Can we have a thread about NASA failures and the toxic culture that precipitated them?
I was reading up on the Columbia disaster last night and I can't believe no one went to jail over this.
>Space shuttle Columbia takes off
>piece of foam insulation breaks off and damages the left wing
>NASA analysts insist the damage is nothing serious
>mission proceeds
>evidence from computer modelling shows that it might be quite serious
>NASA ignores the data
>DOD offers to photograph the shuttle in space so the crew can assess the damage and consider the prospect of repair
>NASA blocks the DOD from intervening, reasoning that there's nothing the crew can do about it
>NASA bureaucrats led by Linda Ham (who was later dismissed) decide that they're all dead anyway and it would be better not to let them know it
>Quote: You know, there is nothing we can do about damage to the TPS [Thermal Protection System]. If it has been damaged it's probably better not to know. I think the crew would rather not know. Don't you think it would be better for them to have a happy successful flight and die unexpectedly during entry than to stay on orbit, knowing that there was nothing to be done, until the air ran out?
>meanwhile NASA ground control sends the following message up to the crew before they begin reentry:
>During ascent at approximately 80 seconds, photo analysis shows that some debris came loose and subsequently impacted the orbiter left wing. The impact appears to be totally on the lower surface and no particles are seen to traverse over the upper surface of the wing. Experts have reviewed the high speed photography and there is no concern for RCC or tile damage. We have seen this same phenomenon on several other flights and there is absolutely no concern for entry.
>astronauts are now flying blind into almost certain death
>shuttle explodes over Texas
>Mission control declares a contingency and seals the room. Finger pointing begins at NASA
>That (defeatist) mindset was widespread. Astronauts agreed. So don't blame an individual; look for the organizational factors that lead to that kind of a mindset. Don't let them in your organization.
I'm honestly glad the age of government funded spaceflight is coming to an end. The private sector will take over and run things much more efficiently, with fewer mistakes and more accountability.
Good riddance to NASA
>>7681426
>NASA has 2 catastrophic disasters that end in the deaths of shuttle crews, out of the hundreds of successful missions it has flown.
>One person in authority during one of these disasters dropped the ball in an inexcusable fashion.
>All of NASA history is shit.
>there's nothing to worry about, come on home
>>7681433
in not soviet russia, private sector is government
>>7681447
>reading comprehension
When did I ever say all of NASA history is shit you stupid shill?
I said I wanted a thread on NASA culture and disasters. That's it
>>7681433
Yea and maybe they'll finally tell the truth about the shape of the Earth!!!!!!
>>7681453
yes anon, that's called state capitalism, and it is very bad
>>7681426
Heh. Nasa reminds me of my mother.
Instead of pointing out the problems they just neglect them and diminish their importance until you die.
Not much to talk about.
They should inform them and have them take appropriate action.
>>7681447
Yes, would love to hear 7681433's reasoning as to why the private sector will "run things much more efficiently". To me, it seems, a majority of the time, it would be the opposite. The government runs things more efficiently.
>>7681426
Challenger was worse.
>Be Thiokol Engineers
>Know that cold + SRBs = recipe for disaster
>See forecast for launch calls for freezing temperatures overnight
>Call NASA
>NASA gets pissy and doesn't want to delay launch
>Management says fuck it and gives all clear to NASA
>Engineers watch launch on TV
>Sigh of relief when SRBs don't't explode on launch
>Start to celebrate
>Shuttle hits high altitude wind shear
>Wind shear breaks the temporary seal that had formed from SRB combustion products and prevented explosion
>Shuttle explodes
>>7681433
"muh private sector" would never have gotten to the moon
>>7681477
you forgot the part where everyone at mission control had the nerve to acted shocked after the explosion
>>7681483
Not 50 years ago. Today the private sector is much more interested in the prospect of spaceflight, so much greater resources can be committed to such programs.
Today government funding is the whole reason we haven't gone back to the moon.
>>7681433
The private sector, driven by profit, has never endangered the lives of innocents in order to maintain or grow their income, right?
>>7681426
Hey, let's build a ship but not put any escape pods or lifeboats in it.
> That's never bit anyone in the ass before.
>>7681503
The government, driven by greed and selfish motives, has never exploited the labor and lives of citizens in order to achieve its desired ends, right?
>>7681487
We haven't gone back to the moon because after the first couple of mission, the public was bored and didn't care anymore. Getting to the moon was a stunt meant to entertain Americans and impress third worlders. Which it did for a short while but the fickle public moved on to other things. This lack of interest was even parodied in Superman 2.
