4 ms·

I wonder sometimes whether NASA should lean into the high risk of spaceflight instead of trying to minimize it. If they could get the public to pay attention, t

I wonder sometimes whether NASA should lean into the high risk of spaceflight instead of trying to minimize it. If they could get the public to pay attention, their budgets would go up. Highlighting the risk--without exaggerating--would be a good way to get people to care. People love (maybe even crave) drama. Astronauts accept an amazing amount of risk, even when using proven systems like Soyuz or Dragon. ISS is one unlucky micrometeoroid strike away from total catastrophe. And yet hundreds of astronaut candidates are jostling with each other (another great drama) to be next on the rocket. Even uncrewed missions are filled with drama. Imagine devoting 20 years of your scientific career on a probe to Mars and having it blow up on take-off or smash into the Martian surface--so close, and yet so utterly useless. I think NASA fears that highlighting risk leads to bad press. NASA doesn't want headlines like, "NASA ignores safety concerns--story at 11". But ironically, when NASA minimizes risk, they lower the threshold for how much risk the public will accept. The more they minimize risk, the less risk the public will let them take. I don't have any good suggestions, though. Highlighting risk inevitably invites the question of "why are we taking the risk at all?" And that's also a hard conversation.

lupusreal 2y ago
The ISS can tank micrometeorites just fine. They could put a hole straight through the ISS but the station is only pressurized to one atmosphere; the leak would be slow and easy to patch. It wouldn't even be the first time they had a leak..
- GMoromisato 2y ago
  I assume that depends on the size of the micrometeoroid. Though I suppose any meteoroid large enough to destroy ISS would not be "micro". But maybe not.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  Why doesn’t that trigger explosive decompression? Just because it’s so small?
  - kayodelycaon 2y ago
    You easily fire several bullets into the skin of a typical airline fuselage and have no problems beyond air getting out. Explosive decompression requires much higher pressures or sufficiently weak materials. One atmosphere is not much of a difference. The only real danger is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_hammer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_hammer which scales with volume of air escaping.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      Is explosive decompression of a human occupied area of a space ship ever actually a concern then? Seems like the pressure difference could only ever be 1
      - kayodelycaon 2y ago
        Well, if you end up with a hole large enough for explosive decompression, you're already screwed. Doesn't apply to planes because there is air outside. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243
tivert 2y ago
> I think NASA fears that highlighting risk leads to bad press. NASA doesn't want headlines like, "NASA ignores safety concerns--story at 11". But ironically, when NASA minimizes risk, they lower the threshold for how much risk the public will accept. The more they minimize risk, the less risk the public will let them take. > I don't have any good suggestions, though. Highlighting risk inevitably invites the question of "why are we taking the risk at all?" And that's also a hard conversation. I think it's fine for NASA to take risks doing truly new things, and even then it should do everything reasonable to minimize those risks (e.g. extensive testing, validation, and good engineering). But launching a space capsule and returning it to Earth with its crew alive? That's not a new thing. Also, it's film at 11 ~not news at 11~ (jokes from when people understood the idiom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbjZEoXQjCM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbjZEoXQjCM).
- echelon 2y ago
  I don't think you're right about the idiom being wrong. I've always read and heard "news at 11". > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_at_11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_at_11 > "Film at 11", "Pictures at 11" or "News at 11" is a US idiom from television news broadcasting, in which viewers are informed that footage of a breaking news story will be screened later that day. The word "film" in the phrase dates back to the early decades of TV news when footage was regularly recorded on film. Film, here, seems especially dated. Sometimes anachronistic idioms get modernized rather than remaining static. What's particularly interesting is that idiom is not just anachronistic, but that it's been through several evolutionary obsolescences: film -> tape -> digital -> internet / social / streaming / VOD.
  - tivert 2y ago
    > Film, here, seems especially dated. Sometimes anachronistic idioms get modernized rather than remaining static. I don't think that's a modernization, it's a misunderstanding. The idiom makes no sense as "news at 11" (though the "story at 11" from the op does make some sense), since to even deploy it idiom, you must have already given the news. I feel like "news at 11" is a case where an idom is twisted when it's not understood to try to make sense of it. There's probably a name for this linguistic phenomenon.
dehrmann 2y ago
It might backfire. Manned space missions are risky and expensive, and the interesting discoveries seem to be coming from unmanned missions. Are there enough microgravity experiments left to justify the risk and expense of the ISS?
- tivert 2y ago
  > It might backfire. Manned space missions are risky and expensive, and the interesting discoveries seem to be coming from unmanned missions. Are there enough microgravity experiments left to justify the risk and expense of the ISS? I think NASA loses the funding game if they try to justify themselves based purely on "interesting [scientific] discoveries."
  - GMoromisato 2y ago
    I agree. I would rather expand the discussion on benefits so that we see that the risk is worth it. I just don't know how to do it. But I think we need professional storytellers and dramatists to tell the story of space exploration in order to really sell the benefits. After all, we enthusiasts love space exploration not because it will lead to zero-G medicines, but because exploring space is freaking cool. We need to tell an emotional story, and emotional stories have risk and conflict (even if it is conflict with physics).
adolph 2y ago
High and low are quantifiable risks. Starliner risk is a divide by zero error NaN instead of a value. . . . as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_unknown_unknowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_unknown_unknowns
stetrain 2y ago
NASA incidents that result in loss of life tend to result in public congressional inquiries. See Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia. Considering NASA's budget and project list are at the whim of Congress, making the US government look bad is something they select against.
- GMoromisato 2y ago
  Agreed--my suggestion isn't to take more risk, but to highlight the current very high risk that NASA is already taking. Both Starliner and Dragon have a loss-of-crew risk of at least 1 in 500. That is unbelievably high, and I think NASA could drive interest in the space program if they (appropriately) highlighted that risk.
mlindner 2y ago
NASA is a fundamentally political organization. Given that it's political the risk isn't worth it. Risk only happened early in NASA's history (Apollo) because the alternative geopolitical risk (Soviets landing humans on the moon) was so much higher. Once that driving force was gone there was no longer an appetite for risk. And even look today, look at the relatively small risks (minor environmental rule edge skirting) SpaceX takes with unmanned test vehicles (Starship) and how much they're completely and constantly raked over the coals for it. The media in the modern era only knows how to attack and criticize.
- jfoster 2y ago
  Imagine the alternate reality where the media is getting excited about new ventures and celebrating successes. Wish we lived in that world.

