Replies

The astronauts have always know the risk and accepted it. Continue with the shuttle for now but start building a new fleet of diverse heavy boosters and manned craft that are more useful and economical than the shuttle.

The only reason that we are continuing with the shuttle is because of beaurocratic inertia (leaving aside where it is coming from for now), at NASA. Were the same factors in existence in say the Airline industry, we'd have a larger number of crashes, and still be using the Douglas DC-3!

What i have been responding to from the beginning of this argument is the idea that we cannot compare the mentality of a Combat commander, with the mentality of the professionals of NASA. The complaint was made that "you never see a general cry" over his troops. My response was that a general sends his boys out knowing that some of them are going to be killed, because war is a profession of deliberate death, and requires a different sort of professional detachment than a field that is simply "dangerous".

Conservababe took a lot of heat yesterday for being a little cold. But she has the right attitude. Bury our dead with honors and continue their dream. Even if some crews do die. It's part of the business. Explorer just isn't a safe career and that's not why anyone chooses it.

i do not dispute this for one second W. All that i say is that we should not compare the "apparent coldness" of the professionals at NASA with the professionals in war. They are entirely different matters. The only thing the two possibly have in common is the fact that those people wore the uniforms of the military of their countries...some had seen combat. Nothing i have posted mitigates either their personal courage, or the professionalism of the people on the ground doing what needed to be done. Either Conservababe needs to read these posts closer, or i (and others) need to present our thoughts in a better manner, or (as i suspect is the case) both events need to happen.

What i have been responding to from the beginning of this argument is the idea that we cannot compare the mentality of a Combat commander, with the mentality of the professionals of NASA. The complaint was made that "you never see a general cry" over his troops.

I noted that the control team maintained its composure until well after we knew Columbia was lost. But I didn't really appreciate the somewhat weepy tone of the briefing and the emotional appeals. If they couldn't have conducted the first press conference without that, they should have waited a day. NASA will benefit more, both int internal morale and in PR terms, from a public perception of professionalism.

My response was that a general sends his boys out knowing that some of them are going to be killed, because war is a profession of deliberate death, and requires a different sort of professional detachment than a field that is simply "dangerous".

No. If you are a scientist or engineer, as the NASA leaders are, you know that you're going to bury some. It's not as different a picture as you are painting. Merely because it's civilian doesn't mean it's not dangerous. We quite often don't give full credit to our civilians in the line of danger like police and firefighters because they are civilian. But a lot of them die tragically too. Just like these astronauts.

Some lines of work are inherently dangerous. The people who take those jobs are a special breed. The work is dangerous but those involved are the ones who know better than anyone else how worthwhile and necessary it is.

In comparison to some of the NASA interviews, I really appreciated the aggressive gung-ho attitude we heard from our old Apollo astronauts. To me, they were the only ones who really made sense and had the right perspective.