Re: starship-design: What is safest?

[TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden)]

Hi Kelly,

>>OK, so apparently certain increased chances of premature death are accepted
>>by the public.
>>Now all that we need to figure out is what mission has the highest risk. We
>>all know each others visions (at least from those that have written lately).
>>I'd wish we'd a bit hard data.
>
>Two rules of thumb come to mind.
>
>1)
>People will accept higher risk from thinks they are in control of, then things
>others control.  I.e. passengers worry more about the safety of airliners then
>cars.  Thou they are safer in the airliner, they are not in control.

If a one-way mission would be launched the risks would be determined in
advance just as with a two-way mission. If possible, both scenarios should
have backup plans in case of major but not lethal failures.

>2)
>In a system, to increse relyability:
>  - Lower the stress and increase the tolerances (to wear or damage) of all
>    parts.
>  - The fewer things to break, the less likelyhood of failure.
>  - The less time you use a system (past the initial break in period) the less
>    likelyhood of problems.
>
>So a simpler system with the least demands for precision and stress factors,
>will last longer with less problems or repairs.  If you use such a system for
>a shorter period of time, its far less likely to fail.

Ah I see, like a low stress, simple engine that has to be turned on for a
year over a period of about 30 years... Sorry, the engines that we think are
necessary don't look that simple to me, they have a lot of parts that need
to work without a single failure (else KABOOM).

>Does any of this help?

Not really, data is what may help.

Timothy