3 ms·

NASA seems to have a long standing tradition of sweeping problems under the rug. No skylab mutiny, no depressed payload specialists, all fine here gentleman, no

NASA seems to have a long standing tradition of sweeping problems under the rug. No skylab mutiny, no depressed payload specialists, all fine here gentleman, nothing to see here. I always wondered why this is written that way. To protect the organisation? But the human part of us all is part of that organization, to disacknowledge that is literally inhumane. Because they are funded by taxpayer dollars and should screen better? Companies get funded by tax-payer bailouts and government projects all the time, waste them on not carefully selected conmen all the time. So why is it not okay to write about this? Is this a remnant of the "epic hero" with a rocket from the early scifi days?

chris-orgmenta 3y ago
> NASA seems to have a long standing tradition of sweeping problems under the rug I can't comment on whether the premise is correct, but I think "So why is it not okay to write about this?" would be mostly due a 'tug of rope phenomenon'. If you see a tug of rope game on an issue and are a centrist, people feel they can't go and start tugging the middle of the rope in a different axis (or from the 'opposing side'). Instead, people feel the need to go to whichever end of the rope is 'unfairly losing' in their eyes, and pull it in an existing axis to bring the centre of the rope into a range that they agree with. Thus, in the grand scheme of things people are hesitant to call out NASA, because they feel that there too much anti-NASA or funding sentiment already. And it's a legitimate aspect of game theory to consider (in a pragmatic / real scenario) - But it's definitely succumbing a zero-sum game model, and is a tragedy of the commons.
- shermantanktop 3y ago
  This is the “both sides”/“race horse” mentality in political reporting. A race isn’t interesting if isn’t competitive. But beyond that, the centrist impulse is definitely to bolster the weaker side, especially if that side is unattractive and feckless.
  - chris-orgmenta 3y ago
    Agreed, + Bandwagon Effect, Tactical Voting, plus other effects? I haven't come across a term that covers what we're talking about in full scope(?)(hence my clumsy tug of war metaphor), but that's probably because I am peripheral to game theory / not in the psychology space (We have lots of terms for the emergent effects - Overton window, Political Polarization etc. - But possibly not for the overall phenomena of why polarization occurs?)
    - shermantanktop 3y ago
      Some people have zero sympathy for viewpoints that differ from their own, which leads to individual polarization. But some people have an excess of such sympathy, which can contribute to collective polarization. They are very worried about being fair-minded. They see a vocal minority as social proof that the minority viewpoint is sincere, thoughtful and worthy of consideration. Neither is a bad assumption to start with, but it's not a great place to end the thought process.
jlund-molfese 3y ago
The "Skylab mutiny" really is a myth[0], as Ed Gibson said, "What were we going to do? Threaten to live on the moon?" I don't think NASA hides incidents more than, say, the Soviet space program or its other peers. But at the same time, no organization is going to make a bigger deal out of negative events than positive ones. The media found out and reported on it, so the system is working. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-56346001 https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-56346001
ethbr1 3y ago
> So why is it not okay to write about this? Is this a remnant of the "epic hero" with a rocket from the early scifi days? I would argue that it's by NASA design, to produce better outcomes in spaceflight by lessening useless pressure on astronauts. Premise: Human incidents happen Premise: Press is personally bad for the individuals involved Consequently, if astronauts know they're going to be thrown under the bus in the event of an incident, they are more likely to attempt to cover it up. NASA doesn't want this -- it wants full transparency and cooperation from astronauts, even when they freak out or things go wrong, so the ground support team can reason from correct information and better help. So, in order to create an environment in which astronauts can be fully transparent, NASA protects them from negative media coverage. IMHO, seems a reasonable trade-off.
- neilv 3y ago
  > So, in order to create an environment in which astronauts can be fully transparent, NASA protects them from negative media coverage. I think this theory is plausible. There's a different but related idea in aviation safety, to encourage reporting of safety observations, in which the reporter is protected from some kinds of retaliation. For example, a cabin crew member on an airline, who uses a particular FAA process to report a safety issue they noticed, generally can't punished by the airline for that. (Even if a hypothetical reckless business person would really prefer that the FAA didn't learn of the problem.) This is paired with FAA taking each report seriously.
Guvante 3y ago
When your goal is profits all you have to do is make more money than you spend and you are successful. If you don't do that you are a bad business and fade away into obscurity. Public funded projects are cost centers, their measure of success isn't profit but things that are more vague. Since money is an equalizer everyone instead looks at the money. This means that failure becomes much less acceptable. After all failures are money wasted. The good thing about this is NASA is very careful to avoid failure with fixed payment contracts designed to shield it from problems with contractors. The bad thing is talking about mistakes becomes bad. After all NASA is known for eliminating problems to maximize success, how could they fail to do that everywhere? And thus these kind of soft risks that we need to accept are viewed as hidden problems that shouldn't be talked about. Side note Space Shuttle crews being unsure about a foreigner potentially killing them would be a terrible news cycle... Of course the crew knows it is just "I don't know this person" but outsiders will hear it is a cultural issue. Heck this article's main point was described as that on this page.
- dylan604 3y ago
  > After all failures are money wasted. sometimes, you have to test ideas out to make sure the idea you are currently going with is the best one. sure, maybe it's working now, but is there a way to do it cheaper, faster, safer? sometimes, you have to spend the money to test to find out. sometimes, those tests don't work. are those tests failures, or are they just reinforcement that the current idea is the better option?
  - Guvante 3y ago
    I am responding to the question as to why NASA is private about failures like this. Certainly failing is fine and learning from failures is useful. But you cannot honestly claim that the public perception of NASA agrees with what you wrote. The reason NASA hides failures is because the public demands perfection. Anything less results in cut funding. (Failures leading to less money is a great way to succeed...)
webdoodle 3y ago
They are worried these 'dangerous' ideas will be contagious, so they censor them in an attempt to stop the spread. It sounds a lot like what the whole world continues to go through today...
Zelphyr 3y ago
I'm reminded of this quote from Men In Black: "Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Given the number of people I know personally who think Bill Gates wants to inject us with microchips, I can see why NASA wouldn't want these stories to get out.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  That line is the perfect use of crotchety, misanthropic Tommy Lee Jones.
anon25783 3y ago
Is it so shocking that a government agency might take an inhumane approach to managing their public image?

