[dahart]

> The agency also said that, before the test flight launched, it required SpaceX to map out “hazard areas sufficient to ensure that the probability of casualty to a member of the public on land or on board a maritime vessel does not exceed one in one million.”

The way this is worded makes it sound like it could be a one in a million chance separately for every individual. So for example if the chance is exactly one in a million per person, then the probability of someone in a town of 1000 people dying would be one in a thousand, and the statistical expectation of having a city of 1M people in the “Debris Response Area” is that one person would die.

I hope my reading is wrong. Can someone correct me - is the rule that the total probability of any 1 person in total dying is 1:1000000 or less, or is it really per-person? For context about why 1:1000000 per person is pretty bad, that’s almost as risky as skydiving (1:370000 per jump) and much riskier than driving in a car.

I feel like I’m okay with “rapid iterative development” when the company assumes any and all risks, and takes responsibility for any & all failures. It seems to be crossing a line if the risks are externalized to the public & national agencies, especially when the risks aren’t fully communicated or when veto choice is not given to everyone involved, right?

[binoct]

It’s common in this type of statement for “A member of the public” to refer to any person rather than just one person.

[cwillu]

Your reading is wrong.

[dahart]

Good! How do you know? That’s the part I was hoping to hear. The public statements are downplaying the risks.