Difficulties with Replacing Crew Launch Abort Systems with Designed Reliability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the space industry continues to innovate and new paradigms arise to challenge the status quo, human spaceflight is now perceived as safer and more accessible than ever before. This has led to a new line of thinking in which crewed launch vehicles should be reusable and reliable like commercial airplanes, forgoing the need for an abort system. This paper will counter that line of thought with an analysis of the spectrum of coverage historical crew abort systems provided during launch and use historical data from launch rate successes and failures to glean insight into what reliability in the human spaceflight industry can expect when designing the vehicles of the future. This historical launch vehicle reliability will then be compared to system safety standards used in the commercial aviation industry to understand if future designs truly need a crew abort system. Through this analysis, the rationale for why these crew abort systems have historically been used can be better understood.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it