I don't know why this should be surprising. Large corporations tend to prioritize process over results. In other words, they strangle themselves with bureaucracy.
This is why large corporations don't stay on top for long. They get out-competed by smaller, more nimble companies. You can see this in changes in lists of the top 10 corporations by market value, every 10 years.
We covered that below in the thread. The Apollo Program wouldn't exist if it wasn´t for the Cold War. The Manhattan Project also surely classifies as "effort that only get to be done because of War".
The Apollo program wouldn't have happened without Sputnik and against the backdrop of the Cold War. Getting to the moon is cool and all but the subtle hint to the Soviets is "we have ICBMs".
The US had ICBMs in the 1950s. The Saturn V was not an ICBM. Staging was not necessary for ICBMs. None of the lunar landing module and equipment was usable for military purposes. NASA was run by civilians, not the military.
NASA is a prestige organization. If there isn’t a peer rival there is little to gain from funding that prestige. Whether that is for the betterment of society is up for debate.
Tyson: "Things you’ve never done before that are expensive and dangerous and have uncertain returns on investment are simply not done by corporate entities."
A few seconds of googling turned up:
"Robert Peary’s North Pole Expedition (1909): Backed heavily by the National Geographic Society and The New York Times, alongside wealthy private investors like J.P. Morgan"
Many other exploratory expeditions were funded by both private interests and governments, such as the first transatlantic cable.
Tyson: "when we learned the Soviet Union was not going to the moon, that we just ended it all."
I lived through those times. There were several followup moon landings, but the audience grew bored with it, and so Congress cut the funding.
Tyson is an authority on science, but for anything else he isn't more authoritative than you or I.
BTW, I've read multiple books on the Apollo program. The idea it was run or funded by the military is false. Yes, the astronauts were Air Force test pilots. You know why they were selected? Because test pilots have the perfect skill set to be astronauts. And it paid off handsomely as Armstrong saved two missions from disaster.
The local drug store went bust recently. They had a clearance sale, and I bought a collection of reading glasses of different strengths for a few dollars each.
I find them very handy, as my progressive lenses are rather limited for closeup work.
It's not a crisis if you cannot read your dash. How often do you look at the oil pressure gauge, for example? As for speed, just move with the traffic.
I had a car with a broken dash. The only thing I missed for the month until I fixed it was the fuel gauge. I probably didn't estimate my speed very accurately but I was close enough to not get a ticket.
Yes, with my old cars I've had broken dashes, too. I discovered I maintained speed by the engine pitch - because when I drove a silent car, I couldn't seem to maintain a consistent speed!
As for the gas gauge, the trick is to reset the local odometer at every fillup, and you'll have an indication of the remaining fuel. Some older cars don't even have a fuel gauge, they just have a lamp that glows when it gets low.
I my case I tore the dash apart because the speedometer wasn't working, and the odometer is connected to that. Only after tearing the dash apart could I see the cable to the transmission wasn't turning. Until I found the real problem there wasn't a hurry as I removed the cable several times before I found what was really broke.
Yes, it is a problem. There should be no controversy about saying that clear vision reduces distractions and confusion when operating something.
If you want to talk specifics, you’re supposed to be able to see your speed and how your car is performing. You should be prepared for contingencies, like your temperature changing or a yellow/red warning on the dash. You may need to deal with a problem in the car, like grabbing something that could slide under the pedals.
The same goes for farsighted driving. Yes, in most cases you could just follow traffic and you wouldn’t need to read street signs or look at traffic a mile ahead. But you need to be prepared for unexpected situations, and you’ll generally do worse just mentally managing your reduced vision.
I’ve driven without my glasses and tested an unexpectedly bad trial prescription in a car, if it matters.
If you cannot drive without glasses, the sensible thing is to keep a backup pair in the car. After all, glasses can fall off and get lost under the seat, get stepped on, etc.
Similarly, if a FAA-licensed pilot requires glasses to fly, it becomes a legal requirement that they carry a readily-accessible second pair while exercising the privileges of their license. This even applies if they use contacts (and, no, extra contacts don’t count :).
It is also a requirement for international flight operations under ICAO regulations. I’m pretty sure this regulation (or something close to it) is enforced by just about every flight-licensing authority worldwide.
It’s plain good sense and I’m glad it’s in there. A plane cannot pull over to the side of the highway while the pilot fumbles around trying to dig his glasses out from under the seat :)
(As a side note, this rule isn’t just for dropped spectacles: there have been cases where they literally get sucked out of the airplane if a cockpit window fails or where a bird strike causing facial injuries also damages the pilots glasses).
Still doesn't address the fact that if the glasses fail mid drive it poses a serious security risk if you can't pull over to switch glasses. Doing so in a highway in a moving car is inadvisable regardless of the technology behind the glasses.
On the contrary, if you are a perfect driver and only reach for you glasses, that adds a small risk. But this is a complex system, driving and multitasking, so added complexity surely compounds, maybe even exponentially. If you are texting, then talking to your kids, then your brother next to you starts blasting loud music on the radio, adding another task like changing glasses increases the risk of an accident a lot, because less and less you are concentrated on the traffict.
That's a smart idea, similar to how I keep a little cash in the car just in case. For example, I could get something in my eyes and have to remove my contacts, and an old pair of glasses would let me get home.
> SpaceX uses the central spine of the transporter erector as a strongback, restraining the rocket, providing stability until the tanks are pressurized with fuels, and contain the fluid hoses along with power and telemetry cables. Consequently, it remains at the launch pad through the launch and is typically tilted away 1.5° from the rocket just a few minutes prior to launch and 45° away from the rocket at the moment of liftoff.
reply