>>7681426
Pretty stupid. The mission lasted 16 days, if they had really tried, that should have been enough to organize a rescue mission. They would've gotten a blank cheque for that shit if taken to the top.
>>7681511
>Both sides are bad, so vote private sector.
If both solutions are bad, picking what your perceive to be "less bad" doesn't magically make it a good solution.
Apollo 1 (initially designated AS-204) was the first manned mission of the U.S. Apollo manned lunar landing program.[1] The planned low Earth orbital test of the Apollo Command/Service Module never made its target launch date of February 21, 1967, because a cabin fire during a launch rehearsal test on January 27 at Cape Kennedy Air Force Station Launch Complex 34 killed all three crew members—Command Pilot Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, Senior Pilot Edward H. White II, and Pilot Roger B. Chaffee—and destroyed the Command Module (CM).
>>7681447
>NASA has 2 catastrophic disasters that end in the deaths of shuttle crews, out of the hundreds of successful missions it has flown.
NASA hasn't flown hundreds of manned missions.
>>7681533
As the smoke cleared, they found the bodies, but were not able to remove them. The fire had partly melted Grissom's and White's nylon space suits and the hoses connecting them to the life support system. Grissom had removed his restraints and was lying on the floor of the spacecraft. White's restraints were burned through, and he was found lying sideways just below the hatch. It was determined that he had tried to open the hatch per the emergency procedure, but was not able to do so against the internal pressure. Chaffee was found strapped into his right-hand seat, as procedure called for him to maintain communication until White opened the hatch. Because of the large strands of melted nylon fusing the astronauts to the cabin interior, removing the bodies took nearly 90 minutes
that's the part you never forget
>>7681513
>because after the first couple of mission, the public was bored and didn't care anymore.
This is not a problem when the private market is funding projects
>>7681588
True but for private funding there must be an expectation of a return on investment in proportion to the risk being taken.
>>7681519
SpaceX has never taken a penny out of my pocket to fund anything, nor could it take. The federal government on the other hand takes from every paycheck I get and spends it on drug addicts and their own bureaucrats.
I think I'll stick with the private sector
>>7681433
>government funded spaceflight is coming to an end
where do you think spacex gets its money?
>>7681426
Are you really so inexperienced that you expect a waste of billions of dollars to NOT end up with those sort of results?
The Space Shuttle was only a spacecraft as a side-effect. The main purpose of the entity was to keep funneling billions of dollars into existing military-industrial infrastructure. The Space Shuttle supply program was purposefully spread out over as many states as could be arranged in the Congress.
That's what spaceflight is really about: Launching garbage into orbit, and launching billions into the pockets of rich, influential people. That's the economics of spaceflight, and it makes sense, since there's NOWHERE TO GO when you fly into space, other than just to come back down to Earth. Earth is where all the rich people (i.e. the only important people as far as the government and industry are concerned) are, and it's where all the markets are (i.e. the pissant consumers who just do what they're told).
>>7681433
>The private sector will take over and run things much more efficiently, with fewer mistakes and more accountability.
Wrong. The private sector is only taking these risks since there's free government cheese to get from it. There's no real profit from spaceflight, even the satellites. There's no market in space. There are no Humans in space to sell to. And the energy and time it takes to get resources in space, forbid taking them for any reason. There won't be any asteroid harvesting... metals so obtained will cost orders of magnitude over what's obtained on Earth. There's just no point, economically speaking... and ECONOMICS is why Humans do anything.
We live in the Sad Age of the Nerd. Too many basement-dwelling masturbators are using the Internet to talk talk talk as of that will make impossible economics somehow *possible*. There must be some chemical in Cheetos{tm} that so often stains their fingers and affects their minds. The space future imagined by the virgin-nerds is economically impossible to achieve. Anything in a shortage on Earth that can be obtained in space, will only prompt the elite to induce privation and war, which will genocide enough of our population to reduce the so-called "need" for such resources. In other words, genocide is orders of magnitude cheaper to implement than space colonization. The elite who run Humanity have ALWAYS chosen genocide in times of stress. That's what economics dictates, and it's what our stupid top-down species prefers.
>>7681447
You don't risk a 5-billion-dollar vehicle and 50-million-dollar crew on a 1% chance of loss per flight. The risk of loss should be many orders of magnitude smaller. That's what ECONOMICS says should happen; it's not my opinion.
