3 ms·

Effectively zero economic activity is changed depending upon the outcome of engineering challenges of a NASA vehicle. In contrast, grounding hundreds of planes

Effectively zero economic activity is changed depending upon the outcome of engineering challenges of a NASA vehicle. In contrast, grounding hundreds of planes for an indeterminate amount of time has severe implications for many companies. As far as I know, there are no claimed underlying engineering faults to the design. Ask the uncomfortable questions, but if all of the planes can be reviewed to confirm basic airworthiness, at some point you have to let them fly again.

voisin 3y ago
> but if all of the planes can be reviewed to confirm basic airworthiness, at some point you have to let them fly again. Doesn’t this review and confirmation take place before they even go into service? So if they missed these bolts on the last review, what’s to say they won’t miss them or something equally as important on the next review? “Oh think of the economy” is the worst excuse I can imagine to let these back into service.
ironmagma 3y ago
The shuttle program was a significant source of economic activity in a number of different areas of the country. [1][2] Just because we really want to have planes flying, isn't a good reason to let them fly if they're not fit to do so. This is known in aviation as "get-there-itis". You really don't have to fly. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/jul/07/space-shuttle-programme-local-economy https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/jul/07/space-shuttl... [2] https://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts135/110706preview/index4.html https://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts135/110706preview/inde...
- Denvercoder9 3y ago
  Very little of that economic activity was directly linked to the Shuttle flying. If we had moved the Shuttle through the fabrication, preparation and refurbishment cycles without actually launching it, the economic impact would be more or less the same. That's not true of airline flights, which generate most of their economic value by actually moving people and/or stuff.
  - ironmagma 3y ago
    But just as with pilots and get-there-itis, the "need" to fly the planes is secondary. The primary concern is making sure the higher order system is operating correctly, which we know it isn't. Flying planes will be counterproductive if it leads to a bad crash, setting the industry back even further than grounding the planes and planning ahead would in the first place. If your goal is to move people and stuff as much as possible, the strategy should be to make sure you can do that safely. We can and will abandon air travel as soon as it loses its safety record.

voisin 3y ago

> but if all of the planes can be reviewed to confirm basic airworthiness, at some point you have to let them fly again. Doesn’t this review and confirmation take place before they even go into service? So if they missed these bolts on the last review, what’s to say they won’t miss them or something equally as important on the next review? “Oh think of the economy” is the worst excuse I can imagine to let these back into service.

ironmagma 3y ago

The shuttle program was a significant source of economic activity in a number of different areas of the country. [1][2] Just because we really want to have planes flying, isn't a good reason to let them fly if they're not fit to do so. This is known in aviation as "get-there-itis". You really don't have to fly. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/jul/07/space-shuttle-programme-local-economy https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/jul/07/space-shuttl... [2] https://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts135/110706preview/index4.html https://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts135/110706preview/inde...

Denvercoder9 3y ago
Very little of that economic activity was directly linked to the Shuttle flying. If we had moved the Shuttle through the fabrication, preparation and refurbishment cycles without actually launching it, the economic impact would be more or less the same. That's not true of airline flights, which generate most of their economic value by actually moving people and/or stuff.
- ironmagma 3y ago
  But just as with pilots and get-there-itis, the "need" to fly the planes is secondary. The primary concern is making sure the higher order system is operating correctly, which we know it isn't. Flying planes will be counterproductive if it leads to a bad crash, setting the industry back even further than grounding the planes and planning ahead would in the first place. If your goal is to move people and stuff as much as possible, the strategy should be to make sure you can do that safely. We can and will abandon air travel as soon as it loses its safety record.