3 ms·

> and the plane is almost double mine I assume you're talking about lifespan? The B-52 may have been in the air for a long time (though only 15 years longer t

> and the plane is almost double mine I assume you're talking about lifespan? The B-52 may have been in the air for a long time (though only 15 years longer than the 737), but it has also been flying in much smaller quantities; there have only ever been ~750 B-52s built, while there have been over 10K 737s built. And in addition, a commercial airliner is usually in the air for a much higher percentage of its lifespan than any military airplane. So for example, the 737-600/700/800/900 series has had 9 accidents (6 full-loss equivalents)... over 100 million flights. http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm Accident rate info for the B-52 is harder to come by, especially since a lot of the "accidents" are complications from battle damage in Vietnam, but I'm seeing 10 peacetime full-loss incidents just among those that have their own Wikipedia pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Accidents_and_inciden...

samstave 7y ago
Thank you for a thoughtful response. I come to HN to share ideas and thoughts, but typically just get a bunch of self righteous assholes... and ive been here for quite a while. Youre not allowed to be wrong on HN and it makes me resent the community. I love to admit if i am wrong, as it means i am learning something. So i appreciate you fixing my perspective. My perspective came feome the fact that a single plane could have been flown by three separate generatjons of pilots (which i have seen happen with the B-52) and that they have been carrying nukes about for the past 50 years and that we havent seen a singular nuclear accident with them. Not so much that we havent lost any aircraft themselves. But HN is the most pedantic community ive ever encountered in all my years. But at least it keeps things honest.
- azernik 7y ago
  HN doesn't appreciate confident arguments that are based on zero or anecdotal evidence. It also doesn't appreciate goalpost-shifting (from safety record in terms of crashes, to in terms of nukes going off (???)). More generally, fanboyish rants about how $FOO is the best $BAR ever made tend to draw particular attention. And lastly, complaining about downvotes is in the actual guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > that they have been carrying nukes about for the past 50 years and that we havent seen a singular nuclear accident with them. As other commenters have noted, this is more a testament to the phenomenal safety of nuclear weapons; they've been blown off the top of exploding ICBMs, hit the ground and the water at high speeds in crashing bombers, and generally gone through a LOT of abuse without going off.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    IIRC atomic explosions are intrinsically difficult things to set off. I suppose the lensing explosive might go off and blow around nasty chunks, particulates, metal vapour perhaps, without actually producing a nuclear explosion of any sort. (IANA nuke engineer)
    - azernik 7y ago
      Yup - though there are still safety problems, especially when it comes to inputs that might set off the trigger circuitry e.g. a lightning strike might have set off some early weapons. See Eric Schlosser's Command and Control for a history of nuclear weapons safety. (BTW - even a fizzle can have the force of a pretty large conventional bomb. e.g. the first North Korean nuclear test, which probably fizzled, had a yield of something like 1kt TNT-equivalent, and the failed attempts to make a uranium hydride bombs still yielded something like 200t TNT-equivalent.)
  - jsjohnst 7y ago
    > As other commenters have noted, this is more a testament to the phenomenal safety of nuclear weapons Exactly, there were numerous nuclear accidents with B-52s, but due to the safety of nuclear warheads, no explosions. Googling the phrase “b-52 nuclear accidents” shows a long list of them.

samstave 7y ago

Thank you for a thoughtful response. I come to HN to share ideas and thoughts, but typically just get a bunch of self righteous assholes... and ive been here for quite a while. Youre not allowed to be wrong on HN and it makes me resent the community. I love to admit if i am wrong, as it means i am learning something. So i appreciate you fixing my perspective. My perspective came feome the fact that a single plane could have been flown by three separate generatjons of pilots (which i have seen happen with the B-52) and that they have been carrying nukes about for the past 50 years and that we havent seen a singular nuclear accident with them. Not so much that we havent lost any aircraft themselves. But HN is the most pedantic community ive ever encountered in all my years. But at least it keeps things honest.

azernik 7y ago
HN doesn't appreciate confident arguments that are based on zero or anecdotal evidence. It also doesn't appreciate goalpost-shifting (from safety record in terms of crashes, to in terms of nukes going off (???)). More generally, fanboyish rants about how $FOO is the best $BAR ever made tend to draw particular attention. And lastly, complaining about downvotes is in the actual guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > that they have been carrying nukes about for the past 50 years and that we havent seen a singular nuclear accident with them. As other commenters have noted, this is more a testament to the phenomenal safety of nuclear weapons; they've been blown off the top of exploding ICBMs, hit the ground and the water at high speeds in crashing bombers, and generally gone through a LOT of abuse without going off.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  IIRC atomic explosions are intrinsically difficult things to set off. I suppose the lensing explosive might go off and blow around nasty chunks, particulates, metal vapour perhaps, without actually producing a nuclear explosion of any sort. (IANA nuke engineer)
  - azernik 7y ago
    Yup - though there are still safety problems, especially when it comes to inputs that might set off the trigger circuitry e.g. a lightning strike might have set off some early weapons. See Eric Schlosser's Command and Control for a history of nuclear weapons safety. (BTW - even a fizzle can have the force of a pretty large conventional bomb. e.g. the first North Korean nuclear test, which probably fizzled, had a yield of something like 1kt TNT-equivalent, and the failed attempts to make a uranium hydride bombs still yielded something like 200t TNT-equivalent.)
- jsjohnst 7y ago
  > As other commenters have noted, this is more a testament to the phenomenal safety of nuclear weapons Exactly, there were numerous nuclear accidents with B-52s, but due to the safety of nuclear warheads, no explosions. Googling the phrase “b-52 nuclear accidents” shows a long list of them.