My good friend, political cartoonist Joe Sharpnack writes about yesterday's post:
"When the Challenger exploded in 1986, we realised that we had been taking technology for granted, and it hit home - maybe for the first time - that what appears routine is actually a highly perilous endeavour..."
Steve, do you really think this is true? I don't think there's one tech at NASA who doesn't spit shine his toothbrush. Those people know they're dealing with fire and sometimes accidents can happen. They're well aware of how dangerous it is. But if you want to go to the moon there are risks involved. Accident. That's all I see here.
-Joe
To which I replied:
I think we're on the same page. When I said "we" were taking technology for granted, I meant the great, non-techie populace, who had become so blase about the space program to the point where the networks weren't even carrying shuttle launches live anymore, let alone landings.
That's partly why the loss of Christa McAuliffe in 1986 was so devastating, since in part that mission was designed to reconnect Nasa and the idea of space exploration with a public that had become jaded, and had even been questioning the expenditure.
I agree that this weekend's terrible loss was a complete accident; but given that Nasa were aware of the potential damage from that debris during the launch, at some point a decision had to have been taken whether or not to abort the mission, presumably before the shuttle left earth atmosphere.
The outcome was obviously that the damage didn't pose enough of a threat to the craft to warrant calling off the trip. Perhaps it's that part of the decision-making process at Nasa that will now be particularly closely reviewed.
Comment?
"When the Challenger exploded in 1986, we realised that we had been taking technology for granted, and it hit home - maybe for the first time - that what appears routine is actually a highly perilous endeavour..."
Steve, do you really think this is true? I don't think there's one tech at NASA who doesn't spit shine his toothbrush. Those people know they're dealing with fire and sometimes accidents can happen. They're well aware of how dangerous it is. But if you want to go to the moon there are risks involved. Accident. That's all I see here.
-Joe
To which I replied:
I think we're on the same page. When I said "we" were taking technology for granted, I meant the great, non-techie populace, who had become so blase about the space program to the point where the networks weren't even carrying shuttle launches live anymore, let alone landings.
That's partly why the loss of Christa McAuliffe in 1986 was so devastating, since in part that mission was designed to reconnect Nasa and the idea of space exploration with a public that had become jaded, and had even been questioning the expenditure.
I agree that this weekend's terrible loss was a complete accident; but given that Nasa were aware of the potential damage from that debris during the launch, at some point a decision had to have been taken whether or not to abort the mission, presumably before the shuttle left earth atmosphere.
The outcome was obviously that the damage didn't pose enough of a threat to the craft to warrant calling off the trip. Perhaps it's that part of the decision-making process at Nasa that will now be particularly closely reviewed.
Comment?
posted by Steve at 11:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home