rk wrote:
I did some reading on the recent study last year between NASA and
the Navy:
07.17.03 - NASA/Navy Benchmarking Exchange (NNBE)

That one is high on my to-be-read list.

Note that they use terms such as "maximum reasonable assurance" -
that differs from "maximum assurance." This is similar to radiation
training, ALARA, "as low as reasonably achievable."

Yep, the ol' tunnel trio: Time, Distance, and Shielding

One can never drive the risk to zero since that would require n levels
of redundancy, n infinite. That's where "acceptable risk" comes in.
The definition of "acceptable risk" is of course quite subjective.

Yep. It's made worse when the perceived risk is driven by the
assumption that "routine" = "safe as a nursery school".

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.