3 ms·
There is no way that having it fail in Antarctica was any cheaper. "We can't afford to test it" is a great example of output focused thinking when what is neede
by wpietri 5y ago
There is no way that having it fail in Antarctica was any cheaper. "We can't afford to test it" is a great example of output focused thinking when what is needed is an outcome focus.
The intended goal was enabling lots of safe travel through the Antarctic, something they failed at. In modern dollars they paid $50k per mile of successful trip. They could have spent way less money to achieve that goal with other approaches. Heck, they probably could have just turned the money into $1 bills and burned it to keep the explorer warm for such a short trip.
- rtkwe 5y agoI'm not so sure there was a reasonable place to test it in North America at the time. There wasn't an actual highway to Alaska until after this was abandoned in Antarctica and even today most of the northern bits of Canada are best accessed by plane instead of roads. You could find some snow but it would be a very different snow than they would encounter in Antarctica.
- wpietri 5y agoIt would still be snow, though, which would have let them discover the issue of the bald tires, and I'd guess the issues that required them to drive the thing backwards. If there weren't enough of it in a convenient spot, people were already making artificial snow by then. Or they could have just bulldozed a lot of it into a test course. So they could at least have learned something. But if you're right and Antarctica was the closest place to test it, then they should have planned for that. Expecting something novel to work the first time it's tried isn't a plan. It isn't a strategy. It's just a fantasy.