NASA should never have existed. Economics says so. Spaceflight cannot show a profit. That's why government has dominated it so far, and it's why government will continue to dominate it.
>>7681622
Get down from your ivory tower. There is no "elite" that "genocide" people for resources.
>>7681593
>SpaceX has never taken a penny out of my pocket to fund anything
Why do you Cheetos-dusted basement-dwellers keep stating lies that are easily countered via a stupid wiki page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Funding
"As of May 2012, SpaceX had operated on total funding of approximately $1 billion in its first ten years of operation. [...] The remainder has come from progress payments on long-term launch contracts and development contracts. As of April 2012, NASA had put in about $400–500M of this amount, with most of that as progress payments on launch contracts."
NASA (hence the government) is funneling money into Space-X. You can't sanely deny it.
>>7681632
>There is no "elite" that "genocide" people for resources.
All of history is conclusive proof of my assertion. You don't need to be in an ivory tower to read a few history books in your life.
>>7681518
>build a rocket in 16 days
lol okay anon
>>7681632
At least there hasn't been since the Soviet Union collapsed
>>7681580
this wasnt NASA's fault, okay, the hatch shouldve opened outwards for the low orbit mission. The reason the frire erupted was because the atmosphere in the shuttle was 100% oxygen. This was because there was no good way to regulate the oxygen to nitrogen ratio in the air otherwise, you wouldnt notice that you were being poisoned until you died. Nasa weighed the risks, and decided it was less likely for a fire to erupt than for the crew to suffocate
>>7681639
The difference is that SpaceX, like Tesla, is paying that money back. When NASA spends it you never see a dime of it again.
Stupid wittol
>>7681647
I havnt explained it terribly well, but thunderf00t recently covered it in a video
>>7681426
>ITT: Undergrads who have no experience in systems engineering, never done or seen a FTA, and make pompous hindsight observations
>>7681656
>government shill shilling
friendly reminder that I paid for you education and your salary
>>7681677
>boo hoo I live in a civilized society and are expected to pay taxes for the myriad publicly maintained services I use every day.
cry more amerifag
>>7681686
>I are expected
>I are
good to see they've been keeping up the standards in those government schools
and last I checked I don't use any public services
>>7681687
ever driven on a road? Idk what its like in the land of the fat and the free, but in blighty its considered pretty reasonable that you pay a chunk of your paycheck to live in a well maintained society
>>7681696
the roads in my community are privately maintained. I do occasionally drive on the interstate.
You think Britain is 'well maintained society'? Or to put it another way: do you think the quality of your well maintained society justifies the government consuming 50 % of the national income?
>>7681704
this is always a contentious point brought up in opposition to welfare systems. Of course I think it's worth it, that tax money funds most scientific research in the country, helps provide for those who cant provide for themselves, and has gone a long way in improving the utility infrastructure. The roads where you live may be privately maintained, but ever looked up the degree to which those private organisations are subsidised by the government?
>>7681639
>NASA had put in about $400–500M of this amount, with most of that as progress payments on launch contracts."
>progress payments on launch contracts
>payments for launch services
>payments for the lowest-priced launch services on the market
>$400-500M over ten years
>over which period of time NASA had well over $150 billion total funding
>Constellation and SLS/Orion sucking up billions of dollars every year
Just funneling that money. Just giving it away for free.
>>7681534
Ok, ok, 2 disasters out of 166 missions.
>>7681593
>>7681713
Why is it the government's obligation to 'take care' of anyone? And how CAN government do so, except by taxing (i.e. penalizing) those who take care of themselves to subsidize (i.e. reward) those who do not?
>>7681714
"The costs of the 2003-2010 Iraq War are often contested, as academics and critics have unearthed many hidden costs not represented in official estimates. The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War, which totaled just over $1.1 trillion. The Department of Defense's direct spending on Iraq totaled at least $757.8 billion, but also highlighting the complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars."
>>7681713
Let me put it to you another way. Suppose the government in your country is expending 50% of the national income.
What this essentially means is that, for 6 months out of every year, everyone engaged in the private market is essentially working to fund the government.
Imagine if this was split evenly. Imagine if, from January 1 to June 30, everyone who worked was subject to a 100% income tax. Then, from July 1 to December 31, they were subject to a 0% income tax.
Try and fathom the difference in productivity, in effort and output between those two periods. Do you suppose anything would get done between January and July? And is it really any different that the current arrangement, which has you paying a fixed percentage of your income to the government out of every check?
