Chance of shuttle disaster i in 75

Thats not very good odds at all

On Apr 25, 8:32*pm, bob haller wrote:
Thats not very good odds at all

Source CBS news tonight during the interview with gabbys husband

Which is why all the people who fly to space tend to be either a bit mad or
very dedicated or preferably both in equal parts.

Having said that, life events do make you evaluate risk differently. I was
not always blind, for example and walking down the street and crossing busy
roads blindfolded is not what a sane person would do is it?

Get my drift?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"bob haller" wrote in message
...
Thats not very good odds at all

On Apr 25, 10:17*pm, JF Mezei wrote:
bob haller wrote:
Thats not very good odds at all

Why do you bother with this ? There are only a couple flights left ? You
won, the Shuttle is being retired, the USA won't have a manned space
programme for many years. *Why do you keep harping on this ?

With only 2 (or is it 3) missions left, and with much better
understanding and monitoring of foam problems, I think your statistics
are outdated and fears of a disaster just plan old unwarranted
fearmongering.

You should enjoy those last 2-3 flights and consider all the fantastic
accomplishements made by the Shuttle, many of which will not be possible
again for a very very long time.

I was SHOCKED the number was so dangerous, and thats why I posted it.
It must of been valid it was clearly stated in the interview and gabbs
husband the commander said the risk is worth it

Imagine is 1 in 75 car trips resuled in a disaster accident

Or 1 in 75 airliner trips ended in disaster

the shuttle was a poor design cost wise its big accomplishment
spending over 200 billion over the life of the program, and sadly
killing 2 crews.

pure nasa and congress miss management is why we arent already flying
a replacement vehicle, all a matter of pure pork piggie payoffs..

If at the time of columbia NASA had choosen using delta and atlas
heavies along with a great CM & service module we would be flying
today....

On 4/25/2011 6:32 PM, bob haller wrote:
Thats not very good odds at all
Actually, it's both (a) incorrect, and (b) at this point, irrelevant.

There have been 133 orbital missions of the Shuttle at this point, with
2 "disasters," for a cumulative "chance of disaster" of 2/133, or 1 in
66.5. Assuming the last 2 missions are trouble-free, that record will
improve to 1 in 67.5.

But so what? Do we REALLY know what the "chance of disaster" was during
the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo era? The fact that those programs concluded
with no astronauts lost in flight in certainly commendable, but since
there were a total of only 28 flights over those three programs, the
sample size is way too low to draw any solid conclusions here. Shuttle
was a far more complex system than any of its predecessors, and flew
nearly five times the number of missions (with the majority of missions
being of considerably longer duration than many of the those in the
Mercury-Apollo era).

Yes, two crews were tragically lost, and we should never forget that.
It doesn't mean that the program was a mistake. Shuttle crews, just
like their predecessors, knew that the business they were in came with a
set of heightened and very unusual risks, and yet they willingly went
anyway, because they knew that the potential benefits were worth the
potential costs.

Space flight is not, and is not likely to be (for a VERY long time)
anything remotely like driving down to the corner store for a loaf of
bread. The nature of these sorts of explorations, where you are quite
literally making up new rules as you go along, means that there will
always be something out there that you did not plan for, and which will
strike - often with tragic results. But that's been true since man
first became an explorer. Some Neanderthal (or even earlier ancestor of
humanity) followed his or her curiosity unarmed into a cave that was
already occupied by Something Nasty, and paid for that mistake with
their life. Similar fates were in store for many of those who tried to
see if their horse could show them what was beyond the desert that lay
next to their homelands, or if their canoe could take them to whatever
place the Sun went to when it sank into the ocean, or if they could come
up with some sort of machine that would let them fly like a bird. The
job of explorer is not one of guaranteed safety, EVER.

And the person who would insist on a guarantee of absolute safety before
any such exploration is begun is a fool on at least two counts. First,
no such guarantee can ever be given; if you ever take a claim of such at
face value, you're definitely being foolish. But worse yet, waiting for
such a guarantee or anything remotely like it simply ensures that you'll
never get anywhere in the first place.

Bob M.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:32:40 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

Thats not very good odds at all

Chance of not a disaster 74 in 75

Or in other words 98.6 times out of 100 it does exactly what it's
supposed to do. Fly for 1000 flights and you lose 14 crews or 98 at 7
per mission.

