3 ms·

I agree with everything in your comment. One thing I've wondered about re space exploration though is how we reconcile what I think is pretty much universal ack

I agree with everything in your comment. One thing I've wondered about re space exploration though is how we reconcile what I think is pretty much universal acknowledgement that we have to do everything possible to avoid loss of life with the inherent danger of space travel, and the "drag" that a zero-tolerance safety focus can have on culture. Put another way, what would global exploration have looked like if sailors refused to accept the risks of early ocean crossings?

bumby 3y ago
That is a real issue. I think part of it involves creating a culture where it's acceptable to make failures as long as those failures were the result of a sound decision process. What you don't want is a culture that is either a) afraid to take any risk because they are afraid of career consequences or b) willing to roll the dice with bad decision processes due to biases and bad incentives. Example for a): bureaucrats who are unwilling to push the envelope because a bad outcome would effectively end their career Example for b): making high-risk decisions due cost/schedule pressure, like competition for a contract
DoughnutHole 3y ago
Early modern sailors were uneducated manual labourers with few economic prospects in a world where simply living as a lower class individual was more dangerous than nearly any job that exists in the developed world today. Sailing often paid better than jobs on land which made up for the risk, and it offered the potential of massive reward to the high class leadership of the vessel. There is no consummate economic incentive for being an astronaut. The incentive is the experience and making some impact on science, and while that motivates many people the probability of attracting the best and the brightest goes down as the probability of exploding goes up. I'd say there's unlikely to be enough of an economic incentive to justify riskier manned space travel until the earth becomes a whole lot less habitable.
- lutorm 3y ago
  If what you're saying is true, how come astronaut programs have many more applicants than they can take? People have other goals in life beyond economic incentives. People volunteer for the military, and I don't think anyone's under any illusion this is risk free. The important thing is not lying to people about the risk involved.
  - bumby 3y ago
    >People have other goals in life beyond economic incentives. They acknowledged this point, though: >The incentive is the experience and making some impact on science I think you might be interpreting their last point differently than me. I took it to mean that the "Mars or bust" is an inspiring, but impractical, narrative.
politician 3y ago
My expectation is that as soon as someone gets something going beyond Earth orbit and beyond the need to obtain launch licenses from the FAA, the zero-tolerance safety culture will be reduced. The Martians will build nuclear power plants.
philistine 3y ago
I don't know what you're talking about. The Space Shuttle blew up twice, killed too many people out of sheer incompetence. And it flew again both times. Both times because NASA needed the vehicle to deliver on its promises. The Space Shuttle should never have flown after Columbia was lost. But it did, because NASA decided to live with the risks.

bumby 3y ago

That is a real issue. I think part of it involves creating a culture where it's acceptable to make failures as long as those failures were the result of a sound decision process. What you don't want is a culture that is either a) afraid to take any risk because they are afraid of career consequences or b) willing to roll the dice with bad decision processes due to biases and bad incentives. Example for a): bureaucrats who are unwilling to push the envelope because a bad outcome would effectively end their career Example for b): making high-risk decisions due cost/schedule pressure, like competition for a contract

DoughnutHole 3y ago

Early modern sailors were uneducated manual labourers with few economic prospects in a world where simply living as a lower class individual was more dangerous than nearly any job that exists in the developed world today. Sailing often paid better than jobs on land which made up for the risk, and it offered the potential of massive reward to the high class leadership of the vessel. There is no consummate economic incentive for being an astronaut. The incentive is the experience and making some impact on science, and while that motivates many people the probability of attracting the best and the brightest goes down as the probability of exploding goes up. I'd say there's unlikely to be enough of an economic incentive to justify riskier manned space travel until the earth becomes a whole lot less habitable.

lutorm 3y ago
If what you're saying is true, how come astronaut programs have many more applicants than they can take? People have other goals in life beyond economic incentives. People volunteer for the military, and I don't think anyone's under any illusion this is risk free. The important thing is not lying to people about the risk involved.
- bumby 3y ago
  >People have other goals in life beyond economic incentives. They acknowledged this point, though: >The incentive is the experience and making some impact on science I think you might be interpreting their last point differently than me. I took it to mean that the "Mars or bust" is an inspiring, but impractical, narrative.

politician 3y ago

My expectation is that as soon as someone gets something going beyond Earth orbit and beyond the need to obtain launch licenses from the FAA, the zero-tolerance safety culture will be reduced. The Martians will build nuclear power plants.

philistine 3y ago

I don't know what you're talking about. The Space Shuttle blew up twice, killed too many people out of sheer incompetence. And it flew again both times. Both times because NASA needed the vehicle to deliver on its promises. The Space Shuttle should never have flown after Columbia was lost. But it did, because NASA decided to live with the risks.