Re: Buran Website Finds So Far


"Dale" <drc@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8fgga1hahjb0k7fqus0c41u6cohvuj5hgc@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 08:17:37 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >Dale <drc@xxxxxx> wrote in
> >news:6afga1dppa1obklqf5dkattf7ajih7sl80@xxxxxxx:
>
> >> 34 years without a fatal accident while operating in an environment
> >> that few would consider to be a "safety culture" can't just be luck,
> >> can it?
> >
> >Right. It's not just luck; it's extremely low flight rate. Years aren't
> >relevant. 34 years *sounds* impressive, but Soyuz has had only 82 flights
> >without a fatality in those years. The shuttle had 87 between Challenger
> >and Columbia.
> >
> >The overall numbers on fatal accidents (2 in 92 for Soyuz, 2 in 113 for
> >shuttle) and fatalities (4 in 219 for Soyuz, 14 in 672 for shuttle)
> >represent a statistical tie. Within the margin of error imposed by the
> >small sample size, both vehicles are about 98% likely to get you home
> >safely.
>
> Absolutely true. But the Soyuz incidents occurred early on in the
vehicle's
> history, and both causes seem to have been addressed conclusively. Do
> we have the same sort of confidence returning to flight after Columbia?

Yes, I keep hearing that.

But let's see, recent Soyuz issues:

Overshooting landing zone
Havnig to fly up new flight computer.
Braking rockets not firing.

Those were all in the last 5 years.

>
> I'm not trying to start an argument- just playing devil's advocate. How
many
> close calls have there been with Soyuz since 1971? ("Go look it up
yourself,
> lazy ***" is an acceptable answer, of course :) But I'm asking because
> it might shed some light on whether or not Soyuz might have been expected
> to fare worse had it had more flights.
>
> Dale


.

Quantcast