>>7681734
the government is just a physical realization of the will of the people (in theory). The government is important to push progress in fields that would otherwise see no funding as they don't provide any sort of wealth. If not 'take care' of people, what other role do you suppose government should fill? Providing a sort of 'safety net' is the main reason government exists, be it through national defense, police or benefits for those who can otherwise not work
>>7681622
Wow, that was really enlightening, anon. You realize they said the same thing about electricity, cars, television, computers, and the internet, right?
"Not economically feasible now, or ever," "just a passing fad," "will never happen". Have fun with that, anon.
>>7681738
In that same period of 2003-2010, the federal government spent around 14 trillion on social security, medicare and other social services
thanks for playing
>>7681757
Government has three essential functions:
National defense
Domestic security
Court system
Welfare programs and the like do not fall under these responsibilities. If the government is just a physical realization of the will of the people, then it is a very poor realization.
>>7681426
"stay on orbit, knowing that there was nothing to be done, until the air ran out"
we probably could have bummed a few Soyuz off the Russians. Imagine how much international good will that would generate "Russia rescues stranded Astronauts"
>>7681752
if that were to be true, then indeed productivity would fall etc etc. However, tax comes in many more forms than just income tax. The percentage of the total tax paid by a given percentage of the countried individuals is relatively small, the majority of tax is paid by the ridiculously wealthy through myriad means. you're taxed on wages for a number of reasons, it can be seen as a way of taxing your employer for you, the state paid for your education (excluding 'uni' in america, in the uk uni is still massively subsidized) The 'state' provided a lot of the services that you required to reach the point at which you are currently, and tax can be seen as paying this back. This may not be terribly applicable to the US and other such countries. Im not gonna be great at arguing these points, but there are countless reports out there that break up the benefits of tax in more socialist-ish societies like the uk
>>7681767
if you were to, say, give birth to a child with a physical disability that prevents him or her from being able to work. would you provide for the child throughout its entire life, and would you want this to continue after your death? If your answer is yes, then the welfare system is a realisation of the will of the people. However, note that the welfare system in its current state is somewhat broken. welfare should only be given to those that can either not work at all, or are actively seeking out work, and even then it should be just enough to survive
>>7681622
What this all boils down to is:
>Space is boring! Why can't everyone think like me?
>>7681622
Thank you for your irrational, reactionary post that makes you sound like a luddite.
>using manual labor to manufacture goods is order of magnitude cheaper to implement than steam powered machinery.
If you knew anything about economics you would understand that volume and innovation make new industries cheaper. In the area of harvesting resources in space, the cost of the project would be outweighed by the long term revenue gained from the sheer amount of resources and new technology developed to chase after the raw goods.
Come on son.
>>7681687
>Who are these cops that keep crime rates in check?
>What is this military that discourages foreign invaders?
>What is all of this infrastructure my society is based upon?
>>7681757
that sounds nice but what it actually is is a framework to run operations of society. so logically it is a product of the people's will to create a framework that runs operations that were also "willed"
>>7681821
the welfare system exists because of the will of the people. Post WW!, the british middle class realised how terrible the lives of the poverty stricken were, and decided that they needed to be provided for in some small way
>>7681433
Driven by profit margins and fueled by private investment, what could possibly prevent transparency and accountability in private sector space flight? It's surely an improvement to the system we have now, which hasn't accomplished anything of note
>>7681774
Let's look at the United Kingdom, because it is an interesting case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_Kingdom
As you can see from this chart, the increasing government spending has come primarily from social protection, which includes pensions and welfare. If we assume that expenditure corresponds at least roughly to need, then we must conclude that the demand for such social protection has been increasing. Now why is this the case? On the one hand, mass immigration is to blame: people immigrate to Britain explicitly because its welfare system is so generous. On the other hand however the number of English natives claiming social protection has also increased. This is a direct consequence of the welfare state, in which it is more lucrative for many people to refrain from working and collect subsidies. Insofar as the government rewards failure and refusal to work, there will always be a segment of the population that elects to collect these benefits, while contributing nothing in return.
>>7681643
the word genocide itself wasn't even coined until the year 1900 you monkey, the concept is almost wholly a product of Industrial times which allowed for the systemic and mass killing of people and ethnic groups on an efficient scale. Before that, you needed plague/famine or the Mongols to wipe out enormous amounts of people. Lemme guess, that "elite" of yours shat smallpox and Y. pestis into existence in a world that didn't know germ theory? They triggered the Little Ice Age? They convinced Temujin that it would be a really good idea to unite the disparate Mongol steppe nomads and slaughter their own realms to the death toll of millions (oh, but let me guess, Genghis was in on it, totally, despite the fact that it took a fucking year to cross the Silk Road and transmit even the most basic form of communication)? We may as be arguing reptilians from the Planet-fucking-X since you need to go that far in order to connect the bizarre and astounding leaps of logic you need to accept your statement.
stop abusing words you don't fucking comprehend. it's pathetic and I disregarded the rest of your post as a result.
inb4 he turns out to be conspiratorial
>>7681829
and this is the main reason that the welfare system is flawed, it started with good intentions, but I agree that access to it should be restricted to those either unable to work, or born into unfortunate conditions, and then to give them the ability to achieve as much as any other person, I dont see what is so objectionable with that. The reason these systems exist is to keep the masses happy, the pension system is a bad example, pensions are incredibly improtant and , if anything,. increase productivity. A lot of the time this is just borrowed money with 0% rates of interest for the government
>>7681829
The rise is mainly driven by more people retiring and drawing a pension.
>>7681843
The simplest solution would be to replace all forms of welfare with a negative income tax. This would take the form of a guaranteed income subsidy which does not deter people from working.
See here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM
>>7681853
Really? So the number of people retiring and drawing a pension has increased by 62% in the period between 2000-20015?
>>7681866
a combination of increase in state pension and population growth accounts for a lot of the social protection expenditure https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/305371/social-security-spending-in-UK-including-scotland.pdf
>>7681426
>NASA bureaucrats led by Linda Ham
female affirmative action hiree is incompetent?
what news!
>>7681513
We haven't gone back to the moon because the space shuttle was completely incapable of it
And cost too fucking much.
If instead of the space shuttle, NASA had built actual cost effective heavy launch rockets.
We probably would have gone back, once or twice.
>>7681866
That's not how it works, there was a 4% rise in the state pension over just one year (between 2011/12 - 2012/13), as of right now state pensions account for about half of the total social spending. However the thesis presented here >>7681829 is still wrong since it assumes that every person included in the claimant count is out of work. That's wrong. Also included in Social protection spending will be things like:
>Caregivers allowance
As the name implies, it's given to people who care for family members
>In work benefit
What effectively amounts to giving people money so that their annual wage becomes something that you can live on. Or in other words another form of corporate welfare.
>Disability Living Allowance
Which is for people that can't work.
There's lots more that I could post, but the idea that:
>"This is a direct consequence of the welfare state, in which it is more lucrative for many people to refrain from working and collect subsidies."
Is wrong in every conceivable sense. In fact, Jobseakers Allowance (JSA, which will likely give us a good idea of people who are unemployed and are drawing dole and not retired will be on) only accounts for about 3%, (however the the actual unemployment rate is closer to 5%).
>>7681426
>piece of foam insulation
for public consumption
keyword: LIPC
>>7681964
Pensions are quite literally paying people to not work
tho
So your whole argument is flawed
>>7681843
Well, it started with bad intentions, and then gets worse.
Pensions are very overrated, 3 generations living in the same household would drastically lower costs for everyone, that should be encouraged.
Rather than paying trillions in pensions so old fucks can live on their own.
>>7681993
>Pensions are quite literally paying people to not work
>damage_control.jpg
>>7681964
The point stands that unemployment compensation incentivizes people to remain out of the labor force. Apart from this segment of the population, there will also be a substantial segment that is between jobs or looking for work. In addition, there will be a segment of the disabled, retarded, and otherwise incapable of working. All are covered by social protection.
Welfare state and mass immigration make for a nasty combination. Britain either needs to drastically cut these subsidies down, or reduce the inflow of immigrants to the UK. It has already been disclosed that in the early 2000s the left-wing British government engaged in a wide conspiracy to utilize mass immigration as a political weapon. These migrants have contributed disproportionately to the social protection burden borne by the English taxpayer.
>>7682004
the whole unemployment pay concept is a scam anyways
Just subsidizes seasonal workers or pays people to not accept lower paying work
The progressives have been running with a cloward-piven style goal for a long time now.
>>7681648
>never see that dime again
the ISS can be seen with naked eye, fatass
>>7681772
Because Russia can have not one, not two, but three Soyuz Capsules ready to launch by the time they run out of air. Real life space mission aren't like Marooned. The Russians can't magically show up to give you air during the third act.
