They happily took the risk, with full knowledge.
If the expected combined loss after a rescue mission was greater than the expected loss without one, the right decision is to not stage a rescue. That's not a popular decision, obviously, so the correct decision was likely exactly what was done: don't look, because if you do see a problem you can't (or shouldn't) do anything about it anyway.
That is an extremely slippery slope that just ensures a guaranteed disaster, and I'm afraid making idiotic assumptions like this is how and why Richard Feynman showed up NASA's incompetence and stupidity.
In fact, I can't quite believe how moronic this post is.....
However, this presupposes that you knew about the problem before trying to land.
There was a flurry of internal e-mails at NASA that showed they were very aware of the problem, and that they weren't going to do anything about it.
Just like Nissan has with the Leaf?
The Golf market segment is not one inhabited by the Leaf. That's just daft.
Let me know when that happens.
It's happened because it's possible, just as open source software has. You are somewhat missing the point here.
interlard - vt., to intersperse; diversify -- Webster's New World Dictionary Of The American Language