The shuttle was obsolete and had degrading systems. To engineers that knew better, every flight was frightening due to the combined statistical probability of failure close to 2%. Would You get on an airliner If You knew the statistical probability of a catstropic event [crashing] was 2%... especially if the ride cost was $100,000,000 per seat?
Regards, Wil Taylor
Trust - But Verify!
We believe to be true what we prefer to be true.
For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible.
"Would You get on an airliner If You knew the statistical probability of a catstropic event [crashing] was 2%... especially if the ride cost was $100,000,000 per seat? "
Nope, but I'd probably be willing to get on the Shuttle; just like all the astronauts did. Even with the known failures and creaky systems, I don't recall anyone obviously bailing out.
Wil,....Don't forget who your talking about here...I'm the 72 year old wingnut that races a vintage Mini Cooper...... Sure I would get on the Shuttle knowing it had a 2%, hell, a20% failure rate.
Besides, I am aware of the drawbacks in our space program and it bothers me, no end. What in hell are we doing paying Russia to supply the Space Station. How's it gonna look when China puts a colony on the moon?-----------You don't think that's possible? Maybe not. Got your attention to the possibility, though!
The Ruskies have never lost a crew during assent.... even though the Soyuz assent escape system has been used 2-times. During In-flight and descent they have only lost (2) crews ... early-on in the program (none recently).
A couple of stories.
1. During WWII in the CBI [Hump], early cargo flight operations experienced ~500-major mishaps per 100,000-flying hours with a shit-happens-in-comabt attitude by AAF leadership. This was an astounding and cruel number: few crewmen had expectations of returning stateside. When AAF leadership was replaced and basic safety measures were implemented rigorously, the rate dropped to ~50-mishaps per 100,000-hours... and not only crew moral improved, but cargo delivery rates, all-over the theater, improved dramatically.
2. An Army report documented the introduction of 1st generation nylon/fiberglass ballistic vests in combat during the Korean war. About 100 vests were tested, being rotated among troops in direct contact [guaranteed combat exposure], every 30-days, for the period of ~1-year.
With only a few exceptions [multiple rifle shots, close ordnance detonations, etc] anyone wearing a vest and helmet had a MUCH lower injury/death rate relative to the troops wearing a helment and cotton fatigue shirt; although the old bulky vests made the wearer less maneuverable and much more tired/exhausted over-all.
One surprising/serious problem creeped into the testing. The test required the vests be returned to the test unit as the troops rotated out of combat, or at the end of the 30-day field test period (whichever came first) so they could be inspected/analyzed, repaired and then handed-off to other troops going into combat. What do You think happened?
Think about it!
Think about it hard!
Come on now... The answer is obvious, in today's perspective.
In many cases, the vests had absorbed battle damage [shrapnel, tumbling bullets, etc], or other damage [from flying debris, sharp object punctures, etc] that had prevented serious injuries to the wearer, boosting the morale of the wearer tremendously. As a result, many wearers were outright hostile and refused to surrender the vests, when ordered: the testers had to take a squad of MPs with them, to forcibly remove the vests from the troops who were wearing them. The troops weren't stupid... the vests improved their odds of remaining uninjured significantly... and returning home to live their lives out.
The physchology of safety cannot be deemphasized. IF There WILL be a $5B shuttle loss (with crew), every 50--300 flights, then the odds were good that there would be another [3rd] shuttle loss before too long... especially when deep inspections revealed the extent of aging problems with every system on each vehicle. The astronaut corp is NOT stupid nor fool-hardy. Many want to fly in space, but accepting these levels of risks, repeatedly, is NOT a way to live a long life.
Regards, Wil Taylor
Trust - But Verify!
We believe to be true what we prefer to be true.
For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible.
