Irony General

>>8649761
That is pretty ironic, but only ironic if they said that to SpaceX before Challenger. Saying it now is just wisdom.

>>8649761
Very sad desu, greed is the ultimate downfall of men.

>>8649763
>>8649761

There's nothing ironic about this at all. Crack prone parts are prone to cracking? OMG MUH IRO KNEE

>>8649763
>>8649769

The irony is that nasa had been warned by private contractors that their own space shuttle components were prone to failure and ignored it

>>8649773
This

I hope Trump defunds NASA. Half a century of wasting taxpayer money is enough

Lel

>>8649817
That, or give it a mission again.

I suspect he will do neither, but that get's into non-/sci/ areas which would be OT here.

>>8649773
That irony happeend over 30 years ago. Them telling someone else now is wisdom, not irony.

>>8649787
>>8649773
samefag

this is just them being stupid shitters, obviously its never been a problem yet in hundreds of firings

It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife

This is today's NASA: paralysed by unachievable standards. A bunch of bureaucrats covering their asses, being okay with stuff not moving forward, as long as they can show that *they* certainly didn't allow anything to pass through.

The wrong lesson entirely was taken from Challenger. The Space Shuttle was a bad program that failed before the first launch. Why? Unachievable standards, which led, ultimately, to cheating as "can do" managers got promoted ahead of "this won't work, we need to rethink this" managers. The fundamental problem wasn't the cheating, it was the unrealistic thinking behind the program.

For instance, the shuttle was an experimental, unprecedented craft, but had no backup for crew survivability. No launch-escape system. No separable cabin with its own heat shield and parachute landing system. Not even ejector seats after the first couple of flights. The performance requirements didn't allow it, like they didn't allow conservative, reliability-focused engine, structure, and system design. The shuttle needed to be treated as an experimental craft, but it was planned like it was going to be a highly reliable, mature, economical workhorse. This was a pipe dream.

After Challenger, they stopped pretending it would ever be economical, but they still had a vehicle designed around these unrealistic ideas, and they doubled down on the unrealistic idea that just by being really careful about maintenance and operations, they could get one-in-ten-thousand failure rates from a high-performance experimental vehicle that had been flown under a hundred times.

What they should have done was cancel the space shuttle and get real.

Now they're doing a conventional capsule, with launch abort and parachute landing. But they're still trying to apply these perfection-before-experience standards, like no failure of the launch vehicle on a manned launch is ever acceptable, even if it's probably survivable for the crew.