Remove ads

Per Aspera (Space Agency Plan Quest)

Reader mode
CyberEnby said:
I mean, the truth is that if 'lots of blowing up' and 'little blowing up' yield comparable amounts of useful information, then 'lots of blowing up' wins out because it looks more exiting in the papers/on TV. PR is a huge part of keeping many space programs funded.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
For the general public blowing up looks bad, it makes agencies look incompetent and sloppy. It's why none of the government agencies use rapid iteration testing anymore(and even back in the '50s and '60s it was still looked down). SpaceX is the odd one out in that regard with Starship.
 
Hussar_Regiment said:
For the general public blowing up looks bad, it makes agencies look incompetent and sloppy. It's why none of the government agencies use rapid iteration testing anymore(and even back in the '50s and '60s it was still looked down). SpaceX is the odd one out in that regard with Starship.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think it's only a problem if people get hurt and we don't have anything to show for it. If we're blowing up rockets but we're also making significant and steady technological and scientific progress and also have plenty of successful missions, then 'blowing up rockets' just becomes part of people's expectation.

"Yeah, their last rocket blew up on the test stand, but the new one flew just fine and got us some mighty fine data on stratospheric weather. It's a very young field, these things are to be expected."
 
Hussar_Regiment said:
For the general public blowing up looks bad, it makes agencies look incompetent and sloppy. It's why none of the government agencies use rapid iteration testing anymore(and even back in the '50s and '60s it was still looked down). SpaceX is the odd one out in that regard with Starship.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not everyone shares that cynical view. If nobody gets hurt and we can show people concrete results then they won't care how we get them so long as nobody's getting hurt. We're not going to prevent explosions at this phase, we might as well account for them.
 
[X] [SITE] Near Mogadishu, Somalia (equatorial)

[X] [GOVT] World Congress of Autonomous Republics

[X] [PLAN] froggo's Plan
 
CyberEnby said:
I think I found the issue. Because the tally overides your last vote if you make a new one, this post over-rode your original one that had all the actions:



If you remove the X like so, it should work.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It doesn't seem to have fixed it even after removing all the Xs from the post.
 
CyberEnby said:
I think it's only a problem if people get hurt and we don't have anything to show for it. If we're blowing up rockets but we're also making significant and steady technological and scientific progress and also have plenty of successful missions, then 'blowing up rockets' just becomes part of people's expectation.

"Yeah, their last rocket blew up on the test stand, but the new one flew just fine and got us some mighty fine data on stratospheric weather. It's a very young field, these things are to be expected."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The best way for people not get hurt is for the rocket not to blow up. Even in the '50s and '60s when it was common to lose rockets to RUDs people were unhappy. I remeber reading in "The Right Stuff" the general public didn't care that those failures had important lessons, they just wanted to know why our(American) rockets were exploding. The public just wants successes, if they see a rocket explode they'll think it's failure because it's not supposed to do that.

We really should work to minimize risk of both our people getting hurt and our rockets exploding. Early on such things will happen as a matter of course. But later done the line creating a strong culture of safety will allow us to avoid disaters like Apollo 1, Souyz 1 and 11, etc.
 
CyberEnby said:
It fixed the problem of plan actions not showing up, and created a new problem of the tally program not combining votes properly. I give up - I'm just going to accept that the Tally Program works in mysterious ways.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I have faith that Shadow will enact it if it ends up winning, I just wish the tallying software didn't end up making her job harder.
 
Remove ads
froggo said:
[X] [PLAN] froggo's Plan
-[X] Construct a Sounding Rocket
--[X] And launch it (free action for Sounding Rockets) (gains Scientific Data, launch experience, results to show the people funding you)
-[X] Construct a Hardened Tracking and Observation (T&O) Complex
-[X] Regenerative Combustion Chamber Development (Tech) [MATSCI]
-[X] Advanced Concepts Office
-[X] Improved Instrumentation Development (Tech) [AVIONICS]
-[X] Research Program Outreach
-[X] Publications Office
-[X] Outcome Surveys
-[X] Outreach Program
-[X] The People's Program
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hey, I was just looking at the plans and noticed this has one too many science actions in it.
 
[X] [SITE] Near Mogadishu, Somalia (equatorial)
[X] [GOVT] World Communalist Council
[X] Sun, Surf, & Space
 
Also @Shadows sorry for screwing up the votes for mine. It registered my vote for the full plan once I edited it to fix formatting but the other five votes are still going towards the version that isn't fixed, so unless I miscounted there should be 6 votes for my plan rn.
 
froggo said:
Also @Shadows sorry for screwing up the votes for mine. It registered my vote for the full plan once I edited it to fix formatting but the other five votes are still going towards the version that isn't fixed, so unless I miscounted there should be 6 votes for my plan rn.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No worries!
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top