The engineers knew! They begged them to stop the launch, but of course, no one makes the wheels not capitalism stop rolling! profit progress at all costs!
Maybe it’s because it’s because I just finished reading this section in Range, but I think it’s more than the engineers knew.
When sociologist Diane Vaughan interviewed NASA and Thiokol engineers who had worked on the rocket boosters, she found that NASA’s own famous can-do culture manifested as a belief that everything would be fine because “we followed every procedure”; because “the [flight readiness review] process is aggressive and adversarial”; because “we went by the book.” NASA’s tools were its familiar procedures. The rules had always worked before. But with Challenger they were outside their usual bounds, where “can do” should have been swapped for what Weick calls a “make do” culture. They needed to improvise rather than throw out information that did not fit the established rubric.
Roger Boisjoly’s unquantifiable argument that the cold weather was “away from goodness” was considered an emotional argument in NASA culture. It was based on interpretation of a photograph. It did not conform to the usual quantitative standards, so it was deemed inadmissible evidence and disregarded. The can-do attitude among the rocket-booster group, Vaughan observed, “was grounded in conformity.” After the tragedy, it emerged that other engineers on the teleconference agreed with Boisjoly, but knew they could not muster quantitative arguments, so they remained silent. Their silence was taken as consent. As one engineer who was on the Challenger conference call later said, “If I feel like I don’t have data to back me up, the boss’s opinion is better than mine.”
I think most of us believe decisions should be data driven, but in some edge cases gut instinct is valuable.
It is easy to say in retrospect. A group of managers accustomed to dispositive technical information did not have any; engineers felt like they should not speak up without it. Decades later, an astronaut who flew on the space shuttle, both before and after Challenger, and then became NASA’s chief of safety and mission assurance, recounted what the “In God We Trust, All Others Bring Data” plaque had meant to him: “Between the lines it suggested that, ‘We’re not interested in your opinion on things. If you have data, we’ll listen, but your opinion is not requested here.’”
Nedelin was a part of the millitary rocketry program, not the space program. If you want to include Nedelin, then the ICBM disasters in the US should also be included. The space programs and ICBM programs were very closely related on both sides, but if we strictly keep it to the space program the soviets were safer.
ICBMs are spaceflight rockets, imo it’s best to count them. The US hasn’t had such large accidents with ICBMs, mostly minor ones.
Even if we exclude those it’s not true. The US has sent significantly more people into space than the Soviets did, so NASAs accident rate was lower (hence safer), even if the absolute number of deaths was higher.
Spaceflight rockets are ICBMs, if we are being pedantic. The space program was the civilian-facing part of the broader rocketry programs.
Either way, if we exclude them, it is still true, but you can also measure by ratio. It just goes to show that you can manipulate real data to be presented in any way you want, and add or subtract context as needed for your angle.
Fewer human lives—sure, if you only include verified deaths—but the Soviet space program had considerably more deaths overall once you factor in other animals.
Both sides sent animals into space, and many didn’t return. Animal testing in particular isn’t something unknown to science, nor was it done out of intentional cruelty nor for the purpose of profits, like the cosmetics industry. I feel like you’re narrowing in on something that ultimately isn’t an equivalent comparison, especially when compared to the scale of the food industry and its systematized mass brutality every second of every day.
The engineers knew! They begged them to stop the launch, but of course, no one makes the wheels not capitalism stop rolling!
profitprogress at all costs!I am honestly not sure what you’re trying to say here but I’m curious what NASA is selling that you threw capitalism in there.
Maybe it’s because it’s because I just finished reading this section in Range, but I think it’s more than the engineers knew.
I think most of us believe decisions should be data driven, but in some edge cases gut instinct is valuable.
📺 Richard Feynman explains.
Yep, the soviet space program took fewer lives overall.
I haven’t forgiven them for sending up a dog and a monkey though
Way more were semt by both sides.
I don’t forgive the nazis or the americans either
Did they have a comparable number of people sent to space?
During the space race, sure, from what I can find.
The Nedelin disaster claimed more lives than NASA did over its entire existence.
Nedelin was a part of the millitary rocketry program, not the space program. If you want to include Nedelin, then the ICBM disasters in the US should also be included. The space programs and ICBM programs were very closely related on both sides, but if we strictly keep it to the space program the soviets were safer.
ICBMs are spaceflight rockets, imo it’s best to count them. The US hasn’t had such large accidents with ICBMs, mostly minor ones.
Even if we exclude those it’s not true. The US has sent significantly more people into space than the Soviets did, so NASAs accident rate was lower (hence safer), even if the absolute number of deaths was higher.
Spaceflight rockets are ICBMs, if we are being pedantic. The space program was the civilian-facing part of the broader rocketry programs.
Either way, if we exclude them, it is still true, but you can also measure by ratio. It just goes to show that you can manipulate real data to be presented in any way you want, and add or subtract context as needed for your angle.
Fewer human lives—sure, if you only include verified deaths—but the Soviet space program had considerably more deaths overall once you factor in other animals.
Not actually true, both sides used animal testing.
I know this. NASA’s animal fatalities were fewer and less often.
Sources:
Both sides sent animals into space, and many didn’t return. Animal testing in particular isn’t something unknown to science, nor was it done out of intentional cruelty nor for the purpose of profits, like the cosmetics industry. I feel like you’re narrowing in on something that ultimately isn’t an equivalent comparison, especially when compared to the scale of the food industry and its systematized mass brutality every second of every day.
Cite your sources please. Without verifiable sources, you’re just making shit up.
Am I making up that the US sent animals into space? What claim do you think I’m making up? I already linked my source 2 comments ago.
You cited a single source from a tabloid run by a Russian Oligarch. That doesn’t count. Please post multiple, verifiable sources.