We agree! :) I was just pointing out that your first comment expressing a preference for one style over another presupposes the relative magnitude of those numbers. I would also be interested in actual data.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Yeah, if you boil it down my argument is basically that the escape system seems to be more than good enough to offset the fuel loading risk.
hinkley 9y ago
In software there are unfortunately a lot of people who disagree with you.