Xref: utzoo sci.space:6439 sci.space.shuttle:985
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!eos!eugene
From: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability
Message-ID: <1231@eos.UUCP>
Date: 8 Aug 88 00:37:34 GMT
References: <3763@teklds.TEK.COM> <2087@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> <3659@drivax.UUCP>
Reply-To: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Calif.
Lines: 27

Interesting discussion.  Extreme full-speed ahead discussion tend to get
ignored in NASA (especially when dealing with lives, especially
when some are the scientific creme of America).  Also note
the McNeil-Lehrer discussion with Bruce Murray and Fletcher.

If the problem were one simply of temperature (Yeager also put this argument
forward, and launching above them temp), it would make the problem easier.
It is not.  There are other long-term problems, suffice it to say.

The problem, as Feynman pointed out, is how do you quanitify this?
I can easily say 99.9 or 95 percent based on some metric, but which.
Anyway, the point is partly moot, we are here now, we are dealing with lots
of unknowns (I don't work in manned space, and we don't launch based
on popular democracy).  [A good reference on pressure BTW is "Normal
Risks" which I am currently rereading].

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

You can send money to NASA or you can send it to the Richard Feynman
Memorial Fund for Cancer Research [UCLA], P.O. Box 70021, Pasadena, CA 91107
or both.