tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239008642843986825.post2728662659244165741..comments2023-08-18T05:01:03.973-07:00Comments on Off the Shore of Orion: Science: I'm sorry, but Darwin says NASA should probably go extinctNew York Erratichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12910004748099284750noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239008642843986825.post-54737944512882660002012-05-07T09:38:16.832-07:002012-05-07T09:38:16.832-07:00As far as risk tolerance, that is a realistic issu...As far as risk tolerance, that is a realistic issue. <br /><br />However, if we're going to the moon, we must accept risks. We can only do our best; there is no way to make any shuttle program foolproof. <br /><br />That is not, imho, a valid argument for waste and failure. If you are going to go to the moon, you must accept that there will be at least a little risk involved.<br /><br />However, risk mitigation (and other apparently valid arguments) are good justifications for thumb-twirling waste. "It's not perfect... just... give us a touch more money and time..." <br /><br />No, at some point you must test the d@mned thing. Just bite the bullet and do it. They weren't sure what would happen when the first A-bomb went off, either. If you're going to try, try, and accept that you might fail. Neurotic lack of self-confidence can always lead to justifying a few more dollars and a touch more time.New York Erratichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12910004748099284750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239008642843986825.post-33772395731553290222012-05-07T09:19:47.651-07:002012-05-07T09:19:47.651-07:00It all goes to risk-tolerence. In the early 1960s...It all goes to risk-tolerence. In the early 1960s, it was acceptable (if embarassing, in the shadow of Yuri Gagarin and Sputnick) to have multiple launch failures with Vnagard, etc. (http://byzantiumshores.blogspot.com/2012/05/delusions-of-electibility.html; http://www.spaceline.org/rocketsum/jupiter-c.html). <br /><br />Post-Challenger, it became less so.<br /><br />Further, the Apollo program was a REAL Stretch with the technology of the time. (http://watergate.info/nixon/moon-disaster-speech-1969.shtml) That it worked is wonderful, but the real achievement is making space flight work on a routine basis. <br /><br />Put another way, it is far from impossible that someone like St. Brendan visited North America in the 5th Century CE, but it was the 15th Century CE before it became routine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239008642843986825.post-12101511587108545722012-04-30T06:01:01.425-07:002012-04-30T06:01:01.425-07:00Yeah, but do you see my point that we're so en...Yeah, but do you see my point that we're so enamored with the name "NASA" that we're failing to stop and question whether or not they're doing their jobs?<br /><br />There's others: the James Webb Space Telescope, for example, or the Mars Science Laboratory.<br /><br />We're so enamored with the name "NASA" I worry that the public doesn't realize that it can not only be a serious black hole money sink, but by sopping up resources and producing nothing it's becoming a science and knowledge sink as well.New York Erratichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12910004748099284750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239008642843986825.post-24238974935441193742012-04-29T15:17:18.759-07:002012-04-29T15:17:18.759-07:00First, I agree with you re the GAO
Second, I agree...First, I agree with you re the GAO<br />Second, I agree with you that not all technology is created equal. <br />Damn, agreeing with you. Twice. What's the fun in THAT?Roger Owen Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05298172138307632062noreply@blogger.com