"You miss the point. The first thing taught in any engineering class if that good reliable systems are evolutionary. In the early days they will fail. If they fail on the Moon, then rescue is possible. If they fail on Mars rescue is not possible and you get dead astronauts. "
I don't miss the point at all. I've addressed it several times and you keep ignoring it. The evolution does not have to happen on the Moon. It can happen on Earth and in LEO as implied in MY VERY FIRST POST pointing out the errors of ommision in the referenced article.
Secondly "If they fail on the Moon, then rescue is possible. If they fail on Mars rescue is not possible and you get dead astronauts." should read:
If they fail on the Moon, then rescue is not impossible. If they fail on Mars rescue is not possible and you have a slightly elevated risk of dead astronauts. But that's only if accuracy was your aim rather than grandstanding for the Moon. Your wording gives the false impression that lunar rescue is likely and that is far far from the case.
Actually engineering classes start with the basics of the topics under discussion not comments on systems. Did you just make that up or is some moonie engineer feeding you that BS. Engineering classes seem to expect engineers to do it right the first time and not need evolution although we know that's not true in the real world. It's a good idea to build that expectation of perfection though.
Regards,
Mark
Space/Science » in reply to Lessons from Experience...
Start With A false Premise, Reach A False Conclusion
The whole thread (75 posts)
- The Moon as a test bed.
- Guess you haven't hear the news yet: the cometary impact hazard is far greater than was believed earlier
- The Earth & LEO As Test Bed.
- re: The Earth & LEO As Test Bed.
- And as Yet Nobody Has Addressed The Oversights In The Original Article
- re: The Earth & LEO As Test Bed.
- Ok
- re: The Earth & LEO As Test Bed.
- re: The Earth & LEO As Test Bed.
- PS
- Case In Point - Funny You Don't See It
