5 ms·

>> I'm not sure how likely it is that any of them will see humans walk the Moon again. > There’s a good chance some or all 7 will see people walk on the moon

>> I'm not sure how likely it is that any of them will see humans walk the Moon again. > There’s a good chance some or all 7 will see people walk on the moon Chance that a 88 year old male will live 6 more years is about 27% according to the tables [1] So, a chance that at least one of those 7 lives 6 more years is about 89% (a bit less because some are older than 88), but that is the ballpark figure I would call that more than a good chance :) [1] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

vijayr02 3y ago
Now adjust for the fact that these are all ex astronauts, so will probably be fitter than the average 88 year old? Is there data for life expectancy given astronaut?
- WXLCKNO 3y ago
  Top comment says there's 7 astronauts still alive the youngest being 88? That's all already way beyond the norm I think.
  - keybored 3y ago
    Literal survivorship bias. There were 24 originally and this was more than 50 years ago.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      Astronauts in the 1960s were required to be perfectly healthy before their mission, not even minor anomalies in bloodwork etc. were tolerated. No surprise that a third of the moonwalkers is still alive at approximately 90. Nowadays the tolerance is somewhat bigger.
      - keybored 3y ago
        Fine point which has nothing to do with my comment.
      - kjkjadksj 3y ago
        Not to mention when you understand so much about the bodies physiology, its probably hard to allow yourself to fall out of shape considering you know better than most what that means.
        keybored 3y ago
        There are doctors who smoke… it is known. ;) EDIT: And then an anecdote: a nurse student told me that almost all of her co-students consume tobacco. Hmm.
    - ownlife 3y ago
      7 out of 24 - just under 1/3 - making it to or past 88 is probably higher than average. More also made it past 88 but are dead now.
      - keybored 3y ago
        And only considering the survivors is still survivorship bias.
        seanhunter 3y ago
        No it's not. We have no interest in the question of whether the apollo astronauts who have already died will be alive when a human next walks on the moon. The question is of the apollo astronauts who are still alive, what is the probability that they will still be alive when a human next walks on the moon. The population under consideration is only astronauts who are alive now. Survivorship bias would only be involved if you were considering some question that involved all apollo astronauts eg for example if we used the population who are alive now to make a prediction as of the completion of the programme.
        keybored 3y ago
        No... The original comment said that the youngest being 88 is “way beyond the norm”. They weren’t talking about whatever you are on about now.
        Retric 3y ago
        This isn't survivorship bias, just imperfect information being sufficient. Will anyone be alive at X date can ignore the dead from the population as irrelevant. The second question if they are an unusually healthy or sick group doesn't need to look at the dead either. Only ~20 percent of 35 year old men live to 88. Having at least 7 men out of 24 reaching that age is already an long lived group, though not necessarily statistically significant. Looking at the full numbers gives a more precise number, but 12 of 24 vs 7(+) making it to 88 doesn't change the result. Further, even if it was exactly 7 of 24 again the answer doesn't change.
hoorayimhelping 3y ago
Also, it's worth noting that Apollo astronauts are not average-health men. They were selected for their extreme outlier health attributes, which is why so many of them live so long.
- embedded_hiker 3y ago
  Jim Irwin, who walked ( and rode a car ) on the moon on Apollo 15, and had some heart problems while on the moon. He was obviously healthy before. He ended up having several heart attacks, and died at age 61. He is an outlier in this regard, and there will always be speculation as to whether the strain of walking on the moon damaged his heart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Irwin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Irwin
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
    61 is a younger death, but at that age death is very much on the table, statistically speaking - especially back then. In 1991, when he died, life expectancy for men was 72 years. Meaning for every guy that lived to 83, one guy died at 61.
somenameforme 3y ago
We're taking Boeing's ability to screw things up, NASA's extreme risk aversion, and then mixing them up together in a blender that includes untested technology, the first humans out of low orbit in more than half a century, and NASA's desire to make a huge spectacle out of it all - including identity politics. IMO there's a high probability that a human landing via Artemis ultimately never happens. This isn't the NASA of the 60s that's happy to send a few guys up to the Moon while simultaneously also already having a memorial speech commemorating their deaths written and on standby. They're going to want to be near to 100% assured that the mission will be safely executed, and I simply don't think you can get anywhere near to that in practice. For the exact same reasons, it's also unlikely that Artemis 2 will go ahead. And that launch is scheduled for as early as the end of next year. So it should be an early indicator of things to come, or not to come.
- dotancohen 3y ago
  As a huge fan of the Apollo program for decades, and the Artemis program now, it pained me to upvote your comment. But you are 100% correct on every point you mention.
  - Retric 3y ago
    It’s wildly pessimistic, Artemis 1 went just fine and Artemis 2 is basically the same except with people on board able to look at the moon. Having people flying around in space is something we've done constantly since the first moon landing and adding a big rocket and fuel to get to the moon isn't a huge leap. Now 3 when they need to land is a bigger risk. It running into issues is slightly more believable, they could abort the landing while still flying etc.
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      You can see a list of missions to the ISS here. [1] The US stopped launching people to space from 2011 to 2020, relying entirely on Russia during that window. As of 2020 SpaceX entered the game and has started regularly sending people up, but the Artemis program's decision to inject Boeing into it was exclusively due to corruption/'influence.' They weren't competitive on qualification, capability, or price - but were granted a key role anyhow. Notably Boeing was also arbitrarily granted a contract to send people to the ISS under the same 'influence', and they were supposed to be the first private company to do so, more than 5 years ago now. That still hasn't happened. And so the Artemis program now relies completely on NASA's judgement of Boeing's ability to send people to space on 'untested' (they're reusing Space Shuttle era tech and hardware but on an entirely new vessel) technology which has not only run many years and tens of billions of dollars over budget, but has seen a never-ending series of technical issues above and beyond what's expected during normal developmental processes. Basically the big factor is Boeing here. If we contracted everything to SpaceX we'd probably stand a fair chance of putting man on the moon, again - but NASA's risk aversion would still be a major issue. But that's not the case. Now we have an incompetent company paired alongside an organization that will demand superhuman levels of assurances for the sort of spectacle they plan to make of it all, especially after Christa McAuliffe. It's not a great mix for the odds of anything actually going anywhere. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_spaceflights_to_the_International_Space_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_spaceflights_to_...

