We have had two catastrophic failures in a little over 100 missions, suggesting a catastrophic failure rate probability of 1:50, or 2% per mission. This is a much higher risk than has previously been acknowledged by anyone in the space program, and even by many of its critics. (Richard Feynman speculated that the risk might be as low as 1:100.)
Is it an acceptable risk?
Actually the problem is not enough "Passenger Miles."
>We have had
two catastrophic failures in a little over
100 missions, suggesting a catastrophic failure rate probability of 1:50, or 2% per mission. This is a much higher risk than has previously been acknowledged...
I believe the real
odds (based on performance) are
in fact much, much worse.
It is one hundred
missions, but that's spread across
five different shuttles.
The shuttles that blew
had vastly fewer missions.
So, by blunt numbers,
it's really something
like one chance in ten of death! (2 of (100/5))
I like adventure,
but with these results,
I wouldn't ride a shuttle
even as a prize...
(Dr. S., am I
abusing prob and stats here?
Are these "odds" correct?)