The Laughing Wolf

Acceptance Of Risk

Courtesy of Rand Simburg, I was treated to comments from John Young that detail the lack of change at NASA and offer a refreshing view: the acceptance of risk. That is something lost in today’s culture, where the concept of zero-risk life, litigation, and cultures-of-victimization have taken significant control.

Keith can disagree with John as much as he wants, but as for me, when John Young talks, I listen. I’ve had the opportunity to talk and listen to John Young several times, and his experience, knowledge, and sense are such that I DO listen.

If the quotes are accurate, pay close attention to the words. Listen to what Rand says in his post. Look up the wonderful Heinlein quote on technology progression. Then think a bit.

The Shuttle is a young/early technology: It worked, but is incredibly complex well past the point of being a kludge. There is only a limited amount that can be done to reduce that complexity and make it more reliable, and reliability does in this case equate to safety. That is a truism of aviation as well.

The early planes were not reliable. They were kludges in many cases, and the technologies used in them were primitive. The materials were not up to the task, either in the plane itself or in the power plants. Putting them together was a challenge, and the wires, straps, nails, and screws used were legion. The net result was that they fell out of the sky with distressing (and entertaining to the masses) regularity.

Something similar happened with velociopedes, or automobiles as they are better known. They were temperamental, complex, and the phrase “Get a horse!” was heard with regularity for many years.

In both cases, what happened was that technology and design advanced, and systems were simplified and strengthened as a result. The reliability and safety, therefore increased, and it was no longer the dare-devils who rode in such infernal machines, but average citizens. In less than 100 years, we went from the horse to a car in almost every family and a general aviation industry that transports millions to billions each year. The vehicles involved went from crude and extremely complex to far more simple systems in many respects. Not to say that modern engines and electronics are not complex, but when you look at the rudiments of the system, the system is relatively simple.

Yet, cars still break down, they crash because of electro-mechanical failure, and are involved with accidents. Airplanes still fall from the sky because of structural failures, electro-mechanical failures, weather, and other delights. When this happens, we do not order all cars stopped or ground every airplane in the world.

For one reason, there are many different designs of vehicles in use. What affects one may not affect any other. For another, we accept a degree of risk that is far higher than most realize. Yes, there are good odds that anytime you go somewhere, you will have a problem. Those odds, however, are acceptable to most of us. We accept that risk and go on with our lives, hoping that the worst doesn’t happen.

Space exploration is still very much in its infancy. One reason for this is that it has pretty much been a one shop operation. Imagine if you will that the Wrights had managed to patent and control every aspect of aircraft and aircraft power plant design. Yes, they did control some significant portions, but imagine if you will that Sperry, Douglas, and all the others had not been able to enter the fray. Imagine if there had been no competition.

It was the competition, the branching out and trying new designs, materials, and power systems that drove the development of the aviation age. It was that, it was finding ways around those patents, and it was the willingness to take risks and try new things that made the age and gave us the relatively safe and reliable systems we have today. In today’s regulatory climate, where government permission is the defacto standard, and litigation-frenzy, I am not sure it could have taken place. But it did, and we all benefited.

Space can be the same way. We are just now starting to see that with Space Ship One and others to follow. The lessons learned from rockets and the Shuttle are being applied and we now head from the equivalent to the Wright Flyer to the Jenny (meaning no offense to the new systems). They are better, stronger, and will be more reliable. As we go, new systems will be developed and soon we will get the diversity of models that makes progress and safety possible.

The fact is, however, that we will continue to lose craft and people. It is as inevitable has highway traffic deaths and the loss of passenger and civil aviation planes. It is a cost of doing business as well as a statistical certainty. Face it, accept it, and deal with it for no amount of legislation, regulation, or just good thoughts will change that bit of reality.

Then really listen to what John Young is saying, for he is right. NASA faces a choice: fly the Shuttle or put it away. The so-called Space Transportation System is old, it is complex in all the wrong ways, and it does not have a high reliability factor. It never will, because to fix the bad bits of complexity will require changes such that it will be far cheaper and easier to design and build an entirely new system than to fix the old.

But before you make that decision, keep in mind that the monopoly is broken, and NASA is not the only game in town anymore. As a bit of food for thought, how many entries do you think you might get if NASA announced that it would pay the amount it spent developing the Shuttle, technologically obsolete when it launched, to a company that developed and delivered a system meeting the base requirements laid on the Shuttle? A few years ago, I bet it would have been zero. Now, however, that is a very different question and one well worth our consideration for NASA would no longer be the only customer looking for launch services.

NASA needs, as Rand points out, to act or get off the pot in regards the Shuttle. It should either return to flight now, with the known risks, or be relegated to museums. We, as Citizens of this country, need to think a bit and acknowledge the risks of space or any travel. We need to make clear our acceptance of risks and that space exploration and exploitation carry a higher risk than driving on the highways. We also need to make clear that we want that risk to go down, by encouraging true private launch companies and new technological innovation – innovation and development free of excessive regulation, government interference, and obstruction by any government agency for any reason.

If we are not willing to take risks, then we should quit right now: quite driving to the grocery store, quit flying home for Christmas, and just quit as a civilization and a species right now. For without risk, there is no life and no advancement of life. Accept it, and move forward so that we can find ways to reduce it, particularly when it comes to getting into space.

LW