vijayr02 3y ago

Now adjust for the fact that these are all ex astronauts, so will probably be fitter than the average 88 year old? Is there data for life expectancy given astronaut?

WXLCKNO 3y ago
Top comment says there's 7 astronauts still alive the youngest being 88? That's all already way beyond the norm I think.
- keybored 3y ago
  Literal survivorship bias. There were 24 originally and this was more than 50 years ago.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    Astronauts in the 1960s were required to be perfectly healthy before their mission, not even minor anomalies in bloodwork etc. were tolerated. No surprise that a third of the moonwalkers is still alive at approximately 90. Nowadays the tolerance is somewhat bigger.
    - keybored 3y ago
      Fine point which has nothing to do with my comment.
    - kjkjadksj 3y ago
      Not to mention when you understand so much about the bodies physiology, its probably hard to allow yourself to fall out of shape considering you know better than most what that means.
      - keybored 3y ago
        There are doctors who smoke… it is known. ;) EDIT: And then an anecdote: a nurse student told me that almost all of her co-students consume tobacco. Hmm.
  - ownlife 3y ago
    7 out of 24 - just under 1/3 - making it to or past 88 is probably higher than average. More also made it past 88 but are dead now.
    - keybored 3y ago
      And only considering the survivors is still survivorship bias.
      - seanhunter 3y ago
        No it's not. We have no interest in the question of whether the apollo astronauts who have already died will be alive when a human next walks on the moon. The question is of the apollo astronauts who are still alive, what is the probability that they will still be alive when a human next walks on the moon. The population under consideration is only astronauts who are alive now. Survivorship bias would only be involved if you were considering some question that involved all apollo astronauts eg for example if we used the population who are alive now to make a prediction as of the completion of the programme.
        keybored 3y ago
        No... The original comment said that the youngest being 88 is “way beyond the norm”. They weren’t talking about whatever you are on about now.
      - Retric 3y ago
        This isn't survivorship bias, just imperfect information being sufficient. Will anyone be alive at X date can ignore the dead from the population as irrelevant. The second question if they are an unusually healthy or sick group doesn't need to look at the dead either. Only ~20 percent of 35 year old men live to 88. Having at least 7 men out of 24 reaching that age is already an long lived group, though not necessarily statistically significant. Looking at the full numbers gives a more precise number, but 12 of 24 vs 7(+) making it to 88 doesn't change the result. Further, even if it was exactly 7 of 24 again the answer doesn't change.

