Why NASA sucks

[wacki]

If NASA sucks you can thank politicians for the shuttle when we should be using far cheaper dumb rockets, men instead of far cheaper robots, etc. You can also thank politicians for this:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19221

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm torn about NASA.

One the one hand I firmly believe we should be spending money on space exploration and experiments.

On the other hand we are such a bunch of pussies that when a mission goes wrong we have to spend a trillion dollars to make ourselves feel better. Accidents happen, mistakes happen. It was predicted that 1 in x missions will fail. Well it did. Move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

"NASA engineers estimated the rate of failure for the shuttle at 1-in-145 (0.7 percent), but the program suffered two complete losses in its first 113 launches."

[Meech]

+/- 1%.

I still think pure science and space exploration are worthy causes.

But NASA isn't doing a great job of it lately. They are more afraid of failure and losing budget money.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
+/- 1%.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Discovery lands you'll be in the acceptable range. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I still think pure science and space exploration are worthy causes.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is really denying this, and I for one agree. But just because you (or I) think something is a "worthy cause" does not give anyone license to force others to pay for it.

[Wisch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm torn about NASA.

One the one hand I firmly believe we should be spending money on space exploration and experiments.

On the other hand we are such a bunch of pussies that when a mission goes wrong we have to spend a trillion dollars to make ourselves feel better. Accidents happen, mistakes happen. It was predicted that 1 in x missions will fail. Well it did. Move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

"NASA engineers estimated the rate of failure for the shuttle at 1-in-145 (0.7 percent), but the program suffered two complete losses in its first 113 launches."

[/ QUOTE ]


Variance.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm torn about NASA.

One the one hand I firmly believe we should be spending money on space exploration and experiments.

On the other hand we are such a bunch of pussies that when a mission goes wrong we have to spend a trillion dollars to make ourselves feel better. Accidents happen, mistakes happen. It was predicted that 1 in x missions will fail. Well it did. Move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

"NASA engineers estimated the rate of failure for the shuttle at 1-in-145 (0.7 percent), but the program suffered two complete losses in its first 113 launches."

[/ QUOTE ]


Variance.

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
+/- 1%.

I still think pure science and space exploration are worthy causes.

But NASA isn't doing a great job of it lately. They are more afraid of failure and losing budget money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in total agreement here. They designed a system that would fail at 144 to 1, and I would go to space once with those odds. It would be a life-changing experience and would be well worth the risk. Why is NASA so afraid of failure? I hate to see people lose lives, but, like I said, I'll be the first on the list if they start running out of willing people wanting to go.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
+/- 1%.

I still think pure science and space exploration are worthy causes.

But NASA isn't doing a great job of it lately. They are more afraid of failure and losing budget money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in total agreement here. They designed a system that would fail at 144 to 1, and I would go to space once with those odds. It would be a life-changing experience and would be well worth the risk. Why is NASA so afraid of failure? I hate to see people lose lives, but, like I said, I'll be the first on the list if they start running out of willing people wanting to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

It likely has more to do with funding. Failing in such a public way isn't good.