Re: Chicken *** NASA (was Re: Hubble good as dead)

Terrell Miller <millerto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>it's not often that I have to call bull*** on Derek...but this is one
>of those times.

No, it's not.

>We have two Americas: we have the Boomers who are older and creakier and
>more afraid of risk, and we have the younger generations who are just as
>grabastic and immortal as you and I used to be.

And guess which part of America holds the most political power? The
most financial power?

It isn't the younger generation.

>You want risk? Ever hear of this dotcom thing that was real popular a
>while back?

Stock market gambling is hardly a new thing, and bears not at all on
the subject at hand - the risk of life.

>How about "Fear Factor" on "X Games"? How about the return
>of absinthe?

The activities of a vast minority.

Get out from your dark cave and go read automobile ads from the last
decade or so. Note that each and every manufacturer is competing on
the safety and crash test ratings of their products. Read the ever
increasing disclaimers on products and goods of every stripe. Note
the increasing emphasis on diet and health to prevent 'premature'
death. Note the safety equipment that virtually every child employs
to ride a bike, or skateboard.[1] Note the changes in building codes.
(Specifically GFE power plugs and earthquake resistance - in areas
that might have an earthquake every 10k years!) Note the recent rise
of 'antibacterial' products of every stripe. Note the emphasis on
filtered and bottled water...

[1] This is now so deeply ingrained that a neighbor kid (about 17) who
rebels at virtually everything else wears his helmet and pads while
skateboarding!

>Our society isn't any more or less risk-averse than it was back in the
>'60s.

There is no possible way any reasonable individual actually conversant
with modern society can believe that. The evidence abounds everywhere
you look that your thesis (above) is utter nonsense.

>NASA is not any more risk averse than it was back in the '60s (and
>you could make a strong case that the agency is, in fact, much *more*
>risk-tolerant than they were during Apollo.

Given that at least three Apollo missions were continued *despite*
having met abort criteria, one has a hard time making that case.

>The handwaving of the CAIB's return-to-flight stipulations ("we get it")
>is proof positive of that).

NASA is caught in a very tight vise - on one jaw is the pressure to
resume flight, on the other is CAIB requirements.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
.

Quantcast