3 ms·
I think the negativity is warranted. There is too much bureaucratic overhead and even it wasn't purely bureaucratic it should not take a decade to design a resi
by dkarapetyan 12y ago
I think the negativity is warranted. There is too much bureaucratic overhead and even it wasn't purely bureaucratic it should not take a decade to design a resilient and fault-tolerant software/hardware system. Margaret Hamilton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_%28scientist%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_%28scientist%...) might have a few things to say on the matter.
- na85 12y agoWhen I build a tool shed in the woods in cottage/lake country, I can do things a lot more casually than someone building a skyscraper in Manhattan can. I probably don't even need a permit. At no point did I say that the process behind NextGen is perfect.
- dkarapetyan 12y agoWhat would you call sending people to the moon? A tool shed in the woods or something else entirely? It's not like there isn't documented historical precedent for building such complicated systems. That's what the link to Margaret Hamilton was supposed to illuminate but I guess I should have been more explicit.
- snowwrestler 12y ago> What would you call sending people to the moon? A huge dangerous experiment. Out of 12 Apollo missions, 2 ended in disaster. The Apollo 1 fire killed 3 people, and we all know the story of Apollo 13. I wouldn't call the space program an acceptable comparison for how our commercial aviation system should work.
- wglb 12y agoI suspect that the requirements for the Apollo software are significantly simpler than those needed for air traffic control.
- dkarapetyan 12y agoMaybe, maybe not. The general principles should still be applicable.