← Back to context

Comment by stetrain

12 hours ago

1 out of the 12 crewed Apollo missions resulted in the death of the crew, so a 1 in 12 effective mortality rate.

Apollo 13 was a very close call. If that had ended in failure the mortality rate would have been 1 in 6.

So 1 in 30 would be a pretty clear improvement from Apollo, and we are a lot better and more thorough at modeling those risks and testing systems than we were during the Apollo program.

4 comments

stetrain

Reply
shash  9 hours ago

Is 12 enough of a sample size to make a statistical judgement? What if there were 20 more which didn’t have a loss of life? Is it then 1/30? What if there were 20 more?

The risk factor is calculated _per mission_ from what I understand. You can have three accidents in a row and nothing for decades but the risk itself can still be 1 in 30.

  • the__alchemist  2 hours ago

    Your point is fair and and important distinction. I think when estimating a risk factor though, this empirical data, while a low sample size, is a valuable statistic because it's empirical, and not that small of a sample size. Maybe going forward, we have 3 risk levels:

      - Historical. Low N as you say. (Even though each mission and spacecraft is different and they're spread out over time, there's value in this)
  - Bureaucrat number; absurdly low, but looks good to politicians etc
  - Engineering estimate

  • stetrain  9 hours ago

    So the risk factor for Apollo could have actually been 1/1000 but they were just really unlucky?

    • d1sxeyes  3 hours ago

      If I toss a coin four times and it comes up heads three and tails once, it doesn’t mean that there’s a 75% chance that this coin lands heads up. Be careful about conflating risk factor and mortality rate.