Is anyone here old enough to remember the russians setting MIR on fire?
>>7682022
And how would you propose we conduct such a study, eh? Send around an census poll asking: Would you rather work for a living or get paid to do noting?
What would that tell us? It's like the data gathering they did some years ago in America to try and figure out how many people in the US were hungry. How do you begin to answer that question? Distribute a referendum asking "are you hungry"?
>>7682022
m8 pls
would you rather work or not work, assuming the pay is the same?
>>7682042
>And how would you propose we conduct such a study, eh?
Ah so there is none, which would mean all your posts are just you projecting your own beliefs onto this particular subject. Good talking with you anon, but just making shit up isn't a great way to present an argument.
>>7682022
>You mean there are people with little to no education or job skills who would rather get free money for watching tv and getting high/drunk all day than go out and work some shit-tier job?
Yes, lazy people exist.
>>7682046
The first step is to acknowledge that there are people who don't share your beliefs, ideas, or ethics, anon. Logic takes care of the rest.
>>7682050
Are you trolling? I grew up poor white trash because this was literally my family. They would rather collect welfare and food stamps than work the rare, occasional job they were forced to get temporarily to keep qualifying for benefits, flipping burgers, sacking groceries, or bussing tables. I grew up surrounded by these people, because you hang out with people who are like you. Don't try to tell me these people don't exist after I worked my ass off to escape that cesspit.
>tfw I'm the only one of my siblings to make it out.
>>7682046
There's plenty of data to back this up. It's one of the cornerstones of economics:
http://www.mdrc.org/publication/how-welfare-and-work-policies-affect-employment-and-income
http://hanseconomics.com/2012/02/14/mit-professor-may-be-kind-spirited-but-is-definitely-a-bad-economist/
>People are given a monetary incentive to not produce anything. When you give people an incentive not to produce, they produce less. This is really a very simple principle, one that guides nearly all production. People do what they are paid to do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VrANfyzuW8
>Even when they have the potential to become productive members of society, the loss of welfare state benefits if they try to do so is an implicit “tax” on what they would earn that often exceeds the explicit tax on a millionaire. If increasing your income by $10,000 would cause you to lose $15,000 in government benefits, would you do it? In short, the political left’s welfare state makes poverty more comfortable, while penalizing attempts to rise out of poverty.
>>7681593
If NASA got a hundredth of a penny of every dollar taxed to R&D, we'd have a colony on Mars. The government doesn't take shit from you to give to NASA. Modern NASA's government funding is comparable to four or five Major League Baseball teams.
>>7681622
>saying there's nothing of value in space
Asteroid mining will be a massive industry. The volume of resources available in asteroids that pass close to Earth dwarfs the reserves currently available of many resources.
>>7681622
The moon is already full of a rare earth resource. When nuclear fusion power comes of age, a colony will be built within years of global implementation.
>>7681470
Newfag alert
Also
>govt run shit better
Just look at congress and EU, when have they ever decided on shit, governments are just big fucking laden down inefficient corporations because they are guaranteed income in the form of tax.
>>7681505
What the fuck, you think this is Mass Effect or Halo or some shit? When a fucking rocket blows up, or disintegrates, it goes boom. Boom. A life pod won't save your ass. Just like why there aren't parachutes in commercial jets.
>>7681593
Dude spacex is a meme corporation. Iirc there's some firm called blue Orion or sth that made a rocket that shot up and landed back.
>>7681627
Those predictions think everyone is rational. That's why you have market failure, when people are not rational and/or are faggots to others. This is a basic shit in econs 101. You have obviously not studied enough about economics. Also government organizations cannot be explained with firm theory or anything, because they're governments. Not firms.
>>7681470
Oh god anon what the fuck are you doing
There is literally not a single thing that the federal government does more efficiently than the private market
These clowns can't even run a decent parcel service. That's why we have UPS and FEDEX
>>7681778
I would abort that sorry fuck there and then to prevent its suffering and my suffering in the future. Capitalism is gods way of separating the rich and the stupid. Welfare is poison. Let charities do the work instead. In no way should a man be forced to help another man.
