4 ms·

>> even the most fervent republicans God, how I despise it when people have to bring their petty partisan politics into every discussion. No sane person in th

>> even the most fervent republicans God, how I despise it when people have to bring their petty partisan politics into every discussion. No sane person in the United States of whatever political party or creed would have said a rescue mission that had a reasonable chance of success was not worth the money and risk. [EDIT] Assuming it was understood that the spacecraft was in mortal danger. According to the article, it would have been highly unlikely that the Atlantis could have rescued the Columbia astronauts. Possible, but just barely. Should they have tried? Maybe. Should they have planned for the contingency? Of course--if they had an extra couple billion dollars budget for such a project. 20-20 hindsight. You can't go to space on the cheap. The old Nasa slogan to promote the Shuttle--faster, better, cheaper--is proven incorrect by historical events. You can have 2 of those, not all 3.

shiftpgdn 13y ago
Clearly you've never listened to conservative talk radio.
venomsnake 13y ago
I meant pundits and politicians not ordinary citizens. I chose republicans because waste is usually one of their favorite talking points. So chances are if a voice arises it will be from their side. My opinion is that it was impossible to pull that thing off. And it showed a cultural problem in NASA. But that is another story.
- protomyth 13y ago
  "I meant pundits and politicians not ordinary citizens. I chose republicans because waste is usually one of their favorite talking points." No Republican I've met would think doing a rescue mission was wrong or a waste. Using your logic, I could say it would be the Democrats who wouldn't attempt the rescue and point at Benghazi as the modern example. Partisan politics are a remarkably poor way to tell a reaction to this type of situation. It really goes to the life experience and culture someone was brought up in. If they had known and it leaked, and NASA had not moved heaven and earth to try to save the astronauts, then heads would roll. The base culture of the US would allow no other course.
rz2k 13y ago
>No sane person in the United States of whatever political party or creed would have said a rescue mission that had a reasonable chance of success was not worth the money and risk. I think most of us have the sentimental and emotional content that we would want the rescue mission to go forward. However, if you were to ignore the feel-good effects, it is very difficult to argue that the mission would maximize human well-being. I only think it is an obvious decision with a failure of perspective. Let me try to characterize some of the considerations in the most approximate and non-rigorous manner. Ignoring the risk to the rescuers, let's say the cost of the mission is something like $80M per astronaut life saved. If there is 80% chance of success that is equivalent to $100M/life or if there's a 10% chance of success that is $800M/life. With big numbers, it starts to become a society-level decision about how individual lives are valued. What are the resources we're willing to devote to the rescue of a trapped coal-miner, the cancer treatment of a child with poor parents, a medical evacuation from Antarctica, or the rescue of someone who has been captured by pirates? One could argue that these astronauts merit greater rescue efforts, since they are spearheading humanity's exploration into space, but you could also argue that they are sufficiently sophisticated to understand the risks they were taking on. Let's say an aircraft carrier takes two days to meet up with a cruise ship in the middle of the ocean to airlift a girl with an appendicitis to its shipboard hospital. Does the $20M/day operating cost of a carrier count as resources spent on that one child? Probably not, because thousands of crew members are going about their regular training regardless of where they are, and carrier is doing its job of being some predetermined general vicinity. While the justification for the expense of those other goals can be debated, they don't happen to be an opportunity cost of rescuing that girl. On the other hand, the shuttle crew rescue mission would likely have been entirely in pursuit of one singular goal. The depreciation and consumption of resources could not be considered to serve other purposes. The salaries paid might be thought of as a transfer rather than a destruction of wealth, yet they too represent the efforts of a large work force of highly competent people not doing another tasks for that same pay. The other benefits of such a mission really are difficult to project. For example, maybe the value of additional capabilities that would have been developed in pursuit of rescuing the astronauts would have been worth it. Perhaps the feel-good effects alone would have been worth as much as anything else that we spend money on that inspires us. While it is the task of good leaders to divine when unreasonable expenses should be taken when the incalculable benefits are worth it, terrible leaders can be characterized as people who fail to have perspective and don't appreciate costs, and who make rash decisions without considering the implications.
lotsofmangos 13y ago
No sane person in the United States of whatever political party or creed I reckon that describes less than half of those elected to office unfortunately, regardless of affiliation.

shiftpgdn 13y ago

Clearly you've never listened to conservative talk radio.

venomsnake 13y ago

I meant pundits and politicians not ordinary citizens. I chose republicans because waste is usually one of their favorite talking points. So chances are if a voice arises it will be from their side. My opinion is that it was impossible to pull that thing off. And it showed a cultural problem in NASA. But that is another story.

protomyth 13y ago
"I meant pundits and politicians not ordinary citizens. I chose republicans because waste is usually one of their favorite talking points." No Republican I've met would think doing a rescue mission was wrong or a waste. Using your logic, I could say it would be the Democrats who wouldn't attempt the rescue and point at Benghazi as the modern example. Partisan politics are a remarkably poor way to tell a reaction to this type of situation. It really goes to the life experience and culture someone was brought up in. If they had known and it leaked, and NASA had not moved heaven and earth to try to save the astronauts, then heads would roll. The base culture of the US would allow no other course.

rz2k 13y ago

>No sane person in the United States of whatever political party or creed would have said a rescue mission that had a reasonable chance of success was not worth the money and risk. I think most of us have the sentimental and emotional content that we would want the rescue mission to go forward. However, if you were to ignore the feel-good effects, it is very difficult to argue that the mission would maximize human well-being. I only think it is an obvious decision with a failure of perspective. Let me try to characterize some of the considerations in the most approximate and non-rigorous manner. Ignoring the risk to the rescuers, let's say the cost of the mission is something like $80M per astronaut life saved. If there is 80% chance of success that is equivalent to $100M/life or if there's a 10% chance of success that is $800M/life. With big numbers, it starts to become a society-level decision about how individual lives are valued. What are the resources we're willing to devote to the rescue of a trapped coal-miner, the cancer treatment of a child with poor parents, a medical evacuation from Antarctica, or the rescue of someone who has been captured by pirates? One could argue that these astronauts merit greater rescue efforts, since they are spearheading humanity's exploration into space, but you could also argue that they are sufficiently sophisticated to understand the risks they were taking on. Let's say an aircraft carrier takes two days to meet up with a cruise ship in the middle of the ocean to airlift a girl with an appendicitis to its shipboard hospital. Does the $20M/day operating cost of a carrier count as resources spent on that one child? Probably not, because thousands of crew members are going about their regular training regardless of where they are, and carrier is doing its job of being some predetermined general vicinity. While the justification for the expense of those other goals can be debated, they don't happen to be an opportunity cost of rescuing that girl. On the other hand, the shuttle crew rescue mission would likely have been entirely in pursuit of one singular goal. The depreciation and consumption of resources could not be considered to serve other purposes. The salaries paid might be thought of as a transfer rather than a destruction of wealth, yet they too represent the efforts of a large work force of highly competent people not doing another tasks for that same pay. The other benefits of such a mission really are difficult to project. For example, maybe the value of additional capabilities that would have been developed in pursuit of rescuing the astronauts would have been worth it. Perhaps the feel-good effects alone would have been worth as much as anything else that we spend money on that inspires us. While it is the task of good leaders to divine when unreasonable expenses should be taken when the incalculable benefits are worth it, terrible leaders can be characterized as people who fail to have perspective and don't appreciate costs, and who make rash decisions without considering the implications.

lotsofmangos 13y ago

No sane person in the United States of whatever political party or creed I reckon that describes less than half of those elected to office unfortunately, regardless of affiliation.