sfxer001 t1_j41flxj wrote
“Failure is not an option.”
“Failure is acceptable, sometimes.”
One of these two philosophies got us to the Moon. They are not the same.
cardinals1392 t1_j41snn3 wrote
"Failure is not an Option" was never said during the Apollo program, it was invented for the movie. NASA pretty famously failed a lot early on but what they learned during those failures eventually got us to the moon. This article essentially says that we should be taking more risks in the name of innovation, EXACTLY like the Apollo program. So I guess you are completely right, one of those philosophies did get us to the moon: the second one.
Falsedawn t1_j41ncgn wrote
One of those philosophies also killed 3 astronauts and very nearly killed 3 more if not for some quick thinking by the crew.
So y'know, not quite that simple.
Skyhawkson t1_j41wbbk wrote
Failure is an option if the costs are in dollars and the risk/reward ratio makes sense. Cheap cubesat demonstrators, for example, are usually more valuable done quickly rather than made 800% bulletproof.
When lives or billion-dollar missions are at stake, that's when failure isnt an option.
ShredGuru t1_j4217o8 wrote
Pretty sure if you get as far as being an astronaut, you've already accepted the extremely dangerous nature of your job and the constant possibility of death should anything go wrong at any stage. Going into space is an inherently risky endeavor.
Falsedawn t1_j4258rg wrote
That doesn't mean that we need to compromise safety for expediency or a mission statement. Astronauts accept the risk, but negligence due to some suit saying that you can't fail isn't acceptable levels of risk. In fact, it's external stressors (such as unreasonable expectations) that can directly lead to more mistakes than otherwise would be noted. Sacrificing safety for expediency.
petersib t1_j42cpp3 wrote
It was the second one, for the record.
IAmBadAtInternet t1_j41sbod wrote
One of them is appropriate for human missions and expensive flagship robotic missions, the other is appropriate for cheap/quick missions that are easily replaceable.
OcculusSniffed t1_j427o48 wrote
There are no cheap easily-replacable NASA missions. But yes, there are missions where human lives depend on their success.
Jump_Like_A_Willys t1_j42msm6 wrote
Even if this were actually said, Apollo 13 was a failure as a mission.
Everyone got back safely, but the contractor who built the cryo tanks dropped the tank, tried to burn off the fuel overnight, unknowingly and accidentally exposed the wiring inside the tank to temperatures that far exceeded the design temperatures, which burned off the protective wire insulation.
That would (months later) result in the liquid oxygen in the tanks being ignited by a spark from the wire.
That was a procedural failure that lead to a moon-landing mission failure.
The point is, failures happen and always will continue to happen -- whether your program wants them to or not.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments