A few random notes: (01)
* do you really think it's possible for the astronauts to repair /any/
damage during the flight? If not, what does such a goal say? (02)
* do you think engineering "modifications" (implied low cost) will allow
a significant portion of potential repairs to be made in-flight? Given
other critique of the overall shuttle design, how many modifications
make sense? (03)
* NASA's history seems to me /not/ to be a rational-if-implicit trading
off of requirements, but rather of talking a high-safety game while
actually (a) ignoring warnings and (b) not even understanding the
statistical analysis necessary to evaluate risk.
<http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia/columbiastory2A48513A.htm> (04)
* compare this to Robert Martin's recent piece "We will not ship shit"
<http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=7588> (05)
Eric Armstrong wrote:
> Peter P. Jones wrote:
>
>>> From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3181599.stm
>>
>> "The shuttle is expected to take off again next summer, but under
>> strict constraints. "Engineering modifications will have to be carried
>> out so that astronauts will be able to repair any damage caused to the
>> shuttle during the flight. "Missions will have to lift off during
>> daylight hours, to allow photographs to be taken to assess the risk of
>> damage, and the shuttle will have to be capable of docking with the
>> ISS to allow the crew to be rescued, if need be."
>>
>> It's got to be asked: Why the heck didn't they design them like that
>> in the first place?
>>
> Well, one certainly wishes in retrospect that they had.
>
> But the buck stops at the top. I liked the Airforce guy who said that
> NASA was trying to meet conflicting budget, schedule, and safety goals,
> and that safety too often came last.
>
> But who is it that imposes the tight budget and schedule constraints
> that say, "it's worth doing this, but only if it costs less than $$$
> and you show progress by <fill in the date> so the American public
> thinks they're not throwing away gajillions of dollars".
>
> After capitol hill, the buck comes back to us.
>
> There's a limit to how much we want to spend, and a limit to how long
> we want to wait. And even with the best and most conscientous effort,
> there is a limit to closely we can approach perfection.
>
> (P.S. I agree that the design concept mentioned in your message
> is superior. I just wanted to make the general point that NASA
> has been doing an incredible job, given its constraints.)
>
>
>
>
> (06)
--
This message is archived at: (07)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=3F4CB173.9080005@fluxent.com (08)
|