Talk:2107: Launch Risk

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 08:01, 6 February 2019 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

Gave a short explanation, but I think it would be good to mention probability based logical fallacies and Don’t know how to link without it looking bad. This is my first page! Netherin5 (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Revised to a more extensive explanation including the fallacy that the second astronaut apparently realizes in mid-reply. SteveMB (talk)

What are the odds that one or both astronauts are female? I see "he" being used to refer to the second astronaut, but we don't actually know the sex of either one. 17:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixed 18:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This seems wrong, at least with the lightning explanation. I believe the joke is that since he already is an astronaut, being hit by lightning doesn’t seem unlikely. Netherin5 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Would be nice to add something about risk perception of common vs. uncommon and dramatic vs. more mundane seeming events. e.g. in US, lifetime chance of death from flu, 1 in 63; from automobile accident 1 in 84; from lightning 1 in 79,746; from shark attack, 1 in 3,748,067 18:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I find it strange that 1 in 63 citizens die from flu, while 1 in 84 die in auto accidents. Those sound like old numbers to me.
ProphetZarquon (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The risk to be killed as an astronaut should be add somewhere (it is easy to find number of death/total number of astronaut) if someone want to make the morbid calculation. Xavier Combelle (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

From some impatient Googling and Wikipedia scanning there have been just over 360 people in space and 18 deaths (excepting training including Apollo 1). That puts the death rate at just over 3%.

These were mostly Shuttle as the crews were larger. However,the title is Launch Risk, so the figure would be less than half that, but still about 1.5%. Furthermore, if you ignore the Space Planes the Launch Risk is probably very low. RIIW - Ponder it (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Many of those 360 have been in space multiple times reducing the risk further. Sebastian -- 07:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

We should get a better source for the lightning info: The current citation is confirmed as a biased source owned and controlled by socialist Jews. 19:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I would like to hear some statistics on lightning-related death rates, as compiled by anarchist Buddhists.
ProphetZarquon (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that part of the joke was the phrasing. The astronaut's friend said "You're more likely to be struck by lightning than selected as an astronaut," which isn't very reassuring; if the friend had said "You're more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than to die in spaceflight," it might have been a consolation (albeit a fallacious one).

Removed the shark death rate statistic, since it was 1) not typical, 2) not comparable to the other statistics in the paragraph. The statistic given was the percent of shark attacks that are fatal. It used reporting from one beach in Brazil, noted for having particularly high death rate statistics [1]. The other rates listed are lifetime chance of death from particular cause - a totally different statistic.

The rocket closly resembels Soyuz. Might be this comic releted to recent Soyuz launch accident? If it is so, the one who is trolling is russian cosmonaut. And it also meeans some meta-trolling.

It could be a Soyuz, thought it looks like the conical part just below the escape tower has windows. Soyuz has just a closed fairing. 11:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Nah, the booster shape is completely wrong. I think it might be Gaganyaan / GSLV-III. -- 08:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Launch pads usually have lightning protection systems, as a lightning strike on an assembled rocket would be bad news. See for example