Another Perspective on NASA
If a reasonable launch schedule is to be maintained, engineering often cannot be done fast enough to keep up with the expectations of originally conservative certification criteria designed to guarantee a very safe vehicle. In these situations, subtly, and often with apparently logical arguments, the criteria are altered so that flights may still be certified in time. They therefore fly in a relatively unsafe condition, with a chance of failure of the order of a percent (it is difficult to be more accurate). Official management, on the other hand, claims to believe the probability of failure is a thousand times less. One reason for this may be an attempt to assure the government of NASA perfection and success in order to ensure the supply of funds. The other may be that they sincerely believed it to be true, demonstrating an almost incredible lack of communication between themselves and their working engineers. ...In spite of... variations from case to case, officials behaved as if they understood it, giving apparently logical arguments to each other often depending on the "success" of previous flights. ...Let us make recommendations to ensure that NASA officials deal in a world of reality in understanding technological weaknesses and imperfections well enough to be actively trying to eliminate them. They must live in reality in comparing the costs and utility of the Shuttle to other methods of entering space. And they must be realistic in making contracts, in estimating costs, and the difficulty of the projects. Only realistic flight schedules should be proposed, schedules that have a reasonable chance of being met. If in this way the government would not support them, then so be it. NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support to be frank, honest, and informative, so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources. For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
ThanQ! Amr E. Malik of Rantissimo Want to know the author? Check below:
*applause*
Posted by Hardvardikus Rex on 08/27/03 at 01:43 PMWhy the applause, Hardvarkulous?
Posted by Claire on 08/27/03 at 01:48 PMNeed there be any reason other than this fact: the simple tootsie blogs?
*laughter in the moonshine*
Your use of [You want more ?!? »] want to know more was elegant, the Hardvark is a very visual critter afterall.
Your extra info was terse, disciplined, and well done. It offers me insight into how to convey information more effectively by concealing it...very krafty my simple tootsie...very krafty indeed.
Posted by Hardvardikulous Rex on 08/27/03 at 02:13 PM
Next entry: NASA Responds
Previous entry: He's got a point, there
