"Do you realise the astronauts
will run out of nitrogen on day
59 and die?"
So Mars One isn't really funny, it
has probably set back the credibility
of the movement by a decade.
I realize it's not meant to be a truly quantifiable statement, but I'm always curious why people regard incidents like this as producing serious damage to progress.
There are definitely crucial moments in political science, when an absurd gaff completely botches a carefully crafted image, completely imploding the efforts of hundreds of people, and sinking an entire team permanently. Cringey things that seem to matter to the echo chamber of a 24 hour news cycle.
But I don't feel like hard science works that way. When it comes to real engineering feats, if one company tries to trade on faulty calculations, and their charade is laid bare, the smoke and mirrors disappear only to reveal the same bald truth that had always been there from the start: hard problems defy shenanigans.
A political failure doesn't deflate an engineering problem. Not in the same way it deflates a PR campaign. If the hard science was not respected, then there was no investment in a decade of progress to begin with.
So, these swindlers then maybe blew a decade of real funding, only to burn their investors with bogus project plans and proposals, ripping off charity and fomenting skepticism and suspicion? I think skepticism in this sphere is actually healthy, and separates the children from the adults.
Waste is a bad thing, and maybe real money disappears, but maybe that kind money came from the kinds of people who might have just as soon blown their cash on personal assistants, vacations and clothes. Clearly such investors were not "buying science," or they'd have known better.
So, then the only thing left is that maybe there's the premise that admirers of the charade would not have loitered on the sidelines, simply yearning to lend their support to the parlour trick they were true believers in. That they would have stepped up to the task, had they known progress was stalled. I don't buy that.
No matter what, I don't think there has even been a decade of effort spent on crewing a mission to Mars. It's all been so much conjecture. It's never seemed to be an easier idea than an underground moon base, and no one seems to be giving lunar round-trips or installations much more consideration than mars.
Space shuttle accidents and launchpad explosions cast the true hazards in a much more severe relief, but knowing that people are even trying and failing feels like much more significant progress than a lot of talk and faulty plans.
So was there really any "damage" done by some of these PR goof ups?
There are definitely crucial moments in political science, when an absurd gaff completely botches a carefully crafted image, completely imploding the efforts of hundreds of people, and sinking an entire team permanently. Cringey things that seem to matter to the echo chamber of a 24 hour news cycle.
But I don't feel like hard science works that way. When it comes to real engineering feats, if one company tries to trade on faulty calculations, and their charade is laid bare, the smoke and mirrors disappear only to reveal the same bald truth that had always been there from the start: hard problems defy shenanigans.
A political failure doesn't deflate an engineering problem. Not in the same way it deflates a PR campaign. If the hard science was not respected, then there was no investment in a decade of progress to begin with.
So, these swindlers then maybe blew a decade of real funding, only to burn their investors with bogus project plans and proposals, ripping off charity and fomenting skepticism and suspicion? I think skepticism in this sphere is actually healthy, and separates the children from the adults.
Waste is a bad thing, and maybe real money disappears, but maybe that kind money came from the kinds of people who might have just as soon blown their cash on personal assistants, vacations and clothes. Clearly such investors were not "buying science," or they'd have known better.
So, then the only thing left is that maybe there's the premise that admirers of the charade would not have loitered on the sidelines, simply yearning to lend their support to the parlour trick they were true believers in. That they would have stepped up to the task, had they known progress was stalled. I don't buy that.
No matter what, I don't think there has even been a decade of effort spent on crewing a mission to Mars. It's all been so much conjecture. It's never seemed to be an easier idea than an underground moon base, and no one seems to be giving lunar round-trips or installations much more consideration than mars.
Space shuttle accidents and launchpad explosions cast the true hazards in a much more severe relief, but knowing that people are even trying and failing feels like much more significant progress than a lot of talk and faulty plans.
So was there really any "damage" done by some of these PR goof ups?