14 of 28 people found the following review helpful
Feynman protects some NASA careers,
This review is from: What Do You Care What Other People Think?: Further Adventures of a Curious Character (Paperback)
This book is pretty funny. Although NASA knew exactly what had caused the Challenger disaster, they found it convenient to lay a trail for Feynman, enabling him to rediscover what they had known all along. To what purpose? you might ask. Simple: so they could then say, "My God! So it was the O-rings then! Thank-you for enlightening us, O Great One!" and thereby protect a few careers. What gets me, though, and what comes through clearly in the book, is that at no point does Feynman ever consider the possibility that anyone less brilliant than himself could have reached the same conclusions. This no doubt made him the perfect stooge.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 29 May 2013 08:32:17 BDT
What evidence was there for this theory that NASA set up a trail, rather than tried to cover it up?
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2013 16:34:49 BDT
Wikipedia states that Feynman himself suggested that he had been led to the evidence in the very text under discussion. I would question the assertion that the reason for the trail was to enable NASA to feign innocence over the inadequacy of the O-rings, since the findings of the inquiry explicitly stated that engineers had raised their concerns over the O-rings but been ignored by the management. "The Commission found that as early as 1977, NASA managers had not only known about the flawed O-ring, but that it had the potential for catastrophe." (Wikipedia) It seems to me that the inquiry discovered precisely that the management could not reasonably claim innocence. If heads did not roll, it is surely down to the then government's response to the findings of the inquiry, rather than some egotistical deficiency on Feynman's part. This is a case in point for what could almost be described as another law of nature: the fact that the findings of public inquiries are invariably ignored in all but tokenistic ways.
In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2014 22:10:55 BDT
Dr. C. G. Oakley says:
Sorry - only just saw this. The evidence, as thetada points out, is in the book itself.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›