Imagine if we had the same safety standards that early air travel had today. Millions of people will die each year. I believe getting someone to LEO should be as close to risk free as possible.
-
-
Replying to @SethKurk @SafeNotAnOption and
This assertion betrays a complete lack of economic common sense. Everything in life involves trade-offs. Cars could have lower risk if they cost $900,000 each and had a max speed of 20 mph. In no aspect of human life do we aim for absolute safety. LEO should be no different.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @SafeNotAnOption and
I know that. By risk free I mean a similar amount of risk that take when getting on an airplane or getting in our cars.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SethKurk @SafeNotAnOption and
Why? If we can put a person into LEO for $10 million with a 0.1% risk rate, or into LEO for the entire GDP of the US with a risk of 0.001%, why is the latter preferable ?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @SafeNotAnOption and
I think you believe I’m an for 0% risk rate which I’m not. That’s a stupidly impossible number to try to reach. I’m saying we shouldn’t lower our standards just because it might speeds things up. That’s how we loose astronauts. Examples are Apollo 1 and Challenger.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SethKurk @SafeNotAnOption and
No, I accept that your phrase "zero risk" means "same risk as car travel". With that out of the way, my question above stands. > That's how we lose astronauts yes...and ?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @SafeNotAnOption and
I don’t recall using the phrase “zero risk” If the overall question is why haven’t we been back to the moon and or why haven’t we gotten to mars yet. Safety isn’t the answer. Funding and politics is and no way I’m getting into that. But I’ll defend the lives of astronauts all day
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SethKurk @SafeNotAnOption and
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs Retweeted Seth Kurkowski
you said "as close to risk free as possible" You still haven't answered the question I've posed. OK, let's try a different one. Money isn't free. It comes from somewhere. Every $10M we spend is the lifetime output of SOMEONE. >>>https://twitter.com/SethKurk/status/1230208694857629699 …
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
why should we, say, triple the cost to launch one astronaut to LEO from $10M to $30M, if that reduces his chance of death from 0.1% to 0.5% ( 1/200 th of a human life of improved utility) at a cost of two or five or ten human lives of output?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @SafeNotAnOption and
You cannot just put a value on a human life like that.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
"you can not" apparently you're wrong, as I just did ...and so does the entire US government, and most of the private sector. Failure to do so prevents one from making good choices that increase utility and happiness. Anyway, you seem obstinate and unwilling to learn; I'm out
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.