• 0 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Aquileo | cake
Cake day: February 2nd, 2025

Aquileo | help-circle



  • dehyzer@piefed.socialtomemesSomeone's cutting onions
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    For the sake of argument, let’s use your numbers and say an average astronaut ends up taking a dozen flights on rockets designed to NASA’s 1-in-270 “loss of crew” standard. If that probability holds, then we would expect 4.4% of all astronauts flying in modern rockets to be in a fatal accident during their 12-mission career.

    For comparison, lifetime driving fatality risk for American drivers is right around 1%.





  • dehyzer@piefed.socialtomemesSomeone's cutting onions
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    Are you asking to change the definition of a car trip to the ~500,000 miles it takes to get to the moon and back?

    In that case, rate of fatality is around 1 in 200 “driving to the moon and back” trips. 0.5% chance. So taking the rocketship is still significantly more dangerous.

    More realistically, 500,000 miles is roughly a lifetime of driving. So these astronauts are being exposed in a single trip to a fatality risk equivalent of 2+ lifetimes of driving.


  • dehyzer@piefed.socialtomemesSomeone's cutting onions
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    10
    ·
    Aquileo | edit-2
    4 months ago

    Or to look at it from a different angle, 5 out of the 413 total manned space flights have ended in fatalities, or 1.21%.

    Auto travel in the US has a fatality rate around 1 death per 100 million driven miles. Assuming an average trip of 20 miles, that’s 1 death per 5 million car trips, or 0.00002%.

    So, roughly 10,000 (EDIT: actually 100,000, missed a zero!) times more dangerous than driving.




  • Can you explain the “pressure” part a bit more? It sounds like you’ve got a time-sensitive question, but rather than asking the question and getting a response (or not), you’re asking to ask a time-sensitive question and getting a response (or not). If you’re trying to avoid the pressure of a time-sensitive question, it doesn’t seem like this approach fixes that.

    Only thing I can see is that this approach prevents the situation where the recipient takes too long to respond but did actually want to go to the concert, forcing the sender to explain that it’s unfortunately too late, tickets have been purchased and they don’t have one. But it seems like clarity in the initial message is still the best way to give them a chance to respond promptly if they really do want to go.

    Who knows, maybe I have finally gotten too old to understand modern youth etiquette