Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: OT: space travel is dangerous
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 18:20:03 +1200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <va1cij$39e2f$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v9vanl$2rm3k$1@dont-email.me> <va1955$38s4u$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:20:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="34963fc9464514b88150e319a01005a8";
	logging-data="3455055"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ULbkSKXzxScivP5NPXLgcxTYJYvRx2i4="
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:G5h1OdCYQOwW557FB/3CNQnLAXQ=
Bytes: 1964

On 2024-08-20 05:21:44 +0000, Daniel70 said:
> Your Name wrote on 20/8/24 7:04 am:
>> On 2024-08-19 11:36:17 +0000, Woozy Song said:
>>> 
>>> NASA considers an acceptable risk is 1 catastrophe in 270 (that is 
>>> two-way trips). That is exactly 1/4 of the space shuttle's record: 2 in 
>>> 135.
>> 
>> That's not the "acceptbale risk". That's simply the "accident rate".
>> 
>> A space rocket is basically just a huge tank of combustible fuel that 
>> is ignited at one end, so it's extremely lucky there has been a lot 
>> more fatal accidents.
> 
> Umm!! I think you missed out a word there, Your Name ..... *NOT* !!

D'oh!! Damn typos! :-(
It's extremely lucky there has *NOT* been a lot more fatal accidents.


>> NASA's stupidity was in retiring the Space Shuttle programme without 
>> having any real replacement. The proof is in the current problem of two 
>> astronauts that were meant to be on the space station for 8 days and 
>> are now probably going to be stuck there for 8 months!