Comment Re:To the Moon, Alice! (Score 3, Insightful) 201
Well, I agree with your first point, an intuitive understanding is vital to spotting a mistake, but I think your second argument favors today's computer-armed engineers. Complicated, multi-disciplinary problems can be seriously mis-estimated using mental math or paper and pencil.
I have enormous respect for what the engineers of the 1960's did with the tools of the day. No doubt there were some brilliant minds working for NASA and its contractors at the time. However, I look at what my kids are learning in school (usually at an earlier age than in my day), and I look at some of the brilliant engineers I know at NASA today and then I look at the tools that they have available to them, and external factors being equal, I'll take today's generation.
Unfortunately for NASA's current mission, external factors are not equal. Without the Soviet threat, there is much less enthusiasm for human space flight now, and I fear that Congress will not have the persistance to see such a program through. I also see a NASA that is more top-heavy, burdened by government regulations, and risk averse. I hope that this initiative will capture the imagination and political support of the public. Mr. Griffin's "Apollo on steroids" comment was unfortunate, because it suggests that NASA is not doing anything new. But the Space Exploration Initiative is supposed to be more than a series "flag and footprints" missions. It's the groudwork for permanent human bases off our world.
Sorry for the long-windedness!
I have enormous respect for what the engineers of the 1960's did with the tools of the day. No doubt there were some brilliant minds working for NASA and its contractors at the time. However, I look at what my kids are learning in school (usually at an earlier age than in my day), and I look at some of the brilliant engineers I know at NASA today and then I look at the tools that they have available to them, and external factors being equal, I'll take today's generation.
Unfortunately for NASA's current mission, external factors are not equal. Without the Soviet threat, there is much less enthusiasm for human space flight now, and I fear that Congress will not have the persistance to see such a program through. I also see a NASA that is more top-heavy, burdened by government regulations, and risk averse. I hope that this initiative will capture the imagination and political support of the public. Mr. Griffin's "Apollo on steroids" comment was unfortunate, because it suggests that NASA is not doing anything new. But the Space Exploration Initiative is supposed to be more than a series "flag and footprints" missions. It's the groudwork for permanent human bases off our world.
Sorry for the long-windedness!
