| ▲ | rustyhancock 9 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
To some extent I think since the challenger disaster trying to blow the whistle on safety issues at NASA has been romantacized. For me, so long as the information is transparently discussed with the astronauts they can agree or disagree. But the task is intrinsically extremely risky. It makes it very challenging for anyone to really know how to balance those risks. The peak outcome (modal, mean at least) is a good outcome. But the tail is very very long with all the little ways a catastrophe can occur. I think the median outcome is also deeply in the "good" category. And we sample this curve a few times a decade! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | pavlov 9 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Artemis program has cost over $100 billion so far. It doesn’t make any sense to spend that much money on something that’s still Russian roulette for the astronauts. If the purpose of the human risk is to let the agency accomplish more, then it needs to be reflected in the cost as a drastic reduction (so you can actually spend the money on doing more). Now Artemis is the worst of both worlds. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||