|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Vehicle Miles Travelled
Scott Kazel mentioned "vehicle miles traveled" as a measure of safety in
a thread on sci.space.shuttle? Are there any figures for the total VMT for astronauts and cosmonauts? -- "Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of void" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Vehicle Miles Travelled
I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
Jonathan Silverlight on Sun, 7 Sep 2003 22:14:42 +0100, which said: Scott Kazel mentioned "vehicle miles traveled" as a measure of safety in a thread on sci.space.shuttle? Doesn't strike me as very pertinent. Mercury had a perfect safety record, yet flew far fewer miles than any other program. Apollo's only safety problem occurred with 0 miles flown. Of course, we can also argue about the definition of a safety problem. OTOH, you could argue that riding a rocket is inherently unsafe to begin with, so the whole concept of mission safety is entirely relative. --------------- Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Vehicle Miles Travelled
John Beaderstadt wrote:
I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by Jonathan Silverlight on Sun, 7 Sep 2003 22:14:42 +0100, which said: Scott Kazel mentioned "vehicle miles traveled" as a measure of safety in a thread on sci.space.shuttle? Doesn't strike me as very pertinent. Mercury had a perfect safety record, yet flew far fewer miles than any other program. Apollo's only safety problem occurred with 0 miles flown. Lovell, Haise & Swigert would be surprised to learn that. 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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Vehicle Miles Travelled
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 12:14:59 +0000, John Beaderstadt wrote:
I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by (Derek Lyons) on Mon, 08 Sep 2003 05:15:32 GMT, which said: Apollo's only safety problem occurred with 0 miles flown. Lovell, Haise & Swigert would be surprised to learn that. You deleted the next(?) line, which read something like, "Of course, then we can argue about the definition of a safety problem." It's possible to argue that *any* problem with a spacecraft is a safety issue; if, however, you're going to differentiate between safety, performance, reliability, etc, the way the OP inherently did, then you are going to have to resign yourself to remaining within a narrow context. You are right in that there is a continuum of glitches ranging from a minor annoyance, to a safety problem, to a disaster. On the other hand, I'd venture to say that the Apollo 13 incident was pretty far towards the safety problem end of that scale. If it wasn't a real safety problem, it was pretty darn close. If we are talking about fatalities per vehicle mile, then that's a different thing, but to argue that anything less is not a safety problem just doesn't ring true. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Vehicle Miles Travelled
In message , John
Beaderstadt writes I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by Jonathan Silverlight on Sun, 7 Sep 2003 22:14:42 +0100, which said: Scott Kazel mentioned "vehicle miles traveled" as a measure of safety in a thread on sci.space.shuttle? Doesn't strike me as very pertinent. Mercury had a perfect safety record, yet flew far fewer miles than any other program. Apollo's only safety problem occurred with 0 miles flown. I didn't think so either, but I'm just wondering how close they are to Scott's figure of 1.3 fatalities per 100 million VMT on the roads. The total lost in space flight is about 20, depending how you do the sums, so have they clocked up 2500 million VMT? Of course there have been rather fewer space missions than road trips! -- "Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of void" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Vehicle Miles Travelled
John Beaderstadt wrote:
I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by Rick DeNatale on Mon, 08 Sep 2003 11:12:09 -0400, which said: On the other hand, I'd venture to say that the Apollo 13 incident was pretty far towards the safety problem end of that scale. If it wasn't a real safety problem, it was pretty darn close. Let's put it this way: if the explosion had happened in earth orbit, it would not have been nearly as threatening. The incident was only life-threatening in the context of where and when it happened. To me, a safety issue is life-threatening in and of itself, regardless of context. That's the top of a very slippery slope. At the bottom lies the remains of Challenger, and Columbia. 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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Vehicle Miles Travelled
John Beaderstadt wrote:
I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by Rick DeNatale on Mon, 08 Sep 2003 11:12:09 -0400, which said: On the other hand, I'd venture to say that the Apollo 13 incident was pretty far towards the safety problem end of that scale. If it wasn't a real safety problem, it was pretty darn close. Let's put it this way: if the explosion had happened in earth orbit, it would not have been nearly as threatening. The incident was only life-threatening in the context of where and when it happened. Maybe, maybe not. For a moon mission prior to TLI, they are dead. For a Skylab or ASTP mission, they are dead. In fact the *only* earth orbital mission where they are not dead is an Apollo 9 type of mission. To me, a safety issue is life-threatening in and of itself, regardless of context. That's the first step down a steep and slippery slope. At the bottom of the slope lies Challenger and Columbia. 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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Vehicle Miles Travelled
John Beaderstadt ) writes:
I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by (Derek Lyons) on Tue, 09 Sep 2003 04:16:51 GMT, which said: Let's put it this way: if the explosion had happened in earth orbit, it would not have been nearly as threatening. The incident was only life-threatening in the context of where and when it happened. Maybe, maybe not. For a moon mission prior to TLI, they are dead. For a Skylab or ASTP mission, they are dead. In fact the *only* earth orbital mission where they are not dead is an Apollo 9 type of mission. What? I don't have an A13 time line in front of me, but A13, or any other Apollo mission, could have been "safely" brought back under similar circumstances, at any point while in earth orbit. The only inherently fatal A13 scenario was a post TEI explosion. Could it not be Mr. Lyon's point that, a CM attached to an SM that was still firmly in the SIVB Apollo Saturn V on-LEO stack would have no way to fire a retro burn, and thus would be in deep kimchee, at that point ? Lets say an A13 accident happened at that point in an Apollo Saturn V flight. What would be the capability of the dying SM to support either an immediate transposition and docking with the encapsulated LM, and/or, to fire the dying SM's engine for an immediate emergency retro burn out of LEO ? [...] Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Vehicle Miles Travelled
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SS1 flight set for June 21 | Hop David | Policy | 127 | June 16th 04 07:50 AM |
Launch of transport cargo vehicle Progress M-49 | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 26th 04 03:20 PM |
Landing of Soyuz TMA-3 descent vehicle | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 5th 04 11:23 PM |
Spirit has a mind of its own? | Jon Berndt | Space Shuttle | 33 | January 28th 04 04:48 AM |
Sad turn | Charleston | Space Shuttle | 93 | August 12th 03 02:31 AM |