5 ms·
100 success and 2 failures. About a 1.6% failure rate from memory. That’s not a great record. Sure it’s a complex field, and it’s not as dangerous as say being
by chgs 2y ago
100 success and 2 failures. About a 1.6% failure rate from memory.
That’s not a great record. Sure it’s a complex field, and it’s not as dangerous as say being US President, but a failure rate of >1% is not something to write home about.
- nicce 2y agoSo what was the failure rate of the previous shuttle?
- mumblemumble 2y agoIts predecessor launch system had 10 successes and 2 failures for the crewed flights. One, they got the crew home safely, but it was close. So that's a 17% failure rate and a 8% rate of failures killing the crew. Not saying the Shuttle's success rate was awesome; I'm glad we demand more nowadays. But it still represented a pretty decent crew safety improvement for the USA's human spaceflight program.
- atmavatar 2y agoNotably, both were hardware failures. Challenger blew up on launch because of a booster failure due to a faulty O-ring seal. Columbia burned up on re-entry because a piece of insulating foam broke off from the external tank during launch, damaging the heat tiles on its left wing. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_ac...
- redwall_hp 2y agoOne accident per 271,199,439 miles traveled seems pretty damn safe, applying the same standard used for other methods of travel. https://www3.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/566250main_SHUTTLE%20ERA%20FACTS_040412.pdf https://www3.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/566250main_SHUTTLE...
- sqeaky 2y agoI encourage you to build a more reliable space plane. Please link me to your blog and I will read your updates daily.