lupusreal 2y ago

The ISS can tank micrometeorites just fine. They could put a hole straight through the ISS but the station is only pressurized to one atmosphere; the leak would be slow and easy to patch. It wouldn't even be the first time they had a leak..

GMoromisato 2y ago
I assume that depends on the size of the micrometeoroid. Though I suppose any meteoroid large enough to destroy ISS would not be "micro". But maybe not.
jncfhnb 2y ago
Why doesn’t that trigger explosive decompression? Just because it’s so small?
- kayodelycaon 2y ago
  You easily fire several bullets into the skin of a typical airline fuselage and have no problems beyond air getting out. Explosive decompression requires much higher pressures or sufficiently weak materials. One atmosphere is not much of a difference. The only real danger is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_hammer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_hammer which scales with volume of air escaping.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    Is explosive decompression of a human occupied area of a space ship ever actually a concern then? Seems like the pressure difference could only ever be 1
    - kayodelycaon 2y ago
      Well, if you end up with a hole large enough for explosive decompression, you're already screwed. Doesn't apply to planes because there is air outside. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

tivert 2y ago

> I think NASA fears that highlighting risk leads to bad press. NASA doesn't want headlines like, "NASA ignores safety concerns--story at 11". But ironically, when NASA minimizes risk, they lower the threshold for how much risk the public will accept. The more they minimize risk, the less risk the public will let them take. > I don't have any good suggestions, though. Highlighting risk inevitably invites the question of "why are we taking the risk at all?" And that's also a hard conversation. I think it's fine for NASA to take risks doing truly new things, and even then it should do everything reasonable to minimize those risks (e.g. extensive testing, validation, and good engineering). But launching a space capsule and returning it to Earth with its crew alive? That's not a new thing. Also, it's film at 11 ~not news at 11~ (jokes from when people understood the idiom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbjZEoXQjCM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbjZEoXQjCM).