>>7681470
In the private market, everyone is spending his own money
In the government market, everyone is spending somebody else's money
>>7682166
'forced charity' is a contradiction in terms
>>7682147
>When a fucking rocket blows up, or disintegrates, it goes boom. Boom. A life pod won't save your ass.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3078062/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/chapter-eternity-descent/
>NASA’s intensive, meticulous studies of every facet of that explosion, comparing what happened to other blowups of aircraft and spacecraft, and the knowledge of the forces of the blast and the excellent shape and construction of the crew cabin, finally led some investigators to a mind-numbing conclusion.
>They were alive all the way down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7bDIRmNDcM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp9BnBDKa0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpH684lNUB8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w5p4X6rdjE
>Just like why there aren't parachutes in commercial jets.
There aren't parachutes in commercial jets because they're very, very safe, and commercial air transport isn't urgent enough that they do it when it won't be safe.
Jet fighters have ejection seats, and every other manned orbital launch vehicle than the space shuttle has had a launch abort system. Even the space shuttle had ejection seats for the first flight.
>>7681470
>The government runs things more efficiently.
Is same as saying:
"politician elected by special interest group, politicians whose number one goal is re-election not efficiency run things more efficiently"
>>7681470
is /sci/ actually this fucking dumb?
>>7681519
Especially when there's no evidence that the private sector really is "less bad" than government.
>>7681588
Where are they going to get their funding from then? Where's the return on investment?
>>7681734
>Why is it the government's obligation to 'take care' of anyone?
Because that's kind of the whole point of government?
>>7681752
>And is it really any different that the current arrangement, which has you paying a fixed percentage of your income to the government out of every check?
Yes it is, because you can't choose to put less effort into the half of your labor that supports the government.
>>7682147
You do know that most manned rockets have an emergency escape system to separate the manned section from the rocket body?
>>7682166
>In no way should a man be forced to help another man.
What if a doctor refuses to help a patient, when no other doctor is available? Do you think that is acceptable? Do you think the doctor should not be held responsible for the patient's death?
>>7682226
And what makes you think the private market's number one goal is efficiency?
>>7681610
F-22
>>7682164
Government run things decently before the SJW's took over
>>7682401
>Because that's kind of the whole point of government?
In NO WAY is a welfare state the POINT of government.
>>7682420
'Taking care' of people, in the sense of serving them, is literally the whole point of government. You can argue about how much help from the government is healthy for a society, but there's no point of having a government that doesn't serve the people.
>>7682401
>And what makes you think the private market's number one goal is efficiency?
The market itself has no goal, individuals in market have the goal of reaching their self interest. The value of free market is liberty, not efficiency. Though markets often beat central planners in efficiency because markets have more information. Sure in theory there could be a person that knows everything and therefore is able to beat the market. Unfortunately the incentives of being a successful politician just don't line up with the incentives of being best decision maker for everybody, he has a conflict of interest.
>>7682176
>Even the space shuttle had ejection seats for the first flight.
The shuttle's ejection seats were a joke. They were only able to be used for the first minute and a half of flight, and even then there was a very valid concern that the astronaut would end up descending unprotected through the exhaust of the SRBs. This would have resulted in them either being burned to death or having their parachute melt leading to death by lithobraking.
>>7681433
>British rail ended in 1994
>Now private
>Train crash every year up to 2008
>Prices through the roof
>Reliability down the toilet
>Private ownership of public services is good
>>7682164
I dunno about your shit country but in bongland Royal Mail is far better than UPS
>>7681433
>THINKING PROFITS AND PUBLICITY NECESSARILY CORRELATE WITH ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONCERN FOR HUMAN LIFE
>THINKING THE PRIVATE SECTOR WILL BRING ANY KIND OF POSITIVE CHANGE
>THINKING IT'S A PROBLEM OF THE SOURCE OF FUNDING, AND NOT A FUNDAMENTALLY HUMAN PROBLEM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~
>>7681426
You had me at
>damages the left wing
>>7681830
>the word genocide itself wasn't even coined until the year 1900 you monkey
Not the guy you're replying to, but you clearly don't know how retarded you sound.
You've been reading so much bullshit that it's permeated your fucking brain and is affecting your mental capacity to think clearly.
Doesn't matter what the fuck you call something you dumb cunt, if it exists it exists, regardless of semantics.
>>7681433
>more accountability
>anon being this naive
>>7681426
>>NASA bureaucrats led by Linda Ham (who was later dismissed) decide that they're all dead anyway and it would be better not to let them know it
>Linda Ham
>Linda
This is why women don't deserve leadership roles.
>>7683006
Virgin.
