4 ms·

You don't suppose the official, house NASA history of the Shuttle might be a bit unreliable on these issues??? My sources are what I contemporaneously learned

by hga 13y ago

You don't suppose the official, house NASA history of the Shuttle might be a bit unreliable on these issues??? My sources are what I contemporaneously learned and remembered in the '70s, and that paper in Science (the world's #2 science journal after Nature, not that it wasn't back then very political, just that this claim cuts against their politics). It would have been published in the '80s, very possibly after the Challenger disaster prompted a lot of second looks, but I can't be more specific.

mikeash 13y ago
Yes, an official NASA history is certainly going to be biased. On the other hand, you've given me no reason whatsoever to believe you over them. Your ??? is completely out of line. I merely gave a source for what I said and asked if you had one. I understand if you don't, but don't be surprised if I then don't necessarily believe your claim.
- hga 13y ago
  But I do have a source; it would be behind a paywall if I could find it/went to the trouble of trying to find it (the search would probably cost money to make sure I found the right article). At best I hoped to plant a seed of doubt about yet another archetypal bashing of the military; clearly I've failed. My "???" indicates I think it's quite possible the author's sources lied to him. You're welcome to believe that NASA people, when talking about their greatest and most expensive in every way failure---these decisions killed two complete crews of 7 each---are more honest than I am, but I'm not entirely sure how much company you'll have, the world has seen rather a lot of post-Apollo NASA by now.... (This alone should give one serious pause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report#Role_of_Richard_Feynman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report#Role_...).
  - mikeash 13y ago
    It's not "bashing of the military". The Air Force didn't want the Shuttle, but once they were forced into it, they wanted to make it useful to them. The fault lies with the people who forced two organizations with widely different goals to come up with a single vehicle that worked for both of them. I don't understand your incredulity at my reaction. What exactly did you think was going to happen when you showed up making an effectively anonymous comment saying, "no, that's wrong, believe my 30-year-old memories over the official history"?
    - hga 13y ago
      You're contradicting yourself: first you said: "The Space Shuttle was a political football whose design was dictated by the whims of Congress and the meddling of the military first...." Then you note the military didn't want it, but wanted it to be useful if forced. I would add the Science article specifically addressed the single orbit polar mission, saying the Air Force didn't see a great need for that and would have been happy with gentler flight profiles. It explicitly said NASA insisted on it, and that's consistent with their post-Apollo institutional biases, much the same produced the hot-rod SSMEs. "Meddling", when it wasn't, qualifies as bashing in my book, especially in the full context of your sentence. As for my incredulity, maybe start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography I was a History minor in college....
      - mikeash 13y ago
        I don't see the contradiction. They were forced into the project and then they screwed with it. However, if you insist on taking offense at my comment, I'm not going to fight it that hard. I'm not really interested in what offends you. What I am interested in is some sort of external source for the stuff you're saying. Pseudonymous internet comments from "hga" and vague references to "the Science article" don't count.

by hga 13y ago

mikeash 13y ago

Yes, an official NASA history is certainly going to be biased. On the other hand, you've given me no reason whatsoever to believe you over them. Your ??? is completely out of line. I merely gave a source for what I said and asked if you had one. I understand if you don't, but don't be surprised if I then don't necessarily believe your claim.

hga 13y ago
But I do have a source; it would be behind a paywall if I could find it/went to the trouble of trying to find it (the search would probably cost money to make sure I found the right article). At best I hoped to plant a seed of doubt about yet another archetypal bashing of the military; clearly I've failed. My "???" indicates I think it's quite possible the author's sources lied to him. You're welcome to believe that NASA people, when talking about their greatest and most expensive in every way failure---these decisions killed two complete crews of 7 each---are more honest than I am, but I'm not entirely sure how much company you'll have, the world has seen rather a lot of post-Apollo NASA by now.... (This alone should give one serious pause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report#Role_of_Richard_Feynman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report#Role_...).
- mikeash 13y ago
  It's not "bashing of the military". The Air Force didn't want the Shuttle, but once they were forced into it, they wanted to make it useful to them. The fault lies with the people who forced two organizations with widely different goals to come up with a single vehicle that worked for both of them. I don't understand your incredulity at my reaction. What exactly did you think was going to happen when you showed up making an effectively anonymous comment saying, "no, that's wrong, believe my 30-year-old memories over the official history"?
  - hga 13y ago
    You're contradicting yourself: first you said: "The Space Shuttle was a political football whose design was dictated by the whims of Congress and the meddling of the military first...." Then you note the military didn't want it, but wanted it to be useful if forced. I would add the Science article specifically addressed the single orbit polar mission, saying the Air Force didn't see a great need for that and would have been happy with gentler flight profiles. It explicitly said NASA insisted on it, and that's consistent with their post-Apollo institutional biases, much the same produced the hot-rod SSMEs. "Meddling", when it wasn't, qualifies as bashing in my book, especially in the full context of your sentence. As for my incredulity, maybe start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography I was a History minor in college....
    - mikeash 13y ago
      I don't see the contradiction. They were forced into the project and then they screwed with it. However, if you insist on taking offense at my comment, I'm not going to fight it that hard. I'm not really interested in what offends you. What I am interested in is some sort of external source for the stuff you're saying. Pseudonymous internet comments from "hga" and vague references to "the Science article" don't count.