chris-orgmenta 3y ago

> NASA seems to have a long standing tradition of sweeping problems under the rug I can't comment on whether the premise is correct, but I think "So why is it not okay to write about this?" would be mostly due a 'tug of rope phenomenon'. If you see a tug of rope game on an issue and are a centrist, people feel they can't go and start tugging the middle of the rope in a different axis (or from the 'opposing side'). Instead, people feel the need to go to whichever end of the rope is 'unfairly losing' in their eyes, and pull it in an existing axis to bring the centre of the rope into a range that they agree with. Thus, in the grand scheme of things people are hesitant to call out NASA, because they feel that there too much anti-NASA or funding sentiment already. And it's a legitimate aspect of game theory to consider (in a pragmatic / real scenario) - But it's definitely succumbing a zero-sum game model, and is a tragedy of the commons.

shermantanktop 3y ago
This is the “both sides”/“race horse” mentality in political reporting. A race isn’t interesting if isn’t competitive. But beyond that, the centrist impulse is definitely to bolster the weaker side, especially if that side is unattractive and feckless.
- chris-orgmenta 3y ago
  Agreed, + Bandwagon Effect, Tactical Voting, plus other effects? I haven't come across a term that covers what we're talking about in full scope(?)(hence my clumsy tug of war metaphor), but that's probably because I am peripheral to game theory / not in the psychology space (We have lots of terms for the emergent effects - Overton window, Political Polarization etc. - But possibly not for the overall phenomena of why polarization occurs?)
  - shermantanktop 3y ago
    Some people have zero sympathy for viewpoints that differ from their own, which leads to individual polarization. But some people have an excess of such sympathy, which can contribute to collective polarization. They are very worried about being fair-minded. They see a vocal minority as social proof that the minority viewpoint is sincere, thoughtful and worthy of consideration. Neither is a bad assumption to start with, but it's not a great place to end the thought process.