echelon 2y ago
I don't think you're right about the idiom being wrong. I've always read and heard "news at 11". > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_at_11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_at_11 > "Film at 11", "Pictures at 11" or "News at 11" is a US idiom from television news broadcasting, in which viewers are informed that footage of a breaking news story will be screened later that day. The word "film" in the phrase dates back to the early decades of TV news when footage was regularly recorded on film. Film, here, seems especially dated. Sometimes anachronistic idioms get modernized rather than remaining static. What's particularly interesting is that idiom is not just anachronistic, but that it's been through several evolutionary obsolescences: film -> tape -> digital -> internet / social / streaming / VOD.
- tivert 2y ago
  > Film, here, seems especially dated. Sometimes anachronistic idioms get modernized rather than remaining static. I don't think that's a modernization, it's a misunderstanding. The idiom makes no sense as "news at 11" (though the "story at 11" from the op does make some sense), since to even deploy it idiom, you must have already given the news. I feel like "news at 11" is a case where an idom is twisted when it's not understood to try to make sense of it. There's probably a name for this linguistic phenomenon.

dehrmann 2y ago

It might backfire. Manned space missions are risky and expensive, and the interesting discoveries seem to be coming from unmanned missions. Are there enough microgravity experiments left to justify the risk and expense of the ISS?

tivert 2y ago
> It might backfire. Manned space missions are risky and expensive, and the interesting discoveries seem to be coming from unmanned missions. Are there enough microgravity experiments left to justify the risk and expense of the ISS? I think NASA loses the funding game if they try to justify themselves based purely on "interesting [scientific] discoveries."
- GMoromisato 2y ago
  I agree. I would rather expand the discussion on benefits so that we see that the risk is worth it. I just don't know how to do it. But I think we need professional storytellers and dramatists to tell the story of space exploration in order to really sell the benefits. After all, we enthusiasts love space exploration not because it will lead to zero-G medicines, but because exploring space is freaking cool. We need to tell an emotional story, and emotional stories have risk and conflict (even if it is conflict with physics).

adolph 2y ago

High and low are quantifiable risks. Starliner risk is a divide by zero error NaN instead of a value. . . . as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_unknown_unknowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_unknown_unknowns

stetrain 2y ago

NASA incidents that result in loss of life tend to result in public congressional inquiries. See Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia. Considering NASA's budget and project list are at the whim of Congress, making the US government look bad is something they select against.

GMoromisato 2y ago
Agreed--my suggestion isn't to take more risk, but to highlight the current very high risk that NASA is already taking. Both Starliner and Dragon have a loss-of-crew risk of at least 1 in 500. That is unbelievably high, and I think NASA could drive interest in the space program if they (appropriately) highlighted that risk.

mlindner 2y ago

NASA is a fundamentally political organization. Given that it's political the risk isn't worth it. Risk only happened early in NASA's history (Apollo) because the alternative geopolitical risk (Soviets landing humans on the moon) was so much higher. Once that driving force was gone there was no longer an appetite for risk. And even look today, look at the relatively small risks (minor environmental rule edge skirting) SpaceX takes with unmanned test vehicles (Starship) and how much they're completely and constantly raked over the coals for it. The media in the modern era only knows how to attack and criticize.

jfoster 2y ago
Imagine the alternate reality where the media is getting excited about new ventures and celebrating successes. Wish we lived in that world.