5 ms·

A lot of people are taking issue with the fact that you need to say yes for progress. I don’t know how one could always say no and expect to have anything done.

by caseyy 2y ago

A lot of people are taking issue with the fact that you need to say yes for progress. I don’t know how one could always say no and expect to have anything done. Every kind of meaningful success involves negotiating risk instead of seizing up in the presence of it. The shuttle probably could have failed in 1,000 different ways and eventually, it would have. But they still went to space with it. Some risk is acceptable. If I were to go to the moon, let’s say, I would accept a 50% risk of death. I would be happy to do it. Other people would accept a risk of investment and work hour loss. It’s not so black or white that you wouldn’t go if there’s any risk.

lolinder 2y ago
The key thing with Challenger is that the engineers working on the project estimated the risk to be extremely high and refused to budge, eventually being overruled by the executives of their company. That's different than the engineers calculating the risk of failure at some previously-defined-as-acceptable level and giving the go-ahead.
kerkeslager 2y ago
> Some risk is acceptable. If I were to go to the moon, let’s say, I would accept a 50% risk of death. I would be happy to do it. Other people would accept a risk of investment and work hour loss. It’s not so black or white that you wouldn’t go if there’s any risk. It's possible you're just suicidal, but I'm reading this more as false internet bravado. A 50% risk of death on a mission to space is totally unacceptable. It's not like anyone will die if you don't go now; you can afford to take the time to eliminate all known risks of this magnitude.
- caseyy 2y ago
  Not bravado at all, if I was given those odds today, I would put all my effort into it and go. There are many people who are ideologically-driven and accept odds of death at 50% or higher — revolutionary fighters, political martyrs, religious martyrs, explorers and adventurers throughout history (including space), environmental activists, freedom fighters, healthcare workers in epidemics of serious disease...
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    > Not bravado at all, if I was given those odds today, I would put all my effort into it and go. If that's actually true, you should see a therapist. Given we have a track record of going to the moon with much lower death rate than 50%, that's a proven higher risk than is necessary. That's not risking your life for a cause, because there's no cause that benefits from you taking this disproportionate risk. It's the heroism equivalent of playing Russian Roulette a little more than 3 times and achieves about as much. > There are many people who are ideologically-driven and accept odds of death at 50% or higher — revolutionary fighters, political martyrs, religious martyrs, explorers and adventurers throughout history (including space), environmental activists, freedom fighters, healthcare workers in epidemics of serious disease... And for every one of those there's 100 keyboard cowboys on the internet who have never been within a mile of danger and have no idea how they'll react to it. I would say I'm more ideologically driven than most, and there are a handful of causes I'd like to think I'd die for. But I'm also self-aware enough to know that it's impossible to know how I'll react until I'm actually in those situations. And I'll reiterate: you aren't risking your life for a cause, because there's no cause that benefits from you taking a 50% mortality risk on a trip to the moon.
    - caseyy 2y ago
      I think you may be projecting, because you are acting a bit like a keyboard warrior — telling others to see therapists. Consider that other people have different views, that is all. To some, the cause (principle/life goal) of exploring where others have not gone is enough.
      - kerkeslager 2y ago
        Let me be clear; there are 2 options: 1. Go where others have not gone, with a 50% risk of death. 2. Wait 5 days for temperatures to rise, and go where others have not gone, with a 0.5% risk of death. Choosing 1 isn't "different views, that is all", it's pretty objectively the wrong choice. It's not dying for a cause, it's not brave, it's not idealistic. It's pointlessly suicidal. So yes, I'm saying if you think 1 is the right choice you should see a therapist. Notably, NASA requires all astronauts to undergo psychological evaluation, even if they aren't claiming they'll take insane unnecessary risks. So it's not like I'm the only one who thinks talking to someone before you potentially kill yourself is a good idea.
runlaszlorun 2y ago
> I would accept a 50% risk of death. No offense but this sounds like the sayings of someone who has not ever seen a 50% of death. It’s a little different 3 to 4 months out. It’s way different the night before and morning. Stepping “in the arena” with odds like those, I’d say the vast, vast majority will back out and/or break down sobbing if forced. There’s a small percent who will go forward but admit the fact that they were completely afraid- and rightly so. Then you have that tiny percentage that are completely calm and you’d swear had a tiny smile creeping in… I’ve never been an astronaut. But I did spend three years in and out of Bosnia with a special operations task force. Honestly? I have a 1% rule. The things might have a 20-30% chance of death of clearly stupid and no one wants to do. Things will a one in a million prob aren’t gonna catch ya. But I figure that if something does, it’s gonna be an activity that I do often but has a 1% chance of going horribly wrong and that I’m ignoring.
- 2shortplanks 2y ago
  50% of the time doing something that has a one percent chance of killing you 69 times will kill you
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > No offense but this sounds like the sayings of someone who has not ever seen a 50% of death. The space program pilots saw it. And no, I would not have flown on those rockets. After all, NASA would "man rate" a new rocket design with only one successful launch.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Spooky graph that illustrates the risk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-25C_Titan_II#/media/File:USAF_ICBM_and_NASA_Launch_Vehicle_Flight_Test_Successes_and_Failures_(highlighted).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-25C_Titan_II#/media/File:U...
  - MereInterest 2y ago
    Using the space shuttle program as a comparison, because it's easy to get the numbers. There were 13 total deaths (7 from Challenger, 6 from Columbia [0]) during the program. Over 135 missions, the Space Shuttle took 817 people into space. (From [1], the sum of the "Crew" column. The Space Shuttle carried 355 distinct people, but some were on multiple missions.) So the risk of death could be estimated as 2/135 (fatal flights / total flights) or as 13/817 (total fatalities / total crew). These are around 1.5%, must lower than a 50% chance of death. This is not to underplay their bravery. This is to state that the level of bravery to face a 1.5% chance of death is extremely high. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_ac... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions
oopsallmagic 2y ago
[flagged]
srean 2y ago
> If I were to go to the moon, let’s say, I would accept a 50% risk of death. But you weren't in the shuttle, so it is irrelevant.

