4 ms·

This comment on the article particularly struck me: There was a time in the U.S. history could have launched a dozen or so satellites in its sleep. “Ne

by shaddi 16y ago

This comment on the article particularly struck me: There was a time in the U.S. history could have launched a dozen or so satellites in its sleep. “Need another GPS communication satellite? It’s on order. We’ll build it by Friday and launch it by Wednesday. We’d do it faster, but it’s Presidents Day on Monday, and you know how those Unions are with holidays” I read some NY Times articles about the U.S. response to the Pearl Harbor attack. How in months, we built giant cranes, uprighted ships, and rebuilt our fleet. Now, we can’t even build another measly two track tunnel under the Hudson river without political posturing. http://www.cringely.com/2010/11/any-port-in-a-storm/comment-page-1/#comment-32670 http://www.cringely.com/2010/11/any-port-in-a-storm/comment-...

TomOfTTB 16y ago
This isn't a fair comparison. The United States has always been able to muster its resources with great efficiency in an emergency. That hasn't changed with time. You'll remember about 9 years ago when we had a similar situation and we managed to establish a military presence, mobilize and to a certain extent complete a military operation half way around the world in just a few months. But for a government to move that fast politicians have to act rashly and that can lead to some nasty side effects like putting Japanese citizens in internment camps. Preventing that rash behavior is why society becomes litigious under normal circumstances. I'd be the first to admit we've become too litigious but I can't see that stopping us if we made the space program as much of a priority as Pearl Harbor or 9/11 was. Edit: Just to prove the point there were apparently 40,000 deaths by industrial accident in the first year or WWII alone. So clearly there was a cost to that speed of production. http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/world-war-ii/3992/deaths-due-to-accidents-in-factories http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/world-war-ii/3992/de...
- anamax 16y ago
  > Just to prove the point there were apparently 40,000 deaths by industrial accident in the first year or WWII alone. So clearly there was a cost to that speed of production. How many industrial accident deaths were there in 1936-39?

by shaddi 16y ago

TomOfTTB 16y ago

This isn't a fair comparison. The United States has always been able to muster its resources with great efficiency in an emergency. That hasn't changed with time. You'll remember about 9 years ago when we had a similar situation and we managed to establish a military presence, mobilize and to a certain extent complete a military operation half way around the world in just a few months. But for a government to move that fast politicians have to act rashly and that can lead to some nasty side effects like putting Japanese citizens in internment camps. Preventing that rash behavior is why society becomes litigious under normal circumstances. I'd be the first to admit we've become too litigious but I can't see that stopping us if we made the space program as much of a priority as Pearl Harbor or 9/11 was. Edit: Just to prove the point there were apparently 40,000 deaths by industrial accident in the first year or WWII alone. So clearly there was a cost to that speed of production. http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/world-war-ii/3992/deaths-due-to-accidents-in-factories http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/world-war-ii/3992/de...

anamax 16y ago
> Just to prove the point there were apparently 40,000 deaths by industrial accident in the first year or WWII alone. So clearly there was a cost to that speed of production. How many industrial accident deaths were there in 1936-39?