Many more have died in exploration across our own planet on land, ice
and at sea in recent recorded history than will ever die in space and
it is patently clear that deaths from any shuttle design deficieincies
are completely immaterial. The shuttle is safe. Fact. FFS many
more die every day due to lack of clean water than died on 11/9, which
is more than will *ever* die in space over the next thousand years.

--

On Apr 26, 7:23*pm, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:32:40 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

Thats not very good odds at all

Chance of not a disaster 74 in 75

Or in other words 98.6 times out of 100 it does exactly what it's
supposed to do. *Fly for 1000 flights and you lose 14 crews or 98 at 7
per mission.

Many more have died in exploration across our own planet on land, ice
and at sea in recent recorded history than will ever die in space and
it is patently clear that deaths from any shuttle design deficieincies
are completely immaterial. * The shuttle is safe. *Fact. * FFS many
more die every day due to lack of clean water than died on 11/9, which
is more than will *ever* die in space over the next thousand years.

--

bogus point.

if for every 1000 car trips 14 ended up with deaths car travel would
be deemed unacceptably unsafe

In article 3db68649-5f6a-4328-a150-757fb620d145@
26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...

On Apr 26, 7:23*pm, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:32:40 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

Thats not very good odds at all

Chance of not a disaster 74 in 75

Or in other words 98.6 times out of 100 it does exactly what it's
supposed to do. *Fly for 1000 flights and you lose 14 crews or 98 at 7
per mission.

Many more have died in exploration across our own planet on land, ice
and at sea in recent recorded history than will ever die in space and
it is patently clear that deaths from any shuttle design deficieincies
are completely immaterial. * The shuttle is safe. *Fact. * FFS many
more die every day due to lack of clean water than died on 11/9, which
is more than will *ever* die in space over the next thousand years.

bogus point.

if for every 1000 car trips 14 ended up with deaths car travel would
be deemed unacceptably unsafe

Bogus point. Space travel != automobile travel.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

On Apr 27, 8:54*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 3db68649-5f6a-4328-a150-757fb620d145@
26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...







On Apr 26, 7:23 pm, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:32:40 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

Thats not very good odds at all

Chance of not a disaster 74 in 75

Or in other words 98.6 times out of 100 it does exactly what it's
supposed to do. Fly for 1000 flights and you lose 14 crews or 98 at 7
per mission.

Many more have died in exploration across our own planet on land, ice
and at sea in recent recorded history than will ever die in space and
it is patently clear that deaths from any shuttle design deficieincies
are completely immaterial. The shuttle is safe. Fact. FFS many
more die every day due to lack of clean water than died on 11/9, which
is more than will *ever* die in space over the next thousand years.

bogus point.

if for every 1000 car trips 14 ended up with deaths car travel would
be deemed unacceptably unsafe

Bogus point. *Space travel != automobile travel.

Jeff
--

I feel bad for the workers losing their jobs

well honestly for nasa it doesnt matter since the shuttle is ending
and no replacement is coming soon

On 27/04/2011 1:49 AM, bob haller wrote:
On Apr 25, 10:17 pm, JF wrote:
bob haller wrote:
Thats not very good odds at all

Why do you bother with this ? There are only a couple flights left ? You
won, the Shuttle is being retired, the USA won't have a manned space
programme for many years. Why do you keep harping on this ?

With only 2 (or is it 3) missions left, and with much better
understanding and monitoring of foam problems, I think your statistics
are outdated and fears of a disaster just plan old unwarranted
fearmongering.

You should enjoy those last 2-3 flights and consider all the fantastic
accomplishements made by the Shuttle, many of which will not be possible
again for a very very long time.

I was SHOCKED the number was so dangerous, and thats why I posted it.
It must of been valid it was clearly stated in the interview and gabbs
husband the commander said the risk is worth it

Imagine is 1 in 75 car trips resuled in a disaster accident

Or 1 in 75 airliner trips ended in disaster

Cars don't have a billion parts. Neither do airliners (less than a
million for a large passenger jet). And neither vehicle does 3 G's
during launch; doesn't travel at up to 27,000km/h; doesn't go into
vacuums on a regular basis; and neither vehicle travels through the air
at temperatures of thousands of degrees.