by caseyy 2y ago

lolinder 2y ago

The key thing with Challenger is that the engineers working on the project estimated the risk to be extremely high and refused to budge, eventually being overruled by the executives of their company. That's different than the engineers calculating the risk of failure at some previously-defined-as-acceptable level and giving the go-ahead.

kerkeslager 2y ago

> Some risk is acceptable. If I were to go to the moon, let’s say, I would accept a 50% risk of death. I would be happy to do it. Other people would accept a risk of investment and work hour loss. It’s not so black or white that you wouldn’t go if there’s any risk. It's possible you're just suicidal, but I'm reading this more as false internet bravado. A 50% risk of death on a mission to space is totally unacceptable. It's not like anyone will die if you don't go now; you can afford to take the time to eliminate all known risks of this magnitude.

caseyy 2y ago
Not bravado at all, if I was given those odds today, I would put all my effort into it and go. There are many people who are ideologically-driven and accept odds of death at 50% or higher — revolutionary fighters, political martyrs, religious martyrs, explorers and adventurers throughout history (including space), environmental activists, freedom fighters, healthcare workers in epidemics of serious disease...
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  > Not bravado at all, if I was given those odds today, I would put all my effort into it and go. If that's actually true, you should see a therapist. Given we have a track record of going to the moon with much lower death rate than 50%, that's a proven higher risk than is necessary. That's not risking your life for a cause, because there's no cause that benefits from you taking this disproportionate risk. It's the heroism equivalent of playing Russian Roulette a little more than 3 times and achieves about as much. > There are many people who are ideologically-driven and accept odds of death at 50% or higher — revolutionary fighters, political martyrs, religious martyrs, explorers and adventurers throughout history (including space), environmental activists, freedom fighters, healthcare workers in epidemics of serious disease... And for every one of those there's 100 keyboard cowboys on the internet who have never been within a mile of danger and have no idea how they'll react to it. I would say I'm more ideologically driven than most, and there are a handful of causes I'd like to think I'd die for. But I'm also self-aware enough to know that it's impossible to know how I'll react until I'm actually in those situations. And I'll reiterate: you aren't risking your life for a cause, because there's no cause that benefits from you taking a 50% mortality risk on a trip to the moon.
  - caseyy 2y ago
    I think you may be projecting, because you are acting a bit like a keyboard warrior — telling others to see therapists. Consider that other people have different views, that is all. To some, the cause (principle/life goal) of exploring where others have not gone is enough.
    - kerkeslager 2y ago
      Let me be clear; there are 2 options: 1. Go where others have not gone, with a 50% risk of death. 2. Wait 5 days for temperatures to rise, and go where others have not gone, with a 0.5% risk of death. Choosing 1 isn't "different views, that is all", it's pretty objectively the wrong choice. It's not dying for a cause, it's not brave, it's not idealistic. It's pointlessly suicidal. So yes, I'm saying if you think 1 is the right choice you should see a therapist. Notably, NASA requires all astronauts to undergo psychological evaluation, even if they aren't claiming they'll take insane unnecessary risks. So it's not like I'm the only one who thinks talking to someone before you potentially kill yourself is a good idea.

runlaszlorun 2y ago

> I would accept a 50% risk of death. No offense but this sounds like the sayings of someone who has not ever seen a 50% of death. It’s a little different 3 to 4 months out. It’s way different the night before and morning. Stepping “in the arena” with odds like those, I’d say the vast, vast majority will back out and/or break down sobbing if forced. There’s a small percent who will go forward but admit the fact that they were completely afraid- and rightly so. Then you have that tiny percentage that are completely calm and you’d swear had a tiny smile creeping in… I’ve never been an astronaut. But I did spend three years in and out of Bosnia with a special operations task force. Honestly? I have a 1% rule. The things might have a 20-30% chance of death of clearly stupid and no one wants to do. Things will a one in a million prob aren’t gonna catch ya. But I figure that if something does, it’s gonna be an activity that I do often but has a 1% chance of going horribly wrong and that I’m ignoring.

2shortplanks 2y ago
50% of the time doing something that has a one percent chance of killing you 69 times will kill you
WalterBright 2y ago
> No offense but this sounds like the sayings of someone who has not ever seen a 50% of death. The space program pilots saw it. And no, I would not have flown on those rockets. After all, NASA would "man rate" a new rocket design with only one successful launch.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Spooky graph that illustrates the risk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-25C_Titan_II#/media/File:USAF_ICBM_and_NASA_Launch_Vehicle_Flight_Test_Successes_and_Failures_(highlighted).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-25C_Titan_II#/media/File:U...
- MereInterest 2y ago
  Using the space shuttle program as a comparison, because it's easy to get the numbers. There were 13 total deaths (7 from Challenger, 6 from Columbia [0]) during the program. Over 135 missions, the Space Shuttle took 817 people into space. (From [1], the sum of the "Crew" column. The Space Shuttle carried 355 distinct people, but some were on multiple missions.) So the risk of death could be estimated as 2/135 (fatal flights / total flights) or as 13/817 (total fatalities / total crew). These are around 1.5%, must lower than a 50% chance of death. This is not to underplay their bravery. This is to state that the level of bravery to face a 1.5% chance of death is extremely high. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_ac... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions

oopsallmagic 2y ago

[flagged]

srean 2y ago

> If I were to go to the moon, let’s say, I would accept a 50% risk of death. But you weren't in the shuttle, so it is irrelevant.