|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 24, 2005 0:38:41 GMT -4
I think it would depend on the nature of the failures. If they failed to land on the moon but the crews returned safely then I would still consider going, but if the entire crew died I would certainly be more nervous about it. I doubt the program would continue after 5 lost crews, but 5 minor glitches that resulted in aborting 5 missions would probably only result in delays.
I doubt there will be any major failures though.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 24, 2005 0:39:59 GMT -4
Good point. I was of course basing my reply on major failures.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 24, 2005 4:03:12 GMT -4
If there were a few I'd probably not take 13, perhaps 14. However having said that, how many 747's have crashed, and people still fly in them, if fact I did just a few months back..... so.... As to the 3 no's, out with it, who are the other two pikers, and why?
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 24, 2005 9:54:21 GMT -4
The question isn't really how man 747s crashed; it's how many made it successfully.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Nov 24, 2005 10:19:44 GMT -4
The question isn't really how man 747s crashed; it's how many made it successfully. Well, I think what you really want to know if you are planning to fly on one is the ratio between the two numbers. That gives a point estimate; if, in addition, the number of flights is large, than the variance of the estimated success ratio is small. So both numbers are of some use
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Nov 26, 2005 6:58:15 GMT -4
The question isn't really how man 747s crashed; it's how many made it successfully. Not necessarily ... after all, one crash robbed the world of the greatest civilian flyer ever built - Concorde.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 26, 2005 11:21:47 GMT -4
Not necessarily ... after all, one crash robbed the world of the greatest civilian flyer ever built - Concorde.
Well, it depends on the cause of the crash; if there was a very significant risk amongst all the flights, then yeah, they would be gotten rid of. I don't know why the Concorde was dismantled in the end, though; I don't even know much about the Concorde myself.
Still, people harp on and on about the number of flights that crash, but really, if you compare them to all the flights -- using the same kind of airplane -- that successfully take off and successfully land, it's an extremely low ratio (extremely high ratio? i'm not sure the term here)
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Nov 26, 2005 11:50:40 GMT -4
Not necessarily ... after all, one crash robbed the world of the greatest civilian flyer ever built - Concorde. I think you'll find that the downturn in the aviation industry following 9/11 was a more telling factor in Concorde's demise.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 26, 2005 21:12:46 GMT -4
That and the expense of maintaning the aircraft became prohibative. Basically they were just too expesive to run and weren't getting as many passangers as the numbers declined worldwide.
|
|
|
Post by piper on Nov 27, 2005 1:44:31 GMT -4
I don't think it's doable either, but even if it was I wouldn't go near the place. There's just something about it that creeps me out...
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 27, 2005 7:01:39 GMT -4
Would anyone else here be unsure or say no if the failure rate is high enough in relation to the success rate? You're invited to go on Mission 21. Would you still go if, in the first 20 Missions.... 2 failed? (d'oh!) 5 failed? Yes, that would be acceptable risk. This would depend on when the failures occured. If the first 10-15 failed and the later flights succeeded, then it would seem they'd worked the bugs out and I would go. If the failures were more randomly distributed, this would be too much of a "luck" factor for me. Hell yes I'd go!!! This would give me a crack at being on the first successful mission.
|
|
|
Post by snakeriverrufus on Dec 1, 2005 18:42:59 GMT -4
I would go on #21 even if the first 20 failed. But that's just me
|
|
|
Post by Fnord Fred on Dec 1, 2005 18:57:13 GMT -4
I would have if you asked me a year ago. Now, I'd like at least a 50/50 chance at making it. And It'd be nice if the first 10 or so failures were towards the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Dec 2, 2005 0:37:29 GMT -4
I voted yes.
I am not afraid of dieing while trying. I survived cancer and the attendant chemo and radiation treatments, I am 49 yrs old and have lived a good life.
Getting in the ship and having it blow up on the pad would be inconsequential compared to being given the chance to get in the ship and not taking the opportunity. (a roller coaster offers much less in return for the risk taken, LO)
I would not have to be drugged as LO says he would but I would have to make sure I ate a very light meal and maybe even velcro on a pair of Depends. ;D
BTW, is "fly to the Moon" technically correct? We refer to "spaceflight" but doesn't "flight" technically require an atmosphere?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Dec 3, 2005 1:14:13 GMT -4
BTW, is "fly to the Moon" technically correct? We refer to "spaceflight" but doesn't "flight" technically require an atmosphere? I pondered that before I started the thread. Flying is basically defined as "being airborne" or similarly described, so I agree it may be technically incorrect. But I went with it anyway... I first considered it when I found out that Michael Collins wrote a book titled "Flying to the Moon: An Astronaut's Story". I became further convinced to use the term when I saw that NASA has a website page titled "Human Space Flight", spaceflight.nasa.gov/home/index.htmlBut then, I remembered that ol' Blue Eyes sang the classic "Fly Me to the Moon". And kapow!, that was the clincher!!
|
|