>>7682897
>Let's just ignore the point of this post and sperg out over semantics in the first sentance!
>>7683009
How large is your trilby collection, beta?
I'm sure you're buying new ones daily....
>>7682100
Wow that's fucking retarded.
>>7682876
>>British rail ended in 1994
>>Now private
>>Train crash every year up to 2008
>>Prices through the roof
>>Reliability down the toilet
>>Private ownership of public services is good
It would be fine if the government allowed competition, most rail services are by nature a monopoly and government enforced monopolies always end badly.
>>7683050
>The company running the Great Western Main Line competing with the company that owns the Great Eastern Main Line
The monopoly is due to geography not the government. With space there is only one destination so competition is inevitable.
>>7682454
>The shuttle's ejection seats were a joke. They were only able to be used for the first minute and a half of flight, and even then there was a very valid concern that the astronaut would end up descending unprotected through the exhaust of the SRBs.
They would almost certainly have saved the Challenger astronauts.
>They were only able to be used for the first minute and a half of flight
...or in any case where thrust is terminated and the crew is going to be okay until the shuttle hits the surface.
The shuttle should have been designed with the cabin as a separable pod independently capable of re-entry, which would have saved both crews, but the original ejector seats would have saved one crew.
>>7683085
>The monopoly is due to geography not the government.
If you build at least two sets of rail to every destination you can have competition.
>>7683115
we used to have that but they got axed in the 60s
>>7681470
this is true for roads
>>7681993
pensions exist because people payed into those pensions, or pretty much borrowed money to the government. Welfare started with great intentions, it was to give the poor children of London enough food to live on (about half a pint a day of milk)
>>7682434
>but there's no point of having a government that doesn't serve the people.
Says you
as a socialist
The founding fathers disagreed.
>>7681470
Lmao, you're either a complete retard or an obvious shill.
>>7681677
No, no you do not. You pay a minute percentage of it, probably less that .00001 percent of it, so get off your high horse, faggot. If you have a problem with how your taxes are spent, do something about it besides crying on an Indian street shitting forum.
Reminder: the USSR never lost a single astronaut.
>>7683532
That's because they had cosmonauts.
>>7683564
It's an old joke:
>Krushchev/Brezhnev/whoever is visiting the US President
>He decides to thumb his nose at the capitalist leader
>"Mr President, are you aware that Soviet space program is so advanced that we have not lost single astronaut?"
>Telephone rings
>"Please to be excusing me, I have to attend cosmonaut funeral"
>>7683031
Only betas call other people beta.
>>7683115
The money has to come from somewhere, namely the investors. And they'll have to pay twice for the same distance if they're building two sets of rail - which means less money for other things.
>>7683443
>The founding fathers disagreed.
What did they think the government was for? If they thought the government shouldn't serve the people, why would they expect the people to tolerate its existence?
>>7683567
kek
>>7683577
They couldn't foresee the evolution of the science of mass deception.
>>7681622
>Citation needed
>>7682168
Elon Musk-Smell is actually spending the governments money on his company.
>>7681433
Holy shit anon, /sci/ is statist as fuck
>>7683764
are you surprised? the overwhelming majority of stem jobs are in the public sector
>>7681866
>Really? So the number of people retiring and drawing a pension has increased by 62% in the period between 2000-2015?
The Baby-boomers are hitting their 50s and 60s now, which is about the age when a lifetime of bad living catches up with you.
>>7681477
Srb = solid rocket booster?
>>7684259
yes
>>7681722
That's a horrible failure rate. 1 in 83 end in catastrophic failure?
Imagine if a commercial airline had odds like that. That'd be 10's of thousands of deaths per day, assuming the industry even lasted more than a few days.
>>7681656
enlighten us, cock.
>>7684352
commercial airlines fly more hence they have more experience. In the early days the death rate was about the same as spaceflight
>>7684246
Jesus. Truly third-world tier.
>>7684352
Airplanes aren't harnessing forces designed to boost them into orbit. Also, how many private corporations have had to present acceptable risk percentages after decades of refinement in the area of spaceflight? Now, how many in the field of commercial flight?
>>7682876
I think the problem with privatising things like trains is that you're handing over what is basically a monopoly by design to a private corporation removing all the reasons why capitalism can be so efficient.
>>7684988
Yup. It makes sense for natural monopolies to be run by the state, particularly connections between properties, such as roads and utility networks.
>>7684988
It's less about that, more that the liberals doing it were corrupt fucks
