4 ms·
>Safety first attitude? The space shuttle exploded with all crew lost, twice 2 lost out of 135 missions. That's what, a 1.48% failure rate? In a spacecraft tha
by ryanmercer 7y ago
>Safety first attitude? The space shuttle exploded with all crew lost, twice
2 lost out of 135 missions. That's what, a 1.48% failure rate? In a spacecraft that was kinda wonky given things like the fact each shuttle had nearly 3,000 FRCI tiles (each one present a possible failure point).
Launching into space with rockets will always be dangerous, you're strapping your cargo (human or otherwise) to one or more bombs and saying "please blow up in the way we want and not all at once".
Even if someone develops magical anti-gravity, there would always be the chance that it would fail and you'd drop out of the sky with no means of propulsion or that something would go wonky and part of the craft would suddenly implode. Even a space elevator would have risks.
- ClumsyPilot 7y agoEveryone knew the vehicle was wonky and that makes it even more egregious, it's not an excuse. It should have never stayed in service for as long as it did. You seem to think 1.5% is an acceptable failure rate? Then what is too high in your mind, 50%? Imagine we did have large scale space infrastructure/ spacestations / lunar colony, astronauts would have to fly that vehicle several hundred times in their career. No-one would survive till pension. We've had rockets for like 70 years now, it should not be a gamble whether you will survive.