3 ms·
That makes no sense. The meaning of the very large amount of money being spent on the mission is of accomplishing the mission. Starliner is doing nothing innov
by dotnet00 2y ago
That makes no sense. The meaning of the very large amount of money being spent on the mission is of accomplishing the mission.
Starliner is doing nothing innovative, and dying with it would not be accomplishing the mission or adding anything new towards accomplishing it past this point (that is, all the testing past this point can be done without putting people onboard, with just the comparatively small cost of a software swap), there is no meaning to dying on it.
You might as well be arguing that SpaceX should put crew on IFT-5.
- pfdietz 2y agoSo, the meaning of the deaths is the accomplishment of the mission. Why does the mission give meaning to money, but not to the deaths? Meaning is meaning. Starliner may indeed not be worth deaths involved in its testing, but that would be because Starliner would not be worthwhile as a program at all.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y agoStarliner serves the purpose of NASA not being dependent on a single launch provider. If Starliner needs additional testing, as it appears to do, then it makes no sense, and serves no purpose, to test it in a way that endangers human lives when that is completely unnecessary. If NASA/Boeing need to test if Starliner can fly back home (whether this unit, or future ones, until they get it reliable) then have it fly back home autonomously. Your argument makes zero sense - it's exactly like saying that cars would only be worthwhile if we used humans for crash tests rather than crash test dummies. It's a bit like some ancient culture thinking that human sacrifice is needed to placate the gods.