Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 15:
Line 15: +
more bureaucratic idiocy
Feynman was so critical of flaws in NASA's "safety culture" that he threatened to remove his name from the report unless it included his personal observations on the reliability of the shuttle. He argued that the estimates of reliability offered by [[NASA]] management were wildly unrealistic, differing as much as a thousandfold from the estimates of working engineers. "For a successful technology," he concluded, "reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."<ref>Feynman, Richard P. (1986) [http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appf.htm Appendix F - Personal Observations on Reliability of Shuttle]</ref>
Feynman was so critical of flaws in NASA's "safety culture" that he threatened to remove his name from the report unless it included his personal observations on the reliability of the shuttle. He argued that the estimates of reliability offered by [[NASA]] management were wildly unrealistic, differing as much as a thousandfold from the estimates of working engineers. "For a successful technology," he concluded, "reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."<ref>Feynman, Richard P. (1986) [http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appf.htm Appendix F - Personal Observations on Reliability of Shuttle]</ref>
*NASA officials argue that ... since the Shuttle is a manned vehicle "the probability of mission success is necessarily very close to 1.0." It is not very clear what this phrase means. Does it mean it is close to 1 or that it ought to be close to 1? [ibid]
==Notes==
==Notes==