jlund-molfese 3y ago

The "Skylab mutiny" really is a myth[0], as Ed Gibson said, "What were we going to do? Threaten to live on the moon?" I don't think NASA hides incidents more than, say, the Soviet space program or its other peers. But at the same time, no organization is going to make a bigger deal out of negative events than positive ones. The media found out and reported on it, so the system is working. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-56346001 https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-56346001

ethbr1 3y ago

> So why is it not okay to write about this? Is this a remnant of the "epic hero" with a rocket from the early scifi days? I would argue that it's by NASA design, to produce better outcomes in spaceflight by lessening useless pressure on astronauts. Premise: Human incidents happen Premise: Press is personally bad for the individuals involved Consequently, if astronauts know they're going to be thrown under the bus in the event of an incident, they are more likely to attempt to cover it up. NASA doesn't want this -- it wants full transparency and cooperation from astronauts, even when they freak out or things go wrong, so the ground support team can reason from correct information and better help. So, in order to create an environment in which astronauts can be fully transparent, NASA protects them from negative media coverage. IMHO, seems a reasonable trade-off.

neilv 3y ago
> So, in order to create an environment in which astronauts can be fully transparent, NASA protects them from negative media coverage. I think this theory is plausible. There's a different but related idea in aviation safety, to encourage reporting of safety observations, in which the reporter is protected from some kinds of retaliation. For example, a cabin crew member on an airline, who uses a particular FAA process to report a safety issue they noticed, generally can't punished by the airline for that. (Even if a hypothetical reckless business person would really prefer that the FAA didn't learn of the problem.) This is paired with FAA taking each report seriously.

Guvante 3y ago

When your goal is profits all you have to do is make more money than you spend and you are successful. If you don't do that you are a bad business and fade away into obscurity. Public funded projects are cost centers, their measure of success isn't profit but things that are more vague. Since money is an equalizer everyone instead looks at the money. This means that failure becomes much less acceptable. After all failures are money wasted. The good thing about this is NASA is very careful to avoid failure with fixed payment contracts designed to shield it from problems with contractors. The bad thing is talking about mistakes becomes bad. After all NASA is known for eliminating problems to maximize success, how could they fail to do that everywhere? And thus these kind of soft risks that we need to accept are viewed as hidden problems that shouldn't be talked about. Side note Space Shuttle crews being unsure about a foreigner potentially killing them would be a terrible news cycle... Of course the crew knows it is just "I don't know this person" but outsiders will hear it is a cultural issue. Heck this article's main point was described as that on this page.

dylan604 3y ago
> After all failures are money wasted. sometimes, you have to test ideas out to make sure the idea you are currently going with is the best one. sure, maybe it's working now, but is there a way to do it cheaper, faster, safer? sometimes, you have to spend the money to test to find out. sometimes, those tests don't work. are those tests failures, or are they just reinforcement that the current idea is the better option?
- Guvante 3y ago
  I am responding to the question as to why NASA is private about failures like this. Certainly failing is fine and learning from failures is useful. But you cannot honestly claim that the public perception of NASA agrees with what you wrote. The reason NASA hides failures is because the public demands perfection. Anything less results in cut funding. (Failures leading to less money is a great way to succeed...)

webdoodle 3y ago

They are worried these 'dangerous' ideas will be contagious, so they censor them in an attempt to stop the spread. It sounds a lot like what the whole world continues to go through today...

Zelphyr 3y ago

I'm reminded of this quote from Men In Black: "Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Given the number of people I know personally who think Bill Gates wants to inject us with microchips, I can see why NASA wouldn't want these stories to get out.

ethbr1 3y ago
That line is the perfect use of crotchety, misanthropic Tommy Lee Jones.

anon25783 3y ago

Is it so shocking that a government agency might take an inhumane approach to managing their public image?