2 ms·
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
by 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 agoThere 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 agoYeah, 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.