hoorayimhelping 3y ago

Also, it's worth noting that Apollo astronauts are not average-health men. They were selected for their extreme outlier health attributes, which is why so many of them live so long.

embedded_hiker 3y ago
Jim Irwin, who walked ( and rode a car ) on the moon on Apollo 15, and had some heart problems while on the moon. He was obviously healthy before. He ended up having several heart attacks, and died at age 61. He is an outlier in this regard, and there will always be speculation as to whether the strain of walking on the moon damaged his heart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Irwin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Irwin
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
  61 is a younger death, but at that age death is very much on the table, statistically speaking - especially back then. In 1991, when he died, life expectancy for men was 72 years. Meaning for every guy that lived to 83, one guy died at 61.

somenameforme 3y ago

We're taking Boeing's ability to screw things up, NASA's extreme risk aversion, and then mixing them up together in a blender that includes untested technology, the first humans out of low orbit in more than half a century, and NASA's desire to make a huge spectacle out of it all - including identity politics. IMO there's a high probability that a human landing via Artemis ultimately never happens. This isn't the NASA of the 60s that's happy to send a few guys up to the Moon while simultaneously also already having a memorial speech commemorating their deaths written and on standby. They're going to want to be near to 100% assured that the mission will be safely executed, and I simply don't think you can get anywhere near to that in practice. For the exact same reasons, it's also unlikely that Artemis 2 will go ahead. And that launch is scheduled for as early as the end of next year. So it should be an early indicator of things to come, or not to come.

dotancohen 3y ago
As a huge fan of the Apollo program for decades, and the Artemis program now, it pained me to upvote your comment. But you are 100% correct on every point you mention.
- Retric 3y ago
  It’s wildly pessimistic, Artemis 1 went just fine and Artemis 2 is basically the same except with people on board able to look at the moon. Having people flying around in space is something we've done constantly since the first moon landing and adding a big rocket and fuel to get to the moon isn't a huge leap. Now 3 when they need to land is a bigger risk. It running into issues is slightly more believable, they could abort the landing while still flying etc.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    You can see a list of missions to the ISS here. [1] The US stopped launching people to space from 2011 to 2020, relying entirely on Russia during that window. As of 2020 SpaceX entered the game and has started regularly sending people up, but the Artemis program's decision to inject Boeing into it was exclusively due to corruption/'influence.' They weren't competitive on qualification, capability, or price - but were granted a key role anyhow. Notably Boeing was also arbitrarily granted a contract to send people to the ISS under the same 'influence', and they were supposed to be the first private company to do so, more than 5 years ago now. That still hasn't happened. And so the Artemis program now relies completely on NASA's judgement of Boeing's ability to send people to space on 'untested' (they're reusing Space Shuttle era tech and hardware but on an entirely new vessel) technology which has not only run many years and tens of billions of dollars over budget, but has seen a never-ending series of technical issues above and beyond what's expected during normal developmental processes. Basically the big factor is Boeing here. If we contracted everything to SpaceX we'd probably stand a fair chance of putting man on the moon, again - but NASA's risk aversion would still be a major issue. But that's not the case. Now we have an incompetent company paired alongside an organization that will demand superhuman levels of assurances for the sort of spectacle they plan to make of it all, especially after Christa McAuliffe. It's not a great mix for the odds of anything actually going anywhere. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_spaceflights_to_the_International_Space_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_spaceflights_to_...