Yes. Though I think it makes more sense to read this as 2 losses in 135 flights (98.5% safety rating), or 14 fatalities among 817 passengers (98.2% safety rating).
(The per-passenger safety rating is slightly less because the only losses carried 7-passenger crews, while about half the flights carried 5 or 6 passenger crews. I didn't include the non-orbital test flights carrying crews of 2, which were arguably more dangerous than orbital flights, and I tried to handle Mir transfers and ISS crew exchanges sensibly.)
Historically, failures in spaceflight result in a loss of all crew (or a loss of no crew, if they have abort capabilities). This suggests an easy way to artificially improve the launches-per-fatality metric would be to reduce the number of crew per flight, so I'd prefer to use numbers for failures-per-launch or fatalities-per-passenger.
No. How did you reach this number?
> 14 fatalities in 135 launches?
Yes. Though I think it makes more sense to read this as 2 losses in 135 flights (98.5% safety rating), or 14 fatalities among 817 passengers (98.2% safety rating).
(The per-passenger safety rating is slightly less because the only losses carried 7-passenger crews, while about half the flights carried 5 or 6 passenger crews. I didn't include the non-orbital test flights carrying crews of 2, which were arguably more dangerous than orbital flights, and I tried to handle Mir transfers and ISS crew exchanges sensibly.)
Historically, failures in spaceflight result in a loss of all crew (or a loss of no crew, if they have abort capabilities). This suggests an easy way to artificially improve the launches-per-fatality metric would be to reduce the number of crew per flight, so I'd prefer to use numbers for failures-per-launch or fatalities-per-passenger.