6 ms·
Everyone closely involved with making the decision will be well aware that the subsequent inquiry, and quite a bit of the public's reaction, will be personally
by mannykannot 2y ago
Everyone closely involved with making the decision will be well aware that the subsequent inquiry, and quite a bit of the public's reaction, will be personally brutal if they opt for Starliner and it fails catastrophically, no matter how small the odds seemed at the time.
- WalterBright 2y agoBeing unable to deal with risk means the end of the space program.
- colordrops 2y agoThere's risk and then there's unnecessary risk.
- WalterBright 2y agoThe difference between the two is always a matter of someone's opinion.
- BSDobelix 2y agoYou could argue that landing on the Moon and even Mars is an unnecessary risk, or human spaceflight as a whole. The whole moon programme and the space shuttle were extremely high risk by today's standards, but the moon programme was to prove that the US could beat the USSR, and the space shuttle was to transport spy satellites and build the ISS. But Starliner should really be nearly zero risk with that small goal of docking and drop back home.
- highwaylights 2y agoLosing public support means the end of the space program too. Especially in an election year.
- Yeul 2y agoHow many astronauts died in the Apollo era? Nobody wants a Chinese moon base. That's worth a few lives.
- 93po 2y agoI want a chinese moon base
- _cenw 2y agoThree. None in space.
- chasd00 2y agoThe Apolla era was a completely different animal. I don't think cars at seat belts in those days, society was much more accepting of danger. Also, nuclear annihilation was very real and anything required to beat the Soviet Union was on the table. That level of existential crisis and acceptance of danger in the public mind doesn't exist today.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y agoHuh? First off, the Apollo program was part of the space race - an actual race to show supremacy during the cold war, and even then safety was taken seriously enough that there was the Apollo 10 "dress rehearsal". Cool fact is that the Apollo 10 astronauts were so gung-ho to land that NASA made sure to only provide enough fuel for the lander for them to execute the mission - not enough for an unsanctioned landing! Second, there is no goal, nor way, to prevent China building a moon base, and given NASA's ridiculous Artemis program that's just as well, since American astronauts will probably be eating moon-cooked Chinese takeout by the time they get there.
- ta1243 2y agoYou have two choices, one has a risk of 15 units, one has a risk of 3 units. The outcome is the same. You go for the risk of 3 units. As Kirk says, "risk is our business". Doesn't mean you don't need to minimise the risk to achieve the goal. The goal here is 1) Return the crew 2) Return the capsule and gather more data If those goals can be achieved with less by bringing the crew back on dragon, then that's a sensible move.
- mannykannot 2y agoChoosing the Dragon capsule option in this case would be neither risk-free nor mean the end of a space program, though it might lead to significant changes (quite possibly for the better) to NASA's current version.
- pfdietz 2y agoIf the space program is not willing to kill some astronauts, there shouldn't be a space program. From a purely economic point of view, the cost of killing an astronaut is small compared to the cost of these missions. The statistical value of a human life is around $12 M. Astronauts may be a bit more expensive, due to cost of training, but not enormously so. Making space flight much cheaper will shift the economics, making safety relatively more important. It will also enable that safety by enabling many more launches to reduce risks. People anguish over the 14 astronauts killed in the Shuttle, but the economic value destroyed by that program was in the end a much greater loss.
- 93po 2y agothis is a really sad and disappointing perspective for someone to have. if you are putting people's lives at risk for the sake of economic value when they have trusted you with their lives then you don't deserve that trust.
- pfdietz 2y agoThe money spent on making astronauts safer could save more lives if spent elsewhere. That's how the statistical value of a life is set: it's the marginal cost of saving a (age adjusted) life used to justify government actions, say in worker safety, pollution control, road improvements, medical spending, etc. Why do you think astronauts are so much more important than the common persons saved by these other efforts? Why do you advocate spending patterns that increase the body count for a given expenditure?
- michaelt 2y agoWe all know that society applies almost arbitrary values to all these things. 42,000 road deaths annually? Meh. 3,000 people die in the terror attacks of 9/11? Multi-trillion-dollar, 20 year war. Politicians only fund NASA manned launches because the average voter thinks it's kinda cool and maybe it inspires some kids to work hard at school. Too many high profile, fear-inducing deaths and politicians are liable to decide the money spent on NASA could be better spent elsewhere.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y agoSure, it's inherently risky, so managing that risk becomes key to success. The thing here is that NASA has a choice. 1) Use Starliner with it's dodgy development history, no track record of reliability, and with the problems experienced with this specific unit. 2) Use Dragon, tried and tested, with an excellent history of reliability This should be a no-brainer. If Starliner can't safely autonomously undock at the moment (and anyways needs a month for software reload/verification apparently - not sure why verification takes so long), then leave it there until there's a solution to do it safely. In the meantime the ISS has 6 docking ports, currently all in use with 3 supply vessels and 3 crew (Starliner+Dragon+Soyuz), so presumably there is some flexibility there.
- WalterBright 2y agoHaving competitors trying to out do each other is good for the space program. Having only one solution available leads to problems as well.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y agoSure, and NASA are also nurturing Blue Origin who may be a good option in the future. I don't think anyone looks bad here if NASA go with Dragon and Starliner flies home autonomously and without incident. It makes Boeing look good, and everyone in the room look like adults. OTOH given the poor Boeing performance to date, killing a crew would probably take them out of the NASA program for a very long time, if not forever, and even having a non-fatal failure on way back would make the judgement of both Boeing and NASA look very poor.
- peterfirefly 2y agoBut Boeing isn't trying to "out do" SpaceX -- except when it comes to political connections. Maybe Dream Chaser will be that competitor. We'll see.
- richardwhiuk 2y agoThey have to undock either Dragon (Crew 8) or Starliner to dock the next Dragon (Crew 9).
- hinkley 2y agoThey have plenty of experience with how Congress treats them when they kill astronauts.