Space Shuttle failed twice on the other hand, each time killing all aboard, and in neither cases of it its integral abort systems/abort modes did help at all.
So in theory the lack of capsule-only LES do not necessarily mean safer rocket, in the history and in the statistics it does.
In 1963 a LES killed someone, in 1983 it saved lives.
Which manned abort in 1963 is that specifically? Why are you trying to skew discussion into some direction?
Note: LES stands for Launch Escape System, usually a small solid rocket that activates in case of a failure during ascent to take the manned capsule away from exploding rocket under it, perhaps equivalent to airbags in a car.
People gets hurt by airbags all the time trying to service them. That doesn’t tell if it’s worth having them in actual situations they’re designed for, nor whether the situations are worth preparing for.
Also, an escape system adds weight to a rocket. That weight could be used for other stuff that makes the rest of the system more reliable (slightly stronger fuel tanks, redundant pumps, whatever). Designing the escape system also takes resources away that could be used to improve the safety of the primary system.
For rockets, it’s not easy to decide what’s the best choice; we launch too few of them, and the ones we launch change too often to gather reliable statistics. Getting real-world data on the reliability of escape systems definitely is hard, as it requires numerous rocket failures or elaborate test setups (a full test must include high speed and an explosion that may throw material through the engine of the escape capsule)
> Space Shuttle failed twice on the other hand, each time killing all aboard, and in neither cases of it its integral abort systems/abort modes did help at all.
> So in theory the lack of capsule-only LES do not necessarily mean safer rocket, in the history and in the statistics it does.
Is this supposed to be a recursion joke? Sorry if I'm not getting it.