|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
On Oct 22, 8:55*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 96dd767b-f54d-41e2-ba37-2a55cd6d8d89 @j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says... well the shuttle is worse than flying in combat and most military airplanes have ejection seats. Worse than flying in combat? *No Bob, that's NOT true. *Shuttle has only had two failures in 132 flights, which is a 1 in 66 loss of crew rate. * That's a heck of a lot better than what our boys were facing during WW- II. * My grandfather was an engineer on a B-24 during WW-II and the life expectancy of one of an air crew was extremely dismal and they had no ejection seats (they did have parachutes though). *I know you can't always trust the Internet for facts like this, but here it is anyway: * * Bomber crews' tour of duty was 25 missions (later raised to 35) * * But, the life expectancy of the average crew was just 14 missions.. Most NASA astronauts only fly one or five missions. *There is a *very* small minority who have flown six or more missions. *No NASA astronaut has flown anywhere near the 25 or 35 missions required to complete a WW- II bomber crew's tour. * Obviously, the actual risk to a single shuttle astronaut is *far* lower than that of a WW-II bomber crew, who flew together on every one of those missions until one of two things stopped them: *1. They were shot down (most likely all killed) or 2. They completed their tour of duty and went home. * If you're going to make wild assertions that may offend combat veterans and their families, please back up that assertion with facts and verifiable statistical analyses. theres no escape system on commercial airliners since most accidents occur during takeoff or landing, and theres no way to get out during those times Most launch vehicle accidents occur during launch or reentry/landing too. *You take your chances during launch and landing, and every astronaut knows those odds and chooses to fly anyway. *Just because some whiners like you don't like the odds is no reason to stop flying. Jeff -- 42 jeff the less safe than combat was widely accepted and discussed right after columbia loss. i suppose it should of said current combat aircraft are safer than flying in a shuttle I feel bad for the workers that the shuttle is ending without a replacement. Although this was clearly a nasa management failure if they would of choosen to fly on deltas we would be flying today |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1design for the Shuttles' replacement (Orion) and (maybe) also for a (future)NEW (smaller) Shuttle | gaetanomarano | Space Shuttle | 17 | April 3rd 08 06:32 PM |
NASA and robotic research | [email protected] | Policy | 28 | June 18th 06 07:03 PM |
M27 with the Bradford Robotic Telescope | Robin Leadbeater | UK Astronomy | 4 | June 16th 05 12:49 PM |
If we lost ISS would the shuttles be retired too? What of the future? | Hallerb | Space Shuttle | 17 | November 7th 03 01:42 PM |